Environmental changes and degradations, whether they result from global changes or local anthropogenic actions, have direct and indirect cascading impacts on human population livelihood, health and well-being by immediate changes in the provision of ecosystem services on which plants, wild and domestic fauna and human populations depend . The Covid-19 pandemic has shown the urgent need to intensify strategies that allow us to be one step 1 ahead of the occurrence of (re)emerging disease outbreaks, in particular zoonotic diseases with epidemic potential. Despite significant progress in the control of infectious diseases, the persistence, (re)emergence of some infectious agents of public health importance, has challenged the most optimistic scenarios regarding disease control and eradication. New diseases have emerged (Covid-19, MERS, SARS, Ebola, HIV/AIDS, etc.), others have re-emerged in areas that had been eradicated or controlled (Yellow Fever, Tuberculosis, Cholera, etc.) and some others have seen their geographical distribution increase significantly (ZIKV, CHIKV, DENV, WNV, etc.). Approximately 60-80% of emerging infectious diseases in humans are zoonotic in origin with over two-thirds in the past 40 years being viral in origin. Some of these pathogens are transmitted through one or a few species of arthropods (ZIKV, WNV, Mayaro virus-MAYV, Oropouche-OROV) and others originate from wild animals as a reservoir, which are intrinsically linked to the environment, its changes and degradations. In this context, there is a need for building adaptation and mitigation actions, at all space and time scales, and feasible, acceptable and sustainable solutions at a very local scale can/should be inspiring for states and international institutions to design larger scale responses. However, at a local scale, decision-makers and communities need to consider the synergies between various targets, within a complex multi-criteria decision making and evaluation process that should favour sustainable solutions over short-term gains . For this, they should 2 benefit from a sound scientific understanding of the multiscale reciprocal negative impacts (and co-benefits!) between the environment and the way/quality of life of the population. However, multi-thematic data and indicators for monitoring current or future environmental and health situations, that are collected, accessed and analysed by the exposed communities to support their decisions, are lacking. This project states that Open Science principles can significantly contribute to solving the above mentioned issues. Open science is defined here as an “inclusive construct that combines various movements and practices aiming to make multilingual scientific knowledge openly available, accessible and reusable for everyone, to increase scientific collaborations and sharing of information for the benefits of science and society, and to open the processes of scientific knowledge creation, evaluation and communication to societal actors beyond the traditional scientific community. It comprises all scientific disciplines and aspects of scholarly practices, including basic and applied sciences, natural and social sciences and the humanities, and it builds on the following key pillars: open scientific knowledge, open science infrastructures, science communication, open engagement of societal actors and open dialogue with other knowledge systems." . 13 The main question of the project is: how can open science, through a better integration of data and participatory sciences, empower citizens to understand the health and well-being consequences of ecosystem change and degradation and to address these consequences through adaptation and mitigation actions?