ObjectiveTo establish global research priorities for interpersonal violence prevention using a systematic approach.MethodsResearch priorities were identified in a three-round process involving two surveys. In round 1, 95 global experts in violence prevention proposed research questions to be ranked in round 2. Questions were collated and organized according to the four-step public health approach to violence prevention. In round 2, 280 international experts ranked the importance of research in the four steps, and the various substeps, of the public health approach. In round 3, 131 international experts ranked the importance of detailed research questions on the public health step awarded the highest priority in round 2.FindingsIn round 2, “developing, implementing and evaluating interventions” was the step of the public health approach awarded the highest priority for four of the six types of violence considered (i.e. child maltreatment, intimate partner violence, armed violence and sexual violence) but not for youth violence or elder abuse. In contrast, “scaling up interventions and evaluating their cost–effectiveness” was ranked lowest for all types of violence. In round 3, research into “developing, implementing and evaluating interventions” that addressed parenting or laws to regulate the use of firearms was awarded the highest priority. The key limitations of the study were response and attrition rates among survey respondents. However, these rates were in line with similar priority-setting exercises.ConclusionThese findings suggest it is premature to scale up violence prevention interventions. Developing and evaluating smaller-scale interventions should be the funding priority.

The role and importance of a built structure are closely related to the surrounding area, with interest in a given area having a concomitant effect on the relevance given to the constructions it may hold. Heritage interest in landscape areas has grown in recent times leading to a sound valorisation process. This connects with the recent concept of biological cultural heritage (BCH), or biocultural heritage (definition still in process), that can be understood as domesticated landscapes resulting from long-term biological and social relationships. Although pastoral enclosures (in large part dry-stone walling, whose construction has been recognised by UNESCO as Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity since 2018) arise as traditional rural constructions linked with a way of life already disappearing, engaged local communities are recovering their biocultural value in terms of identity and positive conservation outcomes. In this sense, this article focuses on valuing traditional stone-built pastoral enclosures in two locations on the Atlantic coast of western Europe: Frojám (NW Iberian Peninsula) and Ladydown Moor (SW England). Findings concerning plant communities related to current or ancient pastoralism, and artefacts of built heritage are described, and an emphasis is placed on community engagement as a mechanism for conservation. The resilience of species-rich grassland communities is identified as a manifestation of biocultural heritage and an opportunity for habitat restoration. Finally, current trends and improvements in understanding of biological heritage and community conservation are addressed.

Following the definition presented by Paige, nonkilling refers to the absence of killing, threats to kill, and conditions conducive to killing in human society. How can education contribute to bringing about such societies? As the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) called upon the global community to 'significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere' by 2030, a growing need exists to understand the educational measures and transformations relevant to building societies where human killing is greatly reduced and eventually absent. Just as scholars, practitioners and policy-makers in other areas have had to rethink their impact in contributing to this global goal, in 2015 the "Vasa Statement on Education for Killing-Free Societies" was adopted, proposing concrete recommendations. The articles put together in this special issue of the Journal of Peace Education provide grounds to sustain the crucial role of education in curving the global epidemic of lethal violence.

BackgroundIn September 2015 the United Nations adopted the newly drafted Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as the post-2015 development agenda. The SDGs replaced the Millennium Development Goals that expired at the end of 2015 and, for the first time, include an item explicitly addressing the need for “peaceful and inclusive societies”, setting the goal to “significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere” (16.1).Description of the ProblemThe SDGs will significantly shape international development policies until 2030 and set targets to be met by major national and international agencies. Besides the overarching SDG 16.1, other goals specifically address different types and contexts of violence (4a, 4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 16.2) and a number of risk factors closely connected to violence. However, the possibility of significantly reducing death rates and building killing-free societies is still strongly questioned.ResultsThe field of violence prevention has grown significantly over the past decade, signalled in 2002 with the publication of the World Report on Violence and Health that clearly identified violence as “a preventable disease”. This paper explores some of the accumulative supportive evidence for violence prevention policies that provide a solid base for taking SDG 16.1 seriously and making the case for the necessary build up to escalate their application.ConclusionsWe currently have much of the needed knowledge to drastically reduce death rates everywhere and to start building killing-free societies, as sought by SDG 16.1. Failure to seize this opportunity may not only prove an strategic failure in the efforts to reduce violence, but may also jeopardise other development goals. SDGs are interdependent, and failure to address certain targets will obstruct advances in others. Disregarding violence prevention as an integral part of the solution could undermine the process and even lead to unwarranted harmful practices.

No abstract