are: 20% to 60% as for reduction breeding sites and eggs, 80% to 95% as for reduction of larvae and 80% to 95% as for reduction of adults. We discuss first results obtained by assuming 40% as for reduction of breeding sites and eggs, 90% as for reduction of larvae and 95% as for reduction of adults. The effects of such an intervention are shown in Fig. 5c . The resulting cumulative attack rate, by assuming B~200 ha {1 , was estimated to be 8.7% (95% CI 5.6%-12.7%, see Fig. 5d ), in good agreement with the observed value, namely 8.4%, computed by multiplying the overall observed prevalence, 10.2% [18] , by the symptomatic ratio p s~0 :82 [18] . Results are similar for other choices of B (for instance, for B = 50 ha {1 the figure becomes 8:5%, 95% CI 5.3%-13%; see also Fig. S6 ). To keep track of the number of symptomatic cases identified by the active surveillance system, we assume that human symptomatic cases are identified with probability p n and this allows fitting notification data in model simulations. According to model estimates, the number of notified cases would have been about 185 on average (95% CI 117-278), in good agreement with the number as reported to the surveillance system, namely 161 cases [1] . The number of cases drastically decreased in late August while the effective reproduction number, in the absence of interventions, would have fallen below the epidemic threshold in late September (see Fig. 4c and Fig. 4f) . This proves that a combined strategy resulted in a drastic reduction of the epidemic impact, despite the relatively large value of R 0 .