Alaskan wildfires have major ecological, social, and economic consequences, but associated health impacts remain unexplored. We estimated cardiorespiratory morbidity associated with wildfire smoke (WFS) fine particulate matter with a diameter less than 2.5 μm (PM_2.5) in three major population centers (Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Matanuska‐Susitna Valley) during the 2015–2019 wildfire seasons. To estimate WFS PM_2.5, we utilized data from ground‐based monitors and satellite‐based smoke plume estimates. We implemented time‐stratified case‐crossover analyses with single and distributed lag models to estimate the effect of WFS PM_2.5on cardiorespiratory emergency department (ED) visits. On the day of exposure to WFS PM_2.5, there was an increased odds of asthma‐related ED visits among 15–65 year olds (OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.08, 1.16), people >65 years (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.01, 1.31), among Alaska Native people (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.09, 1.23), and in Anchorage (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.05, 1.15) and Fairbanks (OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.07, 1.17). There was an increased risk of heart failure related ED visits for Alaska Native people (Lag Day 5 OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.02, 1.25). We found evidence that rural populations may delay seeking care. As the frequency and magnitude of Alaskan wildfires continue to increase due to climate change, understanding the health impacts will be imperative. A nuanced understanding of the effects of WFS on specific demographic and geographic groups facilitates data‐driven public health interventions and fire management protocols that address these adverse health effects.

Objective: This study evaluated the relationships between the occurrence of recent and recurring natural disasters on the incidence of acute and chronic health outcomes at the census tract level in 500 cities across the United States between 2001 and 2015.Methods: Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 500 cities data set, the CDC Social Vulnerability Index, and the US Small Business Administration (SBA) Disaster Loan Database, we modeled the incidence of self-reported, poor mental and physical health, or a clinical diagnosis of high blood pressure or asthma in census tracts (N = 27 204 tracts in 500 cities) that had experienced recent or recurring natural disasters while controlling for social and environmental risk factors.Results: Communities that experienced a natural disaster in the previous 5 years compared to those that had not had a higher incidence of poor mental health (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.02), poor physical health (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02-1.04), high blood pressure (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02-1.05), and asthma (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.01-1.02). The incidence of these poor health outcomes increased 1-2% with each additional year that a community experienced a disaster.Conclusions: Prevention and preparedness plans that work to build resilience in communities before disasters should focus on closing the gap in environmental and social determinants that have been linked with disproportionate health burdens and slow recovery post-disaster.

The late-season extreme fire activity in Southcentral Alaska during 2019 was highly unusual and consequential. Firefighting operations had to be extended by a month in 2019 due to the extreme conditions of hot summer temperature and prolonged drought. The ongoing fires created poor air quality in the region containing most of Alaska’s population, leading to substantial impacts to public health. Suppression costs totaled over $70 million for Southcentral Alaska. This study’s main goals are to place the 2019 season into historical context, provide an attribution analysis, and assess future changes in wildfire risk in the region. The primary tools are meteorological observations and climate model simulations from the NCAR CESM Large Ensemble (LENS). The 2019 fire season in Southcentral Alaska included the hottest and driest June–August season over the 1979–2019 period. The LENS simulation analysis suggests that the anthropogenic signal of increased fire risk had not yet emerged in 2019 because of the CESM’s internal variability, but that the anthropogenic signal will emerge by the 2040–2080 period. The effect of warming temperatures dominates the effect of enhanced precipitation in the trend towards increased fire risk.

Cities around the world are creating formal planning documents proposing local actions to mitigate and prepare for the impacts of climate change. Despite a growing number of examples of such plans and “toolkits” that outline the process for undertaking these planning efforts, many cities are still struggling to know where to start. Furthermore, meta-analyses of existing climate action plans show that many suffer from similar limitations including lack of scientific input, failure to consider strategies across multiple sectors within local government, limited public involvement, narrow focus on mitigation, and lack of detail regarding implementation and monitoring. This paper describes our process for developing the Anchorage Climate Action Plan and our experience fusing a three-way partnership between the municipal government, a local university, and the broader Anchorage, Alaska community. We describe the nuts and bolts of our funding, leadership structure, and technical working sessions and reflect on the key structural, political, and social elements that catalysed plan development, adoption, and implementation. Our experience suggests that public support from municipal leaders, commitment from local experts, a dedicated steering committee, a diverse set of stakeholders, and a good working relationship with the local government officials (e.g. Assembly members or City Council) are critical to creating a successful framework for climate mitigation and adaptation planning in a community. Collaborative planning with a local university that prioritises community-engagement can support the development of a robust planning document that integrates local scientific expertise and is representative of the community it is meant to serve.

Given the dynamic nature of the ongoing pandemic, public knowledge and perceptions about COVID-19 are evolving. Limited transportation options, inconsistent healthcare resources, and lack of water and sanitation infrastructure in many remote Alaskan communities located off the road system have contributed to the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic in these areas. We used longitudinal surveys to evaluate remote Alaskan residents’ early vaccine acceptance, vaccine uptake and motivations, risk perceptions regarding COVID-19 vaccines, and likelihood of getting a booster. Slightly over half of respondents showed early vaccine acceptance (November/December 2020), with the highest rate among those over the age of 65 years. However, by March 2021, 80.7% of participants reported receiving the COVID-19 vaccine or planning to get one. Of the unvaccinated, reasons for not getting a vaccine included concerns about side effects and not trusting the vaccine. By September 2021, 88.5% of people had received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine and 79.7% said they would get the booster (third dose) when it became available. There were misconceptions about vaccine recommendations for pregnant women and effects on fertility and DNA. Although initial vaccine concerns may have subsided, the booster rollout and forthcoming vaccines for youth under 12 years of age present new hurdles for vaccine communication efforts.