Background: University students are increasingly recognized as a vulnerable population, suffering from higher levels of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and disordered eating compared to the general population. Therefore, when the nature of their educational experience radically changes—such as sheltering in place during the COVID-19 pandemic—the burden on the mental health of this vulnerable population is amplified. The objectives of this study are to 1) identify the array of psychological impacts COVID-19 has on students, 2) develop profiles to characterize students' anticipated levels of psychological impact during the pandemic, and 3) evaluate potential sociodemographic, lifestyle-related, and awareness of people infected with COVID-19 risk factors that could make students more likely to experience these impacts.Methods: Cross-sectional data were collected through web-based questionnaires from seven U.S. universities. Representative and convenience sampling was used to invite students to complete the questionnaires in mid-March to early-May 2020, when most coronavirus-related sheltering in place orders were in effect. We received 2,534 completed responses, of which 61% were from women, 79% from non-Hispanic Whites, and 20% from graduate students.Results: Exploratory factor analysis on close-ended responses resulted in two latent constructs, which we used to identify profiles of students with latent profile analysis, including high (45% of sample), moderate (40%), and low (14%) levels of psychological impact. Bivariate associations showed students who were women, were non-Hispanic Asian, in fair/poor health, of below-average relative family income, or who knew someone infected with COVID-19 experienced higher levels of psychological impact. Students who were non-Hispanic White, above-average social class, spent at least two hours outside, or less than eight hours on electronic screens were likely to experience lower levels of psychological impact. Multivariate modeling (mixed-effects logistic regression) showed that being a woman, having fair/poor general health status, being 18 to 24 years old, spending 8 or more hours on screens daily, and knowing someone infected predicted higher levels of psychological impact when risk factors were considered simultaneously.Conclusion: Inadequate efforts to recognize and address college students’ mental health challenges, especially during a pandemic, could have long-term consequences on their health and education.

Disadvantaged groups worldwide, such as low-income and racially/ethnically minoritized people, experience worse health outcomes than more privileged groups, including wealthier and white people. Such health disparities are a major public health issue in several countries around the world. In this systematic review, we examine whether green space shows stronger associations with physical health for disadvantaged groups than for privileged groups. We hypothesize that disadvantaged groups have stronger protective effects from green space because of their greater dependency on proximate green space, as they tend to lack access to other health-promoting resources. We use the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) method and search five databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) to look for articles that examine whether socioeconomic status (SES) or race/ethnicity modify the green space-health associations. Based on this search, we identify 90 articles meeting our inclusion criteria. We find lower-SES people show more beneficial effects than affluent people, particularly when concerning public green spaces/parks rather than green land covers/greenness. Studies in Europe show stronger protective effects for lower-SES people versus higher-SES people than do studies in North America. We find no notable differences in the protective effects of green space between racial/ethnic groups. Collectively, these results suggest green space might be a tool to advance health equity and provide ways forward for urban planners, parks managers, and public health professionals to address health disparities.

Nature exposure in virtual reality (VR) can provide emotional well-being benefits for people who cannot access the outdoors. Little is known about how these simulated experiences compare with real outdoor experiences. We conduct an experiment with healthy undergraduate students that tests the effects of 6 min of outdoor nature exposure with 6 min of exposure to a 360-degree VR nature video, which is recorded at the outdoor nature exposure location. Skin conductivity, restorativeness, and mood before and after exposure are measured. We find that both types of nature exposure increase physiological arousal, benefit positive mood levels, and are restorative compared to an indoor setting without nature; however, for outdoor exposure, positive mood levels increase and for virtual nature, they stay the same. The nature-based experience shows benefits above and beyond the variance explained by participants’ preferences, nature and VR experiences, and demographic characteristics. Settings where people have limited access to nature might consider using VR nature experiences to promote mental health.

This review examines disparities in access to urban green space (UGS) based on socioeconomic status (SES) and race-ethnicity in Global South cities. It was motivated by documented human health and ecosystem services benefits of UGS in Global South countries and UGS planning barriers in rapidly urbanizing cities. Additionally, another review of Global North UGS studies uncovered that high-SES and White people have access to a higher quantity of higher quality UGSs than low-SES and racial-ethnic minority people but that no clear differences exist regarding who lives closer to UGS. Thus, we conducted a systematic review to uncover (1) whether UGS inequities in Global North cities are evident in Global South cities and (2) whether inequities in the Global South vary between continents. Through the PRISMA approach and five inclusion criteria, we identified 46 peer-reviewed articles that measured SES or racial-ethnic disparities in access to UGS in Global South cities. We found inequities for UGS quantity (high-SES people are advantaged in 85% of cases) and UGS proximity (74% of cases). Inequities were less consistent for UGS quality (65% of cases). We also found that UGS inequities were consistent across African, Asian, and Latin American cities. These findings suggest that Global South cities experience similar inequities in UGS quantity and quality as Global North cities, but that the former also face inequities in UGS proximity.

Is the amount of “greenness” within a 250-m, 500-m, 1000-m or a 2000-m buffer surrounding a person’s home a good predictor of their physical health? The evidence is inconclusive. We reviewed Web of Science articles that used geographic information system buffer analyses to identify trends between physical health, greenness, and distance within which greenness is measured. Our inclusion criteria were: (1) use of buffers to estimate residential greenness; (2) statistical analyses that calculated significance of the greenness-physical health relationship; and (3) peer-reviewed articles published in English between 2007 and 2017. To capture multiple findings from a single article, we selected our unit of inquiry as the analysis, not the article. Our final sample included 260 analyses in 47 articles. All aspects of the review were in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Analyses were independently judged as more, less, or least likely to be biased based on the inclusion of objective health measures and income/education controls. We found evidence that larger buffer sizes, up to 2000 m, better predicted physical health than smaller ones. We recommend that future analyses use nested rather than overlapping buffers to evaluate to what extent greenness not immediately around a person’s home (i.e., within 1000–2000 m) predicts physical health.