Given health threats of climate change, a comprehensive review of the impacts of ambient temperature and ar pollution on suicide is needed. We performed systematic literature review and meta-analysis of suicide risks associated with short-term exposure to ambient temperature and air pollution. Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for English-language publications using relevant keywords. Observational studies assessing risks of daily suicide and suicide attempts associated with temperature, particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter ≤10 μm (PM₁₀) and ≤2.5 mm (PM_2.5), ozone (O₃), sulfur dioxide (SO₂), nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), and carbon monoxide (CO) were included. Data extraction was independently performed in duplicate. Random-effect meta-analysis was applied to pool risk ratios (RRs) for increases in daily suicide per interquartile range (IQR) increase in exposure. Meta-regression analysis was applied to examine effect modification by income level based on gross national income (GNI) per capita, national suicide rates, and average level of exposure factors. In total 2274 articles were screened, with 18 studies meeting inclusion criteria for air pollution and 32 studies for temperature. RRs of suicide per 7.1 °C temperature was 1.09 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.13). RRs of suicide per IQR increase in PM_2.5, PM₁₀, and NO₂ were 1.02 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.05), 1.01 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.03), and 1.03 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.07). O₃, SO₂, and CO were not associated with suicide. RR of suicide was significantly higher in higher-income than lower-income countries (1.09, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.11 and 1.20, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.26 per 7.1 °C increased temperature, respectively). Suicide risks associated with air pollution did not significantly differ by income level, national suicide rates, or average exposure levels. Research gaps were found for interactions between air pollution and temperature on suicide risks.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had devastating consequences for health, social, and economic domains, but what has received far less focus is the effect on people’s relationship to vital ecological supports, including access to greenspace. We assessed patterns of greenspace use in relation to individual and environmental factors and their relationship with experiencing psychological symptoms under the pandemic. We conducted an online survey recruiting participants from social media for adults in Korea for September–December 2020. The survey collected data on demographics, patterns of using greenspace during the pandemic, and major depression (MD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) symptoms. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2-item (GAD-2) were applied to identify probable cases of MD and GAD. A logistic regression model assessed the association decreased visits to greenspace after the outbreak compared to 2019 and probable MD and GAD. Among the 322 survey participants, prevalence of probable MD and GAD were 19.3% and 14.9%, respectively. High rates of probable MD (23.3%) and GAD (19.4%) were found among persons currently having job-related and financial issues. Of the total participants, 64.9% reported decreased visits to greenspace after the COVID-19 outbreak. Persons with decreased visits to greenspace had 2.06 higher odds (95% CI: 0.91, 4.67, significant at p < 0.10) of probable MD at the time of the survey than persons whose visits to greenspace increased or did not change. Decreased visits to greenspace were not significantly associated with GAD (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 0.63, 3.34). Findings suggest that barriers to greenspace use could deprive people of mental health benefits and affect mental health during pandemic; an alternative explanation is that those experiencing poor mental health may be less likely to visit greenspaces during pandemic. This implies the need of adequate interventions on greenspace uses under an outbreak especially focusing on how low-income populations may be more adversely affected by a pandemic and its policy responses.

While studies suggested adverse impacts of COVID-19 on scientific outputs and work routines for scientists, more evidence is required to understand detailed obstacles challenging scientists’ work and productivity during the pandemic, including how different people are affected (e.g., by gender). This online survey-based thematic analysis investigated how the pandemic affected scientists’ perception of scientific and academic productivity in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and medicine fields. The analysis examined if inequitable changes in duties and responsibilities for caregiving for children, family, and/or households exist between scientists who are mothers compared to scientists who are fathers or non-parents. The survey collected data from 2548 survey responses in six languages across 132 countries. Results indicate that many scientists suffered from delays and restrictions on research activities and administrations due to the lockdown of institutions, as well as increased workloads from adapting to online teaching environment. Caregiving responsibility for children and family increased, which compromised time for academic efforts, especially due to the temporary shutdown of social supports. Higher percentages of female parent participants than male parent participants expressed such increased burdens indicating unequal divisions of caregiving between women and men. A range of physical and mental health issues was identified mainly due to overworking and isolation. Despite numerous obstacles, some participants reported advantages during the pandemic including the efficiency of online teaching, increased funding for COVID-related research, application of alternative research methodologies, and fluidity of the workday from not commuting. Findings imply the need for rapid institutional support to aid various academic activities and diminish gender inequity in career development among academicians, highlighting how crisis can exacerbate existing inequalities.

Background: Study results are inconclusive regarding how access to greenspace differs by sociodemographic status potentially due to lack of consideration of varying dimensions of greenspace. Objective: We investigated how provision of greenspace by sociodemographic status varies by greenspace metrics reflecting coverage and accessibility of greenspace. Methods: We used vegetation levels measured by Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), percent of greenspace, percent tree cover, percent tree cover along walkable roads, and percent of people living ≤500 m of a park entrance (park accessibility). We considered data for 2008–2013 in Census block groups in 3 US regions: New Haven, Connecticut; Baltimore, Maryland; and Durham, North Carolina. We examined geographical distribution of greenspace metrics and their associations with indicators of income, education, linguistic isolation, race/ethnicity, and age. We used logistic regression to examine associations between these greenspace metrics and age-standardized mortality controlling for sociodemographic indicators. Results: Which region had the highest greenspace depended on the greenspace metric used. An interquartile range (33.6%) increase in low-income persons was associated with a 6.2% (95% CI: 3.1, 9.3) increase in park accessibility, whereas it was associated with 0.03 (95% CI: −0.035, −0.025) to 7.3% (95% CI: −8.7, −5.9) decreases in other greenspace metrics. A 15.5% increase in the lower-education population was associated with a 2.1% increase (95% CI: −0.3%, 4.6%) in park accessibility but decreases with other greenspace metrics (0.02 to 5.0%). These results were consistent across the 3 study areas. The odds of mortality rate more than the 75th percentile rate were inversely associated with all greenspace metrics except for annual average EVI (OR 1.27, 95% CI: 0.43, 3.79) and park accessibility (OR 1.40, 95% CI: 0.52, 3.75). Significance: Environmental justice concerns regarding greenspace differ by the form of natural resources, and pathways of health benefits can differ by form of greenspace and socioeconomic status within communities. Impact statement: Comparisons of exposure to greenspace between different greenspace metrics should be incorporated in decision-making within local contexts.