Correlates of stress are interactive and not unidimensional: Evidence from U.S. college students early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Studies have investigated various aspects of how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted college students' well-being. However, the complex relationships between stress and its correlates have received limited attention. Thus, the main objective of this study is to evaluate multiplicative associations between stress and demographic, lifestyle, and other negative emotion factors during the pandemic. We used data from a survey with 2,534 students enrolled in seven U.S. universities and analyzed such data with generalized additive Tobit models and pairwise interaction terms. The results highlighted associations and interactions between myriad factors such as students' social class, income, parental education, body mass index (BMI), amount of exercise, and knowing infected people in the student's communities. For instance, we found that the associations between feeling irritable and sad due to the pandemic were interactive, resulting in higher associated stress for students with higher levels of parents' education. Furthermore, associations between taking precautionary actions (i.e., avoiding travel and large gatherings) and stress varied with the intensity of negative feelings (i.e., sadness and irritability). Considering these interaction terms, the results highlighted a great inequality in pandemic-related stress within low income, lower social class, and higher BMI students. This study is among the earliest that employed a stratified approach with numerous interaction terms to better understand the multiplicative associations between different factors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Open Streets for Whom?

The COVID-19 pandemic has created opportunities for cities to close streets to automobile traffic in the name of public health. Although these interventions promise numerous benefits, neighborhood activists and scholars of color suggest they can perpetuate structurally racist inequities. In this Viewpoint, we implore planners and other city builders to think critically about the impact of these interventions by employing an environmental justice framework. Applying this framework in the open streets context exposes several potential paradoxes that arise. We conclude with a set of best practices that can help city builders transcend these paradoxes and extend this livability revolution to all.

Correction: Psychological impacts from COVID-19 among university students: Risk factors across seven states in the United States.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245327.].

"Messy transitions": Students' perspectives on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on higher education.

The COVID-19 pandemic affected every area of students' lives, especially their education. Limited research has explored students' experiences during the pandemic. This study documents how students across seven United States universities viewed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their educational experiences and how these students reacted to these impacts. We present qualitative data from an online survey conducted between March and May 2020 that resulted in 1267 respondents with relevant data. Conventional content analysis with an inductive approach was used to analyze open-ended responses to the question, "We are interested in the ways that the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has changed how you feel and behave. What are the first three ways that come to mind?" Six categories emerged from the data: changes in instruction delivery mode, changes in schedule and everyday life, increased technology use, decreased academic opportunities and resources, negative reaction to the changes in higher education, and positive reactions to changes in higher education. Among our recommendations for practice are personalized approaches to material delivery and evaluation, synchronous classes and opportunities to connect with professors and students, and convenient support services.

“A park is not just a park”: Toward counter-narratives to advance equitable green space policy in the United States

Policy advocacy to address socioeconomic and racial/ethnic inequities in access to urban green space (e.g., parks) in the U.S. and elsewhere are often stymied by two dominant narratives on green space reinforced by politicians, business leaders, and mainstream media. The first argues that green space is “nice to have” but not necessary, and the second frames green space as “universally good” for economic development. In this paper, we study counter-narratives to push for equitable green space policy relying on qualitative research with 30 U.S. policy advocates about their experiences with green space equity work. We find that counter-narratives to the “nice to have” narrative could frame green space as essential, multifunctional, and resilient infrastructure. Also, counter-narratives to the “universally good” narrative could describe green space as a setting for equitable development, cultural representation and inclusiveness, and healing for people of color. Further, counter-narratives should be tailored to specific policy campaigns by targeting audiences, seizing historical opportunities (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic), and centering the stories of disadvantaged people. These findings can be interpreted through the lens of structural racism and can provide pathways forward for advocates seeking to achieve green space equity through policy change and power building.

Nature's contributions in coping with a pandemic in the 21st century: A narrative review of evidence during COVID-19.

While COVID-19 lockdowns have slowed coronavirus transmission, such structural measures also have unintended consequences on mental and physical health. Growing evidence shows that exposure to the natural environment (e.g., blue-green spaces) can improve human health and wellbeing. In this narrative review, we synthesized the evidence about nature's contributions to health and wellbeing during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that during the pandemic, people experienced multiple types of nature, including both outdoors and indoors. Frequency of visits to outdoor natural areas (i.e., public parks) depended on lockdown severity and socio-cultural contexts. Other forms of nature exposure, such as spending time in private gardens and viewing outdoor greenery from windows, may have increased. The majority of the evidence suggests nature exposure during COVID-19 pandemic was associated with less depression, anxiety, stress, and more happiness and life satisfaction. Additionally, nature exposure was correlated with less physical inactivity and fewer sleep disturbances. Evidence was mixed regarding associations between nature exposure and COVID-related health outcomes, while nature visits might be associated with greater rates of COVID-19 transmission and mortality when proper social distancing measures were not maintained. Findings on whether nature exposure during lockdowns helped ameliorate health inequities by impacting the health of lower-socioeconomic populations more than their higher-socioeconomic counterparts for example were mixed. Based on these findings, we argue that nature exposure may have buffered the negative mental and behavioral impacts of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Recovery and resilience during the current crises and future public health crises might be improved with nature-based infrastructure, interventions, designs, and governance.

Greenspace and park use associated with less emotional distress among college students in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected many people's psychological health. Impacts may be particularly severe among socially vulnerable populations such as college students, a group predisposed to mental health problems. Outdoor recreation and visits to greenspaces such as parks offer promising pathways for addressing the mental health challenges associated with COVID-19. During the early stages of the pandemic (March-May 2020), we surveyed 1280 college students at four large public universities across the United States (U.S.) to assess how, and why, outdoor recreation and park use changed since the emergence of COVID-19. We also measured students' self-reported levels of emotional distress (a proxy for psychological health) and assessed potential demographic and contextual correlates of distress, including county-level per capita park area and greenness, using generalized linear models. We found that 67% of students reported limiting outdoor activities and 54% reported reducing park use during the pandemic. Students who reduced their use of outdoor spaces cited structural reasons (e.g., lockdowns), concerns about viral transmission, and negative emotions that obstructed active lifestyles. Students who maintained pre-pandemic park use levels expressed a desire to be outdoors in nature, often with the explicit goal of improving mental and physical health. Emotional distress among students was widespread. Models showed higher levels of emotional distress were associated with reducing park use during the pandemic and residing in counties with a smaller area of parks per capita. This study of U.S. college students supports the value of park-based recreation as a health promotion strategy for diverse populations of young adults during a time of crisis.

Open Streets for Whom?

The COVID-19 pandemic has created opportunities for cities to close streets to automobile traffic in the name of public health. Although these interventions promise numerous benefits, neighborhood activists and scholars of color suggest they can perpetuate structurally racist inequities. In this Viewpoint, we implore planners and other city builders to think critically about the impact of these interventions by employing an environmental justice framework. Applying this framework in the open streets context exposes several potential paradoxes that arise. We conclude with a set of best practices that can help city builders transcend these paradoxes and extend this livability revolution to all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Journal of the American Planning Association is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Policy and Environmental Predictors of Park Visits During the First Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Getting Out While Staying in

The COVID-19 pandemic may have altered visitation patterns to parks, with potential effects on human health. Little is known about park use early in the pandemic, how park availability influenced use, and whether park visits accelerated COVID-19 spread. Using weekly cell phone location data for 620 U.S. counties, we show park visits decreased by an average 26% between March 15 and May 9, 2020. Net of weekly trends, park visits were 2.2% lower when stay-at-home orders were in effect, yet increased by 8.4% with school closures and 4.4% with business closures. Park visits decreased less during the pandemic in counties where park availability was high. Levels of park visits were not associated with COVID-19 growth rate or incidence in the following weeks. Thus, parks served as recreation and leisure outlets when schools and businesses closed, especially where parks were more available, with no evidence of park use increasing COVID-19 spread.

Psychological impacts from COVID-19 among university students: Risk factors across seven states in the United States.

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.