About a decade ago, a group of climate scientists described. Called the (SSPs), these scenarios suggest how socioeconomic development could evolve in worlds with differing challenges to climate adaptation and mitigation.��

One SSP, “Sustainability,” envisions a collective shift toward green energy, reducing economic inequities and investments in research and development. Another, “Regional Rivalry,” paints a picture of a world riven by nationalism and fighting over resources. In that future, high levels of conflict stifle economic development. Rich countries see slower population growth, while birth rates increase in poorer nations.��

Scientists and policymakers use SSPs to project how today’s choices affect tomorrow’s world. But for complex subjects like public health, these intentionally simple scenarios don’t capture every complexity. Under the SSP “Fossil-Fueled Development,” for example, the world doubles down on fossil fuels, spurring rapid economic growth. That growth, according to the scenario, would spur investments in education and health. But at the same time, increased emissions would degrade the environment, exacerbating health risks.

That description leaves many public health questions unanswered: Would hospital systems be better prepared to handle the increased volume? Could more frequent heat waves lead people to spend more time inside, amplifying mental health burdens?��

Last year, a group of 63 experts in climate change and health met in Vienna to extend the SSPs to better reflect the dynamic nature of public health over the course of the century. Their expanded narratives, published , provide comprehensive visions of possible population health and health system development and explore how communities might better prepare for shifting future health risks.

, a UW doctoral student in environmental and occupational health sciences, attended the workshop and is lead author of the accompanying paper. UW News sat down with Green to talk about where previous climate scenarios fell short, the conference’s work and how we can better prepare to keep each other safe in an uncertain future.��

What are the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, and how do we use them?��

Carole Green: Shared Socioeconomic Pathways are a narrative framework that can be used in conjunction with pathways of greenhouse gas emissions to project future climate impacts to 2100. The SSPs are basically descriptions of the societal choices that affect the magnitude and pattern of interventions to protect human health and well-being.

The SSPs are essentially five possible alternatives for our future world. These pathways have been expanded to incorporate a wide range of issues of relevance for public health, and have been downscaled to describe what the future might look like in different countries and regions.

SSPs are featured in global processes like United Nations, where negotiators come from around the world to debate and agree on approaches to build resilience and sustainability to climate changes. The models help us understand how those choices interact and what the effects might be.��

We also use the SSPs in health research to understand the possible magnitude and geographic pattern of health impacts from climate change over the course of this century. Many projects at UW use future warming levels to analyze things like future wildfire impacts on Washington residents (research done by UW’s Climate Impacts Group).��

What do the SSPs leave out?��

CG: SSPs assume that humans will make socioeconomic changes in the future. The changes described in the pathways originally quantified GDP and population changes. Our work adds complexity, specifically to understand how the future of public health could evolve under these five pathways.

A lot of people are interested in heat waves, for example. Climate modeling alone can capture the planet’s warming, but doesn’t consider issues like how access to hospitals and healthcare could change by 2100. Current heat wave modeling looks at the climate interactions that shape health impacts but don’t explore how concurrent changes in society could interact with climate change to impact people’s well-being.��

Once you added complexity into the SSPs, what changed in your understanding of possible futures? Did you learn anything new or surprising?

CG: We learned that the drivers of health impacts are complex, and many are neither entirely good nor bad. Prioritizing sustainability, mitigation and adaptation will not necessarily lead to the best world for each future health outcome, but it definitely affects the future of health and well-being. Health futures we face globally are not predetermined. Different pathways could lead to vastly different health outcomes, with governance, health-system capacity, resources, equity, and cross-sectoral factors such as water and energy playing critical roles.

For example, under one of the scenarios, people don’t prioritize reducing greenhouse emissions, focusing instead on adapting to the changing climate. Strong investment in technology leads to quite a lot of wealth, which can benefit some health outcomes. But it’s not ideal, because people would also have to spend more time indoors because of the growing heat burden and would have to reduce connection to the outdoors and nature. You really don’t want to live in that scenario.

It’s very much a mix, which is challenging.��

Now that we have these fleshed-out scenarios, what does that allow us to do?��

CG: It allows us to have a more complex understanding of future health risks from climate change. Now we can add a layer of understanding and think about more variables than just warming levels and population numbers. It’s made of a lot of complexities that affect health, and those have their own effects.

In future climate scenarios, what does access to healthcare look like? What is the extent of food insecurity? How are we making sure people have access to clean air and water? When we have some understanding of those interactions, then it can motivate decision-makers to develop appropriate policies.��

What comes next?��

CG: We will apply these narratives to six different countries where there has been limited research using the SSPs. We’re working in Brazil, Senegal, South Africa, India, Vietnam and the Solomon Islands. We’ve started identifying key leads across these countries, where there is quite an appetite for this research. All countries are required to develop national health adaptation plans and to conduct vulnerability and adaptation assessments. They are also interested in modeling future health risks. We want to explore the extent to which the SSP narratives apply in their country’s context. Do they fit? How would they look different? There’s a lot of interest in building on local knowledge and bringing local experts together to talk about possible futures.��

We’re also quantifying specific disease burdens, universal healthcare access, water and sanitation infrastructure and digital health. Some quantifications will look at pairing SSPs with certain warming levels to project impacts.��

Last question: This group — including dozens of the world’s leading experts on climate and health — chose you to write the paper. How did that happen?��

CG: I am definitely not the leading expert in that room, so it was very much an honor to work on this and lead the writing. A lot of it comes from my advisor, , who is very supportive of me and my work. That’s been really meaningful. She encouraged me to take this on.

I often tell people that my job is to listen to experts and write down what they say. It was very meaningful to get to make those connections.��

For more information or to reach the researchers, contact Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu. Other UW authors include , professor of environmental and occupational health sciences, of global health, and of emergency medicine in the UW School of Medicine; and , research associate professor of urban design and planning.

Source

Last month, a group of 175 researchers, including eight from the ����ԭ��, co-authored published in Earth’s Future and the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The paper provides a roadmap for future climate assessments in the U.S. by synthesizing the science and identifying research priorities based on existing gaps. “U.S. Climate Collection: Informing Assessment of Risks and Solutions” is the first article to appear in a launched by the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

Many of the scientists who co-authored this commentary were invited to contribute to the sixth National Climate Assessment (NCA), slated for early 2028, but were then dismissed in April 2025 after the Trump Administration for the assessment. The fifth NCA was published in 2023.��

The federal government is legally required to produce a National Climate Assessment chronicling climate change every four years per the . These assessments track new and evolving risks related to climate change, as well as options for mitigation and adaptation. The national scope is key to ensuring that funding and policies represent a broad range of experiences and concerns. 

“International assessments are valuable, but they are not always tailored to the specific regions and issues that are important in the United States. National assessments fill that gap,” said , Washington state climatologist and a research scientist in the UW Climate Impacts Group.

The special collection is not intended to replace the NCA but rather compile research for other scientists, policymakers and members of the public to aid in decision making. The commentary kicks off the collection by identifying where research has advanced, and how risks have changed, in the years since the last assessment. 

“Our understanding of climate change and its impacts continues to evolve,” said , professor of global health, of environmental and occupational health sciences, and of emergency medicine in the UW School of Medicine. “Conducting regular climate assessments allows us to systematically evaluate that new evidence, incorporate it into our understanding of current circumstances, present it to stakeholders, and apply it to near-term decisions in our respective sectors.” 

UW News asked each of the UW contributors to elaborate on their role in authoring the commentary and how it connects to their research.

, research scientist, UW Cooperative Institute for Climate, Ocean, and Ecosystem Studies: “I’m an oceanographer with intimate experience in federal research funding mechanisms and with a broad familiarity with ocean warming and CO2 uptake with associated acidification and feedback on marine ecosystems and fisheries. Initially I was appointed to coordinate among federal agencies, academics and policymakers, but that changed dramatically when the Trump administration eliminated NCA6. In the scramble I became more of an author, and an editor of the Ocean section. 

“Some of my research at the UW involves ocean model development in collaboration with NOAA. It was a natural fit to contribute to the discussions on ‘Simulations of ocean conditions’ and on ‘Innovations in ocean observation and data science.’”

, professor of urban and environmental planning “I led the urban team and the section on urban regions. Urban regions are central to climate assessments. They concentrate populations and human activities, contribute substantially to climate change, and shape how impacts propagate across neighborhoods, metropolitan systems, national supply chains, and global markets. They are also critical places to examine where mitigation and adaptation reinforce one another, where they create trade-offs, and how benefits, costs, and risks are distributed across communities. 

“Our section argues that future assessments must represent cities as complex dynamic systems. We call for comparative, long-term evaluation of urban mitigation and adaptation strategies. For nature-based solutions, that means testing performance under future climate conditions and assessing multiple functions, life-cycle costs, social and ecological outcomes, and trade-offs rather than simply measuring short-term, project-level benefits.”

Mauger: “I contributed to the Northwest section of the paper, based on my expertise in regional climate impacts and adaptation science, specifically around water and flooding. Our synthesis reflects many of the emerging issues I see in my work helping communities, tribes, agencies and others to understand and prepare for the effects of climate change. For example, we highlight new research on the effectiveness of resilience actions — as more communities take action on climate, I am seeing a greater need for research of this kind.”

, principal scientist, UW Climate Impacts Group: “I also contributed to the Northwest section of the paper. My work at UW aims to provide the science, tools and guidance needed by governments and communities as they respond to climate impacts and prepare for those to come. Most of this work is focused on the Northwest, with a heavy emphasis on ecosystems and natural resources. The Northwest section of the paper highlights many of the climate risks and adaptation advances and challenges my partners on the ground face every day.”

Hess: “The takeaways from the health section, which I helped draft, are that we need more information on health impacts from extreme weather and compound events, as well as information on the costs of these impacts. We also need more strategies for advancing adaptation in public health and health care systems; we need health care interventions to protect patients at particular risk; we need more information on nature-based solutions; and we need more information to help convey the health benefits of a clean energy transition. 

“The recommendations related to interventions and adaptation in the health sector are particularly relevant to my work at the UW, which is focused on climate change health impacts and opportunities for increasing resilience of the public health and health care systems. I research these issues and also provide leadership related to sustainability and climate resilience for UW Medicine.”

, professor of global health and of environmental and occupational health sciences: “I was an author on the Air Quality chapter that focused on how climate change could alter exposures to poor quality, from pollen to wildfire smoke to indoor and outdoor air quality. One of my areas of research at UW is quantifying the extent to which reducing greenhouse gas emissions could reduce morbidity and mortality from outdoor air pollution. The evidence is robust that the economic value of the health benefits from reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be of the same order of magnitude — if not larger — than the costs of reducing emissions. In other words, reducing greenhouse gas emissions would benefit Americans by decreasing hospitalizations and deaths.”

Other UW co-authors include , research scientist of environmental and forest sciences and Deputy Director of the Western Fire and Forest Resilience Collaborative and , affiliate professor of environmental and forest sciences. 

For more information, contact Alberti at malberti@uw.edu.

Source

A city’s sewers say a lot about its residents. Sick people often shed pathogens in their waste, adding traceable amounts of bacteria and viruses into wastewater. Testing that wastewater offers a simple, low-cost way to monitor the spread of disease — a practice that began with polio in the 1940s and became more widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, tests for a variety of common and emerging viruses.

American public health agencies don’t routinely test wastewater for sexually transmitted infections, but new research led by the ����ԭ�� and the Washington State Department of Health found that such methods could be used to effectively identify Chlamydia trachomatis, the bacteria that causes chlamydia.

The study, , could help public health agencies better identify and respond to increased spread of chlamydia and other STIs, which are The researchers specifically explored wastewater’s potential as a community monitoring tool, and not as a way to identify cases or trace pathogens back to individual people or locations.

“STIs are known for being underreported because of a lot of factors, especially stigma and the prevalence of asymptomatic cases,” said co-lead author , assistant professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and of civil and environmental engineering at the UW. “Wastewater is cool because it’s population level. You don’t need people to go to the doctor and seek out treatment to know that there are people in a community shedding specific pathogens.”

Working in collaboration with local health jurisdictions, researchers collected frequent samples from influent wastewater at five wastewater treatment plants across Washington state and six neighborhood-level sewer sites near Seattle. Collection sites ranged from a large, high-population urban area to a rural treatment plant serving fewer than 5,000 people. Researchers masked the specific names and locations of sample locations to protect the privacy of people and communities.

Researchers tested wastewater samples for the pathogens that cause three common STIs: chlamydia, syphilis and gonorrhea. C. trachomatis was the most prevalent pathogen across all test sites. The bacteria that cause gonorrhea and syphilis were found far less frequently, despite data showing confirmed cases of those diseases in the associated areas.��

Further research could reveal why tests captured C. trachomatis more consistently than other STI-causing bacteria and explore the study’s limitations, which included people moving between sewer sites and the influence of demographics.

The researchers are also eager to investigate several trends they observed in the data, such as spikes in pathogen concentration occurring near the winter holidays and after Valentine’s Day.

Among the neighborhood collection sites was a small, densely populated area adjacent to a college campus. More than 87% of residents were young people between 18 and 34 years old, a population considered high-risk for STIs. Clinical health records showed very low case counts of chlamydia, but researchers consistently detected C. trachomatis in wastewater samples.��

That gap could indicate underreporting driven by stigma or asymptomatic cases. It also gives public health officials an opportunity to react to a previously unknown increase in infection activity.

“From a public health perspective, data like this allows us to elevate awareness that this pathogen is here and spreading in the community, even if cases aren’t presenting to clinics or providers are not identifying the infections in their patients,” said co-lead author , program manager of the Washington State Department of Health’s wastewater surveillance program. “A small amount of wastewater can tell you so much about the community while simultaneously filling gaps in the traditional methods we monitor disease activity.”��

A full list of co-authors is available with the paper.��

This research was funded in part by the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity Infectious Diseases Cooperative Agreement from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.��

For more information, contact Fuhrmeister at efuhrm@uw.edu.

Source

Nobody is immune from the hazards of summer wildfires, even the experts. At the ����ԭ��, researchers study both how to mitigate and understand wildfire behavior and how air quality degrades as a result of burning blazes. While UW faculty contribute to a rapidly emerging body of research into the risks of fire and smoke season, they also contend with the decisions that the rest of us face: how to protect themselves and their families, where to find reliable information, and how to manage the anxieties of summer smoke.��

Who better to learn from? As fires rage and smoke smothers the Pacific Northwest — including historic and devastating — UW News sat down with five UW experts in fire science, forestry, air pollution and more to ask how they manage wildfire season.��

This summer, the U.S. has been inundated with wildfire smoke, sometimes from fires burning hundreds of miles away. What sources do you use to track wildfires and air quality?

, research associate professor of environmental and forest sciences: The most reliable source, in my opinion, is the Fire and Smoke Map from . This map consolidates data from various government sources related to wildfires, prescribed burns, smoke emissions and up-to-date models. It serves as a comprehensive resource for smoke emissions information.

, research scientist in environmental and forest sciences: For smoke forecasts, I often turn to AirNow, but the is an excellent friend when we have been inundated with smoke for days and I’m looking for extended forecasts and analyses. is also an incredibly helpful site. I’m careful to check if the readings are U.S. EPA PM2.5 with the conversion applied — otherwise the readings generally are higher than reality.

, professor of environmental and forest sciences: For personal use and immediate up-to-date information, I really like . As a free app that has lots of options and configurations, it can be really helpful for getting immediate information on any ongoing fire incident and incorporates information from multiple sources. Second, for more detailed maps, photos, and daily incident updates, I frequently check , which is the U.S. government interagency website that provides real-time public information and updates on fire incidents. As a forest fire scientist, I also use these sources for archived information about past fires that can better help us in our research.

Let’s say you’re planning a weekend trip, or a hike you’ve been looking forward to. How do you predict and plan around fire and smoke?��

E. Alvarado: I’ll plan my outdoor activities while considering potential smoke impacts. I’ll choose an area that’s unlikely to be affected by smoke for the duration of the activity. During the fire season, I’ll avoid areas with thermal inversions, which can trap smoke at night. For example, canyons or valleys surrounded by mountains are risky.

To predict future smoke concentrations, the National Weather Service is the most reliable source of information. Their weather predictions can indicate fire weather for the duration of the forecast. This is also important for hiking the rest of the year to stay informed about the weather for any outdoor activity.

BH: has nice maps of the U.S. and Canada with high-resolution smoke forecasts over the coming day or two. These maps can be really helpful for planning ahead, though are always subject to change based on changing fire behavior or weather conditions. With our lab group doing field work outdoors all summer long every summer, these are critical tools for us to be able to do our work.��

Do you have an AQI threshold where you’re no longer comfortable being outside? Does that vary depending on what you’re doing outside? If so, how?

, professor of environmental and occupational health sciences: The AQI is designed for communicating health risk to both general populations as well as populations that may be more susceptible to smoke.�� Rather than focusing on the AQI number, I instead focus on the public health messaging (the “Description of Air Quality” column in this figure):

, associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences: I generally become more concerned when air quality has remained consistently elevated for about 24 hours, because I think about smoke exposure cumulatively over the course of the day.

SP: If it looks like air quality is going to degrade over an AQI of 80, I start thinking about my health and what level of activity I’m going to do. As the science on smoke and human health only becomes more cautionary, I save strenuous exercise like running or climbing mountains for times when the AQI is below 80.��

If you have to be outside during smoky days, how do you protect yourself?��

E. Alvarado: Starting from AQI in the yellow zone, I may wear a . However, above the orange zone, an N95 mask is mandatory.

ES: If working outdoors during smoky days, you and your employer should be aware that in Washington State, Labor and Industries has established from hazardous smoke exposures. Also be aware that oftentimes smoke and heat co-occur, and there are for working outdoors too.

E. Austin: I always make contingency plans while hiking and camping. In that case, I identify egress routes prior to departing in case a wildfire event limits my ability to return using the route I had planned. I also sign up for emergency text alerts for the county where I am spending time, and check the current fire activity and nearby evacuation status.��

How do you keep your indoor spaces safe during smoke waves?

ES: Thinking ahead and preparing your indoor space for regularly occurring wildfire smoke episodes is just as important as planning for other emergency events.�� Can you close doors and windows tightly and have good weather sealing to avoid smoke from infiltrating indoors? Can you set your ventilation system to recirculate air?�� Have you replaced your ventilation system (e.g., furnace) filter recently? Have you considered getting a portable HEPA-rated air cleaner that is sized appropriately for your bedroom or living area?�� Have you considered building a DIY box-fan filter?

E. Austin: I create a smoke-ready space in my home. This is a separate area, where I set my ventilation system to recirculate indoor air rather than bringing in outdoor air. I also run a HEPA filter, rated to perform well for the square footage of my space, during wildfire events. Lastly, I try to reduce air exchange between the indoor space and outdoors by closing all windows, only opening outdoor doors when necessary, and weatherizing the space around doors and windows prior to the event.

SP: For indoor air, we make sure our HEPA air filters are clean at the end of each fire season so that they are ready to go the following year. When there’s smoke in the air, we make sure windows and doors are closed and use our air filters. We also just got a heat pump so that we can keep windows closed when smoke is a factor at night.

If you find yourself in close proximity to an active wildfire, what steps do you suggest taking?

BH: I suggest being as conservative and cautious as possible. Conditions can change rapidly, and being in the direct line of where a fire is spreading can be extremely dangerous and life-threatening. So first, I would make sure that there is a clear and safe route to safety via a road, trail, path, etc. Second, assessing the situation through any official information or local authorities is critical. If the fire has not been reported, calling 911 immediately is important to alert responders and others. If an evacuation order is issued, leaving immediately is critical to get to safety ASAP.

E. Austin: Many local districts allow you to register your phone and/or email to receive real-time alerts. I also suggest identifying your evacuation route, any obstacles or bottlenecks that would slow down your evacuation and to preplan and even pack critical items that you would need to take with you in an emergency.

SP: I live in the Methow Valley, and we’ve been evacuated around five times in the last 20 years. As a fire ecologist who studies fire behavior and smoke, one of the most upsetting things for me has been to watch neighbors and friends stay to protect their places. We quickly pack a few valuable things — photo albums, laptops, wallets, and passports — and leave. My main message to friends over the years is that it’s not worth the risk — if flames are close that means that smoke and super-heated air may be close, too, and deadly.

How do you manage the stress and anxiety of fire season both here and elsewhere?

E. Austin: I manage that stress by preparing my home before fire season, relying on a small number of curated information sources rather than trying to identify reliable sources in the moment or checking multiple apps, and I try to make flexible backup plans for outdoor activities. I also suggest planning ahead to learn how to obtain and effectively use an N95 respirator to reduce exposures either at work or when outdoors for recreational activities.

SP: Fire and smoke season are stressful. I’ve dealt with some stress and anxiety not only from fast-moving wildfires but also from long-duration smoke events that feel like they will never clear. We have a strong community that is very supportive and understands how fire season can bring up some PTSD-type symptoms. We take care of our place and make sure that we have as low of risk in and around our home as possible. We also remind ourselves how very lucky we are to be able to have flexibility in our work schedules and plenty of friends and family elsewhere to be able to leave when wildfires hit close to home.

BH: Fire is an integral part of life on earth, and in regions like the Pacific Northwest, fire is a key process that will continue to shape this region well into the future. Knowing that it is not if, but when, fire will return to any given area helps me embrace the reality of fire season. Like anything in life, being informed and prepared is a great way to lower stress and anxiety that comes with uncertainty.��

The UW has dozens of experts in wildfires, smoke and related topics. To reach an expert, contact Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu.

Source

The ����ԭ�� recently was ranked highly among its global peers in both the and the . Both rankings were released in mid-June.

According to U.S. News, the UW is No. 12 in the world on the 2026-27 rankings, No. 3 among U.S. public institutions. The UW also placed in the top 10 globally in six subject areas.

On the QS World University Rankings, the UW is among the top 100, landing at No. 92, or No. 7 among U.S. public universities.

More about the U.S. News & World Report Best Global Universities ranking:

The U.S. News ranking methodology — based on data and metrics provided by Clarivate — weighs factors that measure a university’s global and regional research reputation and academic research performance. For the overall rankings, this includes bibliometric indicators such as the number of publications, citations and international collaboration.

The overall Best Global Universities ranking encompasses 2,250 institutions spread across 105 countries.

Here are the UW fields of study that are in the top 10 in U.S. News’ subject rankings:

• Public, environmental and occupational health — No. 4
• Molecular biology and genetics — No. 6
• Microbiology — No. 7
• Biology and biochemistry — No. 7
• Infectious diseases — No. 7
• Clinical medicine — No. 8

More about the QS World University Rankings:��

This is the 23rd edition of the global higher education ranking by the analyst firm QS Quacquarelli Symonds. The UW placed No. 92 in the world and No. 23 in America. The UW is in the top 10 among U.S. public universities, landing at No. 7. This year’s ranking features more than 1,500 universities across 106 higher education systems, including 184 in the U.S.

The QS World University Rankings are based on a weighted index of indicators including research and discovery, employability and outcomes, global engagement, learning experience and sustainability.

Source

Biodiversity loss is directly threatening human health and welfare, according to new research by a multi-institution team including the ����ԭ��. The study, , reveals for the first time how the decline of insect pollinators undermines essential ecosystem services that support human nutrition and livelihoods.

It’s been long known that insect pollinators are vital for producing many of the fruits, vegetables and legumes that supply essential vitamins and minerals in our diets, yet clear evidence of how their decline affects people has been limited.

Working in 10 smallholder farming villages and their surrounding landscapes in Nepal, researchers traced the full chain of connections between wild pollinators, crop yields and the nutrients families rely on. By tracking diets, crop nutrients and the insects visiting those crops over a year, the research team showed how pollinators directly support both nutrition and livelihoods.

“This study directly connects the crops that local pollinators visit with people’s diets, nutrition and income,” said , a research scientist in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences at the UW. “It was a real collaborative effort across many partners to collect and analyze a large body of data, making it possible to explore these links.”

The study found insect pollinators were responsible for 44% of people’s farming income and contributed more than 20% of their intake of vitamin A, folate and vitamin E. When pollinators decline, families risk poorer nutrition leading to higher vulnerability to illness and infections, and deeper cycles of poverty and poor health. One quarter of the global population currently suffer from this “hidden hunger.”

The research shows there is real potential for positive change — nutrition and income can improve when communities support pollinators. Simple steps like planting wildflowers, using fewer pesticides or keeping native bees can help boost pollinator numbers, strengthening both nature and people’s wellbeing.

Even though smallholder farmers are highly vulnerable to biodiversity loss, these practical local actions could enhance their food security and economic resilience. The findings could also help improve the health and livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers around the world.

“Our study shows that biodiversity is not a luxury — it is fundamental to our health, nutrition and livelihoods,” said lead author who completed the research while at the University of Bristol and is now a postdoctoral research associate at the University of York, both in the United Kingdom. “By revealing how species like pollinators support the food we eat, we highlight both the risks of biodiversity loss for human health and the powerful opportunities to improve human lives by working with nature.”

The research shows that human health is deeply tied to the health of nature. By tracking how pollinators support food production and diets, the study reveals that biodiversity loss isn’t just an environmental problem, it threatens public health and economic stability — as highlighted in the recent U.K. government.

With around 2 billion people relying on smallholder farming and with many facing vitamin deficiencies, protecting the ecosystems that support nutritious food is essential and crucial for sustainable development.

The study’s findings offer a practical framework to help policymakers and farmers design more nature‑positive farming systems. Although the research is focused on Nepal, the same connections shape food systems everywhere. Diets, even in industrialized countries, still depend on the pollinators and ecosystems that sustain global agriculture.

The researchers — spanning universities and non-governmental organizations across Nepal, the U.K., the U.S. and Finland — are now putting their findings into action across Nepal to tackle pollinator declines and repair the pollination systems that support food production. Working with farmers, local organizations, researchers and government partners, they are helping people understand the value of pollinators and how to support them in everyday farming.

By demonstrating why pollinators matter, and sharing simple, practical techniques to support them, the researchers are already seeing farmers adopt changes that boost crop yields, nutrition and income.

“A ‘win-win’ scenario exists where we can simultaneously improve conditions for both biodiversity and people,” said co-author , professor of ecology at the University of Bristol. “It takes ecological understanding, but it costs remarkably little and there are significant gains for both parties.”

This story was adapted from a

For more information or to contact the researchers, email Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu.

Source

When uncontrolled wildfires moved from the foothills above Los Angeles into the densely populated urban areas below in January 2025, evacuation ensued and a thick layer of toxic smoke spread across the region. Air quality plummeted. Local hospitals braced for a surge,.����

Research led by the ����ԭ�� and Kaiser Permanente Southern California sheds new light on how the Los Angeles fires affected people’s health, and how people navigated the health care system during an emergency. In the rapid study, published , researchers analyzed the health records of 3.7 million Kaiser Permanente members of all ages living in the region. They found that health care visits did rise above normal levels, especially virtual services.����

In the week after the fires ignited, Kaiser Permanente members made 42% more virtual visits for respiratory symptoms than expected. Those living near a burn zone or within Los Angeles County also made 44% and 40% more virtual cardiovascular visits, respectively, than expected.��

In-person outpatient visits for respiratory symptoms also increased substantially. Members who lived near a burn zone or within Los Angeles County made 27% and 31% more virtual cardiovascular visits, respectively, than expected.��

Extrapolating to all insured residents of the county, the researchers estimated an excess of 15,792 cardiovascular virtual visits, 18,489 respiratory virtual visits and 27,903 respiratory outpatient visits in the first week of the fires.��

The results suggest that people may rely more heavily on virtual health care during climate-related emergencies, and that providers should better prioritize virtual and telehealth services as they prepare for future crises.��

“We saw over 6,241 excess cardiorespiratory virtual visits in the week following the fire ignition. This represents a substantial increase in care,” said, a UW associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and of epidemiology who led the research. “While the fires clearly impacted health, virtual care likely enhanced the ability of providers to meet the health care needs of people experiencing an ongoing climate disaster.”��

In collaboration with Kaiser Permanente Southern California, an integrated health care system with millions of members across the region, researchers analyzed health records of people who were highly or moderately exposed to wildfires. They defined high exposure as living within about 12 miles (20 kilometers) of a burn zone, and moderate exposure as living within Los Angeles County but farther than 12 miles during the time of the fires.����

Researchers looked back three years to estimate how many health care visits to expect in the weeks following Jan. 7 — the first day of the fires — under typical conditions. They then estimated how many people sought care in the first week of the fires, when smoke levels were highest, evacuations took place, and Los Angeles County public schools were closed.

In addition to the spike in cardiovascular and respiratory visits, researchers found a sharp increase in the number of visits for injuries and neuropsychiatric symptoms. On Jan. 7, outpatient injury visits were 18% higher than expected among highly exposed members, and virtual injury visits were 26% and 18% higher than expected among highly and moderately exposed groups, respectively. Among those same groups, outpatient neuropsychiatric visits rose 31% and 28% above expectations, respectively.

While both groups made significantly more visits than expected, proximity to the fires mattered. When researchers zoomed in on respiratory-related virtual visits, they found that minimally exposed members made 31% more visits, moderately exposed members made 36% more, and those living in highly exposed areas made 42% more.����

“While healthcare systems often plan to increase the number of hospital beds available or clinic staffing during an emergency, this work highlights the importance of considering virtual care capacity,” said, a UW doctoral student of epidemiology and co-author on the study. “This may be particularly true for climate disasters like wildfires, during which people are advised to stay indoors or when people must evacuate — motivating them to seek care online if at all possible. As climate disasters increase in frequency and intensity, it is essential that health care systems know how to prepare for a sudden and dramatic surge in health care utilization.”��

Other authors on this study are , and of Kaiser Permanente Southern California; of the University of California, Berkeley; of Kaiser Permanente Hawaii; and of Columbia University; and of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego; and of the Scripps Institution and the University of Rennes in France.

This research was funded by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences.��

For more information or to reach the research team, contact Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu.

Source

About . Birth before 37 weeks can lead to a cascade of health risks, both immediate and long-term, making prevention a vital tool for improving public health over generations.��

In recent years, researchers have identified a potential link between wildfire smoke — one of the fastest-growing sources of air pollution in the United States — and preterm birth, but no study has been big or broad enough to draw definitive conclusions. A new study led by the ����ԭ�� makes an important contribution, analyzing data from more than 20,000 births to find that pregnant people who are exposed to wildfire smoke are more likely to give birth prematurely.

“Preventing preterm birth really pays off with lasting benefits for future health,” said lead author , a UW postdoctoral researcher in environmental and occupational health sciences. “It’s also something of a mystery. We don’t always understand why babies are born preterm, but we know that air pollution contributes to preterm births, and it makes sense that wildfire smoke would as well. This study underscores that wildfire smoke is inseparable from maternal and infant health.”

In the study, ,��researchers used data from the , a federal research project focused on how a wide range of environmental factors affect children’s health. The sample included 20,034 births from 2006-2020 across the contiguous United States.

Researchers estimated participants’ average daily exposure to fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, generated by wildfire smoke, and the total number of days they were exposed to any amount of smoke. They estimated the intensity of smoke exposure by how frequently participants were exposed to wildfire PM2.5 levels above certain thresholds.

They found that pregnant people exposed to more intense wildfire smoke were more likely to give birth prematurely. In mid-pregnancy, exposure to any smoke was associated with an elevated risk of preterm birth, with that risk peaking around the 21st week of gestation. In late pregnancy, elevated risk was most closely associated with exposure to high concentrations of wildfire PM2.5, above 10 micrograms per cubic meter.

“The second trimester is a period of pregnancy with the richest and most intense growth of the placenta, which itself is such an important part of fetal health, growth and development,” said co-author , a UW professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and of pediatrics in the UW School of Medicine. “So it may be that the wildfire smoke particles are really interfering with placental health. Some of them are so tiny that after inhalation they can actually get into the bloodstream and get delivered directly into the placenta or fetus.”��

The link was strongest and most precise in the Western U.S., where people were exposed to the highest concentrations of wildfire PM2.5 and the greatest number of high-intensity smoke days. Here, the odds of preterm birth increased with each additional microgram per cubic meter of average wildfire PM2.5.

It’s possible those results were more precise simply because the West experiences more wildfire smoke on average, making the exposure model perform better, Sherris said. But there may be other factors behind the regional differences.��

The composition of wildfire smoke is different across the country. In the West, smoke tends to come from fires nearby, while in places like the Midwest, smoke has typically drifted in from faraway fires. and reacts with sunlight and airborne chemicals, which could have affected the results. Researchers also noted that external factors like co-occurring heat or housing quality may have effects that aren’t fully understood.��

Researchers hope that future studies will examine the exact mechanisms by which wildfire smoke might trigger preterm birth. But in the meantime, Sherris said, evidence for a link is now strong enough to take action.��

“There are a couple avenues for change,” Sherris said. “First, people already get a lot of public health messaging and information throughout pregnancy, so there’s an opportunity to work with clinicians to provide tools for pregnant people to protect themselves during smoke events. Public health agencies’ messaging about wildfire smoke could also be tailored to pregnant people and highlight them as a vulnerable group.”

Co-authors include , doctoral student of environmental and occupational health sciences at the UW; , clinical associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the UW; , professor of biostatistics at the UW; , associate professor of environmental and occupational health sciences and of epidemiology at the UW; , postdoctoral fellow of epidemiology at the UW; and , assistant professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the UW. A full list of co-authors is included with the paper.

This research was funded by the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) program at the National Institutes of Health under multiple awards. A full list of ECHO funding awards is included with the paper.��

For more information or to contact the researchers, email Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu.

Source

A statewide initiative to put more healthy, climate-friendly grains on people’s plates has received a $19 million boost, which will sustain every step in building a network from the field to the fork.

The initiative, a public-private partnership led by Washington State University with support from the ����ԭ��, received a $10 million BioInnovation Grant from the and matching funds from several other organizations, including more than $3 million from the Washington Grain Commission.

It targets a global health problem: the lack of whole grains in people’s diets, which contributes to widespread health problems.

The funding will allow WSU researchers to continue developing new crop varieties for farmers. It will fuel efforts to bring more whole grains to the public, including into school lunchrooms and will expand Washington state’s commercial infrastructure for storing, transporting, milling and marketing whole grains. The funding will also support the establishment of a commercial kitchen at the UW to help entrepreneurs bring whole-grain foods to market.

“This work is about making sure that nutritious grains reach the people who need them,” said , a professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the UW. “By understanding the policies, systems, and human decisions that shape food production and the supply chain for school meals, we can help bridge the gap between innovation and impact.”

Two teams of UW researchers will contribute to this effort.��

, professor of industrial & systems engineering and of mechanical engineering at the UW, will help lead development of ready-to-eat meals and will support private organizations using UW facilities to produce sample meals for school breakfast and lunch.��

The UW’s implementation science team, which includes Otten, assistant professor of environmental and occupational health sciences , and assistant professor of epidemiology , will examine how innovations in grain breeding and food product development can be successfully adopted in school settings. They will study what policy, budgetary, and social factors help ensure that new whole grain and legume varieties are embraced across the supply chain and, ultimately, by school-aged children who rely on them for the nutrition they need to grow and thrive.

This team will also lead study-away programs, where students can learn about new whole grains and legumes in both urban and rural areas of Washington state. Curriculum from these five-week summer programs will be made publicly available.��

“The timing of the grant is perfect,” said , a WSU professor of international seed and cropping systems and director of the WSU Breadlab, who will lead the grant work. “We’re right at the stage where we’ve got a critical mass of cross-disciplinary research, encompassing a range of agricultural, food and health sciences. Now we can start commercializing, getting these crop varieties to farmers, getting whole grains on our plates and into schools.”

The grant funding will be matched by contributions from the Washington Grain Commission, the USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council, the American Heart Association, The Land Institute, and food and technology companies.

“This is truly a historic investment for Washington farmers,” said Casey Chumrau, CEO of the Washington Grain Commission.

Adapted from . For more information or to reach the project team, contact Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu or WSU’s Shawn Vestal at shawn.vestal@wsu.edu.

Source

Warmer weather across the globe is reshaping the landscape of human health. Case in point:��Dengue fever incidence could rise as much as 76% by 2050 due to climate warming across a large swath of Asia and the Americas, according to a new study led by , a researcher at the ����ԭ��.��

Dengue fever, a mosquito-borne disease once confined largely to the tropics, often brings flu-like symptoms. Without proper medical care, it can escalate to severe bleeding, organ failure, and even death. ��

The study,, is the most comprehensive estimate yet of how temperature shifts affect dengue’s spread. It provides the first direct evidence that a warming climate has already increased the disease’s toll.����

“The effects of temperature were much larger than I expected,” said Childs, a UW assistant professor of environmental and occupational health sciences who conducted much of the research as a doctoral student at Stanford University. “Even small shifts in temperature can have a big impact for dengue transmission, and we’re already seeing the fingerprint of climate warming.”��

The study analyzed over 1.4 million observations of local dengue incidence across 21 countries in Central and South America and Southeast and South Asia, capturing both epidemic spikes and background levels of infection.����

Dengue thrives in a “Goldilocks zone” of temperatures — incidence peaks at about 27.8 degrees Celsius, or 82 degrees Fahrenheit, rising sharply as cooler regions warm but dropping slightly when already-hot areas exceed the optimal range. As a result, some of the largest increases are projected for cooler, high-population regions in countries such as Mexico, Peru and Brazil. Many other endemic regions will continue to experience larger, warming-fueled dengue burdens. By contrast, a few of the hottest lowland areas may see slight declines.����

Still, the net global effect is a steep rise in disease.��

The findings suggest that higher temperatures from climate change were responsible for an average 18% increase of dengue incidence across 21 countries in Asia and the Americas from 1995 to 2014 — translating to more than 4.6 million extra infections annually, based on current incidence estimates. Cases could climb another 49% to 76% by 2050 depending on greenhouse gas emissions levels, according to the study. At the higher end of the projections, incidence of dengue would more than double in many cooler locations, including areas in the study countries that are already home to over 260 million people.����

“Many studies have linked temperature and dengue transmission,” said senior author, a professor of biology in the. “What’s unique about this work is that we are able to separate warming from all the other factors that influence dengue — mobility, land use change, population dynamics — to estimate its effect on the real-world dengue burden. This is not just hypothetical future change but a large amount of human suffering that has already happened because of warming-driven dengue transmission.”��

The researchers cautioned that their estimates are likely conservative. They do not account for regions where dengue transmission is sporadic or poorly reported, nor do they include large endemic areas such as India or Africa where detailed data is lacking or not publicly available. The researchers also highlighted recent locally acquired cases in California, Texas, Hawaii, Florida, and in Europe — a signal of the expanding range of dengue. Urbanization, human migration and the evolution of the virus could amplify risks, while medical advances may help blunt them, making projections uncertain.��

Aggressive climate mitigation would significantly reduce the dengue disease burden, according to the study. At the same time, adaptation will be essential. This includes better mosquito control, stronger health systems and potential widespread use of new dengue vaccines.��

In the meantime, the findings could help guide public health planning and strengthen efforts to hold governments and fossil fuel companies accountable for climate change damages. Attribution studies are increasingly entering courtrooms and policy debates, used to assign responsibility for climate damages and to support funds compensating countries most affected.����

“Climate change is not just affecting the weather — it has cascading consequences for human health, including fueling disease transmission by mosquitoes,” Mordecai said. “Even as the U.S. federal government moves away from investing in climate mitigation and climate and health research, this work is more crucial than ever for anticipating and mitigating the human suffering caused by fossil fuel emissions.”��

Co-authors of the study include of Arizona State University, of the University of Maryland, and of Stanford. Lyberger and Harris completed much of their work while at Stanford.������

The research was funded by the Illich-Sadowsky Fellowship through the Interdisciplinary Graduate Fellowship program at Stanford University; an Environmental Fellowship at the Harvard University Center for the Environment; the National Institutes of Health; the National Science Foundation (with the Fogarty International Center); �ٳ��  �ٳ��  and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.��

Adapted from a. For more information or to contact the researchers, email Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu.

Source