| Literature DB >> 30836673 |
Cheng Cui1,2, Baohua Wang3, Hongyan Ren4, Zhen Wang5,6.
Abstract
Increasingly stricter and wider official efforts have been made by multilevel Chinese governments for seeking the improvements of the environment and public health status. However, the contributions of these efforts to environmental changes and spatiotemporal variations in some environmental diseases have been seldom explored and evaluated. Gastric cancer mortality (GCM) data in two periods (I: 2004⁻2006 and II: 2012⁻2015) was collected for the analysis of its spatiotemporal variations on the grid scale across S County in Central China. Some environmental and socioeconomic factors, including river, farmlands, topographic condition, population density, and gross domestic products (GDP) were obtained for the exploration of their changes and their relationships with GCM's spatiotemporal variations through a powerful tool (GeoDetector, GD). During 2004⁻2015, S County achieved environmental improvement and socioeconomic development, as well as a clear decline of the age-standardized mortality rate of gastric cancer from 35.66/10⁵ to 23.44/10⁵. Moreover, the GCM spatial patterns changed on the grid scale, which was spatially associated with the selected influencing factors. Due to the improvement of rivers' water quality, the distance from rivers posed relatively larger but reversed impacts on the gridded GCM. In addition, higher population density and higher economic level (GDP) acted as important protective factors, whereas the percentage of farmlands tended to have adverse effects on the gridded GCM in period II. It can be concluded that the decline of GCM in S County was spatiotemporally associated with increasingly strengthened environmental managements and socioeconomic developments over the past decade. Additionally, we suggest that more attentions should be paid to the potential pollution caused by excessive pesticides and fertilizers on the farmlands in S County. This study provided a useful clue for local authorities adopting more targeted measures to improve environment and public health in the regions similar to S County.Entities:
Keywords: GeoDetector; environmental improvement; gastric cancer mortality; socioeconomic development; spatiotemporal variation
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30836673 PMCID: PMC6427783 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16050784
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Illustration of S County.
Overview of proxy variables and data source.
| Environmental Factors | Proxy Variables | Dataset | Time | Resolution | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human-made pollution | Distance from river | — | — | — | — |
| Percentage of farmlands | Land use data | 1995, 2005 * | 1 km |
| |
| Physical environment | Elevation | Global Digital Elevation Model (V2) | 2009 | 30 m |
|
| Socioeconomic level | Population density | Gridded resident population density | 2005, 2015 | 1 km |
|
| Gross domestic product (GDP) | Gridded GDP | 2005, 2015 | 1 km |
* Considering the lag effect of environmental factors on health [39], the percentage of farmlands in 1995 and 2005 are used as the corresponding environmental risk factor in period I and II, respectively.
Figure 2Five environment proxy variables of S County, including (a) distance from the river; (b) elevation (30 × 30 m2); (c)–(d) land-use type (1 × 1 km2); (e)–(f) resident population density (1 × 1 km2); (g)–(h) GDP density (1 × 1 km2). ’Median’ in (b)–(h) is the corresponding median value of proxy variables on grid scale.
Figure 3Gastric cancer mortality (GCM) in two periods. (a) Scatter plot of GCM; the blue dotted line is the 1:1 line. (b) Histogram of GCM in period I, the null hypothesis of normality was retained at the 0.05 level of significance. (c) Histogram of GCM in period II, the null hypothesis of normality was rejected at the 0.05 level of significance.
Figure 4Spatial variation of GCM. (a) GCM spatial pattern in period I; (b) GCM spatial pattern in period II, the Moran’s I is significant at 0.01 level; (c) the GCM difference between period I and period II (the grid without villages points were not taken into account).
Figure 5Result of hot spot analysis in terms of Gi Z score. (a) Hot/cold spot in Period I; (b) hot/cold spot in period II; (c) hot/cold spot both in Period I and Period II.
Determinants of GCM spatial heterogeneity.
| Human-Made Pollution | Physical Environment | Socioeconomic Level | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| proxy variables | distance from river | the percentage of farmlands | elevation | population density | GDP |
| q statistic (Period I) | 0.15 *** | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| q statistic (Period II) | 0.11 *** | 0.03 *** | 0.00 | 0.02 *** | 0.03 *** |
| Interaction q statistic (Period II) | 0.14 *** | 0.00 | 0.04 *** | ||
*** The result is statistically significant at 0.05 level.
Average GCM in each region.
| Proxy Variables | Distance from River (km) | Percentage of Farmlands (%) | Elevation (m) | Population Density (per/km²) | GDP (10,000 Yuan/km²) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strata | <3 | 3–10 | 10–15 | ≤median | >median | ≤median | >median | ≤median | >median | ≤median | >median |
| Mean GCM (Period I, 1/105) | 31.38 | 26.09 | 19.56 | Not significant | |||||||
| Mean GCM (Period II, 1/105) | 22.74 | 26.93 | 32.44 | 24.60 | 27.47 | Not significant | 27.17 | 24.72 | 27.46 | 24.51 | |
The result is statistically significant at 0.05 level.