| Literature DB >> 31022198 |
Hongyan Ren1, Wei Wu1,2, Tiegang Li3, Zhicong Yang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous urban villages (UVs) and frequent infectious disease outbreaks are major environmental and public health concerns in highly urbanized regions, especially in developing countries. However, the spatial and quantitative associations between UVs and infections remain little understood on a fine scale. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31022198 PMCID: PMC6504109 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0007350
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis ISSN: 1935-2727
Fig 1Study areas and GF-2 satellite data coverage of the central areas in Guangzhou.
Fig 2Spatial distribution and temporal variations of different data.
(A): DF cases in 2012~2014 and 2017; (B): Spatial distribution of land use types, GDP and population density; (C): bus stations, subway stations and road network in 2017.
Fig 3Spatial distribution of UVs across the central districts in Guangzhou during 2012–2017.
Fig 4Spatial distribution of the gridded DF epidemic in 2012~ 2017.
This is the spatial distribution of the ratio of DF cases in each infected unit to the mean value of all the infected units.
Comparison of DF epidemics and population in different CL types (NCL and UVs).
| Year | Proportion of DF cases | Density | Population density | DF incidence rates(cases / 105) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCL | UVs | NCL | UVs | NCL | UVs | NCL | UVs | |
| 2012 | 64.91% | 35.09% | 0.51 | 1.26 | 17732.83 | 18331.08 | 3.17 | 7.81 |
| 2013 | 62.64% | 37.36% | 3.96 | 10.71 | / | / | 27.04 | 73.36 |
| 2014 | 71.45% | 28.55% | 78.74 | 142.65 | / | / | 529.86 | 963.26 |
| 2017 | 61.76% | 38.24% | 1.77 | 5.54 | 17285.83 | 18386.52 | 12.09 | 36.95 |
| Total | 70.69% | 29.31% | 85.17 | 160.09 | / | / | 552.69 | 1086.71 |
Correlation coefficients between DF incidence rates and UVs, pop density, GDP, traffic conditions.
| Acreage of UVs | Pop density | GDP○ | UVs’ area | Bus stops | Subway stations | Road density | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DF incidence ratesa | 0.45 | 0.17 | 0.10 | 0.33 | 0.49 | 0.27 | 0.39 |
| DF incidence ratesb | / | / | / | 0.24 | 0.22 | 0.33 | 0.31 |
| DF incidence ratesc | / | / | / | / | 0.43 | 0.27 | 0.38 |
Note:
^ denotes that the degrees of freedom for infected UVs and infected units were respectively 333 and 290.
○ indicates that the research unit is the 1km×1km grid scale.
* This value is significant at the level of 0.05.
** This value is significant at the level of 0.01.
a is all variable correlation analysis.
b is partial correlation coefficients between incidence rates and UV area while respectively controlling the traffic conditions.
c is partial correlation analysis between incidence rates and traffic conditions while controlling UV area.
Fig 5The aggregation effect of UVs on the DF cases across the central region in Guangzhou City.
AVG is the average results of four years. Cases in buffer represent that DF cases count in different buffer radius. Cases between buffer indicate the number of DF cases between different buffer zones. Percent in buffer indicate the proportion of DF cases in different buffer radius. Increasing slope indicate the increasing rates of DF cases in different buffer radius.
GWR and OLS modeling of DF incidence rates and different variables in the central region.
| Models | Independent variables | GWR | OLS | VIF | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AICc | Adj- R2 | Sigma | AICc | Adj- R2 | Sigma | |||
| Uni1 | Bus stops | 5340.50 | 0.55 | 285.34 | 5451.95 | 0.34 | 345.48 | - |
| Uni2 | Subway stations | 5391.17 | 0.50 | 300.17 | 5565.04 | 0.11 | 401.69 | - |
| Uni3 | Road density | 5341.64 | 0.54 | 289.47 | 5483.28 | 0.28 | 360.21 | - |
| Uni4 | Gross domestic production (GDP) | 5403.32 | 0.48 | 307.38 | 5593.32 | 0.04 | 417.14 | - |
| Uni5 | Construction land (CL) | 5338.99 | 0.54 | 288.27 | 5482.26 | 0.29 | 359.72 | - |
| Uni6 | Urban villages (UVs) | 5368.70 | 0.55 | 287.47 | 5535.84 | 0.18 | 386.36 | - |
| Uni7 | Normal construction land (NCL) | 5385.21 | 0.49 | 305.09 | 5535.99 | 0.18 | 386.44 | - |
| Uni8 | Unused land (UL) | 5417.63 | 0.46 | 314.42 | 5610.90 | 0.00 | 427.03 | - |
| Uni9 | Water | 5401.58 | 0.48 | 307.68 | 5611.02 | 0.00 | 427.09 | - |
| Uni10 | Vegetation | 5408.15 | 0.49 | 306.01 | 5580.17 | 0.08 | 409.89 | - |
| Uni11 | Population density (POP) | 5412.26 | 0.47 | 311.05 | 5560.88 | 0.12 | 399.48 | - |
| Com1 | Bus stops; UVs | 5331.99 | 0.58 | 276.89 | 5432.77 | 0.38 | 336.29 | 1.23 |
| Com2 | Bus stops; Road density | 5344.52 | 0.54 | 290.32 | 5439.96 | 0.37 | 339.52 | 2.18 |
| Com3 | Bus stops; Subway stations | 5352.45 | 0.55 | 286.50 | 5453.39 | 0.34 | 345.66 | 1.39 |
| Com4 | Bus stops; NCL | 5364.79 | 0.52 | 296.93 | 5451.70 | 0.35 | 344.88 | 1.70 |
| Com5 | Bus stops; GDP | 5323.48 | 0.56 | 283.19 | 5448.03 | 0.35 | 343.20 | 1.36 |
| Com6 | Bus stops; POP | 5340.35 | 0.55 | 285.39 | 5453.74 | 0.34 | 345.82 | 1.66 |
| Com7 | Bus stops; UVs; Road density | 5334.96 | 0.55 | 284.87 | 5421.47 | 0.40 | 330.79 | <2.37 |
| Com8 | Bus stops; UVs; Subway stations | 5344.61 | 0.56 | 274.12 | 5433.13 | 0.38 | 335.98 | <1.69 |
| 5305.02 | 0.59 | 272.80 | 5429.72 | 0.39 | 334.45 | <1.63 | ||
| Com10 | Bus stops; UVs; POP | 5321.19 | 0.59 | 272.86 | 5434.04 | 0.37 | 336.38 | <1.84 |
| Com11 | Bus stops; UVs; POP; Subway stations | 5330.78 | 0.57 | 278.59 | 5434.05 | 0.38 | 335.92 | < 2.18 |
| Com12 | Bus stops; UVs; GDP; POP | 5337.36 | 0.53 | 293.25 | 5429.25 | 0.39 | 333.77 | <4.82 |
| Com13 | Bus stops; UVs; POP; Road density; GDP; | 5318.74 | 0.55 | 285.34 | 5410.83 | 0.42 | 325.22 | <5.12 |
| Com14 | Bus stops; UVs; POP; Subway stations; Road density; GDP | 5318.48 | 0.55 | 284.62 | 5411.91 | 0.42 | 325.22 | < 5.12 |
Adj-R2: Adjusted R-Squared; AICc: the corrected Akaike's Information Criterion; VIF: Variance Inflation Factor.
Fig 6Standardized residual (StdResid) values and local coefficients of selected variables.
This is derived from the GWR model with GDP, UVs and bus stops.