| Literature DB >> 33302071 |
Xiaoxu Wu1, Jie Yin2, Chenlu Li2, Hongxu Xiang2, Meng Lv2, Zhiyi Guo2.
Abstract
A novel Coronavirus COVID-19 has caused high morbidity and mortality in China and worldwide. A few studies have explored the impact of climate change or human activity on the disease incidence in China or a city. The integrated study concerning environment impact on the emerging disease is rarely reported. Therefore, based on the two-stage modeling study, we investigate the effect of both natural and human environment on COVID-19 incidence at a city level. Besides, the interactive effect of different factors on COVID-19 incidence is analyzed using Geodetector; the impact of effective factors and interaction terms on COVID-19 is simulated with Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) models. The results find that mean temperature (MeanT), destination proportion in population flow from Wuhan (WH), migration scale (MS), and WH*MeanT, are generally promoting for COVID-19 incidence before Wuhan's shutdown (T1); the WH and MeanT play a determinant role in the disease spread in T1. The effect of environment on COVID-19 incidence after Wuhan's shutdown (T2) includes more factors (including mean DEM, relative humidity, precipitation (Pre), travel intensity within a city (TC), and their interactive terms) than T1, and their effect shows distinct spatial heterogeneity. Interestingly, the dividing line of positive-negative effect of MeanT and Pre on COVID-19 incidence is 8.5°C and 1 mm, respectively. In T2, WH has weak impact, but the MS has the strongest effect. The COVID-19 incidence in T2 without quarantine is also modeled using the developed GWR model, and the modeled incidence shows an obvious increase for 75.6% cities compared with reported incidence in T2 especially for some mega cities. This evidences national quarantine and traffic control take determinant role in controlling the disease spread. The study indicates that both natural environment and human factors integratedly affect the spread pattern of COVID-19 in China.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; City-level; Environment impact; GWR model; Interactive effect; Two-stage
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33302071 PMCID: PMC7598381 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143343
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Total Environ ISSN: 0048-9697 Impact factor: 7.963
Fig. 1Distribution of accumulated COVID-19 cases (till Feb 29, 2020) at city level in mainland China.
Data type, variables and data source.
| Data type | Variable | Scale | Data source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disease | COVID-19 data | Confirmed case | Daily | |
| Natural environment | Climate data | Minimum temperature | Daily | |
| Maximum temperature | Daily | |||
| Mean temperature | Daily | |||
| Precipitation | Daily | |||
| Relative humidity | Daily | |||
| Wind speed | Daily | |||
| Air pressure | Daily | |||
| Terrain data | Minimum DEM | Yearly | ||
| Maximum DEM | Yearly | |||
| Mean DEM | Yearly | |||
| Human environment | Economic data | GDP per capita | Yearly | |
| Population data | Population density | Yearly | ||
| Destination proportion in population flow from Wuhan | Daily | |||
| Human mobility | Travel intensity within a city | Daily | ||
| Migration scale | Daily | |||
Fig. 2Flowchart of data processing in the study.
Pearson correlations between COVID-19 incidence and environmental factors.
| Natural factor | T1 | T2 | Human factor | T1 | T2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MinT | 0.326 | 0.298 | GDP | 0.338 | 0.301 |
| MaxT | 0.282 | 0.211 | PD | 0.518 | 0.438 |
| MeanT | 0.313 | 0.268 | WH | 0.413 | 0.443 |
| Pre | 0.010 | 0.300 | MS | 0.574 | 0.489 |
| Rh | 0.127 | 0.419 | TC | −0.371 | −0.409 |
| Wind | −0.037 | 0.080 | |||
| AirP | 0.215 | 0.418 | |||
| Min DEM | −0.247 | −0.396 | |||
| Max DEM | −0.073 | −0.337 | |||
| Mean DEM | −0.224 | −0.414 |
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level.
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Fig. 3The interactive effect of dominant factors on COVID-19 incidence, where the blue box are the interaction terms with q > 0.6. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Comparison between OLS and GWR model.
| Stage | Variables | Model | AICc | R2 | Adjusted R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Effective factors | OLS | 241.39 | 0.56 | 0.55 |
| GWR | 240.31 | 0.58 | 0.56 | ||
| Effective factors and interaction terms | OLS | 236.86 | 0.59 | 0.57 | |
| GWR | 235.56 | 0.61 | 0.58 | ||
| T2 | Effective factors | OLS | 557.84 | 0.59 | 0.57 |
| GWR | 470.58 | 0.74 | 0.70 | ||
| Effective factors and interaction terms | OLS | 517.32 | 0.64 | 0.63 | |
| GWR | 440.23 | 0.77 | 0.73 |
Effective factor and interaction terms for COVID-19 incidence based on OLS analysis.
| Stage | Effective factors | Effective interaction terms |
|---|---|---|
| T1 | MeanT, WH, MS | WH*MeanT |
| T2 | MeanT, Pre, Rh, Mean DEM, WH, MS, TC | WH*Pre, MS*TC |
Fig. 4The spatial distribution of the local coefficient (β) for the four variables used in the GWR model for T1.
Fig. 5The spatial distribution of the local coefficient (β) for the nine variables used in the GWR model for T2. (a) All the factors; (b) MeanT divided by the temperature about 8.5°C; (c) Pre divided by the precipitation equal to 1 mm.
Fig. 6Risk analysis of COVID-19 incidence based on T2 situation: (a) Reported incidence in T2; (b) Modeled incidence using GWR model in T2 with 2019 migration scale; (c) The difference between the modeled and reported incidence.