| Literature DB >> 35564606 |
Ru Wang1, Lingbo Liu1,2, Hao Wu3, Zhenghong Peng3.
Abstract
The outbreak of the COVID-19 has become a worldwide public health challenge for contemporary cities during the background of globalization and planetary urbanization. However, spatial factors affecting the transmission of the disease in urban spaces remain unclear. Based on geotagged COVID-19 cases from social media data in the early stage of the pandemic, this study explored the correlation between different infectious outcomes of COVID-19 transmission and various factors of the urban environment in the main urban area of Wuhan, utilizing the multiple regression model. The result shows that most spatial factors were strongly correlated to case aggregation areas of COVID-19 in terms of population density, human mobility and environmental quality, which provides urban planners and administrators valuable insights for building healthy and safe cities in an uncertain future.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 transmission; social media data; urban elements; urban planning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35564606 PMCID: PMC9101567 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095208
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Map of the study area in Wuhan, China: (a) the geographic location of the Wuhan, China; (b) the main urban area of Wuhan (MUA); and (c) administrative districts of Wuhan [8].
Case statistics of Wuhan.
| Districts | Cumulative Confirmed Case | Proportion |
|---|---|---|
| Jiang’an (MUA) | 6563 | 12.987% |
| Jianghan (MUA) | 5242 | 10.373% |
| Qiaokou (MUA) | 6854 | 13.562% |
| Hanyang (MUA) | 4691 | 9.282% |
| Wuchang (MUA) | 7551 | 14.942% |
| Qingshan (MUA) | 2804 | 5.548% |
| Hongshan (MUA) | 4720 | 9.340% |
| Dongxihu | 2637 | 5.218% |
| Caidian | 1424 | 2.818% |
| Jiangxia | 875 | 1.731% |
| Huangpi | 2117 | 4.189% |
| Xinzhou | 1071 | 2.119% |
| East Lake Ecotourism Scenic District | 483 | 0.956% |
| East Lake High-Tech Development District | 2174 | 4.302% |
| Wuhan Economic Technological Development District | 1108 | 2.192% |
| Other places | 223 | 0.441% |
| Total | 50,537 | 100.00% |
As of 16 March 2022 source: Wuhan Municipal Commission of Health.
Statistics of onset period.
| Date of Illness | Number of Weibo Help Information |
|---|---|
| 20–30 Novenmber 2019 | 3 |
| 1–31 Januaru 2020 | 558 |
| 1–6 February 2020 | 154 |
| 7–10 February 2020 | 14 |
The participation rates in the helpline among the COVID infected.
| Districts | Infections in Weibo Information | Cumulative Confirmed Case | the Participation Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jianghan (MUA) | 75 | 5137 | 1.46% |
| Qiaokou (MUA) | 128 | 6789 | 1.89% |
| Wuchang (MUA) | 135 | 7431 | 1.82% |
| Jiang’an (MUA) | 145 | 6521 | 2.22% |
| Hanyang (MUA) | 116 | 4661 | 2.49% |
| Hongshan (MUA) | 87 | 4652 | 1.87% |
| Qingshan (MUA) | 64 | 2773 | 2.31% |
Variable selection.
| Dimension | Variables | Definitions |
|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable | Weibo help case density (Weibo) | The average KDE 1 value of COVID-19 infectors in each unit |
| Population density | Population density (Population) | The average KDE 1 value of the population in each unit |
| The elderly population density (Elderly) | The average KDE 1 value of the elderly population in each unit | |
| Distance to the third ring road (Ring3) | The average ED 2 value from units to the third ring road | |
| Distance to rivers (River) | The average ED 2 value from units to rivers | |
| Human mobility | Distance to markets (Market) | The average ED 2 value from units to markets |
| Distance to third-class hospitals (Hospital) | The average ED 2 value from units to hospitals | |
| Middle school density (M_school) | The average KDE 1 value of middle schools in each unit | |
| University density (University) | The average KDE 1 value of universities in each unit | |
| Business density (Business) | The average KDE 1 value of business facilities in each unit | |
| Administration density (Administration) | The average KDE 1 value of administration facilities in each unit | |
| Bus stop density (Bus) | The average KDE 1 value of bus stop in each unit | |
| Metro station density (Metro) | The average KDE 1 value of metro station in each unit | |
| Environmental quality | Housing price (Price) | The average house price in each unit |
| Age of buildings (Year) | The average age of buildings in each unit | |
| Air quality index (AQI) | The average IDW 3 value of air quality index in each unit | |
| Distance to green spaces (Green) | The average ED 2 value from units to green spaces | |
| water density (water) | The average KDE 1 value values of waters in each unit |
1 KDE: The Kernel Density Estimation (see Methods for detailed information); 2 ED: Euclidean Distance; 3 IDW: The Inverse Distance Weighted (see Methods for detailed information).
Figure 2Density map of Weibo help data.
Variable statistics.
| Variable Name | Number | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | Std. Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weibo help density (Weibo) | 1681 | 0.0000 | 73,959.0440 | 28,405.5334 | 17,269.6339 |
| Population density (Population) | 1681 | 2.5756 | 31,293.7673 | 8199.1254 | 5694.6717 |
| The elderly population density (Elderly) | 1681 | 1.9645 | 2052.2024 | 653.7139 | 464.9645 |
| Distance to the third ring road (Ring3) | 1681 | –6662.0000 | 10,621.0000 | 4499.3998 | 3162.0162 |
| Distance to rivers (River) | 1681 | 70.0000 | 16,329.0000 | 3259.2570 | 3170.4919 |
| Distance to markets (Market) | 1681 | 11.2599 | 4087.3986 | 410.5552 | 421.3228 |
| Distance to third-class hospitals (Hospital) | 1681 | 23.0000 | 9432.0000 | 1913.4747 | 1535.0498 |
| Middle school density (M_school) | 1681 | 1.0000 | 59.1887 | 15.1634 | 13.7686 |
| University density (University) | 1681 | 1.0000 | 58.6333 | 3.6523 | 5.2843 |
| Business density (Business) | 1681 | 1.0000 | 54.7805 | 3.2398 | 5.1925 |
| Administration density (Administration) | 1681 | 1.0000 | 58.9231 | 4.2478 | 7.3873 |
| Bus stop density (Bus) | 1681 | 1.4563 | 59.6098 | 27.6569 | 13.4843 |
| Metro station density (Metro) | 1681 | 1.0000 | 57.6180 | 17.0827 | 14.5484 |
| Housing price (Price) | 1681 | 7975.0000 | 40,989.0000 | 18,447.5544 | 3879.5026 |
| Age of buildings (Year) | 1681 | 2.6891 | 28.0737 | 15.9859 | 4.5786 |
| Air quality index (AQI) | 1681 | 80.3393 | 93.3462 | 86.6823 | 2.1607 |
| Distance to green spaces (Green) | 1681 | 0.0000 | 6727.0000 | 662.9863 | 633.4966 |
| water density (water) | 1681 | 1.0000 | 32.4762 | 9.8986 | 7.4350 |
Figure 3Variable scatter plot. Note: ***, **, * represent significant at the level of 0.001, 0.01, 0.05, respective.
Model summary of seventeen urban factors.
| Model | Unstandardized | Standardized | Significance | Collinearity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta | Std. Error | Beta | Tolerance | VIF | |||
| (Constant) | −70,623.886 | 10,753.331 | −6.568 | 0.000 | |||
| Population | −0.475 | 0.083 | −0.157 | −5.725 | 0.000 | 0.164 | 6.113 |
| Elderly | 16.697 | 1.28 | 0.450 | 13.041 | 0.000 | 0.103 | 9.714 |
| Ring3 | 1.539 | 0.115 | 0.282 | 13.379 | 0.000 | 0.276 | 3.625 |
| River | −0.781 | 0.088 | −0.143 | −8.914 | 0.000 | 0.473 | 2.114 |
| Market | −2.144 | 0.607 | −0.052 | −3.531 | 0.000 | 0.558 | 1.794 |
| Hospital | −0.923 | 0.186 | −0.082 | −4.978 | 0.000 | 0.45 | 2.223 |
| M_school | 151.174 | 21.843 | 0.121 | 6.921 | 0.000 | 0.403 | 2.479 |
| University | −156.239 | 44.016 | −0.048 | −3.55 | 0.000 | 0.674 | 1.483 |
| Business | −18.321 | 43.511 | −0.006 | −0.421 | 0.674 | 0.715 | 1.399 |
| Administration | 25.647 | 35.631 | 0.011 | 0.72 | 0.472 | 0.527 | 1.899 |
| Bus | 417.361 | 29.146 | 0.326 | 14.32 | 0.000 | 0.236 | 4.234 |
| Metro | 142.755 | 21.209 | 0.120 | 6.731 | 0.000 | 0.383 | 2.610 |
| Price | −0.886 | 0.079 | −0.199 | −11.268 | 0.000 | 0.392 | 2.552 |
| Year | −426.759 | 67.602 | −0.113 | −6.313 | 0.000 | 0.381 | 2.626 |
| AQI | 1132.903 | 119.915 | 0.142 | 9.448 | 0.000 | 0.543 | 1.840 |
| Green | 1.032 | 0.369 | 0.038 | 2.796 | 0.005 | 0.667 | 1.499 |
| Water | −120.487 | 34.619 | −0.052 | −3.48 | 0.001 | 0.551 | 1.816 |
| R: 0.893 | R Square: 0.797 | Adjusted R Square: 0.794 | |||||
| Std. Error of the Estimate: 7831.238353 | |||||||
Model summary of fourteen urban factors.
| Model | Unstandardized | Standardized | Significance | Collinearity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta | Std. Error | Beta | Tolerance | VIF | |||
| (Constant) | −80,667.568 | 10,629.470 | −7.589 | 0.000 | |||
| Elderly | 11.599 | 0.867 | 0.312 | 13.371 | 0.000 | 0.229 | 4.364 |
| Ring3 | 1.457 | 0.114 | 0.267 | 12.750 | 0.000 | 0.286 | 3.501 |
| River | −0.945 | 0.083 | −0.174 | −11.403 | 0.000 | 0.540 | 1.853 |
| Market | −1.868 | 0.608 | −0.046 | −3.070 | 0.002 | 0.568 | 1.762 |
| Hospital | −0.870 | 0.186 | −0.077 | −4.673 | 0.000 | 0.456 | 2.194 |
| M_school | 144.758 | 22.042 | 0.115 | 6.567 | 0.000 | 0.405 | 2.471 |
| University | −193.204 | 43.907 | −0.059 | −4.400 | 0.000 | 0.692 | 1.444 |
| Bus | 411.545 | 29.433 | 0.321 | 13.983 | 0.000 | 0.237 | 4.226 |
| Metro | 144.609 | 21.162 | 0.122 | 6.833 | 0.000 | 0.393 | 2.543 |
| Price | −0.793 | 0.069 | −0.178 | −11.471 | 0.000 | 0.519 | 1.928 |
| Year | −378.367 | 66.530 | −0.100 | −5.687 | 0.000 | 0.402 | 2.490 |
| AQI | 1229.175 | 117.094 | 0.154 | 10.497 | 0.000 | 0.582 | 1.717 |
| Green | 0.942 | 0.373 | 0.035 | 2.527 | 0.012 | 0.668 | 1.496 |
| Water | −140.884 | 34.832 | −0.061 | −4.045 | 0.000 | 0.556 | 1.799 |
| R: 0.890 | R Square: 0.792 | Adjusted R Square: 0.790 | |||||
| Std. Error of the Estimate: 7915.456643 | |||||||
Figure 4Spatial distributions of explanatory variables. (a) The elderly density; (b) Distance to the third ring road; (c) Distance to rivers; (d) Middle school density; (e) Distance to markets; (f) Distance to Third-class hospitals; (g) Bus stop density; (h) Metro station density; (i)University density; (j) Distance to green space; (k) Water density; (l) Air quality index; (m) Housing price; (n) The age of buildings.
Figure 5Statistics chart of standardized coefficients.