| Literature DB >> 35682062 |
Sang-Hyeok Lee1, Jung Eun Kang1.
Abstract
This study examined the changes in the number of visitors to regions during periods of high particulate matter (PM) concentrations in Seoul and analyzed the regional differences of these changes. Further, it examined the spatial characteristics that affect these regional differences. This study mapped the regional differences by conducting a spatial cluster analysis using GIS and examined factors affecting the regional differences using logistic regression analysis. The visiting population data used in this study were obtained from the Big Data on the de facto population measured every hour at mobile base stations, and all analyses were conducted in terms of weekdays and weekends. The results indicated that the visiting population decreases significantly on weekdays when there are high PM concentrations; however, visits increase on weekends, even during periods of high PM concentrations. Moreover, there was a huge regional gap in visiting population changes. Regions with more commercial use, higher bus accessibility, and better pedestrian environment (pedestrian paths, Walk Score) were more likely to be hotspots, whereas regions with high residential and industrial use were more likely to be cold spots. These results can be used as the basic data for PM policies based on regional characteristics.Entities:
Keywords: Seoul; hotspot; particulate matter; spatial disparity; visiting population
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35682062 PMCID: PMC9180578 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19116478
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Days with high PM concentrations and days excluded due to outliers.
| Classification | Weekdays | Weekends | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Days with high PM concentrations | November 6, November 7, November 27, | December 22, December 23, | |
| Excluded | Days with fresh snow cover | December 13, February 1, February 15, | November 24, December 16, February 16 |
| Public holidays | December 25, January 1, February 4–6, | - | |
Variables of the logistic regression model.
| Classification | Variable | Description | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent variable | Hotspot = 1, | Hotspot: cluster of regions showing an increase in the visiting population when there are high PM concentrations | Derived from this study, based on the visiting population of the de facto population (SKT) data | |
| Independent variable | Land use | Residential use | Area ratio of residential facilities | Building space information by use (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport) |
| Commercial use | Area ratio of commercial facilities | |||
| Business use | Area ratio of business facilities | |||
| Industrial use | Area ratio of industrial facilities | |||
| Land use mix | (Quasi-residential district +commercial district)/(Area of residential + commercial + industrial districts) | Land-use planning spatial data (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport) | ||
| Public transport accessibility | Bus accessibility | Number of bus stops per unit area | Seoul bus-stop location information (Seoul) | |
| Subway accessibility | Number of subway stations per unit area | Road-name address digital map (Ministry of the Interior and Safety) | ||
| Pedestrian environment | Length of pedestrian path | Length of pedestrian path per unit area | Sidewalk/walkway (National Geographic Information Institute) | |
| Walk Score | Walkability index | [ | ||
| Living infrastructure | Park area ratio | (Park area/total area) × 100 | Land-use zoning data/national land planning and spatial facilities/building space data (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport) | |
| Schools | Number of facilities per unit area | |||
| Hospitals | Number of facilities per unit area | |||
| Welfare facilities | Number of facilities per unit area | |||
| Market | Number of facilities per unit area | |||
| Public facilities | Number of facilities per unit area |
t-test results of visiting population changes on weekdays with high PM concentrations and control days.
| Weekday | Average Hourly Visiting Population | Average Hourly Visiting Population |
|---|---|---|
| Mean | 4804.94 | 4871.65 |
| Standard deviation | 3195.98 | 3203.82 |
| N | 424 | 424 |
| t | −6.12 | |
| 0.000 | ||
t-test results of visiting population changes on weekends with high PM concentrations and control days.
| Weekend | Average Hourly Visiting Population | Average Hourly Visiting Population |
|---|---|---|
| Mean | 5752.57 | 5608.10 |
| Standard deviation | 3851.90 | 3706.68 |
| N | 424 | 424 |
| t | 6.333 | |
| 0.000 | ||
Figure 1Spatial distribution of visiting population differences between weekdays with high PM concentrations and control days.
Figure 2Spatial distribution of visiting population differences between weekends with high PM concentrations and control days.
Figure 3Clusters of visiting population changes on weekdays.
Figure 4Clusters of visiting population changes on weekends.
Results of logistic regression analysis (weekdays).
| Variable | B | S.E. | Wald | Degree of Freedom | Exp(B) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Land use | Residential use | −0.130 | 0.079 | 2.746 | 1 | 0.097 * | 0.878 |
| Commercial use | 0.138 | 0.179 | 0.593 | 1 | 0.441 | 1.148 | |
| Business use | −0.415 | 0.518 | 0.642 | 1 | 0.423 | 0.660 | |
| Industrial use | −0.538 | 1.051 | 0.262 | 1 | 0.609 | 0.584 | |
| Land use mix | 0.016 | 0.023 | 0.520 | 1 | 0.471 | 1.016 | |
| Public transport accessibility | Bus accessibility | 0.063 | 0.036 | 3.146 | 1 | 0.076 * | 1.065 |
| Subway accessibility | 0.067 | 0.132 | 0.258 | 1 | 0.612 | 1.069 | |
| Pedestrian environment | Length of pedestrian path | 0.001 | 0.000 | 4.084 | 1 | 0.043 ** | 1.001 |
| Walk Score | −0.057 | 0.058 | 0.990 | 1 | 0.320 | 0.944 | |
| Living infrastructure | Park area ratio | −0.025 | 0.024 | 1.119 | 1 | 0.290 | 0.975 |
| Number of schools | −0.039 | 0.048 | 0.643 | 1 | 0.423 | 0.962 | |
| Number of hospitals | 0.436 | 0.232 | 3.527 | 1 | 0.060 * | 1.547 | |
| Number of welfare facilities | −0.167 | 0.167 | 1.003 | 1 | 0.317 | 0.846 | |
| Number of markets | 0.124 | 0.141 | 0.776 | 1 | 0.378 | 1.132 | |
| Number of public facilities | 0.210 | 0.619 | 0.115 | 1 | 0.734 | 1.234 | |
| Constant term | 4.073 | 3.368 | 1.463 | 1 | 0.226 | 58.747 | |
**, * are 1% and 5% significance levels, respectively.
Results of logistic regression analysis (weekends).
| Variable | B | S.E. | Wald | Degree of Freedom | Exp(B) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Land use | Residential use | −0.156 | 0.069 | 5.082 | 1 | 0.024 ** | 0.855 |
| Commercial use | 0.227 | 0.176 | 1.659 | 1 | 0.098 * | 1.255 | |
| Ratio of business areas | 0.174 | 0.373 | 0.217 | 1 | 0.641 | 1.190 | |
| Industrial use | −5.301 | 2.577 | 4.232 | 1 | 0.040 ** | 0.055 | |
| Land use mix | 0.034 | 0.035 | 0.973 | 1 | 0.324 | 1.035 | |
| Public transport accessibility | Bus accessibility | 0.054 | 0.033 | 2.738 | 1 | 0.098 * | 1.056 |
| Subway accessibility | 0.125 | 0.121 | 1.068 | 1 | 0.301 | 1.134 | |
| Pedestrian environment | Length of pedestrian path | 0.003 | 0.000 | 5.234 | 1 | 0.022 ** | 1.002 |
| Walk Score | 0.126 | 0.060 | 4.478 | 1 | 0.034 ** | 1.135 | |
| Living infrastructure | Park area ratio | 0.028 | 0.027 | 1.108 | 1 | 0.292 | 1.029 |
| Number of schools | 0.004 | 0.041 | 0.010 | 1 | 0.921 | 1.004 | |
| Number of hospitals | −0.037 | 0.213 | 0.031 | 1 | 0.861 | 0.963 | |
| Number of welfare facilities | −0.163 | 0.157 | 1.084 | 1 | 0.298 | 0.849 | |
| Number of markets | 0.035 | 0.152 | 0.054 | 1 | 0.817 | 1.036 | |
| Number of public facilities | 0.074 | 0.471 | 0.025 | 1 | 0.875 | 1.077 | |
| Constant term | −8.514 | 3.460 | 6.054 | 1 | 0.014 | 0.000 | |
**, * are 1% and 5% significance levels, respectively.