| Literature DB >> 36231184 |
Krzysztof Rząsa1, Mateusz Ciski1.
Abstract
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, an increasing number of different research studies focusing on various aspects of the pandemic are emerging. Most of the studies focus on the medical aspects of the pandemic, as well as on the impact of COVID-19 on various areas of life; less emphasis is put on analyzing the influence of socio-environmental factors on the spread of the pandemic. In this paper, using the geographically weighted regression method, the extent to which demographic, social, and environmental factors explain the number of cases of SARS-CoV-2 is explored. The research was performed for the case-study area of Poland, considering the administrative division of the country into counties. The results showed that the demographic factors best explained the number of cases of SARS-CoV-2; the social factors explained it to a medium degree; and the environmental factors explained it to the lowest degree. Urban population and the associated higher amount and intensity of human contact are the most influential factors in the development of the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis of the factors related to the areas burdened by social problems resulting primarily from the economic exclusion revealed that poverty-burdened areas are highly vulnerable to the development of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using maps of the local R2 it was possible to visualize how the relationships between the explanatory variables (for this research-demographic, social, and environmental factors) and the dependent variable (number of cases of SARS-CoV-2) vary across the study area. Through the GWR method, counties were identified as particularly vulnerable to the pandemic because of the problem of economic exclusion. Considering that the COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing, the results obtained may be useful for local authorities in developing strategies to counter the pandemic.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; GIS; GWR; SARS-CoV-2; geographic information system; geographically weighted regression; pandemic
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36231184 PMCID: PMC9564649 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191911881
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Study area. Source: own elaboration using ArcGIS Pro 2.9 by Esri.
Figure 2Summary of confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 in Polish counties. Source: own elaboration using ArcGIS Pro 2.9 by Esri.
Selected demographic, social, and environmental factors. Source: own elaboration on the basis of data from Statistics Poland.
| Section | Factor (Variable) | Symbol |
|---|---|---|
| Demographic | Total population | D1 |
| Urban population | D2 | |
| Rural population | D3 | |
| Population age: under 16 | D4 | |
| Population age: 16–25 | D5 | |
| Population age: 25–55 | D6 | |
| Population age: over 55 | D7 | |
| Social | Number of beds in general hospitals | S1 |
| Physicians (total working staff) per 10,000 population | S2 | |
| Nurses and midwives per 10,000 population | S3 | |
| Households benefiting from community social assistance according to the criterion of income | S4 | |
| Families receiving family benefits for children | S5 | |
| Families with assistance on the basis of poverty | S6 | |
| Benefit payments from the 500+ program | S7 | |
| Environmental | Emission of air pollutants—particulates | E1 |
| Emission of air pollutants—gases | E2 | |
| Forest cover | E3 | |
| Share of parks, greens, and neighborhood green areas | E4 |
Figure 3Spatial distribution of the explanatory variables in counties of Poland. Source: own elaboration using ArcGIS Pro 2.9 by Esri.
Figure 4Spatial autocorrelation reports. Source: own elaboration using ArcGIS Pro 2.9 by Esri.
Summary of the spatial autocorrelation. Source: own elaboration on the basis of ArcGIS Pro 2.9 by Esri.
| Variable Type | Variable | Z-Score | Spatial Pattern | Confidence Level | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dependent | COVID-19 cases | 0.00 | 5.63 | Clustered | 1% |
| Explanatory | D1—Total population | 0.00 | 4.00 | Clustered | 1% |
| D2—Urban population | 0.01 | 2.62 | Clustered | 1% | |
| D3—Rural population | 0.00 | −3.94 | Dispersed | 1% | |
| D4—Population age: under 16 | 0.00 | 5.53 | Clustered | 1% | |
| D5—Population age: 16–25 | 0.00 | 4.86 | Clustered | 1% | |
| D6—Population age: 25–55 | 0.00 | 4.19 | Clustered | 1% | |
| D7—Population age: over 55 | 0.01 | 2.79 | Clustered | 1% | |
| S1—Number of beds in general hospitals | 0.00 | 3.46 | Clustered | 1% | |
| S2—Physicians (total working staff) per 10,000 population | 0.00 | −3.04 | Dispersed | 1% | |
| S3—Nurses and midwives per | 0.00 | −4.67 | Dispersed | 1% | |
| S4—Households benefiting from community social assistance according to the criterion of income | 0.00 | 2.95 | Clustered | 1% | |
| S5—Families receiving family benefits for children | 0.00 | 6.30 | Clustered | 1% | |
| S6—Families with assistance on the basis of poverty | 0.00 | 3.29 | Clustered | 1% | |
| S7—Benefit payments from the 500+ program | 0.00 | 6.24 | Clustered | 1% | |
| E1—Emission of air pollutants—particulates | 0.02 | 2.41 | Clustered | 5% | |
| E2—Emission of air pollutants—gases | 0.03 | 2.24 | Clustered | 5% | |
| E3—Forest cover | 0.00 | 10.41 | Clustered | 1% | |
| E4—Share of parks, greens, | 0.00 | 3.96 | Clustered | 1% |
R2 and statistical description of the variables. Source: own elaboration on the basis of ArcGIS Pro 2.9 by Esri.
| Variable | R2 | Mean | Min | Max | STD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1—Total population | 0.99 ** | 101,006.8 | 19,914.0 | 1,790,658.0 | 119,730.5 |
| D2—Urban population | 0.95 ** | 60,613.3 | 0.0 | 1,790,658.0 | 122,692.5 |
| D3—Rural population | 0.37 ** | 40,393.4 | 0.0 | 264,014.0 | 35,060.6 |
| D4—Population age: under 16 | 0.98 ** | 16,433.6 | 2855.0 | 301,697.0 | 19,744.3 |
| D5—Population age: 16–25 | 0.97 ** | 9143.9 | 2054.0 | 112,725.0 | 8220.1 |
| D6—Population age: 25–55 | 0.99 ** | 43,570.8 | 8382.0 | 797,514.0 | 53,035.6 |
| D7—Population age: over 55 | 0.98 ** | 31,858.4 | 6623.0 | 578,722.0 | 39,298.0 |
| S1—Number of beds in general hospitals | 0.91 ** | 439.0 | 0.0 | 11,970.0 | 907.7 |
| S2—Physicians (total working staff) | 0.73 ** | 41.1 | 2.0 | 204.9 | 30.4 |
| S3—Nurses and midwives | 0.66 ** | 60.6 | 2.4 | 237.4 | 37.5 |
| S4—Households benefiting from community social assistance according | 0.94 ** | 2171.1 | 472.0 | 20,186.0 | 1698.4 |
| S5—Families receiving family benefits | 0.86 ** | 2653.0 | 352.0 | 14,260.0 | 1739.9 |
| S6—Families with assistance on the basis | 0.91 ** | 1139.2 | 145.0 | 10,765.0 | 885.6 |
| S7—Benefit payments | 0.97 ** | 80,276,961.1 | 15,183,262.0 | 1,366,004,134.0 | 90,144,295.6 |
| E1—Emission of air pollutants—particulates | 0.72 * | 71.3 | 0.0 | 1924.0 | 143.3 |
| E2—Emission of air pollutants—gases | 0.70 * | 522,212.5 | 0.0 | 32,882,772.0 | 2,138,844.5 |
| E3—Forest cover | 0.02 ** | 26.0 | 0.0 | 70.4 | 13.4 |
| E4—Share of parks, greens, | 0.83 ** | 0.8 | 0.0 | 20.9 | 1.9 |
Note: **—statistically significant at the p < 0.01 level; *—statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Figure 5Local R2 estimates for the “Demographic” section. Source: own elaboration using ArcGIS Pro 2.9 by Esri.
Figure 6Local R2 estimates for the “Social” section. Source: own elaboration using ArcGIS Pro 2.9 by Esri.
Figure 7Local R2 estimates for the “Environmental” section. Source: own elaboration using ArcGIS Pro 2.9 by Esri.
Spatial autocorrelation results for GWR residuals. Source: own elaboration on the basis of ArcGIS Pro 2.9 by Esri.
| Variable | D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | D5 | D6 | D7 | S1 | S2 | S3 | S4 | S5 | S6 | S7 | E1 | E2 | E3 | E4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Residual z-score | −1.26 | −1.28 | 0.66 | −1.95 | −1.44 | −1.82 | −1.93 | −1.46 | 1.35 | −0.81 | −0.34 | 0.73 | 1.33 | −1.7 | 0.75 | 0.33 | 0.38 | 0.01 |
| Spatial | R | R | R | wD | R | wD | wD | R | R | R | R | R | R | wD | R | R | R | R |
Note: R—random; wD—weak dispersed.