Spatial distributive effects of public green space and COVID-19 infection in London

Abstract

While public green spaces (PGS) are opined to be central in the pandemic recovery, higher accessibility to PGS also mean a higher risk of infection spread from the raised possibility of people encountering each other. This study explores the distributive effects of accessibility of PGS on the COVID-19 cases distribution using a geo-spatially varying network-based risk model at the borough level in London. The coupled effect of social deprivation with accessibility of the PGS was used as an adjustment factor to identify vulnerability. Results indicate that highly connected green spaces with high choice measure were associated with high risk of infection transmission. Socially deprived areas demonstrated higher possibility of infection spread even with moderate connectivity of the PGS. The study demonstrated that only applying a uniform social distancing measure without characterising the infrastructure and social conditions may lead to higher infection transmission.

Time-varying associations between COVID-19 case incidence and community-level sociodemographic, occupational, environmental, and mobility risk factors in Massachusetts

“…Higher COVID-19 case incidence is associated with greater percentage of immigrants and lower education at the community level, likely due to occupational, medical, and housing risk factors that elevate risk of disease transmission and severity [16]. Likewise, environmental exposures, including air pollution and reduced green space, are associated with increased case incidence at the community level [17][18][19].…”

Nature’s contributions in coping with a pandemic in the 21st century: A narrative review of evidence during COVID-19

“…Collectively, these findings indicate that people with access to private green spaces such as gardens had greater nature contact during the pandemic. Private gardens acted as a safe green space without the risk of being exposed to the coronavirus while maintaining social distancing guidelines (Poortinga et al 2021;Shoari et al, 2020;Pan et al, 2021). This conclusion highlights the potential inequities in nature contact during lockdown because a larger share of the socioeconomically deprived population may not have had private or community gardens (Mell and Whitten, 2021;Natural England, 2020).…”

“…A few studies have speculated about the ways that nature accessibility and nature contact (e.g., visit frequency) might relate to COVID-19 transmission and case rates (Pan et al, 2021;Shoari et al, 2020;Lu et al, 2021b). Pan et al (2021) identified that higher nature accessibility in connected public parks was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 infection rate in London boroughs.…”

“…A few studies have speculated about the ways that nature accessibility and nature contact (e.g., visit frequency) might relate to COVID-19 transmission and case rates (Pan et al, 2021;Shoari et al, 2020;Lu et al, 2021b). Pan et al (2021) identified that higher nature accessibility in connected public parks was associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 infection rate in London boroughs. They also noted that larger green spaces had higher levels of accessibility and attracted more visitors, which may have resulted in the violation of social/physical distancing regulations and increased the transmission.…”

“…Among the nature exposure and health studies published during the first year of COVID-19 pandemic, the majority indicated positive associations between nature exposure and human health with some variation in effect by the severity of lockdown, types of nature exposure, amount of nature contact, and sociodemographic and racial/ethnic composition. However, some studies also reported mixed or inconsistent findings regarding changes in the amount of nature contact during lockdowns, positive vs. negative impacts on health from nature contact, and disparities in nature contact and related health impacts (Sapano et al, 2021;Pan et al, 2021;Browning et al, 2021;Corley et al, 2021;Lu et al, 2021a). Considering these variations in evidence among the existing studies, it seems timely and reasonable to review the net contributions of nature in coping with the pandemic.…”