19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      How COVID-19 reshaped quality of life in cities: A synthesis and implications for urban planning

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This paper synthesizes knowledge on how the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic reshaped the relationship between cities and quality of life. The possible impacts of cities on seven domains of quality of life – travel, leisure, work, social relationships, residential well-being, emotional responses, and health – during COVID-19 are reviewed. Findings indicate that the role of transport and land use, urban nature, public space, facilities and services, housing, and information and communications technology (ICT) in quality of life in cities was transformed during COVID-19. Access to healthcare facilities and services and local amenities; opportunities for walking and cycling; COVID-19-secure public transport; access to a car; urban blue or green space and access to nearby nature; easy access to open public space; living in a dwelling of sufficient size and quality; private or communal outdoor areas; and ICT infrastructure and systems possibly helped to mitigate the negative impacts of COVID-19 on quality of life in cities. Implications for urban planning and policy arise from the COVID-19 crisis, shedding light on ways to address inequities, support vulnerable groups, and improve quality of life in cities in times of pandemics but also under normal circumstances.

          Related collections

          Most cited references94

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence

          Summary The December, 2019 coronavirus disease outbreak has seen many countries ask people who have potentially come into contact with the infection to isolate themselves at home or in a dedicated quarantine facility. Decisions on how to apply quarantine should be based on the best available evidence. We did a Review of the psychological impact of quarantine using three electronic databases. Of 3166 papers found, 24 are included in this Review. Most reviewed studies reported negative psychological effects including post-traumatic stress symptoms, confusion, and anger. Stressors included longer quarantine duration, infection fears, frustration, boredom, inadequate supplies, inadequate information, financial loss, and stigma. Some researchers have suggested long-lasting effects. In situations where quarantine is deemed necessary, officials should quarantine individuals for no longer than required, provide clear rationale for quarantine and information about protocols, and ensure sufficient supplies are provided. Appeals to altruism by reminding the public about the benefits of quarantine to wider society can be favourable.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe

            Following the detection of the new coronavirus1 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its spread outside of China, Europe has experienced large epidemics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In response, many European countries have implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as the closure of schools and national lockdowns. Here we study the effect of major interventions across 11 European countries for the period from the start of the COVID-19 epidemics in February 2020 until 4 May 2020, when lockdowns started to be lifted. Our model calculates backwards from observed deaths to estimate transmission that occurred several weeks previously, allowing for the time lag between infection and death. We use partial pooling of information between countries, with both individual and shared effects on the time-varying reproduction number (Rt). Pooling allows for more information to be used, helps to overcome idiosyncrasies in the data and enables more-timely estimates. Our model relies on fixed estimates of some epidemiological parameters (such as the infection fatality rate), does not include importation or subnational variation and assumes that changes in Rt are an immediate response to interventions rather than gradual changes in behaviour. Amidst the ongoing pandemic, we rely on death data that are incomplete, show systematic biases in reporting and are subject to future consolidation. We estimate that-for all of the countries we consider here-current interventions have been sufficient to drive Rt below 1 (probability Rt < 1.0 is greater than 99%) and achieve control of the epidemic. We estimate that across all 11 countries combined, between 12 and 15 million individuals were infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 4 May 2020, representing between 3.2% and 4.0% of the population. Our results show that major non-pharmaceutical interventions-and lockdowns in particular-have had a large effect on reducing transmission. Continued intervention should be considered to keep transmission of SARS-CoV-2 under control.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              How mental health care should change as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic

              Summary The unpredictability and uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic; the associated lockdowns, physical distancing, and other containment strategies; and the resulting economic breakdown could increase the risk of mental health problems and exacerbate health inequalities. Preliminary findings suggest adverse mental health effects in previously healthy people and especially in people with pre-existing mental health disorders. Despite the heterogeneity of worldwide health systems, efforts have been made to adapt the delivery of mental health care to the demands of COVID-19. Mental health concerns have been addressed via the public mental health response and by adapting mental health services, mostly focusing on infection control, modifying access to diagnosis and treatment, ensuring continuity of care for mental health service users, and paying attention to new cases of mental ill health and populations at high risk of mental health problems. Sustainable adaptations of delivery systems for mental health care should be developed by experts, clinicians, and service users, and should be specifically designed to mitigate disparities in health-care provision. Thorough and continuous assessment of health and service-use outcomes in mental health clinical practice will be crucial for defining which practices should be further developed and which discontinued. For this Position Paper, an international group of clinicians, mental health experts, and users of mental health services has come together to reflect on the challenges for mental health that COVID-19 poses. The interconnectedness of the world made society vulnerable to this infection, but it also provides the infrastructure to address previous system failings by disseminating good practices that can result in sustained, efficient, and equitable delivery of mental health-care delivery. Thus, the COVID-19 pandemic could be an opportunity to improve mental health services.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Land use policy
                Land use policy
                Land Use Policy
                The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                0264-8377
                1873-5754
                20 September 2021
                20 September 2021
                : 105772
                Affiliations
                [0005]Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Landscape and Society, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), Ås, Norway
                Article
                S0264-8377(21)00495-6 105772
                10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105772
                8456312
                34566233
                28f09da7-a439-4227-9d3d-fc4f24faa3c5
                © 2021 The Author

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                : 30 April 2021
                : 1 September 2021
                : 13 September 2021
                Categories
                Article

                Social policy & Welfare
                coronavirus disease (covid-19) pandemic,livable cities,built environment,subjective well-being,urban social sustainability,literature review

                Comments

                Comment on this article