4.7 Article

Assessing the spatial distribution of and inequality in 15-minute PCR test site accessibility in Beijing and Guangzhou, China

期刊

APPLIED GEOGRAPHY
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.102925

关键词

Accessibility; COVID-19; PCR test Sites; Travel restrictions; Commuting behavior

向作者/读者索取更多资源

China plans to construct SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing sites within a 15-min walk in most major cities to identify asymptomatic cases and curb the transmission of COVID-19. Spatial distribution of 15-min accessibility to PCR test sites in Beijing and Guangzhou was analyzed in this study, revealing that disruptions in normal commuting can negatively impact accessibility and increase inequality. The research provides policymakers with valuable information about test site accessibility and highlights the effects of travel disruptions.
China has been planning to construct SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing sites within a 15-min walk in most major cities to timely identify asymptomatic cases and stop the transmission of COVID-19. However, little is known about the spatial distribution of 15-min accessibility to PCR test sites. In this study, we analyze the spatial distribution of and inequality in 15-min accessibility to PCR test sites in two major Chinese cities (Beijing and Guangzhou) based on the cumulative-opportunity model. The results indicate that the current distribution of 15-min accessibility to PCR test sites is satisfactory when normal commuting is not disrupted. However, disruptions of normal commuting (e.g., due to work-from-home restrictions) can negatively influence 15-min accessibility to PCR test sites and increase its inequality. Our study provides policymakers with up-to-date knowledge about the spatial distribution of 15-min accessibility to PCR test sites, identifies the disadvantaged neighborhoods in terms of test site accessibility, and highlights the changes in accessibility and inequality because of travel disruptions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据