Social Factors as Major Determinants of Rural Development Variation for Predicting Epidemic Vulnerability: A Lesson for the Future

Abstract

There have been changes in social attitudes in recent years. These changes have been a consequence of a new societal view of the common good, which manifests itself in social responsibility for a clean and healthy environment. The outbreak and spread of the COVID-19 epidemic has highlighted the socio-spatial variation across regions and countries. The epidemic necessitated restrictive measures by state authorities. In the initial period in many countries, the actions of the authorities were identical throughout the country. This was mainly due to a lack of information about the differentiation of areas in relation to the epidemic risk. The aim of the research was to present a model for classifying rural areas taking into account vulnerability to epidemic threats. The model takes into account demographic, social, economic and spatial-environmental development factors. A total of 33 indicators based on public statistics that can be used to determine the area's vulnerability to epidemic threats were identified. The study showed that for Poland, 11 indicators are statistically significant to the developed classification model. The study found that social factors were vital in determining an area's vulnerability to epidemic threats. We include factors such as average number of persons per one apartment, village centers (number), events (number), number of people per facility (cultural center, community center, club, community hall), residents of nursing homes per 1000 inhabitants, and the number of children in pre-school education establishments per 1000 children aged 3-5 years. The research area was rural areas in Poland. The results of the classification and the methods used should be made available as a resource for crisis management. This will enable a better response to threats from other epidemics in the future, and will influence the remodeling of the environment and social behavior to reduce risks at this risk, which has a significant impact on sustainable development in rural areas.

Keywords: COVID-19; environmental management; epidemic; geographical information system; socio-economic geography; spatial planning; sustainable development; wellbeing.

Figure 1

Location study area. (A) Location of Poland in Europe. (B) Level LAU 1. Source: Own elaboration.

Figure 2

Research process pattern for determining the classification of areas with different levels of vulnerability to epidemic threats (KLE). Source: own elaboration. “Spatial development” refers to the factors related to the management of space by humans (e.g., through buildings).

Figure 3

Model for classifying areas with different levels of vulnerability to epidemic threats. Source: own elaboration.

Figure 4

Spatial delimitation of component models due to the nature of factors. Source: own elaboration.

Figure 5

Spatial delimitation of intended and unintended interpersonal relations. Source: own elaboration.

Figure 6

Spread of COVID-19 according to cases registered in Poland from 30 April to 30 November 2020—the first pandemic wave. Source: own elaboration.

Figure 7

Relationship between the KLE model and the spread of COVID-19 (30.04–30.11.2020). Source: own elaboration.

Figure 8

Average weekly changes in mobility in Poland from 20 February 2020 to 14 June 2020. Source: own elaboration based on [76].

Figure 9

Dependency/relationship between the classification of areas (summary synthetic index WO) and epidemiological risk (number of cases) (COVID-19)—first pandemic wave. Source: own elaboration.

Figure 10

Dependency/relationship between the classification of areas (summary synthetic index WO) and epidemiological risk (number of cases) (COVID-19)—pandemic wave (30 November 2020). Source: own elaboration.

Figure 11

Relationship between the model of vulnerability to epidemic risks (KLE(pop)) and 11 accepted variables. Source: own study.

Figure 11

Relationship between the model of vulnerability to epidemic risks (KLE(pop)) and 11 accepted variables. Source: own study.