Lack of sufficient public space can limit the effectiveness of COVID-19’s social distancing measures

  1. Alexandre Nobajas
  2. Joan Ganau i Casas
  3. Daniel Paül i Agustí
  4. Adam Peacock

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

One of the primary strategies of slowing down the COVID-19 pandemic has been the establishment of social distancing rules that recommend keeping a buffer distance between individuals, and this has proven effective in helping in reducing the basic reproduction number [R 0 ] 1 . However, social distancing rules have put the use of public spaces in densely populated places under strain, and this is especially important as some of the most virulent outbreaks of the COVID-19 pandemic have been in compact cities. It is therefore fundamental to take into account each neighbourhood’s morphological characteristics and the potential population densities each street, square or park can accommodate under such new regulations in order to effectively enforce social distancing rules. Otherwise, certain areas may be rapidly overwhelmed by crowds with citizens unable to maintain the minimum safe distance between individuals. In this paper, we develop a method to identify the potential public space accessibility if social distancing rules are followed and we apply it to three global and highly affected by COVID-19 cities. Our research finds that, at micro level there are important inequalities between neighbourhoods, so people will struggle to comply with social distancing rules and consequently it will make controlling infection rates more difficult.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.07.20124982: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data analysis was done in R, geographical analysis was done in QGIS and data visualisation was done using ArcMap.
    ArcMap
    suggested: None

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: Please consider improving the rainbow (“jet”) colormap(s) used on page 4. At least one figure is not accessible to readers with colorblindness and/or is not true to the data, i.e. not perceptually uniform.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.07.20124982v2 on medRxiv
  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.07.20124982v1 on medRxiv