Coronavirus and human well-being: impacts of the pandemic on the global socio-ecological system
In spring 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a new type of Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2) to be a pandemic. This COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread rapidly. To prevent a quick spread of the virus, many countries around the world, such as Germany, announced severe restrictions, including school closures, closing non-essential businesses (generally of recreational nature), shutting borders, implementing travel bans, social distancing rules, lockdowns or restrictive quarantines. These strict measures successfully led to a comparably low number of infections in Germany before the summer of 2020 and therefore many of the measures were reversed in June and July. While a “second wave” of COVID-19 cases is occurring in most European countries since the early fall of 2020, the rest of the world has faced an increasing number of cases since the beginning of the year.
The COVID-19 pandemic is an international crisis that affects the world’s socio-economic systems as well as the ecological systems in an unprecedented way as shown in a study led by Dr Dilys Roe from the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) in the United Kingdom. The direct and indirect impacts of the COVID-19 are being analysed and listed in print, televised, other (social) media and in scientific articles. Whereas the main direct impact of the COVID-19 is of course negative as it causes the illness and death of millions of people, positive and negative indirect impacts can be also identified. One example is the unprecedented temporary improvement in air quality in several highly dense urban areas of the world due to reduced emissions by traffic and industry. Data from the European Union (EU) and China have shown significant reductions in pollutant concentrations according to the European Environment Agency (EEA) and CarbonBrief.
The cause of the virus and the unprecedented measures and restrictions changed the way we see our relationship with nature. During the lockdown, it has become clear to city dwellers how urban nature provides many benefits and what the consequences are if these are not accessible or if they are missing. Urban green spaces, for instance, became one of the few places where daily leisure activities and social exchange — albeit at a 1.50 m safety distance — were still possible. Dr Zander Samuel Venter and colleagues from the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research measured an increase of 291% of recreational use of urban green space during the lockdown in Oslo, highlighting the importance of access to green spaces in cities.
Earlier this year, the World Bank expressed that there is no doubt that the restrictions implemented worldwide to reduce or slow the spread of the Coronavirus have an enormous negative impact on the global economy. We see that the poorest countries and vulnerable communities, in which informal labour represents a large percentage of the income, are the most affected.
As early-career researchers in landscape ecology and geography, we would like to propose a first perspective of the direct and indirect impacts of the Coronavirus on different elements of the socio-ecological system, such as the supply and use of ecosystem services and disservices, indicators of human well-being and on the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. This perspective is based on our experience and knowledge on a global scale but is more related to Germany.
Socio-ecological systems are complex adaptive systems composed of two subdomains: on one hand, the human socio-economic and cultural, on the other hand, the ecological. These subdomains are strongly interconnected, to the point that “there are virtually no ecosystems that are not shaped by people and no people without the need for ecosystems and the services they provide” according to the Stockholm Resilience Centre. Ecosystem services (ES) are ‘‘the goods or services provided by ecosystems that directly or indirectly benefit humans” following the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005. For our analysis, we choose seven regulating ES, five provisioning ES and four cultural ES (see the matrix in Table below). Additionally, we analyse seven ecosystem disservices (EDS) which are defined as ‘‘the ecosystem-generated functions, processes and attributes that result in perceived or actual negative impacts on human wellbeing” following the definition of Dr Charlie Shackleton from the Department of Environmental Science from Rhodes University, South Africa. We also assess the human well-being constituents presented in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. To reach a balanced and responsible economy and development, sustainability is the key and is able to meet “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” as defined by the United Nations (UN). Related to three goals — economic development, social development and environmental protection — 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were set in 2015 by the UN and are since then intended to reach global sustainability.
For this assessment, we start with the consideration that habitat destruction and wildlife disturbance are the main causes for the emergence of the Coronavirus pandemic as expressed by Dr M. Brock Fenton and colleagues from the Department of Biology from the University of Western Ontario and Dr David Morens and colleagues from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda. We look specifically at one direct impact of COVID-19, the actual disease, and divide the other indirect impacts into three main groups: corona-related regulations, human behaviour and economic consequences. We then highlight the effects of these impacts on ES, EDS and the achievement of the SDG that affect human well-being (see figure below).
We express the direct and indirect impacts of the COVID-19 through a tendency matrix, a table to visualize the impacts of one factor over another (see below). Positive impacts are marked with a plus (+); negative impacts are represented by a minus (-) and no or insignificant impacts with zero (0). We assign a plus/minus (+/-) to variable impacts, i.e. they can have a positive or negative effect depending on the context. A question mark (?) represents impacts for which we are uncertain. For the ES, SDGs and human well-being, positive impacts (+ sign in the tendency matrix) indicate an increase of the ES, human well-being, or that the impact goes in the direction of the SDGs. The opposite occurs with the EDS for which the (+) sign indicates a decrease.
We consider the direct and indirect impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the supply and demand of ES. The effects on demand or use of ES are mainly linked to the corona-related regulations closing retailers, hotels, restaurants and bars and the economic consequences of less consumption and less income (text in blue colour and italic in the matrix).
To fill the tendency matrix, first, we assign the symbols/values individually based on our knowledge. We then review them together and discuss divergent opinions. In the end, all matrix fields are validated in consensus.
Table 1: Tendency matrix of direct and indirect impacts of the Coronavirus on the global social-ecological system. (Click here for a larger version of the table)
Some examples of impacts
The matrix shows some positive effects of corona regulations on ES. We identify that less traffic and industry production implies a decreased human impact on ecosystems according to the German Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt — UBA), which may lead to a better ecosystem condition. This improved condition increases the capacity of ecosystems to provide ES, such as regulating ES like habitat, nursery and air quality regulation. However, less traffic, as well as limitation of travel and social interaction, have adverse effects on cultural ES like tourism and knowledge systems (mainly because of the impossibility to travel or to conduct fieldwork and educational excursions).
We identified two ecosystem disservices enhanced by COVID-19: the fear of nature and the transmission of the disease itself. Due to the negative consequences of the pandemic on human health and economy, nature could trigger more fear. This rising fear will pose some threats for conservation because the interest to support biodiversity protection could decline. Disease transmission, on the other hand, is a disservice that we as humans have exacerbated with the destruction of habitats and disturbance of wildlife. If we continue with this rate of habitat transformation, we are likely to face similar pandemics in the future.
Regarding the SDGs, less traffic, production and social interaction negatively impact Goals 8 and 9. We see these impacts mainly in industries and livelihoods which depend on air, water and land transport. On the contrary, these measures have a positive impact (at least temporarily) on SDGs 11, 12, 13 and 15. Limitations of travel and social interaction in the form of lockdowns negatively affect Goals 4 and 5. In many countries, internet access is limited, with a large percentage of children, mainly in rural areas, who are unable to study online. This limitation affects the quality of education when schools and kindergartens are closed.
According to the UN, gender equality has been threatened during the pandemic. First, due to the increased risk of domestic violence against women and girls during the lockdown. Second, women working from home bear additional household responsibilities during the lockdown. The increase in non-recyclable waste and food waste have negative impacts on Goals 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15. The waste increase is mainly caused by the generalized use of disposable face masks and disposable personal protective equipment by employees of the health sector as well as the increased use of chemicals related to cleaning products or disinfectants. The increased use of plastic and consumption of takeaway food wrapped in single-use packaging also has an impact. Food waste was also caused in the agricultural sector due to the impossibility to collect and/or sell the products.
Human well-being is strongly related to ES and is also a fundamental element of the SDGs (Goal 3). The virus has a tremendous impact on human health. We also identify other downside effects on well-being linked to the restrictions and regulations implemented worldwide. In mental health, the main consequences are increased stress, anxiety, depression and loneliness associated with the lockdowns, the economic crisis and the disturbance of people’s routines and livelihoods. Other indirect effects are evident in the limited access to basic commodities for a good life. People and communities that depend on tourism, entertainment or other industries are also greatly affected by the pandemic.
Moving forward
Many other positive and negative impacts have been reported in our tendency matrix. These first results are preliminary and could be improved through the involvement of more experts and more diverse knowledge, data, literature, related studies or other relevant results. However, this exercise shows the multiple impacts and complexity of the effects of the Coronavirus on the socio-ecological system.
This first perspective highlights the importance of a better understanding of the links between human and nature in order to reduce the risk of disease transmission.
Authors: Paula Rendon [a*], Sylvie Campagne [a*], Claudia Dworczyk [a], Thea Wübbelmann [a,b], Hristina Prodanova [c,d], Malte Hinsch [a]
Affiliation: [a] Institute of Physical Geography and Landscape Ecology, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Hannover, Germany
[b] Climate Service Center Germany (GERICS), Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht (HZG), Germany
[c] Department of Geography, University of Veliko Tarnovo, Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria
[d] National Institute of Geophysics, Geodesy and Geography — Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (NIGGG-BAS), Sofia, Bulgaria
*corresponding authors: rendon@phygeo.uni-hannover.de and campagne@phygeo.uni-hannover.de
References
CarbonBrief, 2020. Analysis: Coronavirus temporarily reduced China’s CO2 emissions by a quarter. Available online at https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-coronavirus-has-temporarily-reduced-chinas-co2-emissions-by-a-quarter. Accessed on 29.06.2020.
European Environment Agency (EEA), 2020. Air quality and COVID-19. Available online at https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-quality-and-covid19. Accessed on 29.06.2020.
Fenton, M. B., Mubareka, S., Tsang, S. M., Simmons, N. B., & Becker, D. J. (2020). COVID-19 and threats to bats. 349–352.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), 2005. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington D.C.
Morens, D. M., Daszak, P., & Taubenberger, J. K. (2020). Escaping Pandora’s box — another novel coronavirus. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(14), 1293–1295.
Roe, D., Dickman, A., Kock, R., Milner-Gulland, E. J., & Rihoy, E. (2020). Beyond banning wildlife trade: COVID-19, conservation and development. World Development, 136, 105121.
Shackleton, C.M., Ruwanza, S., Sinasson Sanni, G.K., Bennett, S., De Lacy, P., Modipa, R., Mtati, N., Sachikonye, M., Thondhlana, G., 2016. Unpacking Pandora’s Box: Understanding and Categorising Ecosystem Disservices for Environmental Management and Human Wellbeing. Ecosystems 19, 587–600. DOI:10.1007/s10021–015–9952-z.
Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2020. Understanding social-ecological systems. Available online at https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-videos/2016-05-22-understanding-social-ecological-systems.html. Accessed on 21.09.2020.
The World Bank, 2020. The Global Economic Outlook During the COVID-19 Pandemic. A Changed World. Available online at https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2020/06/08/the-global-economic-outlook-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-a-changed-world. Accessed on 20.08.2020.
Umwelt Bundesamt (UBA), 2020. Der Einfluss der Corona-Krise auf die Umwelt. Luftqualität und Fluglärm. Available online at: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/der-einfluss-der-corona-krise-auf-die-umwelt.Accessed on 31.07.2020.
United Nations (UN) — Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2020. Sustainable Development. Available online at https://sdgs.un.org/goals. Accessed on 20.08.2020.
Venter, Z., Barton, D., Figari, H., Nowell, M., 2020. Urban nature in a time of crisis: recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo, Norway.
