data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7e1e6/7e1e61f01d233b91960c61442e748a5609c80a7c" alt="Man ultramarathon runner in the mountains he trains at sunset"
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Public Health
Sec. Disaster and Emergency Medicine
Volume 13 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1502897
This article is part of the Research Topic Innovative Strategies for Urban Public Health Resilience in Crisis Situations View all 3 articles
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
The triad of host, agent, and environment has become a widely accepted framework for understanding infectious diseases and human health. While modern medicine has traditionally focused on the individual, there is a renewed interest in the role of the environment. Recent studies have shifted from an early-twentieth-century emphasis on individual factors to a broader consideration of contextual factors, including environmental, climatic, and social settings as spatial determinants of health. This shifted focus has been particularly relevant in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, where the built environment in urban settings is increasingly recognized as a crucial factor influencing disease transmission. However, operationalizing the complexity of associations between the built environment and health for empirical analyses presents significant challenges. This study aims to identify key caveats in the operationalization of spatial determinants of health for empirical analysis and proposes guiding principles for future research. We focus on how the built environment in urban settings was studied in recent literature on COVID-19. Based on a set of criteria, we analyze 23 studies and identify explicit and implicit assumptions regarding the health-related dimensions of the built environment. Our findings highlight the complexities and potential pitfalls, referred to as the ‘spatial trap,’ in the current approaches to spatial epidemiology concerning COVID-19. We conclude with recommendations and guiding questions for future studies to avoid falsely attributing a built environment impact on health outcomes and to clarify explicit and implicit assumptions regarding the health-related dimensions.
Keywords: Spatial Epidemiology, critical GIS, critical geography, Urban Health, density, human geography
Received: 27 Sep 2024; Accepted: 27 Feb 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Lakes, Schmitz and Füller. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Tobia Lakes, Department of Geography, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.