Reconsidering movement and exposure: Towards a more dynamic health geography

Abstract

Acknowledging a paucity of emerging research, and some variation by sub‐field, the geographical measures of exposure used in health and medical geography have largely stagnated often focusing on residence‐based (‘static’) conceptualisations to define an individuals mobility or exposure. Detailed spatiotemporal data, such as smartphone data, allow richer understandings of the influence of the environment, or more broadly of place, on individual health outcomes and behaviours. However, while researchers are increasingly aware of such ‘dynamic’ definitions of place these are seldom employed in empirical evidence. Moreover, there may be differences in mobility by population groups which has not to our knowledge been examined fully. The main aim of this article is to provide a critical review of progress in the conceptualisation of location in health‐related geospatial research to understand the evolution of key concepts and to provoke the reader into considering the utility of a (more) dynamic health geography. We explore the origins of time geography, activity spaces, before moving to recent developments in the area of the exposome and the linked dynamic conceptualisations of exposure in health geography. To illuminate and operationalise findings from our review for readers, we provide a small case study to demonstrate how ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’ approaches differ. Moreover, we consider why understanding heterogeneity in mobility could be particularly salient in the field of health geography, and to the discipline of geography more broadly. To conclude, we help readers understand the practical considerations of data privacy, the process of data collection, data processing, and interpretation, and dissemination of findings to offer practical assistance for those who are grappling with ‘dynamic’ definitions of mobility and conceptualisations of exposure.

Comparison of static and dynamic exposures to air pollution, noise, and greenness among seniors living in compact-city environments

“…Dynamic assessments of exposures also allow for avoiding commonly identified limitations of neighborhood effects research, such as the uncertain geographic context problem (UGCoP) [ 17 ] or the neighborhood effect averaging problem (NEAP) [ 18 ]. Such approaches, however, are far more resource-intensive, require more specific research designs [ 19 ], and may be affected by other common spatial biases such as the selective daily mobility bias [ 20 ]. Most importantly, studies using raw GPS data usually need to use additional methods to add contextual information on individuals’ time-activity patterns [ 21 ] and they require intensive engagement from study participants which usually leads to small sample groups, vulnerable to participation rates, and study-abandoning [ 22 ].…”

Does Long-Term Air Pollution Exposure Affect Self-Reported Health and Limiting Long Term Illness Disproportionately for Ethnic Minorities in the UK? A Census-Based Individual Level Analysis

“…Recent literature debates have been pointing toward the importance of considering non-stationarity and dynamic data sources (e.g. GPS data) when examining relationships between environmental exposures and health impacts as these relationships may vary over space (spatial non-stationarity) and time (temporal nonstationarity); and by assuming stationarity, we are at the risk of exposure misclassifications (Campbell et al, 2021;Kwan, 2021). However, this is a limitation that we had to accept when analysing the effect of air pollution on health using a large national representative sample of more than 2.5 million individuals from the 2011 UK micro-census without compromising individuals' confidentiality.…”

Cyclists’ exposure to air pollution, noise, and greenery: a population-level spatial analysis approach

“…Currently, the understanding of environmental exposures during travel, the linkages between multiple and cumulative exposures, and their health and well-being impacts is still inadequate [11]. A large body of literature has examined environmental exposures from the residential perspective, but less attention has been directed to the exposure during daily travelling, even if it contributes a significant proportion of typical daily exposure [24][25][26]. It is documented that ignoring exposure from travel may lead to both over-and underestimations in exposure assessments, depending on contextual aspects [24,26].…”