essay on impact of covid 19 on environment

A Smithsonian magazine special report

The Positive and Negative Impacts of Covid on Nature

The absence of humans in some places led animals to increase, while the cancellation of conservation work in other places harmed species

Brian Owens, Hakai

As the Covid-19 pandemic took hold last spring and people around the world went into lockdown, a certain type of news story started to spring up—the idea that, in the absence of people, nature was returning to a healthier, more pristine state. There were viral reports of dolphins in the canals of Venice, Italy, and pumas in the streets in Santiago, Chile. But new research shows that the true effect of suddenly removing people from so many environments has turned out to be much more complex.

“It was surprising how variable the responses were,” says Amanda Bates, an ecologist at Memorial University in Newfoundland and Labrador who led an international team of more than 350 researchers in an effort to study how lockdowns have affected the natural world. “It’s impossible to say,” says Bates, whether the consequence of people’s sudden disappearance “was positive or negative.”

The team collected and analyzed data from hundreds of scientific monitoring programs, as well as media reports, from 67 countries. As many would expect, they did find evidence of nature benefiting from the sudden drop in air, land, and water travel.

Wildlife also benefited from reduced air and noise pollution as industry, natural resource extraction, and manufacturing declined. There was less litter found on beaches and in parks, and beach closures in some areas left the shoreline to wildlife. In Florida, for example, beach closures led to a 39 percent increase in nesting success for loggerhead turtles. Ocean fishing fell by 12 percent, and fewer animals were killed by vehicles strikes on roads and in the water. Ocean noise, which is known to disrupt a variety of marine animals, dropped dramatically in many places, including in the busy Nanaimo Harbour in British Columbia where it fell by 86 percent.

But there were also many downsides to the lack of humans. Lockdowns disrupted conservation enforcement and research efforts, and in many places illegal hunting and fishing increased as poor, desperate people looked for ways to compensate for lost income or food. The ecotourism activities that provide financial support for many conservation efforts dried up, and many restoration projects had to be cancelled or postponed. Parks that were open to visitors were inundated by abnormally large crowds. And in many places, hikers expanded trails, destroyed habitats, and even trampled endangered plants.

The researchers estimate that delays to invasive species control programs caused by lockdowns will have a huge impact. Failure to remove invasive mice from remote seabird nesting islands could lead to the loss of more than two million chicks this year alone.

The scale of these negative impacts was unexpected, says Bates. “I thought we were going to see more positive impacts,” she says, adding that it highlights just how much some ecosystems depend on human support to keep them viable. “I don’t think some of these systems would be persisting without our intervention.”

And some of the changes led to complex cascades, where it was difficult to disentangle the positive from the negative. Snow geese, for example, are usually hunted to stop them feeding on crops during their northward migration across the United States and Canada. But this year, they faced less hunting pressure, and so arrived in the high Arctic larger and healthier than usual, according to hunters in Nunavut. It might be good for the geese, but they also graze fragile Arctic tundra and degrade the habitat for other species, so more geese will have knock-on effects on the rest of the ecosystem that could persist for years.

As the world slowly gets back to normal, the data collected during this time of disruption will be useful in developing more effective forms of conservation that take into account all the ways that humans influence their surroundings, says Rebecca Shaw, chief scientist for the World Wildlife Fund. “The cool thing will be to watch how these responses change over time as human mobility gets back to normal, and to use the information to better design conservation actions to increase biodiversity both near and far, away from human populations,” she says.

Alison Woodley, senior strategic advisor at the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, agrees. She says the positive impacts that were seen are likely to be temporary shifts, and so finding ways to develop more resilient conservation systems will be vital. “The common thread is the need for long-term, stable, and adequate funding to make sure that conservation is resilient and that the positive aspects of conservation are overcoming the negative,” she says.

That will benefit not just nature, but humans as well, says Woodley. There is a growing realization that protecting nature offers our best defense against future pandemics, by reducing the contact and conflict between humans and animals that can lead to viruses jumping from one species to another.

“Preventing future pandemics and restoring our life support system requires decisions and management by people to protect large areas of land and ocean, and to sustainably manage the rest of the landscape. And to do it in an integrated way,” says Woodley.

This article is from Hakai Magazine, an online publication about science and society in coastal ecosystems. Read more stories like this at hakaimagazine.com .

The COVID-19 lockdowns: a window into the Earth System

Noah S. Diffenbaugh ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8856-4964 1 , 2 ,
Christopher B. Field ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1684-8247 1 , 2 ,
Eric A. Appel ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2301-7126 2 , 3 ,
Ines L. Azevedo 2 , 4 ,
Dennis D. Baldocchi 5 ,
Marshall Burke ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4288-5858 1 , 2 , 6 ,
Jennifer A. Burney ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3532-2934 7 ,
Philippe Ciais ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8560-4943 8 ,
Steven J. Davis ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9338-0844 9 ,
Arlene M. Fiore ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0221-2122 10 , 11 ,
Sarah M. Fletcher 2 , 12 ,
Thomas W. Hertel 13 ,
Daniel E. Horton 14 , 15 ,
Solomon M. Hsiang ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2074-0829 16 ,
Robert B. Jackson ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8846-7147 1 , 2 ,
Xiaomeng Jin ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6895-8464 10 ,
Margaret Levi 17 , 18 ,
David B. Lobell ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5969-3476 1 , 2 , 6 ,
Galen A. McKinley ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4072-9221 10 , 11 ,
Frances C. Moore 19 ,
Anastasia Montgomery 14 ,
Kari C. Nadeau ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2146-2955 2 , 20 ,
Diane E. Pataki 21 ,
James T. Randerson ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6559-7387 9 ,
Markus Reichstein 22 ,
Jordan L. Schnell ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4072-4033 15 , 23 ,
Sonia I. Seneviratne ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9528-2917 24 ,
Deepti Singh 25 ,
Allison L. Steiner 26 &
Gabrielle Wong-Parodi ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5207-7489 1 , 2

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment volume 1 , pages 470–481 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

98k Accesses

153 Citations

520 Altmetric

Metrics details

Atmospheric chemistry
Business and industry
Climate change
Environmental economics

Restrictions to reduce human interaction have helped to avoid greater suffering and death from the COVID-19 pandemic, but have also created socioeconomic hardship. This disruption is unprecedented in the modern era of global observing networks, pervasive sensing and large-scale tracking of human mobility and behaviour, creating a unique test bed for understanding the Earth System. In this Perspective, we hypothesize the immediate and long-term Earth System responses to COVID-19 along two multidisciplinary cascades: energy, emissions, climate and air quality; and poverty, globalization, food and biodiversity. While short-term impacts are dominated by direct effects arising from reduced human activity, longer-lasting impacts are likely to result from cascading effects of the economic recession on global poverty, green investment and human behaviour. These impacts offer the opportunity for novel insight, particularly with the careful deployment of targeted data collection, coordinated model experiments and solution-oriented randomized controlled trials, during and after the pandemic.

Current and future global climate impacts resulting from COVID-19

essay on impact of covid 19 on environment

The social shortfall and ecological overshoot of nations

The evolution and future of research on Nature-based Solutions to address societal challenges

Introduction.

COVID-19 is disrupting lives and livelihoods around the world. The most important consequences are the public health crisis and associated economic and humanitarian disasters, which are having historic impacts on human well-being. In addition, after more than four months of widespread sheltering and other restrictions, it is clear that the scale and persistence of socioeconomic disruption represent an unprecedented modification of human interactions with the Earth System, the impacts of which will be long-lasting, widespread and varying across space and time (Fig. 1 ).

Two pathways highlight the potential for multi-dimensional Earth System responses: energy, emissions, climate and air quality; and poverty, globalization, food and biodiversity. Interactions will manifest differently in different regions and on different timescales, with the sign of the interaction potentially changing across different phases of the event. Note that these interactions are indicative of primary hypotheses, but not all possible interactions are shown. CCN, cloud condensation nuclei; GHGs, greenhouse gases.

Some obvious and immediate effects are reflected in the worldwide reports of reduced traffic congestion, clearer skies, cleaner waterways and the emergence of wildlife into human settlements. In addition to anecdotal reports, effects are being detected in a variety of long-term physical observations (from improved air quality to reduced seismic noise) and socioeconomic indicators (such as reduced mobility and declining economic growth and greenhouse-gas emissions). While some of these impacts might be considered beneficial to the environment, negative consequences are also emerging, including cascading effects for poverty, food security, mental health, disaster preparedness and biodiversity.

As with previous calamities, such as volcanic eruptions 1 , 2 , 3 , electrical blackouts 4 and the short-term reductions in human mobility following the 11 September attacks 5 , the current COVID-19 crisis will inevitably present a new test bed for understanding how the Earth System works, including the critical role of humans 6 . This test bed could provide answers to long-standing questions, such as the processes linking heterogeneous local pollutant emissions and regional atmospheric chemistry and air quality, or the relationship between global economic integration and poverty-driven environmental degradation. The uniquely pervasive disruption also has the potential to reveal novel questions about the Earth System that have not previously been asked, and many diverse efforts are already underway to learn from this inadvertent Earth System modulation.

In this Perspective, we examine the impacts of COVID-19-related social disruption on two multidisciplinary pathways: energy, emissions, climate and air quality; and poverty, globalization, food and biodiversity. We first consider hypotheses about how the COVID-19 disruption could influence the Earth System along these pathways and then explore the potential for rapid advances in understanding if we are able to carefully observe, test and characterize Earth System processes during and after the COVID-19 event.

COVID-19 disrupts the Earth System

Under usual daily life, the human footprint on the Earth System is vast. As a result, a very large perturbation is required to cause an observable difference from this ‘business-as-usual’ baseline: COVID-19 is providing that perturbation. As of July 2020, as much as half the world’s population has been under some version of sheltering orders 7 (Fig. 2a ). These orders have substantially reduced human mobility and economic activity (Fig. 2b ), with ~70% of the global workforce living in countries that have required closures for all non-essential workplaces and ~90% living in countries with at least some required workplace closures 8 .

a | The Oxford Government Response Stringency Index 7 on six different dates between 1 February and 1 June. b | Percentage of people staying at home, as estimated by mobility data from cell phones 91 , for five US states. c | Percentage change in carbon dioxide emissions 13 , 92 for the World, China, the USA and Europe. Each day’s value is the percentage departure in 2020 from the respective day-of-year emissions in 2019, accounting for seasonality. d | Percentage change in cumulative carbon dioxide emissions 12 , 93 for January through April 2020 compared with January through April 2019 for the World, China, the USA and Europe. The differences in timing of sheltering and mobility in different areas of the world are a source of information that can be used in understanding causality in the Earth System response. In the case of carbon dioxide emissions, the early onset and subsequent relaxation of sheltering in China is clearly reflected in the timing of reduction and subsequent recovery of emissions in China relative to the USA and Europe.

The scale of this socioeconomic disruption is likely to be detected in the Earth System at local to global scales (Fig. 1 ). Some responses are direct, while others will result from interactions between humans, ecosystems and climate. The impacts of the socioeconomic disruption are, thus, also likely to vary across timescales: although the direct impacts of the reduction in human mobility will be strongest during the sheltering period, many of the most lasting impacts could result from cascading effects initiated by the economic recession, some of which (such as those induced by changes in public policy, the structure of the economy and/or human behaviour) could persist for decades following the initial economic recovery.

The reduction of human activities, and the efforts to manage their revival, have varied around the world (Fig. 2 ). Given the variations in the timing, strength and approach to sheltering 7 , it may be possible to track effects through the components of the Earth System. Likewise, because the large-scale reduction in human activity will necessarily be temporary, it will be possible to observe whether or how Earth System processes return to their previous states after activity returns to something approaching pre-pandemic levels. The event, therefore, provides a unique test bed for probing hypotheses about Earth System sensitivities, feedbacks, boundaries and cascades 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , presuming that the observing systems are in place to capture these responses (Box 1 ).

Box 1 Datasets for understanding the Earth System impacts of COVID-19 disruption

A wide range of data could be leveraged to understand Earth System changes during the COVID-19 pandemic. These include long-term, operationally deployed Earth observations from satellite remote-sensing platforms and atmospheric, oceanic and surface measurement networks. Although long-term socioeconomic data are also operationally available, a 1–2-year processing lag can inhibit real-time analysis. Access to long-term private-sector data could remove some of these barriers. A range of shorter-term and/or intermittent observations are also available. These include stationary and mobile measurements of the atmosphere, ocean and near-surface environment, as well as energy, trade, transportation and other socioeconomic data available at either fine resolution for short periods or coarse resolution for longer periods.

One of the most potent opportunities will be to safely deploy observations in geographic areas or economic sectors where there is already a rich pre-existing data baseline; where Earth System models have generated specific, testable hypotheses; or where initial observations suggest that a strong or unexpected response is already emerging. This strategy could include deployment of stationary and/or mobile sensors, short-term online or phone surveys, and ‘citizen-science’ opportunities via crowd-sourcing platforms such as the USA National Phenology Network, iNaturalist, PurpleAir and Smoke Sense. There are also abundant opportunities to leverage newer, emerging datasets — such as from cell-phone GPS, social media, e-commerce and the private satellite industry — that, if handled with care to preserve privacy, could help to bridge the gaps in long-term, operational data.

Despite the prevalence of extensive datasets, the current COVID-19 crisis is revealing limitations in the ability to measure critical variables in real time. For example, the event has made clear that the world is ill-equipped to make real-time measurements of economic activity and its immediate consequences. It is also revealing deficiencies in real-time-measurement capacity for emissions of some air pollutants and greenhouse gases, as well as highlighting longer-known issues like a relative inability to assess the vertical structure of pollution in the atmosphere. The crisis is demonstrating the urgent need for improved data, models and analysis to understand and correct those deficiencies.

Many sectors would benefit from a public repository containing the heterogeneous data that are critical to fully understand this unique planetary-scale disruption. Some data sources are public, some are proprietary and some do not yet exist. As has been proven repeatedly in recent years, an open, public repository providing all of these heterogeneous data in a uniform, coordinated format would enable novel, unpredictable insights across multiple research disciplines, long after the event has passed.

Path I: Energy, emissions, climate and air quality

Impacts on energy consumption, and associated emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants, are likely to cascade across timescales (Fig. 1 ). In the near-term, reductions in mobility and economic activity have reduced energy use in the commercial, industrial and transportation sectors, and might have increased energy use in the residential sector 12 , 13 . These direct impacts will interact with secondary influences from energy markets, such as the severe short-term drop in oil prices in March and April 2020 (ref. 14 ). Further, as with past economic recessions 15 , 16 , energy demands — and the mix of energy sources — are likely to evolve over the course of the economic recovery in response to market forces, public preferences and policy interventions 17 , 18 . This evolution could have long-term effects on the trajectory of decarbonization if, for example, the economic disruption delays the implementation of ambitious climate policy or results in decreased investments in low-carbon energy systems 16 . Alternatively, large government stimulus spending could target green investments that overhaul outdated infrastructure and accelerate decarbonization 18 .

Misunderstandings have arisen with regards to declines in carbon dioxide emissions caused by COVID-19-related disruption, with some interpreting short-term reductions to suggest that austerity of energy consumption could be sufficient to curb the pace of global warming. A reduction in fossil CO 2 emissions proportional to the economic decline 15 would be dramatic relative to previous declines. For example, the decline in daily CO 2 emissions peaked at >20% in the largest economies during the period of sheltering 13 (Fig. 2c ) and the cumulative reduction in global emissions was ~7% from January through April 2020 (ref. 12 ) (Fig. 2d ). However, these daily-scale declines are temporary 13 and the rebound in emissions that is already evident 13 , 19 (Fig. 2c ) supports the likelihood of a reduction in annual emissions that is smaller than 7%.

Nevertheless, a 5% drop in annual fossil CO 2 emissions from 37 billion metric tonnes per year 20 would exceed any decline since the end of World War II (ref. 13 ). There is a strong basis that such a reduced atmospheric CO 2 growth rate would lead to a reduced ocean carbon sink 21 and, thus, also a temporary reduction in the rate of ocean acidification. On the other hand, a 5% decrease would still leave annual 2020 emissions at ~35 billion metric tonnes, comparable to emissions in 2013 (ref. 20 ). Such a decline — and associated changes in the ocean and land carbon sinks — might not be statistically detectable above the year-to-year variations in the natural carbon cycle and, regardless, global atmospheric CO 2 concentrations will inevitably rise in 2020, continuing a long-term trend. Progress in understanding the carbon-cycle responses to COVID-19 will, therefore, be challenging and, at a minimum, will require new methods for tracking the unprecedented short-term perturbation in emissions through the Earth System.

Based on past events and fundamental understanding, there are a number of hypotheses of how sheltering-induced changes in atmospheric emissions could influence the climate system more broadly (Fig. 1 ). On short timescales, reduced air travel decreases the abundance of contrails, which can be detected in the radiation budget (as occurred during the brief cessation of air travel following the 11 September attacks 5 ). The response of atmospheric aerosols to sheltering is likely to vary regionally, with changes in emissions, meteorology and atmospheric chemistry influencing the outcome (Box 2 ). While reductions in aerosols have occurred in many locations (Fig. 3 ), they have also been observed to increase in others 22 , highlighting the important role of secondary chemistry in these assessments. Changes in atmospheric aerosols could further influence cloud and precipitation processes 23 , 24 , and might be detectable in the local surface energy budget 25 . A reduction in scattering aerosols will also cause warmer surface temperatures over emitting regions 26 (Fig. 4 ), potentially manifesting as more frequent and/or intense heatwaves 27 , 28 . If aerosol reductions persist across the Northern Hemisphere, this could have short-term impacts on the onset, intensity and/or intraseasonal variability of monsoon rainfall 29 , 30 , 31 , particularly given that both local and remote aerosol emissions can influence variability within the monsoon season 31 .

Difference in tropospheric NO 2 column density (panel a ) and aerosol optical depth (panel b ) for select months between 2020 and 2019. Aerosol optical depth (AOD) data are from the NASA Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite; NO 2 data are from the NASA Ozone Monitoring Instrument, processed as in ref. 94 . Year-to-year changes in air quality reflect a complex array of processes in addition to COVID-19 restrictions. For example, strong NO 2 decreases over Northeast China coincide with the Wuhan lockdown 95 , while those over the UK in January–Febuary predate COVID-19 restrictions. Relative to NO 2 , AOD data show less regional coherency. Confident attribution to COVID-19 restrictions highlights a new challenge to explain these observed spatio-temporal differences and to place them in the context of the longer-term satellite and ground-based observations (Box 2 ).

NO 2 (panel a ), SO 2 (panel b ), PM 2.5 (panels c and d ) and surface-temperature (panels e and f ) changes for the month of January simulated by the Community Multiscale Air Quality/Weather Research and Forecasting (CMAQ-WRF) model in response to domain-wide removal of traffic (left panels) or power-plant (right panels) emissions. Experiments simulate one month using January 2010 emission factors and January 2013 meteorological fields. They are, thus, idealized illustrations of the potential for Earth System models to pose hypotheses, illuminate and constrain key processes, and identify data-gathering priorities; as these simulations predate the COVID-19 pandemic, they should not be considered an attempt to recreate COVID-19 conditions.

On longer timescales, changes in the energy intensity of the economy, the carbon intensity of energy or the pace of deforestation could affect the long-term trajectory of global climate (through the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions and associated land and ocean carbon-cycle feedbacks). These effects could go in either direction: for example, in the US electricity sector, coal plants will likely shut down at an accelerated pace as a result of the economic slowdown, continuing a long-term decline 32 . However, in the transportation sector, policy intervention to stimulate the economy might loosen emissions standards 33 , increasing emissions relative to the pre-pandemic trajectory.

The short-term reductions in pollutant emissions have already resulted in noticeable changes in air quality in some regions (Box 2 ). If sustained, improved air quality could yield multiple benefits. These include improved crop health 34 , as air pollution can reduce regional harvests by as much as 30% (ref. 35 ). In addition, ambient air pollution is a significant cause of premature death and disease worldwide 36 , even from short-term exposure 37 , 38 . Several well-documented historical examples illustrate how decreased ambient air pollution can improve human health 39 . These include effects from short-term reductions in traffic, travel and/or industrial activities associated with events such as the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games 40 and 2008 Beijing Olympics 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 . While associations between air quality and health outcomes are hypothesized in studies of the current pandemic 46 , 47 , understanding the role of air quality as an indicator for the epidemic trajectory is an emerging challenge. Further, any health improvements resulting from improved air quality during the pandemic should not be viewed as a ‘benefit’ of the pandemic but, rather, as an accidental side effect of the sheltering that was imposed to protect public health from the virus.

Some of the most lasting impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on climate and air quality could occur via insights into the calculation of critical policy parameters. Two of the most important, and controversial, are the value of mortality risk reduction (sometimes termed the value of a statistical life, or VSL) and the pure rate of time preference (or PRTP), which is one component of the social discount rate and measures willingness to trade off well-being over time. The VSL is important to the analysis of all environmental regulation in the United States and can determine whether environmental regulations as mundane as a labelling requirement for toxic chemicals will pass a cost–benefit test. The PRTP is important in evaluating long-term societal trade-offs — most notably, climate-change regulation — and can be important in calculating an economic value of avoiding climate damages 48 , 49 . With a higher PRTP, aggressive mitigation of greenhouse gases becomes less attractive, while a low rate, which places relatively higher value on the well-being of future generations, suggests that far more aggressive regulation of today’s emissions is warranted.

Both the VSL and the PRTP can be difficult to quantify. However, the COVID-19 crisis is making these trade-offs more explicit, as governments, communities and individuals make historic decisions that reflect underlying preferences for current and future consumption and the trade-off between different types of economic activity and individual and collective risk. The diverse responses to the unusual conditions during the pandemic could reveal far more about how different societies manage these trade-offs than has been revealed in the last half-century. As those insights are incorporated into the formal policy-making apparatus, they will have lasting effects on the regulations that impact the long-term trajectory of climate and air quality.

Box 2 Interpreting energy, emissions, climate and air quality responses

Changes in atmospheric pollutants have co-occurred with COVID-19 sheltering restrictions 22 , 78 , 79 , including broadly publicized reductions in satellite-derived tropospheric NO 2 columns 95 (Fig. 3a ). The sheltering period can shed light on processes controlling atmospheric constituents on local to global scales. However, accurate attribution requires careful consideration of emissions, meteorology and atmospheric chemistry.

Anthropogenic forcing

The large regional variations in pollutant emissions will create spatial heterogeneity in the response of air quality to sheltering. While some regions show decreases in aerosols (Fig. 3b ), post-shutdown increases have been observed in urban regions in China due to secondary chemistry 22 . Sheltering measures were implemented during spring/autumn transitions (Fig. 2 ), when energy demand, usage and fuel mix fluctuate sharply. Further, observed changes in atmospheric constituents might also be influenced by longer-term emission reductions. These factors must be carefully considered when attributing changes to COVID-19 restrictions. The COVID-19 disruption provides impetus to combine existing energy-consumption data with robust ground-based and space-based atmospheric-chemical measurements to characterize local pollutant emissions and the resulting atmospheric chemistry that drives air quality.

Distinguishing signal from noise

Natural climate variability must be accounted for to quantify the human influence on short-term Earth System changes 96 , 97 , 98 . In the case of quantifying the response of regional air pollution to sheltering, several limitations must be overcome. Irregular sampling frequencies over limited observing periods are a primary barrier. For example, space-based retrievals of air pollutants such as NO 2 are sensitive to physical (such as daily boundary-layer variations) and chemical (such as seasonal lifetime variability) processes. In the Northern Hemisphere, peak sheltering has coincided with the period when NO 2 lifetimes are transitioning from winter maximum to summer minimum, affecting estimation of emissions differences from satellite column density retrievals (Fig. 3a ). Further, as NO 2 columns cannot be retrieved under clouds, concentration differences calculated within the period of sheltering, or between 2020 and previous years, could arise due to variable meteorology.

Opportunities for the future

COVID-19 sheltering could help elucidate Earth System processes along the energy–emissions–climate–air quality pathway. For example, observations during this period could yield insights into road-traffic contributions to local air quality, as passenger-car emissions decline but trucking emissions persist. Connections between emissions and climate may be revealed from observations in regions with large aerosol forcing signals, offering much-needed tests for local-to-global responses simulated by Earth System models (Fig. 4 ). For example, asymmetric hemispheric warming is a robust model response to regional reductions in aerosol emissions 26 ; can this signal be distinguished from long-term aerosol trends when accounting for internal variability? These queries sample the rich opportunities to advance understanding of processes governing linkages between energy use, emissions, climate and air quality.

Path II: Poverty, globalization, food and biodiversity

By amplifying underlying inequities in the distribution of resources, the socioeconomic disruption caused by the response to COVID-19 will almost certainly have negative long-term impacts on human health and well-being. In particular, the economic shock is likely to increase the extent and severity of global poverty 50 , both from direct impacts on health, employment and incomes and through disruptions of supply chains and global trade 51 . The severe impacts on poverty rates and food security that are already emerging 50 are indicative of these disruptions and are a sign of how tightly many of the world’s poorest households are now interwoven into the global economy. The unwinding of these relationships in the wake of restrictions on human mobility and associated economic shocks will provide insight into the role of economic integration in supporting livelihoods around the world. A severe and prolonged deepening of global poverty is also likely to reduce available resources for climate mitigation and adaptation, increasing climate risks and exacerbating climate-related inequities.

The global agriculture sector is a key sentinel for the response of poverty to the pandemic. Primary near-term questions centre around how food security and agriculture-dependent incomes might be affected by unprecedented shocks to local labour supply and global supply chains. A first-order impact has been the income shock associated with widespread sheltering 8 . Loss of wages in both low-income and high-income countries with limited social safety-nets will drive food insecurity and poverty 50 .

It is possible that agricultural production in rural areas will proceed largely unaffected, particularly for larger producers of field crops that tend to be heavily mechanized. However, in many locations and for many specialty crops, agriculture still relies heavily on field labour; sufficient labour supply during the key planting and harvest periods is crucial, and there are frequently labour shortages at these critical times. How these pre-existing labour-supply challenges are affected by the scale and scope of sheltering remains to be seen. In the USA, meat-packing plants have become hotbeds of COVID-19, raising the question of whether excessive concentration of this industry might have led to a loss of resilience 52 . Sheltering-induced return migration from urban to rural areas, as has been widely reported in India, could alleviate agricultural labour shortages in some developing countries. However, mandated sheltering could cause reductions in plantings, which, in combination with the prospect of sheltering during the harvest season, could reduce subsequent harvests.

Such supply-side shocks could combine with general disruption of global trade 53 to trigger a cascading series of export bans like those that occurred in 2007–2008 (ref. 54 ), which caused a spike in grain prices and contributed to unrest around the world 55 . Initial export restrictions are already emerging 56 . Given that agriculture prices are important for both consumers and producers, such bans tend to hurt rural producers in favour of protecting urban consumers in the exporting countries 57 . They can also lead to food shortages in import-dependent countries and rapid increases in international commodity prices 58 , as well as acting to amplify the impacts of climate variability on poverty 59 . However, global grain stocks are much larger today than they were in 2007, which should help buffer some sheltering-related production shortfalls, should they arise.

Deepening of global poverty is likely to have lasting negative environmental impacts (including deforestation, land degradation, poaching, overfishing and loosening of existing environmental policies), as a larger share of the global population is pushed towards subsistence. For example, after decades of efforts to replace environmental degradation with earnings from ecotourism, the collapse of tourism in the wake of COVID-19 is coinciding with a rapid increase in illegal poaching in southern African parks 60 . The rapid response is a potential indicator of the importance of the large African tourism industry for the preservation of endangered species. However, further analysis is needed to distinguish the contributions of income and governance/enforcement. Likewise, deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon surged to >2,000 km 2 in the first five months of 2020, an increase of ~35% compared to the same period in 2019 (ref. 61 ). Governance appears to be playing a key role in this initial short-term resurgence during the COVID-19 sheltering. Over the longer term, historical drivers 62 , 63 suggest that a prolonged poverty shock is likely to increase deforestation and biodiversity loss. These cascading impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity offer a sobering contrast to the reports of wildlife ‘rebounds’ occurring in response to local sheltering 64 .

Changes in human behaviour and decision-making induced by the pandemic are also likely to cascade through the globalized Earth System over the long term. For example, although sheltering orders are reducing personal vehicle use, the long-term impacts are less clear and will be determined, in part, by how human behaviours respond to the pandemic. If, for instance, the pandemic causes people to feel more dependent on cars as ‘safe places’, that dependence could act to further reinforce the prominence of the automobile at the expense of public transit. On the other hand, some cities might seek to maintain reductions in traffic by permanently closing some streets and encouraging residents to rely more on walking and bicycles. Another potentially consequential outcome could be a change in the kind of housing and work environments people will prefer in the future. The pandemic favours access to outdoor space and disfavours use of tall buildings with elevators. If these human preferences are sustained for years after the pandemic passes, over the long term, the combination could lead to more sprawling suburbs and fewer residential and office towers, with corresponding consequences for the Earth System.

More broadly, priorities and incentives embedded in government aid and economic stimulus will influence financial investment. For example, rollbacks of environmental restrictions by governments seeking to accelerate economic recovery 33 (including fuel standards, mercury, clean water, and oil and gas production on federal lands) could have consequences that outlast the pandemic. Alternatively, efforts to support economic recovery could be directed towards electrification of transportation, along with green jobs that rebuild public transit, housing and critical infrastructure in an environmentally sensitive way 18 . In the private sector, pandemic-induced changes in perceptions of economic security and human needs could increase investment in technologies or platforms that lower the risk of future pandemics, such as reducing human interactions by introducing more robotics into workplaces. Although the precise trajectory is unknown, the long-term impacts of the pandemic on resource demand and efficiency will be heavily influenced by the response of human behaviour and decision-making, which is likely to vary among and within countries, as has occurred with health practices and policies during the pandemic.

Investigative frameworks

The COVID-19 sheltering has, thus far, been relatively brief, but its impacts are already emerging in the Earth System. Some of these responses, such as those directly connected to mobility and emissions of atmospheric pollutants, might pass when the sheltering passes (Fig. 2c , Box 2 ), while others will persist long past the economic recovery (Fig. 1 ). Given the complexity of Earth System interactions, understanding these short-term, medium-term and long-term responses will require careful deployment of a diverse portfolio of investigative frameworks.

A major challenge will be to test causality when so many important, interacting influences are changing simultaneously. These include potentially confounding effects from large reductions in human activity, government interventions to stem the economic collapse, simultaneous market responses to both the economic shock and government stimulus, and underlying variations such as climate variability and pre-COVID-19 economic conditions. In addition, observational continuity is being affected by sheltering, including atmospheric, oceanic and land surface observations that contribute to the global observing system 65 . Given these challenges, insight must be generated from a combination of ongoing and newly deployed observations, dedicated modelling experiments, solutions-oriented randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and sophisticated quantitative analysis. To maximize effectiveness, these approaches will need to place as much focus on Path II (poverty, globalization, food and biodiversity) as on Path I (energy, emissions, climate and air quality). A key imperative will be to quickly develop and deploy techniques that can bring multiple lines of evidence together to distinguish causality.

A new view to spatial and temporal dynamics of Earth System processes

Because the timing of different government actions is known 7 , the spatio-temporal phasing of the socioeconomic disruption can be used to understand regional variations in the Earth System response. In essence, although interventions are occurring around the globe, we are not really experiencing a global shutdown but, rather, a complex patchwork of slowdowns in activity that vary widely in timing, duration, magnitude and baseline starting conditions (Fig. 2a ). This variation is increasing as the event moves from the initial global disruption to heterogeneous resumption of activity (Fig. 2a ) and extends across the seasonal transition from Northern Hemisphere winter to summer (and potentially beyond). Further, the scale of economic impacts suggest the possibility of sustained recession — or even depression — following the cessation of large-scale sheltering 51 , 66 . An extended period of substantially reduced economic activity would produce a trajectory of Earth System forcing that remains different from the pre-COVID-19 forcing, well after the COVID-19 restrictions are removed.

These spatial and temporal gradients in human activity are a source of information that becomes even more valuable in the context of observations that are repeated through time 67 or that take advantage of the fact that variations in human interventions are at least partly independent of other co-varying, confounding factors 68 . The magnitude of the socioeconomic disruption is also large enough that it presents the opportunity to design data-gathering campaigns to systematically test hypotheses about both Path I and Path II that would not be observable without the disruption.

For example, the unprecedented reduction in daily fossil CO 2 emissions (Fig. 2c ) could lend insight into the processes governing land and ocean carbon sinks, provided that careful testing demonstrates that a signal can be detected amid the noise of natural variability, and that observations can be safely maintained during the event. Rapid declines in emissions can also help to narrow existing uncertainties around anthropogenic sources and their imprint on atmospheric trace gas and aerosol concentrations (Box 2 ). Methane emissions from oil and gas fields offer one immediate example: so far during the event, oil and gas companies in the USA still maintained ~11 million barrels of daily crude oil production throughout the spring of 2020, despite a 44% reduction in gasoline sales for the USA in April 14 . Not surprisingly, US inventories continue to climb, reaching their highest levels of the past four decades in June. If oil production slumps this summer, monitoring from satellites, aircraft, towers and on-the-ground sensors will provide an unprecedented opportunity to quantify any change in methane and ethane emissions, including decreases caused by lower production or increases caused by reduced oversight from workers or inspectors. But that will only be possible if the scientific community organizes and there is sufficient operational flexibility to allow for the collection of critical data.

A similar opportunity exists to study the effectiveness of wildfire suppression on air quality. In the USA, federal, state and local fire agencies are adjusting strategies in order to limit use of ground crews and their exposure to COVID-19 (ref. 69 ). These strategies could influence aerosol loads from wildfires (which would have potential health consequences 70 ). It will, thus, be possible to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of this aggressive fire-suppression approach using existing satellite and ground-based observations.

Earth System models that predict responses and guide observations

Computational models are frequently used to test the response of the Earth System to changes in external forcing, including for quantifying a counterfactual history without human emissions and for generating climate scenarios under future forcing from greenhouse gases or solar geoengineering. In recent decades, Earth System models have become increasingly sophisticated and complex, and have been shown to accurately reproduce 71 , and predict 72 , 73 , many aspects of the Earth System 6 . However, limitations to validating the response to large changes in forcing have remained a persistent source of uncertainty, and the models still contain only rudimentary representations of the Path II impacts. The magnitude of the current socioeconomic disruption thus presents a unique setting for systematic Earth System model evaluation and development.

Earth System models could be deployed for a number of benefits. Because the magnitude of COVID-19 socioeconomic disruption is historically unprecedented, it will not be possible to identify all possible Earth System responses based on theory or historical experience alone. Earth System models could be used to create hypotheses that cannot be otherwise foreseen. Generating simulations early in the event — and leveraging pre-existing idealized experiments (Fig. 4 ) — could inform data collection and preservation, including any new observations that might be needed in order to validate unexpected modelling results (such as predictions of Path I and Path II impacts generated using existing empirical relationships 74 , 75 ). After the event, when the temporal and spatial evolution of specific Earth System forcings is known, coordinated experiments 76 would allow multiple Earth System models to be compared in a unified framework. The fact that the socioeconomic disruption is deliberately temporary will increase the ability to use data collected during and after the event to verify modelling results.

The event could also be used to evaluate the potential efficacy of specific policy interventions for both Path I and Path II impacts. For example, because atmospheric chemistry and pollutant accumulation in the near-surface environment are subject to variable meteorological conditions and highly nonlinear chemical interactions, consideration of policy interventions to improve air quality (such as incentives for electric-vehicle adoption) have relied heavily on theoretical arguments and model simulations. The scale of emissions reductions induced by the socioeconomic disruption opens an opportunity to use observations of primary and secondary pollutants to evaluate the performance of chemical-transport models in simulating a number of complex features of the event (Fig. 4 ).

For example, comparison of observations over northern China during the 2020 winter lockdown versus the same calendar period in 2019 shows higher ground-level ozone (as expected from theory and modelling, as NOx emissions decline in a high-NOx emission region 77 ), which enhances atmospheric oxidizing capacity and subsequent formation of secondary aerosols, such as occurs in extreme-haze events 22 , 78 , 79 . In addition, sheltering policies have affected the emission-producing transportation, manufacturing and power-generation sectors 12 , though the degree and scope of shutdown in these individual sectors vary considerably 13 . Further, much of this change occurred against the backdrop of the transition from winter to spring, a period when insolation, water vapour and meteorology are changing rapidly. This transition was made even more complex this year by a large-scale dynamical pattern that resulted in a relatively cold spring over much of the central and eastern USA. Together, these challenges present a unique opportunity to evaluate Earth System model simulations of the air-quality response to emissions reductions in specific sectors (Box 2 ).

In addition to implications for air quality, the representation of aerosol effects has been one of the key sources of uncertainties in Earth System models 71 , 80 , 81 . Should changes in regional aerosol concentrations occur as a result of the COVID-19 sheltering, the event could be used to verify simulated climatic consequences of policies to improve air quality, such as meteorological impacts like short-term increases in heat and precipitation extremes due to ‘unmasking’ of the effect of greenhouse gases 82 . A key concern is that these short-term, local signals (Fig. 4 ) need to be evaluated in the longer-term context of both internal climate variability and regulation-induced trends in aerosol emissions (Box 2 ). However, the pervasiveness and persistence of the socioeconomic disruption may provide sufficient statistical power to test predictions generated by Earth System models.

Solution-oriented interventions that create randomized research trials

Many of the long-term impacts hypothesized in this Perspective will be determined by the response of human behaviour and decision-making. Systematically testing these human responses can be challenging. However, the scale of government response to the COVID-19 pandemic creates the opportunity to leverage solution-oriented interventions to create randomized research trials that can simultaneously provide assistance and insight about both Path I and Path II impacts.

Similar to the RCTs that are used to test the efficacy of vaccines and therapeutics, RCTs have been deployed to study a variety of other human outcomes, the effectiveness of which was recognized with this year’s Nobel Prize in Economics. Although RCTs have been less frequently aimed at environmental outcomes, RCT feasibility has been demonstrated in a number of relevant contexts, including agricultural microcredit 83 and payment for ecosystem services 84 , 85 , 86 . In addition, basic benchmarking studies have been conducted in single locations 87 . Together, these past studies provide the foundational research infrastructure that would be necessary to deploy RCT-based interventions in the COVID-19 context.

RCTs could be used to study vulnerability, resilience and disaster response in the face of extreme events that occur during sheltering 88 . Another prime candidate would be policy interventions designed to prevent the kind of long-term socio-environmental damage that becomes increasingly likely as the disruption becomes more severe and sustained 51 . For example, the emerging poverty shock 50 can be expected to lead to substantial deforestation, land degradation and nutrient loss, even over the next few growing seasons, as smallholder farmers struggle to produce food with fewer inputs and households revert to harvested biomass for cooking. Similar socio-environmental cascades might occur in marine ecosystems. Solution-oriented RCTs would use random assignment (when the trial is of limited scale) or randomized phasing of participation (for comprehensive programmes) to test whether direct payments or other conditional mechanisms, such as payments for protection of ecosystem services, are effective in staving off environmental damages. Studies could compare the efficacy of a given treatment across different locations or domains, and could also benchmark generalized interventions (such as unconditional cash transfers) against more targeted solutions. In addition to helping vulnerable individuals and communities weather the COVID-19-driven poverty shock, such RCTs would provide a much deeper understanding of how and where poverty and environmental degradation are most tightly linked, and what types of interventions are doubly-protective of people and the environment.

A similar opportunity could exist in conjunction with COVID-19 relief and recovery funding. For example, if infrastructure spending is specifically included in recovery measures, that spending would provide an opportunity to systematically study the long-term effectiveness of green investments 18 (including infrastructure and government programmes like jobs and conservation corps) in achieving Path I outcomes such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions and Path II outcomes such as increased resilience to climate extremes 18 , 89 . Even if federal or state stimulus measures do not explicitly include funding or requirements for these investments, the existing efforts of various states and localities to consider climate and other environmental outcomes in infrastructure investments 89 would create an opening for well-designed, opportunistic research trials built around variations in how government stimulus funding is applied in the context of varying state and local jurisdictional constraints.

Voluntary, solution-oriented actions could create similar opportunities for both Path I and Path II impacts. For example, large fractions of residential developments in the western USA are at the wildland–urban interface. The lack of ‘defensible space’ around homes substantially increases wildfire risk. It has been proposed that residents who are able to shelter in place could allocate more effort to reducing their fire risk by increasing the defensible space around their homes 90 . With some foresight and investment, this effort could be used to study the effectiveness of defensible space. Other solution-oriented efforts that can be voluntarily undertaken while safely sheltering, such as local food production and preparation, could also be leveraged to study the effectiveness of adaptation and resilience interventions, as well as the effects of changes in consumption patterns on household carbon and environmental footprints.

Summary and future perspectives

The socioeconomic disruption associated with COVID-19 represents a highly unusual alteration of the human interaction with the Earth System. This alteration is likely to generate a series of responses, illuminating the processes connecting energy, emissions, air quality and climate, as well as globalization, food security, poverty and biodiversity (Fig. 1 ). In many cases, these long-term, indirect Earth System responses could be larger — and of opposite sign — than the short-term environmental effects that have been immediately visible around the world. The potential for long-term impacts via Earth System cascades and feedbacks highlights the opportunity to use this period as an unintended experiment, and to use the knowledge gained to better predict, model and monitor Earth System processes during and after the event.

Given the uncertainty about the length of sheltering orders — and the nature of any interventions that may follow — it is impossible to know how long this inadvertent experiment will last. This uncertainty provides motivation for documenting hypotheses during this initial stage of the global crisis, so that data can be gathered and evaluated within the framework of a priori predictions, rather than post hoc analyses. Some hypotheses are only testable or conclusively verifiable by maintaining and/or deploying data collection during this early stage. Unless prohibited by safety concerns, it is important that these data continue to be collected so that the Earth System response to COVID-19 can be understood. By generating specific hypotheses based on initial observations, existing empirical relationships and process-based models, and then testing those hypotheses with existing and novel data sources, the COVID-19 socioeconomic disruption can provide novel insights into the processes that govern Earth System function and change.

Our primary motivation is to search for insight about the basic functioning of the Earth System that could be helpful in managing and recovering from the event, and in avoiding future impacts. Predicting the impacts of the sheltering on different components of the Earth System can help to aid in environment-related disaster preparedness in different regions. For example, analysis of the Earth System response can enable early detection of hotspots of environmental risk or degradation emerging during the event. Similarly, predicting, monitoring and understanding Earth System processes can help to support a sustainable economic, social and environmental recovery from the event. Although there is uncertainty about the length of the pandemic, the economic effects seem very likely to last for years. The individual, societal and government responses to these economic effects will influence the long-term trajectory of the human footprint on the Earth System.

The current socioeconomic disruption is a singular perturbation of that human footprint. Advancing understanding of this forcing, and the processes by which different components of the Earth System respond, can help to enhance robustness and resilience now and in the future.

Soden, B. J., Wetherald, R. T., Stenchikov, G. L. & Robock, A. Global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo: a test of climate feedback by water vapor. Science 296 , 727–730 (2002).

Google Scholar

Farquhar, G. D. & Roderick, M. L. Pinatubo, diffuse light, and the carbon cycle. Science 299 , 1997–1998 (2003).

Gu, L. H. et al. Response of a deciduous forest to the Mount Pinatubo eruption: enhanced photosynthesis. Science 299 , 2035–2038 (2003).

Marufu, L. T. et al. The 2003 North American electrical blackout: an accidental experiment in atmospheric chemistry. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31 , L13106 (2004).

Travis, D. J., Carleton, A. M. & Lauritsen, R. G. Contrails reduce daily temperature range. Nature 418 , 601 (2002).

Steffen, W. et al. The emergence and evolution of Earth System Science. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1 , 54–63 (2020).

Hale, T., Webster, S., Petherick, A., Phillips, T. & Kira, B. Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker https://covidtracker.bsg.ox.ac.uk (2020).

ILO. ILO Monitor: COVID-19 and the world of work. Fifth edition, 30June 2020. International Labour Organization https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/briefingnote/wcms_749399.pdf (2020).

Lenton, T. M. et al. Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105 , 1786–1793 (2008).

Steffen, W. et al. Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , 8252–8259 (2018).

Rockström, J. et al. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14 , 32 (2009).

Liu, Z. et al. COVID-19 causes record decline in global CO 2 emissions. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.13614v3 (2020).

Le Quéré, C. et al. Temporary reduction in daily global CO 2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nat. Clim. Change 10 , 647–653 (2020).

EIA. Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO). July 2020. U.S. Energy Information Administration https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/pdf/steo_full.pdf (2020).

Jackson, R. B. et al. Global energy growth is outpacing decarbonization. Environ. Res. Lett. 13 , 120401 (2018).

Peters, G. P. et al. Rapid growth in CO 2 emissions after the 2008–2009 global financial crisis. Nat. Clim. Change 2 , 2–4 (2012).

Feng, K., Davis, S. J., Sun, L. & Hubacek, K. Drivers of the US CO 2 emissions 1997–2013. Nat. Commun. 6 , 7714 (2015).

Hanna, R., Xu, Y. & Victor, D. G. After COVID-19, green investment must deliver jobs to get political traction. Nature 582 , 178–180 (2020).

Zheng, B. et al. Satellite-based estimates of decline and rebound in China’s CO 2 emissions during COVID-19 pandemic. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.08196v1 (2020).

Friedlingstein, P. et al. Global carbon budget 2019. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11 , 1783–1838 (2019).

McKinley, G. A., Fay, A. R., Eddebbar, Y. A., Gloege, L. & Lovenduski, N. S. External forcing explains recent decadal variability of the ocean carbon sink. AGU Adv. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019AV000149 (2020).

Le, T. et al. Unexpected air pollution with marked emission reductions during the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb7431 (2020).

Ramanathan, V., Crutzen, P. J., Kiehl, J. T. & Rosenfeld, D. Aerosols, climate, and the hydrological cycle. Science 294 , 2119–2124 (2001).

Rosenfeld, D. et al. Flood or drought: how do aerosols affect precipitation? Science 321 , 1309–1313 (2008).

Wild, M. Global dimming and brightening: a review. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 114 , D00D16 (2009).

Westervelt, D. M. et al. Local and remote mean and extreme temperature response to regional aerosol emissions reductions. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 20 , 3009–3027 (2020).

Mickley, L. J., Leibensperger, E. M., Jacob, D. J. & Rind, D. Regional warming from aerosol removal over the United States: results from a transient 2010–2050 climate simulation. Atmos. Environ. 46 , 545–553 (2012).

Mascioli, N. R., Fiore, A. M., Previdi, M. & Correa, G. Temperature and precipitation extremes in the United States: quantifying the responses to anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases. J. Clim. 29 , 2689–2701 (2016).

Bollasina, M. A., Ming, Y. & Ramaswamy, V. Anthropogenic aerosols and the weakening of the South Asian summer monsoon. Science 334 , 502–505 (2011).

Lin, L., Wang, Z., Xu, Y., Fu, Q. & Dong, W. Larger sensitivity of precipitation extremes to aerosol than greenhouse gas forcing in CMIP5 models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123 , 8062–8073 (2018).

Singh, D., Bollasina, M., Ting, M. & Diffenbaugh, N. S. Disentangling the influence of local and remote anthropogenic aerosols on South Asian monsoon daily rainfall characteristics. Clim. Dyn. 52 , 6301–6320 (2019).

EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2020. U.S. Energy Information Administration https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO2020 Full Report.pdf (2020).

Bodine, S. P. COVID-19 Implications for EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program. United States Environmental Protection Agency https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-03/documents/oecamemooncovid19implications.pdf (2020).

Burney, J. & Ramanathan, V. Recent climate and air pollution impacts on Indian agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111 , 16319–16324 (2014).

Avnery, S., Mauzerall, D. L., Liu, J. & Horowitz, L. W. Global crop yield reductions due to surface ozone exposure: 2. Year 2030 potential crop production losses and economic damage under two scenarios of O 3 pollution. Atmos. Environ. 45 , 2297–2309 (2011).

Cohen, A. J. et al. Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease attributable to ambient air pollution: an analysis of data from the Global Burden of Diseases Study 2015. Lancet 389 , 1907–1918 (2017).

Liu, C. et al. Ambient particulate air pollution and daily mortality in 652 cities. N. Engl. J. Med. 381 , 705–715 (2019).

WHO. Ambient air pollution: A global assessment of exposure and burden of disease. World Health Organization https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/250141/9789241511353-eng.pdf (2016).

Schraufnagel, D. E. et al. Health benefits of air pollution reduction. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 16 , 1478–1487 (2019).

Friedman, M. S., Powell, K. E., Hutwagner, L., Graham, L. M. & Teague, W. G. Impact of changes in transportation and commuting behaviors during the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta on air quality and childhood asthma. JAMA 285 , 897–905 (2001).

Li, Y., Wang, W., Kan, H., Xu, X. & Chen, B. Air quality and outpatient visits for asthma in adults during the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing. Sci. Total Environ. 408 , 1226–1227 (2010).

Wang, S. et al. Quantifying the air pollutants emission reduction during the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 , 2490–2496 (2010).

Su, C. et al. Assessing responses of cardiovascular mortality to particulate matter air pollution for pre-, during- and post-2008 Olympics periods. Environ. Res. 142 , 112–122 (2015).

He, G., Fan, M. & Zhou, M. The effect of air pollution on mortality in China: Evidence from the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 79 , 18–39 (2016).

Rich, D. Q. et al. Association between changes in air pollution levels during the Beijing Olympics and biomarkers of inflammation and thrombosis in healthy young adults. JAMA 307 , 2068–2078 (2012).

Wu, X., Nethery, R. C., Sabath, B. M., Braun, D. & Dominici, F. Exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States: a nationwide cross-sectional study. Preprint at medRxiv https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.05.20054502v2 (2020).

Liang, D. et al. Urban air pollution may enhance COVID-19 case-fatality and mortality rates in the United States. Preprint at medRxiv https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.04.20090746v1 (2020).

Burke, M., Davis, W. M. & Diffenbaugh, N. S. Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets. Nature 557 , 549–553 (2018).

Moore, F. C. & Diaz, D. B. Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation policy. Nat. Clim. Change 5 , 127–131 (2015).

UNDESA. World Economic Situation and Prospects as of mid-2020. United Nations https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/publication/WESP2020_MYU_Report.pdf (2020).

Guan, D. et al. Global economic footprint of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4 , 577–587 (2020).

Lusk, J. Ruminations on solutions to the COVID-related food disruptions. Jayson Lusk http://jaysonlusk.com/blog/2020/5/12/ruminations-on-solutions-to-the-covid-related-food-disruptions (2020)

WTO. Methodology for the WTO trade forecast of April 8 2020. World Trade Organization https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres20_e/methodpr855_e.pdf (2020).

Martin, W. & Anderson, K. Export restrictions and price insulation during commodity price booms. Policy Research Working Paper no. WPS 5645. World Bank Group http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/583201468337175309/Export-restrictions-and-price-insulation-during-commodity-price-booms (2011).

Battisti, D. S. & Naylor, R. L. Historical warnings of future food insecurity with unprecedented seasonal heat. Science 323 , 240–244 (2009).

Laborde, D., Mamun, A. & Parent, M. COVID-19 Food Trade Policy Tracker. International Food Policy Research Institute https://www.ifpri.org/project/covid-19-food-trade-policy-tracker (2020).

Diao, X. & Kennedy, A. Economywide impact of maize export bans on agricultural growth and household welfare in Tanzania: a dynamic computable general equilibrium model analysis. Dev. Policy Rev. 34 , 101–134 (2016).

Anderson, K. & Nelgen, S. Agricultural trade distortions during the global financial crisis. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 28 , 235–260 (2012).

Ahmed, S. A., Diffenbaugh, N. S., Hertel, T. W. & Martin, W. J. Agriculture and trade opportunities for Tanzania: past volatility and future climate change. Rev. Dev. Econ. 16 , 429–447 (2012).

Roth, A. Poachers kill more rhinos as coronavirus halts tourism to Africa. New York Times (8 Apr 2020) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/08/science/coronavirus-poaching-rhinos.html (2020).

INPE. Earth observation general coordination. Monitoring program of the Amazon and other biomes. Deforestation – legal Amazon. National Institute for Space Research http://terrabrasilis.dpi.inpe.br/app/dashboard/alerts/legal/amazon/aggregated/ (2020).

Barrett, C. B., Travis, A. J. & Dasgupta, P. On biodiversity conservation and poverty traps. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 13907–13912 (2011).

Oldekop, J. A., Sims, K. R. E., Karna, B. K., Whittingham, M. J. & Agrawal, A. Reductions in deforestation and poverty from decentralized forest management in Nepal. Nat. Sustain. 2 , 421–428 (2019).

Rutz, C. et al. COVID-19 lockdown allows researchers to quantify the effects of human activity on wildlife. Nat. Ecol. Evol https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1237-z (2020).

Article Google Scholar

WMO. COVID-19 impacts observing system. World Meteorological Organization https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/covid-19-impacts-observing-system (2020).

Baker, S. R., Bloom, N., Davis, S. J. & Terry, S. J. COVID-induced economic uncertainty. NBER Working Paper No. 26983. National Bureau of Economic Research http://www.nber.org/papers/w26983.pdf (2020).

Runge, J. et al. Inferring causation from time series in Earth system sciences. Nat. Commun. 10 , 2553 (2019).

Peters, J., Janzing, D. & Schölkopf, B. Elements of Causal Inference: Foundations and Learning Algorithms 288 pp (MIT Press, 2017).

Murkowski, L. April 2, 2020, Letter to Secretary Barnhardt and Secretary Perdue . U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=files.serve&File_id=988D2496-CB4C-4D63-8213-EE5F0DD30CA0 (2020).

Prunicki, M. et al. The impact of prescribed fire versus wildfire on the immune and cardiovascular systems of children. Allergy 74 , 1989–1991 (2019).

Flato, G. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 741–866 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

Hausfather, Z., Drake, H. F., Abbott, T. & Schmidt, G. A. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47 , e2019GL085378 (2020).

Diffenbaugh, N. S. Verification of extreme event attribution: using out-of-sample observations to assess changes in probabilities of unprecedented events. Sci. Adv. 6 , eaay2368 (2020).

Heft-Neal, S., Lobell, D. B. & Burke, M. Using remotely sensed temperature to estimate climate response functions. Environ. Res. Lett. 12 , 14013 (2017).

Carleton, T. A. & Hsiang, S. M. Social and economic impacts of climate. Science 353 , aad9837 (2016).

Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model. Dev. 9 , 1937–1958 (2016).

Sillman, S., Logan, J. A. & Wofsy, S. C. The sensitivity of ozone to nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons in regional ozone episodes. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 95 , 1837–1851 (1990).

Huang, X. et al. Enhanced secondary pollution offset reduction of primary emissions during COVID-19 lockdown in China. Natl. Sci. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa137 (2020).

Shi, X. & Brasseur, G. P. The response in air quality to the reduction of Chinese economic activities during the COVID-19 outbreak. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47 , e2020GL088070 (2020).

Storelvmo, T. et al. Lethargic response to aerosol emissions in current climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45 , 9814–9823 (2018).

Bellouin, N. et al. Bounding global aerosol radiative forcing of climate change. Rev. Geophys. 58 , e2019RG000660 (2020).

Samset, B. H. et al. Climate impacts from a removal of anthropogenic aerosol emissions. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45 , 1020–1029 (2018).

Burke, M., Bergquist, L. F. & Miguel, E. Sell low and buy high: arbitrage and local price effects in Kenyan markets. Q. J. Econ. 134 , 785–842 (2018).

Alix-Garcia, J. M. et al. Payments for environmental services supported social capital while increasing land management. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , 7016–7021 (2018).

Alix-Garcia, J. M., Sims, K. R. E. & Yañez-Pagans, P. Only one tree from each seed? Environmental effectiveness and poverty alleviation in Mexico’s Payments for Ecosystem Services Program. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 7 , 1–40 (2015).

Jayachandran, S. et al. Cash for carbon: a randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science 357 , 267–273 (2017).

GiveDirectly. Research at GiveDirectly. GiveDirectly https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directly/ (2020).

Phillips, C. A. et al. Compound climate risks in the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat. Clim. Change 10 , 586–588 (2020).

Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working Group (CSIWG). Paying it Forward: The Path Toward Climate-Safe Infrastructure in California. State of California https://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/paying-it-forward-the-path-toward-climate-safe-infrastructure-in-california.html (2018).

Field, C. B. & Appel, E. A. Will the pandemic make the West more vulnerable to wildfires? New York Times (15 May 2020) https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/opinion/wildfires-coronavirus.html (2020).

SafeGraph. U.S. Geographic Responses to Shelter in Place Orders: Percent Staying Home. SafeGraph https://www.safegraph.com/dashboard/covid19-shelter-in-place (2020).

Le Quéré, C. et al. Supplementary data to: Le Quéré et al (2020), Temporary reduction in daily global CO 2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement (Version 1.0). Global Carbon Project. Integrated Carbon Observation System https://www.icos-cp.eu/gcp-covid19 (2020).

Liu, Z. et al. Carbon Monitor: a near-real-time daily dataset of global CO 2 emission from fossil fuel and cement production. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.07690v1 (2020).

Jin, X., Fiore, A., Boersma, K. F., De Smedt, I. & Valin, L. Inferring changes in summertime surface ozone–NO x –VOC chemistry over U.S. urban areas from two decades of satellite and ground-based observations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54 , 6518–6529 (2020).

Bauwens, M. et al. Impact of coronavirus outbreak on NO 2 pollution assessed using TROPOMI and OMI observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47 , e2020GL087978 (2020).

Hawkins, E. & Sutton, R. The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 90 , 1095–1107 (2009).

Deser, C., Knutti, R., Solomon, S. & Phillips, A. S. Communication of the role of natural variability in future North American climate. Nat. Clim. Change 2 , 775–779 (2012).

Horton, D. E. et al. Contribution of changes in atmospheric circulation patterns to extreme temperature trends. Nature 522 , 465–469 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article grew from discussions initiated in the Uncommon Dialogue programme of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. The authors acknowledge support from Stanford University. K.C.N. acknowledges financial support from NIEHS R01 and Sean N. Parker Center at Stanford. G.A.M. acknowledges support from NSF OCE-1948624. T.W.H. acknowledges support from USDA-NIFA 2019-67023-29679 and Hatch 1003642. D.E.H., A.M. and J.L.S. acknowledge support from the Ubben Program for Climate and Carbon Science at the Institute for Sustainability and Energy at Northwestern. P.C. acknoweldges support from the European Research Council Synergy grant SyG-2013-610028 IMBALANCE-P and the ANR CLAND Convergence Institute.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Earth System Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Noah S. Diffenbaugh, Christopher B. Field, Marshall Burke, Robert B. Jackson, David B. Lobell & Gabrielle Wong-Parodi

Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Noah S. Diffenbaugh, Christopher B. Field, Eric A. Appel, Ines L. Azevedo, Marshall Burke, Sarah M. Fletcher, Robert B. Jackson, David B. Lobell, Kari C. Nadeau & Gabrielle Wong-Parodi

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Eric A. Appel

Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Ines L. Azevedo

Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

Dennis D. Baldocchi

Center on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Marshall Burke & David B. Lobell

School of Global Policy & Strategy, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Jennifer A. Burney

Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, Gif sur Yvette, France

Philippe Ciais

Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA

Steven J. Davis & James T. Randerson

Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, Palisades, New York, NY, USA

Arlene M. Fiore, Xiaomeng Jin & Galen A. McKinley

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York, NY, USA

Arlene M. Fiore & Galen A. McKinley

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Sarah M. Fletcher

Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

Thomas W. Hertel

Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

Daniel E. Horton & Anastasia Montgomery

Institute for Sustainability and Energy at Northwestern, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

Daniel E. Horton & Jordan L. Schnell

Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

Solomon M. Hsiang

Department of Political Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Margaret Levi

Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA

Frances C. Moore

Division of Allergy, Immunology, & Rheumatology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Kari C. Nadeau

School of Biological Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

Diane E. Pataki

Department of Biogeochemical Integration, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany

Markus Reichstein

Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA

Jordan L. Schnell

Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland

Sonia I. Seneviratne

School of the Environment, Washington State University Vancouver, Vancouver, WA, USA

Deepti Singh

Department of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Allison L. Steiner

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to discussion of content and review/editing of the manuscript. N.S.D., C.B.F., J.A.B., A.M.F., T.W.H., D.E.H., F.C.M., K.C.N., M.R. and A.L.S. contributed the initial writing. N.S.D., C.B.F., D.D.B., M.B., P.C., S.J.D., A.M.F., D.E.H., R.B.J., X.J., A.M. and J.L.S. researched data for the article. N.S.D. and C.B.F. convened the group and coordinated the drafting and revisions of the figures and manuscript. N.S.D. assembled the initial draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Noah S. Diffenbaugh .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information.

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment thanks the anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Diffenbaugh, N.S., Field, C.B., Appel, E.A. et al. The COVID-19 lockdowns: a window into the Earth System. Nat Rev Earth Environ 1 , 470–481 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0079-1

Download citation

Accepted : 06 July 2020

Published : 29 July 2020

Issue Date : September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0079-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Exploring the interruption-recovery pattern of air pollutants during the covid-19 pandemic in southern brazil: an analysis of the new normal.

Ronan Adler Tavella
Flavio Manoel Rodrigues da Silva Júnior

MAPAN (2024)

Footprints of COVID-19 on PM2.5/PM10 Ratio in a Brazilian Tropical Metropolis

Rodrigo de Lima Brum

Aerosol Science and Engineering (2024)

The long-term impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on environmental health: a review study of the bi-directional effect

Prasenjit Chakraborty
Randhir Kumar
Priya Mondal

Bulletin of the National Research Centre (2023)

Mobile phone data reveals spatiotemporal recreational patterns in conservation areas during the COVID pandemic

Ji Yoon Kim
Takahiro Kubo
Jun Nishihiro

Scientific Reports (2023)

Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals has been slowed by indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic

Haixia Yuan
Xiaoming Wang

Communications Earth & Environment (2023)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Fact sheets
Facts in pictures
Publications
Questions and answers
Tools and toolkits
Endometriosis
Excessive heat
Mental disorders
Polycystic ovary syndrome
All countries
Eastern Mediterranean
South-East Asia
Western Pacific
Data by country
Country presence
Country strengthening
Country cooperation strategies
News releases
Feature stories
Press conferences
Commentaries
Photo library
Afghanistan
Cholera
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
Greater Horn of Africa
Israel and occupied Palestinian territory
Disease Outbreak News
Situation reports
Weekly Epidemiological Record
Surveillance
Health emergency appeal
International Health Regulations
Independent Oversight and Advisory Committee
Classifications
Data collections
Global Health Estimates
Mortality Database
Sustainable Development Goals
Health Inequality Monitor
Global Progress
World Health Statistics
Partnerships
Committees and advisory groups
Collaborating centres
Technical teams
Organizational structure
Initiatives
General Programme of Work
WHO Academy
Investment in WHO
WHO Foundation
External audit
Financial statements
Internal audit and investigations
Programme Budget
Results reports
Governing bodies
World Health Assembly
Executive Board
Member States Portal

Impact of COVID-19 on people's livelihoods, their health and our food systems

Joint statement by ilo, fao, ifad and who.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a dramatic loss of human life worldwide and presents an unprecedented challenge to public health, food systems and the world of work. The economic and social disruption caused by the pandemic is devastating: tens of millions of people are at risk of falling into extreme poverty, while the number of undernourished people, currently estimated at nearly 690 million, could increase by up to 132 million by the end of the year.

Millions of enterprises face an existential threat. Nearly half of the world’s 3.3 billion global workforce are at risk of losing their livelihoods. Informal economy workers are particularly vulnerable because the majority lack social protection and access to quality health care and have lost access to productive assets. Without the means to earn an income during lockdowns, many are unable to feed themselves and their families. For most, no income means no food, or, at best, less food and less nutritious food.

The pandemic has been affecting the entire food system and has laid bare its fragility. Border closures, trade restrictions and confinement measures have been preventing farmers from accessing markets, including for buying inputs and selling their produce, and agricultural workers from harvesting crops, thus disrupting domestic and international food supply chains and reducing access to healthy, safe and diverse diets. The pandemic has decimated jobs and placed millions of livelihoods at risk. As breadwinners lose jobs, fall ill and die, the food security and nutrition of millions of women and men are under threat, with those in low-income countries, particularly the most marginalized populations, which include small-scale farmers and indigenous peoples, being hardest hit.

Millions of agricultural workers – waged and self-employed – while feeding the world, regularly face high levels of working poverty, malnutrition and poor health, and suffer from a lack of safety and labour protection as well as other types of abuse. With low and irregular incomes and a lack of social support, many of them are spurred to continue working, often in unsafe conditions, thus exposing themselves and their families to additional risks. Further, when experiencing income losses, they may resort to negative coping strategies, such as distress sale of assets, predatory loans or child labour. Migrant agricultural workers are particularly vulnerable, because they face risks in their transport, working and living conditions and struggle to access support measures put in place by governments. Guaranteeing the safety and health of all agri-food workers – from primary producers to those involved in food processing, transport and retail, including street food vendors – as well as better incomes and protection, will be critical to saving lives and protecting public health, people’s livelihoods and food security.

In the COVID-19 crisis food security, public health, and employment and labour issues, in particular workers’ health and safety, converge. Adhering to workplace safety and health practices and ensuring access to decent work and the protection of labour rights in all industries will be crucial in addressing the human dimension of the crisis. Immediate and purposeful action to save lives and livelihoods should include extending social protection towards universal health coverage and income support for those most affected. These include workers in the informal economy and in poorly protected and low-paid jobs, including youth, older workers, and migrants. Particular attention must be paid to the situation of women, who are over-represented in low-paid jobs and care roles. Different forms of support are key, including cash transfers, child allowances and healthy school meals, shelter and food relief initiatives, support for employment retention and recovery, and financial relief for businesses, including micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. In designing and implementing such measures it is essential that governments work closely with employers and workers.

Countries dealing with existing humanitarian crises or emergencies are particularly exposed to the effects of COVID-19. Responding swiftly to the pandemic, while ensuring that humanitarian and recovery assistance reaches those most in need, is critical.

Now is the time for global solidarity and support, especially with the most vulnerable in our societies, particularly in the emerging and developing world. Only together can we overcome the intertwined health and social and economic impacts of the pandemic and prevent its escalation into a protracted humanitarian and food security catastrophe, with the potential loss of already achieved development gains.

We must recognize this opportunity to build back better, as noted in the Policy Brief issued by the United Nations Secretary-General. We are committed to pooling our expertise and experience to support countries in their crisis response measures and efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. We need to develop long-term sustainable strategies to address the challenges facing the health and agri-food sectors. Priority should be given to addressing underlying food security and malnutrition challenges, tackling rural poverty, in particular through more and better jobs in the rural economy, extending social protection to all, facilitating safe migration pathways and promoting the formalization of the informal economy.

We must rethink the future of our environment and tackle climate change and environmental degradation with ambition and urgency. Only then can we protect the health, livelihoods, food security and nutrition of all people, and ensure that our ‘new normal’ is a better one.

Media Contacts

Kimberly Chriscaden

Communications Officer World Health Organization

Nutrition and Food Safety (NFS) and COVID-19

- Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

My email alerts
BMA member login
Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

Advanced search
Search responses
Search blogs
News & Views
Covid-19, climate...

Covid-19, climate change, and the environment: a sustainable, inclusive, and resilient global recovery

Read our latest coverage of the climate emergency.

Related content
Peer review
Nicholas Stern ,
IG Patel , professor of economics and government and chair ,
Bob Ward , policy and communications director
Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
r.e.ward{at}lse.ac.uk

We are at a critical moment in history, facing growing crises in climate change, biodiversity, and environmental degradation—as well as covid-19. But we also have an enormous opportunity to transform the global economy and usher in an era of greater wellbeing and prosperity, write Nick Stern and Bob Ward

The covid-19 pandemic has shown how vulnerable and exposed the world is to global threats. The effects of the disease and the measures that have been taken to control it have had serious consequences for lives and livelihoods. In addition to the tragic toll of illness and death, economies have been hit hard, particularly in developing countries.

Continuing to tackle the disease must be the priority, particularly by ensuring access to vaccines and treatments in all countries. Rich countries have a critical responsibility not just to safeguard their own populations but to support the distribution of vaccines to developing countries.

Every country will remain potentially exposed and vulnerable to the SARS-CoV-2 virus as long as it is able to spread rapidly through unvaccinated populations in any part of the world. Common humanity and self-interest point in the same direction.

Governments have tried to limit and reverse the economic damage through rescue and recovery packages. The rescue efforts have understandably focused on protecting existing jobs and companies, but recovery offers the chance to accelerate the transition towards a more inclusive, sustainable, and resilient form of economic development and growth.

A report prepared at the request of the British prime minister, Boris Johnson, for the G7 Leaders’ Summit in Carbis Bay, Cornwall, in June 2021 laid out the case for an investment led recovery from the pandemic. 1 It pointed out that an increase in annual investment of $1tn (£0.7tn; €0.9tn), equivalent to 2% of the collective national output, across the G7 countries over the coming decade and beyond would drive strong growth out of the economic difficulties arising from the pandemic and from the relatively low levels of investment, particularly since the financial crisis in 2008-9, which have been a major cause of sluggish growth in many rich countries over the past decade.

Most of this increase in investment will be made by the private sector, but governments also need to lead by example through their spending programmes both to kickstart growth and play their parts in crucial infrastructure investment, particularly in zero carbon and climate resilient energy, transport, and buildings.

The rich countries should also work to support investment in developing countries to foster sustainable, resilient, and inclusive development and growth. Most global investment in the next two decades will be in emerging markets and developing countries, and the nature of that investment will shape the future for us all in terms of wellbeing and its sustainability.

These investments in both developed and developing countries should aim both to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to improve resilience against the effects of climate change that cannot now be avoided. Many relevant investments spur development, reduce emissions, and strengthen resilience. There are examples across all sectors: protecting and restoring mangroves; restoring degraded land; expanding and protecting forests; improving public transport; installing decentralised solar energy systems; and constructing and retrofitting buildings to make them more efficient and resilient. All of these can boost economic development, climate change mitigation, and adaptation.

Central to these changes will be extra finance, much of it concessional, from the national and multilateral development banks. This will be crucial to reducing and managing risk for both private and public investment. The scale of the challenge implies that its scale must be expanded.

Growing effects of climate change

The growing consequences of climate change have been all too visible across the world this year with severe heatwaves, floods, wildfires, and tropical cyclones. A new assessment of the science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in August 2021, concluded that there is now a clear link between rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. 2 It states: “Climate change is already affecting every inhabited region across the globe, with human influence contributing to many observed changes in weather and climate extremes.”

Although the IPCC’s review of the effects of climate change on people and wildlife is not due to be published until next year, losses are clearly mounting around the world. One of the great injustices of climate change is that the poorest people around the world are often most exposed and vulnerable to the effects, even though they are least responsible for the driving cause: the rise in concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The most recent Human Development Report, 3 published by the United Nations Development Programme in December 2020, pointed out that climate change has played a large role in reducing average incomes, particularly in low income countries, increasing the number of people experiencing hunger and expanding the number of people affected by climate and weather disasters.

Climate change has been making it more difficult to achieve many of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), even before the pandemic. In his 2021 annual progress report on the SDGs, 4 the United Nations secretary general, António Guterres, said: “The pandemic related economic downturn has pushed between 119 and 124 million more people into extreme poverty in 2020, further compounding challenges to poverty eradication such as conflict, climate change, and natural disasters.”

The mounting damage from climate change is clearly harming efforts to overcome poverty and raise living standards, particularly in developing countries. Global mean surface temperature is already more than 1°C above its pre-industrial level. A special report by the IPCC in October 2018 provided a detailed review of the evidence about the risks of warming exceeding 1.5°C. 5 There is a growing consensus that those risks pose an unacceptable threat.

The IPCC report concluded that, to prevent warming exceeding 1.5°C by the end of the century, greenhouse gas emissions would need to be cut sharply over the coming decades, with net carbon dioxide emissions reduced to zero by 2050—this means that any residual emissions from human activities would need to be compensated by equivalent removals from the atmosphere by planting more vegetation or through other artificial methods involving carbon capture, use, and storage. Many countries have now pledged to reach net zero annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050.

New form of economic development and growth

Greater understanding of the urgency required to cut emissions has been accompanied by mounting evidence that it does not mean sacrificing economic development and growth. Annual emissions by the United Kingdom, for example, fell by 43.8% between 1990 and 2019, 6 whereas its gross domestic product rose by 78% over the same period. 7 This is a critically important insight, particularly for developing countries that understandably view economic growth as essential to improving the lives of their citizens. The increase in economic activity is usually accompanied by more jobs, higher incomes, and less hunger, as well as potentially higher tax revenues for governments to invest in public services, including health and education.

Some people argue that greenhouse gas emissions can only be eliminated by killing economic growth. But this is analytically incorrect. There is nothing inherent about economic growth that requires emissions. Energy can be generated from sources other than fossil fuels, which are the main driver of emissions. Furthermore, commitment to the new path for economic development and growth is already generating rapid innovation and cost reduction for most countries. Round-the-clock renewable electricity is now cheaper than fossil fuel electricity in many places, for example. Electric vehicles are more efficient than those driven by internal combustion engines. Resource efficiency (including the circular economy) improves productivity. And progress is rapid.

As countries emerge from the pandemic, investments in the rapid transition away from fossil fuels towards cleaner sources of energy will have multiple economic benefits. It will, for example, drastically reduce the number of deaths from air pollution, which kills more than seven million people worldwide every year, according to the World Health Organization, 8 and knocks several percentage points off economic output, 9 particularly in countries like China and India.

Investments in sustainable infrastructure, such as renewable energy and electric trains, can improve the economic competitiveness of countries and transform cities into more attractive places where people can live, move, and breathe more easily. Infrastructure that is not sustainable has the opposite effect—creating more pollution, waste, and congestion.

An investment led recovery that accelerates the transformation to sustainable, inclusive, and resilient economic development and growth will not only avoid the worst potential consequences of climate change, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation, but will also create meaningful job opportunities and improve the lives of people around the world. A new form of clean, sustainable, efficient and inclusive development and growth is now in our hands. It will involve strong investment and some dislocation. It is important that the transition is, and is seen to be, just. All this will require strong commitment and leadership. But if offers us a much better future.

Biographies

Nick Stern is a cross bench member of the UK House of Lords. He has been president of the British Academy, the Royal Economic Society, and the European Economic Association. He was head of the UK Government Economic Service from 2003 to 2007 and head of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change , published in 2006. He was chief economist of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development between 1994 and 1999, and chief economist and senior vice president at the World Bank between 2000 and 2003.

Robert Ward is deputy chair of the London Climate Change Partnership and a fellow of the Geological Society, the Royal Geographical Society, and the Energy Institute. He was previously director of public policy at Risk Management Solutions between 2006 and 2008, and senior manager for policy communication at the Royal Society between 1999 and 2006. He has also worked as a freelance science journalist

Commissioned, not externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following: NS oversaw the preparation of the G7 report by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, which he has chaired since its foundation in 2008, and RW, who has been policy and communications director at the institute since its foundation, was one of the writing team.

This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ's website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

↵ Stern N. G7 leadership for sustainable, resilient, and inclusive economic recovery and growth: An independent report requested by the UK Prime Minister for the G7. London: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. June 2021. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/g7-leadership-for-sustainable-resilient-and-inclusive-economic-recovery-and-growth/ .
↵ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. 2021. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/#FullReport
↵ United Nations Development Programme. Human development report 2020. 2020. http://hdr.undp.org/en/2020-report
↵ United Nations Secretary-General. Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals: report of the secretary-general. 30 April 2021. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/report/2021/secretary-general-sdg-report-2021--EN.pdf
↵ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global warming of 1.5°C: 2018. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
↵ Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy. 2019 UK greenhouse gas emissions, final figures. 2021. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/957887/2019_Final_greenhouse_gas_emissions_statistical_release.pdf
↵ Office for National Statistics. Gross domestic product: chained volume measures: seasonally adjusted £m. 2021. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/abmi/pn2
↵ World Health Organization. Air pollution. 2021. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1
↵ World Bank, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. The cost of air pollution: strengthening the economic case for action. 2016. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/781521473177013155/pdf/108141-REVISED-Cost-of-PollutionWebCORRECTEDfile.pdf

C-CHANGE | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Coronavirus and Climate Change

Photo by: Pixabay user Geralt

Coronavirus and air pollution | Coronavirus and heatwaves | Preventing Pandemics at the Source

Coronavirus, Climate Change, and the Environment A Conversation on COVID-19 with Dr. Aaron Bernstein, Former Director of Harvard Chan C-CHANGE

Below are some of the most common questions we have been receiving in relation to the environment and coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19).

This page will continue to be updated as new information arises. If you would like to talk to someone at our center about coronavirus, please email us at [email protected].

For t he latest updates, guidance, useful information, and resources about COVID-19 from the Harvard Chan Community, click here.

Does climate change affect the transmission of coronavirus?

Does air pollution increase the risk of getting coronavirus does it make symptoms worse, will warmer weather slow the spread of coronavirus, how likely are we to see infectious disease spread as a result of climate change, why are emerging infectious diseases on the rise, what actions can we take to prevent future outbreaks, can you identify the communities most at-risk, and how and why both covid-19 and climate change harms them, why is it so important for health officials to talk about climate change now, climate change and global health policy are largely treated as separate issues by the public and media. do we need to adjust our thinking, covid-19 is killing people now and climate change is killing people now. the scale of actions to combat them are starkly different. why, is climate change too expensive to fix.

We don’t have direct evidence that climate change is influencing the spread of COVID-19, but we do know that climate change alters how we relate to other species on Earth and that matters to our health and our risk for infections.

As the planet heats up, animals big and small, on land and in the sea, are headed to the poles to get out of the heat. That means animals are coming into contact with other animals they normally wouldn’t, and that creates an opportunity for pathogens to get into new hosts.

Many of the root causes of climate change also increase the risk of pandemics. Deforestation, which occurs mostly for agricultural purposes, is the largest cause of habitat loss worldwide. Loss of habitat forces animals to migrate and potentially contact other animals or people and share germs. Large livestock farms can also serve as a source for spillover of infections from animals to people. Less demand for animal meat and more sustainable animal husbandry could decrease emerging infectious disease risk and lower greenhouse gas emissions.

We have many reasons to take climate action to improve our health and reducing risks for infectious disease emergence is one of them.

Recent research from Rachel Nethery, Xiauo Wu, Francesca Dominici and other colleagues at Harvard Chan has found that people who live in places with poor air quality are more likely to die from COVID-19 even when accounting for other factors that may influence risk of death such as pre-existing medical conditions, socioeconomic status, and access to healthcare.

This finding is consistent with prior research that has shown that people who are exposed to more air pollution and who smoke fare worse with respiratory infections than those who are breathing cleaner air, and who don’t smoke.

In places where air pollution is a routine problem, we have to pay particular attention to individuals who may be more exposed or vulnerable than others to polluted air, such as the homeless, those who don’t have air filtration in their homes, or those whose health is already compromised. These individuals may need more attention and support than they did even before coronavirus came along.

For those interested in research papers on air pollution and virus transmission:

Exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States (Harvard University, preprint, 2019). This study found that a small increase in long-term exposure to PM2.5 leads to a large increase in COVID-19 death rate.
Measuring the impact of air pollution on respiratory infection risk in China ( Environmental Pollution , 2018 ). This study found that worse air quality in China may increase transmission of infections that cause influenza-like illnesses.
The association between respiratory infection and air pollution in the setting of air quality policy and economic change ( Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 2019 ). A study of nearly 500,000 New York residents found that higher particulate matter air pollution levels increased the chances of hospitalization for pneumonia and emergency deparment visits, especially for influenza.
Airborne transmission may have played a role in the spread of 2015 highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreaks in the United States ( Scientific Reports, 2019). Researchers have found that several viruses, including adenovirus and influenza virus, can be carried on air particles. This recent paper finds that particulate matter likely contributed to the spread of the 2015 avian influenza.
Relationship between ambient air pollution and daily mortality of SARS in Beijing ( Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2005 ). During the SARS epidemic in 2003, this study found that increases in particulate matter air pollution increased risks of dying from the disease. SARS is a coronavirus, like COVID-19.

We don’t yet have a sense of what the changing weather will mean for COVID-19 and so we shouldn’t rely upon warmer weather to curtail transmissions. We need to do everything we can right now to slow the spread of this disease, and that means we need to follow the advice that public health experts are telling us and practice social distancing and good hand hygiene, among other actions.

Climate change has already made conditions more favorable to the spread of some infectious diseases, including Lyme disease, waterborne diseases such as Vibrio parahaemolyticus which causes vomiting and diarrhea, and mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. Future risks are not easy to foretell, but climate change hits hard on several fronts that matter to when and where pathogens appear, including temperature and rainfall patterns. To help limit the risk of infectious diseases, we should do all we can to vastly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

We have seen a trend of greater emergence of infectious diseases in recent decades. Most of these diseases have entered into people from animals, especially wild animals. This trend has many causes. We have massive concentrations of domesticated animals around the world, some of which can be home to pathogens, like the flu, that can make people sick. We also have massive concentrations of people in cities where diseases transmitted by sneezing may find fertile ground. And we have the ability to travel around the globe in less than a day and share germs widely.

But a look at the origins of COVID reveals that other forces may be in play. In the past century we have escalated our demands upon nature, such that today, we are losing species at a rate unknown since the dinosaurs, along with half of life on earth, went extinct 65 million years ago. This rapid dismantling of life on earth owes primarily to habitat loss, which occurs mostly from growing crops and raising livestock for people. With fewer places to live and fewer food sources to feed on, animals find food and shelter where people are, and that can lead to disease spread.

Another major cause of species loss is climate change, which can also change where animals and plants live and affect where diseases may occur. Historically, we have grown as a species in partnership with the plants and animals we live with. So, when we change the rules of the game by drastically changing the climate and life on earth, we have to expect that it will affect our health.

We can make many smart investments to avert another outbreak. Federal, state, and local agencies can support public health leadership and science, we can provide more funding for needed research, early response to outbreaks, and supplies for testing. And we can do much more to control the illegal wildlife trade.

We also need to take climate action to prevent the next pandemic. For example, preventing deforestation—a root cause of climate change—can help stem biodiversity loss as well as slow animal migrations that can increase risk of infectious disease spread. The recent Ebola epidemic in West Africa probably occurred in part because bats, which carried the disease, had been forced to move into new habitats because the forests they used to live in had been cut down to grow palm oil trees.

Rethinking our agricultural practices, including those that rely on raising tens of millions of animals in close quarters, can prevent transmissions between animals and spillover into human populations.

Reducing air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas also helps keep our lungs healthy, which can protect us from respiratory infections like coronavirus.

To combat climate change, we need to drastically decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Generating electricity from low-carbon energy sources like wind and solar decreases harmful air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide that lead to more heart attacks and stroke as well as obesity, diabetes, and premature deaths that put further strains on our health care systems.

Preparation for pandemics is also about keeping people healthy at baseline. If we have a population in the U.S. where a third of our population are obese, and 5-10% of people have diabetes, we’re going to be immensely more vulnerable. And if you look at why people in the U.S. are not healthy at baseline, it has to do with our diets, pollution, and climate change. We have an opportunity here to recognize that prevention is by far the best approach to protecting health.

When COVID-19 eases, and we are ready to restart our economy, we can make our workforce healthier and more climate-resilient through scaling-up our investments in low-carbon technologies.

People with chronic health conditions, lower-income, and communities of color are disproportionately impacted by both COVID-19 and climate change, and pollution is at the heart of both problems as a new Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public health study confirms. We know that African American communities are disproportionately exposed to air pollution and we’re now seeing this pollution driving higher mortality rates from COVID-19. We owe it to everyone to improve health, and we do that by reducing the sources of pollution that drive a large burden of disease both in the United States and around the world.

Having taken care of children and families who are deeply concerned about how they can protect their children from this disease, I can tell you that we need to wash our hands and we need to socially distance. But if we really care about preventing this kind of problem in the future, we need to think hard about climate change and the biodiversity crisis. I was actually in a room with a child and a family when I first thought that this is exactly the time that we need to think more about the broader issues that we face. We simply cannot afford to deal with a crisis like this pandemic on top of another climate-related crisis—like a hurricane, tornado, wildfire, or heatwave—when we absolutely know how to implement climate solutions, and can put them into action right now. Doing so will make us healthier today and protect our future.

Yes. The separation of health and environmental policy is a dangerous delusion. Our health entirely depends on the climate and the other organisms we share the planet with. We need to bring these communities together. Some progress has been made in addressing the risk of pathogen spillover from animals into people. But largely we still view the environment, and life on earth, as separate. We can and must do better if we want to prevent the next infectious pandemic. That means we must combat climate change and do far more to safeguard the diversity of life on earth, which is being lost at a rate not seen since the dinosaurs—and more than half of life on earth—went extinct 65 million years ago.

Infectious diseases are scary because they are immediate and personal. They radically and rapidly change how we lead our lives, and they are an immediate threat to our friends and families. They hit all of our “go” buttons.

Climate change seems to many an armageddon in slow motion and its dangers can feel impersonal and its causes diffuse. It’s easy to think “I didn’t cause this” or that “it doesn’t directly affect me.” But there’s another way to look at it. Like COVID-19, if you’re concerned about climate change, you can take actions right now to improve your health and the health of your friends and loved ones.

We can learn from this pandemic that people are motivated by the personal and the actionable. At Harvard Chan C-CHANGE, our research shows that the actions we need to combat climate change are the same actions we need to make people healthier right now, especially for diseases causing huge burdens on our health like obesity, heart disease, and cancer. We need to do much more to talk about the “burden of disease” that’s preventable, and the things we can do now to prevent it.

We spend just over $3 trillion every year in the United States on health care. And by some estimates, more than half the deaths in the United States are preventable, largely because of pollution, diet, exercise, and lifestyle habits like smoking. So think about the money we could save simply by reducing air pollution, eating less meat, and building exercise into our day by walking or biking more often. We could use the savings to invest in preventing climate change, among other things like education, and paying fair wages.

When you look at this question purely from a financial standpoint, air pollution is a drag on economic growth and solutions to address have been enormously cost-effective in the United States. In 2011, a study by the Environmental Protection Agency that looked at the costs and benefits of the Clean Air act found that every $1 invested to reduce air pollution returns up to $30 in benefits. The only thing our health and our economy can’t afford is climate inaction.

Solutions for preventing the next pandemic

The cost of preventing the next pandemic is 2% of the cost we’re paying for COVID-19.

The climate crisis and COVID-19—A major threat to the pandemic response

Strategies for local communities and states to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission during climate-related extreme events like heat waves, hurricanes, and wildfires.

As Covid-19 cases rise, global task force lays out how to avert future pandemics

New report suggests that investing in conservation, improving agricultural practices, and strengthening healthcare systems can help prevent future pandemics.

Harvard launches international task force to prevent future pandemics

Our Director, Dr. Aaron Bernstein, discusses the Scientific Task Force to Prevent Pandemics at the Source, which aims to prevent pandemics by reducing the likelihood of infectious diseases transferring from animals to humans.

Climate change impact on COVID-19, deadly diseases

On an episode of the Insight podcast, our Director, Dr. Aaron Bernstein discusses the impact of climate change on COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.

Climate change or COVID-19: Which is a greater threat to our health?

"Rather than focus on comparing the scale of these catastrophes, we should heed the lessons of our experience with COVID-19 as we face a changing climate and future pandemics," says Dr. Caleb Dresser.

Doc to Doc: Coronavirus conversation with Dr. Renee Salas

Dr. John Torres interviews our ClimateMD leader Dr. Renee Salas about the connections between Covid and climate for NBC News' Doc to Doc series.

Action Planet: Meeting the Climate Challenge

Our Director Dr. Aaron Bernstein joins Vice President Kamala Harris, Gina McCarthy, and others for a 1-hour Earth Day special, hosted by NowThis' Zinhle Essamuah.

Q&A: Gaurab Basu on climate change, racial justice, and COVID-19

Gaurab Basu, a physician with the Cambridge Health Alliance and a health equity fellow at the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment at Harvard Chan School, discusses how a legacy of racist policies in the U.S. have left communities of color ill-prepared for climate change and why applying a racial justice framework to…

COVID-19 RECOVERY SERIES: COVID-19 and Climate Change: A True Public Health Crisis - An Interview with Renee N. Salas, M.D., MPH, M.S.

Our Climate MD Leader Dr. Renee Salas talks about the intersection of climate change and COVID-19 in her work as an Emergency Medicine physician.

We’re better off when we stop pandemics before they start

On this episode of Better Off, our director Dr. Aaron Bernstein explains how protecting the environment could also secure the future of our own species.

Calling Covid-19 a Crisis of Humanity's Own Making, Coalition Says Healing 'Broken Relationship With Nature' Key to Stopping Next Pandemic

"The Covid-19 vaccines will help rescue us from this current mess, but it won't do a thing to protect us from the next pandemic," says our Director Dr. Aaron Bernstein.

Renee N. Salas MD, MPH, MS

Renee's work focuses on the intersection of the climate crisis, health, and healthcare delivery.

View Profile

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Biostatistics
Environmental Health and Engineering
Epidemiology
Health Policy and Management
Health, Behavior and Society
International Health
Mental Health
Molecular Microbiology and Immunology
Population, Family and Reproductive Health
Program Finder
Admissions Services
Course Directory
Academic Calendar
Hybrid Campus
Lecture Series
Convocation
Strategy and Development
Implementation and Impact
Integrity and Oversight
In the School
In the Field
In Baltimore
Resources for Practitioners
Articles & News Releases
In The News
Statements & Announcements
At a Glance
Student Life
Strategic Priorities
Inclusion, Diversity, Anti-Racism, and Equity (IDARE)
What is Public Health?

The Environmental Toll of Fighting COVID-19

Masks, gloves, and chemical disinfectants will outlast the pandemic.

Melissa Hartman

We’ve all seen them: discarded gloves and masks littering parking lots and sidewalks.

Some of them make their way to rivers and oceans and wash up in remote, wild places. Invisibly, powerful disinfectants also end up in the water—and persist. The transformation from protection to pollution happens quickly, but the damage can last for centuries.

Ana María Rule, PhD ’05, MHS ’98 , an assistant professor in Environmental Health and Engineering and an expert on aerosols and particulate matter, understands the protective powers of masks and advocates for their proper use. In this Q&A, she also advocates for reducing their impact—by using fewer of them, replacing them with reusable options when possible, disposing of them properly, and developing environmentally friendly alternatives.

Obviously PPE has been critical for preventing the spread of COVID-19, but it does generate a lot of waste. What components do you see as the most damaging for the environment?

The U.S. and other industrialized countries have relatively good waste management systems. In contrast, trash in low-income countries often accumulates on the streets (which ends up washing to streams and rivers ending in the ocean), or is disposed in illegal dumping sites (many times open air), landfills, and open burning. Of course, even where there are good waste management systems, people have to make use of those systems and dispose of their masks properly—in trash bins—and that doesn’t always happen. I have seen so many photos and videos of masks in rivers and oceans, and of course it’s not sustainable.

Those blue surgical masks are somewhat degradable, but they have a plastic layer. Gloves are plastic. So these things are not going anywhere for many, many years. Over time they just become smaller and smaller particles—and these microplastics were a problem even before the pandemic. We’re not yet sure what exactly the dangers are of micro and nano-sized plastics in the environment, but high concentrations have been found in fish, water, sediments, soils, and air. Organisms, including humans, are consuming them in food and water, and breathing them in. This is an active area of research to elucidate potential consequences for the environment and humans.

The improper disposal of single-use personal protective equipment has been a big concern for environmental people. So has the overuse of PPE. We don’t need to wear gloves to go to the grocery store. It’s more efficient to just wash your hands with soap and water.

Do you think it’s possible to have single-use biodegradable or more environmentally friendly PPE?

I know there’s a lot of research on this. From the beginning of the pandemic, people were thinking, maybe we can have masks that are a little simpler, with a filter you can change so that you dispose of a smaller piece, and maybe that filter can be more biodegradable. I have seen several groups around the country and the world working on this and other solutions.

What about waste from vaccinations? I assume syringes are incinerated.

Yes, because they’re medical waste. Incineration is safer because the high temperature gets rid of whatever infectious agent is there. And incineration dramatically reduces the volume of waste. You might start with a roomful of bags of waste and end up with a small amount of ash. Incineration is really good for those two reasons.

Unfortunately, incineration is also polluting, emitting heavy metals, particulate matter, and gases. There are technologies to reduce certain emissions from incineration, and those technologies are getting better, but are unable to reduce all emissions. We should invest in those technologies because it’s an important way to reduce environmental impacts and human health effects.

Is there anything else we should be doing differently, for the environment’s sake, in the pandemic response?

I talked earlier about gloves. The main route of exposure to respiratory viruses is air, not surfaces. The chain of events that need to happen from touching a surface that’s infected to getting infected is much longer and easily breakable by just washing your hands. So stop using gloves, and use reusable cloth masks whenever possible.

There is also another waste stream I’ve been worried about: surface cleaners. Again, surfaces are not the main route of exposure.

The EPA has a list of approved cleaners shown to kill or to inactivate the coronavirus—but just because they were approved to disinfect surfaces doesn’t mean they’ve been proven safe for humans to touch and breathe. Yet we’re using more and more of them. We’re regularly using some that were meant for occasional use. They end up in the water , and even the best water treatment plants are not designed to get rid of high concentrations of these chemicals.

I’ve been concerned for a while that we’re overusing powerful chemical disinfectants called quaternary ammonium compounds (or “quats” or “QACs”), which can take many years to degrade and that accumulate in the environment.

This immediately makes me think about schools. They’re trying to safely reopen, but that seems to involve a lot of extra cleaning and disinfecting.

I’ve been trying to communicate [the potential risks] to whoever will listen. Some schools and workplaces have used these fogging systems. The disinfectants are aerosolized, so they are getting not only onto surfaces but into the air. The right way to do it is to spray it and leave the room, and let it completely air out. But not everybody is trained, not everybody follows label instructions, and not everybody is aware of the dangers of overusing these chemicals . They think that doing this makes places more safe, but we don’t know the long-term effects.

What has happened with other chemicals, unfortunately, is that we have extended use of them, and then the research catches up. Little by little, we’re going to start finding out what these consequences are.

Melissa Hartman is managing editor of Hopkins Bloomberg Public Health magazine .

What to Know About the Updated COVID Vaccine for Fall, Winter 2024–25

Why We’re Still Waiting for a Pandemic Treaty

An illustration of a wave in the ocean covered in COVID molecules with a person swimming underneath it holding a vaccine

Why COVID Surges in the Summer

A vehicle is left abandoned in floodwater on a highway after Hurricane Beryl swept through the area on July 8, 2024, in Houston, Texas.

The Visible and Unseen Dangers Lurking in Floodwater

Commuters walk under the Olympic rings at the Gare de Lyon train station, on July 23, 2024, ahead of the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Public Health Prep for the 2024 Paris Olympics

Air pollution levels have dropped significantly since COVID-19 shutdowns were put in place Image adapted from: Foto-Rabe via Pixabay; CC0

Earth & environment

What impact will COVID-19 have on the environment?

It’s up to us if decreases in air pollution and emissions continue in the longer term

COVID-19 has affected our daily lives in an unprecedented range of ways, from physical distancing to travel bans. But the pandemic is also influencing our planet.

Air pollution levels have dropped significantly since measures such as quarantines and shutdowns were put in place to contain COVID-19. Around the world, levels of harmful pollutants like NO 2 (nitrogen dioxide), CO (carbon monoxide), SO 2 (sulfur dioxide) and PM 2.5 (small particulate matter) have plummeted—at least, while shutdowns continue.

But environmental benefits will only be temporary unless we implement long-term measures to cut emissions. It’s a stark reminder that air pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions , is a global threat that can’t be forgotten, even in these challenging times.

Global air pollution drops dramatically

The novel coronavirus which causes the COVID-19 illness was first identified in Wuhan, China in December 2019. By January 2020, Chinese authorities had shut down local businesses and implemented transport restrictions. Satellites monitoring pollution for NASA and the European Space Agency have since detected a marked decrease in airborne NO 2 after the shutdowns.

This pollutant is mostly emitted from burning fossil fuels in transport, industry and electricity generation, which makes it strongly linked to human activity. NO 2 levels are also influenced by the weather and various atmospheric processes, so they must be interpreted carefully.

NASA scientists say the drop was first apparent in Wuhan, but eventually spread across China. Taking into account weather-related fluctuations and yearly pollution decreases associated with the Lunar New Year holiday, there’s strong evidence that the NO 2 drop is at least partly related to the COVID-19 shutdowns. Wuhan also experienced a 44 per cent drop in concentrations of PM 2.5 , another ambient pollutant strongly linked to human activity with particularly detrimental health impacts.

Other major cities have also observed lower air pollution levels, with measurable reductions in NO 2 and PM 2.5 . Across March 2020, average NO 2 concentrations in Rome were 26–35 per cent lower than for the same period in 2019, according to the European Environmental Agency . (On the other hand, levels of PM 2.5 actually increased during Rome's shutdowns, which may be attributed to the higher use of residential heating.) Similar trends were observed in other European cities that implemented lockdown measures, such as Madrid, which experienced a 51 per cent reduction in average NO 2 concentrations.

In the UK, London and Edinburgh have experienced a drop in NO 2 levels by up to 60 per cent compared to the March/April period last year. US cities like New York and Los Angeles have observed huge improvements in air quality and notoriously polluted cities such as Delhi, Bangkok, São Paulo and Bogotá are also reportedly enjoying clearer skies. In a report collated by air quality information and tech company IQAir, 9 out of 10 major global cities that imposed COVID-19 shutdowns measured PM 2.5 reductions of 25–60 per cent compared to the same period last year.

The reduction in air pollution has even had significant health benefits, although this does not minimise the devastating impacts of the pandemic, which as at early May 2020 had resulted in millions of cases and hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide. According to calculations carried out by Earth science Assistant Professor Marshall Burke at Stanford University, the reduction in air pollution caused by the industrial shutdowns is likely to have saved between 53,000 to 77,000 lives in China alone. While exposure to outdoor air pollution doesn’t damage our health as rapidly as infectious diseases might, WHO estimates that it is responsible for 4.2 million premature deaths each year by increasing the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory disease, cancer and adverse birth outcomes. A preprint study from Harvard University links exposure to air pollution with greater mortality in COVID-19 cases.

However, as China focuses on recovering from the economic impacts of COVID-19, its emissions are creeping up again. Analysts at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air reported that COVID-19 shutdowns temporarily reduced China’s CO 2 emissions by a quarter. Coal consumption at power plants and oil-refinery utilisation bottomed out in March 2020, but have since returned to normal, as have NO 2 pollution levels.

What effect will COVID-19 have on atmospheric CO 2 levels?

It’s been reported that if economic and transport shutdowns continue, it will lead to the first decrease in global emissions since the 2008 global financial crisis.

An analysis by Carbon Brief suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic could reduce CO 2 emissions by 1600 million tonnes this year, which is around 5.5 per cent of total global emissions in 2019. To put that into perspective, that’s equivalent to taking 3.46 billion passenger vehicles off the roads for one year, as calculated using the Environmental Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator .

The drop would be the largest ever annual fall in CO 2 emissions, greater than during any economic crisis or war since the start of the 20th century. This tentative estimate has been calculated by analysing a data set that covers roughly three-quarters of the world’s annual CO 2 emissions. The authors also point out that the unprecedented nature of the crisis makes market predictions highly uncertain, particularly as we don’t know how long shutdowns will last.

So does decreasing CO 2 emissions immediately lead to a drop in atmospheric levels of CO 2 ? Unfortunately not. Atmospheric CO 2 levels don’t just depend on CO 2 emissions from human activity—they’re also influenced by how well (or poorly) the rest of the planet absorbs CO 2 . Land and ocean ecosystems removed around 30 and 25 per cent respectively of the anthropogenic CO 2 created between 2000–08, leaving 45 per cent to accumulate in the atmosphere. However, ecosystem degradation and the effects of climate change diminish the ability of our ecosystems to act as carbon sinks. As a result, atmospheric CO 2 levels have been rising by an average of almost 2.5 ppm (parts per million) each year since 2010.

This means that unless we continue to cap CO 2 emissions to shutdown levels for an extended time, atmospheric CO 2 levels won’t drop. In fact, atmospheric scientists have estimated that even with a 10 per cent drop in emissions sustained all year, we will still see atmospheric CO 2 concentrations increasing by 2 ppm in 2020.

How can we make sure the environment comes out better, not worse?

Experts warn that despite lower air pollution levels in the short term, our environment may not see any long-term benefits. This situation occurred following the 2008 global financial crisis, when greenhouse gas emissions rebounded as the economy recovered. Concerns have also been raised that environmental policies will be relaxed, which is currently occurring in the US and Australia, and that investment in renewable energy technology will slow.

However, scientists, leaders and activists are pushing for an urgent public debate so that the global recovery from COVID-19 focuses on clean energy and more stringent environmental policies. In April 2020, the UN’s climate chief warned that global emissions must be capped now to meet the Paris agreement of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels.

A simple way that we can implement change as individuals is one that we’re already adjusting to: travelling less. However, according to the International Energy Agency the biggest sources of global emissions are power generation, heavy transport and industry. Reducing emissions requires a transition away from fossil fuels to cleaner energies , as well as greater energy efficiency. That takes action from governments and industry leaders, not just individuals .

Ultimately, we must collectively approach our environmental crisis with the same urgency as we have the COVID-19 crisis if we are to lessen the effects of global warming.

air pollution
greenhouse gas emissions

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Covid-19: Impact on Environment

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Covid-19: Impact on Environment. (2021, Mar 22). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/covid-19-impact-on-environment-essay

"Covid-19: Impact on Environment." StudyMoose , 22 Mar 2021, https://studymoose.com/covid-19-impact-on-environment-essay

StudyMoose. (2021). Covid-19: Impact on Environment . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/covid-19-impact-on-environment-essay [Accessed: 27 Aug. 2024]

"Covid-19: Impact on Environment." StudyMoose, Mar 22, 2021. Accessed August 27, 2024. https://studymoose.com/covid-19-impact-on-environment-essay

"Covid-19: Impact on Environment," StudyMoose , 22-Mar-2021. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/covid-19-impact-on-environment-essay. [Accessed: 27-Aug-2024]

StudyMoose. (2021). Covid-19: Impact on Environment . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/covid-19-impact-on-environment-essay [Accessed: 27-Aug-2024]

The Disruptive Impact of COVID-19 on Education Pages: 4 (999 words)
The Impact of COVID-19 on Small Business Pages: 4 (1199 words)
China covid crisis Pages: 2 (599 words)
Workplace Vulnerability to COVID-19: A Global Challenge Pages: 3 (647 words)
Unveiling Resilience: A Personal Narrative of Navigating the COVID-19 Pandemic Pages: 2 (541 words)
COVID-19's Profound and Lasting Effects on Education Pages: 3 (796 words)
Navigating Financial Challenges During COVID-19 Pages: 3 (758 words)
Resilience Unveiled: Small Businesses Amidst the Tapestry of COVID-19 Challenges and Innovations Pages: 3 (671 words)
Ideal User Environment vs Contrary User Environment Pages: 6 (1550 words)
Impact of Tourism Industry to the Environment Pages: 13 (3627 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Global impact of COVID-19 on food safety and environmental sustainability: Pathways to face the pandemic crisis

Affiliations.

1 Departmentof Zoology, Wildlife and Fisheries, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Faisalabad, 38040, Pakistan.
2 Department of Chemistry, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Faisalabad, 38040, Pakistan.
3 Department of Chemistry, School of Science, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, 54770, Pakistan.
PMID: 39170381
PMCID: PMC11336433
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35154

The COVID-19 pandemic poses ongoing challenges to the sustainability of various socioeconomic sectors, including agriculture, the food supply chain, the food business, and environmental sustainability. This study employs data obtained from the World Health Organization (WHO), and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), as well as scientific and technical research publications, to evaluate the impacts of COVID-19 on agriculture and food security. This article seeks to highlight the profound influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on agriculture, the supply and demand of food, and the overall safety of food. The article also explores the several pathways by which COVID-19 can be transmitted in these areas and the various technologies employed for its detection. The ongoing and post-pandemic ramifications are substantial since they could decrease agricultural output due to limitations on migration, a downturn in international trade, less buying capacity, and disturbances in food production and processing. Therefore, based on this thorough investigation, recommendations are issued for mitigating and controlling the pandemic's effects.

Keywords: COVID test; Environmental impact of COVID-19; Global price index; Nutrition; Post COVID-19 era; SARS-CoV-2 detection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Scenarios of food security system…

Scenarios of food security system without and with COVID-19, respectively [36].

COVID-19 affects the food supply…

COVID-19 affects the food supply and transportation [104].

Main factors affecting food security…

Main factors affecting food security at macro-level [124].

Most vulnerable groups in jeopardy…

Most vulnerable groups in jeopardy of food shortage [36].

Some essential safety measures during…

Some essential safety measures during COVID-19 disease [109].

Zhu Q, Gao Y, Hu Q, Hu D, Wu X. A study on the factors influencing the intention to receive booster shots of the COVID-19 vaccine in China based on the information frame effect. Front. Public Health. 2024;12 - PMC - PubMed
Rodriguez-Morales A.J., et al. History is repeating itself: probable zoonotic spillover as the cause of the 2019 novel Coronavirus Epidemic. Infezioni Med. Le. 2020;28(1):3–5. - PubMed
Das U.N. Can bioactive lipids inactivate coronavirus (COVID-19)? Arch. Med. Res. 2020;51(3):282–286. - PMC - PubMed
Mackenzie J.S., Smith D.W. COVID-19: a novel zoonotic disease caused by a coronavirus from China: what we know and what we don't. Microbiology Australia. 2020;41(1):45–50. - PMC - PubMed
Control, C.f.D. and Prevention . 2012. CDC Web Site. Self-Study STD Modules for Clinicians.

Publication types

Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

Elsevier Science
PubMed Central

Miscellaneous

NCI CPTAC Assay Portal

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Pan-African Journal of Business Management Journal / Pan-African Journal of Business Management / Vol. 8 No. 1 (2024) / Articles (function() { function async_load(){ var s = document.createElement('script'); s.type = 'text/javascript'; s.async = true; var theUrl = 'https://www.journalquality.info/journalquality/ratings/2408-www-ajol-info-pajbm'; s.src = theUrl + ( theUrl.indexOf("?") >= 0 ? "&" : "?") + 'ref=' + encodeURIComponent(window.location.href); var embedder = document.getElementById('jpps-embedder-ajol-pajbm'); embedder.parentNode.insertBefore(s, embedder); } if (window.attachEvent) window.attachEvent('onload', async_load); else window.addEventListener('load', async_load, false); })();

Article sidebar.

Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .

Main Article Content

Empowerment setbacks and coping strategies in the covid-19 crisis of female food vendors in tanzania, john r.p. mwakyusa, severine s. kessy, david p. rwehikiza.

The Government of Tanzania has established a conducive environment for gender equity, as reflected in the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs). Female food vendors operating in Tanzania's urban settings face multifaceted socio-economic and cultural challenges, with these factors significantly influencing how they are perceived and treated within their communities. This, in turn, can impact their ability to negotiate and make decisions in business settings, particularly during epidemics. However, the Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated the challenges. This study delved into the effects of COVID-19 on food vending businesses and coping mechanisms amidst its raging consequences. The study sequentially employed qualitative and quantitative approaches to gather data from female food vendors using in-depth interviews and questionnaires. Of all the collected questionnaires, 304 were sufficient for descriptive and paired t-test analyses. Thematic analysis was applied to qualitative data. The findings underscore the significant adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the business performance of female food vendors. Indicators such as the number of employees, average daily sales, average daily profit, and daily working capital exhibited statistically significant declines during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic levels. Coping strategies employed by female food vendors included strict adherence to COVID-19 protocols, workforce reductions, trimming daily allowances for assistants, cutting down on working capital, streamlining food items on the menu, and avoiding expensive menu options. The study highlights the negative impact of the pandemic on business performance, emphasizing the need for government intervention through subsidies, especially during pandemics. Additionally, the study recommends business formalisation to access subsidies and microcredits better. Following the analysis, the study offered detailed policy recommendations to address specific issues identified during the research. Additionally, suggestions for further studies are presented, indicating potential avenues for future research to deepen the understanding of the subject matter.

AJOL is a Non Profit Organisation that cannot function without donations. AJOL and the millions of African and international researchers who rely on our free services are deeply grateful for your contribution. AJOL is annually audited and was also independently assessed in 2019 by E&Y.

Your donation is guaranteed to directly contribute to Africans sharing their research output with a global readership.

For annual AJOL Supporter contributions, please view our Supporters page.

Journal Identifiers

The Impact of COVID-19 Related Business and Social Restrictions

From March 2020 to early 2022, state and county governments in the US have introduced a variety of policies to reduce virus transmission and deaths. These include: stay-at-home orders; general business closures; specific closures targeting bars, restaurants, gyms and spas; visitation policies at nursing homes; mandatory mask orders; park and beach closures; and limits on the size of gatherings. Which of these help curb fatality growth?

I am looking for research assistants to gather data on county and state-level business and related restrictions aimed at curbing the spread of Covid-19. The work requires on-going and detailed reading of Governor and County Commissioner orders, news outlets, and other sources available on the web. (A lot of which is really, really dull!) The main goal of the RA work is to determine whether and when various restrictions are imposed and lifted regulators (for example, when restaurants were banned from indoor seating or when indoor capacity was set at 50% for gyms) for all 3,000+ counties in the U.S. and to provide the relevant links to the source(s) of any information entered into the database. (Did I mention this is often very dull? It can also be tedious.) I expect anyone taking one of these positions to spend at least a couple of hours per week working in person in my office.

Requisite Skills and Qualifications

The work requires a large number of web searches and a willingness to email and call government authorities (numerous times). No programming skills are required, but a very high level of attention to detail is crucial. An interest in business and health policy is also helpful.

COVID-19 pandemic and its positive impacts on environment: an updated review

Published: 16 November 2020
Volume 18 , pages 521–530, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

I. Khan 1 ,
D. Shah 2 &
S. S. Shah 2

144k Accesses

111 Citations

21 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In December, 2019 in Wuhan city of China, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has garnered global attention due to its rapid transmission. World Health Organization (WHO) termed the infection as Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) after phylogenic studies with SARS-CoV. The virus causes severe respiratory infections with dry cough, high fever, body ache and fatigue. The virus is primarily transmitted among people through respiratory droplets from COVID-19 infected person. WHO declared this COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic and since February, 2020 affected countries have locked down their cities, industries and restricted the movement of their citizens to minimize the spread of the virus. In spite of the negative aspects of coronavirus on the globe, the coronavirus crises brought a positive impact on the natural environment. Countries where the movement of citizens was seized to stop the spread of coronavirus infection have experienced a noticeable decline in pollution and greenhouse gases emission. Recent research also indicated that this COVID-19-induced lockdown has reduced the environmental pollution drastically worldwide. In this review, we have discussed some important positive impacts of coronavirus on environmental quality by compiling the recently published data from research articles, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and ESA (European Space Agency).

The long-term impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on environmental health: a review study of the bi-directional effect

The impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on global air quality: A review

Positive environmental effects of the coronavirus 2020 episode: a review

Explore related subjects.

Environmental Chemistry

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

An acute respiratory infection of unknown origin was first reported in December, 2019, in Wuhan, China (Singhal 2020 ), called novel coronavirus infected pneumonia (NCIP) (Wang et al. 2020 ). Later on the pathogen was identified as a novel enveloped RNA ß-coronavirus, through the use of unbiased sequencing (Zahra et al. 2020 ), which was of similar phylogeny to SARS-CoV (Lai et al. 2020 ). On January 12, 2020, WHO named this new virus as the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) (Lu et al. 2020a , b ). On January 30, 2020, WHO announced this virus as a global pandemic (Zhang et al. 2020 ). On February 11, 2020, WHO named the novel disease as Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) named this virus as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (Gorbalenya et al. 2020 ).

The SARS-CoV-2 can affect the respiratory tract including nose, mouth, throat, sinuses and lungs (Wölfel et al. 2020 ). Human-to-human and human-to-animal transmissions have been presumed for this virus (Graham and Baric 2010 ). Respiratory droplets of the infected person are the most likely tools of transmission. These droplets carry the virus into the air and can enter into a host body through nose and mouth. The virus causes inflammation in lungs which damage the pulmonary cells by initiating an inflammatory reaction. Vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue and high fever may develop with severe inflammation (Dong et al. 2020 ). Inflammatory fluid produced as a result of inflammation fill the lungs, resulting in coughing and difficulty in breathing by reducing the function of alveoli. The oxygen level in the blood may drop while other organs such as kidneys or the heart might be affected in severe cases (Geier and Geier 2020 ; Inciardi et al. 2020 ).

The origin of this infection was Wuhan city from where it spreads to the rest of the world (Lu et al. 2020a , b ). This disease has pretended a significant threat to the health and economy of the world. Thousands of people have already been died from this infection while millions are still facing the illness. According to WHO, till 16th of May, 2020 around 4.62 million active cases and more than 0.3 million deaths have been reported due to COVID-19 worldwide. The current reports suggest that the vast majority of deaths from the virus were of people who were suffering from other health issues like kidney problems, heart problems and diabetes etc. (Li et al. 2020 ; Palmer 2020 ; Richardson et al. 2020 ). COVID-19 is the second largest pandemic of the twenty-first century and has led to the largest quarantine in human history after the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) (Zowalaty and Järhult 2020 ). Bustling cities have turned into ghost towns, public squares, where communities were converging for centuries are almost empty, and millions of people are under lockdown all over the world.

The quarantine imposed due to COVID-19 is unprecedented in human history as all the markets are shutdown, places of worships are closed, public gathering is banned, travel restrictions have been imposed, construction work halted and economy as well as stock exchange crashed worldwide. But from climate perspective the coronavirus pandemic brings about many positive aspects which the world is witnessing during the lockdown. Drastic quarantine measures implemented by the government authorities across the world resulted in a significant change in environment which is a good sign for the deadly global environmental crises, e.g. emission of greenhouse gases and ozone layer depletion. In this review we have highlighted some positive aspects of COVID-19-induced lockdown on the environment and suggested some strategies to prevent reversion of air and water pollution.

Positive impacts/aspects of COVID-19 pandemic

Humanity retreats indoors and the non-human natural world rumbles out liberated. Notoriously dirty, the waterways and rivers in the world look cleaner, the air fresher, the smog gone, the haze dispersed and the wildlife has filled the open spaces, coronavirus lockdowns across the world seem to have a number of positive effects on the environment. Millions of the people have been cooped up indoors but the natural world outside has continued to rumble on and the natural world is benefiting from our absence. Here, we have discussed some important positive impacts of the COVID-19-induced lockdown on environmental quality by compiling the recently published data from research articles, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and ESA (European Space Agency).

Air quality and climate

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that the outdoor air pollution kills 7 million people each year worldwide and more than 80% urban population is exposed to unhealthy air (WHO 2020 ). Since people stayed home, these last few months have paved significant improvement in air quality, especially in hard-hit areas like Wuhan, as well as in northern Italy and a number of metropolitan areas throughout the USA. In China, emissions of harmful gases and other pollutants dropped 25% at the start of the year 2020 and the quality of air improved up to 11.4% with respect to start of the last year, in 337 cities across China. WHO estimated that this change has saved 50,000 lives in China (CNN 2020 ). It is shocking to realize that millions of people die every year because of polluted air, smog and soot which are considered to be slow killers.

A particulate matter (PM) called PM2.5 which is one of the most dangerous pollutants. It is included in the group-I carcinogens. The 2.5 refers to the particulate size (in microns), or about one thirtieth of the width of a human hair (Xu and Ren 2019 ). PM2.5 is so small that it can travel from lungs to blood stream which will not only cause respiratory problems but also heart attack and can also cause early deaths. The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that every year, worldwide, more than 4 million deaths occurred due to PM2.5, causing heart diseases, strokes, lung cancer, chronic lung diseases and respiratory infections (WHO 2019 ). The baseline of PM2.5 in many cities in the world is above one hundred, measured in micrograms per cubic meter. After COVID-19-induced lockdown, the level of PM2.5 has decreased drastically and thousands of lives have been protected from its worse impacts. Table 1 shows the analysis of IQAir about PM2.5 levels in some of the most polluted cities in the world during the period of COVID-19-induced lockdown (IQAir 2020 ).

Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) is a toxic gas that is emitted from the engines of automobiles and factories. The World Health Organization stated that if the concentration of this gas exceeds 200 µg/m 3 , then it can cause inflammation in respiratory track which ultimately leads to asthma. Now, due to current lockdown the transport is restricted and factories are closed, hence, in cities all over the world the concentration of NO 2 in air has dropped drastically (from 5.6 µg/m 3 to 0.2 µg/m 3 ) (Otmani et al. 2020 ). Using Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI), NASA and ESA have monitored the abrupt decrease in NO 2 concentration during the initial quarantine phase of COVID-19 in China. This decrease in concentration of NO 2 began in China and slowly it was observed in the rest of the world. The decrease in NO 2 concentration was significant in China because the pandemic of COVID-19 happened in the same time when they were celebrating lunar year (Spring Festival) in China, when all the factories, transport and businesses were already closed followed by COVID-19-induced lockdown. Figure 1 shows NO 2 levels in the air of China before and after lockdown, where NO 2 emission is reduced up to 20–30% from February 10 to 25 (ESA 2020 ). Lockdown in Pakistan has brought a drastic decrease in pollution level across the country. Using TROPOMI- Sentinel-5P satellite, researchers have analyzed the NO 2 level in many cities of Pakistan. Figure 2 shows the concentration of NO 2 in few most polluted cities of Pakistan before and after the lockdown (1st March to 15th April) (CREA 2020 ).

NO 2 emissions in China before and after lockdown. (ESA 2020 )

Approx. reductions in NO 2 levels across main cities in Pakistan (1st March–15th April)

Recent data from the Copernicus Sentinel-5P satellite shows that NO 2 concentrations reduced by 45–50% compared to the same period last year in some important cities of Europe (Fig. 3 ) .

The concentrations of nitrogen dioxide over Europe from 13 March till 13 April 2020, compared to the average concentrations from March–April, 2019

Data from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on board NASA's Aura Satellite shows that air pollution decreases over Southwest US Cities. The data shows that NO 2 levels have been decreased 31% over Los Angeles, 22% over San Francisco Bay Area, 25% over San Diego and Tijuana, 16% over Phoenix and 10% over Las Vegas with respect to previous year’s data (OMI 2020 ). Figure 4 shows satellite estimates of NO 2 over major cities of USA. Figure 4 a shows the mean NO 2 concentration of 150-day period from 2015 through 2019, while Fig. 4 b shows the mean of the only 30-day period during 2020.

Satellite estimates of NO 2 over major cities of Southwest USA

Figure 5 represents the concentration of NO 2 over southeast USA. Figure 5 a shows average of Tropospheric NO 2 level, during March 15 to April 15, every year from 2015 to 2019, while Fig. 5 b shows the average of Tropospheric NO 2 level, during March 15 to April 15, 2020.

Satellite estimates of NO 2 over Southeast USA

The carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emission is responsible for the climate change. The transportation sector, industries and electricity have a huge contribution in carbon dioxide emission. Due to coronavirus lockdown the emission of CO 2 has decreased worldwide (Fig. 6 ) (NASA 2020 ). The experts are predicting this to be the biggest decline in anthropogenic CO 2 emissions after World War-II. During the period of lockdown, global air traffic reduced by 60% which have led to a temporary dip in CO 2 emissions from their pre-crisis levels. Due to COVID-19 lockdown, CO 2 emissions in China have minimized by around 200 million metric tons. Scientists estimated that this reduction may have saved at least 77,000 lives (CAT 2020 ). Scientists in Europe have observed a similar effect in northern Italy while a 5–10% reduction in CO 2 emission have been reported by the scientists at Columbia University, New York within a week (14–20 March, 2020).

Decrease in carbon emissions after COVID-19 lockdown

Researchers at NASA reported that ozone concentration above Arctic regions of the globe decreased by around 240 Dobson units on March 12, 2020 as compared to ozone concentration in March 12, 2019. Such low levels are very rare and happen about once per decade. NASA reported a comparatively higher concentration of ozone over Arctic regions in March 12, 2019 (Fig. 7 a) in comparison with low level of ozone concentration in March 12, 2020 (Fig. 7 b). Yellow and red colors show the highest concentration of ozone, while the light and dark blue colors depict low levels (Fig. 7 ) (NASA 2020). However, during the lockdown period (March and April, 2020) an unprecedented healing of ozone hole was observed which is reported by Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) as well as Bassim et al. 2020.

The concentration of ozone over Arctic regions in March 12, 2019 ( a) in comparison with March 12, 2020 ( b )

The Ongoing COVID-19 lockdown across the world is showing a direct relation between air pollution levels and economic activities such as industrial activities, transportation and energy production along with the small-scale interferences at city levels. This suggests that clean energy-based system has to be adopted as the corona outbreak ends.

Water quality and aquatic life

Reports are indicating that during COVID-19-induced lockdown not only the air quality but water quality in rivers and water bodies is also improving. The stoppage of discharging industrial effluents and other wastes into water led to an apparent positive effect on water quality. India’s holiest river Ganga has been one of the most polluted rivers in the world. Waste from domestic and industrial setups along the banks of this river cost the government in millions without any success. According to the real-time water analysis of the Central Pollution Control Board of India (CPCB) and reports of Dr. Mishra, an IIT professor in Banaras Hindu University, a 40–50% improvement has been observed in the water quality of the Ganga River (CPCB 2020 ). The parameters monitored online were dissolved oxygen (more than 6 mg/L), biochemical oxygen demand (less than 2 mg/L), total coliform levels (5000 per 100 ml) and pH (range between 6.5 and 8.5). Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, has reported that the water of Ganga River has become fit for drinking after decades. Not just the Ganga but its sister river the Yamuna has been improved as well, as dissolved oxygen (DO) has been recorded 2.3–4.8 mg/L in Yamuna which was considered null in 2019. Lockdown has been able to achieve what the governments could not for decades. Data from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) of India reveals that the biological oxygen demand (BOD) of the rivers Ganga and Yamuna has decreased in their most polluted stretches (CPCB 2020 ; UPPCB 2020 ). In Venice the water are looking clearer after the two months of COVID-19 lockdown and aquatic life is now visible which hasn’t been seen for many years in the cities.

Clean rivers and other water bodies have a significant positive effect on the aquatic life. Many species are returning to their natural habitats since induction of the lockdown. The closure of factories and commercial establishments has dipped the pollution level across the globe. Not only the land animals returning but even the sea creatures seem to enjoy this break from the noise and water pollution. With many cruisers suspended, the tourism subdued while all other marine activities being suspended, consequently, the aquatic species are taking controls in their hands. Marine scientists have already started investigating the effects of lockdown on marine life. Commercial fishing industries have been hit hard due to the closure of main buyers, the restaurants and hotels. The social distancing at sea has caused the fishing vessels to be anchored at ports. Carlos Duarte, a research chair at the Red Sea Research Center (RSRC) in Saudi Arabia, said COVID-19 lockdown between February and June or July will accelerate the recovery of fish stocks and other marine organisms, as it already showed spectacular recovery after the 1st and 2nd world wars, and this accidental lockdown will help us to grasp conservation aims faster. Sound travels much farther and faster in water than a so-called imagine plight of the aquatic life. The noise pollution from shipping and powerful blasts from the seismic air gun tests, used to locate the deposits of gas and oil in the deep oceans, must be traumatizing for marine life. Noise levels from shipping traffic are generally 20–200 Hz and disturb the aquatic life which is decreased by six decibels with a significant reduction below 150 Hz (GeoNoise 2020 ). The study of humpback whales and other marine life by Michelle Fournette, a marine ecologist at Cornell, said that the removal of just the cruise ships would bring about an instant massive change in the amount of ocean noise. The study states that the ambient noise from nautical traffic increases stress-hormone levels in marine creatures, which in turn can affect their reproductive success (Rolland et al. 2012 ). A study examining the feces of the right whales reveals that limited movement in the water was directly proportional to lowering of stress hormones in these species. In addition, this lockdown is also providing a flawless condition for olive ridley turtles in the beaches. Turtles are less disturbed by tourists during this lockdown. The decreased human interruption this year would give these turtles enough time to incubate and hatch in peace. Since the beaches are people free that resulted in no accidental crushing of eggs, less garbage and plastics disposal to the marine environment. The indigestion and entanglement due to the plastic and marine debris which are the leading causes of injuries to sea creatures will be wiped out during this lockdown. Not just the oceans but even the rivers and other water bodies are clearing out indicating lesser toxic and harmful materials entrance to the water bodies.

There have been visible positive signs of this lockdown but few weeks or months of lockdown will not be enough to eradicate or reverse the damage caused during many years. Data gathered by several studies can be utilized for devising better environmental policies. The lockdown gives us hope that there is a possibility of minimizing the unnecessary human interferences and letting these wonderful creatures back in their space and habitats. If the governments construct sewage treatment plants in the right manner and make strong regulations for the companies and industries to treat their wastes accordingly, then the lockdown induced ecofriendly impact on aquatic life can be long lasting.

Slow moving life

Mobility has been wedged all over the world during COVID-19 lockdown. All modes of mobility like public transport, micro-mobility and individual auto commuting have seen a melodramatic diminution across the globe. Public transport has been reduced in many countries and up to 95% decline in users has been reported by many transport authorities.

COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports ( Table 2 ) , which use anonymous, aggregated geolocation data from mobile phones to chart movement trends over several weeks, provide perceptions into changes in mobility patterns. These reports illustrate the trends in movements in most busy places including workplaces, markets, parks, places of residence, entertaining venues and pharmacies, etc. The data collected from the mobile phones of people by this community depicts that people have reduced their movement after the COVID-19 pandemic (COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports—Google). Decreased mobility has been observed across the globe especially in countries such as Italy, USA, Germany, UK, Canada, China, India and Saudi Arabia.

According to data from TomTom Traffic Index (TTTI), which provides detailed insights on live and historic road crowding levels in cities around the world, traffic levels have greatly been reduced in this ongoing pandemic. In 25 largest cities of UK, congestion levels have dropped from 73 to 16% on April 22, when compared to pre-pandemic levels. In India, according to All India Motor Transport Congress (AIMTC) daily movement of trucks has been reduced to less than 10% of normal levels (TomTom Traffic Index 2020 ).

According to the data collected by INRIX, a transportation data company, travel levels have been dropped by 48% in USA, whereas the city of New York experienced the largest drop (63%) in passenger travelling.. The road traffic of Barcelona city (Spain) has shrunken by 80% since the COVID-19 lockdown. In Italy, one of the most infected countries in the world and as the first nation to announce lockdown, traffic levels have been reduced by 65% (INRIX 2020 ).

Reduced road transport and fewer air travels across the globe considerably decreased fuel consumption. According to the data collected from a Norwegian energy consultancy, Rystad Energy, the demand for oil, gas and diesel could be decreased by 9.4 percent over 2020 (Rystad Energy 2020 ). However, this pandemic is a great opportunity for us to learn that how urban traffic and transportation can be monitored to reduce the expenditure of fuel, its consumption and maintain a healthy environment.

Lessons from COVID-19-induced lockdown

COVID-19 pandemic is the first and foremost a global health emergency with severe consequences on health and economy, but it has also brought positive environmental effects that may serve as an example and inspiration for future behavioral changes that would help us to bring positive changes in environment. The current global pandemic has forced us to introspect and imagine a different world. The lockdowns show that a world with cleaner air is possible. The ongoing pandemic across the world is showing a direct relation between pollution levels and bigger economic activities such as industrial activities, transportation and energy production along with the small-scale interferences at city levels. This tells us that clean energy-based system has to be adopted as the corona outbreak ends. Without pollution control, the waste products from consumption, heating, agriculture, mining, manufacturing, transportation and other human activities, will degrade the environment. Therefore, proper strategies should be adopted to control environmental degradation. The lockdown gives us hope that there is a possibility of minimizing the unnecessary human interferences in environment. To bring positive changes in the environment, governments and individuals should adopt the following suggested strategies:

Inspection and maintenance of vehicles

Efficient public transport system

Improving traffic managements

Using eco-friendly products

Minimizing the use of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)

Adopting renewable energy sources

Promoting reusing and recycling of wastes

Decreasing the use of pesticides

Using minimum required amount of water

Plantation of trees

Avoiding deforestation

Treatment of sewage and removing solid, suspended and inorganic materials from it, before it enters the environment

Use of Ecosan toilets where no water is required and human excreta is converted into natural fertilizers

COVID-19 originated from Wuhan city of China and then spread almost all over the world. WHO declared this COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic and since February, 2020 affected countries have halted their factories, transport, vehicles and aviation to minimize the spread of the virus. Following social distancing, lockdown and restricted human interaction with nature proved to be a blessing for nature and environment during the crises. There are positive indications from all over the world that COVID-19-induced lockdown is improving environmental conditions including air and water quality and causes a significant concurrent reduction in PM2.5, NO 2 and CO concentration which resulted in a significant increase in O 3 concentration. This recovery of lost environment is an indicator that the environmental degradation caused by human is reversible. In a period of just 2–3 months, recovery of nature is being witnessed by everyone. This is a signal for us to understand and react. Government and policy makers must take necessary steps so that this healing process does not become a temporary one. There is a need for rigorous study on the effect of implementation of such short term lockdown as an alternative measure for pollution reduction and its effect on economy.

CAT-Climate Action Tracker (2020) Climate of China. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/ . Accessed 3 May 2020

CNN-Cable News Network (2020) China's coronavirus lockdown curbs deadly pollution, likely saving the lives of tens of thousands, says researcher. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/17/health/china-air-pollution-coronavirus-deaths-intl/index.html . Accessed 13 May 2020.

COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports (2020). https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/ . Accessed 2 May 2020

CPCB- Central Pollution Control Board (2020) Water Quality. https://cpcb.nic.in/water-pollution/ . Accessed 6 July 2020

CREA- Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (2020) Air Quality before and after national lockdown during Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak across Pakistan. https://energyandcleanair.org/air-quality-before-and-after-national-lockdown-during-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak-across-pakistan . Accessed 9 May 2020

Dong X, Cao YY, Lu XX et al (2020) Eleven faces of coronavirus disease 2019. Allergy. https://doi.org/10.1111/ALL.14289

Article Google Scholar

ESA- European Space Agency (2020) COVID-19: nitrogen dioxide over China. https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-5P/COVID-19_nitrogen_dioxide_over_China . Accessed 5 May 2020

Geier MR, Geier DA (2020) Respiratory conditions in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): important considerations regarding novel treatment strategies to reduce mortality. Med Hypotheses 140:109760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2020.109760

Article CAS Google Scholar

GeoNoise (2020) Coronavirus Lockdown Gives Animals A Rare Break from Noise Pollution. https://www.geonoise.com/coronavirus-lockdown-gives-animals-a-rare-break-from-noise-pollution/ . Accessed 30 March 2020

Gorbalenya AE, Baker SC, Baric RS et al (2020) The species severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: classifying 2019-NCoV and naming It SARS-CoV-2. Nat Microbiol 5:536–544. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-020-0695-z

Graham RL, Baric RS (2010) Recombination, reservoirs, and the modular spike: mechanisms of coronavirus cross-species transmission. J Virol 84:3134–3146. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01394-09

Hashim BM, Al-Naseri SK, Al-Maliki A et al (2020) Impact of COVID-19 lockdown on NO 2 , O 3 , PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations and assessing air quality changes in Baghdad Iraq. Sci Total Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141978

Inciardi RM, Lupi L, Zaccone G et al (2020) Cardiac involvement in a patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). JAMA Cardiol 2019:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2020.1096

INRIX. 2020. https://inrix.com/ . Accessed 5 May 2020

IQAir, 2020. https://www.iqair.com/us/ . Accessed 6 July 2020

Lai CC, Shih TP, Ko WC et al (2020) Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19): the epidemic and the challenges. Int J Antimicrob Agents 55:105924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105924

Li JW, Han TW, Woodward M et al (2020) The impact of 2019 novel coronavirus on heart injury: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2020.04.008

Lu H, Stratton CW, Tang YW (2020) Outbreak of pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan, China: the mystery and the miracle. J Med Virol 92:401–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.25678

Lu R, Zhao X, Li J, Niu P et al (2020) Genomic characterisation and epidemiology of 2019 novel coronavirus: implications for virus origins and receptor binding. Lancet 395:565–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30251-8

NASA-National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2020) NASA Satellite Offers Urban Carbon Dioxide Insights. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2957/nasa-satellite-offers-urban-carbon-dioxide-insights/ . Accessed 13 May 2020

OMI-Ozone Monitoring Instrument (2020) Daily OMI tropospheric NO 2 (air pollution) measurements over The Netherlands and Western Europe. https://projects.knmi.nl/omi/research/ . Accessed May 7 2020

Otmani A, Benchrif A, Tahri A et al (2020) Impact of Covid-19 lockdown on PM10, SO 2 and NO 2 concentrations in Salé City (Morocco). Sci.Tot. Environ. 735: 139541. https:// doi.org10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139541

Nicholas P (2020) COVID-19 and the vulnerability of kidney patients. J Kidney Care 5:94–95

Products as an emerging therapeutic regime: a review. biomedica 36:201–205.

Richardson S, Hirsch JS, Narasimhan M, Crawford JM et al (2020) Presenting characteristics, comorbidities, and outcomes among 5700 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the New York City area. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 10022:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.6775

Rolland RM, Parks SE, Hunt KE et al (2012) Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proc R Soc B 279:2363–2368. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.2429

Romano TA, Keogh MJ, Kelly C et al (2004) Anthropogenic sound and marine mammal health: Measures of the nervous and immune systems before and after intense sound exposure. Can J Fish AquatSci 61:1124–1134. https://doi.org/10.1139/f04-055

Rystad Energy (2020) COVID-19 demand update: Oil seen down 9.4%, jet fuel down 31%, road fuel down 9.4% in 2020. https://www.rystadenergy.com/newsevents/news/press-releases/covid-19-demand-update-oil-seen-down-9point4-jet-fuel-down-31-road-fuel-down-9point4-in-2020/ . Accessed 5 May 2020

Singhal T (2020) A review of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Indian J Pediatr 87:281–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-020-03263-6

TomTom Traffic Index (2020). https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/ . Accessed 2 May 2020

UPPCB-Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (2020) River Water Quality. https://www.uppcb.com/river_quality.htm . Accessed 6 July 2020

Wang D, Hu B, Hu C et al (2020) Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 323:1061–1069. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.1585

WHO- World Health Organization (2019) Air pollution. https://www9.who.int/airpollution/en/ . Accessed 15 May 2020

WHO-World Health Organization (2020) Air pollution. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution . Accessed 15 May 2020

Wölfel R, Corman VM, Guggemos W et al (2020) Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2196-x

Xu Z, Ren W (2019) Application of a hybrid model based on echo state network and improved particle swarm optimization in PM 2.5 concentration forecasting: a case study of Beijing, China. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113096

Zahra FT, Saleem S, Imran M et al (2020) The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the role of honey and its products as an emerging therapeutic regime: a review. Biomedica (36), COVID 19-S2.

Zhang D, Hu M, Ji Q (2020) Financial markets under the global pandemic of COVID-19. Finance Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101528

Zowalaty MEE, Järhult JD (2020) From SARS to COVID-19: a previously unknown SARS- related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) of pandemic potential infecting humans-call for a one health approach. One Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2020.100124

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our deep and sincere gratitude to Dr. Sikandar Khan, Department of Biotechnology, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University Sheringal, Pakistan, for his generous guidance and intellectual support.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biotechnology, School of Life Sciences and Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China

Department of Chemistry, Government Degree College No. 2 Mardan, Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

D. Shah & S. S. Shah

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors declare that this work was done by the authors named in this article and all liabilities pertaining to claims relating to the content of this article will be borne by them. I.K. conceived the study. S.S.S. and I.K. drafted the manuscript. D.S. and S.S.S. revised the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. S. Shah .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Additional information

Editorial responsibility: Samareh Mirkia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Khan, I., Shah, D. & Shah, S.S. COVID-19 pandemic and its positive impacts on environment: an updated review. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18 , 521–530 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-020-03021-3

Download citation

Received : 05 June 2020

Revised : 08 September 2020

Accepted : 31 October 2020

Published : 16 November 2020

Issue Date : February 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-020-03021-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Air pollution
NO 2 emission
Carbon emission
Ozone layer
Water quality
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection

A critical analysis of the impacts of COVID-19 on the global economy and ecosystems and opportunities for circular economy strategies

T. ibn-mohammed.

a Warwick Manufacturing Group (WMG), The University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom

K.B. Mustapha

b Faculty of Engineering and Science, University of Nottingham (Malaysia Campus), Semenyih, Selangor43500, Malaysia

c School of The Built Environment and Architecture, London South Bank University, London SE1 0AA, United Kingdom

K.A. Babatunde

d Faculty of Economics and Management, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Selangor43600, Malaysia

e Department of Economics, Faculty of Management Sciences, Al-Hikmah University, Ilorin, Nigeria

D.D. Akintade

f School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH United Kingdom

g Kent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7PE, United Kingdom

h Faculty of Economics, Kyushu University, 744 Motooka, Nishi-ku, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan

M.M. Ndiaye

i Department of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE

F.A. Yamoah

j Department of Management, Birkbeck University of London, London WC1E 7JL United Kingdom

k Sheffield University Management School (SUMS), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 1FL, United Kingdom

• COVID-19 presents unprecedented challenge to all facets of human endeavour.
• A critical review of the negative and positive impacts of the pandemic is presented.
• The danger of relying on pandemic-driven benefits to achieving SDGs is highlighted.
• The pandemic and its interplay with circular economy (CE) approaches is examined.
• Sector-specific CE recommendations in a resilient post-COVID-19 world are outlined.

The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic on the 11th of March 2020, but the world is still reeling from its aftermath. Originating from China, cases quickly spread across the globe, prompting the implementation of stringent measures by world governments in efforts to isolate cases and limit the transmission rate of the virus. These measures have however shattered the core sustaining pillars of the modern world economies as global trade and cooperation succumbed to nationalist focus and competition for scarce supplies. Against this backdrop, this paper presents a critical review of the catalogue of negative and positive impacts of the pandemic and proffers perspectives on how it can be leveraged to steer towards a better, more resilient low-carbon economy. The paper diagnosed the danger of relying on pandemic-driven benefits to achieving sustainable development goals and emphasizes a need for a decisive, fundamental structural change to the dynamics of how we live. It argues for a rethink of the present global economic growth model, shaped by a linear economy system and sustained by profiteering and energy-gulping manufacturing processes, in favour of a more sustainable model recalibrated on circular economy (CE) framework. Building on evidence in support of CE as a vehicle for balancing the complex equation of accomplishing profit with minimal environmental harms, the paper outlines concrete sector-specific recommendations on CE-related solutions as a catalyst for the global economic growth and development in a resilient post-COVID-19 world.

1. Introduction

The world woke up to a perilous reality on the 11th of March, 2020 when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared novel coronavirus (COVID-19) a pandemic ( Sohrabi et al., 2020 ; WHO, 2020a ). Originating from Wuhan, China, cases rapidly spread to Japan, South Korea, Europe and the United States as it reached global proportions. Towards the formal pandemic declaration, substantive economic signals from different channels, weeks earlier, indicated the world was leaning towards an unprecedented watershed in our lifetime, if not in human history ( Gopinath, 2020 ). In series of revelatory reports ( Daszak, 2012 ; Ford et al., 2009 ; Webster, 1997 ), experts across professional cadres had long predicted a worldwide pandemic would strain the elements of the global supply chains and demands, thereby igniting a cross-border economic disaster because of the highly interconnected world we now live in. By all accounts, the emerging havoc wrought by the pandemic exceeded the predictions in those commentaries. At the time of writing, the virus has killed over 800,000 people worldwide ( JHU, 2020 ), disrupted means of livelihoods, cost trillions of dollars while global recession looms ( Naidoo and Fisher, 2020 ). In efforts to isolate cases and limit the transmission rate of the virus, while mitigating the pandemic, countries across the globe implemented stringent measures such as mandatory national lockdown and border closures.

These measures have shattered the core sustaining pillars of modern world economies. Currently, the economic shock arising from this pandemic is still being weighed. Data remains in flux, government policies oscillate, and the killer virus seeps through nations, affecting production, disrupting supply chains and unsettling the financial markets ( Bachman, 2020 ; Sarkis et al., 2020 ). Viewed holistically, the emerging pieces of evidence indicate we are at a most consequential moment in history where a rethink of sustainable pathways for the planet has become pertinent. Despite this, the measures imposed by governments have also led to some “accidental” positive effects on the environment and natural ecosystems. As a result, going forward, a fundamental change to human bio-physical activities on earth now appears on the spectrum of possibility ( Anderson et al., 2020 ). However, as highlighted by Naidoo and Fisher (2020) , our reliance on globalization and economic growth as drivers of green investment and sustainable development is no longer realistic. The adoption of circular economy (CE) – an industrial economic model that satisfies the multiple roles of decoupling of economic growth from resource consumption, waste management and wealth creation – has been touted to be a viable solution.

No doubt, addressing the public health consequences of COVID-19 is the top priority, but the nature of the equally crucial economic recovery efforts necessitates some key questions as governments around the world introduce stimulus packages to aid such recovery endeavours: Should these packages focus on avenues to economic recovery and growth by thrusting business as usual into overdrive or could they be targeted towards constructing a more resilient low-carbon CE? To answer this question, this paper builds on the extant literature on public health, socio-economic and environmental dimensions of COVID-19 impacts ( Gates, 2020b ; Guerrieri et al., 2020 ; Piguillem and Shi, 2020 ; Sohrabi et al., 2020 ), and examines its interplay with CE approaches. It argues for the recalibration and a rethink of the present global economic growth model, shaped by a linear economy system and sustained by profit-before-planet and energy-intensive manufacturing processes, in favour of CE. Building on evidence in support of CE as a vehicle for optimizing the complex equation of accomplishing profit while minimizing environmental damage, the paper outlines tangible sector-specific recommendations on CE-related solutions as a catalyst for the global economic boom in a resilient post-COVID-19 world. It is conceived that the “accidental” or the pandemic-induced CE strategies and behavioural changes that ensued during coronavirus crisis can be leveraged or locked in, to provide opportunities for both future resilience and competitiveness.

In light of the above, the paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 , the methodological framework, which informed the critical literature review is presented. A brief overview of the historical context of previous epidemics and pandemics is presented in Section 3 as a requisite background on how pandemics have shaped human history and economies and why COVID-19 is different. In Section 4 , an overview of the impacts (both negative and positive) of COVID-19 in terms of policy frameworks, global economy, ecosystems and sustainability are presented. The role of the CE as a constructive change driver is detailed in Section 5 . In Section 6 , opportunities for CE after COVID-19 as well as sector-based recommendations on strategies and measures for advancing CE are presented, leading to the summary and concluding remarks in Section 7.

A literature review exemplifies a conundrum because an effective one cannot be conducted unless a problem statement is established ( Ibn-Mohammed, 2017 ). Yet, a literature search plays an integral role in establishing many research problems. In this paper, the approach taken to overcome this conundrum involves searching and reviewing the existing literature in the specific area of study (i.e. impacts of COVID-19 on global economy and ecosystems in the context of CE). This was used to develop the theoretical framework from which the current study emerges and adopting this to establish a conceptual framework which then becomes the basis of the current review. The paper adopts the critical literature review (CLR) approach given that it entails the assessment, critique and synthetisation of relevant literature regarding the topic under investigation in a manner that facilitates the emergence of new theoretical frameworks and perspectives from a wide array of different fields ( Snyder, 2019 ). CLR suffers from an inherent weakness in terms of subjectivity towards literature selection ( Snyder, 2019 ), prompting Grant and Booth (2009) to submit that systematic literature review (SLR) could mitigate this bias given its strict criteria in literature selection that facilitates a detailed analysis of a specific line of investigation. However, a number of authors ( Morrison et al., 2012 ; Paez, 2017 ) have reported that SLR does not allow for effective synthesis of academic and grey literature which are not indexed in popular academic search engines like Google Scholar, Web-of-Science and Scopus. The current review explores the impacts of COVID-19 on the global economy and ecosystems and opportunities for circular economy strategies, rather than investigating a specific aspect of the pandemic. As such, adopting a CLR approach is favoured in realising the goal of the paper as it allows for the inclusion of a wide range of perspectives and theoretical underpinnings from different sources ( Greenhalgh et al., 2018 ; Snyder, 2019 ).

Considering the above, this paper employed archival data consisting of journal articles, documented news in the media, expert reports, government and relevant stakeholders’ policy documents, published expert interviews and policy feedback literature that are relevant to COVID-19 and the concept of CE. To identify the relevant archival data, we focused on several practical ways of literature searching using appropriate keywords that are relevant to this work including impact (positive and negative) of COVID-19, circular economy, economic resilience, sustainability, supply chain resilience, climate change, etc. After identifying articles and relevant documents, their contents were examined to determine inclusions and exclusions based on their relevance to the topic under investigation. Ideas generated from reading the resulting papers from the search were then used to develop a theoretical framework and a research problem statement, which forms the basis for the CLR. The impact analysis for the study was informed by the I = P × A × T model whereby the “impact” (I) of any group or country on the environment is a function of the interaction of its population size (P), per capita affluence (A), expressed in terms of real per capita GDP, as a valid approximation of the availability of goods and services and technology (T) involved in supporting each unit of consumption.

As shown in the methodological framework in Fig. 1 , the paper starts with a brief review of the impacts of historical plagues to shed more light on the link between the past and the unprecedented time, which then led to an overview of the positive and negative impacts of COVID-19. The role of CE as a vehicle for constructive change in the light of COVID-19 was then explored followed by the synthesis, analysis and reflections on the information gathered during the review, leading to sector-specific CE strategy recommendations in a post-COVID-19 world.

Methodological framework for the critical literature review.

3. A brief account of the socio-economic impacts of historical outbreaks

At a minimum, pandemics result in the twin crisis of stressing the healthcare infrastructure and straining the economic system. However, beyond pandemics, several prior studies have long noted that depending on latency, transmission rate, and geographic spread, any form of communicable disease outbreak is a potent vector of localized economic hazards ( Bloom and Cadarette, 2019 ; Bloom and Canning, 2004 ; Hotez et al., 2014 ). History is littered with a catalogue of such outbreaks in the form of endemics, epidemics, plagues and pandemics. In many instances, some of these outbreaks have hastened the collapse of empires, overwhelmed the healthcare infrastructure, brought social unrest, triggered economic dislocations and exposed the fragility of the world economy, with a knock-on effect on many sectors. Indeed, in the initial few months of COVID-19 pandemic, it has become more evident that natural, accidental or intentional biological threats or outbreak in any country now poses an unquantifiable risk to global health and the world economy ( Bretscher et al., 2020 ).

Saunders-Hastings and Krewski (2016) reported that there have been several pandemics over the past 100 years. A short but inexhaustible list of outbreaks of communicable diseases include ‘the great plague’ ( Duncan-Jones, 1996 ; Littman and Littman, 1973 ), the Justinian plague ( Wagner et al., 2014 ), the Black Death ( Horrox, 2013 ), the Third Plague pandemic ( Bramanti et al., 2019 ; Tan et al., 2002 ), the Spanish flu ( Gibbs et al., 2001 ; Trilla et al., 2008 ), HIV/AIDS ( De Cock et al., 2012 ), SARS ( Lee and McKibbin, 2004 ), dengue ( Murray et al., 2013 ), and Ebola ( Baseler et al., 2017 ), among others. The potency of each of these outbreaks varies. Consequently, their economic implications differ according to numerous retrospective analyses ( Bloom and Cadarette, 2019 ; Bloom and Canning, 2004 ; Hotez et al., 2014 ). For instance, the Ebola epidemic of 2013-2016 created socio-economic impact to the tune of $53 billion across West Africa, plummeted Sierra Leone's GDP in 2015 by 20% and that of Liberia by 8% between 2013 and 2014, despite the decline in death rates across the same timeframe ( Fernandes, 2020 ).

As the world slipped into the current inflection point, some of the historical lessons from earlier pandemics remain salutary, even if the world we live in now significantly differs from those of earlier period ( McKee and Stuckler, 2020 ). Several factors differentiate the current socio-economic crisis of COVID-19 from the previous ones ( Baker et al., 2020 ), which means direct simple comparisons with past global pandemics are impossible ( Fernandes, 2020 ). Some of the differentiating factors include the fact that COVID-19 is a global pandemic and it is creating knock-on effects across supply chains given that the world has become much more integrated due to globalisation and advancements in technology ( McKenzie, 2020 ). Moreover, the world has witnessed advances in science, medicine and engineering. The modest number of air travellers during past pandemics delayed the global spread of the virus unlike now where global travel has increased tremendously. From an economic impact perspective, interest rates are at record lows and there is a great imbalance between demand and supply of commodities ( Fernandes, 2020 ). More importantly, many of the countries that are hard hit by the current pandemic are not exclusively the usual low-middle income countries, but those at the pinnacle of the pyramid of manufacturing and global supply chains. Against this backdrop, a review of the impact of COVID-19 is presented in the next section.

4. COVID-19: Policy frameworks, global economy, ecosystems and sustainability

4.1. evaluation of policy frameworks to combat covid-19.

The strategies and policies adopted by different countries to cope with COVID-19 have varied over the evolving severity and lifetime of the pandemic during which resources have been limited ( Siow et al., 2020 ). It is instructive that countries accounting for 65% of global manufacturing and exports (i.e. China, USA, Korea, Japan, France, Italy, and UK) were some of the hardest to be hit by COVID-19 ( Baldwin and Evenett, 2020 ). Given the level of unpreparedness and lack of resilience of hospitals, numerous policy emphases have gone into sourcing for healthcare equipment such as personal protective equipment (PPE) and ventilators ( Ranney et al., 2020 ) due to global shortages. For ventilators, in particular, frameworks for rationing them along with bed spaces have had to be developed to optimise their usage ( White and Lo, 2020 ). Other industries have also been affected, with shocks to their existence, productivity and profitability ( Danieli and Olmstead-Rumsey, 2020 ) including the CE-sensitive materials extraction and mining industries that have been hit by disruption to their operations and global prices of commodities ( Laing, 2020 ).

As highlighted in subsequent sub-sections, one of the psychological impacts of COVID-19 is panic buying ( Arafat et al., 2020 ), which happens due to uncertainties at national levels (e.g. for scarce equipment) and at individual levels (e.g. for everyday consumer products). In both instances, the fragility, profiteering and unsustainability of the existing supply chain model have been exposed ( Spash, 2020 ). In fact, Sarkis et al. (2020) questioned whether the global economy could afford to return to the just-in-time (JIT) supply chain framework favoured by the healthcare sector, given its apparent shortcomings in dealing with much needed supplies. The sub-section that follow examines some of the macro and micro economic ramifications of COVID-19.

4.1.1. Macroeconomic impacts: Global productions, exports, and imports

One challenge faced by the healthcare industry is that existing best practices, in countries like the USA (e.g. JIT macroeconomic framework), do not incentivise the stockpiling of essential medical equipment ( Solomon et al., 2020 ). Although vast sums were budgeted, some governments (e.g. UK, India and USA) needed to take extraordinary measures to protect their supply chain to the extent that manufacturers like Ford and Dyson ventured into the ventilator design/production market ( Iyengar et al., 2020 ). The US, in particular activated the Defense Production Act to compel car manufacturers to shift focus on ventilator production ( American Geriatrics Society, 2020 ; Solomon et al., 2020 ) due to the high cost and shortage of this vital equipment. Hospitals and suppliers in the US were also forced to enter the global market due to the chronic shortfall of N95 masks as well as to search for lower priced equipment ( Solomon et al., 2020 ). Interestingly, the global production of these specialist masks is thought to be led by China ( Baldwin and Evenett, 2020 ; Paxton et al., 2020 ) where COVID-19 broke out, with EU's supply primarily from Malaysia and Japan ( Stellinger et al., 2020 ). Such was the level of shortage that the US was accused of ‘pirating’ medical equipment supplies from Asian countries intended for EU countries ( Aubrecht et al., 2020 ).

France and Germany followed suit with similar in-ward looking policy and the EU itself imposed restrictions on the exportation of PPEs, putting many hitherto dependent countries at risk ( Bown, 2020 ). Unsurprisingly, China and the EU saw it fit to reduce or waive import tariffs on raw materials and PPE, respectively ( Stellinger et al., 2020 ). Going forward, the life-threatening consequences of logistics failures and misallocation of vital equipment and products could breathe new life and impetus to technologies like Blockchain, RFID and IoT for increased transparency and traceability ( Sarkis et al., 2020 ). Global cooperation and scenario planning will always be needed to complement these technologies. In this regard, the EU developed a joint procurement framework to reduce competition amongst member states, while in the US, where states had complained that federal might was used to interfere with orders, a ventilator exchange program was developed ( Aubrecht et al., 2020 ). However, even with trade agreements and cooperative frameworks, the global supply chain cannot depend on imports – or donations ( Evenett, 2020 ) for critical healthcare equipment and this realisation opens doors for localisation of production with consequences for improvements in environmental and social sustainability ( Baldwin and Evenett, 2020 ). This can be seen in the case of N95 masks which overnight became in such high demand that airfreights by private and commercial planes were used to deliver them as opposed to traditional container shipping ( Brown, 2020 ).

As detailed in forthcoming sections, a significant reduction in emissions linked to traditional shipping was observed, yet there was an increase in use of airfreighting due to desperation and urgency of demand. Nevertheless, several countries are having to rethink their global value chains ( Fig. 2 ) as a result of realities highlighted by COVID-19 pandemic ( Javorcik, 2020 ). This is primarily because national interests and protectionism have been a by-product of COVID-19 pandemic and also because many eastern European/Mediterranean countries have a relative advantage with respect to Chinese exports. As shown in Fig. 2 , the global export share which each of these countries has, relative to China's share of the same exports (x-axis) is measured against the economies of countries subscribing to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) (y-axis). For each product, the ideal is to have a large circle towards the top right-hand corner of the chart.

A summary of how some Eastern European / Mediterranean countries have advantages over China on certain exports – based on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System from 2018, where export volume is represented by dot sizes in millions of USD; Source: Javorcik (2020) .

4.1.2. Microeconomic impacts: Consumer behaviour

For long, there has been a mismatch between consumerist tendencies and biophysical realities ( Spash, 2020 ). However, COVID-19 has further exacerbated the need to reflect on the social impacts of individual lifestyles. The behaviour of consumers, in many countries, was at some point alarmist with a lot of panic buying of food and sanitary products ( Sim et al., 2020 ). At private level, consumer sentiment is also changing. Difficult access to goods and services has forced citizens to re-evaluate purchasing patterns and needs, with focus pinned on the most essential items ( Company, 2020 ; Lyche, 2020 ). Spash (2020) argued that technological obsolescence of modern products brought about by rapid innovation and individual consumerism is also likely to affect the linear economy model which sees, for instance, mobile phones having an average life time of four years (two years in the US), assuming their manufacture/repair services are constrained by economic shutdown and lockdowns ( Schluep, 2009 ). On the other hand, a sector like healthcare, which could benefit from mass production and consumerism of vital equipment, is plagued by patenting. Most medical equipment are patented and the issue of a 3D printer's patent infringement in Italy led to calls for ‘Open Source Ventilators’ and ‘Good Samaritan Laws’ to help deal with global health emergencies like COVID-19 ( Pearce, 2020 ). It is plausible that such initiatives/policies could help address the expensive, scarce, high-skill and material-intensive production of critical equipment, via cottage industry production.

For perspective, it should be noted that production capacity of PPE (even for the ubiquitous facemasks) have been shown by COVID-19 to be limited across many countries ( Dargaville et al., 2020 ) with some countries having to ration facemask production and distribution in factories ( San Juan, 2020 ). Unsurprisingly, the homemade facemask industry has not only emerged for the protection of mass populations as reported by Livingston et al. (2020) , it has become critical for addressing shortages ( Rubio-Romero et al., 2020 ) as well as being part of a post-lockdown exit strategy ( Allison et al., 2020 ). A revival of cottage industry production of equipment and basic but essential items like facemasks could change the landscape of global production for decades, probably leading to an attenuation of consumerist tendencies.This pandemic will also impact on R&D going forward, given the high likelihood that recession will cause companies to take short-term views, and cancel long and medium-term R&D in favour of short-term product development and immediate cash flow/profit as was certainly the case for automotive and aerospace sectors in previous recessions.

4.2. Overview of the negative impacts of COVID-19

The negative effects have ranged from a severe contraction of GDP in many countries to multi-dimensional environmental and social issues across the strata of society. In many respects, socio-economic activities came to a halt as: millions were quarantined; borders were shut; schools were closed; car/airline, manufacturing and travel industries crippled; trade fairs/sporting/entertainment events cancelled, and unemployment claims reached millions while the international tourist locations were deserted; and, nationalism and protectionism re-surfaced ( Baker et al., 2020 ; Basilaia and Kvavadze, 2020 ; Devakumar et al., 2020 ; Kraemer et al., 2020 ; Thunstrom et al., 2020 ; Toquero, 2020 ). In the subsections that follow, an overview of some of these negative impacts on the global economy, environment, and society is presented.

4.2.1. Negative macroeconomic impact of COVID-19

Undoubtedly, COVID-19 first and foremost, constitutes a ferocious pandemic and a human tragedy that swept across the globe, resulting in a massive health crisis ( WHO, 2020b ), disproportionate social order ( UN DESA, 2020 ), and colossal economic loss ( IMF, 2020 ). It has created a substantial negative impact on the global economy, for which governments, firms and individuals scramble for adjustments ( Fernandes, 2020 ; Pinner et al., 2020 ; Sarkis et al., 2020 ; Sohrabi et al., 2020 ; Van Bavel et al., 2020 ). Indeed, the COVID-19 pandemic has distorted the world's operating assumptions, revealing the absolute lack of resilience of the dominant economic model to respond to unplanned shocks and crises ( Pinner et al., 2020 ). It has exposed the weakness of over-centralization of the complex global supply and production chains networks and the fragility of global economies, whilst highlighting weak links across industries( Fernandes, 2020 ; Guan et al., 2020 ; Sarkis et al., 2020 ). This has had a direct impact on employment and heightened the risk of food insecurity for millions due to lockdown and border restrictions ( Guerrieri et al., 2020 ). To some extent, some of the interventional measures introduced by governments across the world have resulted in the flattening of the COVID-19 curve (as shown in Fig. 3 ). This has helped in preventing healthcare systems from getting completely overwhelmed ( JHU, 2020 ), although as at the time of writing this paper, new cases are still being reported in different parts of the globe. Fernandes (2020) and McKibbin and Fernando (2020) reported thatthe socio-economic impact of COVID-19 will be felt for many months to come.

Daily confirmed new COVID-19 cases of the current 10 most affected countries based on a 5-day moving average. Valid as of August 31st, 2020 at 11:46 PM EDT ( JHU, 2020 ).

Guan et al. (2020) submitted that how badly and prolonged the recession rattles the world depends on how well and quickly the depth of the socio-economic implications of the pandemic is understood. IMF (2020) reported that in an unprecedented circumstance (except during the Great Depression), all economies including developed, emerging, and even developing will likely experience recession. In its April World Economic Outlook, IMF (2020) reversed its early global economic growth forecast from 3.3% to -3 %, an unusual downgrade of 6.3% within three months. This makes the pandemic a global economic shock like no other since the Great Depression and it has already surpassed the global financial crisis of 2009 as depicted in Fig. 4 . Economies in the advanced countries are expected to contract by -6.1% while recession in emerging and developing economies is projected (with caution) to be less adverse compared to the developed nations with China and India expected to record positive growth by the end of 2020. The cumulative GDP loss over the next year from COVID-19 could be around $9 trillion ( IMF, 2020 ).

Socioeconomic impact of COVID-19 lockdown: (a) Comparison of global economic recession due to COVID-19 and the 2009 global financial crisis; (b) Advanced economies, emerging and developing economies in recession; (c) the major economies in recession; (d) the cumulative economic output loss over 2020 and 2021. Note: Real GDP growth is used for economic growth, as year-on-year for per cent change ( IMF, 2020 ).

With massive job loss and excessive income inequality, global poverty is likely to increase for the first time since 1998 ( Mahler et al., 2020 ). It is estimated that around 49 million people could be pushed into extreme poverty due to COVID-19 with Sub-Sahara Africa projected to be hit hardest. The United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs concluded that COVID-19 pandemic may also increase exclusion, inequality, discrimination and global unemployment in the medium and long term, if not properly addressed using the most effective policy instruments ( UN DESA, 2020 ). The adoption of detailed universal social protection systems as a form of automatic stabilizers, can play a long-lasting role in mitigating the prevalence of poverty and protecting workers ( UN DESA, 2020 ).

4.2.2. Impact of COVID-19 on global supply chain and international trade

COVID-19 negatively affects the global economy by reshaping supply chains and sectoral activities. Supply chains naturally suffer from fragmentation and geographical dispersion. However, globalisation has rendered them more complex and interdependent, making them vulnerable to disruptions. Based on an analysis by the U.S. Institute for Supply Management, 75% of companies have reported disruptions in their supply chain ( Fernandes, 2020 ), unleashing crisis that emanated from lack of understanding and flexibility of the several layers of their global supply chains and lack of diversification in their sourcing strategies ( McKenzie, 2020 ). These disruptions will impact both exporting countries (i.e. lack of output for their local firms) and importing countries (i.e. unavailability of raw materials) ( Fernandes, 2020 ). Consequently, this will lead to the creation of momentary “manufacturing deserts” in which the output of a country, region or city drops significantly, turning into a restricted zone to source anything other than essentials like food items and drugs ( McKenzie, 2020 ). This is due to the knock-on effect of China's rising dominance and importance in the global supply chain and economy ( McKenzie, 2020 ). As a consequence of COVID-19, the World Trade Organization (WTO) projected a 32% decline in global trade ( Fernandes, 2020 ). For instance, global trade has witnessed a huge downturn due to reduced Chinese imports and the subsequent fall in global economic activities. This is evident because as of 25 th March 2020, global trade fell to over 4% contracting for only the second time since the mid-1980s ( McKenzie, 2020 ). Fig. 5 shows a pictorial representation of impact of pandemics on global supply chains based on different waves and threat levels.

Impact of pandemics on global supply chains. Adapted from Eaton and Connor (2020) .

4.2.3. Impact of COVID-19 on the aviation sector

The transportation sector is the hardest hit sector by COVID-19 due to the large-scale restrictions in mobility and aviation activities ( IEA, 2020 ; Le Quéré et al., 2020 ; Muhammad et al., 2020 ). In the aviation sector, for example, where revenue generation is a function of traffic levels, the sector has experienced flight cancellations and bans, leading to fewer flights and a corresponding immense loss in aeronautical revenues. This is even compounded by the fact that in comparison to other stakeholders in the aviation industry, when traffic demand declines, airports have limited avenues to reducing costs because the cost of maintaining and operating an airport remains the same and airports cannot relocate terminals and runaways or shutdown ( Hockley, 2020 ). Specifically, in terms of passenger footfalls in airports and planes, the Air Transport Bureau (2020) modelled the impact of COVID-19 on scheduled international passenger traffic for the full year 2020 under two scenarios namely Scenario 1 (the first sign of recovery in late May) and Scenario 2 (restart in the third quarter or later). Under Scenario 1, it estimated an overall reduction of: between 39%-56% of airplane seats; 872-1,303 million passengers, corresponding to a loss of gross operating revenues between ~$153 - $ 231 billion. Under Scenario 2, it predicted an overall drop of: between 49%-72% of airplane seats; 1,124 to 1,540 million passengers, with an equivalent loss of gross operating revenues between ~$198 - $ 273 billion. They concluded that the predicted impacts are a function of the duration and size of the pandemic and containment measures, the confidence level of customers for air travel, economic situations, and the pace of economic recovery ( Air Transport Bureau, 2020 ).

The losses incurred by the aviation industry require context and several other comparison-based predictions within the airline industry have also been reported. For instance, the International Civil Aviation Organization ICAO (2020) predicted an overall decline ininternational passengers ranging from 44% to 80% in 2020 compared to 2019. Airports Council International, ACI (2020) also forecasted a loss of two-fifths of passenger traffic and >$76 billion in airport revenues in 2020 in comparison to business as usual. Similarly, the International Air Transport Association IATA (2020) forecasted $113 billion in lost revenue and 48% drop in revenue passenger kilometres (RPKs) for both domestic and international routes ( Hockley, 2020 ). For pandemic scenario comparisons, Fig. 6 shows the impact of past disease outbreaks on aviation. As shown, the impact of COVID‐19 has already outstripped the 2003 SARS outbreak which had resulted in the reduction of annual RPKs by 8% and $6 billion revenues for Asia/Pacific airlines, for example. The 6‐month recovery path of SARS is, therefore, unlikely to be sufficient for the ongoing COVID-19 crisis ( Air Transport Bureau, 2020 ) but gives a backdrop and context for how airlines and their domestic/international markets may be impacted.

Impact of past disease outbreaks on aviation ( Air Transport Bureau, 2020 ).

Notably, these predictions are bad news for the commercial aspects of air travel (and jobs) but from the carbon/greenhouse gas emission and CE perspective, these reductions are enlightening and should force the airline industry to reflect on more environmentally sustainable models. However, the onus is also on the aviation industry to emphasise R&D on solutions that are CE-friendly (e.g. fuel efficiency; better use of catering wastes; end of service recycling of aircraft in sectors such as mass housing, or re-integrating airplane parts into new supply chains) and not merely investigating ways to recoup lost revenue due to COVID-19.

4.2.4. Impact of COVID-19 on the tourism industry

Expectedly, the impact of COVID-19 on aviation has led to a knock-on effect on the tourismindustry, which is nowadays hugely dependent on air travel. For instance, the United Nation World Tourism Organization UNWTO (2020) reported a 22% fall in international tourism receipts of $80 billion in 2020, corresponding to a loss of 67 million international arrivals. Depending on how long the travel restictions and border closures last, current scenario modelling indicated falls between 58% to 78% in the arrival of international tourists, but the outlook remains hugely uncertain. The continuous existence of the travel restrictions could put between 100 to 120 million direct tourism-related jobs at risk. At the moment, COVID-19 has rendered the sector worst in the historical patterns of international tourism since 1950 with a tendency to halt a 10-year period of sustained growth since the last global economic recession ( UNWTO, 2020 ). It has also been projected that a drop of ~60% in international tourists will be experienced this year, reducing tourism's contribution to global GDP, while affecting countries whose economy relies on this sector ( Naidoo and Fisher, 2020 ). Fig. 7 depicts the impact of COVID-19 on tourism in Q1 of 2020 based on % change in international tourists’ arrivals between January and March.

The impact of COVID-19 on tourism in quarter 1of 2020. Provisional data but current as of 31st August 2020 ( UNWTO, 2020 ).

4.2.5. Impact of COVID-19 on sustainable development goals

In 2015, the United Nations adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with the view to improve livelihood and the natural world by 2030, making all countries of the world to sign up to it. To succeed, the foundations of the SDGs were premised on two massive assumptions namely globalisation and sustained economic growth. However, COVID-19 has significantly hampered this assumption due to several factors already discussed. Indeed, COVID-19 has brought to the fore the fact that the SDGs as currently designed are not resilient to shocks imposed by pandemics. Prior to COVID-19, progress across the SDGs was slow. Naidoo and Fisher (2020) reported that two-thirds of the 169 targets will not be accomplished by 2030 and some may become counterproductive because they are either under threat due to this pandemic or not in a position to mitigate associated impacts.

4.3. Positive impact of COVID-19

In this section, we discussed some of the positive ramifications of COVID-19. Despite the many detrimental effects, COVID-19 has provoked some natural changes in behaviour and attitudes with positive influences on the planet. Nonetheless, to the extent that the trends discussed below were imposed by the pandemic, they also underscore a growing momentum for transforming business operations and production towards the ideal of the CE.

4.3.1. Improvements in air quality

Due to the COVID-19-induced lockdown, industrial activities have dropped, causing significant reductions in air pollution from exhaust fumes from cars, power plants and other sources of fuel combustion emissions in most cities across the globe, allowing for improved air quality ( Le Quéré et al., 2020 ; Muhammad et al., 2020 ). This is evident from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA, 2020a ) and European Space Agency ( ESA, 2020 ) Earth Observatory pollution satellites showing huge reductions in air pollution over China and key cities in Europe as depicted in Fig. 8 . In China, for example, air pollution reduction of between 20-30% was achieved and a 20-year low concentration of airborne particles in India is observed; Rome, Milan, and Madrid experienced a fall of ~45%, with Paris recording a massive reduction of 54% ( NASA, 2020b ). In the same vein, the National Centre for Atmospheric Science, York University, reported that air pollutants induced by NO 2 fell significantly across large cities in the UK. Although Wang et al. (2020) reported that in certain parts of China, severe air pollution events are not avoided through the reduction in anthropogenic activities partially due to the unfavourable meteorological conditions. Nevertheless, these data are consistent with established accounts linking industrialization and urbanization with the negative alteration of the environment ( Rees, 2002 ).

The upper part shows the average nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) concentrations from January 1-20, 2020 to February 10-25, 2020, in China. While the lower half shows NO 2 concentrations over Europe from March 13 to April 13, 2020, compared to the March-April averaged concentrations from 2019 ( ESA, 2020 ; NASA, 2020a ).

The scenarios highlighted above reiterates the fact that our current lifestyles and heavy reliance on fossil fuel-based transportation systems have significant consequences on the environment and by extension our wellbeing. It is this pollution that was, over time, responsible for a scourge of respiratory diseases, coronary heart diseases, lung cancer, asthma etc.( Mabahwi et al., 2014 ), rendering plenty people to be more susceptible to the devastating effects of the coronavirus ( Auffhammer et al., 2020 ). Air pollution constitutes a huge environmental threat to health and wellbeing. In the UK for example, between ~28,000 to ~36,000 deaths/year was linked to long-term exposure to air pollutants ( PHE, 2020 ). However, the reduction in air pollution with the corresponding improvements in air quality over the lockdown period has been reported to have saved more lives than already caused by COVID-19 in China ( Auffhammer et al., 2020 ).

4.3.2. Reduction in environmental noise

Alongside this reduction in air pollutants is a massive reduction in environmental noise. Environmental noise, and in particular road traffic noise, has been identified by the European Environment Agency, EEA (2020) to constitute a huge environmental problem affecting the health and well-being of several millions of people across Europe including distortion in sleep pattern, annoyance, and negative impacts on the metabolic and cardiovascular system as well as cognitive impairment in children. About 20% of Europe's population experiences exposure to long-term noise levels that are detrimental to their health. The EEA (2020) submitted that 48000new cases of ischaemic heart disease/year and ~12000 premature deaths are attributed to environmental noise pollution. Additionally, they reported that ~22 million people suffer chronic high annoyance alongside ~6.5 million people who experienceextreme high sleep disturbance. In terms of noise from aircraft, ~12500 schoolchildren were estimated to suffer from reading impairment in school. The impact of noise has long been underestimated, and although more premature deaths are associated with air pollution in comparison to noise, however noise constitutes a bigger impact on indicators of the quality of life and mental health ( EEA, 2020 ).

A recent study on the aftereffect of COVID-19 pandemic on exercise rates across the globe concluded that reduced traffic congestions and by extension reduced noise and pollution has increased the rate at which people exercise as they leveraged the ensued pleasant atmosphere. Average, moderate, and passive (i.e. people who exercised once a week before COVID-19) athletes have seen the frequency of their exercise regime increased by 88%, 38%, and 156% respectively ( Snider-Mcgrath, 2020 ).

4.3.3. Increased cleanliness of beaches

Beaches constitute the interface between land and ocean, offering coastal protection from marine storms and cyclones ( Temmerman et al., 2013 ), and are an integral part of natural capital assets found in coastal areas ( Zambrano-Monserrate et al., 2018 ). They provide services (e.g. tourism, recreation) that are crucial for the survival of coastal communities and possess essential values that must be prevented against overexploitation ( Lucrezi et al., 2016 ; Vousdoukas et al., 2020 ). Questionable use to which most beaches have been subjected have rendered them pollution ridden ( Partelow et al., 2015 ). However, due to COVID-19-induced measures, notable changes in terms of the physical appearance of numerous beaches across the globe have been observed ( Zambrano-Monserrate et al., 2020 ).

4.3.4. Decline in primary energy use

Global energy demand during the first quarter of 2020 fell by ~3.8% compared to the first quarter of 2019, with a significant effect noticeable in March as control efforts heightened in North America and Europe ( IEA, 2020 ). The International Energy Agency (IEA) submitted that if curtailment measures in the form of restricted movement continue for long and economic recoveries are slow across different parts of the globe, as is progressively likely, annual energy demand will plummet by up to 6%, erasing the last five years energy demand growth. As illustrated in Fig. 9 , if IEA's projections become the reality, the world could experience a plunge in global energy use to a level not recorded in the last 70 years. The impact will surpass the effect of the 2008 financial crisis by a factor of more than seven times. On the other hand, if COVID-19 is contained earlier than anticipated and there is an early re-start of the economy at a successful rate, the fall in energy could be constrained to <4% ( IEA, 2020 ). However, a rough re-start of the economy characterised by supply chain disruptions and a second wave of infections in the second half of the year could further impede growth ( IEA, 2020 ).

Annual rate of change in primary energy demand, since 1900, with key events impacting energy demand highlighted ( IEA, 2020 ).

Coal was reported to have been hit the hardest by ~8% in comparison to the first quarter of 2019 due to the impact of COVID-19 in China whose economy is driven by coal, reduced gas costs, continued growth in renewables, and mild weather conditions. Oil demand was also strongly affected, plummeting by ~5% in the first quarter driven mainly by restrictions in mobility and aviation activities which constitute ~60% of global oil demand ( IEA, 2020 ). For instance, global road transport and aviation activities were respectively ~50% and 60% below the 2019 average. Global electricity demand declined by >20% during full lockdown restrictions, with a corresponding spill over effect on the energy mix. Accordingly, the share of renewable energy sources across the energy supply increased due to priority dispatch boosted by larger installed capacity and the fact that their outputs are largely unconstrained by demand ( IEA, 2020 ). However, there was a decline for all other sources of electricity including gas, coal and nuclear power ( IEA, 2020 ).

4.3.5. Record low CO 2 emissions

Unprecedented reduction in global CO 2 emissions is another positive effect that can be attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic.The massive fall in energy demand induced by COVID-19 accounted for the dramatic decline in global GHG emissions. The annual CO 2 emissions have not only been projected to fall at a rate never seen before, but the fall is also envisioned to be the biggest in a single year outstripping the fall experienced from the largest recessions of the past five decades combined ( IEA, 2020 ).The global CO 2 emissions are projected to decline by ~8% (2.6 GCO 2 ) to the levels of the last decade. If achieved, this 8% emissions reduction will result in the most substantial reduction ever recorded as it is expected to be six times larger than the milestone recorded during the 2009 financial crisis, ( Fig. 10 ). Characteristically, after an economic meltdown, the surge in emissions may eclipse the decline, unless intervention options to set the economy into recovery mode is based on cleaner and more resilient energy infrastructure ( IEA, 2020 ).

Global energy-related emissions (top) and annual change (bottom) in GtCO 2 , with projected 2020 levels highlighted in red. Other major events are indicated to provide a sense of scale ( IEA, 2020 ).

4.3.6. Boost in digitalisation

The COVID-19 pandemic has been described as an opportunity to further entrench digital transformation without the ‘digitalism’ which is an extreme and adverse form of connectedness ( Bayram et al., 2020 ). Protecting patients from unnecessary exposure was a driver for telemedicine ( Moazzami et al., 2020 ) and virtual care would become the new reality ( Wosik et al., 2020 ). The necessity for social distancing under lockdown circumstances has also highlighted the importance (and need) for remote working ( Dingel and Neiman, 2020 ; Omary et al., 2020 ), which has had implications for broadband connectivity ( Allan et al., 2020 ) as well as reductions in transportation-related pollution levels ( Spash, 2020 ). The impact of COVID-19 on remote working and digitalisation of work is expected to constitute long-term implications for reduced fossil fuel consumption due to mobility and commuting ( Kanda and Kivimaa, 2020 ). Besides, the survival and thriving of many small business restaurants during the lockdown period depended on whether they had a digital resilience, via online platforms, through which they could exploit the home delivery market via Uber Eats ( Raj et al., 2020 ). For consumers, the pandemic has seen a noticeable increase in online orders for food in many countries such as: Taiwan ( Chang and Meyerhoefer, 2020 ); Malaysia ( Hasanat et al., 2020 ); Germany ( Dannenberg et al., 2020 ) as well as Canada ( Hobbs, 2020 ).

4.4. Unsustainability of current economic and business models amidst COVID-19

It is interesting to observe that while COVID-19 has led to a very steep reduction in air pollution in advanced economies due to reduced economic activity imposed by the lockdown, this pandemic-driven positive impact is only temporary as they do not reflect changes in economic structures of the global economy ( Le Quéré et al., 2020 ). The changes are not due to the right decisions from governments in terms of climate breakdown policies and therefore should not be misconstrued as a climate triumph. More importantly, life in lockdown will not linger on forever as economies will need to rebuild and we can expect a surge in emissions again. To drive home the point, we conducted a decomposition analysis of key drivers (accelerators or retardants) of four global air pollutants using Logarithmic Mean Divisia Index (LMDI) framework ( Ang, 2005 ; Fujii et al., 2013 ), with the results shown in Fig. 11 . The drivers of the pollutants considered based on the production side of an economy include: (i) economic activity effect, given thatemissions can increase or decrease as a result of changes in the activity level of the entire economy; (ii) industrialeconomy structure effect, based on the fact thatthe growth in emissions is a function of the changes in the industrial activity composition; (iii) emissions intensity effect, which can be improvements or deteriorations at the sectoral level, depending on theenergy efficiency (e.g. cleaner production processes) of the sector; (iv) fuel mix or fuel dependency effect, given that its composition influences the amount of emissions; and (v) emission factors effect, because these factors, for different fuel types, changes over time due toswitching from fossil fuels to renewables, for example.

Drivers of representative four (4) global pollutants: a) CO 2 emissions; b) NO x emissions; c) SO x emissions; d) CO emissions. All data for the decomposition analysis of the four pollutants were obtained from the WIOD database ( Timmer et al., 2012 ).

As shown in Fig. 11 a, for example, between 1995 and 2009, global change in CO 2 emission was 32%, where economic activity (+48%) and emission factor (+2%) acted as accelerators, while economic structure (-8%), emission intensity (-9%) and fuel mix (-1%) acted as retardants, of the global CO 2 emission dynamics and trajectory.This implies that although economic activities, as expected, alongside emission factor drove up emissions, however, the upward effect of both drivers was offset by the combined improvements of other driving factors namely economic structure, emission intensity, and fuel mix. Indeed, cutting back on flying or driving less as we have experienced due to COVID-19 contributed to ~8% in emission reduction, however, zero-emissions cannot be attained based on these acts alone. Simply put, emissions reduction cannot be sustained until an optimal balance across the aforementioned drivers informed by structural changes in the economy is attained. As Gates (2020a) rightly stated – the world should be using more energy, not less, provided it is clean.

Characteristically, after an economic meltdown, like the global recession in 2008, there is a surge in emissions ( Feng et al., 2015 ; Koh et al., 2016 ). The current social trauma of lockdown and associated behavioural changes tends to modify the future trajectory unpredictably. However, social responses would not drive the profound and sustained reduction required to attain a low-carbon economy ( Le Quéré et al., 2020 ). This is evident given that we live on a planet interlinked by networked product supply chains, multidimensional production technologies, and non-linear consumption patterns ( Acquaye et al., 2017 ; Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2018 ; Koh et al., 2016 ). Additionally, post COVID-19, the society may suffer from green bounce back– there appears to be an increasing awareness of climate change and air pollution because of this pandemic (though the linkages are non-causal). On the one hand this might promote greener choices on behalf of consumers, but on the other it may result in increased car ownership (at the expense of mass transit), driving up emissions. As such, establishing approaches that ensure an optimal balance between quality of life and the environmental burden the planet can bear is pertinent, if the boundaries of environmental sustainability informed by the principles of low-carbon CE are to be extended. In the next section, the role of the CE as a potential strategy for combating pandemics such as COVID-19 is discussed.

5. The role of circular economy

For long, the central idea of the industrial economy rests on the traditional linear economic system of taking resources, making products from them, and disposing of the product at the end of life. Experts referred to this as “extract-produce-use-dump”, “take-make-waste”, or “take-make-dispose” energy flow model of industrial practice ( Geissdoerfer et al., 2017 ; Kirchherr et al., 2017 ; MacArthur, 2013 ). However, the unlimited use of natural resources with no concern for sustainability jeopardizes the elastic limit of the planet's resource supply. For instance, Girling (2011) submitted that ~90% of the raw materials used in manufacturing become waste before the final product leaves the production plant while ~80% of products manufactured are disposed of within the first 6 months of their life. Similarly, Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata (2012) reported that ~1.3 billion tonnes of solid waste with a corresponding cost implication of $205.4 billion/year is generated by cities across the globe and that such waste might grow to ~2.2 billion tonnes by 2025, with a corresponding rate of $375.5 billion. This is further compounded by the fact that at the global level, the demand for resources is forecasted to double by 2050 ( Ekins et al., 2016 ).

Against this backdrop, the search for an industrial economic model that satisfies the multiple roles of decoupling of economic growth from resource consumption, waste management and wealth creation, has heightened interests in concepts about circular economy ( Ekins et al., 2016 ; MacArthur, 2013 ).In theory, CE framework hinges on three principles: designing out waste, keeping products and materials in use and regenerating the natural systems ( MacArthur, 2013 ). Practically, CE is aimed at: (i) emphasizing environmentally-conscious manufacturing and product recovery ( Gungor and Gupta, 1999 ); (ii) promoting the avoidance of unintended ecological degradation in symbiotic cooperation between corporations, consumers and government ( Bauwens et al., 2020 ); and (iii) shifting the focus to a holistic product value chain and cradle-to-cradle life cycle via promotion of product repair/re-use and waste management ( Duflou et al., 2012 ; Lieder and Rashid, 2016 ; Rashid et al., 2013 ).

Given the current COVID-19 pandemic, there has never been a more adequate time to consider how the principles of CE could be translated into reality when the global economy begins to recover. This is pertinent because the pandemic has further exposed the limitations of the current dominant linear economy regarding how it is failing the planet and its inhabitants, and has revealed the global ecosystem's exposure to many risks including climate breakdown, supply chain vulnerabilities and fragility, social inequality and inherent brittleness ( Bachman, 2020 ; Sarkis et al., 2020 ). The pandemic continues to amplify the global interlinkages of humankind and the interdependencies that link our natural environment, economic, and social systems ( Haigh and Bäunker, 2020 ). In the subsections that follow, the potentials of CE as a tool for: (i) climate change mitigation; (ii) crafting a more resilient economy, and ; (iii) facilitating a socially just and inclusive society, is briefly discussed.

5.1. Circular economy as a tool for climate breakdown mitigation

As highlighted in Section 4.3.5 , a CO 2 emission reduction of 8%, which in real terms implies an equivalent of ~172 billion tCO 2 will be released instead of ~187 billion tCO 2 , is indeed unprecedented. Nevertheless, the peculiar conclusion from the lockdown is that it still entails emissions of 92% of the initial value while there was restrictions to mobility and other related leisure activities. Measures for mitigating climate change have often been presented dramatically as a "prohibition of the nice things of life", but as shown, a cut-off of such an amount of nice things only delivers an 8% reduction. More importantly, it comes at a heavy cost of between $3,200/tCO 2 and $5,400/tCO 2 in the US, for example, based on data from the Rhodium Group ( Gates, 2020a ). In other words, the shutdown is reducing emissions at a cost between 32 and 54 times the $100/tCO 2 deemed a reasonable carbon price by economists ( Gates, 2020a ). This suggests that a completely different approach to tackling climate issue is required.

Accordingly, there is the need for a system that calls for greater adoption of a more resilient low-carbon CE model, given the predictions by experts that climate breakdown and not COVID-19 will constitute the biggest threat to global health ( Hussey and Arku, 2020 ; Watts et al., 2018a ; Watts et al., 2018b ). International bodies and country-level environmental policies have highlighted the fact that a significant reduction in GHG emissions cannot be achieved by transitioning to renewables alone but with augmentation with CE strategies. The demands side CE strategies such as (i)material recirculation (more high-value recycling, less primary material production, lower emissions per tonne of material); (ii)product material efficiency (improved production process, reuse of components and designing products with fewer materials); (iii)circular business models (higher utilisation and longer lifetime of products through design for durability and disassembly, utilisation of long-lasting materials, improved maintenance and remanufacturing), could reduce emissions whilst contributing to climate change mitigation ( Enkvist et al., 2018 ). CE principles, when adopted in a holistic manner provide credible solutions to the majority of the structural weaknesses exposed by COVID-19, offering considerable opportunities in competitiveness and long-term reduced GHG emissions across value chains. Investments in climate-resilient infrastructure and the move towards circular and low-carbon economy future can play the dual role of job creation while enhancing environmental and economic benefits.

5.2. Circular economy as a vehicle for crafting more resilient economies

Haigh and Bäunker (2020) reported that if we muddle through every new crisis based on the current economic model, using short-term solutions to mitigate the impact, future shocks will continue to surpass capacities. It is, therefore, necessary to devise long-term risk-mitigation and sustainable fiscal thinking with the view to shift away from the current focus on profits and disproportionate economic growth. Resilience in the context of the CE largely pertains to having optimized cycles (i.e. products are designed for longevity and optimized for a cycle of disassembly and reuse that renders them easier to handle and transform). Some cycles can be better by being closed locally (e.g. many food items), and for other cycles, a global value chain could be a better option (e.g. rare earth elements). Due to globalization, all cycles have become organized at the global level, diminishing resilience. COVID-19 has further shown how some particular cycles had the wrong scale level, as such, the adoption of CE can be seen as an invitation to reconsider the optimal capacity of cycles.

Sustainability through resilience thinking would have a positive and lasting impact as reported by the Stockholm Resilience Centre (2016) , which concluded that prosperity and sustainability cannot be accomplished without building “ resilient systems that promote radical innovation in economic policy, corporate strategy, and in social systems and public governance”. It calls for sustainability through resilience thinking to become an overarching policy driver and encourages the application of the principles of such thinking to enhance social innovation. Haigh and Bäunker (2020) concluded that when resilience thinking is employed as a guide, all innovations emanating from circular thinking would extend beyond focusing mainly on boosting the market and competitiveness and recognise the general well-being of the populace as an equal goal. As the global economy recovers from COVID-19, it has become more apparent that there is a strong sense of interconnectedness between environmental, economic and social sustainability ( Bauwens et al., 2020 ).

5.3. Circular economy as a facilitator of a socially just and inclusive society

Advanced economies have mainly focused on maintaining the purchasing power of households through the establishment of the furlough scheme (in the UK, for example). Most developing countries have also adopted a similar approach through the integration of containment measures with a huge increase in social protection spending. However, these intervention strategies in response to the pandemic have further revealed the social injustice and inequality between countries and communities given that the deployment of such strategy in advanced economies could devastate developing countries and communities ( Ahmed et al., 2020 ; Haigh and Bäunker, 2020 ). Guan and Hallegatte (2020) revealed that developing and underdeveloped economies face tougher and more challenging situation in comparison to their developed counterparts, because even under the assumption that social protection systems could fully replace income and shield businesses from bankruptcy, maintaining access to essential commodities is impossible if the country is lacking in production capabilities in the first place. Furthermore, in the underdeveloped world, the idea of working from home is very difficult due to the lack of infrastructure and access to health facilities is severely cumbersome. As such, short-term fixes adopted by governments cannot adequately address deep-rooted inequality and social injustice.

Accordingly, Preston et al. (2019) submitted that CE has the potential to minimise prevailing pressures and struggles regarding conflicts due to imbalanced distribution of resources, through participatory forms of governance that entails the inclusion of local stakeholders in resource management initiatives. This can be achieved through the adoption of CE strategy such as closed-loop value chains, where wastes are transformed into resources with the view to not only reduce pollution but to simultaneously aid the pursuance of social inclusion objectives. A number of companies are already embracing this idea. For instance, under the Food Forward SA initiative, “ the world of excess is connected with the world of need ” through the recovery of edible surplus food from the consumer goods supply chain and gets redistributed to the local community. This ensures loops are closed and the needy receive nourishment ( Haigh and Bäunker, 2020 ). With sufficient investment in the CE, developing countries can leapfrog their developed counterparts in digital and materials innovation to integrate sustainable production and consumption and low-carbon developments at the core of their economies. Additionally, Stahel (2016) reported that another benefit of the CE as a facilitator of a socially just and inclusive society is that it is likely to be more labour-intensive due to the variety of end-of-life products and the high cost of automating their processing compared to manual work. As such, CE can enable the creation of local jobs and “reindustrialisation of regions” ( Stahel, 2019 ) through the substitution of: manpower for energy, materials for (local) labour, and local workshops for centralised factories ( Stahel, 2019 ), while boosting the repair economy and local micro industries. Of course, not everybody will see this as a benefit, and many would like to see more automation, not less. However, this is a political/economic argument, not an engineering or scientific one. In the next section, barriers to CE in general and in the context of COVID-19 is discussed.

5.4. Barriers to CE in the context of COVID-19

On the surface, the benefits of CE should be obvious as it strives for three wins in the three dimensions of social, economic and environment impacts through a symbiotic vision of reduced material usage, reduced waste generation, extending value retention in products and designing products for durability. However, limiting barriers obviating the success of CE have existed around technical implementation, behavioural change, financial and intellectual investments, policy and regulations, market dynamics, socio-cultural considerations as well as operational cost of transforming from the linear economy to one based on circularity ( Friant et al., 2020 ). In more concrete terms, the barriers dwell within the ecosystem of actors (and the interactions within the actors) involved in the move towards CE ( Lieder and Rashid, 2016 ).

Pre-COVID-19, Korhonen et al. (2018) enumerated six fundamental factors hindering the promise of CE: (i) thermodynamic factors (i.e. limit imposed by material and energy combustion in recycling/re-manufacturing); (ii) complexity of spatial and temporal boundaries (i.e. material and energy footprints for a product cannot be easily reduced to a point in space and time for an in-depth analysis of environmental impacts); (iii) interlink of governance and nation's economy; (iv) consumer and organizational inertia (i.e. reluctance to embrace new way of doing things due to uncertainty about the success of business models as well as fuzziness around organizational culture and management models that rely on CE); (v) fragile industrial ecosystems (featuring the difficulty of establishing and managing intra-/inter-organizational collaboration along with local/regional authorities); and (vi) lack of consensus on what the many Rs (re-use, recycle, recover, repurpose, repair, refurbish, remanufacture) embedded in CE framework really means ( Kirchherr et al., 2017 ). Challenges in data sharing between product end points and stakeholders, complexity in the supply chain with unclear details of product biography over time, and prohibitive start-up investment costs have also been identified as CE barrier in other climes ( Jaeger and Upadhyay, 2020 ; Manninen et al., 2018 ). Other issues along similar lines were captured in the work by several other authors including Galvão et al. (2020) , Kirchherr et al. (2018) , Govindan and Hasanagic (2018) , De Jesus and Mendonça (2018) and many more.

The paradox of COVID-19 is grounded on creating a once in a lifetime opportunity to re-examine the difficulty of some of these barriers, but it also unveiled a new set of challenges. For instance, the sharing economy models that have been hitherto hailed as exemplars of CE strategy is now perceived differently by many urban dwellers because of the behavioural change embedded in “social distancing”, which is necessary to limit the spread of the virus. Although if concepts such as “access over ownership” or “pay for performance” service have become fully operational, they could have constituted a significant solution to offer flexibility. Additionally, it has been argued that COVID-19 will ‘disrupt some disruptors’ peer-to-peer (P2P) providers such as Airbnb, which has reported a 4.16% drop in local bookings for every doubling new COVID-19 cases ( Hu and Lee, 2020 ). In transportation, demand from ride-sharing modes could increase due to commuters wanting to minimise exposure to COVID-19 in mass transport systems like buses and trains ( Chandra, 2020 ). However, the risks of human-to-human transmission of COVID-19 for passengers not wearing facemask have been noted ( Liu and Zhang, 2020 ), including when either passengers or drivers in ride-hailing and car-sharing disruptors like Uber do not wear facemasks ( Wong et al., 2020 ).

Reducing emissions, in the long run, requires large investments, from both the public and private sectors, in low-carbon technologies and infrastructure in terms of both innovation and diffusion ( OECD, 2018 ). Given the downturn of the global economy due to COVID-19, the prospects of significant low-carbon investments from the private sector have significantly reduced compared to pre-COVID-19. This view is not just limited to the private sector, but also to the public sector, as echoed by Naidoo and Fisher (2020) . Hence, post COVID-19, accelerating progress towards CE still requires: (i) a decisive legal and financial championships from local, regional and national authorities; (ii) innovation across multiple domains (product design, production technologies, business models, financing and consumer behaviours); (iii) governments to promote green logistics and waste management regulations with reasonable incentives to aid producers and manufacturers in minimizing loss while maximizing value. It is therefore recommended that governments provide the much-needed policy framework that will eliminate some of aforementioned barriers to facilitate the urgent transition to CE. Doing this will build resilience for community response to future pandemic and it also aligns with some of the existing roadmaps for resource efficiency ( European Commission, 2011 ).

6. Opportunities for circular economy post COVID-19

COVID-19 has instigated a focus on vibrant local manufacturing as an enabler of resilient economy and job creation; fostered behavioural change in consumers; triggered the need for diversification and circularity of supply chains, and evinced the power of public policy for tackling urgent socio-economic crises. As we rise to the challenges imposed by COVID-19, the question is no longer should we build back better, but how. Consequently, going forward, crafting a roadmap for a sustainable future is as much about the governmental will to forge a new path to socio-economic growth as it is about local businesses joining forces with the consumers to enable the transition to CE. As already documented in the earlier sections of this paper, governments around the world have deployed many financial policy instruments to combat the short-term consequences of COVID-19 pandemic. Still, in the long-term, the adoption of circular economy principles across various technological frontiers holds the promise to bring about a desired technical and behavioural change that will benefit many nations around the world.

Specifically, adopting the CE principle will alleviate some of the detrimental effects of COVID-19 pandemic in the future. To mention just a few: (i) a national level adoption of CE will reduce the over-reliance on one country as the manufacturing hub of the world; (ii) a systematic shift away from the traditional polluting, energy-intensive, manufacturing-driven economy to a CE, based on renewable energy, smart materials, smart re-manufacturing, and digital technology will strengthen the fight against pollution; and (iii) the transition to CE will also spur local job creation along several of the axes of societal needs (e.g. built environment, mobility, health, consumables, etc.). Accordingly, in the subsections that follow, an overview of recommendations as well as policy measures, incentives, and regulatory support for advancing sector-specific CE strategies in a post-COVID-19 world is presented.

6.1. Local manufacturing and re-manufacturing of essential medical accessories

Disruptions due to COVID-19 has been attributed to unprecedented demand, panic buying, and intentional hoarding of essential medical goods for profit ( Bradsher and Alderman, 2020 ; Fischer et al., 2020 ). The shortage of many items was so dire in many countries that the principle of CE, such as re-use, is already been unwittingly recommended ( Gondi et al., 2020 ), by respectable bodies such as the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ( Ranney et al., 2020 ). However, designed and produced from non-CE compliant processes, medical accessories such as PPE cannot be easily refurbished for re-use without leading to severe degradation in their efficiencies, as noticed for example, in the case of particulate respirators ( Liao et al., 2020 ). Accordingly, it is recommended that companies strive to establish competencies in eco-design and environmentally beneficial innovation to facilitate product re-use in the long run. Some of the desired competencies centre on design strategies for closing resource loops (e.g. designing for technological and biological cycles) as pioneered by McDonough and Braungart (2010) .

A detailed discussion of these competencies is also enunciated by Braungart et al. (2007) , where the authors differentiated between eco-efficiency (less desirable) and eco-effectiveness (the desired dream of CE), for companies to be compliant with the CE framework. Meanwhile, a starting point for companies to shift to eco-effectiveness at the product design level, which will facilitate product re-use, is to follow the five-step framework enumerated by Braungart et al. (2007) or to adopt the analytical framework to explore some of the key dimensions in eco-design innovations developed by Carrillo-Hermosilla et al. (2010) . During implementation, the preceding steps comport with the idea of eco-factories that take pride in design for effortless end-of-life product re-use and design for “upcycling” and remanufacturing ( Bocken et al., 2016 ; Herrmann et al., 2014 ; Ijomah, 2010 ), all of which falls under the umbrella of CE.

Another emerging evidence in favour of CE, also adopted inadvertently during this pandemic, is the ease with which several manufacturers have pivoted their factory floors to make different products in response to the shortage of medical accessories. Few examples of these companies in the UK include, but not limited to: AE Aerospace, which retooled its factory floor to produce milled parts for ventilators; Alloy Wire International re-purposed its machinery to make springs for ventilators; AMTICO (flooring manufacture) re-configured its production lines to make visors for front line workers; BAE Systems deployed its factory resources to produce and distribute over 40000 face shields; and BARBOUR (a clothing company) re-purposed to produce PPE for nurses ( Williamson, 2020 ).

6.2. CE strategies for managing hospital medical and general waste

Wastes generated by the healthcare industry (HCI) normally arouse concerns about operational, public, and environmental safety as a result of the awareness of the corrosive, hazardous, infectious, reactive, possibly radioactive, and toxic nature of the wastes’ composition ( Lee et al., 1991 ; Prüss-Üstün et al., 1999 ). Consequently, the management of the different categories of healthcare waste far removed from the traditional municipal wastes, falls under stringent national or local regulatory frameworks. Pre-COVID-19, the staggering scale of HCI waste is reported to reach into millions of tonnes per year and there have been many studies of national-level attempts at managing these wastes ( Da Silva et al., 2005 ; Insa et al., 2010 ; Lee et al., 1991 ; Oweis et al., 2005 ; Tudor et al., 2005 ). However, this problem is expected to worsen with the tremendous surge, in the last few months, in the volume of disposable medical hardware (PPE, masks, gloves, disposable gears worn by healthcare workers and sanitation workers as well as those contaminated by contacts with COVID-19 patients). Another allied problem is the troubling shift among consumers who now prioritize concerns for hygiene by leaning towards plastic packaging (e.g. in food delivery and grocery shopping) during this pandemic at the expense of environmental impacts ( Prata et al., 2020 ). Most of these products are derived from non-biodegradable plastics, and their disposal has not been given much thought. As a result, the management of these wastes has raised understandable angst in several quarters ( Klemeš et al., 2020 ; Xiao and Torok, 2020 ). Frustratingly, there is much less that can be done at the moment apart from devising judicious waste management policy for these potentially hazardous wastes.

The traditional steps concerning the treatment of HCI wastes (such as collection and separation, storage, transportation to landfill, and decontamination/disposal) suffer from many complications that make the management a challenging undertaking ( Windfeld and Brooks, 2015 ). To alleviate the complexity, the characterization of the physicochemical composition of HCI waste has become an important tool in devising crucial steps for setting up waste minimization and recycling programs ( Kaiser et al., 2001 ). This aligns with the objective of circular economy (CE), which prioritizes the prevention of waste, failing which it proposes the re-use/recyclability of materials from waste to close the loop.

Wong et al. (1994) reported that hospital wastes involve different types of materials: plastics (tubes, gloves, syringes, blood bags), metals (basins, aluminium cans), papers (towel papers, toilet papers, newspapers), cotton/textiles (drapes, table covers, diapers, pads, bandages), glass (bottles) etc. With this categorization in mind, a CE product design consideration that looks promising in the near future, as a way to avert some of the dangers that can be triggered by events such as COVID-19, is to increase the volume of recyclable materials and biodegradable bioplastics in the production of medical accessories. However, the reality is that not all medical gears and products can be derived from bio-plastics or recyclable materials, and some will inevitably continue to be fabricated with materials that need further downstream processing. Yet, the application of CE to the healthcare industry (HCI) remains a touchy subject. Understandably, health and safety concerns, as well as requirements to meet stringent regulations, tend to override the environmental gain from the 4R practice promoted by CE ( Kane et al., 2018 ). Nonetheless, the benefits of CE are starting to catch on in the HCI as a means of optimizing hospital supply chains and reduce overhead cost, all the while creating environmental benefits in the course of saving human lives.

Principally, the applications of CE in HCI, like in other fields, are tied to materials flow and an examination of the nature of wastes. Pioneering studies on hospital wastes characterizations ( Diaz et al., 2008 ; Eleyan et al., 2013 ; Özkan, 2013 ; Wong et al., 1994 ), revealed that close to 80% of the wastes can be classified as general wastes, while the remaining 20% falls under the infectious waste category ( WHO, 1998 ). A prevalent method of dealing with the two HCI waste categories has been incineration ( Wong et al., 1994 ). Although suitable for large volumes, incineration produces toxic pollutants such as heavy metals, dioxins, acid gases, and hydrogen chloride ( Yang et al., 2009 ). Consequently, pre-COVID-19, besides incineration, reducing or preventing the volume of wastes in both categories is also shaped by the adoption of green purchasing practices ( Wormer et al., 2013 ). While this may help in the short term, a holistic approach to confronting this problem is the adoption of CE, which can facilitate the shift towards eco-efficient HCI, starting with lifecycle evaluations of medical products to the proposal for re-usable medical instruments ( Cimprich et al., 2019 ; De Soete et al., 2017 ; Penn et al., 2012 ). Numerous CE strategies for healthcare waste management are detailed by Kane et al. (2018) and Voudrias (2018) . Undoubtedly, with COVID-19, there is an uptick in the percentage of waste under the infectious category due to hospitals taking various precautions to facilitate control of the pandemic ( Peng et al., 2020 ). Nevertheless, by subjecting the general waste category to proper sterilization procedure via any of thermal, microwave, bio-chemical sterilization, the huge potential from upcycling of the retrieved materials will edge towards fulfilling the promise of CE within the sector ( Yang et al., 2009 ).

6.3. Embracing resource efficiency in the construction and built environment

As with other economic sectors, COVID-19 has exposed the shortcomings of the built and natural environment's business-as-usual practices, highlighting the prevalence of poor-quality buildings, issues regarding affordability of decent housing and rigidity of the current building stocks ( EMF, 2020b ). Living in poor-quality houses and in small constricted energy inefficient homes, led to the in-house transmission of the virus in some cases ( Clair, 2020 ). This is particularly the case in poorer countries where inadequate access to sanitation amenities has prevented people from adopting best practices necessary for halting the transmission ( Andrew et al., 2020 ). These issues alongside the growing concern and awareness regarding the resource-wasting nature of the sector, present a strong case for rethinking it. The CE is well positioned to offer potential solutions to these problems.

CE can help balance behavioural challenges and opportunities from occupancy requirements. Humans spend up to 90% of their time indoors ( Marques et al., 2018 ; Pitarma et al., 2017 ). The pandemic has led to people spending more time at ‘home’ than at work, leading to massively underutilised office and business spaces, which is likely to increase due to on-going social distancing constraints ( Feber et al., 2020 ) or perhaps due to more organisation discovering the cost benefits of remote working. It is also plausible that upgrading of existing (or design of new) office and commercial spaces would require making them flexible and adaptable to cope with changing needs (e.g. occupant density, social distancing, ventilation, etc.) by using movable walls ( Carra and Magdani, 2017 ). Insufficient ventilation can increase the risk of infection to healthcare workers and susceptible patients in healthcare buildings, especially makeshift hospitals ( Chen and Zhao, 2020 ). The impact of these engineering measures on energy consumption of typical buildings and healthcare facilities needs to be considered because of social distancing measures, which may require a decrease in occupant density but an increase in ventilation rates. So, although energy recovery is high on the agenda for CE in the built environment ( Eberhardt et al., 2019 ), the additional requirement of more mechanical ventilation for less people will stretch the energy consumed by buildings. Some researchers have argued for buildings to avoid recirculation (essential for energy savings) and use 100% fresh outdoor air for mechanical ventilation systems ( Pinheiro and Luís, 2020 ). Such scenarios are likely to increase the adoption of renewable energy sources to support acceptable indoor air quality (IAQ).

The adoption of CE strategies such as material reuse and development of recycling infrastructure can facilitate value circulation and efficient use of resources within the built and natural environment, ensuring a more competitive and cost-effective post-COVID-19 recovery, while contributing to GHG emissions reduction and creating job opportunities ( EMF, 2020b ). For instance, a study by ARUP estimated that designing for steel reuse has the potential of generating savings of 6-27% and 9-43% for a warehouse and an office respectively, whilst constituting up to 25% savings on material costs ( SYSTEMIQ, 2017 ). The EU is leading in policy direction that would make it a legal requirement to introduce recycled content (i.e. material looping) in specific construction products, after the functionality and safety have been vetted ( European Commission, 2020 ). Such initiatives will encourage designers and researchers to incorporate material looping into their overall design strategy across the value chain to ensure they are fit for circulation ( Deloitte, 2020 ). This material looping has been shown to reduce disposal fees and generate new income streams from the secondary materials market ( Rios et al., 2015 ). It is an approach that would help reduce construction waste, which accounts for a third of all solid wastes in countries like India ( EMF, 2016 ). The adoption of digital material passports that supports end-to-end tracking of building materials has been reported by SYSTEMIQ (2017) to aid the identification of materials for reuse as they approach their end of first life, thereby allowing the longevity and encouraging tighter material looping.

COVID-19 in the context of CE will encourage prefabrication, design thinking and renovation. As the building industry moves towards the industrialisation of construction via prefabrication/offsite production, seven strategies have been suggested by Minunno et al. (2018) out of which the principle of designing for eventual disassembly and reuse is critical. With a combined smart and industrialised prefabrication (SAIP) process ( Abbas Elmualim et al., 2018 ), the intelligent performance and circularity of buildings can be boosted by advanced smart technologies ( Windapo and Moghayedi, 2020 ). The building of 1,000 bed Huoshenshan Hospital in Wuhan covering 34,000m 2 in ten days using modular pre-fabricated components, which can be disassembled and reused ( Zhou et al., 2020 ) has demonstrated the capability of the construction industry to deliver adaptable buildings in record time. But it is perhaps in the sphere of refurbishment and renovation that CE in the built environment would mostly be felt. A CE strategy that promotes repair and refurbishment is preferable to one which encourages recycling, since the economic and environmental value of a product is retained better by the former ( Sauerwein et al., 2019 ).

Renovation helps achieve carbon reduction targets while contributing to economic stimulation ( Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2013 ) . Retrofitting, refurbishing or repairing existing buildings leads to lower emission facilities, is less resource-intensive and more cost-effective than demolition or new construction ( Ardente et al., 2011 ; Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2014 ). Nevertheless, circular renovation of buildings must align with circular design thinking – as alluded to above, in terms of re-integrating materials back into the value chain – as well as the need to enhance material/product durability and energy efficiency ( Pomponi and Moncaster, 2017 ). In Europe, renovation of buildings decreases the residential sector's GHG emissions by 63%, with a reduction of up to 73% in the non-residential sector ( Artola et al., 2016 ). In meeting the emerging needs of the renovation sub-sector, digital infrastructure technologies (such as thermographic and infrared surveys, photogrammetry and 3D laser scanning, as well as BIM and Digital Twinning) will play a crucial role in ensuring the low carbon and energy-efficient future of the built environment ( ARUP, 2020 ).

6.4. Bio-cycle economy and the food sector

COVID-19 or not, the food sector is generally wasteful ( Dilkes-Hoffman et al., 2018 ), contributes to environmental degradation ( Beretta and Hellweg, 2019 ), disrupts nutrient flows due to the current linear nature of its value chain, thereby diminishing the nutritional quality of food ( Castañé and Antón, 2017 ). To address these issues, as part of a future resilience in the food sector, a number of CE levers applicable to the sector is highlighted: (i) closing nutrient loops through the adoption of regenerative agriculture ( Rhodes, 2017 ). The organic content of soil reflects its healthiness and propensity to produce nutritious crops. The adoption of regenerative agriculture can facilitate the preservation of soil health through returning organic matter to the soil in the form of food waste or composted by-products or digestates from treatment plants ( Sherwood and Uphoff, 2000 ); (ii) value recovery from organic nutrients through the adoption of anaerobic digestion facilities ( De Gioannis et al., 2017 ; Huang et al., 2017 ), which is related to controlled biogas production for onward injection into natural gas network or conversion to electrical energy ( Atelge et al., 2020 ; Monlau et al., 2015 ). This has the potential to transform ensuing methane from food waste into carbon-neutral energy; and (iii) the embrace of urban and peri-urban agriculture ( Ayambire et al., 2019 ; Lwasa et al., 2014 ; Opitz et al., 2016 ; Thebo et al., 2014 ), which entails the “ cultivation of crops and rearing of animals for food and other uses within and surrounding the boundaries of cities, including fisheries and forestry ”( EPRS, 2014 ). Indeed, by cultivating food in proximity to where it will be consumed, carbon footprint can be mitigated in numerous ways. For instance, through the adoption of urban agriculture, Lee et al. (2015) demonstrated GHG reduction of 11,668 t yr −1 in the transportation sector. The popularity of local farms has severely increased as a direct consequence of COVID-19, whereby people could experience the power of local food cycles and avoid perceived contamination risks in supermarkets. This will further bolster urban and peri-urban agriculture.

All the above-mentioned CE strategies will contribute towards the establishment of a better and more resilient future food system. However, in the context of COVID-19, transitioning to regenerative agricultural production processes and expanding food collection, redistribution and volarisation facilities constitute an integral part of a more resilient and healthy food system that allows greater food security and less wastage, post COVID-19 ( EMF, 2020a ). Investments towards accelerating regenerative agriculture offer economic benefits facilitated by reforms in food, land, and ocean use ( World Economic Forum, 2020 ). It also offer environmental benefits by supporting biologically active ecosystems ( EMF, 2020a ) and through numerous farming mechanisms including no-till farming, adoption of cover crops, crop rotations and diversification ( Ranganatha et al., 2020 ) as well as managed grazing for regenerative livestock rearing ( Fast Company, 2019 ). Similarly, expanding food collection, redistribution and volarisation facilities offers both economic and environmental benefits for the food system ( EMF, 2020a ). However, realising these benefits will require investment in: (i) physical infrastructure like cold chains that support the storage, processing, and supply of edible food, especially in low-income countries, and (ii) processing infrastructure for the collection and volarisation of waste food ( EMF, 2020a ). This will facilitate door-to-door waste food collection, offering avenues for municipal organic waste volarisation.

6.5. Opportunities for CE in the transport and mobility sector

Facilitating the movement of people, products and materials, transportation infrastructures are imperative to the success of circularity in the shift towards sustainable cities given its impact on the quality of life, the local environment and resource consumption ( Van Buren et al., 2016 ). As noted in an earlier section, the transport sector was one of the sectors most heavily impacted by COVID-19. Going forward, many CE strategies could be adopted as part of building a resilient transport sector. Development of compact city for effective mobility given their attributes in terms of being dense with mixed-use neighbourhoods and transit-oriented ( EMF, 2019 ), can create an enabling environment for both shared mobility options (e.g. trams, buses, ride-shares) and active mobility options (e.g. bicycling, walking) ( Chi et al., 2020 ; Shaheen and Cohen, 2020 ). This will help to re-organize urban fabric and promote intelligent use of transportation infrastructures ( Marcucci et al., 2017 ). However, the behavioural change embedded in “social distancing”, which is necessary to limit the contagion, may affect the perception of many urban dwellers about this. On the other hand, less compact cities require increased mobility infrastructure with a corresponding increase in operational vehicle use, leading to more traffic congestion, energy and resource depletion as well as pollution ( UN Habitat, 2013 ).

The use of urban freight strategies for effective reverse logistics and resource flows is also a viable CE strategy for the transport sector ( EMF, 2019 ) as it enables the provision of services in a manner that also supports similar priorities for economic growth, air quality, environmental noise and waste management ( Akgün et al., 2019 ; Kiba-Janiak, 2019 ). Beyond vehicles and infrastructure, the adoption of these strategies can enable the development of new technologies and practices such as virtualisation of products, digital manufacturing, waste collection, and sorting systems. Interestingly, innovative environmentally-friendly logistics solutions resting on the backbone of the CE framework are already materializing and being trialled in various capacities, including: urban consolidation centre (UCC) ( Johansson and Björklund, 2017 ), crowshipping ( Buldeo Rai et al., 2017a ; Rai et al., 2018 ) and off-hour delivery ( Gatta et al., 2019 ). UCC stresses the use of logistics facilities in city suburbs to ease good deliveries to customers ( Browne et al., 2005 ), while crowshipping is a collaborative measure that employs the use of free mobility resources to perform deliveries ( Buldeo Rai et al., 2017b ).

The availability of rich transport data (e.g. impacts of events on transport, commuter habits) and AI-enabled complex data processing technologies can be leveraged to inform the planning, management, and operations of transport networks over time. Real-time data can also be adopted for monitoring and for instant regulations of traffic flow based on route planning, dynamic pricing and parking space allocation. Noticeably, many of these innovative CE-related initiatives still need an efficient governance mechanism ( Janné and Fredriksson, 2019 ). However, coupling them with the deployment of environmentally efficient vehicles and superior technical solutions hinging on the internet-of-things will bring many nations closer to reaping the benefits of CE. Given that urban planning is most often within the remit of governmental agencies, they must therefore develop integrated pathways and strategies for urban mobility to ensure effective logistics and resource flows. Stakeholder engagements within the transport sector can also facilitate innovative solutions that enable better use of assets and big data solutions.

6.6. Sustaining improvements in air quality

Improvements in air quality is one of the positives recorded due to the COVID-19-imposed lockdown as transportation and industrial activities halted. To sustain such improvements, there is the need to facilitate a step change by ramping up the uptake of low emission vehicles through setting more ambitious targets for the embrace of electric vehicles, constructing more electric car charging points as well as encouraging low emissions fuels. This entails heightening investments in cleaner means of public transportation as well as foot and cycle paths for health improvements; redesigning of cities to ensure no proximity to highly polluting roads and the populace as well as preventing highly polluting vehicles from accessing populated areas using classifications such as clear air or low emission zones ( PHE, 2020 ).

Batteries constitute an integral part towards the decarbonisation of road transportation and support the move to a renewable energy system ( World Economic Forum, 2019 ). As such, it is important to establish a battery value chain that is circular, responsible and just, to realise the aforementioned transitions. This entails the identification of the ( World Economic Forum, 2019 ): (i) challenges inhibiting the scaling up of the battery value chain (e.g. battery production processes, risks of raw materials supplies); (ii) levers to mitigate the challenges such as a circular value chain (e.g. design for life extension, implementation of V1G and V2G and scaling up of electric shared and pooled mobility, coupling the transport and power sectors); sustainable business and technology (e.g. increasing the share of renewables and energy efficiency measures across the value chain, effective regulations and financial incentives to support value creation); and a responsible and just value chain based on a balanced view and interplay between environmental, social and economic factors. Indeed, cost-effective and sustainable batteries, as well as an enabling ecosystem for the deployment of battery-enabled renewable energy technologies backed with a dense infrastructure network for charging, will facilitate the transition towards broader acceptance of electric vehicles and by extension guarantees a sustained improvement in air quality ( Masiero et al., 2017 ; PHE, 2020 ; World Economic Forum, 2019 ).We recognize that if all cars are simply replaced by electricones, there will still be the same volume of traffic and an increased need for raw materials, posing significant social, environmental and integrity risks across its value chain. However, CE through the aforementioned levers can address these challenges and support the achievement of a sustainable battery value chain. This will entail lowering emission during manufacturing, eradicating human rights violations, ensuring safe working conditions across the value chain and improving reuse, recycling and remanufacturing ( World Economic Forum, 2019 ).

6.7. Digitalisation for supply chain resilience post COVID-19

Digitalisation of supply chains through leveraging disruptive digital technologies (DDTs) - technologies or tools underpinning smart manufacturing such as the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence, big data analytics, cloud computing and 3D printing - constitute an important step for companies to prepare for and mitigate against the disruptions and attain business resilience amidst global pandemics such as COVID-19. Circular supply chain value drivers’ entails elongation of useful lifespan and maximisation of asset utilisation. Intelligent assets value drivers entail gathering knowledge regarding the location, condition and availability of assets ( Morlet et al., 2016 ). Paring these drivers could provide a broad range of opportunities, which could change the nature of both products and business models, enabling innovation and value creation ( Antikainen et al., 2018 ; Morlet et al., 2016 ). For instance, big data analytics, when adopted properly can aid companies in streamlining their supplier selection processes; cloud-computing is currently being used to facilitate and manage supplier relationships; through automation and the IoT, logistics and shipping processes can be greatly enhanced ( McKenzie, 2020 ). Digitalisation enables predictive maintenance, preventing failures while extending the lifespan of a product across the supply chains. It therefore, constitutes an ideal vehicle for circular supply chains transitioning, providing opportunities to close material loops and improve processes ( Morlet et al., 2016 ; Pagoropoulos et al., 2017 ).

Indeed, COVID-19 has prompted renewed urgency in the adoption of automation and robotics towards mitigating against the disruptive impact on supply chains through restrictions imposed on people's movement. Numerous companies are taking advantage of this to automate their production lines. Prior to COVID-19, momentum towards adopting 5G mobile technology was mounting but delays caused by factors including anticipated use evaluations, security, competition and radio communications regulatory issues limited progress ( McKenzie, 2020 ). It is likely that the experience of COVID-19 may accelerate the provision of regulatory certainty for 5G, which will in turn fast-track the deployment of IoT-enabled devices for remote monitoring, to support supply chain resilience post COVID-19.

Despite the benefits of DDTs, tension exists between their potential benefits (i.e. ability to deliver measurable environmental benefits at an affordable cost), and the problems (i.e. heavy burden imposed during manufacturing and disposal phases of their lifecycle) they constitute, creating rebound effects. As such, the tension between the push for increasing digitalisation and the associated energy costs and environmental impacts should be investigated such that they do not exacerbate the existing problems of resource use and pollution caused by rapid obsolescence and disposal of products containing such technologies. This entails identifying, mapping and mitigating unintended consequences across their supply chains, whilst taking into account technological design embedded within green ethical design processes, to identify environmental sustainability hotspots, both in conception, application and end of life phases.

6.8. Policy measures, incentives and regulatory support for CE transitioning

Becque et al. (2016) in their analysis of the political economy of the CE identified six main types of policy intervention to facilitate, advance and guide the move to a CE by addressing either barriers that aim to fix the market and regulatory failures or encourage market activity. Some of the policy intervention options identified include: (i) education, information and awareness that entails the integration of CE and lifecycle systems thinking into educational curricula supported by public communication and information campaigns; (ii) setting up platforms for collaboration including public-private partnerships with ventures at the local, regional and national levels, encouraging information sharing as well as value chain and inter-sectoral initiatives, establishing research and development to facilitate breakthroughs in materials science and engineering, biomaterials systems etc.; (iii) introduction of sustainability initiatives in public procurement and infrastructure ; (iv) provision of business/financial/technical support schemes such as initial capital outlay, incentive programs, direct subsidies and financial guarantees as well as technical support, training, advice and demonstration of best practices; (v) regulatory frameworks such as regulation of products (including design), extension of warranties and product passports; strategies for waste management including standards and targets for collection and treatments, take-back systems and extended producer responsibility; strategies at the sectoral levels and associated targets for resource productivity and CE; consumer, competition, industry and trade regulations; introduction of standard carbon accounting standards and methodologies; and (vi) fiscal frameworks such as reductions of VAT or excise tax for products and services designed with CE principles.

7. Conclusion

COVID-19 has highlighted the environmental folly of ‘extract-produce-use-dump’ economic model of material and energy flows. Short-term policies to cope with the urgency of the pandemic are unlikely to be sustainable models in the long run. Nonetheless, they shed light on critical issues that deserve emphases, such as the clear link between environmental pollution and transportation/industrialization. The role of unrestricted air travel in spreading pandemics particularly the viral influenza types (of which COVID-19 is one) is not in doubt, with sectors like tourism and aviation being walloped (some airlines may never recover or return to profitability in a long time) due to reduced passenger volumes. The fallout will re-shape the aviation sector, which like tourism has been among the hardest to be hit economically, albeit with desirable outcomes for the reduction in adverse environmental impacts. Peer-to-peer (P2P) or sharing economy models (e.g. Uber, Airbnb) which have birthed a new generation of service providers and employees are found to be non-resilient to global systemic shocks.

The urgency of supply and demand led to a reduction in cargo shipping in favour of airfreights whose transatlantic cost/kg tripled overnight. This is matched by job losses, income inequalities, mass increase in global poverty levels and economic shocks across industries and supply chains. The practicability of remote working (once the domain of technology/service industries) has been tried and tested for specific industries/professions with its associated impacts on reduced commuting for workers. Remote healthcare/telemedicine/ and remote working, in general, is no longer viewed as unfeasible because it has been practiced with success over the best part of a four-month global lockdown period. There was a corresponding reduction in primary energy consumption due to the slowing and shutting down of production and economic activities, and the delivery of education remotely is also no longer questioned. The potential of automation, IoT, and robotics in improving manufacturing processes, as well as the use of cloud computing and big data analytics in streamlining supplier selection processes and management of supplier relationships and logistics are now better appreciated.

The inadequacies of modern healthcare delivery systems to cope with mass casualties and emergencies are universally acknowledged, primarily due to the incapacity of hospital JIT procurement process to provide essential medical and emergency supplies in vast quantities at short notice. This had deadly consequences with thousands of patients and healthcare workers paying the ultimate price for lack of planning and shortfalls in PPE inventory and critical care equipment. Protectionism and in-ward looking policies on exports and tariff reductions/waivers on the importation of raw materials and critical PPE have emphasized the importance of cooperation to cope with shortages, which evolved in tandem with profiteering, thereby emphasizing the role/need for cottage industries to help meet global production of essentials (facemasks, 3D printed parts/equipment, etc.). The increase in infectious hospital wastes due to the pandemic was necessitated by precautionary measures to control the transmission, but proper/advanced sterilization procedures via thermal, microwave, biochemical processes can help in upcycling discarded or retrieved materials and PPE.

Changes in consumer behaviour with social distancing have necessitated a huge increase in online purchasing, which has benefitted the big players but seriously harmed SMEs, who were not exploiting web-based product and service delivery. A CE-based resilience of the consumer food sector was found to require: (i) closing nutrient loops with the use of regenerative agriculture; (ii) value recovery from organic nutrients via anaerobic digestion facilities; (iii) adoption of urban and peri-urban agriculture; and (iv) expanding food collection, redistribution and volarisation facilities. It is believed that CE will facilitate a socially just and inclusive society,driven by the need for resilience and sustainability goals, which could see a rise in bio-economy and sharing economy (SE). The consequences of these would be felt in terms of global cooperation and mutual interests; long-term planning as well as the need to strike an optimum balance between dependence on outsourcing/importation and local manufacturing/productivity. A realignment of value chains is likely to occur because of countries with raw materials exploiting this pandemic for their sustainable growth, and a new world order not shaped by the technological superiority of super-powers is likely to emerge.

During the lockdown, offices and commercial spaces were massively underutilized and the need to increase ventilation rates, e.g. in hospitals is leading to more energy consumption. However, there are opportunities to (re)design buildings to have movable walls for adaptable use. The use of modular techniques for fast construction of buildings that can be disassembled and re-configured for new needs, as demonstrated in China, is likely to increase. Renovation and refurbishment will witness a renewed vigour as existing buildings get a new lease of life with reduced carbon emissions and new jobs being created. Nonetheless, integrating circularity (product durability, energy efficiency, recyclability, etc.) via design thinking is essential from the onset if all these potential benefits are to be achieved. Digital technologies will play a crucial role in ensuring the low carbon and energy-efficient future of the built environment.

Governments are recognizing the need for national-level CE policies in many aspects, such as: (a) reducing over-reliance on other manufacturing countries for essential goods as massive shortages forced the unwitting adoption of CE principles such as re-use; (b) intensive research into bio-based materials for the development of biodegradable products and the promotion of bio-economy; (c) legal framework for local, regional and national authorities to promote green logistics and waste management regulations which incentivize local production and manufacturing; and (d) development of compact smart cities for effective mobility (with social distancing considerations) as well as enabling environment for shared mobility options (e.g. ride-shares) and active mobility options (e.g. bicycling, walking).

Going forward, resilience thinking should guide lessons learnt and innovations emanating from circular thinking should target the general well-being of the populace and not merely focus on boosting the competitiveness, profitability or growth of businesses and national economies. The post-COVID-19 investments needed to accelerate towards more resilient, low carbon and circular economies should also be integrated into the stimulus packages for economic recovery being promised by governments, since the shortcomings in the dominant linear economic model are now recognized and the gaps to be closed are known.

Credit author statement

IMT, MKB and GJ conceived the idea. IMT developed the methodological notes. IMT, MKB, AZ & FH conducted the analysis. IMT, MKB, AZ, BKA, ADD, AA and FH designed the structure and outline of the paper. All authors contributed to the writing the paper, with comments and feedback from GJ and KSCL.

Declaration of Competing Interest

Abbas Elmualim S.M., Chileshe N., Rameezdeen R. Construction and the circular economy: smart and industrialised prefabrication. Unmak. Waste Product. Consump. 2018:323. [ Google Scholar ]
ACI Policy Brief – COVID-19: Relief measures to ensure the survival of the airport industry. Airport Council Int. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
Acquaye A., Feng K., Oppon E., Salhi S., Ibn-Mohammed T., Genovese A., Hubacek K. Measuring the environmental sustainability performance of global supply chains: A multi-regional input-output analysis for carbon, sulphur oxide and water footprints. J. Environ. Manag.187. 2017:571–585. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ahmed F., Ahmed N.e., Pissarides C., Stiglitz J. Why inequality could spread COVID-19. The Lancet Public Health. 2020; 5 :e240. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Air Transport Bureau . International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO); Montréal, Canada: 2020. Effects of Novel Coronavirus (COVID‐19) on Civil Aviation: Economic Impact Analysis. [ Google Scholar ]
Akgün E.Z., Monios J., Rye T., Fonzone A. Influences on urban freight transport policy choice by local authorities. Transport Policy. 2019; 75 :88–98. [ Google Scholar ]
Allan J., Donovan C., Ekins P., Gambhir A., Hepburn C., Robins N., Reay D., Shuckburgh E., Zenghelis D. A net-zero emissions economic recovery from COVID-19. COP26 Univ. Netw. Brief. 2020 April. [ Google Scholar ]
Allison A.L., Ambrose-Dempster E., Domenech Aparsi T., Bawn M., Casas Arredondo M., Chau C., Chandler K., Dobrijevic D., Hailes H.C., Lettieri P. The environmental dangers of employing single-use face masks as part of a COVID-19 exit strategy. UCL Open. 2020 Preprint. [ Google Scholar ]
American Geriatrics Society American Geriatrics Society (AGS) policy brief: COVID‐19 and nursing homes. J. American Geriatrics Society. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Anderson R.M., Heesterbeek H., Klinkenberg D., Hollingsworth T.D. How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic? The Lancet. 2020; 395 :931–934. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Andrew A., Armand A., Augsburg B., Taveras I.K. Challenges of adopting coronavirus precautions in low-income countries. The IFS, Inst. Fiscal Stud. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
Ang B.W. The LMDI approach to decomposition analysis: a practical guide. Energy Policy33. 2005:867–871. [ Google Scholar ]
Antikainen M., Uusitalo T., Kivikytö-Reponen P. Digitalisation as an enabler of circular economy. Procedia CIRP. 2018; 73 :45–49. [ Google Scholar ]
Arafat S.Y., Kar S.K., Marthoenis M., Sharma P., Apu E.H., Kabir R. Psychological underpinning of panic buying during pandemic (COVID-19) Psychiatry Res. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ardente F., Beccali M., Cellura M., Mistretta M. Energy and environmental benefits in public buildings as a result of retrofit actions. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.15. 2011:460–470. [ Google Scholar ]
Artola I., Rademaekers K., Williams R., Yearwood J. Study for the iTRE Committee, Commissioned by DG for Internal Policies Policy Department A. Vol. 72. 2016. Boosting building renovation: What potential and value for Europe. [ Google Scholar ]
ARUP . ARUP; 2020. Transform and Reuse:Low-Carbon Futures for Existing Buildings. [ Google Scholar ]
Atelge M., Atabani A., Banu J.R., Krisa D., Kaya M., Eskicioglu C., Kumar G., Lee C., Yildiz Y., Unalan S. A critical review of pretreatment technologies to enhance anaerobic digestion and energy recovery. Fuel. 2020; 270 [ Google Scholar ]
Aubrecht, P., Essink, J., Kovac, M., Vandenberghe, A.-S., 2020. Centralized and decentralized responses to COVID-19 in federal systems: US and EU comparisons. Available at SSRN 3584182.
Auffhammer M., Burke M., Burney J., Hsiang S., Lobell D., Roberts M., Schlenker W. COVID-19 reduces economic activity, which reduces pollution, which saves lives. Global Food, Environment and Economic Dynamics (G-FEED), United States. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
Ayambire R.A., Amponsah O., Peprah C., Takyi S.A. A review of practices for sustaining urban and peri-urban agriculture: Implications for land use planning in rapidly urbanising Ghanaian cities. Land Use Policy. 2019; 84 :260–277. [ Google Scholar ]
Bachman D. COVID-19 could affect the global economy in three main ways. Deloitte. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
Baker S.R., Bloom N., Davis S.J., Terry S.J. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2020. Covid-induced economic uncertainty. [ Google Scholar ]
Baldwin R., Evenett S. CEPR Press; London: 2020. Covid-19 and Trade Policy: Why turning inward won't work. [ Google Scholar ]
Baseler L., Chertow D.S., Johnson K.M., Feldmann H., Morens D.M. The pathogenesis of ebola virus disease. Annu. Rev. Pathol. 2017; 12 :387–418. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Basilaia G., Kvavadze D. Transition to Online Education in Schools during a SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic in Georgia. Pedag. Res.5. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
Bauwens T., Hekkert M., Kirchherr J. Circular futures: what will they look like? Ecol. Econ.175. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
Bayram M., Springer S., Garvey C.K., Özdemir V. COVID-19 digital health innovation policy: A portal to alternative futures in the making. OMICS J. Integrat. Biol. 2020 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Becque, R., Roy, N., Hamza-Goodacre, D., 2016. The Political Economy of the Circular Economy-lessons to date and questions for research. San Francisco, pp. 1-16.
Beretta C., Hellweg S. Potential environmental benefits from food waste prevention in the food service sector. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.147. 2019:169–178. [ Google Scholar ]
Bloom D.E., Cadarette D. Infectious disease threats in the 21st century: strengthening the global response. Front. Immunol.10. 2019:549. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bloom D.E., Canning D. Epidemics and economics. Interact. Glob. Chang. Hum. Health Scripta Varia. 2004; 106 :304–331. [ Google Scholar ]
Bocken N.M., De Pauw I., Bakker C., van der Grinten B. Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. J. Indust. Prod. Eng.33. 2016:308–320. [ Google Scholar ]
Bown C.P. A CEPR Press; 2020. COVID-19: Demand spikes, export restrictions, and quality concerns imperil poor country access to medical supplies. VoxEU.org eBook, 31. [ Google Scholar ]
Bradsher K., Alderman L. New York Times; 2020. The world needs masks. China makes them, but has been hoarding them. [ Google Scholar ]
Bramanti B., Dean K.R., Walloe L., Chr Stenseth N. The third plague pandemic in Europe. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2019; 286 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Braungart M., McDonough W., Bollinger A. Cradle-to-cradle design: creating healthy emissions – a strategy for eco-effective product and system design. J. Clean. Prod.15. 2007:1337–1348. [ Google Scholar ]
Bretscher, L., Hsu, A., Tamoni, A., 2020. The supply channel of uncertainty shocks and the cross-section of returns: evidence from the COVID-19 crisis. Available at SSRN 3588418.
Browne M., Sweet M., Woodburn A., Allen J. Vol. 10. Transport Studies Group, University of Westminster; 2005. (Urban freight consolidation centres final report). [ Google Scholar ]
Buldeo Rai H., Verlinde S., Merck J., Macharis C. Crowd logistics: an opportunity for more sustainable urban freight transport? Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2017; 9 (39) [ Google Scholar ]
Buldeo Rai H., Verlinde S., Merckx J., Macharis C. Crowd logistics: an opportunity for more sustainable urban freight transport? Eur. Transp. Res. Rev.9. 2017:39. [ Google Scholar ]
Carra G., Magdani N. Circular business models for the built environment. Arup BAM. 2017:1–44. [ Google Scholar ]
Carrillo-Hermosilla J., Del Río P., Könnölä T. Diversity of eco-innovations: Reflections from selected case studies. J. Clean. Prod.18. 2010:1073–1083. [ Google Scholar ]
Castañé S., Antón A. Assessment of the nutritional quality and environmental impact of two food diets: A Mediterranean and a vegan diet. J. Clean. Prod.167. 2017:929–937. [ Google Scholar ]
Chandra, S., 2020. Speed, space and sustainability (3S) in transportation amid COVID-19 crisis. SSRN 3598501.
Chang H.-H., Meyerhoefer C. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2020. COVID-19 and the Demand for Online Food Shopping Services: Empirical Evidence from Taiwan. [ Google Scholar ]
Chen C., Zhao B. Makeshift hospitals for COVID-19 patients: where health-care workers and patients need sufficient ventilation for more protection. J. Hosp. Infect.105. 2020:98–99. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chi M., George J.F., Huang R., Wang P. Unraveling sustainable behaviors in the sharing economy: An empirical study of bicycle-sharing in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
Cimprich A., Santillán‐Saldivar J., Thiel C.L., Sonnemann G., Young S.B. Potential for industrial ecology to support healthcare sustainability: Scoping review of a fragmented literature and conceptual framework for future research. J. Indust. Ecol.23. 2019:1344–1352. [ Google Scholar ]
Clair A. Social Market Foundation (SMF); 2020. Homes, health, and COVID-19: how poor housing adds to the hardship of the coronavirus crisis. Online. [ Google Scholar ]
Company M. A global view of how consumer behavior is changing amid COVID-19. McKinsey. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
Da Silva C., Hoppe A., Ravanello M., Mello N. Medical wastes management in the south of Brazil. Waste Manag.25. 2005:600–605. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Danieli, A., Olmstead-Rumsey, J., 2020. Sector-specific shocks and the expenditure elasticity channel during the covid-19 crisis. Available at SSRN 3593514.
Dannenberg, P., Fuchs, M., Riedler, T., Wiedemann, C., 2020. Digital transition by COVID‐19 pandemic? The German food online retail. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
Dargaville T., Spann K., Celina M. Opinion to address a potential personal protective equipment shortage in the global community during the COVID-19 outbreak. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Daszak P. Anatomy of a pandemic. The Lancet. 2012; 380 :1883–1884. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
De Cock K.M., Jaffe H.W., Curran J.W. The evolving epidemiology of HIV/AIDS. Aids. 2012; 26 :1205–1213. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
De Gioannis G., Muntoni A., Polettini A., Pomi R., Spiga D. Energy recovery from one-and two-stage anaerobic digestion of food waste. Waste Manag.68. 2017:595–602. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
De Jesus A., Mendonça S. Lost in transition? Drivers and barriers in the eco-innovation road to the circular economy. Ecol. Econ.145. 2018:75–89. [ Google Scholar ]
De Soete W., Jiménez-González C., Dahlin P., Dewulf J. Challenges and recommendations for environmental sustainability assessments of pharmaceutical products in the healthcare sector. Green Chem.19. 2017:3493–3509. [ Google Scholar ]
Deloitte . Deloitte; 2020. Understanding the sector impact of COVID-19: Engineering and Construction sector; p. 2. [ Google Scholar ]
Devakumar D., Shannon G., Bhopal S.S., Abubakar I. Racism and discrimination in COVID-19 responses. The Lancet. 2020; 395 :1194. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Diaz L.F., Eggerth L., Enkhtsetseg S., Savage G. Characteristics of healthcare wastes. Waste Manag.28. 2008:1219–1226. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dilkes-Hoffman L.S., Lane J.L., Grant T., Pratt S., Lant P.A., Laycock B. Environmental impact of biodegradable food packaging when considering food waste. J. Clean. Prod.180. 2018:325–334. [ Google Scholar ]
Dingel J.I., Neiman B. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2020. How many jobs can be done at home? [ Google Scholar ]
Duflou J.R., Sutherland J.W., Dornfeld D., Herrmann C., Jeswiet J., Kara S., Hauschild M., Kellens K. Towards energy and resource efficient manufacturing: A processes and systems approach. CIRP Anna.61. 2012:587–609. [ Google Scholar ]
Duncan-Jones R.P. The impact of the Antonine plague. J. Roman Arch.9. 1996:108–136. [ Google Scholar ]
Eaton J., Connor Y. How to strengthen your supply chain in the face of COVID-19 disruption: 8 Lessons for strengthening your supply chain today. Grant Thornton. 2020 Online. [ Google Scholar ]
Eberhardt L.C.M., Birgisdottir H., Birkved M. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. IOP Publishing; 2019. Potential of circular economy in sustainable buildings. [ Google Scholar ]
EEA . Vol. 2020. Publications Office of the European Union; Luxembourg: 2020. pp. 1–104. (Environmental noise in Europe — 2020. European Environment Agency (EEA)). [ Google Scholar ]
Ekins, P., Hughes, N., Brigenzu, S., Arden Clark, C., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Graedel, T., Hajer, M., Hashimoto, S., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Havlik, P., 2016. Resource efficiency: Potential and economic implications.
Eleyan D., Al-Khatib I.A., Garfield J. System dynamics model for hospital waste characterization and generation in developing countries. Waste Manag. Res.31. 2013:986–995. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
EMF . Ellen MacArthur Foundation; London: 2016. Circular economy in India: Rethinking growth for long-term prosperity; p. 86. [ Google Scholar ]
EMF . Ellen MacArthur Foundation; 2019. Planning effective transport of people, products and materials; p. 6. [ Google Scholar ]
EMF . Ellen MacArthur Foundation; 2020. 10 circular investment opportunities to build back better: food sector; p. 13. [ Google Scholar ]
EMF . Ellen MacArthur Foundation; London: 2020. 10 circular investment opportunities to build back better: The built environment; p. 10. [ Google Scholar ]
Enkvist P., Klevnäs P., Teiwik A., Jönsson C., Klingvall S., Hellberg U. Material Economics Sverige AB; Stockholm, Sweden: 2018. The circular economy–a powerful force for climate mitigation: transformative innovation for prosperous and low-carbon industry. [ Google Scholar ]
EPRS . European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS); 2014. Urban And Peri-Urban Agriculture. [ Google Scholar ]
ESA . European Space Agency (ESA); 2020. Air pollution remains low as Europeans stay at home. Online. [ Google Scholar ]
European Commission . European Commission; 2011. The Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe; p. 26. [ Google Scholar ]
European Commission . European Commission; 2020. EU Circular Economy Action Plan: A new Circular Economy Action Plan for a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe. [ Google Scholar ]
Evenett S.J. Flawed prescription: Export curbs on medical goods won't tackle shortages. COVID-19 and Trade Policy: Why Turning Inward Won't Work. 2020; 49 [ Google Scholar ]
Fast Company . Fast Company; 2019. Is it possible to raise a carbon-neutral cow? [ Google Scholar ]
Feber D., Lingqvist O., Nordigården D. McKinsey & Company McKinsey & Company; 2020. Shaping the next normal of packaging beyond COVID-19; p. 6. [ Google Scholar ]
Feng K., Davis S.J., Sun L., Hubacek K. Drivers of the US CO2 emissions 1997-2013. Nat. Commun.6. 2015 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Fernandes, N., 2020. Economic effects of coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) on the world economy. Available at SSRN 3557504.
Fischer R., Morris D.H., van Doremalen N., Sarchette S., Matson J., Bushmaker T., Yinda C.K., Seifert S., Gamble A., Williamson B. Assessment of N95 respirator decontamination and re-use for SARS-CoV-2. medRxiv. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ford T.E., Colwell R.R., Rose J.B., Morse S.S., Rogers D.J., Yates T.L. Using satellite images of environmental changes to predict infectious disease outbreaks. Emerg. Infect. Dis.15. 2009:1341. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Friant M.C., Vermeulen W.J., Salomone R. A typology of circular economy discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.161. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
Fujii H., Managi S., Kaneko S. Decomposition analysis of air pollution abatement in China: empirical study for ten industrial sectors from 1998 to 2009. J. Clean. Prod.59. 2013:22–31. [ Google Scholar ]
Galvão G.D.A., Homrich A.S., Geissdoerfer M., Evans S., Ferrer P.S.s., Carvalho M.M. Towards a value stream perspective of circular business models. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.162. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
Gates B. COVID-19 is awful. Climate change could be worse. Clim. Coronavirus. 2020 GatesNotes. [ Google Scholar ]
Gates B. Responding to Covid-19—a once-in-a-century pandemic? N. Engl. J. Med.382. 2020:1677–1679. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gatta V., Marcucci E., Delle Site P., Le Pira M., Carrocci C.S. Planning with stakeholders: Analysing alternative off-hour delivery solutions via an interactive multi-criteria approach. Res. Transp. Econ.73. 2019:53–62. [ Google Scholar ]
Geissdoerfer M., Savaget P., Bocken N.M., Hultink E.J. The Circular Economy–A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod.143. 2017:757–768. [ Google Scholar ]
Gibbs M.J., Armstrong J.S., Gibbs A.J. Recombination in the hemagglutinin gene of the 1918" Spanish flu". Science. 2001; 293 :1842–1845. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Girling R. Random House; 2011. Rubbish!: Dirt on Our Hands and Crisis Ahead. [ Google Scholar ]
Gondi S., Beckman A.L., Deveau N., Raja A.S., Ranney M.L., Popkin R., He S. Personal protective equipment needs in the USA during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gopinath G. Limiting the economic fallout of the coronavirus with large targeted policies. IMF. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
Govindan K., Hasanagic M. A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and practices towards circular economy: a supply chain perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res.56. 2018:278–311. [ Google Scholar ]
Grant M.J., Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inform. Libr. J.26. 2009:91–108. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Greenhalgh T., Thorne S., Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 2018; 48 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Guan, D., Hallegatte, S., 2020. The containment divide: COVID-19 lockdowns and basic needs in developing countries.
Guan, D., Wang, D., Hallegatte, S., Huo, J., Li, S., Bai, Y., Lei, T., Xue, Q., Davis, S.J., Coffman, D.M., 2020. Global economic footprint of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Guerrieri V., Lorenzoni G., Straub L., Werning I. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2020. Macroeconomic Implications of COVID-19: Can Negative Supply Shocks Cause Demand Shortages? [ Google Scholar ]
Gungor A., Gupta S.M. Issues in environmentally conscious manufacturing and product recovery: a survey. Comp. Indust. Eng.36. 1999:811–853. [ Google Scholar ]
Haigh, L., Bäunker, L., 2020. Covid-19 and the circular economy: opportunities and reflections.
Hasanat M.W., Hoque A., Shikha F.A., Anwar M., Hamid A.B.A., Tat H.H. The impact of coronavirus (Covid-19) on e-business in Malaysia. Asian J. Multidiscipl. Stud.3. 2020:85–90. [ Google Scholar ]
Herrmann C., Schmidt C., Kurle D., Blume S., Thiede S. Sustainability in manufacturing and factories of the future. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.-Green Tech.1. 2014:283–292. [ Google Scholar ]
Hobbs J.E. Food supply chains during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Can. J. Agricult. Econ./Revue canadienne d’agroeconomie. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
Hockley L. Coronavirus roundtable: How is the aviation industry responding to the COVID-19 pandemic? Int. Airport Rev. 2020 Online. [ Google Scholar ]
Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., 2012. What a waste: a global review of solid waste management.
Horrox R. Manchester University Press; 2013. The Black Death. [ Google Scholar ]
Hotez P.J., Alvarado M., Basáñez M.-G., Bolliger I., Bourne R., Boussinesq M., Brooker S.J., Brown A.S., Buckle G., Budke C.M. The global burden of disease study 2010: interpretation and implications for the neglected tropical diseases. PLoS Neglect. Tropic. Dis.8. 2014 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hu M.R., Lee A.D. Airbnb, COVID-19 risk and lockdowns: global evidence. COVID-19 Risk Lockdowns Glob. Evid. 2020 (April 30, 2020) [ Google Scholar ]
Huang W., Zhao Z., Yuan T., Huang W., Lei Z., Zhang Z. Low-temperature hydrothermal pretreatment followed by dry anaerobic digestion: A sustainable strategy for manure waste management regarding energy recovery and nutrients availability. Waste Manag.70. 2017:255–262. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hussey L.K., Arku G. Are we ready for it? Health systems preparedness and capacity towards climate change-induced health risks: perspectives of health professionals in Ghana. Clim. Dev.12. 2020:170–182. [ Google Scholar ]
IATA Air transport & COVID-19 coronavirus. Int. Air Transp. Assoc. 2020 www.airlines.iata.org [ Google Scholar ]
Ibn-Mohammed T. Application of mixed-mode research paradigms to the building sector: a review and case study towards decarbonising the built and natural environment. Sustain. Cities Soc.35. 2017:692–714. [ Google Scholar ]
Ibn-Mohammed T., Greenough R., Taylor S., Ozawa-Meida L., Acquaye A. Operational vs. embodied emissions in buildings—A review of current trends. Energy Build.66. 2013:232–245. [ Google Scholar ]
Ibn-Mohammed T., Greenough R., Taylor S., Ozawa-Meida L., Acquaye A. Integrating economic considerations with operational and embodied emissions into a decision support system for the optimal ranking of building retrofit options. Build. Environ.72. 2014:82–101. [ Google Scholar ]
Ibn-Mohammed T., Reaney I., Koh S., Acquaye A., Sinclair D., Randall C., Abubakar F., Smith L., Schileo G., Ozawa-Meida L. Life cycle assessment and environmental profile evaluation of lead-free piezoelectrics in comparison with lead zirconate titanate. J. Eur. Cer. Soc. 2018 [ Google Scholar ]
ICAO Effects of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) on civil aviation: economic impact analysis. Unit. Aviat. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
IEA . International Energy Agency, IEA Publications; 2020. Global Energy Review 2020:The impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on global energy demand and CO2 emissions; pp. 1–56. [ Google Scholar ]
Ijomah W.L. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Waste and Resource Management. Thomas Telford Ltd; 2010. The application of remanufacturing in sustainable manufacture; pp. 157–163. [ Google Scholar ]
IMF . The International Monetary Fund (IMF); Washington, DC: 2020. World Economic Outlook: The Great Lockdown; p. 37. -37. [ Google Scholar ]
Insa E., Zamorano M., López R. Critical review of medical waste legislation in Spain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.54. 2010:1048–1059. [ Google Scholar ]
Iyengar K., Bahl S., Vaishya R., Vaish A. Challenges and solutions in meeting up the urgent requirement of ventilators for COVID-19 patients. Diab. Metabol. Syndr. Clin. Res. Rev. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jaeger B., Upadhyay A. Understanding barriers to circular economy: cases from the manufacturing industry. J. Enterp. Inform. Manag. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
Janné M., Fredriksson A. Construction logistics governing guidelines in urban development projects. Constr. Innov. 2019 [ Google Scholar ]
Javorcik B. Global supply chains will not be the same in the post-COVID-19 world. COVID-19 and Trade Policy: Why Turning Inward Won't Work. 2020; 111 [ Google Scholar ]
JHU . Coronavirus Resource Center, Johns Hopkins University (JHU); 2020. MAPS & TRENDS: New Cases of COVID-19 In World Countries. [ Google Scholar ]
Johansson H., Björklund M. Urban consolidation centres: retail stores’ demands for UCC services. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2017 [ Google Scholar ]
Kaiser B., Eagan P.D., Shaner H. Solutions to health care waste: life-cycle thinking and“ green” purchasing. Environ. Health Perspect.109. 2001:205–207. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kanda W., Kivimaa P. What opportunities could the COVID-19 outbreak offer for sustainability transitions research on electricity and mobility? Energy Res. Soc. Sci.68. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kane G.M., Bakker C.A., Balkenende A.R. Towards design strategies for circular medical products. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.135. 2018:38–47. [ Google Scholar ]
Kiba-Janiak M. EU cities’ potentials for formulation and implementation of sustainable urban freight transport strategic plans. Transp. Res. Procedia. 2019; 39 :150–159. [ Google Scholar ]
Kirchherr J., Piscicelli L., Bour R., Kostense-Smit E., Muller J., Huibrechtse-Truijens A., Hekkert M. Barriers to the circular economy: evidence from the European Union (EU) Ecol. Econ.150. 2018:264–272. [ Google Scholar ]
Kirchherr J., Reike D., Hekkert M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.127. 2017:221–232. [ Google Scholar ]
Klemeš J.J., Fan Y.V., Tan R.R., Jiang P. Minimising the present and future plastic waste, energy and environmental footprints related to COVID-19. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.127. 2020 -109883. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Koh S., Ibn-Mohammed T., Acquaye A., Feng K., Reaney I., Hubacek K., Fujii H., Khatab K. Drivers of US toxicological footprints trajectory 1998–2013. Sci. Rep.6. 2016:39514. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Korhonen J., Honkasalo A., Seppälä J. Circular economy: the concept and its limitations. Ecol. Econ.143. 2018:37–46. [ Google Scholar ]
Kraemer M.U., Yang C.-H., Gutierrez B., Wu C.-H., Klein B., Pigott D.M., du Plessis L., Faria N.R., Li R., Hanage W.P. The effect of human mobility and control measures on the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Science. 2020; 368 :493–497. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Laing T. The economic impact of the Coronavirus 2019 (Covid-2019): Implications for the mining industry. Extract. Indust. Soc. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Le Quéré C., Jackson R.B., Jones M.W., Smith A.J., Abernethy S., Andrew R.M., De-Gol A.J., Willis D.R., Shan Y., Canadell J.G. Temporary reduction in daily global CO 2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2020:1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
Lee C., Huffman G., Nalesnik R. Medical waste management. Environ. Sci. Tech.25. 1991:360–363. [ Google Scholar ]
Lee G.-G., Lee H.-W., Lee J.-H. Greenhouse gas emission reduction effect in the transportation sector by urban agriculture in Seoul, Korea. Landscape and Urban Plan.140. 2015:1–7. [ Google Scholar ]
Lee J.-W., McKibbin W.J. National Academies Press; Washington, DC: 2004. Estimating the global economic costs of SARS, Learning from SARS: preparing for the next disease outbreak: workshop summary; p. 92. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Liao L., Xiao W., Zhao M., Yu X., Wang H., Wang Q., Chu S., Cui Y. Can N95 respirators be reused after disinfection? How many times? ACS Nano. 2020 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lieder M., Rashid A. Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive review in context of manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod.115. 2016:36–51. [ Google Scholar ]
Littman R.J., Littman M.L. Galen and the Antonine plague. Am. J. Philol.94. 1973:243–255. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Liu X., Zhang S. COVID‐19: Face masks and human‐to‐human transmission. Influen. Other Respir. Virus. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Livingston E., Desai A., Berkwits M. Sourcing personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA. 2020 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lucrezi S., Saayman M., Van der Merwe P. An assessment tool for sandy beaches: A case study for integrating beach description, human dimension, and economic factors to identify priority management issues. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016; 121 :1–22. [ Google Scholar ]
Lwasa S., Mugagga F., Wahab B., Simon D., Connors J., Griffith C. Urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry: Transcending poverty alleviation to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Urban Climate. 2014; 7 :92–106. [ Google Scholar ]
Lyche, H., 2020. Might a disaster trigger a new circular-economy?
Mabahwi N.A.B., Leh O.L.H., Omar D. Human health and wellbeing: Human health effect of air pollution. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci.153. 2014:221–229. [ Google Scholar ]
MacArthur E. Ellen MacArthur Foundation; Cowes, UK: 2013. Towards the circular economy, economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. [ Google Scholar ]
Mahler D.G., Lakner C., Aguilar R.A.C., Wu H. World Bank; Washington, D.C., United States: 2020. The impact of COVID-19 (Coronavirus) on global poverty: Why Sub-Saharan Africa might be the region hardest hit. [ Google Scholar ]
Manninen K., Koskela S., Antikainen R., Bocken N., Dahlbo H., Aminoff A. Do circular economy business models capture intended environmental value propositions? J. Clean. Prod.171. 2018:413–422. [ Google Scholar ]
Marcucci E., Le Pira M., Carrocci C.S., Gatta V., Pieralice E. 2017 5th IEEE International Conference on Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems (MT-ITS) IEEE; 2017. Connected shared mobility for passengers and freight: Investigating the potential of crowdshipping in urban areas; pp. 839–843. [ Google Scholar ]
Marques G., Roque Ferreira C., Pitarma R. A system based on the internet of things for real-time particle monitoring in buildings. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health15. 2018 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Masiero G., Ogasavara M.H., Jussani A.C., Risso M.L. The global value chain of electric vehicles: A review of the Japanese, South Korean and Brazilian cases. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.80. 2017:290–296. [ Google Scholar ]
McDonough W., Braungart M. North point press; 2010. Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. [ Google Scholar ]
McKee M., Stuckler D. If the world fails to protect the economy, COVID-19 will damage health not just now but also in the future. Nat. Med.26. 2020:640–642. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
McKenzie B. Beyond COVID-19: supply chain resilience holds key to recovery. Oxford Econ.24. 2020:20. [ Google Scholar ]
McKibbin, W.J., Fernando, R., 2020. The global macroeconomic impacts of COVID-19: Seven scenarios.
Minunno R., O'Grady T., Morrison G.M., Gruner R.L., Colling M. Strategies for applying the circular economy to prefabricated buildings. Buildings. 2018; 8 :125. [ Google Scholar ]
Moazzami B., Razavi-Khorasani N., Moghadam A.D., Farokhi E., Rezaei N. COVID-19 and telemedicine: Immediate action required for maintaining healthcare providers well-being. J. Clin. Virol. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Monlau F., Sambusiti C., Antoniou N., Barakat A., Zabaniotou A. A new concept for enhancing energy recovery from agricultural residues by coupling anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis process. Appl. Energy. 2015; 148 :32–38. [ Google Scholar ]
Morlet A., Blériot J., Opsomer R., Linder M., Henggeler A., Bluhm A., Carrera A. Ellen MacArthur Foundation; 2016. Intelligent assets: Unlocking the circular economy potential; pp. 1–25. [ Google Scholar ]
Morrison A., Polisena J., Husereau D., Moulton K., Clark M., Fiander M., Mierzwinski-Urban M., Clifford T., Hutton B., Rabb D. The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. Int. J. Tech. Assess. Health Care28. 2012:138. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Muhammad S., Long X., Salman M. COVID-19 pandemic and environmental pollution: A blessing in disguise? Sci. Total Environ. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Murray N.E.A., Quam M.B., Wilder-Smith A. Epidemiology of dengue: past, present and future prospects. Clin. Epidemiol.5. 2013:299. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Naidoo R., Fisher B. Nature Publishing Group; 2020. Reset Sustainable Development Goals for a pandemic world. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
NASA . National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); 2020. Airborne Nitrogen Dioxide Plummets Over China. Online. [ Google Scholar ]
NASA . NASA; 2020. Airborne Particle Levels Plummet in Northern India. [ Google Scholar ]
OECD . OECD; Paris: 2018. Financing Climate Futures - Rethinking Infrastructure. [ Google Scholar ]
Omary M.B., Eswaraka J., Kimball S.D., Moghe P.V., Panettieri R.A., Scotto K.W. The COVID-19 pandemic and research shutdown: staying safe and productive. J. Clin. Invest.130. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Opitz I., Berges R., Piorr A., Krikser T. Contributing to food security in urban areas: differences between urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture in the Global North. Agricult. Hum. Val.33. 2016:341–358. [ Google Scholar ]
Oweis R., Al-Widyan M., Al-Limoon O. Medical waste management in Jordan: A study at the King Hussein Medical Center. Waste Manag.25. 2005:622–625. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Özkan A. Evaluation of healthcare waste treatment/disposal alternatives by using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Waste Manag. Res.31. 2013:141–149. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Paez A. Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. J. Evid.‐Based Med.10. 2017:233–240. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pagoropoulos A., Pigosso D.C., McAloone T.C. The emergent role of digital technologies in the Circular Economy: A review. Procedia CIRP. 2017; 64 :19–24. [ Google Scholar ]
Partelow S., von Wehrden H., Horn O. Pollution exposure on marine protected areas: a global assessment. Mar. Pollut. Bull.100. 2015:352–358. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Paxton, N.C., Forrestal, D.P., Desselle, M., Kirrane, M., Sullivan, C., Powell, S.K., Woodruff, M.A., 2020. N95 respiratory masks for COVID-19: a review of the literature to inform local responses to global shortages.
Pearce J.M. A review of open source ventilators for COVID-19 and future pandemics. F1000Research. 2020; 9 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Peng J., Wu X., Wang R., Li C., Zhang Q., Wei D. Medical waste management practice during the 2019-2020 novel coronavirus pandemic: Experience in a general hospital. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2020 S0196-6553(0120)30351-30355. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Penn E., Yasso S.F., Wei J.L. Reducing disposable equipment waste for tonsillectomy and adenotonsillectomy cases. Otolaryngol.–Head and Neck Surg.147. 2012:615–618. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
PHE . Public Health England (PHE); London: 2020. Review of interventions to improve outdoor air quality and public health; pp. 1–262. [ Google Scholar ]
Piguillem F., Shi L. Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance (EIEF); 2020. The optimal COVID-19 quarantine and testing policies, EIEF Working Papers Series 2004; p. 40. [ Google Scholar ]
Pinheiro M.D., Luís N.C. COVID-19 Could Leverage a Sustainable Built Environment. Sustainability. 2020; 12 [ Google Scholar ]
Pinner D., Rogers M., Samandari H. McKinsey & Company; 2020. McKinsey Quarterly: Addressing climate change in a post-pandemic world; pp. 1–6. [ Google Scholar ]
Pitarma R., Marques G., Ferreira B.R. Monitoring indoor air quality for enhanced occupational health. J. Med. Syst.41. 2017 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pomponi F., Moncaster A. Circular economy for the built environment: A research framework. J. Clean. Prod.143. 2017:710–718. [ Google Scholar ]
Prata J.C., Silva A.L.P., Walker T.R., Duarte A.C., Rocha-Santos T. COVID-19 pandemic repercussions on the use and management of plastics. Environ. Sci. Tech.54. 2020:7760–7765. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Preston F., Lehne J., Wellesley L. CHATAM HOUSE, The Royal Institute of International Affairs; London: 2019. An Inclusive Circular Economy; Priorities for Developing Countries, Priorities for Developing Countries; pp. 1–82. [ Google Scholar ]
Prüss-Üstün A., Prüss A., Giroult E., Townend W.K., Rushbrook P., Organization W.H. World Health Organization; 1999. Safe Management of Wastes from Health-care Activities. [ Google Scholar ]
Rai H.B., Verlinde S., Macharis C. Shipping outside the box. Environmental impact and stakeholder analysis of a crowd logistics platform in Belgium. J. Clean. Prod.202. 2018:806–816. [ Google Scholar ]
Raj, M., Sundararajan, A., You, C., 2020. COVID-19 and Digital Resilience: Evidence from Uber Eats. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07204.
Ranganatha J., Waite R., Searchinger T., Zionts J. World Resources Institute; 2020. Regenerative Agriculture: Good for Soil Health, but Limited Potential to Mitigate Climate Change. [ Google Scholar ]
Ranney M.L., Griffeth V., Jha A.K. Critical supply shortages—the need for ventilators and personal protective equipment during the Covid-19 pandemic. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rashid A., Asif F.M., Krajnik P., Nicolescu C.M. Resource conservative manufacturing: an essential change in business and technology paradigm for sustainable manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod.57. 2013:166–177. [ Google Scholar ]
Rees W.E. Footprint: our impact on Earth is getting heavier. Nature. 2002; 420 :267–268. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rhodes C.J. The imperative for regenerative agriculture. Sci. Progr.100. 2017:80–129. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rios F.C., Chong W.K., Grau D. Design for disassembly and deconstruction-challenges and opportunities. Procedia Eng.118. 2015:1296–1304. [ Google Scholar ]
Rubio-Romero J.C., del Carmen Pardo-Ferreira M., García J.A.T., Calero-Castro S. Disposable masks: Disinfection and sterilization for reuse, and non-certified manufacturing, in the face of shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic. Safe. Sci. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
San Juan, D.M., 2020. Responding to COVID-19 through socialist (ic) measures: a preliminary review. Available at SSRN 3559398.
Sarkis J., Cohen M.J., Dewick P., Schröder P. A brave new world: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic for transitioning to sustainable supply and production. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sauerwein M., Doubrovski E., Balkenende R., Bakker C. Exploring the potential of additive manufacturing for product design in a circular economy. J. Clean. Prod.226. 2019:1138–1149. [ Google Scholar ]
Saunders-Hastings P.R., Krewski D. Reviewing the history of pandemic influenza: understanding patterns of emergence and transmission. Pathogens. 2016; 5 :66. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schluep M. UNEP; 2009. Recycling-from e-waste to resources: Sustainable innovation technology transfer industrial sector studies. [ Google Scholar ]
Shaheen S., Cohen A. Elsevier; 2020. Mobility on demand (MOD) and mobility as a service (MaaS): early understanding of shared mobility impacts and public transit partnerships, Demand for Emerging Transportation Systems; pp. 37–59. [ Google Scholar ]
Sherwood S., Uphoff N. Soil health: research, practice and policy for a more regenerative agriculture. Appl. Soil Ecol.15. 2000:85–97. [ Google Scholar ]
Sim K., Chua H.C., Vieta E., Fernandez G. The anatomy of panic buying related to the current COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatry Res. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Siow W.T., Liew M.F., Shrestha B.R., Muchtar F., See K.C. Springer; 2020. Managing COVID-19 in resource-limited settings: critical care considerations. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Snider-Mcgrath B. 2020. Exercise rates on the rise during COVID-19. [ Google Scholar ]
Snyder H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J. Busi. Res.104. 2019:333–339. [ Google Scholar ]
Sohrabi C., Alsafi Z., O’Neill N., Khan M., Kerwan A., Al-Jabir A., Iosifidis C., Agha R. World Health Organization declares global emergency: A review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) Int. J. Surg. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Solomon M.Z., Wynia M., Gostin L.O. Scarcity in the Covid‐19 pandemic. Hast. Cent. Rep.50. 2020:3. -3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Spash C.L. ‘The economy'as if people mattered: revisiting critiques of economic growth in a time of crisis. Globalizations. 2020:1–18. [ Google Scholar ]
Stahel W.R. The circular economy. Nature. 2016; 531 :435–438. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stahel W.R. Routledge; 2019. The circular economy: A user's guide. [ Google Scholar ]
Stellinger A., Berglund I., Isakson H. How trade can fight the pandemic and contribute to global health. COVID-19 and Trade Policy: Why Turning Inward Won't Work. 2020; 21 [ Google Scholar ]
Stockholm Resilience Centre . Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University; Stockholm: 2016. Through resilience thinking towards sustainability and innovation: recommendations for policy makers in the EU; pp. 1–20. [ Google Scholar ]
SYSTEMIQ . SUN Institute Environment & Sustainability in collaboration with The Ellen MacArthur Foundation; 2017. ACHIEVING ‘GROWTH WITHIN’: A €320-billion circular economy investment opportunity available to Europe up to 2025; p. 149. [ Google Scholar ]
Tan J., Liu Y., Shen E., Zhu W., Wang W., Li R., Yang L. Towards<< the atlas of plague and its environment in the People's Republic of China>>: idea, principle and methodology of design and research results. Huan jing ke xue= Huanjing kexue. 2002; 23 :1–8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Temmerman S., Meire P., Bouma T.J., Herman P.M., Ysebaert T., De Vriend H.J. Ecosystem-based coastal defence in the face of global change. Nature. 2013; 504 :79–83. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Thebo A., Drechsel P., Lambin E. Global assessment of urban and peri-urban agriculture: irrigated and rainfed croplands. Environ. Res. Lett.9. 2014 [ Google Scholar ]
Thunstrom, L., Newbold, S., Finnoff, D., Ashworth, M., Shogren, J.F., 2020. The benefits and costs of flattening the curve for COVID-19. Available at SSRN 3561934.
Timmer M., Erumban A., Gouma R., Los B., Temurshoev U., de Vries G., Arto I. The world input-output database (WIOD): contents, sources and methods. WIOD Background. 2012 document available at www. wiod. org 40. [ Google Scholar ]
Toquero C. Challenges and opportunities for higher education amid the COVID-19 pandemic: The Philippine Context. Pedag. Res.5. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
Trilla A., Trilla G., Daer C. The 1918 “Spanish Flu” in Spain. Clin. Infect. Dis.47. 2008:668–673. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tudor T., Noonan C., Jenkin L. Healthcare waste management: a case study from the National Health Service in Cornwall, United Kingdom. Waste Manag.25. 2005:606–615. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
UN DESA Everyone included: social impact of COVID-19. UN Depart. Econ. Soc. Aff. (UN DESA) 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
UN Habitat . Taylor & Francis; 2013. Planning and design for sustainable urban mobility: Global report on human settlements 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
UNWTO . World Tourism Organization; 2020. Impact assessment of the covid-19 outbreak on international tourism United Nation. [ Google Scholar ]
Van Bavel J.J., Baicker K., Boggio P.S., Capraro V., Cichocka A., Cikara M., Crockett M.J., Crum A.J., Douglas K.M., Druckman J.N. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020:1–12. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Van Buren N., Demmers M., Van der Heijden R., Witlox F. Towards a circular economy: The role of Dutch logistics industries and governments. Sustainability. 2016; 8 :647. [ Google Scholar ]
Voudrias, E.A., 2018. Healthcare waste management from the point of view of circular economy. [ PubMed ]
Vousdoukas M.I., Ranasinghe R., Mentaschi L., Plomaritis T.A., Athanasiou P., Luijendijk A., Feyen L. Sandy coastlines under threat of erosion. Nat. Clim. Chang.10. 2020:260–263. [ Google Scholar ]
Wagner D.M., Klunk J., Harbeck M., Devault A., Waglechner N., Sahl J.W., Enk J., Birdsell D.N., Kuch M., Lumibao C. Yersinia pestis and the Plague of Justinian 541–543 AD: a genomic analysis. Lancet Infect. Dis.14. 2014:319–326. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wang P., Chen K., Zhu S., Wang P., Zhang H. Severe air pollution events not avoided by reduced anthropogenic activities during COVID-19 outbreak. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.158. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Watts N., Amann M., Arnell N., Ayeb-Karlsson S., Belesova K., Berry H., Bouley T., Boykoff M., Byass P., Cai W. The 2018 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: shaping the health of nations for centuries to come. The Lancet. 2018; 392 :2479–2514. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Watts N., Amann M., Ayeb-Karlsson S., Belesova K., Bouley T., Boykoff M., Byass P., Cai W., Campbell-Lendrum D., Chambers J. The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: from 25 years of inaction to a global transformation for public health. The Lancet. 2018; 391 :581–630. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Webster R.G. Predictions for future human influenza pandemics. J. Infect. Dis.176. 1997:S14–S19. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
White D.B., Lo B. A framework for rationing ventilators and critical care beds during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA. 2020 [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
WHO . 1998. Safe Management of Wastes from Health-Care Activities. 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
WHO . World Health Organization; 2020. Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic. [ Google Scholar ]
WHO, 2020b. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Situation Report – 107, pp. 1-17.
Williamson J. Every UK manufacturer helping to produce PPE and equipment for NHS workers. The Manufacturer. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
Windapo A.O., Moghayedi A. Adoption of smart technologies and circular economy performance of buildings. Built Environ. Project Asset Manag. 2020 [ Google Scholar ]
Windfeld E.S., Brooks M.S.-L. Medical waste management – A review. J. Environ. Manag.163. 2015:98–108. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wong H.J.Y., Deng Z., Yu H., Huang J., Leung C., Miao C. Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-20)Demonstrations Track. 2020. A testbed for studying COVID-19 spreading in ride-sharing systems; pp. 5294–5296. [ Google Scholar ]
Wong K.-F.V., Narasimhan R., Kashyap R., Fu J. Medical waste characterization. J. Environ. Health. 1994:19–25. [ Google Scholar ]
World Economic Forum . World Economic Forum; Geneva: 2019. A Vision for a Sustainable Battery Value Chain in 2030: Unlocking the Full Potential to Power Sustainable Development and Climate Change Mitigation; pp. 1–52. [ Google Scholar ]
World Economic Forum . World Economic Forum; 2020. New Nature Economy Report II: The Future of Nature and Business. [ Google Scholar ]
Wormer B.A., Augenstein V.A., Carpenter C.L., Burton P.V., Yokeley W.T., Prabhu A.S., Harris B., Norton S., Klima D.A., Lincourt A.E. The green operating room: simple changes to reduce cost and our carbon footprint. Am. Surg.79. 2013:666–671. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wosik J., Fudim M., Cameron B., Gellad Z.F., Cho A., Phinney D., Curtis S., Roman M., Poon E.G., Ferranti J. Telehealth transformation: COVID-19 and the rise of virtual care. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.27. 2020:957–962. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Xiao Y., Torok M.E. Taking the right measures to control COVID-19. The Lancet Infect. Dis.20. 2020:523–524. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Yang C., Peijun L., Lupi C., Yangzhao S., Diandou X., Qian F., Shasha F. Sustainable management measures for healthcare waste in China. Waste Manag. 2009; 29 :1996–2004. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zambrano-Monserrate M.A., Ruano M.A., Sanchez-Alcalde L. Indirect effects of COVID-19 on the environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zambrano-Monserrate M.A., Silva-Zambrano C.A., Ruano M.A. The economic value of natural protected areas in Ecuador: A case of Villamil Beach National Recreation Area. Ocean Coast. Manag.157. 2018:193–202. [ Google Scholar ]
Zhou M., Chen Y., Su X., An L. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Civil Engineering. Thomas Telford Ltd; 2020. Rapid construction and advanced technology for a Covid-19 field hospital in Wuhan, China; pp. 1–29. [ Google Scholar ]

DOI: 10.20288/jcs.2024.27.2.67
Corpus ID: 271232998

Impact of Institutional Environment and COVID-19 on FDI Inflows in China at the Provincial Level

Qi Chen , Wooyoung Yang , Huaqiang Su
Published in The Journal of China Studies 30 June 2024
Economics, Political Science

Related Papers

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Long COVID has cost the Australian economy billions in lost work hours, new research says

By Ahmed Yussuf

Topic: COVID-19

The study found that in September 2022, about 1.3 million Australians were living with long COVID. ( Credit: Pixabay )

A new study has found about $9.6 billion was lost in economic productivity due to long COVID in 2022.

Researchers say that represented about a quarter of Australia's real gross domestic product growth for that year.

What's next?

Some experts are calling on state and federal governments, as well as policymakers, to put greater focus on long COVID.

Long COVID cost the Australian economy almost $10 billion in lost labour hours in 2022, according to new research.

The study, published in the peer-reviewed Medical Journal of Australia, has calculated the number of hours Australians could not work or were forced to reduce their hours as a result of ongoing COVID-19 symptoms 12 months after their diagnosis.

The research explored the number of COVID-19 infections between January 2022 to December 2023.

It found during September 2022 about 1.3 million Australians were living with long COVID and of that number about 55,000 were children aged four and under.

How many hours were lost due to long COVID?

Researchers explored population serosurvey data from more than 5,000 working adults, and developed a mathematical model to calculate the number of ongoing COVID-19 symptoms.

The study looked at adults who had symptoms between three to 12 months, as well as those who never recovered from their illness and had symptoms for more than a year.

Australian National University professor Quentin Grafton, who worked on the study and specialises in economics, said there were about 100 million hours lost in terms of labour.

Workers aged 30 to 49 contributed more than 50 per cent of the total labour lost.

"That has an impact not only for those people who have long COVID but on those people who look after them, care for them and their family and friends. It's an impact on the economy as a whole," he said.

"When we're talking about 10 billion that's sort of a median estimate for the losses in Australia, that works out to almost $400 per person."

Professor Grafton said governments, policymakers and workplaces needed to take much greater responsibility because the cost of long COVID was much greater than putting in place better frameworks.

"It's not a big cost, it's not trivial but it's a lower cost than the cost that we're incurring at the moment with long COVID," he said.

"It seems to me the basic economics cost benefit analysis tells us it makes sense from a social perspective, from a health perspective, public health perspective … It's time that decision makers step up."

What are some solutions?

Researchers have estimated by December this year, there is a likelihood that between 173,000 to 873,000 Australians will still be living with long COVID a year after their initial infection — that does not include reinfection.

University of New South Wales Professor Raina MacIntyre, who specialises in epidemiology, led the study.

She said it was time for a more nuanced policy around the coronavirus, and its long-term impacts.

"I think the long-term impact is not going to be good unless we change course," she said.

"Start encouraging more people to get vaccinated, allow wider access to antivirals, take measures like safe indoor air seriously … look at situations where we do need to use masks, like in hospitals, in clinical areas."

Biosecurity expert Raina MacIntyre assesses Australia's response to the coronavirus

Professor Rainia MacIntrye said there needed to be a shift in both attitudes and policies when it came to how Australia dealt with the coronavirus. ( ABC News )

Professor MacIntrye also highlighted the need for better policies on vaccination for children.

Vaccination is not currently recommended for Australian children under five years except those with medical conditions that "increases the risk of severe COVID-19 illness".

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends COVID-19 vaccines for everyone six months and older.

"It's not a nothing burger in children. It is a serious infection."

She said there were simple ways to minimise risk when it came to COVID-19 infections.

"Using an air purifier, which is not very expensive, or opening a window if there is a window that can be opened, or wearing a mask," she said.

"A lot of people just say most people recover from long COVID. Well, you've got to think of it from a population health perspective, even if only 2 per cent of people have long COVID that's a major public health population health burden."

Preprints with The Lancet is part of SSRN´s First Look, a place where journals identify content of interest prior to publication. Authors have opted in at submission to The Lancet family of journals to post their preprints on Preprints with The Lancet. The usual SSRN checks and a Lancet-specific check for appropriateness and transparency have been applied. Preprints available here are not Lancet publications or necessarily under review with a Lancet journal. These preprints are early stage research papers that have not been peer-reviewed. The findings should not be used for clinical or public health decision making and should not be presented to a lay audience without highlighting that they are preliminary and have not been peer-reviewed. For more information on this collaboration, see the comments published in The Lancet about the trial period, and our decision to make this a permanent offering, or visit The Lancet´s FAQ page, and for any feedback please contact [email protected] .

Impact of Ursodeoxycholic Acid in Covid-19 Patients

17 Pages Posted: 20 Aug 2024

Yingping Zhu

Zhejiang Chinese Medical University

Yu-Hsun Wang

Chung Shan Medical University - Institute of Medicine

James Cheng-Chung Wei

Chengping wen.

Background: Bile acids such as ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) and chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA) inhibit the binding of SARS-CoV-2's spike protein to the angiotensin-converting enzyme II (ACE2), thereby reducing viral entry and replication. Additionally, they may indirectly affect immune responses through bile acid-activated receptors like GPBAR1 and FXR, which are essential in regulating ACE2 expression. However, clinical evidence on UDCA's efficacy in preventing severe COVID-19 is sparse and inconclusive. Methods: We analyzed data from 4,799,885 COVID-19 patients using the TriNetX analytics platform, focusing on 44,126 patients diagnosed with cholelithiasis before contracting COVID-19. After excluding those with severe pre-existing conditions, we compared 1,089 patients treated with UDCA to 42,136 controls using 1:1 propensity score matching. Variables considered included age, sex, race, body mass index, healthcare usage, comorbidities, and lab values such as like albumin and bilirubin. Findings: Post-matching, mortality rates did not significantly differ between the UDCA and control groups. Nevertheless, the UDCA group showed a trend toward reduced healthcare utilization, including lower hospitalization rates, fewer intensive care admissions, and a decreased necessity for mechanical ventilation. Interpretation: Although UDCA does not markedly influence mortality in COVID-19 patients, it appears to favorably impact other significant clinical outcomes, potentially reducing healthcare resource utilization. Funding: Pending Declaration of Interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethical Approval: The TriNetX platform adheres to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and General Data Protection Regulations. Approved by the Western Institutional Review Board, TriNetX is allowed to waive informed consent for this project, as the platform only aggregates counts and statistical summaries of identifiable information. Furthermore, the use of TriNetX for this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Medical University Hospital of Chung Shan (CS2-21176).

Keywords: COVID-19, Ursodeoxycholic acid, Angiotensin converting enzyme 2, TriNetX analytics platform

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Yingping Zhu (Contact Author)

Zhejiang chinese medical university ( email ), chung shan medical university - institute of medicine ( email ).

Hangzhou, Zhejiang China

Click here to go to TheLancet.com

Paper statistics, related ejournals, covid-19 ejournal.

Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic

Preprints with The Lancet

Infectious diseases ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

IMAGES

📗 Essay Sample on Impact of COVID 19
UN/DESA Policy Brief #85: Impact of COVID-19: perspective from
The Environmental Impact of COVID-19 and its Long-Term Implications
📗 Essay Sample: Reflection on the Global Health Crisis: COVID-19
≫ Impact of COVID-19 on Small Business: Total Survival Guide Free Essay
Ten Areas Where COVID-19 Responses Have Increased Environmental Risks

COMMENTS

Environmental effects of COVID-19 pandemic and potential strategies of sustainability
The global disruption caused by the COVID-19 has brought about several effects on the environment and climate. Due to movement restriction and a significant slowdown of social and economic activities, air quality has improved in many cities with a reduction in water pollution in different parts of the world.
Impact of COVID-19 on the social, economic, environmental and energy
1. Introduction. The newly identified infectious coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was discovered in Wuhan and has spread rapidly since December 2019 within China and to other countries around the globe (Zhou et al., 2020; Kabir et al., 2020).The source of SARS-CoV-2 is still unclear (Gorbalenya et al., 2020).Fig. 1 demonstrates the initial timeline of the development of SARS-CoV-2 (Yan et al., 2020).
COVID-19 pandemic and its positive impacts on environment: an updated
Positive impacts/aspects of COVID-19 pandemic. Humanity retreats indoors and the non-human natural world rumbles out liberated. Notoriously dirty, the waterways and rivers in the world look cleaner, the air fresher, the smog gone, the haze dispersed and the wildlife has filled the open spaces, coronavirus lockdowns across the world seem to have a number of positive effects on the environment.
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the environment
The COVID-19 pandemic has had an impact on the environment, with changes in human activity leading to temporary changes in air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and water quality. As the pandemic became a global health crisis in early 2020, various national responses including lockdowns and travel restrictions caused substantial disruption to ...
The Positive and Negative Impacts of Covid on Nature
As the Covid-19 pandemic took hold last spring and people around the world went into lockdown, a certain type of news story started to spring up—the idea that, in the absence of people, nature ...
Has coronavirus helped the environment?
In a nutshell: we could see long-lasting positive environmental change after the pandemic. But it's all down to how we move on after lockdown. You can watch the video above. --. As an award ...
The COVID-19 lockdowns: a window into the Earth System
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused substantial global impact. This Perspective provides insight into the environmental effects of the pandemic, documenting how it offers an opportunity to better ...
The impacts of COVID-19 on environmental sustainability: A brief study
1. Introduction. The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic of 2020 is one that has affected the world as a whole, bringing entire systems to a halt in key sectors of the economy, as well as posing a global health crisis which has put the entire world population at risk of infection (Clark et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020).The virus, which originated in the Wuhan province of Hubei, China ...
Impact of COVID-19 on people's livelihoods, their health and our food
Reading time: 3 min (864 words) The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a dramatic loss of human life worldwide and presents an unprecedented challenge to public health, food systems and the world of work. The economic and social disruption caused by the pandemic is devastating: tens of millions of people are at risk of falling into extreme poverty ...
Environmental impact of COVID-19 pandemic: more negatives than
Although a few positive impacts of COVID-19 on the environment were seen, these were the short-term effects induced largely by nation-wide lockdown. Indeed, the pandemic is expected to pose long-term adverse effects on the environment in future. The use of chemicals (soaps, detergents and other chemical means of cleaning), medicines, and ...
Covid-19, climate change, and the environment: a sustainable, inclusive
We are at a critical moment in history, facing growing crises in climate change, biodiversity, and environmental degradation—as well as covid-19. But we also have an enormous opportunity to transform the global economy and usher in an era of greater wellbeing and prosperity, write Nick Stern and Bob Ward The covid-19 pandemic has shown how vulnerable and exposed the world is to global ...
Environmental impacts of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Environmental impact of COVID-19. Mass gathering and close contacts are the major causes for COVID-19 transmission. The WHO has suggested for maintaining a social distance (6 ft) in gatherings or at work place (WHO, 2020b). Most of the COVID-19 affected countries have taken necessary remedial measures including lockdown to combat against COVID-19.
Coronavirus and Climate Change
Exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States (Harvard University, preprint, 2019). This study found that a small increase in long-term exposure to PM2.5 leads to a large increase in COVID-19 death rate. Measuring the impact of air pollution on respiratory infection risk in China (Environmental Pollution, 2018). This ...
The Environmental Toll of Fighting COVID-19
The Environmental Toll of Fighting COVID-19. Masks, gloves, and chemical disinfectants will outlast the pandemic. April 20, 2021. By. Melissa Hartman. COVID-19. Environment. We've all seen them: discarded gloves and masks littering parking lots and sidewalks. Some of them make their way to rivers and oceans and wash up in remote, wild places.
What impact will COVID-19 have on the environment?
4 May 2020. COVID-19 has affected our daily lives in an unprecedented range of ways, from physical distancing to travel bans. But the pandemic is also influencing our planet. Air pollution levels have dropped significantly since measures such as quarantines and shutdowns were put in place to contain COVID-19. Around the world, levels of harmful ...
The Environmental Impact of COVID‐19
Summary. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has disturbed the world to its core with impacts on almost every sector of this earth like health, safety, economy, and the environment with many repercussions. Interests in achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs) set forth by the United Nations have suddenly seen a hike, which calls for prioritized and ...
Full article: Environmental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic has huge impacts on most aspects of human activities, as well as on the economy and health care systems. Lock-downs, quarantines and border closures in the wake of the pandemic have led to reductions in air pollution through decreased travel and production. These positive environmental effects are likely mostly temporary ...
COVID-19: impact by and on the environment, health and economy
The purpose of this issue is to call for scientific original papers on the role that the environment could play in transmission, pathogenesis, and severity of COVID-19 and/or its related mortality. Moreover, the aim is to also reviewing the interaction between this pandemic and sustainability and planetary health, including climate change ...
Positive global environmental impacts of the COVID-19 ...
Global environmental change is mainly due to human behaviours and is a major threat to sustainability. Despite all the health and economic consequences, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown on environmental health warrants the scientific community's attention. Thus, this article examined and narratively reviewed the impact of several drastic measures taken on the macro environment ...
Will Covid-19 have a lasting impact on the environment?
Its environmental impacts are more akin to those of recent world events, such as the financial crash of 2008 and 2009. ... Covid-19 has taken a grim global toll on lives, health services, jobs and ...
Covid-19: Impact on Environment Free Essay Example
Covid-19: Impact on Environment. COVID-19 is a deadliest virus in history that has changed our way of seeing this world. It has proven many of our methodology wrong. It has also exposed the defects in our healthcare system. Since there is no preventive, each and everyone has to lockdown themself in case like animals.
Global impact of COVID-19 on food safety and environmental
The COVID-19 pandemic poses ongoing challenges to the sustainability of various socioeconomic sectors, including agriculture, the food supply chain, the food business, and environmental sustainability. This study employs data obtained from the World Health Organization (WHO), and Food and Agricultur …
Modeling the Disruptive Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Nurses
This paper introduces an economic model to describe hospital nurses' supply and wage dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic. The model was used to assess impacts on nurse labor markets and depict how the pandemic disrupted nurse demand, supply, and wages.
Empowerment Setbacks and Coping Strategies in the COVID-19 Crisis of
The findings underscore the significant adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the business performance of female food vendors. Indicators such as the number of employees, average daily sales, average daily profit,  and daily working capital exhibited statistically significant declines during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic levels.
The Impact of COVID-19 Related Business and Social Restrictions
I am looking for research assistants to gather data on county and state-level business and related restrictions aimed at curbing the spread of Covid-19. The work requires on-going and detailed reading of Governor and County Commissioner orders, news outlets, and other sources available on the web. (A lot of which is really, really dull!)
COVID-19 pandemic and its positive impacts on environment ...
In December, 2019 in Wuhan city of China, a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has garnered global attention due to its rapid transmission. World Health Organization (WHO) termed the infection as Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) after phylogenic studies with SARS-CoV. The virus causes severe respiratory infections with dry cough, high fever, body ache and fatigue. The virus is primarily ...
A critical analysis of the impacts of COVID-19 on the global economy
To answer this question, this paper builds on the extant literature on public health, socio-economic and environmental dimensions of COVID-19 impacts (Gates, 2020b; Guerrieri et al., 2020; Piguillem and Shi, 2020; Sohrabi et al., 2020), and examines its interplay with CE approaches. It argues for the recalibration and a rethink of the present ...
Impact of Institutional Environment and COVID-19 on FDI Inflows in
DOI: 10.20288/jcs.2024.27.2.67 Corpus ID: 271232998; Impact of Institutional Environment and COVID-19 on FDI Inflows in China at the Provincial Level @article{Chen2024ImpactOI, title={Impact of Institutional Environment and COVID-19 on FDI Inflows in China at the Provincial Level}, author={Qi Chen and Wooyoung Yang and Huaqiang Su}, journal={Journal of China Studies}, year={2024}, url={https ...
Long COVID has cost the Australian economy billions in lost work hours
A new study finds that during September 2022, about 1.3 million Australians were living with long COVID and of that number about 55,000 were children aged four and under.
Impact of Ursodeoxycholic Acid in Covid-19 Patients
Methods: We analyzed data from 4,799,885 COVID-19 patients using the TriNetX analytics platform, focusing on 44,126 patients diagnosed with cholelithiasis before contracting COVID-19. After excluding those with severe pre-existing conditions, we compared 1,089 patients treated with UDCA to 42,136 controls using 1:1 propensity score matching.

The Positive and Negative Impacts of Covid on Nature

The COVID-19 lockdowns: a window into the Earth System

Similar content being viewed by others

Current and future global climate impacts resulting from COVID-19

The social shortfall and ecological overshoot of nations

The evolution and future of research on Nature-based Solutions to address societal challenges

COVID-19 disrupts the Earth System

Box 1 Datasets for understanding the Earth System impacts of COVID-19 disruption

Path I: Energy, emissions, climate and air quality

Box 2 Interpreting energy, emissions, climate and air quality responses

Path II: Poverty, globalization, food and biodiversity

Investigative frameworks

A new view to spatial and temporal dynamics of Earth System processes

Earth System models that predict responses and guide observations

Solution-oriented interventions that create randomized research trials

Summary and future perspectives

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

This article is cited by

Footprints of COVID-19 on PM2.5/PM10 Ratio in a Brazilian Tropical Metropolis

The long-term impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on environmental health: a review study of the bi-directional effect

Mobile phone data reveals spatiotemporal recreational patterns in conservation areas during the COVID pandemic

Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals has been slowed by indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic

Quick links

Impact of COVID-19 on people's livelihoods, their health and our food systems

Search form

Covid-19, climate change, and the environment: a sustainable, inclusive, and resilient global recovery

Growing effects of climate change

New form of economic development and growth

Biographies

Coronavirus and Climate Change

Coronavirus, Climate Change, and the Environment A Conversation on COVID-19 with Dr. Aaron Bernstein, Former Director of Harvard Chan C-CHANGE

Does climate change affect the transmission of coronavirus?

Solutions for preventing the next pandemic

The climate crisis and COVID-19—A major threat to the pandemic response

As Covid-19 cases rise, global task force lays out how to avert future pandemics

Harvard launches international task force to prevent future pandemics

Climate change impact on COVID-19, deadly diseases

Climate change or COVID-19: Which is a greater threat to our health?

Doc to Doc: Coronavirus conversation with Dr. Renee Salas

Action Planet: Meeting the Climate Challenge

Q&A: Gaurab Basu on climate change, racial justice, and COVID-19

COVID-19 RECOVERY SERIES: COVID-19 and Climate Change: A True Public Health Crisis - An Interview with Renee N. Salas, M.D., MPH, M.S.

We’re better off when we stop pandemics before they start

Calling Covid-19 a Crisis of Humanity's Own Making, Coalition Says Healing 'Broken Relationship With Nature' Key to Stopping Next Pandemic

Renee N. Salas MD, MPH, MS

The Environmental Toll of Fighting COVID-19

RELATED CONTENT

Related Content

What to Know About the Updated COVID Vaccine for Fall, Winter 2024–25

Why We’re Still Waiting for a Pandemic Treaty

Why COVID Surges in the Summer

The Visible and Unseen Dangers Lurking in Floodwater

Public Health Prep for the 2024 Paris Olympics

What impact will COVID-19 have on the environment?

Global air pollution drops dramatically

What effect will COVID-19 have on atmospheric CO 2 levels?

How can we make sure the environment comes out better, not worse?

Covid-19: Impact on Environment

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Global impact of COVID-19 on food safety and environmental sustainability: Pathways to face the pandemic crisis

Conflict of interest statement

Publication types

Related information

Miscellaneous

Article Details

Main Article Content

Journal Identifiers

The Impact of COVID-19 Related Business and Social Restrictions

COVID-19 pandemic and its positive impacts on environment: an updated review

Cite this article