Abstract
Urban landscapes can be transformed by widespread abandonment from population and economic decline. Ecological assembly, sometimes referred to as “greening”, following abandonment can yield valuable ecosystem services, but also can pose a risk to public health. Abandonment can elevate zoonotic vector-borne disease risk by favoring the hyperabundance of commensal pests and pathogen vectors. Though greater biodiversity in abandoned areas can potentially dilute vector-borne pathogen transmission, “greening” can elevate transmission risk by increasing movement of pathogen vectors between fragmented areas and by giving rise to novel human-wildlife interfaces. Idled and derelict infrastructure can further elevate disease risk from vector-borne and water-borne pathogens, which can build up in stagnant and unprotected water that maintenance and routine use of delivery or sanitation systems would otherwise eliminate. Thus, framing “greening” as inherently positive could result in policies and actions that unintentionally exacerbate inequalities by elevating risks rather than delivering benefits. As counter-urbanism is neither a minor pattern of urban development, nor a short-term departure from urban growth, homeowner and municipal management of abandoned areas should account for potential hazards to reduce health risks. Further socioecological assessments of public health risks following abandonment could better ensure the resilience and well-being of communities in shrinking cities.
Highlights
Counter-urbanizing landscapes can be transformed by widespread abandonment resulting from rapid economic and population decline [1,2]
There are more than 70 shrinking cities in Europe, and a comparable number (92) of counter-urbanizing cities are located in the United States (US) [4,5]
As a first step towards this goal, here we pose and address three related questions: (1) How does counter-urbanization differ from suburbanization and urbanization? (2) How is abandonment different from other forms of urban greening? (3) How can abandonment influence communicable disease risk? We address these questions by first contrasting counter-urban landscapes with urban and suburban landscapes
Summary
Counter-urbanizing landscapes can be transformed by widespread abandonment resulting from rapid economic and population decline [1,2]. Counter-urbanization has been increasing over the last 50 years, with approximately 370 cities worldwide of ě100,000 residents having experienced population loss of more than 10% [3]. Greenspace should be viewed as more than “service-providing units” when assessing outcomes arising from population loss and abandonment [30]. This is of particular concern in low-income and vulnerable communities where abandonment is often disproportionately concentrated (Figure 2). Despite increasing interest in urban resilience and counter-urbanization [1,6], the socioecology of population de-concentration and abandonment is not well understood [10]. We consider how ecological, physiographic and infrastructure conditions arising from abandonment can influence exposure risk to zoonotic and water-borne pathogens
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
