Strategies and inequities in balancing recreation and COVID exposure when visiting green spaces

Abstract

Green spaces are beneficial for physical and mental health, especially during and after disasters. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, created a trade-off: parks could be therapeutic but also could expose people to infection. This paradox posed inequities as marginalized populations often have less access to parks and were hit harder by the pandemic. We combined cellphone-generated mobility data with demographic indicators, a neighborhood survey, and local infection rates to examine how residents of Boston, MA, navigated this trade-off in April–August 2020. We hypothesized that they adopted strategies for mitigating infection exposure—including fewer park visits and prioritizing parks that might have lower infection risk, including larger parks with more opportunity for social distancing and parks near home with fewer unfamiliar faces—but that marginalized populations would have less opportunity to do so. We also introduce a novel measure of exposure per visit based on the volume of other visitors, infection rates, and park size. Bostonians made fewer park visits relative to 2019 and prioritized larger parks and parks closer to home. These strategies varied by community. Experiences of the pandemic were influential, as communities that perceived greater risk or had more infections made more park visits, likely because they were a relatively safe activity. Communities with more infections tended to avoid nearby parks. Inequities were also apparent. Communities with more Black residents and infections had greater infection exposure per visit even when controlling for the types of parks visited, highlighting difficulties in escaping the challenges of the pandemic.