Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has had severe impacts on global public health. In England, social distancing measures and a nationwide lockdown were introduced to reduce the spread of the virus. Green space accessibility may have been particularly important during this lockdown, as it could have provided benefits for physical and mental wellbeing. However, the effects of public green space use on the rate of COVID-19 transmission are yet to be quantified, and as the size and accessibility of green spaces vary within England’s local authorities, the risks and benefits to the public of using green space may well be context-dependent. To evaluate how green space affected COVID-19 transmission across 98 local authorities in England, we first split case rates into two periods, the pre-peak rise and the post-peak decline in cases, and assessed how baseline health and mobility variables influenced these rates. Next, looking at the residual case rates, we investigated how landscape structure (e.g. area and patchiness of green space) and park use influenced transmission. We first show that pre- and post-peak case rates were significantly reduced when overall mobility was low, especially in areas with high population clustering, and high population density during the post-peak period only. After accounting for known mechanisms behind transmission rates, we found that park use (showing a preference for park mobility) decreased residual pre-peak case rates, especially when green space was low and contiguous (not patchy). Whilst in the post-peak period, park use and green landscape structure had no effect on residual case rates. Our results suggest that a reduction in overall mobility is a good strategy for reducing case rates, endorsing the success of lockdown measures. However, if mobility is necessary, outdoor park use is safer than indoor aggregated activities (e.g. shopping or office-based working), especially during an exponential phase of transmission.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
Large scale modelling study, not experimental.
Funding Statement
Thanks to the NERC Covid-19 hackathon for instigating this work. This work was partly funded by the following NERC (Natural Environment Research Council) Centre for Doctoral Training studentships: J71566E, P012345, and L002566.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All data are in the public domain. Institutional and funding ethical guidelines met.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conducted additional sensitivity analysis to determine the effect of missing values. Also expanded the limitations sections.
Data Availability
All data to repeat analyses are presented in the manuscript
