Environmental and Mobility Strategies During Early COVID-19: Insights From an Empirical Study Focusing on Park Visitations in El Paso,TX

Abstract

Objectives:

We explored the importance of environmental and mobility strategies during early COVID-19 by age and ethnicity and investigated predictors of park visitations considering the COVID-19 impacts.

Background:

Parks are safe and accessible venues to stay active and reduce social isolation, which is especially important considering COVID-19 and the associated lockdowns.

Methods:

We analyzed online survey data from 683 residents (collected July 2020) of El Paso, TX, and objective measures of neighborhood park characteristics. Chi-square tests and mixed-effects logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the environmental/mobility strategies, personal and environmental factors, and park visitations, considering the COVID-19 impacts.

Results:

The percentage of those who visited (1+ times/week) parks or trails/paths in the neighborhood dropped from 41.7% to 19.5% since the start of COVID-19 (OR = 0.015, p < .001). Before COVID-19, middle-aged and older adults were less likely to visit parks than younger adults, while this difference became insignificant during early COVID-19. Hispanic adults were more likely to visit parks than non-Hispanics both before and during early COVID-19. Positive environmental predictors of park visitations included park availability in the neighborhood, proximity to the closest park, seeing people being physically active in the neighborhood, and neighborhood aesthetics.

Conclusions:

Proximately located parks, trails, and paths well integrated into residential communities, and high aesthetic quality of the neighborhood are the potential features of pandemic-resilient communities and should be considered an important national priority to maintain and promote the health and well-being of the population, especially during pandemics like COVID-19.

Keywords

COVID-19 park visitation age neighborhood environment environmental strategy

Introduction

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization characterized the global outbreak of COVID-19 as a pandemic (World Health Organization, 2022). From March 1 to May 31, mandatory stay-at-home orders were issued in 42 U.S. states and territories to reduce the spread of COVID-19 (Moreland et al., 2020). Many cities in Texas, including the City of El Paso, declared local disasters. The City of El Paso issued the “Stay Home, Work Safe” order on March 24, 2020, and extended the disaster declaration in April and May 2020 (Bian et al., 2022). Public spaces including parks partially reopened in El Paso, TX in June 2020.

El Paso, TX became a major viral hot spot with high COVID-19 infection rates. As of July 7, 2020, which was the study launch date, the City of El Paso reported 7,642 COVID-19 positive cases, with around nine cases per 1,000 individuals and 139 COVID-19-related deaths (El Paso Strong, 2020). Among all 139 deaths, three were less than 40 years old, and the remaining included nine deaths at 40s, 20 deaths at 50s, 34 deaths at 60s, 33 deaths at 70s, 26 deaths at 80s, 13 deaths at 90s, and one death at 100s (El Paso Strong, 2020).

The global COVID-19 pandemic changed how and where people were able to engage in various types of daily activities while following restrictive countermeasures and exercising precautions for personal safety. Physical activity and mobility studies show a two-fold issue, as evidence suggests significant decreases in walking, physical activity, and overall mobility while also increases in sedentary behavior amid COVID-19 (Park et al., 2022). Thus, the combination of less engagement in physical activity, coupled with increased time in sedentary behavior makes this study even more timely. Due to the outbreak of COVID-19, many people changed their preferred transportation modes and mobility behaviors (Abdullah et al., 2020; Li et al., 2022). Evidence suggests that people’s perceived risks of becoming infected with COVID-19 vary significantly across different modes of transportation. For example, walking, biking, and driving are perceived much safer during COVID-19 than public transportation, taxicabs, and on-demand ride services (Combs & Pardo, 2021; Zafri et al., 2022) due to limited contact with others. Studies also suggested that alternative transportation modes such as autonomous vehicles can be important for promoting mobility while reducing human contact and virus spread during pandemics like COVID-19 (Kapser et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021). Physical inactivity became more common during the COVID-19 pandemic, which remains one of the major modifiable risk factors for various chronic diseases including cardiovascular diseases, obesity, cancer, hypertension, and diabetes (Warburton et al., 2006). Many of these conditions were also shown to be linked with increased risks of severe and critical illness from COVID-19 infection (Gao et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2020).

Parks, as publicly available destinations for social and physical activities, can bring substantial mental and physical health benefits to people of all ages. The importance of access to nature or greenery in restoring, maintaining, and improving physical health (e.g., lower levels of heart diseases and obesity) and mental health (e.g., reduced stress, anxiety, and depression) has been well documented (Burt et al., 2022; Kelly et al., 2022; Maller et al., 2006; White et al., 2021; Wood et al., 2017; Yin et al., 2022). Empirical evidence also suggests that park visitations are significantly positively associated with physical activity (Stewart et al., 2016; Vich et al., 2021). With the closure of schools, businesses, and recreational/community centers, public health authorities (e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Public Health Association) emphasized the increasing importance of visiting parks and green spaces near homes as an important way to stay socially and physically active during COVID-19 (Slater et al., 2020). Moreover, the risk of contracting COVID-19 is low if people maintain social distancing when engaging in small groups of social and physical activities outdoors in parks or green spaces (Slater et al., 2020). Curtis et al. (2021) indicated no evidence suggesting the use of parks would increase the risk of COVID-19 infection.

Due to the stay-at-home orders and the closure of public parks and/or playgrounds and outdoor fitness equipment in parks, park visitations have decreased significantly in many cities in the U.S., especially during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown (Jay et al., 2021; Slater et al., 2020; Volenec et al., 2021). One U.S. study reported an average of 26% decrease in park visitations in 620 U.S. counties between March and May 2020 (Curtis et al., 2021). Kupfer et al. (2021) further found dramatic decreases in the visitation of six national parks in the Western U.S. in March and April 2020, compared to the same months in 2019. National data showed that recreational visits to 389 parks in the U.S. decreased by 27.6% (more than 90 million visits) from 2019 to 2020 (Ziesler & Spalding, 2021). Curtis et al. (2021) reported that the decrease in park visitations since COVID-19 was significantly less in U.S. counties where the availability of parks was high after controlling for weather conditions, county characteristics, and sociodemographic characteristics of county residents. Another U.S. study on children demonstrated a significant decrease in the likelihood of performing physical activity in parks or trails during the early COVID-19 stage, after adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, parent’s employment status, marital status, and annual household income (Dunton et al., 2020).

However, increases in park visitations were reported in other studies, especially during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and before the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown period (Volenec et al., 2021). Geng et al. (2021) conducted a study in 48 countries and regions worldwide, which indicated increases in urban park visitations in most countries since February 2020. One study in Oslo, Norway stated an increase in the use of urban green spaces in March 2020 (Venter et al., 2020). Studies also suggested increases in park use after the lockdown period (Geng et al., 2021). Song et al. (2022) studied park visitations in mid-sized U.S. cities and identified significant increases in park visitations from July to November in 2020 compared to the same period in 2019.

Built environments play an important role in supporting park use. Empirical evidence suggests that neighborhood characteristics, such as walkability, land use mix, street connectivity, and park density, are significantly correlated with park use (Parra et al., 2010; Van Dyck et al., 2013). Many studies also indicate that park characteristics (e.g., proximity, amenities, maintenance, aesthetics, safety) are important for encouraging park visitations (Kaczynski et al., 2014; McCormack et al., 2010; Ries et al., 2009; Song et al., 2022).

Age can significantly increase the risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 (Ou et al., 2020; Sepandi et al., 2020). Meta-analysis results from a systematic review conducted by Levin et al. (2020) suggested that the COVID-19 infection fatality rate (IFR) is exponentially correlated with age (e.g., 0.4%, 1.4%, 4.6%, and 15% at age 55, 65, 75, and 85, respectively). COVID-19 causes substantial mortality risks for middle-aged and older adults, while the IFRs are much lower for younger adults (e.g., 0.01% at age 25) and children (e.g., 0.002% at age 10) (Levin et al., 2020). Middle-aged and older adults are vulnerable to COVID-19 with high rates of severe illness and hospitalization (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021; Chakrawarty et al., 2021; Levin et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2022), and the lack of outdoor activities and increased social isolation can bring additional health problems such as depression, premature mortality, and suicides due to their frailty (Calati et al., 2019; Leigh-Hunt et al., 2017). Compared to younger adults, middle-aged and older adults tend to have worsening health profiles with more chronic conditions (e.g., hypertension, diabetes, and obesity), which have been shown to be linked with increased risks of severe illness from COVID-19 (Liu et al., 2020; Targher et al., 2020). Middle-aged and older adults rely more on in-person and physical resources for social and physical activities, while younger adults are more familiar with digital devices for social communications which can help reduce social isolation during the COVID-19 quarantine (Hunsaker & Hargittai, 2018; Seifert, 2020). Social isolation was prevalent due to quarantine orders and social distancing policies during the early phases of COVID-19, which has impacted the mental health and quality of life of many people, especially middle-aged and older adults (Raina et al., 2021).

Ethnic minorities are at high risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19, which may be attributable to prevalent preexisting health issues (e.g., obesity, diabetes), low income, and limited access to health insurance and healthcare (Cione et al., 2020; Moya et al., 2022). Empirical studies suggest that Hispanic individuals experience higher rates of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths (Gershengorn et al., 2021; Gross et al., 2020; Parolin & Lee, 2022). Disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 on Hispanic populations are exacerbating the preexisting socioeconomic vulnerabilities and health disparities (Cione et al., 2020; Moya et al., 2022).

Many studies indicated ethnic disparities in access to parks and green spaces. Perry et al. (2015) conducted a study on U.S. national park visitations and demonstrated that Hispanic individuals reported a greater number of transportation barriers to park use than White individuals. Vaughan et al. (2018) investigated racial/ethnic disparities in the use of 193 neighborhood parks in 27 U.S. cities and reported that Hispanic individuals had a greater propensity to visit parks with child family members than non-Hispanic White individuals. Another U.S. study indicated that Hispanic individuals were more likely to report environmental barriers to community park use than non-Hispanic White individuals, such as poorly maintained park facilities and safety concerns (Carlson et al., 2010). Das et al. (2017) also reported that Hispanic individuals, compared to non-Hispanic individuals, were more likely to perceive neighborhood park use barriers (e.g., not feeling welcome, lack of maintenance).

Parks can serve multiple important roles during pandemics like COVID-19 as they serve as safe and accessible venues to stay active and help ameliorate social isolation. They are even more important for communities with a higher proportion of middle-aged and older adults or individuals identifying as Hispanic or from a racial minority group. However, to the best of our knowledge, no empirical studies have investigated how age and environmental factors may moderate the impact of COVID-19 on park visitations in primarily low-resourced Hispanic populations.

This study explores the varying importance of environmental and mobility strategies (e.g., access to nature/park, less crowding in public spaces, wider sidewalks, autonomous vehicles) during COVID-19 by age and ethnicity and investigates personal and environmental predictors of park visitations considering the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Neighborhood environments in this study refer to the physical and social environments of a neighborhood. Going beyond existing research examining either the COVID-19 impacts on or personal and environmental predictors of park visitations, this study explores various environmental and mobility strategies for dealing with pandemics like COVID-19 and investigates the variations in COVID-19 impacts on park visitations among different age groups and people with different neighborhood outdoor time preferences.

Materials and Methods

Study Setting and Participants

Study setting

The City of El Paso is the sixth-largest city in Texas with 34.9%, 51.0%, and 81.5% of its population being 45 years and older, female, and of Hispanic origin, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Most of its households (50.90%) have an annual income being less than $50,000, and the median household income is $48,866 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). Hispanics in El Paso, TX had lower income levels with 19.8% below poverty level which is higher than other racial/ethnic groups (e.g., 11.2% for non-Hispanic Whites, 14.8% for Asians, and 11.1% for African Americans) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021). El Paso features diverse environmental characteristics including 269 parks with varying levels of accessibility (J. Leyva, personal communication, February 28, 2022). Specifically, 83.1% of residential parcels in El Paso are located within a half-mile distance from parks, while only 0.6% of residential parcels are located beyond 1 mile from parks. Walkability studies suggest that the general walkable distance to major commercial, daily service, and recreational destinations (e.g., parks, transit stops, shopping centers or malls) is about half a mile (Guerra et al., 2012; Millward et al., 2013; Moudon et al., 2006).

Various types of parks (e.g., neighborhood/community park, 43.5%; pocket park, 19.7%; linear park, 8.9%; nature park, 3.3%) cover 2.0% of all areas of El Paso. Park sizes range from 0.1 to 406.1 acres across different types. Responding to the COVID-19 outbreak, all city parks and trails in El Paso, TX were closed on April 1, 2020; the city trails reopened on May 23, 2020; and the city parks reopened on June 8, 2020 (J. Leyva, personal communication, February 28, 2022).

Recruitment

We conducted this COVID-19 study from July 7, 2020 to July 25, 2020 and targeted 2,915 participants who completed another survey between 2018 and 2019 for a five-year NIH-funded project. This larger NIH project is a natural experimental research project aimed at evaluating the health and mobility impacts of bus rapid transit among high-risk and vulnerable populations in El Paso, TX. The survey participants were recruited from diverse city-wide efforts, such as post cards via United States Postal Service Every Door Direct Mail, information booths at public locations, door hangers, social media, and home visits. Qualtrics was used to distribute this COVID-19 survey in both English and Spanish, including 2,413 individuals invited over emails and 502 invited via one-way text messages. To be eligible, study participants had to be El Paso residents who were 18 years or older, not full-time students, and able to communicate via English or Spanish. We recruited up to two participants from each household and offered a $10 Amazon e-Gift Card for eligible participants who completed the survey by July 25, 2020. The study instrument and protocol were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the principal investigators’ university.

Study participants

Of the 1,046 recorded responses in Qualtrics, 303 included incomplete responses with more than one third of the survey items not answered and another 31 responses from ineligible participants, resulting in a total number of 712 participants who provided valid survey data. In this study, we analyzed data from 683 participants who did not change their residential locations since COVID-19 considering the focus of this study on environmental predictors of park visitations at the neighborhood level (Figure 1).

Measures

Dependent variable

The park visitation outcome was a binary variable capturing if participants visited parks or trails/paths in the neighborhood. The frequency asked was mirrored at both time points, with an indicator of whether participants visited a park at least once a week (asked for both time points: [1] before and [2] since the start of COVID-19).

Time variable

In our study, the time variable is one of the main independent variables, and it refers to two distinct points in time crucial to the study: (1) immediately before the COVID-19 global pandemic and (2) since the start of COVID-19 but prior to widespread vaccine availability. Before COVID-19 refers to “a typical time immediately before COVID-19 became a national emergency and major changes were implemented in El Paso,” serving as the baseline for the current study. The timeline since the start of COVID-19 included “a typical time since major shelter-in-place recommendations and business restrictions were first put into place in response to COVID-19 in El Paso” per the survey, serving as our follow-up period.

Additional survey variables

Fifteen environmental and mobility strategies were selected to evaluate their importance in dealing with pandemics like COVID-19 based on the relevant literature and the actual interventions implemented by various communities during the COVID-19 pandemic (American Association of Retired Persons, 2020; Combs & Pardo, 2021; National Association of City Transportation Officials, 2020). The question “how important do you feel the following environmental and mobility strategies are in helping people cope with pandemics like COVID-19 in the future?” was used to ask participants to rate the level of importance (i.e., not at all, somewhat, or very important) for each of the 15 strategies (see Figure 2). Environmental perception variables included the presence of parks or trails/paths in the neighborhood (treated as binary: yes vs. no) and the level of agreement from strongly disagree to strongly agree with one statement adapted from the validated Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (Cerin et al., 2006; Saelens & Sallis, 2002) and another two items newly developed and pilot tested by the research team: “I see many people being physically active (e.g., walking, jogging, cycling, or playing sports) in my neighborhood,” “there are many interesting things to look at while walking in my neighborhood,” and “I enjoy spending time outside in my neighborhood.”

For personal characteristics, we included a binary variable capturing age including (1) younger adults (18–44); and (2) middle-aged (45–64 years) and older adults (65+) (Diaz et al., 2016; Prineas et al., 2012). More details about the personal characteristics of the study participants can be found in Table 1 for time-invariant variables and Table 2 for time-variant variables as measured in this study. Time-invariant variables included those variables that were not expected to change between the two-time points (before and since the start of COVID-19), such as race and sex, and therefore were only asked once in our survey. Age was also asked only once as its change over time does not vary by individual.

Geographic information system (GIS)-derived objective measure

In order to generate GIS-derived objective measures, we tested nine park-related variables (e.g., density, size, network distance) to capture different measurement types such as proximity, area, and density of parks (Lee & Moudon, 2006) that may be important for supporting park visitations. Raw street and park data used to generate these measures were obtained from the City of El Paso (City of El Paso, 2020). A customized ModelBuilder tool developed by our research team was used to semi-automatically generate the individual park variables examined in this study. After testing the nine park-related variables, only one variable, the shortest network distance to the closest park entrance, showed statistical significance (p < .05) and therefore was included in our final model.

Statistical Analyses

We used StataSE Version 15 to generate all descriptive and inferential statistics. Chi-square tests were conducted to explore the varying importance of environmental and mobility strategies during pandemics like COVID-19 by age and ethnicity. Mixed-effects logistic regression was performed to investigate personal and environmental predictors of park visitations as well as examine COVID-19 impacts on park visitations, as this model allows both fixed effects and random effects across individual participants (Hamilton, 2013). To further explore personal and environmental variations in COVID-19 impacts, we tested the interaction terms with time and each of the personal and environmental variables. We used this data-driven approach for this exploratory investigation due to limited existing literature that can guide the selection of variables. The two interaction terms with significant results were kept in the final model. The margins command was carried out to display the probability of visiting parks by interaction groups, and pairwise comparisons were performed to estimate the differences across interaction groups.

Results

Participant Characteristics

Of the 683 participants, the age range was 19–85 years with a mean of 45 (Table 1). The majority were female (66.2%), of Hispanic origin (81.9%), married or living with a partner (55.2%), and with an annual household income of less than $50,000 (64.7%). Most participants (72.6%) reported that they had parks or trails/paths in their neighborhood. The percentage of those who visited parks or trails/paths in the neighborhood at least once a week dropped from 41.7% before COVID-19 to 19.5% since the start of COVID-19 (Table 2). Figure 1 shows the spatial distribution of study participants, with the indication of their park visitation status including those who reported visiting parks both before and since the start of COVID-19 (17.4%), visiting parks only before COVID-19 (24.3%), not visiting parks before and since the start of COVID-19 (56.2%), and visiting parks only since the start of COVID-19 (2.1%). About one of the four participants stopped visiting the parks/trails/paths since the start of COVID-19. In addition, more than half of the participants did not visit parks on a weekly basis.

Table 1.

Study Characteristics (Time-Invariant Variables as Measured in the Study).

Variables	Observation	Mean/Freq. (SD/%)Min–Max
Demographics
Age (years)	666	44.94 (13.82) 19–85
Age	666
19–30		107 (16.1%)
31–44		253 (38.0%)
45–54		133 (20.0%)
55–64		100 (15.0%)
65+		73 (11.0%)
Sex	668
Female		442 (66.2%)
Male		226 (33.8%)
Hispanic origin	668
Yes		547 (81.9%)
No		121 (18.1%)
Marriage status	672
Married or living with a partner		371 (55.2%)
Divorced, widowed, or separated		118 (17.6%)
Never married		183 (27.2%)
Income	621
Under $50,000		402 (64.7%)
$50,000–$99,999		167 (26.9%)
$100,000 or more		52 (8.4%)
Education	668
Less than high school		21 (3.1%)
Some high school, but NO degree/diploma		28 (4.2%)
High school diploma/general educational development (GED)		96 (14.4%)
Some college		190 (28.4%)
Associate degree		77 (11.5%)
Bachelor’s degree		162 (24.3%)
Master’s degree		80 (12.0%)
Professional degree		4 (0.6%)
Doctorate degree		10 (1.5%)
Obesity	652
Yes		164 (25.2%)
No		488 (74.8%)
Living with children aged 0–17	609
Yes		147 (24.1%)
No		462 (75.9%)
Neighborhood environments
Presence of parks in the neighborhood	667
Yes		484 (72.6%)
No		183 (27.4%)
Many interesting things to look at while walking in the neighborhood	675
Strongly disagree		155 (23.0%)
Somewhat disagree		203 (30.1%)
Somewhat agree		261 (38.7%)
Strongly agree		56 (8.3%)
The shortest network distance to the closest park entrance (unit: mile)	683	0.53 (0.31)0.00 -1.90

Note. Because of rounding decimals, the total may not always add up to 100.0%. Freq. = frequency; SD = standard deviation; Min = minimum; Max = maximum.

Table 2.

Study Characteristics (Time-Variant Variables as Measured in the Study).

Variables	Observation B/S	Mean/Freq. (SD/%)Min–Max
Variables	Observation B/S	Before COVID-19	Since COVID-19	Chi-Square Test p Value
Demographics
General health condition	675/575			<.001
Poor		7 (1.0%)	28 (4.9%)
Fair		88 (13.0%)	91 (15.8%)
Good		302 (44.7%)	274 (47.7%)
Very good		179 (26.5%)	117 (20.3%)
Excellent		99 (14.7%)	65 (11.3%)
Employment status	647/606			<.001
Employed		452 (69.9%)	385 (63.5%)
Not employed		195 (30.1%)	221 (36.5%)
Park visitations and neighborhood environments
Park visitations	667/667			<.001
Yes		278 (41.7%)	130 (19.5%)
No		389 (58.3%)	537 (80.5%)
Seeing people being physically active in the neighborhood	664/651			<.001
Strongly disagree		82 (12.4%)	99 (15.2%)
Somewhat disagree		147 (22.1%)	128 (19.7%)
Somewhat agree		284 (42.8%)	255 (39.2%)
Strongly agree		151 (22.7%)	169 (26.0%)
Enjoying spending time outside in the neighborhood	665/649			<.001
Strongly disagree		50 (7.5%)	116 (17.9%)
Somewhat disagree		114 (17.1%)	147 (22.7%)
Somewhat agree		314 (47.2%)	269 (41.4%)
Strongly agree		187 (28.1%)	117 (18.0%)

Note. Because of rounding decimals, the total may not always add up to 100.0%. B/S = before COVID-19/since COVID-19; Freq. = frequency; SD = standard deviation; Min = minimum; Max = maximum.

Figure 1.

Study participants in El Paso, TX.

Environmental and Mobility Strategies During COVID-19

Figure 2 summarizes 15 environmental and mobility strategies for dealing with COVID-19. Six strategies that the majority reported as being very important were (a) less density/crowding in public spaces (69.5% after excluding those who did not report age), (b) sidewalks on both sides of the streets (62.7%), (c) physical access to nature (58.8%), (d) automated pedestrian crossing signals (52.7%), (e) markings on streets and public places to guide the social distancing practice (52.5%), and (f) visual access to nature (52.3%). For 13 of the 15 strategies examined, no age differences were found in their perceived importance. The other two strategies (i.e., less density/crowding in public spaces, autonomous vehicles) were significantly more important for younger adults than middle-aged and older adults. Compared to age, ethnicity appears to be more strongly related to how people perceive these environmental and mobility strategies during COVID-19 (Online Appendix 1). All but three strategies were significantly more important for Hispanic participants than non-Hispanic participants, such as “more and wider bike lanes,” “benches with protective dividers,” and “visual or physical access to nature.”

Figure 2.

Importance of the environmental and mobility strategies by age. Note. Significant (p < .05) results are highlighted in bold. “XXX (XX.X%)” refer to “the number (the percentage)” of participants indicating very important, and those who did not report age were excluded. Chi-squared tests were conducted for the relationship between the age-group variable and each of the strategy binary variables (i.e., very vs. somewhat/not at all important).

Participants elaborated on the importance of both physical and visual access to nature during COVID-19. One participant responded to the optional open-ended item about other environmental or mobility strategies important for dealing with pandemics like COVID-19: “Availability of green space (natural environments) that are safe for an elderly community. My neighborhood is an older community so it is difficult for the older residents to enjoy the outdoors independently. Wider sidewalks and installation of railing and seating to allow safe opportunities to exercise and enjoy the outdoors.” Another participant further emphasized the importance of parks by noting: “More parks so people can do more exercise. It’s important to build the immune system and be strong to protect ourselves from viruses.” The importance of greenery was noted in another comment: “Making the streets greener. I know people were depressed because there is nothing nice to look out the window.”

Personal and Environmental Predictors of Park Visitations

Table 3 summarizes the mixed-effects logistic regression results. Two personal factors showed significant (p < .05) associations with park visitations. Specifically, middle-aged and older adults were less likely to visit parks or trails/paths compared to younger adults (OR = 0.230, p = .005). Hispanic participants were more likely than non-Hispanic participants to visit parks or trails/paths in the neighborhood (OR = 4.035, p = .022).

Table 3.

Predictors of Park Visitations.

Study Variables	Multilevel Mixed-Effects Logistic Regression
Study Variables	OR	p Value	95% CI
Demographics
Middle-aged and older adults (vs. younger adults)	0.230	.005	[0.083, 0.640]
Male (vs. female)	1.020	.964	[0.429, 2.424]
Hispanic (vs. non-Hispanic)	4.035	.022	[1.219, 13.353]
Married (vs. not married)	1.050	.910	[0.451, 2.445]
Income: $50,000–$99,999 (vs. under $50,000)	1.088	.869	[0.399, 2.970]
$100,000 or more (vs. under $50,000)	0.561	.491	[0.108, 2.915]
Education	0.911	.540	[0.676, 1.227]
General health condition	0.900	.621	[0.592, 1.368]
Employed (vs. not employed)	1.436	.403	[0.614, 3.358]
Obesity (vs. no)	0.599	.294	[0.230, 1.560]
Living with children aged 0 to 17 (vs. no)	0.580	.289	[0.212, 1.587]
Neighborhood environments
Presence of parks in the neighborhood (vs. absence)	56.297	<.001	[13.894, 228.116]
Seeing people being physically active in the neighborhood (agree vs. disagree)	3.160	.007	[1.368, 7.298]
Many interesting things to look at while walking in the neighborhood (agree vs. disagree)	2.842	.017	[1.206, 6.696]
Enjoying spending time outside in the neighborhood (agree vs. disagree)	1.736	.308	[0.602, 5.007]
The shortest network distance to the closest park entrance (unit: mile)	0.201	.023	[0.050, 0.804]
Time-related variables
Time (vs. before COVID-19)	0.015	<.001	[0.003, 0.071]
Time × Age groups	3.299	.043	[1.039, 10.477]
Time × Outdoor time preferences	4.488	.039	[1.081, 18.632]

Note. Significant (p < .05) results are highlighted in bold. OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

In terms of neighborhood environments, participants who were living in the neighborhood with parks were more likely (OR = 56.297, p < .001) to visit parks at least once a week than those living in the neighborhood without parks. Participants who reported seeing people (compared to those not seeing people) being physically active in the neighborhood had around 3.2 times (p = .007) the odds of visiting parks. Participants who reported having (compared to those not having) many interesting things to look at in the neighborhood had around 2.8 times (p = .017) the odds of visiting parks. The shortest network distance to the closest park entrance was negatively correlated with the likelihood of visiting parks in the neighborhood (OR = .201, p = .023). A 1-mile increase in the distance to the closest park entrance was associated with an almost 80% drop in the odds of visiting the park.

COVID-19 Impacts on Park Visitations

Park visitations decreased significantly since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and as of July 2020 (OR = 0.015, p < .001). Our study further suggested that COVID-19 impacts on park visitations varied among different age groups and people with different neighborhood outdoor time preferences. Specifically, the time and age-group interaction term showed a positive interaction with park visitations (OR = 3.299, p = .043), indicating a smaller decrease in park visitations among middle-aged and older adults compared to younger adults since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 3). Another interaction term, time and outdoor time preferences, was positively associated with park visitations (OR = 4.488, p = .039), demonstrating that those who reported enjoying outdoor time in the neighborhood decreased their park visitations less since COVID-19 than those who reported not enjoying outdoor time (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Interaction plot for park visitations.

Table 4 summarizes the probability of visiting parks by interaction groups, and Table 5 shows pairwise comparisons across interaction groups. For the interaction of time and age groups, the probabilities of visiting parks were 48.2% among younger adults and 34.6% among middle-aged and older adults before COVID-19, and the probabilities decreased to 21.9% among younger adults and 20.0% among middle-aged and older adults since the start of COVID-19. The odds of visiting parks among middle-aged and older adults compared to younger adults were significantly lower before COVID-19 (OR = .230, p = .002), while there was no significant difference in park visitations between these two age groups since the start of COVID-19 (OR = .760, p = .635). Park visitations decreased significantly among both younger adults (OR = .031, p < .001) and middle-aged and older adults (OR = .104, p < .001) since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 4.

Probability of Visiting Parks by Interaction Groups (Postestimation Using Margins).

Interaction Terms	Margin	Standard Error	z	p Value	95% CI
Time × Age groups
Younger adults before COVID-19	0.482	0.028	16.93	<.001	[0.426, 0.538]
Middle-aged and older adults before COVID-19	0.346	0.032	10.68	<.001	[0.282, 0.409]
Younger adults since COVID-19	0.219	0.026	8.30	<.001	[0.167, 0.270]
Middle-aged and older adults since COVID-19	0.200	0.028	7.15	<.001	[0.146, 0.255]
Time × Outdoor time preferences
Did not enjoy outdoor time before COVID-19	0.385	0.043	8.87	<.001	[0.300, 0.470]
Enjoyed outdoor time before COVID-19	0.435	0.023	18.76	<.001	[0.390, 0.481]
Did not enjoy outdoor time since COVID-19	0.119	0.025	4.71	<.001	[0.070, 0.169]
Enjoyed outdoor time since COVID-19	0.244	0.024	10.12	<.001	[0.197, 0.291]

Note: Margin = probability of visiting parks at least once a week; CI = confidence interval.

Table 5.

Comparisons Across Interaction Groups (Postestimation Using Pairwise Comparisons)

Interaction Group Comparisons	OR	Standard Error	z	p Value	95% CI
Time × Age groups
Middle-aged and older vs. younger adults before COVID-19	0.230	0.120	−2.82	.005	[0.083, 0.640]
Younger adults since vs. before COVID-19	0.031	0.018	−6.16	<.001	[0.010, 0.094]
Middle-aged and older adults since COVID-19 vs. younger adults before COVID-19	0.024	0.016	−5.41	<.001	[0.006, 0.092]
Younger adult since COVID-19 vs. middle-aged and older adults before COVID-19	0.136	0.080	−3.39	.001	[0.043, 0.432]
Middle-aged and older adults since vs. before COVID-19	0.104	0.052	−4.54	<.001	[0.039, 0.276]
Middle-aged and older vs. younger adults since COVID-19	0.760	0.439	−0.47	.635	[0.245, 2.357]
Time × Outdoor time preferences
Enjoyed vs. did not enjoy outdoor time before COVID-19	1.736	0.938	1.02	.308	[0.602, 5.007]
Did not enjoy outdoor time since vs. before COVID-19	0.027	0.019	−5.10	<.001	[0.007, 0.108]
Enjoyed outdoor time since COVID-19 vs. did not enjoy outdoor time before COVID-19	0.210	0.119	−2.75	.006	[0.069, 0.638]
Did not enjoy outdoor time since COVID-19 vs. enjoyed outdoor time before COVID-19	0.016	0.011	−5.72	<.001	[0.004, 0.065]
Enjoyed outdoor time since vs. before COVID-19	0.121	0.047	−5.40	<.001	[0.056, 0.260]
Enjoyed vs. did not enjoy outdoor time since COVID-19	7.789	5.127	3.12	.002	[2.144, 28.296]

Regarding the interaction of time and outdoor time preferences, the probabilities of visiting parks were 38.5% among those who did not enjoy outdoor time and 43.5% among those who enjoyed outdoor time before COVID-19, and the probabilities decreased to 11.9% among those who did not enjoy outdoor time and 24.4% among those who enjoyed outdoor time since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. There was no significant difference in park visitations among those who enjoyed and those who did not enjoy outdoor time in the neighborhood before COVID-19 (OR = 1.736, p = .308). However, since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the odds of visiting parks were significantly higher among those who enjoyed outdoor time compared to those who did not (OR = 7.789, p = .002). Park visitations decreased significantly since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak for both groups including those who enjoyed (OR = .121, p < .001) and did not enjoy (OR = .027, p < .001) outdoor time in the neighborhood.

Discussion

This is one of the first studies investigating personal and environmental variations in COVID-19 impacts on park visitations among potentially vulnerable populations in El Paso, TX. Our study identified that both personal (i.e., age and ethnicity) and environmental characteristics (e.g., presence of parks, aesthetics) were significant predictors of park visitations. Furthermore, the impacts of COVID-19 on park visitations were different between the two age groups and also between those who enjoyed and did not enjoy outdoor time in their neighborhood. Descriptive statistics showed that the majority viewed physical and visual access to nature (e.g., parks, greenery, forest) as a very important coping strategy amid the pandemic. To bring the health benefits of habitual physical activity, a weekly dose of 150 min of moderate or 75 min of vigorous intensity physical activity is recommended (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022). Studies showed that parks play an essential role in promoting leisure-time physical activity which is important for meeting the physical activity recommendation (Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005; Cohen et al., 2007).

Age was a negative predictor of park visitations in the neighborhood, which is in line with previous studies stating that older adults were less frequently observed in parks than other age groups including children, teenagers, and adults (Cohen et al., 2012; Evenson et al., 2016; Ward et al., 2014). Our study showed that more middle-aged and older adults (74. 9%) chose to live in a neighborhood with parks or trails/paths compared to their younger counterparts (69.9%). The negative relationship between age and park visitations could be attributed to environmental (e.g., long walking distance to parks, streets lacking pedestrian facilities) and personal (e.g., decreases in physical function) barriers to walking/driving to parks, especially among older adults. t-Test results showed that the mean shortest network distances from the participants’ homes to the closest park entrance were not significantly different between the two age groups, and both age groups had a mean of slightly more than half a mile (i.e., 0.54 mile for younger adults and 0.51 mile for middle-aged and older adults). However, functional abilities and environmental perceptions (e.g., psychological park accessibility) may be contributing factors (Park, 2016; Zhang & Tan, 2019). For example, many streets in El Paso, TX are not safe and bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly (El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2018). One participant noted: “The sidewalks in my neighborhood need up keeping, many of them are broken and uneven.” Another participant stated: “Car-free spaces!! Car-free spaces!! People, including myself, do not feel safe in El Paso. There is one traffic fatality per week in this city and as a bicycle commuter, I have a difficult time convincing other people who are interested that this way of transportation is safe.” It should be noted that these statements were provided “as is” (unedited) based on participants’ responses to open-ended response items.

Compared to non-Hispanics, Hispanics were more likely to visit parks or trails/paths at least once a week in the neighborhood. Chi-square test results further suggested that the percentage of the Hispanic population who visited parks was significantly higher than the non-Hispanic population both before and since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic through roughly July 2020. Further, the percentage of Hispanics who reported physical or visual access to nature as a very important environmental strategy during COVID-19 was significantly higher than non-Hispanics (Online Appendix 1). Given the fact that more than 80% of the population in El Paso, TX is of Hispanic origin (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019), providing an extensive network of safe, pleasant, and accessible parks, green spaces, and relevant outdoor recreational facilities such as trails and paths can bring many social and health benefits to El Paso residents, which is also important for addressing socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparities in access to parks and green spaces as stated in other studies (Dai, 2011; Wen et al., 2013; Williams et al., 2020).

The presence of parks in the neighborhood was highly positively correlated with park visitations. More studies addressing the question of “If you build it, will they come?” support the notion that ensuring adequate availability of and access to parks is a prerequisite to promoting its use (Chapin, 1998; Donovan et al., 2016; Slater et al., 2016). Previous studies on this topic further emphasized the importance of co-designing parks with local communities for more effective promotion of park visitations and physical activity (Austin et al., 2021; Slater et al., 2016). Neighborhood aesthetics was positively correlated with park visitations, which is consistent with findings from previous studies (McCormack et al., 2010; Richardson et al., 2020).

Limitations

This study has some major limitations. First, the online survey conducted in a single city limits the generalizability of the study findings, albeit providing rich data about this one geographic locale. Moreover, online survey participants may be different from paper survey participants in terms of their demographic and socioeconomic characteristics such as age, education level, and income. However, the online survey was the safest and most efficient method of collecting data amid COVID-19. Second, the survey recall bias posed challenges to our study as the survey data, especially data before COVD-19, were collected based on participants’ ability to recall past behaviors. However, our questions were asked for a typical week to capture habitual behavioral patterns, which tend to be easier to recall than a specific time frame. Third, the overall quality or perceptions of the park quality, safety, number, and diversity of amenities for different ages, and so on, in one’s neighborhood was not captured but may be relevant to this and other similar studies. As such, we recommend future research that takes this into consideration. Furthermore, this study included an objective measure of distance to the nearest park to assess the relationship between proximity and use, another major strength. Fourth, this study grouped middle-aged and older adults together given the sample limitation, while the activity patterns among middle-aged and older adults can be quite different. To further verify our study results in light of this, we estimated another model using age as a continuous variable (not reported), and the results were very similar to the final model included in this study (where age is a binary variable) in terms of the odds ratios and the p values. Finally, there was no single point in time that perfectly captured life during the pandemic as it was and remains a dynamic issue impacting the global community. That said, this study highlights comparisons from a typical time prior to COVID-19 and since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but before widespread vaccine availability, and as such may provide valuable insights for future novel pandemics.

Implications for Future Research, Practice, and Policy

More empirical studies in additional communities are needed to investigate the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on park use and environmental strategies to promote park use while ensuring safety amid an infectious disease pandemic. This study focused on the visitation of parks or trails/paths in the neighborhood. Further efforts are needed to compare the personal and environmental facilitators and barriers of park visitations within versus outside the neighborhood, as well as to investigate their impacts on various physical and mental health outcomes during and beyond pandemics.

The results of this study suggest that the visitation of parks or trails/paths may be one type of environmentally induced behavior: If more parks become available, more people will likely use them. Drawing from the findings of this and other relevant studies, policy makers and design professionals in the U.S. and beyond can consider increasing the availability of proximately located parks, especially for those who may have limited mobility options to visit parks that are further away. The finding on the significant role of seeing other people being physically active in the neighborhood suggests that trails and paths that are well integrated into residential communities, thereby allowing people from their homes to see others being active in the neighborhood, can further help motivate people to visit parks.

The results of this study suggest that the visitation of parks or trails/paths may be one type of environmentally induced behavior: If more parks become available, more people will likely use them.

The finding on the significant role of seeing other people being physically active in the neighborhood suggests that trails and paths that are well integrated into residential communities, thereby allowing people from their homes to see others being active in the neighborhood, can further help motivate people to visit parks.

Additionally, neighborhood aesthetics can be enhanced by incorporating interesting cultural, natural, and physical environmental features (e.g., local landmarks, plants, scenic views) for people to enjoy while walking in the neighborhood. Some specific features for promoting neighborhood aesthetics may include attractive buildings and homes, high-quality outdoor spaces (e.g., streets, plazas, and gardens), attractive natural sights (e.g., landscaping, scenic views), and appropriate levels of greenness (Root et al., 2017; Saelens et al., 2003). For example, complete streets with sidewalks, benches, large canopy street trees, street lights, and visually appealing features can promote neighborhood walkability and aesthetics as well as easy and safe access to parks in the neighborhood (Jensen et al., 2017; Jordan & Ivey, 2021).

Designing parks with a variety of physical amenities and features is important for creating places that are suitable for people of different ages and for those with various needs and preferences. Older adults tend to value well-maintained, attractive, and peaceful settings in parks (Veitch et al., 2020), while their motivation to visit parks can be different from younger people (Gibson, 2018; Levy-Storms et al., 2018). Thus, engaging residents of different ages and preferences in co-designing parks or green spaces in the neighborhood can facilitate the development of a versatile open space system that meets the needs of diverse populations (Levy-Storms et al., 2018; Sundevall & Jansson, 2020).

Designing parks with a variety of physical amenities and features is important for creating places that are suitable for people of different ages and for those with various needs and preferences.

Conclusions

We found a significant decrease in the visitation of parks or trails/paths since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic through roughly July 2020 with differential impacts between older and younger age groups and between those who reported enjoying outdoor time compared to those who reported not enjoying outdoor time in the neighborhood. Age and ethnicity were significant personal predictors of park visitations among our study participants in El Paso, TX. Environmental factors correlated with park visitations included three self-reported variables measuring the presence of parks in the neighborhood, the social environment (i.e., seeing people being physically active in the neighborhood), and neighborhood aesthetics, as well as one objectively measured variable capturing the shortest street-network distance from home to the closest park. Study findings suggest that nearby parks, trails and paths well integrated into residential communities, and high aesthetic quality are potential features of pandemic-resilient communities. Such communities can better respond to pandemics like COVID-19 in terms of minimized contagion risks and easy access to greenery and recreational areas that can support affordable mobility and promote the physical and mental health of all residents (Litman, 2022; Majewska et al., 2022). Adequate access to parks should be considered an important national priority to maintain and promote the health and well-being of the population, especially during pandemics like COVID-19.

Adequate access to parks should be considered an important national priority to maintain and promote the health and well-being of the population, especially during pandemics like COVID-19.

Implications for Practice

Design and healthcare practitioners should be aware of the significance of access to parks as a prerequisite to regular park use, which can bring many social and health benefits during and beyond pandemics like COVID-19.

Specific design strategies for promoting park visitations in one’s neighborhoods include but are not limited to attractive and high-quality outdoor environments and sufficient supplies of diverse park amenities for people of different ages and preferences.

Evidence-based design solutions are needed to encourage park visitations among vulnerable populations in economically and environmentally disadvantaged communities, who may rely more on in-person and physical resources for social and physical activities during pandemics.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-her-10.1177_19375867231166080 - Environmental and Mobility Strategies During Early COVID-19: Insights From an Empirical Study Focusing on Park Visitations in El Paso, TX

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-her-10.1177_19375867231166080 for Environmental and Mobility Strategies During Early COVID-19: Insights From an Empirical Study Focusing on Park Visitations in El Paso, TX by Sinan Zhong, Chanam Lee, Jiahe Bian, Samuel D. Towne, Hanwool Lee, Yang Song, Wei Li and Marcia G. Ory in HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the NIH grant titled “Fighting Obesity by Reinventing Public Transportation: A Natural Experiment (R01CA228921).”

ORCID iDs

Sinan Zhong, PhD

Samuel D. Towne Jr., PhD

Wei Li, PhD

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material for this article is available online at .

References

Abdullah

Dias

Muley

Shahin

(2020). Exploring the impacts of COVID-19 on travel behavior and mode preferences. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 8, 100255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100255

American Association of Retired Persons. (2020). Helping commercial districts manage and respond to COVID-19. https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/tool-kits-resources/info-2020/main-street-america-covid-briefs.html

Austin

Duncan

M. J.

Bell

(2021). Codesigning parks for increasing park visits and physical activity in a low-socioeconomic community: The active by community design experience. Health Promotion Practice, 22(3), 338–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839919900768

Bedimo-Rung

A. L.

Mowen

A. J.

Cohen

D. A.

(2005). The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: A conceptual model. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2 Suppl 2), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024

Bian

J. J.

Zhong

Towne

S. D.

Jr Lee

Ory

M. G.

(2022). Perceived risks of transit use during COVID-19: Correlates and strategies from a case study in El Paso, Texas. Journal of Transport & Health, 27, 101491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2022.101491

Burt

C. J.

Kondo

M. C.

Hohl

B. C.

Gong

C. H.

Bushman

Wixom

South

E. C.

Cunningham

R. M.

Carter

P. M.

Branas

C. C.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2022). Community greening, fear of crime, and mental health outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 69(1–2), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12544

Calati

Ferrari

Brittner

Oasi

Olie

Carvalho

A. F.

Courtet

(2019). Suicidal thoughts and behaviors and social isolation: A narrative review of the literature. Journal of Affective Disorders, 245, 653–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.11.022

Carlson

S. A.

Brooks

J. D.

Brown

D. R.

Buchner

D. M.

(2010). Racial/ethnic differences in perceived access, environmental barriers to use, and use of community parks. Preventing Chronic Disease, 7(3), A49.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). Increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/aging/covid19/covid19-older-adults.html#increased-risk

10.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). How much physical activity do adults need? https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/adults/index.htm

11.

Cerin

Saelens

B. E.

Sallis

J. F.

Frank

L. D.

(2006). Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale: Validity and development of a short form. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 38(9), 1682–1691. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000227639.83607.4d

12.

Chakrawarty

Ranjan

Klanidhi

K. B.

Kaur

Sarkar

Sahu

Bhavesh

Baitha

Kumar

Wig

(2021). Psycho-social and behavioral impact of COVID-19 on middle-aged and elderly individuals: A qualitative study. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 10, 269. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_1458_20

13.

Chapin

S. L.

(1998). If you build it they will come: Concession reform in the national parks. Land and Water Law Review, 33(1), 33–56.

14.

Cione

Castaneda

Ferdinando

Prince

Jackson

Vetter

McCarthy

COVID-19 Susceptibility Among Latin People in El Paso, TX. SSRN [Preprint]. 2020 Jun 12:3608396. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3608396. PMID: 32714118; PMCID: PMC7366809.

15.

City of El Paso. (2020). Information technology. The Free Encyclopedia. https://www.elpasotexas.gov/information-technology/gis-maps/

16.

Cohen

D. A.

Han

Derose

K. P.

Williamson

Marsh

Rudick

McKenzie

T. L.

(2012). Neighborhood poverty, park use, and park-based physical activity in a Southern California city. Social Science & Medicine, 75(12), 2317–2325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.08.036

17.

Cohen

D. A.

McKenzie

T. L.

Sehgal

Williamson

Golinelli

Lurie

(2007). Contribution of public parks to physical activity. American Journal of Public Health, 97(3), 509–514. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.072447

18.

Combs

T. S.

Pardo

C. F.

(2021). Shifting streets COVID-19 mobility data: Findings from a global dataset and a research agenda for transport planning and policy. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 9, 100322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2021.100322

19.

Curtis

D. S.

Rigolon

Schmalz

D. L.

Brown

B. B.

(2021). Policy and environmental predictors of park visits during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic: Getting out while staying in. Environment and Behavior, 54(2), 487–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139165211031199

20.

Dai

(2011). Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban green space accessibility: Where to intervene? Landscape and Urban Planning, 102(4), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.05.002

21.

Das

K. V.

Fan

French

S. A.

(2017). Park-use behavior and perceptions by race, Hispanic origin, and immigrant status in Minneapolis, MN: Implications on park strategies for addressing health disparities. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 19(2), 318–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-015-0339-1

22.

Diaz

K. M.

Howard

V. J.

Hutto

Colabianchi

Vena

J. E.

Blair

S. N.

Hooker

S. P.

(2016). patterns of sedentary behavior in US middle-age and older adults: The REGARDS study. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 48(3), 430–438. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000792

23.

Donovan

G. H.

Cerveny

L. K.

Gatziolis

(2016). If you build it, will they come? Forest Policy and Economics, 62, 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.11.002

24.

Dunton

G. F.

Wang

S. D.

(2020). Early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical activity and sedentary behavior in children living in the U.S. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1351. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09429-3

25.

El Paso Metropolitan Planning Organization. (2018). El Paso MPO 2045 metropolitan transportation plan. https://www.elpasompo.org/media/MTP/Destino2045MTP/CompleteMTPDocument.pdf

26.

Paso Strong

. (2020). City/county of El Paso COVID-19 results. https://www.epstrong.org/results.php

27.

Evenson

K. R.

Jones

S. A.

Holliday

K. M.

Cohen

D. A.

McKenzie

T. L.

(2016). Park characteristics, use, and physical activity: A review of studies using SOPARC (System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities). Preventive Medicine, 86, 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.02.029

28.

Gao

Y. D.

Ding

Dong

Zhang

J. J.

Kursat Azkur

Azkur

Gan

Sun

YL.

Liang

H. L.

Cao

Y. Y.

Yan

Cao

Gao

H. Y.

Brüggen

M. C.

van de Veen

Sokolowska

Akdis

… Akdis

C. A.

(2021). Risk factors for severe and critically ill COVID-19 patients: A review. Allergy, 76(2), 428–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.14657

29.

Geng

D. C.

Innes

Wang

(2021). Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on urban park visitation: A global analysis. Journal of Forestry Research, 32(2), 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-020-01249-w

30.

Gershengorn

H. B.

Patel

Shukla

Warde

P. R.

Bhatia

Parekh

Ferreira

(2021). Association of race and ethnicity with COVID-19 test positivity and hospitalization Is mediated by socioeconomic factors. Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 18(8), 1326–1334. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202011-1448OC

31.

Gibson

S. C.

(2018). “Let’s go to the park.” An investigation of older adults in Australia and their motivations for park visitation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 180, 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.019

32.

Gross

C. P.

Essien

U. R.

Pasha

Gross

J. R.

Wang

S. Y.

Nunez-Smith

(2020). Racial and ethnic disparities in population-level covid-19 mortality. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 35(10), 3097–3099. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06081-w

33.

Guerra

Cervero

Tischler

(2012). Half-mile circle: Does it best represent transit station catchments? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2276(1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.3141/2276-12

34.

Hamilton

L. C.

(2013). Statistics with Stata: Version 12, eighth edition. Cengage.

35.

Hunsaker

Hargittai

(2018). A review of internet use among older adults. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3937–3954. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818787348

36.

Jay

Heykoop

Hwang

de Jong

Kondo

(2021). Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on park use in U.S. cities. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.23.21256007

37.

Jensen

W. A.

Stump

T. K.

Brown

B. B.

Werner

C. M.

Smith

K. R.

(2017). Walkability, complete streets, and gender: Who benefits most? Health Place, 48, 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.09.007

38.

Jordan

S. W.

Ivey

(2021). Complete streets: Promises and proof. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 147(2), 04021011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000684

39.

Kaczynski

A. T.

Besenyi

G. M.

Stanis

S. A.

Koohsari

M. J.

Oestman

K. B.

Bergstrom

Potwarka

L. R.

Reis

R. S.

(2014). Are park proximity and park features related to park use and park-based physical activity among adults? Variations by multiple socio-demographic characteristics. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 11, 146. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-014-0146-4

40.

Kapser

Abdelrahman

Bernecker

(2021). Autonomous delivery vehicles to fight the spread of Covid-19 - How do men and women differ in their acceptance? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 148, 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.02.020

41.

Kelly

Davern

Farahani

Higgs

Maller

(2022). Urban greening for health and wellbeing in low-income communities: A baseline study in Melbourne, Australia. Cities, 120(10), 103442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103442

42.

Kupfer

J. A.

Ning

Huang

(2021). Using mobile device data to track the Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on spatiotemporal patterns of national park visitation. Sustainability, 13(16), 9366. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169366

43.

Lee

Moudon

A. V.

(2006). The 3Ds+R: Quantifying land use and urban form correlates of walking. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 11(3), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2006.02.003

44.

Leigh-Hunt

Bagguley

Bash

Turner

Turnbull

Valtorta

Caan

(2017). An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness. Public Health, 152, 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2017.07.035

45.

Levin

A. T.

Hanage

W. P.

Owusu-Boaitey

Cochran

K. B.

Walsh

S. P.

Meyerowitz-Katz

(2020). Assessing the age specificity of infection fatality rates for COVID-19: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and public policy implications. European Journal of Epidemiology, 35(12), 1123–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1

46.

Levy-Storms

Chen

Loukaitou-Sideris

(2018). Older adults’ needs and preferences for open space and physical activity in and near parks: A systematic review. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 26(4), 682–696. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2016-0354

47.

Farrukh

Lee

Khreis

Sarda

Sohrabi

Zhang

Dadashova

(2022). COVID-19 impacts on mobility, environment, and health of active transportation users. Cities, 131, 103886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103886

48.

Litman

(2022). Pandemic-resilient community planning: Practical ways to help communities prepare for, respond to, and recover from pandemics and other economic, social and environmental shocks. https://www.vtpi.org/PRCP.pdf

49.

Liu

Chen

Liu

Nie

(2020). Comorbid chronic diseases are strongly correlated with disease severity among COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging Dis, 11(3), 668–678. https://doi.org/10.14336/AD.2020.0502

50.

Liu

Liao

Q. h.

Gan

Cheng

Xie

Wang

Chen

Zhu

Zhang

Chen

Liu

Xie

Guo

Yuan

Han

Chen

… Liu

(2021). The role of the Hercules autonomous vehicle during the COVID-19 pandemic: An autonomous logistic vehicle for contactless goods transportation. IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 28(1), 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1109/mra.2020.3045040

51.

Majewska

Denis

Jarecka-Bidzinska

Jaroszewicz

Krupowicz

(2022). Pandemic resilient cities: Possibilities of repairing polish towns and cities during COVID-19 pandemic. Land Use Policy, 113, 105904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105904

52.

Maller

Townsend

Pryor

Brown

St Leger

(2006). Healthy nature healthy people: ‘Contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promotion International, 21(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dai032

53.

McCormack

G. R.

Rock

Toohey

A. M.

Hignell

(2010). Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Health Place, 16(4), 712–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.03.003

54.

Millward

Spinney

Scott

(2013). Active-transport walking behavior: Destinations, durations, distances. Journal of Transport Geography, 28, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.11.012

55.

Moreland

Herlihy

Tynan

M. A.

Sunshine

McCord

R. F.

Hilton

Poovey

Werner

A. K.

Jones

C. D.

Fulmer

E. B.

Gundlapalli

A. V.

Strosnider

Potvien

García

M. C.

Honeycutt

Baldwin

(2020). Timing of state and territorial COVID-19 stay-at-home orders and changes in population movement—United States, March 1–May 31. 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(35), 1198.

56.

Moudon

A. V.

Lee

Cheadle

A. D.

Garvin

Johnson

Schmid

T. L.

Weathers

R. D.

Lin

(2006). Operational definitions of walkable neighborhood: Theoretical and empirical insights. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3(s1), S99–S117. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.3.s1.s99

57.

Moya

E. M.

Zamore

Perez

L. M.

Tellez

Avila

Aragones

(2022). COVID-19 imperils access to health and human services in El Paso, Texas and New York City: Perspectives from Hispanic parents. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 9(3), 1024–1029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-021-01041-4

58.

National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2020). Streets for pandemic response & recovery. https://nacto.org/publication/streets-for-pandemic-response-recovery/

59.

Zhu

Zhong

Zhang

Zheng

(2020). Risk factors of severe cases with COVID-19: A meta-analysis. Epidemiol Infect, 148, e175. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095026882000179X

60.

Park

A. H.

Zhong

Yang

Jeong

Lee

(2022). Impact of COVID-19 on physical activity: A rapid review. Journal of Global Health, 12, 05003. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.12.05003

61.

Park

(2016). Psychological park accessibility: A systematic literature review of perceptual components affecting park use. Landscape Research, 42(5), 508–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2016.1267127

62.

Parolin

Lee

E. K.

(2022). The role of poverty and racial discrimination in exacerbating the health consequences of COVID-19. The Lancet Regional Health – Americas, 7, 100178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lana.2021.100178

63.

Parra

D. C.

Gomez

L. F.

Fleischer

N. L.

David Pinzon

(2010). Built environment characteristics and perceived active park use among older adults: Results from a multilevel study in Bogota. Health Place, 16(6), 1174–1181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.07.008

64.

Perry

E. E.

Xiao

Manning

R. E.

(2015). Barrier or bridge? The role of transportation in national park visitation by racial and ethnic groups. World Leisure Journal, 57(3), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2015.1066600

65.

Prineas

R. J.

Soliman

E. Z.

Zhang

Z. M.

Howard

V. J.

Ostchega

Howard

Racial Differences in Stroke, Investigators. (2012). United States national prevalence of electrocardiographic abnormalities in black and white middle-age (45- to 64-Year) and older (>/=65-Year) adults (from the reasons for geographic and racial differences in stroke study). The American Journal of Cardiology, 109(8), 1223–1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.11.061

66.

Raina

Wolfson

Griffith

Kirkland

McMillan

Basta

Joshi

UE.

Sohel

Maimon

Thompson

team

C. L. S. A.

Cosco

(2021). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of middle-aged and older adults from the Canadian longitudinal study on aging. Nature Aging, 1(12), 1137–1147. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43587-021-00128-1

67.

Richardson

A. S.

Ghosh-Dastidar

Collins

R. L.

Hunter

G. P.

Troxel

W. M.

Colabianchi

Cohen

D. A.

Dubowitz

(2020). Improved street walkability, incivilities, and esthetics are associated with greater park use in two low-income neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Health, 97(2), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-019-00416-7

68.

Ries

A. V.

Voorhees

C. C.

Roche

K. M.

Gittelsohn

Yan

A. F.

Astone

N. M.

(2009). A quantitative examination of park characteristics related to park use and physical activity among urban youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(3 Suppl), S64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.04.020

69.

Root

E. D.

Silbernagel

Litt

J. S.

(2017). Unpacking healthy landscapes: Empirical assessment of neighborhood aesthetic ratings in an urban setting. Landscape and Urban Planning, 168, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.028

70.

Saelens

B. E.

Sallis

J. F.

(2002). Neighborhood Environment Walkability Survey (NEWS) & Neighborhood Environment Walkability Survey—Abbreviated (NEWS-A). https://activelivingresearch.org/neighborhood-environment-walkability-survey-news-neighborhood-environment-walkability-survey-%E2%80%93

71.

Saelens

B. E.

Sallis

J. F.

Black

J. B.

Chen

(2003). Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: An environment scale evaluation. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1552–1558. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.93.9.1552

72.

Seifert

(2020). The digital exclusion of older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Gerontological Social Work and COVID-19, 63(6-7), 674–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2020.1764687

73.

Sepandi

Taghdir

Alimohamadi

Afrashteh

Hosamirudsari

(2020). Factors associated with mortality in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Iranian Journal of Public Health, 49(7), 1211–1221. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v49i7.3574

74.

Singh

A. K.

Gupta

Ghosh

Misra

(2020). Diabetes in COVID-19: Prevalence, pathophysiology, prognosis and practical considerations. Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome Clinical Research and Reviews, 14(4), 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.04.004

75.

Slater

Pugach

Lin

Bontu

(2016). If you build It will they come? Does involving community groups in playground renovations affect park utilization and physical activity? Environment and Behavior, 48(1), 246–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916515614368

76.

Slater

S. J.

Christiana

R. W.

Gustat

(2020). Recommendations for keeping parks and green space accessible for mental and physical health during COVID-19 and other pandemics. Preventing Chronic Disease, 17, E59. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.200204

77.

Song

Newman

Huang

(2022). Factors influencing long-term city park visitations for mid-sized US cities: A big data study using smartphone user mobility. Sustainable Cities and Society, 80, 103815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103815

78.

Stewart

O. T.

Moudon

A. V.

Fesinmeyer

M. D.

Zhou

Saelens

B. E.

(2016). The association between park visitation and physical activity measured with accelerometer, GPS, and travel diary. Health Place, 38, 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.01.004

79.

Sun

Hua

C. L.

Qiu

Brown

J. S.

(2022). Determinants of COVID-19 testing among late middle-aged and older adults: Applying the health belief model. Aging and Health Research, 2(2), 100066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahr.2022.100066

80.

Sundevall

E. P.

Jansson

(2020). Inclusive parks across ages: Multifunction and urban open space management for children, adolescents, and the elderly. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(24), 9357. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249357

81.

Targher

Mantovani

Wang

X. B.

Yan

H. D.

Sun

Q. F.

Pan

K. H.

Byrne

Zheng

K. I.

Chen

Y-P.

Eslam

George

Zheng

M. H.

(2020). Patients with diabetes are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Diabetes & Metabolism, 46(4), 335–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diabet.2020.05.001

82.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). QuickFacts: El Paso city, Texas. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/elpasocitytexas/PST045219

83.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). 2020: ACS 5-year estimates subject tables. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?t=Income%20and%20Poverty&g=1600000US4824000

84.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). 2017-2021 American community survey 5-year estimates. https://data.census.gov/

85.

Van Dyck

Sallis

J. F.

Cardon

Deforche

Adams

M. A.

Geremia

De Bourdeaudhuij

(2013). Associations of neighborhood characteristics with active park use: an observational study in two cities in the USA and Belgium. International Journal of Health Geographics, 12, 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-12-26

86.

Vaughan

C. A.

Cohen

D. A.

Han

(2018). How do racial/ethnic groups differ in their use of neighborhood parks? Findings from the national study of neighborhood parks. Journal of Urban Health, 95(5), 739–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-018-0278-y

87.

Veitch

Flowers

Ball

Deforche

Timperio

(2020). Designing parks for older adults: A qualitative study using walk-along interviews. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 54(11/12), 126768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126768

88.

Venter

Z. S.

Barton

D. N.

Gundersen

Figari

Nowell

(2020). Urban nature in a time of crisis: Recreational use of green space increases during the COVID-19 outbreak in Oslo, Norway. Environmental Research Letters, 15(10), 104075. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abb396

89.

Vich

Delclòs-Alió

Maciejewska

Marquet

Schipperijn

Miralles-Guasch

(2021). Contribution of park visits to daily physical activity levels among older adults: Evidence using GPS and accelerometery data. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 63, 127225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127225

90.

Volenec

Z. M.

Abraham

J. O.

Becker

A. D.

Dobson

A. P.

(2021). Public parks and the pandemic: How park usage has been affected by COVID-19 policies. PLoS One, 16(5), e0251799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251799

91.

Warburton

D. E.

Nicol

C. W.

Bredin

S. S.

(2006). Health benefits of physical activity: The evidence. CMAJ, 174(6), 801–809. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.051351

92.

Ward

McKenzie

T. L.

Cohen

Evenson

K. R.

Golinelli

Hillier

Lapham

S. C.

Williamson

(2014). Physical activity surveillance in parks using direct observation. Preventing Chronic Disease, 11, 130147. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd11.130147

93.

Wen

Zhang

Harris

C. D.

Holt

J. B.

Croft

J. B.

(2013). Spatial disparities in the distribution of parks and green spaces in the USA. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 45(Suppl 1), S18–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-012-9426-x

94.

White

M. P.

Elliott

L. R.

Grellier

Economou

Bell

Bratman

G. N.

Cirach

Gascon

Lima

M. L.

Lõhmus

Nieuwenhuijsen

Ojala

Roiko

Schultz

P. W.

van den Bosch

Fleming

L. E.

(2021). Associations between green/blue spaces and mental health across 18 countries. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 8903. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-87675-0

95.

Williams

T. G.

Logan

T. M.

Zuo

C. T.

Liberman

K. D.

Guikema

S. D.

(2020). Parks and safety: a comparative study of green space access and inequity in five US cities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 201, 103841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103841

96.

Wood

Hooper

Foster

Bull

(2017). Public green spaces and positive mental health - investigating the relationship between access, quantity and types of parks and mental wellbeing. Health Place, 48, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.09.002

97.

World Health Organization. (2022). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. https://www.who.int/europe/emergencies/situations/covid-19

98.

Yin

Bratman

G. N.

Browning

M. H. E. M.

Spengler

J. D.

Olvera-Alvarez

H. A.

(2022). Stress recovery from virtual exposure to a brown (desert) environment versus a green environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81. 101775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101775

99.

Zafri

N. M.

Khan

Jamal

Alam

B. M.

(2022). Risk perceptions of COVID-19 transmission in different travel modes. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 13(3), 100548. htps://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100548

100.

Zhang

Tan

P. Y.

(2019). Demand for parks and perceived accessibility as key determinants of urban park use behavior. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 44(2), 126420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126420

101.

Ziesler

P. S.

Spalding

C. M.

(2021). Statistical abstract: 2020. natural resource data series NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRDS—2021/1326. National Park Service.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB