Public parks and the pandemic: How park usage has been affected by COVID-19 policies

Zoe M. Volenec; Joel O. Abraham; Alexander D. Becker; Andy P. Dobson

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251799

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 9, 2020
25 Feb 2021 Decision Letter - Christopher A. Lepczyk, Editor Transfer Alert This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present. PONE-D-20-35168 Public parks and the pandemic: how park usage has been affected by COVID-19 policies PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Abraham, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process that are noted below. Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 11 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Christopher A. Lepczyk Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 3. We note that Figure 2 in your submission contains map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: (1) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” (2) If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ (3) Please could you provide a statement indicating that the use of this dataset was done in compliance to the Instagram Terms and Conditions and our requirements for this type of study (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-personal-data-from-third-party-sources). Thanks for your attention to our requests. Additional Editor Comments: Subject Editor Comments: Overall this is a nicely written and well done manuscript. Both the reviewers and I have only a moderate number of comments. L30. Please add in a few sentences of methods before moving to results. L30. Suggest giving some specific values here, such as percent increase from before pandemic. L32. Again, by what percent or volume? Providing some measures of change in Abstract would be very helpful. L41. Delete ‘ongoing’ so the paper holds relevance years from now when it is no longer ongoing. L91. I would suggest you have a sentence here that states your main goal of the research, then follow it with the research questions and sentences. L91-97. Move these to Methods. L93. ‘These data.’ L107. Please move Methods here. As reviewers note it would be helpful to have them here as the journal isn’t stylized like Science or Nature. L109. Change ‘hypothesized’ to ‘predicted’ as that is how you stated in Introduction. L125. Do you mean ‘On the whole?’ L157. Change ‘relied’ to ‘used’ or similar as you did not measure reasons why people are in parks. L179-86. You do not have data to support these statements, please cut this paragraph. L247. But how would you have tested or demonstrated that relationship? Seems somewhat difficult to test without data on individuals. L261, L275, L284. What does ‘this’ refer to at beginning of sentence? Need object after ‘this’ to logically connect to previous sentence. Please revise throughout ms. L293-97, L303-306. These are important points that people will agree with, but they are not really about your data or results. You are simply looking at visitation rates before, during, and after parks were closed and you can’t really go much beyond that for what you found as you are not measuring people or any social item. L312. Approximately what percent of parks in the state does this represent? L342. What is the spatial error you accepted for a tag to be within a park? That is, there are likely tags that are on park boundaries that could legitimately be inside or outside based on error. How did you account for this error? Figure 1. In this figure you present hypotheses, but in legend and text you are discussing predictions. These are different and thus need to make figures and text consistent with what you mean. Reviewer 1. Note that the PDF copy has mark up on it, but may be difficult to see all of the comments. Thus, they are listed below as well: Dear authors, I commend your work during this unique and challenging period in history. I think this study is important, and adds to the growing body of research using social media data to improve understanding of visitor use-descriptive data to understand behavioral patterns. This is unique in the sense that it monitors shifts during the COVID pandemic, and specifically park use during this time. I recognize that the format of this journal places the emphasize on the methodological approach toward the end of the manuscript, rather than following the Introduction. However, I believe there are pertinent details that should be included earlier in the manuscript to help validate the study. For example, more detail should be provided regarding the types of parks included in the study, specifically highlighting agency, designation, and in general, governing body, as regardless of state mandates, agencies operated differently during closures, and this inherently influenced the results of this study. Additional details should be provided regarding Instagram usage (e.g., percentage of NJ residents that use Instagram; percentage in use per the years compared in this study; representativeness of this study compared to the general populous, etc.). This also leads to a need for a clear limitations section, which I believe merits a separate header/section, which could directly proceed future research recommendations. Even though the methods come at the end of the document, figures should follow the flow of the paper, and therefore need adjusted as the paper is revised. Finally, in several areas within the Results and Discussion, there are topics of importance that are raised, that are more speculative rather than grounded in the results of this paper. For example, issues with parks, equity, and access are certainly important, and well-studied, and could even likely be evaluated using your dataset, GIS, and socioeconomic data for the areas of study, but this study does not directly address that issue. The areas of speculation should be grounded in existing research, and stated as future research directions stemming from this work. The above comments are the most pressing from my perspective, but there were a few other minor considerations that should be addressed. The paper is well-written, and very easy to follow, but it does need additional literature in several areas, specific to both COVID and recreation (examples added in the commented paper copy), and park use, associated benefits, and equity. While the COVID and recreation literature is rapidly changing, the other topics need more attention with research from the past decade and beyond. Finally, other literature should be added highlighting the use of social media data for monitoring park use. There have been many studies looking at Twitter, Instagram and other outlets published in the past decade. As for the storyline, there is some discussion about the use of parks for parents and children, but that is a bit lost in the results. I’m not sure that direction is additive to the introduction as currently stated. Overall, great work, and I believe this manuscript merits publication after some revisions. Line 28: Clarity should be given regarding types of parks. State? Local? etc. Line 55: While this is a bit of a moving target as empirical works continue to be published on recreation and covid, I would add a few other published citations here: http://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juaa020 https://outdoorindustry.org/article/increase-outdoor-activities-due-covid-19/ Line 84: Thus far the manuscript has been discussing what seems like playground-types of local parks. This mandate was specific to state and county parks. Clarity at the beginning and throughout the paper regarding what type of parks are being discussed is important. Line 91: Is this the Methods section? This needs to be identified and more information needs to be included to highlight the methodology applied to this study Line 101: This is written in an exploratory manner at the beginning, but here anticipated findings are suggested (not quite hypotheses just yet), but Figure 1 is presented as hypotheses. I think the paper would be strengthened by keep it language as more exploratory rather than as hypotheses. If the authors opt for using hypotheses, properly state them as such (i.e., less exploratory). Line 108: Figure 2 seems to be skipped in the text. But, Figure 2 needs much more finite info rather than the two dichotomous choices presented as parks closed or not closed. Line 116: Was there a difference in designation regarding what was closed versus open? For example, how were closed parks determined? Line 158: The first few citations here don’t really represent this sentence (Ulrich; Godbey; Manning). Line 170: This is a big body of literature so I recommend an “e.g.” for these citations) Line 179: I believe a header specifically highlighting this section as “future research” or similar is needed. Some of this is speculative, but I don’t disagree with any of these suggestions. But, I believe it would be better suited if presented with future research framing. Line 219: Seems incorrect grammatically Line 223: A limitations section is needed. Some of the content here would be included. Line 232: Need clarity on where this section resides Line 291: They are health resources and should be stated as such, throughout this paper. See Andrew Mowen and colleagues works for more citations [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Dear authors, I commend your work during this unique and challenging period in history. I think this study is important, and adds to the growing body of research using social media data to improve understanding of visitor use-descriptive data to understand behavioral patterns. This is unique in the sense that it monitors shifts during the COVID pandemic, and specifically park use during this time. I recognize that the format of this journal places the emphasize on the methodological approach toward the end of the manuscript, rather than following the Introduction. However, I believe there are pertinent details that should be included earlier in the manuscript to help validate the study. For example, more detail should be provided regarding the types of parks included in the study, specifically highlighting agency, designation, and in general, governing body, as regardless of state mandates, agencies operated differently during closures, and this inherently influenced the results of this study. Additional details should be provided regarding Instagram usage (e.g., percentage of NJ residents that use Instagram; percentage in use per the years compared in this study; representativeness of this study compared to the general populous, etc.). This also leads to a need for a clear limitations section, which I believe merits a separate header/section, which could directly proceed future research recommendations. Even though the methods come at the end of the document, figures should follow the flow of the paper, and therefore need adjusted as the paper is revised. Finally, in several areas within the Results and Discussion, there are topics of importance that are raised, that are more speculative rather than grounded in the results of this paper. For example, issues with parks, equity, and access are certainly important, and well-studied, and could even likely be evaluated using your dataset, GIS, and socioeconomic data for the areas of study, but this study does not directly address that issue. The areas of speculation should be grounded in existing research, and stated as future research directions stemming from this work. The above comments are the most pressing from my perspective, but there were a few other minor considerations that should be addressed. The paper is well-written, and very easy to follow, but it does need additional literature in several areas, specific to both COVID and recreation (examples added in the commented paper copy), and park use, associated benefits, and equity. While the COVID and recreation literature is rapidly changing, the other topics need more attention with research from the past decade and beyond. Finally, other literature should be added highlighting the use of social media data for monitoring park use. There have been many studies looking at Twitter, Instagram and other outlets published in the past decade. As for the storyline, there is some discussion about the use of parks for parents and children, but that is a bit lost in the results. I’m not sure that direction is additive to the introduction as currently stated. Overall, great work, and I believe this manuscript merits publication after some revisions. Reviewer #2: Great job here - I think this will be a good paper for understanding anecdotal accounts from managers with empirical data. My one gripe: these social media data are great, but they are not a panacea. You should do a better job of spending at least a paragraph - and preferably more - about the limitations and biases of your data. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-35168_reviewer_12_16_2020.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251799.r001
Revision 1
11 Apr 2021 Author Response Editor Comments: We note that Figure 2 in your submission contains map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission. We have revised Figure 2 so that it no longer includes copyrighted material. Please could you provide a statement indicating that the use of this dataset was done in compliance to the Instagram Terms and Conditions and our requirements for this type of study (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-personal-data-from-third-party-sources). We have added such a statement both in the text, to line 148, and also in the data accessibility statement. Subject Editor Comments: Overall this is a nicely written and well done manuscript. Both the reviewers and I have only a moderate number of comments. We thank the editor for their careful consideration of our manuscript, and for the reviewers’ thoughtful comments regarding how to improve the clarity of the paper. L30. Please add in a few sentences of methods before moving to results. We have added some more detail about the study methodology here, as suggested. L30. Suggest giving some specific values here, such as percent increase from before pandemic. We have added the magnitude of the increase in park usage here as well as throughout the text. L32. Again, by what percent or volume? Providing some measures of change in Abstract would be very helpful. We have added the magnitude of the decrease in park usage here as well as throughout the text. L41. Delete ‘ongoing’ so the paper holds relevance years from now when it is no longer ongoing. OK. L91. I would suggest you have a sentence here that states your main goal of the research, then follow it with the research questions and sentences. Noted, and revised accordingly. L91-97. Move these to Methods. We have moved these sentences to the beginning of the Methods, as suggested. L93. ‘These data.’ Thank you for pointing out this grammatical error, we have fixed it. L107. Please move Methods here. As reviewers note it would be helpful to have them here as the journal isn’t stylized like Science or Nature. Noted, and revised accordingly. L109. Change ‘hypothesized’ to ‘predicted’ as that is how you stated in Introduction. OK. L125. Do you mean ‘On the whole?’ Yes, thank you for pointing this out. L157. Change ‘relied’ to ‘used’ or similar as you did not measure reasons why people are in parks. Noted, and revised accordingly. L179-86. You do not have data to support these statements, please cut this paragraph. Per the reviewer suggestions, we have added a ‘Limitations and future directions’ section to our discussion. We have removed this paragraph but have moved some of the content there. L247. But how would you have tested or demonstrated that relationship? Seems somewhat difficult to test without data on individuals. As you said, we did not have the data to explicitly test this here. We intended this to convey that we were merely noting the lack of an uptick in cases with park reopening. We have revised the language in this section to convey this fact more clearly. L261, L275, L284. What does ‘this’ refer to at beginning of sentence? Need object after ‘this’ to logically connect to previous sentence. Please revise throughout ms. Thank you for making us aware of this issue. We have revised for this source of ambiguity throughout the manuscript. L293-97, L303-306. These are important points that people will agree with, but they are not really about your data or results. You are simply looking at visitation rates before, during, and after parks were closed and you can’t really go much beyond that for what you found as you are not measuring people or any social item. While we agree that these points are not the direct findings of the current work, we feel these ideas follow logically from our results and are important takeaways of this study. In response to this comment, we have somewhat revised the language in this section, but we would like to keep this material in the paper if possible. L312. Approximately what percent of parks in the state does this represent? Unfortunately, the data do not exist to adequately address this question. Statewide geodatabases of open spaces suggest that there are approximately 5,500 uniquely identifiable open spaces in the state of New Jersey, which would mean that our study captures ~1.80% of the open spaces within the state. However, such databases are not very accurate (parks are often duplicated or misidentified), nor are they updated consistently, so we are hesitant to include this statistic in the paper. L342. What is the spatial error you accepted for a tag to be within a park? That is, there are likely tags that are on park boundaries that could legitimately be inside or outside based on error. How did you account for this error? This comment reflects some misunderstanding about how Instagram geotags operate. Instagram users are able to self-select the geotags that correspond to their photograph from a list of possible geotags within the application. As such, there is no means by which to explicitly evaluate this kind of error. We have attempted to clarify this somewhat on line 144. Figure 1. In this figure you present hypotheses, but in legend and text you are discussing predictions. These are different and thus need to make figures and text consistent with what you mean. Noted, and revised accordingly. Reviewer #1: Note that the PDF copy has mark up on it, but may be difficult to see all of the comments. Thus, they are listed below as well: Dear authors, I commend your work during this unique and challenging period in history. I think this study is important, and adds to the growing body of research using social media data to improve understanding of visitor use-descriptive data to understand behavioral patterns. This is unique in the sense that it monitors shifts during the COVID pandemic, and specifically park use during this time. We thank you for your kind comments about the novel aspects of this work and thoughtful suggestions for the improvement of the manuscript. I recognize that the format of this journal places the emphasize on the methodological approach toward the end of the manuscript, rather than following the Introduction. However, I believe there are pertinent details that should be included earlier in the manuscript to help validate the study. For example, more detail should be provided regarding the types of parks included in the study, specifically highlighting agency, designation, and in general, governing body, as regardless of state mandates, agencies operated differently during closures, and this inherently influenced the results of this study. We entirely agree with this comment. The editor has suggested that we move our Methods and materials section to follow the Introduction, which we have done. We feel this adds clarity about our approach and provides the information earlier on in the paper that you have suggested adding. Additional details should be provided regarding Instagram usage (e.g., percentage of NJ residents that use Instagram; percentage in use per the years compared in this study; representativeness of this study compared to the general populous, etc.). Unfortunately, information about Instagram usage by state is not publicly available. As such, we are not able to address this here. However, considerable work has gone into validating that studies relying on social media data are representative of population-level behavior (see Wood et al. 2013, Donahue et al. 2017, and Hamstead et al. 2018, which we cite throughout the text). This also leads to a need for a clear limitations section, which I believe merits a separate header/section, which could directly proceed future research recommendations. Per this comment and similar suggestions from both the editor and the other reviewer, we have added a ‘Limitations and future directions’ section to our discussion. Even though the methods come at the end of the document, figures should follow the flow of the paper, and therefore need adjusted as the paper is revised. We feel the order of the figures is now logical given the revised structure of the paper. Finally, in several areas within the Results and Discussion, there are topics of importance that are raised, that are more speculative rather than grounded in the results of this paper. For example, issues with parks, equity, and access are certainly important, and well-studied, and could even likely be evaluated using your dataset, GIS, and socioeconomic data for the areas of study, but this study does not directly address that issue. The areas of speculation should be grounded in existing research, and stated as future research directions stemming from this work. We are glad to hear that you feel these sections have merit; we have moved these more speculative portions of the discussion to the ‘Limitations and future directions’ section that we have added in response to your comments and those of the other reviewer and subject editor. The above comments are the most pressing from my perspective, but there were a few other minor considerations that should be addressed. The paper is well-written, and very easy to follow, but it does need additional literature in several areas, specific to both COVID and recreation (examples added in the commented paper copy), and park use, associated benefits, and equity. While the COVID and recreation literature is rapidly changing, the other topics need more attention with research from the past decade and beyond. Finally, other literature should be added highlighting the use of social media data for monitoring park use. There have been many studies looking at Twitter, Instagram and other outlets published in the past decade. Thank you for your suggestions below regarding other literature to reference. We have added these citations as well as several other citations from both the recreation literature and evolving COVID-19 literature. As for the storyline, there is some discussion about the use of parks for parents and children, but that is a bit lost in the results. I’m not sure that direction is additive to the introduction as currently stated. We agree that this was overemphasized in the original draft and have removed this sentence from the Introduction. Overall, great work, and I believe this manuscript merits publication after some revisions. Thank you! Line 28: Clarity should be given regarding types of parks. State? Local? etc. We have added this information here and have further clarified the types of park included in this study on lines 28-29. Line 55: While this is a bit of a moving target as empirical works continue to be published on recreation and covid, I would add a few other published citations here: http://doi.org/10.1093/jue/juaa020 https://outdoorindustry.org/article/increase-outdoor-activities-due-covid-19/ Thank you for pointing us to these sources, we have cited them here and throughout the paper. Line 84: Thus far the manuscript has been discussing what seems like playground-types of local parks. This mandate was specific to state and county parks. Clarity at the beginning and throughout the paper regarding what type of parks are being discussed is important. We have added some clarity in the Methods about how we defined parks for this study (see lines 131-132). As such, we hope that the restructuring of the paper adequately addresses this comment. Line 91: Is this the Methods section? This needs to be identified and more information needs to be included to highlight the methodology applied to this study. We have moved this information to the beginning of the Methods section. Also, we have relocated the Methods section so it now comes after the Introduction, per standard format. Line 101: This is written in an exploratory manner at the beginning, but here anticipated findings are suggested (not quite hypotheses just yet), but Figure 1 is presented as hypotheses. I think the paper would be strengthened by keep it language as more exploratory rather than as hypotheses. If the authors opt for using hypotheses, properly state them as such (i.e., less exploratory). We have revised Figure 1 to say ‘predictions’ rather than ‘hypotheses’. Line 108: Figure 2 seems to be skipped in the text. But, Figure 2 needs much more finite info rather than the two dichotomous choices presented as parks closed or not closed. See our response to the above comment regarding figure ordering. We initially referred to Figure 2 on line 92. Now that the Methods section has been relocated and this content has been moved to the beginning of the Methods, we first refer to Figure 2 on line 119. Also, Figure 2 has been largely revised. Line 116: Was there a difference in designation regarding what was closed versus open? For example, how were closed parks determined? We discussed this in the Methods on lines 213-221. Hopefully this is clearer from the outset now that we have moved the Methods section up. Line 158: The first few citations here don’t really represent this sentence (Ulrich; Godbey; Manning). Noted, and revised accordingly. Line 170: This is a big body of literature so I recommend an “e.g.” for these citations) We have added ‘e.g.’, as suggested. Line 179: I believe a header specifically highlighting this section as “future research” or similar is needed. Some of this is speculative, but I don’t disagree with any of these suggestions. But, I believe it would be better suited if presented with future research framing. Per this suggestion, we have added a ‘Limitations and future directions’ section at the end of the discussion. Line 219: Seems incorrect grammatically We agree that this sentence was confusing and have revised it accordingly. Line 223: A limitations section is needed. Some of the content here would be included. See above comment; we have added a ‘Limitations and future directions’ section at the end of the discussion. Line 232: Need clarity on where this section resides We hope that relocating the Methods section has addressed this concern. Line 291: They are health resources and should be stated as such, throughout this paper. See Andrew Mowen and colleagues works for more citations Noted, and revised accordingly. Reviewer #2: Great job here - I think this will be a good paper for understanding anecdotal accounts from managers with empirical data. Thank you for these kind comments! My one gripe: these social media data are great, but they are not a panacea. You should do a better job of spending at least a paragraph - and preferably more - about the limitations and biases of your data. Noted. We agree that social media data have their limitations, and as such we have added a ‘Limitations and future directions’ section at the end of the discussion to be more explicit about this. Also, we discuss the limitations of using social media data quite extensively in the Methods section (lines 174-186), which we have relocated. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Volenec and Abraham et al_PLOS ONE_response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251799.r002
4 May 2021 Decision Letter - Christopher A. Lepczyk, Editor Public parks and the pandemic: how park usage has been affected by COVID-19 policies PONE-D-20-35168R1 Dear Dr. Abraham, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Christopher A. Lepczyk Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251799.r003
Formally Accepted
7 May 2021 Acceptance Letter - Christopher A. Lepczyk, Editor PONE-D-20-35168R1 Public parks and the pandemic: how park usage has been affected by COVID-19 policies Dear Dr. Abraham: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Christopher A. Lepczyk Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251799.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .