Peer Reviewed Research
Systematic
Observation of Physical Distancing Behaviors of Trail Users During the COVID-19
Pandemic
Thomas
Bias1,2,
Shay M. Daily2, Christiaan G. Abildso1, Heather Venrick3,
Elizabeth Shay4, Samantha I. Moyers1, Adam Hege3, Vaike
Haas5, Angela Dyer2, Robert Broce3, and Richard W. Christiana3
1
West Virginia University, School of Public Health, Morgantown, West Virginia, U.S.A.
2 West Virginia University,
Office of Health Affairs, Morgantown, West Virginia, U.S.A.
3
Appalachian State University, Beaver College of Health Sciences, Boone, North Carolina,
U.S.A.
4
Appalachian State University, College of Arts and Sciences, Boone, North Carolina, U.S.A.
5 West Virginia University,
Davis College of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Design, Morgantown, West Virginia,
U.S.A.
Abstract
During the
early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, opportunities for indoor and sometimes
outdoor recreation were restricted across the world. Despite restrictions, many
greenways and rail-trails saw increased use. Messaging from the federal and
state public health authorities stressed the importance of social distancing
and other preventive measures in reducing spread of the coronavirus. Little is
known about actual behaviors of individuals and groups using these outdoor
recreational opportunities. This study used passive infrared cameras to
systematically observe physical distancing behaviors on multi-user trails in Boone,
North Carolina, and Morgantown, West Virginia, to assess safety implications of
trail use during June 2020. Most interactions (72.2%) occurred with the
recommended six feet of distance between users. Maintaining six feet of
distance is more likely to occur when a single individual passes another single
individual (88.2%), users pass while traveling in opposite directions (75.9%),
and trails are wider (76.8% on 12 ft width trail vs. 62.6% on a 10 ft width
trail). Messaging on multi-user trails should target how groups pass other
groups, such as “keep six feet” and “pass single file.”
Keywords: built
environment, greenways, rail-trails, social distancing
During the early months of the
coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, governing bodies around the world
used various strategies to mitigate the spread of the disease such as
stay-at-home orders, mandatory mask wearing, and rules for physical distancing (University
of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government, 2020). Several of these policies restricted
access to indoor and outdoor places that promote physical activity, including
the closure of parks, trails, and fitness facilities, along with the cessation
of recreational programming (Shahidi et al., 2020).
Although
restrictions may have limited physical activity in many settings, greenways and
multi-use trails in the United States were particularly busy after COVID-19
restrictions were instituted in March 2020. According to publicly available
trail counts from 31 rail-trails across the United States, weekly trail traffic
increased by roughly 56% in 2020 compared with the same weeks in 2019 (Rails-to-Trails
Conservancy). Corresponding to this increase, Freeman and Eykelbosh (2020) noted
the benefits of using outdoor spaces for physical and mental health and social
well-being, while also acknowledging the potential detrimental effect of
increased risk of community spread of COVID-19 when these resources are heavily
used. Strategies to reduce risk include both individual behavior (physical
distancing, quarantining, handwashing, and respiratory etiquette) and community
strategies (carefully managed opening and closure of parks and greenways; limiting
some services) (Slater et al., 2020). The latter are complicated by tension
between the need to manage outdoor recreational facilities for public health
and safety, on the one hand, and the possibility of closures driving physical
activity into less suitable or more congested public spaces, on the other.
While national
organizations recommend maintaining six feet of distance while active outdoors (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention), the physical distancing practices of
people engaging in outdoor physical activity and the factors influencing those
practices are not yet known. This study reports observations of multi-use
trails to describe physical distancing behaviors by trail users during
interactions amid the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Behaviors are characterized based
on trail width, the number of trail users interacting with each other, and direction
of travel of groups during an interaction. The results offer insights into the
potential for trails as places for physical activity while maintaining physical
distance.
Methods
Data Collection
Researchers installed four passive
infrared cameras in different locations on a greenway trail in Boone, NC,
(population 19,667) and four passive infrared cameras on a rail-trail in
Morgantown, WV, (population 30,712) during June 2020 (Moultrie XV7000i and M40i
in Boone and Morgantown, respectively). Both locations are home to universities
located within the Appalachian Mountain region with predominantly white (93.4%
and 87.9%, respectively), educated (89.2% and 93.6% with at least a high school
diploma, respectively) populations. Six passive infrared cameras observed 12 foot
wide paved trail sections and two observed 10 foot wide paved trail sections. Over
one week, the passive infrared cameras recorded short 30–90 second videos each
time motion was detected by the camera. A team of ten coders were trained on
the coding procedures and tested for inter-rater reliability. A trained coder viewed
each video, verified whether there was an interaction (users who passed each
other) between more than one individual who did not seem to be part of the same
group, and coded the distance between the closest person in each group (<6 ft
or ≥6 ft). The
following variables of each interaction were coded: (a) trail width (10 ft or
12 ft); (b) group passing direction (same or opposite direction); and (c) size
of each group (number of people). A variable was then created to delineate the
size of groups during the interaction (Figure 1 illustrates the size of groups
during interactions). Groups with three or more participants (n = 13,
0.8%), were omitted from the analysis to ensure statistical assumptions for
chi-square were met, such as the expected cell counts should be at least five
within a minimum of 80% of the cells (McHugh, 2013). Ten percent of
interactions were randomly selected and then double coded to establish
inter-rater reliability prior to analysis; these suggest moderate reliability
(κ= 0.67, SE=0.06, 95% CI: [0.54, 0.80]).
Data Analysis
Odds ratios with 95% confidence
intervals were used to determine the likelihood of not maintaining six feet of
distance during an interaction (i.e., groups passing within six feet of each
other) with the predictors of (a) trail width (10-ft vs. 12-ft); (b) groups
passed in the same or opposite direction; and (c) size of groups during the
interaction (1x1, 1x2, or 2x2).
Results
Data coders observed 1,709
group interactions from PIC videos. The average duration of time taken to code observations was 7
minutes (median 4, mode 2) with a maximum of 60 minutes (n = 1) and
minimum of 53 seconds (n = 1). Table 1 provides
descriptive frequencies and valid percentages. Most group interactions
maintained at least six feet of distance (72.2%), passed while traveling in
opposite directions (80.0%), and were observed on 12 ft trail sections (67.2%).
Single group interactions (1x1) were the most common (59.8%). Group interactions
with two people per group (2x2) were less frequent (9%) than other interaction
group sizes.
|
Table 1.
Descriptive Frequencies and Valid Percentages for Variable Characteristics
|
|
Variable
|
n
|
%
|
|
Maintained
6 ft of distance
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
1,234
|
72.2
|
|
No
|
475
|
27.8
|
|
Pass direction
|
|
|
|
Same
|
342
|
20.0
|
|
Opposite
|
1,367
|
80.0
|
|
Trail width*
|
|
|
|
10
ft
|
559
|
32.8
|
|
12
ft
|
1,145
|
67.2
|
|
1 x 1 interactions
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
1,022
|
59.8
|
|
No
|
687
|
40.2
|
|
1 x 2 interactions
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
620
|
36.3
|
|
No
|
1,089
|
63.7
|
|
2 x 2 interactions
|
|
|
|
Yes
|
155
|
9.1
|
|
No
|
1,554
|
90.9
|
|
Note. n
= number of observations, % = total percentage, * = trail width reported 5
missing observations, n = 1,704. Figure 1 illustrates differences in
1x1, 1x2, and 2x2 interactions.
|
Table 2 shows associations between passing
direction, trail width, and group size with maintaining at least six feet
physical distance. Interactions where trail users passed while traveling in the
same direction were twice as likely to not maintain six feet of distance
compared to users traveling in the opposite directions (OR = 2.31, 95% CI
[1.80, 2.96]). Not maintaining six feet of distance was almost twice as likely
on 10 ft wide vs 12 ft wide trail sections (OR = 1.97, 95% CI [1.58, 2.45]).
Group interactions that included more than one person in one or both groups were
four times as likely to not maintain six feet of distance (OR = 4.69,
95% CI [3.60, 6.11]) than 1x1 interactions. Sample group observations showed no
trail users wearing a face covering (i.e., mask). Within the sample, five
interactions (0.3%) were observed to last more than five seconds with a maximum
of 90 seconds for one interaction.
Table 2. Chi-Square Associations
and Odds Ratios of the Likelihood of Not Maintaining Six Feet of Physical Distance
During Trail Interactions Based on Pass Direction, Trail Width, and Size of Groups
in the Interaction.
|
|
|
Maintained
6 ft distance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable
|
No (%)
|
Yes
(%)
|
χ2 (df)
|
OR (95% CL)
|
1/OR
|
ϕ
|
|
Pass direction
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same
|
145
(42.4)R
|
197
(57.6)
|
45.4 (1)a
|
2.31
(1.80, 2.96)
|
0.43
|
0.16
|
|
Opposite
|
330
(24.1)
|
1,037
(75.9)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trail width
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 ft
|
209
(37.4)R
|
350
(62.6)
|
37.4 (1)a
|
1.97
(1.58, 2.45)
|
0.51
|
0.15
|
|
12 ft
|
266
(23.2)
|
879
(76.8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 x 1 interactions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
394
(38.5)R
|
628
(61.5)
|
146.6 (1)a
|
4.69
(3.60, 6.11)
|
0.21
|
0.29
|
|
Yes
|
81 (11.8)
|
606
(88.2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 x 2 interactions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
296
(27.2)R
|
793
(72.8)
|
0.56 (1)
|
0.91
(0.73, 1.14)
|
1.09
|
-0.02
|
|
Yes
|
179 (28.9)
|
441
(71.1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 x 2 interactions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
391
(25.2)R
|
1163
(74.8)
|
59.2 (1)a
|
0.28
(0.20, 0.39)
|
3.57
|
-0.18
|
|
Yes
|
84 (54.2)
|
71 (45.8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note. N
= 1,709. a = p <0.01, R = reference group, n = number of observations, % =
row percentage, χ2 = chi-square test of independence, df = degrees
of freedom, OR = odds ratio, 95% CL = confidence limits, ϕ =
phi-coefficient. Figure 1 illustrates differences in 1x1, 1x2, and 2x2
interactions.
|
Trail user
behavior varied by activity type. For example, 32% of interactions involved
only trail users who were walking. One trail user walking and at least one
other running made up 19% of interactions. Other activities, such as biking,
were moderately mixed with 60% of all interactions including at least one trail
user walking. Descriptive findings suggest 81% of group interactions involved
only adults, children with an adult included 17%, and 2% were children only. Trail
users’ biological sex was relatively mixed with 12% of interactions male only
and 13% female only. The remaining 75% of interactions showed a range of
combination of trail users such as a man passing a woman or family. Of note,
coding a trail user as an adult or child, as well as coding biological sex,
poses challenges based on video observation alone, so there is room for
potential error in these descriptive findings.
Discussion
The study’s
results provide support for multi-use trails as viable places for physical
activity while following physical distancing guidelines. The data show that
most interactions on multi-use trails occur with more than the recommended six feet
of distance between users. Violations of six feet of distance are more likely
to occur with trail users in groups (group interactions are greater than 1x1),
trail users passing while traveling in the same direction, and on 10 foot wide
trails versus 12 foot wide trails. Additionally, the larger the group sizes
during an interaction the greater the likelihood of violating six feet of
distance with 1x1, 1x2, and 2x2 interactions violating 12%, 29%, and 54% of the
time, respectively. The length of time that trail users were less than a
distance of six feet apart was relatively short, with only 0.3% of interactions
lasting longer than five seconds. The short length of time within close
proximity suggests a lower risk of coronavirus spread between groups based on
current guidelines (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021).
Executive orders were in place
at the time of data collection in both North Carolina and West Virginia,
mandating that people in outdoor activities maintain six feet or greater
distance and groups be limited to 10 persons or fewer (State of North Carolina;
State of West Virginia). While no trail users were observed wearing a face covering
or mask, it is notable that neither state mandated the wearing of face
coverings or masks in outdoor spaces at the time of this study. A potential
limitation to this study is that data could only be collected in two states. Behaviors
could be different in states with other legal mandates or recommendation
adherence rates. Additionally, recommended and observed behaviors may change
rapidly based on updated CDC and state health department guidance, especially
with the increase in vaccination rates.
Questions for
Future Research
Public health
organizations at the federal, state, and local levels within the United States
have provided mixed messages about how best to reduce the transmission of
COVID-19 in outdoor settings, including the distance required for physical
distancing, the benefit of mask-wearing outdoors (especially during the earlier
months), and ease of transmission in outdoor situations (Lindsey, 2020). Most
of the data being used for this messaging is from hospital or in-patient
settings, which may be adding to the variable messaging (Bahl et al., 2020).
Furthermore, in an attempt to stop COVID-19 infections, the University of
California, Berkeley, has instituted a ban on outdoor physical activity among
students living on campus (Associated Press, 2021). This mixed messaging may
have resulted in individuals experiencing confusion about the safety of
engaging in physical activity in outdoor places even once restrictions began to
be lifted. For this reason and due to the broad geographic reach and popularity
of greenways and rail-trails during the COVID-19 pandemic, more research is
needed on how individuals in different states practice physical distancing
while using trails during the pandemic. Using videos from passive infrared
cameras in the current study to systematically observe physical distancing provided
valuable insight and in-depth context to physical distancing behaviors of trail
users that may be missed using in-person observational techniques.
Trails in our
study were either 10-feet or 12-feet wide. While the wider trails seemed to
enable more physical distancing behavior, future research could look at varying
widths. For instance, could trails larger than 12-feet wide promote more physical
distancing while trails less than 10-feet wide cause more interactions closer
than 6-feet?
Based on our
findings, research is needed to develop consistent salient messaging for
multi-use trails related to keeping group sizes small and practicing proper passing
behaviors, particularly when passing while traveling in the same direction and
when group sizes are larger. A key strategy to employ would be point-of-decision
prompts, such as those used to encourage stair use (Soler et al., 2010) or
walking rather than inactive transportation in an airport (Fulton et al., 2017)
with consideration given to tailored messaging, particularly to encourage
single-file passing when overtaking another group or when passing while
traveling in opposite directions on narrower trails.
Conclusions
While
multi-use trails may be places for physical activity where physical distancing
can be maintained, there is a need for consistent messaging related to physical
distancing behaviors that are specific to outdoor contexts. Messaging should be
tailored to trail users to limit group size and to be mindful when passing
other trail users, particularly when passing in the same direction (such as “keep
six feet when passing” and “pass single file”). It may be helpful to spread
messaging throughout the length of a trail or path in order to catch users who
have entered at various locations or who have traveled some distance since
seeing the initial guidance. Further, messaging around mask-wearing as a
prevention tool may be useful to increase the use of masks in situations where
individuals briefly come within six feet of distance during trail use. These
messages should underscore both national recommendations and state and local
policies targeted at reducing the spread of disease.
Author
Contributions
Conceptualization, T.B., S.M.D.,
C.G.A., H.V., E.S., A.H., V.H., A.D., R.B., and R.W.C.; Methodology, T.B.,
S.M.D., C.G.A., H.V., E.S., A.H., V.H., A.D., R.B., and R.W.C.; Investigation, T.B.,
C.G.A., E.S., S.I.M., A.H., V.H., and R.W.C.; Formal Analysis, S.M.D; Writing—Original
Draft, T.B., S.M.D., C.G.A., E.S., A.H., V.H., A.D., and R.W.C.; Writing—Review
& Editing, T.B., S.M.D., C.G.A., H.V., E.S., S.I.M., A.H., V.H., A.D.,
R.B., and R.W.C.; Funding Acquisition, T.B., E.S., R.W.C.; Resources, T.B.,
C.G.A., E.S., V.H., and R.W.C.; Supervision, T.B., C.G.A., and R.W.C.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by an
internal grant from the Office of Research, Appalachian State University, and
funding from the Health Research Center, West Virginia University. The authors
would like to thank Logan DiGiacomo, Leah Handwerger, Lydia Hughes, Morgan
Laird, Cierra Palmer, Aidan Piatek, Emmilyn Potts, Alex Shmurak, and Brittany
Starbuck for their help coding videos.
Creative Commons License:
This work is licensed
under a Creative Commons
Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
Conflict of interest statement:
We have no conflicts of interest to
disclose.
Correspondence
should be addressed to
Thomas Bias, Ph.D.
1 Medical Center Drive, PO Box 9190
Health Sciences Center South
West Virginia University 26506
tbias@hsc.wvu.edu
304-293-2306
Thomas
Bias: 0000-0003-1228-9406
Shay
Dally: 0000-0003-0455-6762
Samantha
Moyers: 0000-0003-0810-0818
Adam
Hege: 0000-0003-2515-6848
Richard
Christiana: 0000-0002-9753-4695
Christiaan
Abildso: 0000-0003-1972-2348
Vaike
Haas: 0000-0002-8649-5715
Heather
Wensil Venick: 0000-0002-4744-8684
Robert
Broce: 0000-0001-8626-3458
Elizabeth
Shay: 0000-0002-3529-151X
References
Anderson, R. M., Heesterbeek,
H., Klinkenberg, D., & Hollingsworth, T. D. (2020). How will country-based
mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 pandemic? Lancet,
395, 931–934.
Associated Press. (2021). UC
Berkeley COVID-19 lockdown bans outdoor exercise. U.S. News.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2021-02-11/uc-berkeley-covid-19-lockdown-bans-outdoor-exercise
Bahl, P., Doolan, C., Silva,
C. d., Chughtai, A. A., Bourouiba, L., & MacIntyre, C. R. (2020). Airborne or
droplet precautions for health workers treating coronavirus disease 2019? Journal
of Infectious Diseases, (online ahead of print) jiaa189.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa189
Bursztyn, L., Rao, A., Roth,
C. P., Yanagizawa-Drott, D. H., & National Bureau Of Economic Research.
(2020). Misinformation during a pandemic. National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention. (2020, July 30). Visiting parks and recreational facilities.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/visitors.html
Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention. (2020, October 28). Deciding to go out.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/deciding-to-go-out.html
Freeman, S., & Eykelbosh,
A. (2020). COVID-19 and outdoor safety: Considerations for use of outdoor
recreational spaces. National Collaborating Centre for Environmental
Health. https://ncceh.ca/documents/guide/covid-19-and-outdoor-safety-considerations-use-outdoor-recreational-spaces
Fulton, J. E., Frederick, G.
M., Paul, P., Omura, J. D., Carlson, S. A., & Dorn, J. M. (2017).
Increasing walking in the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport: The
walk to fly study. American Journal of Public Health, 107, 1143–1149.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303766
Lindsey, J. (2020, April 17).
Inside the controversial 6-foot social distancing study. Outside. https://www.outsideonline.com/2411878/new-research-social-distancing-outside-six-feet
McHugh M. L. (2013).
The chi-square test of independence. Biochemia medica, 23(2),
143–149. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2013.018
Oosterhoff, B., Palmer, C.
A., Wilson, J., & Shook, N. (2020). Adolescents’ motivations to engage in
social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Associations with mental and
social health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 67(2), 179–185.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.05.004
Qazi, A., Qazi, J., Naseer,
K., Zeeshan, M., Hardaker, G., Maitama, J. Z., & Haruna, K. (2020).
Analyzing situational awareness through public opinion to predict adoption of
social distancing amid pandemic COVID-19. Journal of Medical Virology,
92, 849–855.
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. Trail
Count Data. Retrieved February 10, 2021, from
https://www.railstotrails.org/COVID19/#trailcount
Shahidi, S. H., Hassani, F.,
& Stewart Williams, J. (2020). Physical activity during COVID-19
quarantine. Acta Paediatrica, 109, 2147–2148.
Slater, S. J., Christiana, R.
W., & Gustat, J. (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), 1–5. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.200204
Soler, R. E., Leeks, K. D.,
Buchanan, L. R., Brownson, R. C., Heath, G. W., Hopkins, D. H., & Task
Force on Community Preventive Services. (2010). Point-of-decision prompts to
increase stair use. A systematic review update. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 38(2 Suppl), S292–300.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.10.028
State of North Carolina. COVID-19
orders & directives.
https://www.nc.gov/covid-19/covid-19-orders-directives
State of West Virginia.
(2020, March 19.) Executive Order No. 9-20.
https://coronavirus-wvgovstatus-cdn.azureedge.net/STAY_AT_HOME_ORDER.pdf
University of Oxford’s Blavatnik
School of Government. (2020). Oxford’s coronavirus policy tracker adds data
for US states.