Did the COVID-19 pandemic influence access to green spaces? Results of a literature review during the first year of pandemic

Vol.: (0123456789) 1 3 Landsc Ecol (2024) 39:23 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-024-01833-z REVIEW ARTICLE Did theCOVID‑19 pandemic influence access togreen spaces? Results ofaliterature review duringthefirst year ofpandemic AliciaGonzález‑Marín · MarcoGarrido‑Cumbrera Received: 12 May 2023 / Accepted: 6 November 2023 / Published online: 11 February 2024 © Springer Nature B.V. 2024 countries with fewer restrictions, some travel was permitted, and green spaces could be visited. Countries with more severe restrictions, such as Spain and Italy, registered a significant reduction in the use of green spaces, especially during home confinement. The issues addressed by most studies analyzed include variations in access and use to green space and its economic inequalities, the influence of views of green space on well-being and the associations between COVID-19 rates and availability of green spaces from the beginning of the pandemic until March 2021. Conclusion The different government responses to COVID-19 have influenced the access toand use of green spaces, showing an increase in the exposure and appreciation of green spaces. Green spaces have increased the resilience of both cities and their residents, especially during the pandemic lockdown. Keywords COVID-19· Pandemic· Green spaces· Natural environment Introduction The SARS-CoV-2 virus is transmitted by respiratory droplets in the air and on other surfaces (Chen etal. 2020), therefore most governments in different countries implemented measures to prevent the spread of the virus (Honey-Rosés etal. 2020), including lockdown (Farsalinos etal. 2021) and travel restrictions (Sabat etal. 2020). Responses to the pandemic varied Abstract Context The restrictions imposed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the relationship between humans and their environment. The studies analyzed focus mainly on urban spaces during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Objectives The aim of the present study was toassess the changes that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused in the relation between humans and nature, including the view, use, and perception of green spaces. Methods This review was performed by keyword searches in the main bibliographic repositories. We included all studies that examined the relationship between green spaces and nature during the COVID- 19 pandemic. The search was restricted to studies published in English from the end of 2019 until the end of March 2021. Following the inclusion criteria, a total of 31 articles were analyzed. Results The COVID-19 pandemic has modified the relationship between population and green spaces. In Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10980- 024- 01833-z. A.González-Marín(*)· M.Garrido-Cumbrera Departamento de Geografía Física y Análisis Geográfico Regional, Health andTerritory Research, Universidad de Sevilla, C/ Doña María de Padilla, S/N, 41004Seville, Spain e-mail: [email protected] Landsc Ecol (2024) 39:23 1 3 23 Page 2 of 15 Vol:. (1234567890) widely around the world, including countries such as Israel, Lithuania, Croatia (Ugolini etal. 2020) or Norway (Venter etal. 2020) where authorities decided to maintain daily routines in everyday activities, to other countries—such as China, Italy, or Spain—where more restrictive measures were implemented, including home confinement (Guo etal. 2021). Initial preventive measures adopted by governments included closing leisure areas such as bars, restaurants, cinemas, shopping centers or festivals (Saez etal. 2020), encouraging work from home and e-learning, reducing social interaction (Slater et al. 2020). In the face of increasing cases and hospital pressure, restrictions—aimed at limiting person- to-person contact—such as non-essential activities (Ibn-Mohammed etal. 2021) or travel bans (Chinazzi etal. 2020)were imposed. In addition, in response to the government’s recommendations, many residents decided not to travel and stay at home (Yang et al. 2021). In countries such as Spain and Italy, these measures affected outdoor public spaces with protected areas, urban parks or gardens (Cahyadi and Newsome 2021; Souza etal. 2021), and even beaches (Guo etal. 2021) being preemptively closed. However, in other countries such as Canada or Denmark, without less severe restrictions, the use of green spaces during the pandemic increased considerably (Geng etal. 2020). In England and France, although severe containment measures were applied during peaks of SARS-CoV-2 infections, access to and use of green spaces was permitted (Day 2020). Regardless of the level of restriction, some studies have highlighted social inequalities in access to nature during the pandemic, due to disparities in the availability of homegardens (Spencer etal. 2020). Green spaces play an important role in improving health and well-being (Hartig etal. 2014; Kaplan 1995). Numerous studies have analyzed the relationship between mental health, well-being and nature, in most cases finding positive associations (Sandifer etal. 2015; van den Berg et al. 2015; White etal. 2021). With the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, studies exploring the associations between environmental factors and humans have become more widespread, the role of green spaces in different scientific disciplines has been investigated (Taylor and Hochuli 2017). During the pandemic, people experienced higher levels of anxiety or depression (Qiu et al. 2020a; Wang etal. 2020), loneliness (Bu etal. 2020) and irritability (Panchal etal. 2023) that resulted in a decrease in well-being (Spano etal. 2021). Other symptoms such as sleep problems also increased during this pandemicperiod (Idrissi etal. 2020). Measures such as home confinement or perimeter confinement influenced the nature-human relationship, especially among the most disadvantaged population, as they have moredifficulties in accessing green spaces (Braubach etal. 2017). Green space features also influenced perception during COVID-19, for example, Ye and Qiu (2021) applied landscape ecology to investigate the role of landscape features in the virusspread and transmission, emphasizing the importance of green spaces in improving quality of life. Although different studies have reported a positive association between urban green spaces and improved physical and mental well-being (Jabbar etal. 2022), there is insufficient evidence on the role played by green spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic (Xie etal. 2020). The present literature review aims to assess the changes that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought about in the interactions between humans and green spaces and nature, including access, use, view, and perception. Therefore, the following research questions were established: 1. Have green spaces mitigated the negative effects on mental health and well-being during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic? 2. Under what conditions did the population use green spaces and what were the characteristics of these spaces? 3. Could view from home be a replacement for contact with nature in regions where access to green spaces was not possible? Methodology This research analyzed studies that explored the influence of COVID-19 on the access and use of green space, including how it affected mental health and alternative ways of being in contact with natureduring the first year of the pandemic. For this purpose, a search was conducted in the bibliographic databases Scopus, Web of Science and Publish of Perish, using combinations of the following keywords: “COVID- 19”, “coronavirus”, “SARS-Cov-2”, “pandemic”, Landsc Ecol (2024) 39:23 1 3 Page 3 of 15 23 Vol.: (0123456789) “lockdown”, “green space”, “blue space”, “nature”, “plants”, “environment”, and “perception”. Inclusion criteria We included scientific articles on interactions between people and green spaces and nature during the COVID-19 pandemic, written in English and published between the beginning of 2019 and March 2021. Keywords used in the searches—mentioned above—had to appear either in the title, in the abstract or in the keywords of the articles considered. Given the global scope of the pandemic, no region or country was excluded. The search strategy was based on the combination between two and four keywords connected with Boolean operators per search with a result of 317 publications, of which 230 were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. After eliminating 31 articles that were repeated, 56 articles were obtained, which were read and assessed. Nine articles were eliminated for not including relevant data for the review and 22 articles were excluded for being descriptive in nature. In addition, six studies that were cited in the bibliography sections of the selected articles were identified and added to the review. Although these six studies had not been identified in the keyword search engines, we decided to include them as they provided evidence for the purpose of this review. Two researchers (M.G.-C. and A.G.-M.) independently read, summarized, and analyzed in detail the final 31 selected articles before including them in the literature review (Fig.1). The evidence generated has been systematized in summary tables—divided by topic—that include the following information: authors, year, geographic location (country, region, or city) where the study was conducted, spatial scale, study aims,socioeconomic level, type of variables, results and pandemic situation, including the degree of restrictions. Depending on the objective and the methodology used, the articles analyzed were classified into the following four themes: (i) Mobile data and mobility to green spaces. They analyze access to green spaces from a mobility perspective, using mainly mobile data collected by Google Mobility; (ii) Changes in the use and perception of green spaces. This topic included articles aimed to understand the influence of the pandemic on the use and perception of green spaces, using different methodologies (mainly online surveys and spatial analysis); (iii) COVID-19 risk and built environment. Studies analyzing the relationship between green spaces and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection were included; (iv) Socio-economic factors in access to green spaces during the pandemic. These are articles assessing how socioeconomic factors influenced access to and use of green spaces during the COVID- 19 pandemic. Description of the studies are available in Supplementary Table1. Of the 31 studies selected, nine have compared access to green spaces with a pre-pandemic baseline period (Day 2020; Derks etal. 2020; Heo etal. 2020 Geng etal. 2020; Qiu etal. , 2020b; Rice and Pan Fig. 1 Literature review flowchart. The total number of studies identified, the reasons for exclusion and the studies included are shown Landsc Ecol (2024) 39:23 1 3 23 Page 4 of 15 Vol:. (1234567890) 2021; Rousseau and Deschacht 2020; Venter et al. 2020; You and Pan 2020). Green spaces are open urban areas dominated by vegetation, such as parks, gardens, forests, or lots (Taylor and Hochuli 2017). Therefore, the terms green spaces and nature are used in this paper with the same meaning. However, it should be noted that the selected studies use different terminology, the most commonly used terms being: urban green spaces (n = 4), green spaces (n = 4), park (n = 3), nature (n = 3), urban park (n = 2), public green space (n = 2), green areas (n = 2), state parks (n = 2), outdoor recreation areas (n = 2), natural areas (n = 1), historic gardens (n = 1), green streets (n = 1), forest (n = 1), greenery (n = 1), urban vegetation (n = 1), and plants (n = 1). Most studies conducted data collection between January 2020 and May 2020 (n = 8) or between March 2020 and June 2020 (n = 5). These were months in which the pandemic spread to practically all countries in the world. Since they were conducted duringthe first year of COVID-19,justafter the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) a global pandemic, these studies should be consideredpioneeringin the analysis of interactions between humans and green spaces/nature at a time of aglobal healthcrisis. Results The present review comprises a total of 31 articles that were analyzed. As for the spatial scope of the papers included in the review, Table1 shows the territories covered by each of the studies. Most of the studies were located in the USA and Hong Kong, as well as studies that examined several countries. Among the studies that did not specify the area of implementation was a review of the scientific literature (Spencer etal. 2020). The reviewed studies highlight the diversity of methods used to assess the effects of the pandemic on green spaces. Five studies used mobile data provided by Google Mobility (Day 2020; Geng etal. 2020; Heo etal. 2020; Rice and Pan 2021; Venter et al. 2020). Others studies used online surveys (Büssing etal. 2020; Dzhambov etal. 2020; Hodor etal. 2021; Landry etal. 2021; Legeby and Koch 2020; Morse etal. 2020; Paköz etal. 2021; Pérez- Urrestarazu et al. 2020; Pouso et al. 2020; Rice etal. 2020; Uchiyama and Kohsaka 2020; Ugolini etal. 2020; Xie etal. 2020) and face-to-face surveys (Derks et al. 2020; Grima et al. 2020). Six studies used validated scales to assess population health (Büssing etal. 2020; Dzhambov etal. 2020; Pouso etal. 2020; Qiu etal. 2020b; Xie etal. 2020; Zordan and Tsou 2020). Other studies used geospatial information to analyze the association between land uses and the environment of green spaces (Nguyen etal. 2020; Rice etal. 2020), the accessibility in distance and access in time (Shoari etal. 2020) or the estimation of square metres of public green space per inhabitant (Cascetta et al. 2021). Vegetation indices to measure the area of green space and calculate greenness (Venter etal. 2020; You and Pan 2020) are also notable. Three papers Table 1 Location of studies Scope of study References Set of countries from all continents Geng etal. (2020) Several countries in Europe, America, and Oceania Pouso etal. (2020); Pérez-Urrestarazu etal. (2020) Several countries in Europe Ugolini etal. (2020); Rousseau and Deschacht (2020); Hodor etal. (2021) USA Grima etal. (2020); Heo etal. (2020); Landry etal. (2021); Morse etal. (2020); Nguyen etal. (2020); Rice etal. (2020); Rice and Pan (2021); You and Pan (2020) Hong Kong Huang etal. (2020); Kan etal. (2021); Zordan and Tsou (2020) England Day (2020); Shoari etal. (2020) China Xie etal. (2020); You etal. (2020) A single country or region Büssing etal. (2020); Cascetta etal. (2021); Derks etal. (2020); Dzhambov etal. (2020); Qiu etal. (2020b); Legeby and Koch (2020); Paköz etal. (2021); Uchiyama and Kohsaka (2020); Venter etal. (2020) Landsc Ecol (2024) 39:23 1 3 Page 5 of 15 23 Vol.: (0123456789) examined the relationship between the built environment and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 (Huang etal. 2020; Kan etal. 2021; You etal. 2020). Two articles analized the degree of interest in the environment during the COVID-19pandemic through web searches and the availability of nature-related data on the internet  (Rousseau and Deschacht 2020; Venter et al. 2020). Other studies were based on reviews of the scientific literature associating access to green space to income (Spencer etal. 2020). For further information on variables employed in studies included in this literature review, please refer to Supplementary Table1. Articles were classified by topic according to the objective and methodology used, as detailed in the methods section. The articles included in this review focus on different geographical areas (regional, national, sub-national or local), focusing mainly on urban settings. However, it should be noted that the studies indicate that most of the mixed category responses of urban and rural areas contain responses from respondents from urban localities. Therefore, the studies were mainly focused on urban areas, although rural areas have also been considered in this review. The number of studies belonging to urban, rural or mixed scales is shown as follow in Table2. The rapid response of researchers to the COVID- 19 phenomenon is remarkable, as most of the studies were initiated during the months of March and April 2020, just after the World Health Organization (WHO) had declared the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak a global pandemic on 11 March (Cascella etal. 2020). The main results obtained are presented below according to the subject matter covered. First, we explore the results related to changes in access to green spaces. Afterwards, we compiled the different uses of green spaces during the first year of the pandemic, perceptions, and views of green spaces, and finally, the relationship between the presence of green spaces and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Access to green spaces The pandemic has prevented or modified access patterns to green spaces, mainly due to containment measures or fear of transmission (Arora etal. 2020). Studies analyzed show a great variability in access to green spaces and protected areas depending on the country. The studies analyzed, as shown in Supplementary Table1, have different methods, sample sizes and study time, given the global scope of the phenomenon. Although we are unable to establish direct comparisons between these studies,in general, there are several countries such as England, USA, Germany, or Norway where different degrees of increase in access to green spaces were reported. In Oslo, a quick 19-day survey found that outdoor activities increased by 291% during the lockdown period including visits to green spaces, protected areas and walks through areas with vegetation (Venter et al. 2020). On the other hand, during the second shutdown period in England, visits to green spaces increased by 37% compared to the baseline period (January–February 2020) (Day 2020), 20.2% compared to the pre-COVID-19 period in the western region of the USA (Grima etal. 2020; Rice and Pan 2021) or by 140% in the Kottenforst forest in Bonn (Germany) (Derks etal. 2020). In a study conducted in Burlington (USA), 70.2% of respondents reported “increased” and “significantly increased” access to urban and peri-urban natural areas during the pandemic compared to the baseline period (Grima et al. 2020). Similarly, the study by Geng etal. (2020), including 48 countries, reported an increase in visits to green spaces compared to prepandemic dates through mobile data in 48 countries, correlated primarily by the rate of government stringency and workplace closure. However, Landry etal. (2021) conducted a study in, the USA on a random sample of 1,020 people, reported a 26% decrease in visits to green spaces, mostly in elderly population. These differences could be due to the fact that the data were obtained using a revealed preference survey versus the data of Geng etal. (2020) which were obtained with mobile phone tracking. Information collected from surveys may not be comparable to data obtained by objective quantitative methods such as mobility studies with telephone antenna positioning Table 2 Areas of analysis AREA N Urban 15 Urban and rural 13 Rural 2 Without typology 1 Landsc Ecol (2024) 39:23 1 3 23 Page 6 of 15 Vol:. (1234567890) because surveys cannot be verified as they are anonymous and personal information. Therefore, comparison of studies with different methodologies should be carried out with caution. Increase in access to green spaces was reported in countries with less severe restrictions, such as Norway (Venter etal. 2020) or England (Day 2020). In countries with more severe restrictions, such as Spain or Italy, users were unable to access green spaces as mobility was restricted due to home confinement. Specifically, 64% of the respondents who used to visit green spaces before the pandemic in both Italy (n = 366) and Spain (n = 571) did not visit urban green spaces during the COVID- 19 lockdown (Ugolini etal. 2020). In other locations, like Turkey, green spaces were the public space that lost the largest number of users during the pandemic, with a 72.7% reduction in visitors, compared to other types of spaces such as open areas or public buildings (Paköz etal. 2021). Regarding the effects of closure or decreased visitor numbers, only one study assessed the implications for the maintenance and conservation status of flora in green spaces (Hodor etal. 2021). Park closures negatively affected the conservation status of 31 European historic gardens during the period June to August 2020, as maintenance care was reduced. However, environmental quality has improved, particularly in terms of increased vegetation and improved biodiversity (Hodor etal. 2021). In addition, there were also changes in the transport mode by which users travelled to these green spaces, with an increase in walking visits (Day 2020; Ugolini etal. 2020). Similarly, Xie etal. (2020) found that more than half of the respondents living in the city of Chengdu (China) visited parks near their homes. In lower-density areas with close access to parks, people maintained their mobility patterns, avoiding travel to densely populated areas where the risk of infection could be higher (Heo etal. 2020; Venter etal. 2020). According to a recent study in the UK, a higher urban density was associated with greater accessibility to green spaces, however, these spaces were less attractive to the population as they did not allow the two-metre distance recommended by the authorities (Shoari etal. 2020). In a longitudinal study conducted in the USA, data on access to green spaces were collected during two periods: from March 11 to April 9 and from April 9 to April 30, 2020 and it was concluded that the US population reduced the distances and frequencies of travel for outdoor activities in the first period and increased it in the second period (Rice etal. 2020). Furthermore, another study, based on a literature review associating income and access to green space for outdoor physical exercise, suggests that low-income level was the factor most related to lower access to green spaces, rather than the effect of COVID-19 on green space use (Spencer etal. 2020). Conversely, high income level was related to higher access, as for example in the case of Japan (Uchiyama and Kohsaka 2020). Uses of green spaces Restrictions on gatherings and working from home boosted the use of green spaces (Day 2020; Geng etal. 2020). In pandemic times, with the closure of indoor recreational spaces, leisure activities were moved to open spaces and green spaces (Paköz etal. 2021). Evidence of this can be verified by comparing the pre and postCOVID use of green spaces, for example in Hong Kong where before the pandemic only 19% of respondents chose green spaces for leisure time, compared to 65% in the post-COVID era (between 6 and 19 of April 2020) (Zordan and Tsou 2020). In a study conducted in six European countries between April and May 2020, the main reasons for visiting green spaces were sports activities, relaxation, and, to a lesser extent, accompanying children and walking the dog (Ugolini et al. 2020). Based on the results obtained in Oslo, Venter etal. (2020) report that, in general, green spaces replaced enclosed spaces, such as gymnasiums, which were closed due to pandemic restrictions, while outdoor sporting activities were allowed. In fact, the evidence suggests that green spaces are places that promoted physical exercise, providing an improvement in well-being in times of crisis (Spencer et al. 2020). Regarding the benefits by the use of green spaces, a significant proportion of participants in the study conducted in Germany respondents stated that the visit to the forest were associated with sounds, smells or memories that brought them positive emotional and spiritual feelings (Derks etal. 2020). It also highlighted the use of natural areas in the pandemic period for walking above all other activities, as demonstrated by Morse etal. (2020) in their study where it was reported that women were significantly more involved in the use of green spaces. In addition, it was also reported that Landsc Ecol (2024) 39:23 1 3 Page 7 of 15 23 Vol.: (0123456789) people who had lost their jobs were more likely to be active in nature. As the streets did not offer adequate conditions for walking—while maintaining social distancing norms—parks and protected areas were used. Grima etal. (2020) concluded in their work that protected areas were used in the pandemic to maintain social relationships, as a safer space than other environments. In a survey of the new routines imposed by COVID-19 in Stockholm, 2/3 of the places visited by the surveyed population were green spaces (Legeby and Koch 2020). However, it is important to note that the pandemic has had an impact on the use of natural spaces outside the urban environment. For example, in the USA, 56% of recreational trips to National or State Park were cancelled highlighting differences between urban green spaces and state parks, which are located further away from cities (Landry et al. 2021). Fewer studies assessed the duration of the visit, although it was found that the longer the duration of each visit, the greater the impact on general, physical, and mental health (Rice etal. 2020; Xie etal. 2020). There were no significant variations in visits between weekdays and weekends, although there were changes in access day times (Derks etal. 2020). During the pandemic, in the case of the city of Bonn (Germany), there were peaks before and after office hours (Derks et al. 2020), which suggests that face-to-face work promoted access to green spaces to a greater extent. In Oslo (Norway), flexible working hours due to working from home resulted in even access to green spaces throughout the day during the analysis period 12–31 March 2020 (Venter etal. 2020). The reduction in visits to green spaces has been mainly due to home confinement and mobility restrictions in the countries studied by Geng etal. (2020), which include 48 countries from around the world. However, other studies did not associate changes in visit frequency to the COVID-19 pandemic, but rather seasonality and changes in temperatures, according to a study in the western region of the United States (Rice and Pan 2021) or even reported a decrease in the number of visits as a consequence of a higher incidence of COVID-19 (Paköz etal. 2021). In the study conducted in Nagoya (Japan), during the summer of 2020, households with children were also found to use green spaces more often than those without, and young people visited them more than older people (Uchiyama and Kohsaka 2020). In addition, a higher number of new visitors were found, and it was confirmed that regular visitors lived close to the forest in the survey conducted in the Kottenfrost forest (Germany) with 292 participants (Derks etal. 2020). Perception and views In addition to access and use of green spaces, which could be categorized as direct relationships, indirect relationships, linked to perception, senses, and psychological effects, have also been assessed. Regarding indirect interaction with green spaces, the possibility of perceiving and seeing natural elements that make up green spaces, both in face-to-face visits and in views through windows, stands out (Elsadek etal. 2020). In particular, the importance of views lies in the theory of stress reduction (Ulrich 1981), which has fostered studies verifying that people who are exposed to natural environments experience positive feelings, compared to those who are exposed to grey spaces, i.e., places with a predominance of buildings (Lee etal. 2009). Velarde etal. (2007) conducted a meta-analysis on visual exposure to natural landscapes, showing that visual contact with natural spaces improves general well-being, reduces stress, increases attention span and helps recovery from illness. Regarding nature perception during the COVID-19 pandemic, a study conducted in 20 European countries found a positive association between the pandemic and interest in nature (Rousseau and Deschacht 2020) and in disease-affected populations (Büssing etal. 2020). The study by M. Qiu etal. (2020b) evaluated the effects of sounds in national parks in Australia, which were more diverse and positive for the restoration of visitors’ mental health during the pandemic period, mainly due to fewer visitors to the parks. According to a study conducted in Plovdiv (Bulgaria) using an online survey, looking out of the window at views of blue spaces or having plants at home can produce the feeling of being outdoors (Dzhambov etal. 2020). In the study by Ugolini etal. (2020), the most beneficial views from respondents’ homes were to private gardens and tree-lined streets in the countries of Croatia, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, and Spain. Landry etal. (2021) found that the pandemic situation reflected in a poorer quality of the experience of using outdoor spaces, either because these spaces Landsc Ecol (2024) 39:23 1 3 23 Page 8 of 15 Vol:. (1234567890) were more neglected or because they felt most likely to be infected in these spaces. According to the results of the perception survey in this study, the perception of being infected by COVID-19 in a sample of 1,020 U.S. respondents increased by 24% when visiting outdoor spaces such as green spaces, but 78% of respondents rated the restrictions applied in outdoor recreational spaces as reasonable. Green spaces have the particularity that they allow exposure to fresh air, making it possible to view the sky. According to Huang etal. (2020), being able to look at the sky is associated with a reduction in the perceived risk of infection. This association has been shown to be effective when the sky can be viewed from the home in Hong Kong, where housing conditions often prevent viewing the sky from home windows. A study in Bulgaria among 323 students found that having vegetation visible from home or in the neighborhood environment was associated with a reduction in symptoms of depression and anxiety levels, which increased due to the pandemic situation (Dzhambov etal. 2020). Results supporting this hypothesis were also obtained in Spain, where those who had accessible outdoor spaces and blue elements such as lakes or beaches nearby had positive feelings or emotions, compared to those who did not have these amenities (Pouso etal. 2020). In this way, the natural environment is shown to have an impact on resilience during the pandemic, as well as protective implications against psychological disorders. Despite this, studies such as Pérez-Urrestarazu etal. (2020) report that although being in contact with plants in the home has a positive association with wellbeing, 60.3% of the 4,205 respondents from Brazil, Greece, Spain, and Italy will not increase the number of plants in the home when the lockdown period ends. Risk of infection in green spaces The main characteristic of green areas, which are open spaces in the open air, is that they allow the removal of stale air. Accessing greenery has been shown to have less risk than other activities like going to stores and offices (Johnson et al. 2021). Studies have assessed extent to which the availability of green space can influence the spread of the virus and whether it spreads faster or slower accordingly. The concentration of green spaces tends to attract a larger number of users, creating a hotspot. During the study period of the paper by Huang etal. (2020) and Nguyen etal. (2020) prior to April 2020, it was suggested that the concentration of visitors led to a higher number of confirmed cases (Kan etal. 2021; You etal. 2020). Most of these studies have been conducted in Asian cities, where there is a high concentration and density of population. Other studies such as that conducted in 48 countries around the world, including North and South America, Europe, Australia, South Africa, Egypt and India, suggest that the number of infections was not related to the number of visitors to green spaces, precisely because the risk of infection outdoors is much lower and also because parks do not tend to invade interpersonal distance (Geng etal. 2020). One of the main issues debated during the pandemic has been thepotencial decrease in the likelihood of infection in outdoor spaces (Johnson et al. 2021). Cascetta et al. (2021), showed that public green space led to a decrease in the rate of hospitalisation. In New York City, a study conducted during the first wave of the epidemic revealed growing concerns about the lack of social distancing and overcrowding in urban green spaces, which made these areas less popular than they were prior to the outbreak (Lopez etal. 2021). As a result, there may be an increased likelihood of becoming ill during a pandemic. Furthermore, although accessibility has tended to be good in most parks, results from England and Wales (Shoari etal. 2020) indicate that there is a risk of overuse of the park by the population, since if all users accessed their closest park the volume of users would be sufficiently high that the social distancing rule could not be maintained. You and Pan (2020) showed that urban vegetation can slow down and reduce the spread of COVID-19. According to their estimations, 1% of urban vegetation would lead to a 2.6% decrease in cumulative COVID-19 cases in 989 counties of the USA between March 14 and May 24, 2020. However, in Kan etal. (2021) study, conducted in Hong Kong, the areas with the highest risk of more severe disease or outcomes from COVID-19 infection were also those with more green spaces. These disparities are due, beyond the different scales and study methodologies, to the fact that in Asian countries the population density is higher than in the rest of the world, andspecifically the places with the highest concentration of population—and therefore of confirmed cases—have the highest concentration Landsc Ecol (2024) 39:23 1 3 Page 9 of 15 23 Vol.: (0123456789) of urban green spaces.. Another study conducted in Hong Kong by Huang et al. (2020), between January and April 2020, with data from confirmed cases from the Hong Kong Health Department between January and April 2020, analyzed the risk of COVID- 19 as a function of incidence rate (confirmed cases per 1000 inhabitants) and site density (enclosures or buildings visited by confirmed cases). They found a positive association between green spaces density and COVID-19 incidence rate and furthermore a negative association was found between population density, incidence rate and buildings visited by confirmed case. Although this result seems contradictory to the evidence that higher population density positively affects the rate of infection or risk of infection, the authors suggest that, in Hong Kong, highly populated cities are more compliant with pandemic containment measures than suburban areas with lower perceived risk. Discussion This review of the scientific literature has provided evidence of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on visits, uses, and perception of green spaces. A total of 31 articles published between the end of 2019 (emergence ofSARS-CoV-2) and March 2021 were included in this review. Based on the studies analyzed, it is possible to answer the initial questions posed in the current research. The first researchquestion aimed to answer about the benefits that green spaces have provided to the population. Although it should be taken into account that the studies have different scales, methods, time periods and samples, it can be underlined that more than 50% of the studies supported the benefitsof green spaces during the pandemic, although more than one third of the studies did not specifically address this question. These studies have corroborated the benefits of green spaces on mental health and well-being, increased social interactions, improvement of the conservation status of green spaces due to the reduction of visitors, and increased appreciation of nature. The second question sought to explore the conditions of access and use of green space, as well as the characteristics of the spaces. Most items reported an increase in green space users during the pandemic, versus a small portion of these reporting a decrease in green space use during the pandemic. Other studies (17%) considered that it depended on factors such as country, date of data collection, and sociodemographic characteristics, while 22% were undecided. The COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of green spaces after periods of maximum risk of infection. The impossibility of accessing other leisure spaces has boosted outdoor activities in green spaces, especially walks and physical exercise. Similarly, the use of green spaces by non-regular users has increased, extending the benefits of nature exposure to people who are not used to visiting those spaces. Although new users were attracted, sociodemographic factors such as income, age or gender are predictors of green space use. In fact, having a higher income, having children and/or a dog, and being young or elderly were associated with greater use of green space, as was already the case in studies before the pandemic. Secondly, we observed that in geographic areas with lower population density andurban sprawl residents were able to maintain a closer relationship with their natural environment. The third question focuses on the replacement of access to green spaces by views from the home when restrictions prevented going outdoors. Although a minority of studies have focused on this issue, the results suggest that having plants in the home and viewing the outdoors report positive effects on the mental health and well-being. The pandemic has exposed the importance of adequate green spaces characteristics and as most spaces are not equipped to cope with the needs of social distancing and hygiene imposed by the pandemic situation (Freeman and Eykelbosh 2020). The general recommendation to maintain 1.5m to 2.0m of interpersonal distance cannot be met if it is a small green space in a densely populated area. However, green spaces are often unattended or understaffed, so disinfection of common areas is often not carried out. The most successful measures for the use and enjoyment of green spaces are measures such as park schedules dedicated to different age groups or staggered access according to neighborhoods, as well as capacity control through mobile applications. However, such measures have only been included in the study by Shoari etal. (2020) which raises the question of why, during the first year of the pandemic, the studies did not consider this possibility of park management. In