You wouldn’t know it from walking in the park, but Ontario’s stay-at-home order was extended until June 2 and with it, the order for all outdoor recreational spaces to remain closed. The ban on outdoor recreational facilities began in April, when the province imposed tighter restrictions and extended a stay-at-home order as new cases of the COVID-19 virus surged. While the province did allow playgrounds to reopen, a range of spaces are still off-limits, including soccer pitches, baseball diamonds, basketball courts and golf courses.
We spoke to Professors Peter Donnelly and Bruce Kidd of the University of Toronto Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education (KPE) about the ongoing closures, their impact on the physical and mental health of communities and the potential of an online policy analysis tool they developed with KPE Associate Professor Simon Darnell, to help policymakers tackle emerging challenges to community sport and recreation in a continuously evolving health crisis.
What was the basis for developing an online policy analysis tool for community sport and recreation during a pandemic?
Peter Donnelly: The Toolkit is grounded in two basic premises: First, that sport and recreational physical activity are indispensable parts of the public health system of a community; and second, that social inequality is a key determinant of health, and participation in sport and recreational physical activity. Poverty, especially as it intersects with other markers of inequality such as gender, race/ethnicity and disability is associated with both more ill health and more limited participation in physical activity.
Bruce Kidd: The World Health Organization (WHO) promotes physical activity as a significant contributor to the reduction in non-communicable diseases, which kill an estimated 44 million people globally every year. There is evidence to show that regular physical activity can contribute to the physical and mental resilience of individuals and communities to withstand the pandemic.
So, closing down outdoor recreational spaces was not a good idea?
PD: Bruce and I go on weekly hikes in Toronto's ravines and other parts of the GTA. We often pass empty playing fields and talk about – based on our work on the Toolkit – how these spaces should and could be in use if safe ways. Blanket bans on the use of these open spaces is exactly the wrong message; rather, the message should have been to demonstrate and show how these spaces could be used safely for recreational physical activity and how such activity could help to build individual and community resilience in the face of the pandemic.
What could have been some ways of using outdoor recreational spaces safely?
PD: For example, during school closures physical education teachers could have been recruited to provide drop in games and activity program on school playgrounds and playing fields with activities appropriately adapted for safety. City recreation staff could have been providing similar drop-in programs in city parks and playing fields, and public and private golf courses requisitioned for additional parks.
It is now widely understood that safety distanced outside activity carries very low risk with regard to the transmission of COVID-19, and it seems unwise to close these spaces while ensuring that the much higher risk factories and warehouses, with employees in close proximity, remain open.
We’ve seen reports of COVID-19 disproportionately affecting those living in poverty. You're suggesting blanket closures of outdoor recreational spaces do, too?
BK: What is deeply troubling from the emerging data is that there is a strong correlation between the incidence of COVID-19 among those living in poverty, accentuated by other markers of inequality, and their physical inactivity. While the conditions of poverty, including crowded living and working conditions and inadequate diet have created high susceptibility to the virus, those same conditions along with the inadequacy of public open spaces and affordable recreation contribute to the barriers the poor face to regular physical activity.
This suggests to us that to combat the current and future pandemics, new policies to encourage physical activity and make it accessible and affordable—not blanket closures and restrictions --should be an integral component of the mix of public policy responses, including adequate income support, food sustainability, child care and sick pay.
How exactly can the toolkit assist?
PD: The Toolkit has five main sections dealing with ways to maintain sport and recreational physical activity during the pandemic.
1) Preventing the spread deals with how to maintain physical activity during lockdowns and when COVID-19 is spreading rapidly. Examples are given and we emphasize the importance of preparation and planning for maintaining/increasing physical activity during a pandemic.
2) Mobilizing the sport sector to support the broader response outlines the ways in which the sport community could be mobilized, as it was in some places, to make its facilities and resources available for pandemic response and ensure that traditional participants continue to be active. The sport and recreation sectors are in the ideal position to develop, plan and deliver physical activity opportunities to the wider population, adapted appropriately to pandemic conditions.
3) Return to activity describes the need for well-considered stages to safely maximize opportunities for physical activity at each step of the easing of lockdowns. The sport and recreation communities are well positioned to be involved in planning these stages, but were not included in the expert panels of the current pandemic.
4) Modifications to program design and delivery provides more details with regard to adaptations required for each stage of return to activity.
5) Building back better involves paying close attention to the lessons learned from the current pandemic in order to: a) plan better for maintaining/increasing physical activity during future pandemics; and b) focus on enhancing opportunities for participation in sport and recreational activity for the entire population, with particular emphasis on ameliorating the effects of social inequality.
What would be some examples of building back better?
PD: During the pandemic many fitness and virtual competition opportunities shifted online, drawing attention -as with on-line education- to the digital divide with regard to access to high-speed internet. The widespread democratization of access to high-speed internet would be a major way to build back better.
Another example relates to the closure of streets for recreational activity during the pandemic, e.g., Lakeshore Boulevard in Toronto, and the creation of additional bike lanes and walking trails. Maintaining and enhancing these opportunities for active recreation after the pandemic would be an important way to build back better.