Use of smartphone mobility data to analyze city park visits during the COVID-19 pandemic
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.23.21256007: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources In principle, measuring foot traffic at parks is not more challenging than measuring foot traffic at retail stores; however, there may be limited incentives for for-profit data companies like SafeGraph to maintain park visitation data that are as complete and accurate as retail locations data. SafeGraphsuggested: NoneResults from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Limitat…
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.23.21256007: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources In principle, measuring foot traffic at parks is not more challenging than measuring foot traffic at retail stores; however, there may be limited incentives for for-profit data companies like SafeGraph to maintain park visitation data that are as complete and accurate as retail locations data. SafeGraphsuggested: NoneResults from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Limitations: SafeGraph park use data have not been validated against traditional data sources for park use, such as systematic observation. However, prior work has shown that SafeGraph park use data track closely with Google Community Mobility Reports for park use, which are derived from smartphone locations using different data collection methods.23 SafeGraph device visits are difficult to interpret in terms of real-world visitors, particularly after adjusting for changes in the size of the SafeGraph panel. Therefore, our analyses here focus solely on time trends. In other words, we do not attempt to compare the absolute levels of park use by population served, but only how the time trends differed according to population served. Moreover, we were not able to assess the manner in which city parks were used, or the characteristics of the persons using them. Because we could not observe directly the racial/ethnic identity of park users, we assigned these characteristics at the park level based on the demographics of the population living within a 0.5 mile walk. Park users might travel substantially farther than this distance,33 but prior work also suggests that park users are likely to seek out venues in neighborhoods where the demographic composition is comparable to their own.34 Therefore, we considered nearby demographics to be a suitable proxy for park user characteristics. Still, as noted above, we do not draw conclusions about the precise cause of our findings relating t...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
