| Literature DB >> 33223587 |
Anson T H Ma1, Theresa W L Lam2, Lewis T O Cheung3, Lincoln Fok2.
Abstract
As COVID-19 has swept across the world, governments have been prompted to order social distancing measures, from the closure of schools, restaurants and public facilities to quarantines and lockdowns. Access to and contact with nature have been suggested to help combat impacts associated with isolation measures, and a coincidental surge in the number of visitors to country parks in Hong Kong has recently been observed. The current study sought to explore the visitation of country parks as an adaptation to COVID-19 by employing the socio-psychological model of precautionary adaptation (SPMPA). Questionnaire surveys were administered in 12 country parks in Hong Kong, and a total of 600 samples were collected. A conceptual model based on the SPMPA was proposed and tested through multiple regression analysis. Significant associations between perceived severity, threat experience and adaptative behaviour were found, suggesting the possible risks of visiting country parks. However, the relationships among perceived adaptation efficacy, adaptation cost and reliance on public adaptation implied that the adaptative benefits of visiting country parks may outweigh the risks when proper visitor management measures are implemented. The findings highlighted the importance of providing accessible protected areas or other types of nature-based spaces to facilitate the adaptation of people to disease outbreaks in both the short and long run.Entities:
Keywords: Adaptation; COVID-19; Maladaptation; Protected area; Resilience; SARS
Year: 2020 PMID: 33223587 PMCID: PMC7670935 DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103994
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Landsc Urban Plan ISSN: 0169-2046 Impact factor: 6.142
Fig. 1Conceptual model.
Fig. 2Distribution of Country Parks in Hong Kong and surveyed Country Parks.
Demographic characteristics of respondents.
| Gender | % | Age groups | % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 314 | 52.3 | 18–30 | 226 | 37.7 |
| Male | 286 | 47.7 | 31–40 | 109 | 18.2 |
| 41–50 | 102 | 17.0 | |||
| Income (HKD)a | 51–60 | 96 | 16.0 | ||
| 9,999 or below | 94 | 15.7 | 61 or above | 67 | 11.2 |
| 10,000–19,999 | 114 | 19.0 | |||
| 20,000–29,999 | 117 | 19.5 | Education level | ||
| 30,000–39,999 | 72 | 12.0 | Primary level or lower | 44 | 7.3 |
| 40,000–49,999 | 26 | 4.3 | Secondary level | 208 | 34.7 |
| 50,000–59,999 | 14 | 2.3 | Post-secondary or undergraduate level | 306 | 51.0 |
| 60,000 or above | 19 | 3.2 | Master’s level or above | 42 | 7.0 |
| No income or retired | 114 | 24.0 | |||
| Total (N) | 600 | 100.0 |
Questionnaire items on risk perception, perceived adaptive capacity, threat experience, reliance on public adaptation and adaptive behaviour (N = 600).
| Item | Strongly agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly disagree | Mean | S.D. | α | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk perception | 4.37 | 0.766 | |||||||
| RP1. The chance of me being infected with COVID-19 if I do not take any actions is high. | 40.2 | 49.2 | 8.8 | 1.8 | 0 | 4.28 | 0.698 | ||
| RP2. The chances of my family and friends being infected with COVID-19 if they do not take any actions are high. | 58.8 | 36.3 | 4.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 4.53 | 0.613 | ||
| RP3. The chance of COVID-19 spreading widely in Hong Kong is high. | 63.0 | 33.0 | 3.7 | 0.3 | 0 | 4.59 | 0.580 | ||
| RP4. The chance of COVID-19 lasting for a long period of time is high. | 34.3 | 45.2 | 14.0 | 6.3 | 0.2 | 4.07 | 0.865 | ||
| 4.25 | 0.772 | ||||||||
| RP5. COVID-19 could be fatal. | 44.7 | 49.3 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 4.35 | 0.718 | ||
| RP6. COVID-19 is highly contagious. | 45.7 | 49.3 | 3.5 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 4.38 | 0.676 | ||
| RP7. The COVID-19 outbreak is a pandemic. | 28.0 | 52.5 | 14.8 | 4.5 | 0.2 | 4.04 | 0.798 | ||
| RP8. COVID-19 is currently uncontrollable. | 32.8 | 59.0 | 6.5 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 4.23 | 0.646 | ||
| Perceived adaptative capacity | 3.57 | 0.782 | |||||||
| PAC1. Country parks provide an environment that helps to improve mental health by relieving my stress and anxiety brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. | 22.2 | 56.2 | 18.3 | 3.2 | 0.2 | 3.97 | 0.739 | ||
| PAC2. Country parks provide an environment for physical activities that effectively help improve physical health and prevent COVID-19 from spreading. | 20.5 | 50.7 | 22.0 | 6.7 | 0.2 | 3.85 | 0.827 | ||
| PAC3. Country parks are not as crowded as the city, which effectively helps prevent the spreading of COVID-19. | 13.3 | 38.2 | 29.0 | 16.5 | 3.0 | 3.42 | 1.011 | ||
| PAC4. Country parks are good destinations to retreat to during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. | 6.2 | 28.3 | 37.0 | 21.5 | 7.0 | 3.05 | 1.012 | ||
| 3.73 | 0.661 | ||||||||
| PAC5. I understand COVID-19 and its impacts. | 15.8 | 61.2 | 19.3 | 3.7 | 0 | 3.89 | 0.698 | ||
| PAC6. There are many measures I can take to prevent COVID-19 and its impacts. | 13.3 | 63.3 | 21.0 | 2.3 | 0 | 3.88 | 0.650 | ||
| PAC7. I have sufficient resources for preventing COVID-19 and its impacts. | 6.8 | 43.2 | 36.3 | 13.0 | 0.7 | 3.43 | 0.826 | ||
| 2.35 | 0.725 | ||||||||
| PAC8. Visiting country parks is time consuming. | 1.8 | 11.3 | 34.8 | 41.2 | 10.8 | 2.52 | 0.897 | ||
| PAC8. Visiting country parks incurs a high monetary cost. | 0.3 | 3.2 | 28.2 | 50.3 | 18.0 | 2.18 | 0.767 | ||
| Threat experience | Past experience with SARS | 3.86 | 0.812 | ||||||
| EXP1. The outbreak of SARS in 2003 severely impacted my life at the time. | 16.8 | 41.5 | 32.0 | 7.5 | 2.2 | 3.63 | 0.922 | ||
| EXP2. The outbreak of SARS in 2003 severely impacted the lives of my family and friends at the time. | 16.7 | 44.5 | 30.7 | 6.8 | 1.3 | 3.68 | 0.876 | ||
| EXP3. The outbreak of SARS in 2003 severely impacted society at the time. | 29.7 | 51.5 | 15.7 | 2.3 | 0.8 | 4.07 | 0.786 | ||
| EXP4. I have learnt lessons from the experience with SARS. | 28.3 | 52.2 | 15.5 | 3.2 | 0.8 | 4.04 | 0.800 | ||
| Reliance on public adaptation | Reliance on governmental and public adaptation measures | 2.10 | 0.845 | ||||||
| RA1. The government has provided adequate assistance to the citizens for the prevention of COVID-19. | 2.8 | 10.2 | 25.7 | 29.5 | 31.8 | 2.23 | 1.090 | ||
| RA2. The government has made much effort to prevent and treat COVID-19. | 2.7 | 15.3 | 24.5 | 27.7 | 29.8 | 2.33 | 1.135 | ||
| RA3. The Chinese government will assist the Hong Kong government and people in tackling COVID-19. | 1.8 | 15.3 | 19.8 | 23.8 | 39.2 | 2.17 | 1.159 | ||
| RA4. As the general public will take preventive measures to avoid the spread of COVID-19, I do not need to take any. | 0.8 | 4.0 | 9.2 | 34.3 | 51.7 | 1.68 | 0.861 | ||
| Adaptive behaviour | Visitation frequency | Everyday | 2–6 times a week | Once a week | Once every two weeks | Once a month | |||
| B1. How frequently have you visited country parks since the outbreak of COVID-19? | 0.8 | 9.8 | 26.2 | 29.3 | 33.8 | 2.15 | 1.024 | ||
| More than 5 h | 4–5 h | 2–3 h | 1 h | <1 h | |||||
| B2. How long do you stay in country parks during each visit since the outbreak of COVID-19? | 2.3 | 19.2 | 65.7 | 9.0 | 3.8 | 3.07 | 0.724 | ||
| Items RP1–RP8, PAC1–PAC8, EXP1–EXP8 and RA1–RA4 were measured on a Likert scale ranging from 5 “Strongly agree” to 1 “Strongly disagree” | |||||||||
| Item B1 was measured on Likert scale ranging from 5 “Everyday” to 1 “Once a month” | |||||||||
| Item B2 was measured on Likert scale ranging from 5 “More than 5 h” to 1 “<1 h” | |||||||||
Multiple regression analysis of the proposed model variables (N = 600).
| Adaptive behaviour | Visitation frequency | Visitation duration | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standardized coefficient | Standard error | Significance | Standardized coefficient | Standard error | Significance | |
| (Constant) | 0.481 | 0.000 | 0.137 | 0.000 | ||
| Perceived probability | 0.003 | 0.087 | 0.942 | −0.011 | 0.064 | 0.823 |
| Perceived severity | −0.098 | 0.087 | 0.032 | −0.127 | 0.064 | 0.007 |
| Perceived adaptation efficacy | 0.324 | 0.061 | 0.000 | 0.287 | 0.044 | 0.000 |
| Perceived self-efficacy | −0.064 | 0.076 | 0.128 | 0.019 | 0.056 | 0.666 |
| Perceived adaptation cost | −0.201 | 0.052 | 0.000 | −0.155 | 0.038 | 0.000 |
| Threat experience | −0.081 | 0.055 | 0.043 | 0.010 | 0.040 | 0.805 |
| Reliance on public adaptation | 0.096 | 0.049 | 0.023 | −0.077 | 0.036 | 0.081 |
| R2 | 0.192 | 0.131 | ||||
| Adj. R2 | 0.167 | 0.105 | ||||
| F statistic | 7.657 | 4.885 | ||||
| Standard error | 0.935 | 0.685 | ||||
Note: Only regression results of the pathways in the proposed model are shown. The control variable of Country Park locations all showed no significant relationships and contributed to <1% of the adj. R2 in both visitation frequency and visitation duration.