Next Article in Journal
Measuring the Self-Efficacy of Health Professionals for Practicing Hand Hygiene and Using Gloves: Development and Validation of an Instrument
Next Article in Special Issue
The Use of Team Management Methods to Design Socially Responsible Services—A Case Study
Previous Article in Journal
Towards Crowdfunding Performance through Crowdfunding Digital Platforms: Investigation of Social Capital and Innovation Performance in Emerging Economies
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Use of EU Territorial Cooperation Funds for the Sustainable Development of National and Ethnic Minorities in the Baltic Sea Region
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 15
10.3390/su14159496
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Striving with Global Stress on a Local Level: Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Changed the Relationship between People and Nature?

by
Ruslan Gunko
1,2,*,
Lauri Rapeli
3 and
Patrik Karell
2,4
1
Department of Biology, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland
2
Bioeconomy Research Team, Novia University of Applied Sciences, Raseborgsvägen 9, 10600 Ekenäs, Finland
3
Social Science Research Institute, Åbo Akademi University, 20500 Turku, Finland
4
Department of Biology, Lund University, Ecology Building, 223 62 Lund, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(15), 9496; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159496
Submission received: 30 May 2022 / Revised: 18 July 2022 / Accepted: 29 July 2022 / Published: 2 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Challenges and Possibilities for Sustainable Development in a Baltic Sea Region Context - Volume 2)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The COVID-19 pandemic had harsh consequences on human health and society across the globe. In addition to health effects, the pandemic also influenced people’s values, concerns, and ethics due to lockdowns and general limitations in societal activities. In this study, we examined changes in the relationship between people and nature caused by COVID-associated stress, as well as its consequences on life quality, by comparing questionnaire-based survey data before and during the pandemic. We found that the pandemic had positive effects on individual respondents’ relationships with nature. Respondents who were more affected by the pandemic rated their life quality lower than those who were less affected. In accordance, the pandemic had a negative effect on people’s life quality, especially for people living in areas where the environment (coastal water quality) was in poor condition. Our results support the prediction that environmental quality may buffer against global stress and improve societal wellbeing.

1. Introduction

In the winter of 2020, the whole world faced enormous challenges caused by the COVID-19 virus. The fast-spreading virus and accompanying consequences became a global event, and the World Health Organization defined the situation as a global pandemic [1]. Undoubtedly, the biggest effect of the pandemic has been on human health worldwide [2,3,4,5], as it is considered one of the largest pandemics in world history by death toll [6,7,8]. However, it has also had a strong impact on almost all spheres of people’s lives in every part of our planet [9,10,11,12,13]. For example, the pandemic and the following quarantines and restrictions have caused economic difficulties comparable to economic crisis conditions [14,15]. At the same time, scholars around the world have signaled changes happening in societies and human behavior. Bavel and his colleagues [16] highlighted significant shifts in mental health, as well as social and moral norms, as a consequence of the pandemic. The anxiety and fear related to the pandemic changed travel behavior [17,18] and increased the vulnerability of the less protected social groups [19]. The impact worsened due to the significantly complicated access to the elective surgery and healthcare system [20,21]. The level of stress caused by the pandemic effects drastically decreased the overall psychological wellbeing of the general public [22,23].
For humans, nature is the resource that upholds life. However, the aesthetic values of the environment have always been crucial, as it has played a significant role for people’s culture and has often been the main motivator for self-development through understanding processes in nature. Currently, the role of nature and access to it are important for people’s health [24,25]. There are various benefits associated with accessibility to nature, such as faster recovery after surgery [26], reduced blood pressure [27], improvement with congestive heart failure [28], palliative effect on breathing diseases and allergies [29,30,31], reduced obesity [32], and enhanced immune system functioning [33]. Villeneuve and his colleagues [34] even discovered that access to green space in urban areas can decrease the mortality rate. On top of that, nature also has a positive effect on mental health [35,36,37,38]. For these reasons, we can expect that the surrounding environment is directly associated with life quality of people, as recent studies suggest [39].
Numerous recent studies have indicated a significant growth in interest toward nature during the COVID-19 pandemic. Morse and colleagues [40] reported about the increase in the activities related to the individual relationships with nature such as foraging, gardening, hiking, jogging, photography, relaxing alone, walking, and watching wildlife. Contrary, group activities such as camping decreased. Similarly, access to greenspaces had positive mitigating effects of the pandemic impacts on mental health [41]. Bringing greenspaces indoor (e.g., plants) and urban gardening drastically increased and became more important during the pandemic restrictions [42,43]. The restrictions led to constrained outdoor activities, making people long for the option to be out in nature. Analyzing behavioral changes due to restrictions may, therefore, illuminate the role of the environment for wellbeing. Under such circumstances, the opportunity to experience local nature might become increasingly important. Accordingly, living in a neighborhood with poor environmental quality might affect mental health negatively and increase the pandemic impacts and life quality on a personal level.
Another aspect of the impact of the pandemic on people’s relationship with nature is related to the theory that pandemics such as COVID-19 are causally associated with the way humans treat nature, particularly wildlife trade [44]. A range of researchers found support for this association between human treatment of natural resources and pandemics already well before the emergence of COVID-19 [45,46,47,48]. More recently, Dobson and colleagues [49] indicated the importance of changing the global strategy in preventing future pandemics, where changes in the way how people treat nature (e.g., boosting nature protection measures) are at the core. It is, therefore, predicted, but yet scientifically unexplored, that there is a connection between the public level of concern about the environment and the opinions about the origin of the pandemic. Hence, the effects of COVID-19 on people are expected to affect people’s relationship with nature by increasing people’s concerns about its emergence. In order to understand how the public perceives the pandemic more generally, it is important to assess the extent to which they attribute it to the way people are (mis)treating the environment.
In this paper, we aimed to investigate if the pandemic has caused changes in the people–nature relationship and environmental concern on an individual level and if such a change is associated with a change in life quality. We hypothesize that the pandemic caused changes in the people–nature relationship both on a personal level and on a general level (opinions about others’ people–nature relationship (1), and that the direction of these changes is related to the personal pandemic impact (2). We further hypothesize that respondents who were directly affected by the pandemic have stronger opinions about the statement that the pandemic was caused by the way people treat nature (3). Lastly, we predict a negative association between respondents’ personal impact of the pandemic and their assessment of life quality (4) and a negative overall impact of the pandemic on life quality in the community, especially in environments that are in a poor state (5).

2. Methods

Our research was conducted in the coastal municipality of Raseborg located in the southwest of Finland in Uusimaa province (Figure 1). Raseborg has a population of almost 28,000 inhabitants. This increases significantly in the summer due to the presence of summer houseowners (up to 50%) who mostly arrive from the capital region. The municipality consists of a number of villages and three major administrative centers: Ekenäs, Karis, and Pojo. The municipality of Raseborg is situated in the same province as the capital Helsinki, where the situation with the pandemic has been worse than in other parts of Finland. The COVID-19 restrictions were administered on a province level, which means that Raseborg has continuously had the same COVID-related restrictions as the Helsinki–Espoo–Vantaa metropolis with more than 1,000,000 inhabitants.
In May–July 2021, we conducted a survey, which was available in three languages: the official languages Swedish and Finnish, as well as in English. The questionnaire had 21 questions related to the effects of the pandemic on a personal level: (1) how the pandemic affected the respondent’s own relationship with nature, (2) how the pandemic affected people–nature relationships in general, (3) the respondent’s thoughts whether human exploitation of nature caused the pandemic, (4) an evaluation of the importance of natural benefits for the respondent, and (5) each respondent’s life satisfaction assessment. The question about life satisfaction is assumed to reflect the personal evaluation of life quality [50]. The answers were given on a scale ranging between 0 and 10, where 0 means not affected/no relationship between nature treatment and pandemic, and 10 means strongly affected/significant relationship for the group of questions where people evaluated how they have been personally affected by the pandemic and to what extent they believe that the pandemic has been caused by the impact people have on nature. Respondents gave an assessment to predefined statements for the group of questions related to the changes in perceptions of people–nature relationship, their concern about the environment, their relationship with nature, their consumer behavior concerning environmentally friendly products, and changes in their time spent in nature (see Supplementary S1 for full questionnaire). Answers to questions 15.1–15.4 (Supplementary S1) were grouped to create a single variable reflecting changes in people–nature relationships on a personal level. In addition to questions about COVID-19 and life quality (hereafter LQ), the respondents were asked to assess the water quality (sWQ) of the coastal water in the vicinity of their address (local water quality; see Figure 1; see also Figure S2) as a representative local environmental indicator due to the importance of the ecosystem services provided by sea for coastal communities [51,52]. We also collected sociodemographic parameters of the respondents: age, gender, education, health, and income situation as covariates in the assessment of LQ [39]. All answers in the survey were related to the specific local areas in the municipality that were associated with the proximity of the homes of the respondents.
The invitation to the online questionnaire was delivered to accessible postboxes around Raseborg. The advertisement of the survey was posted on Facebook and ran as a paid advertisement during the whole data collection period aimed at reaching people from the municipality who are 16 years and older. To increase response motivation, participants could voluntarily enter a lottery for three 50 EUR gift cards to a local supermarket. After excluding responses, which came from outside the municipality, 614 complete responses were available for the analysis. In order to improve demographic representativeness, the responses were corrected for age and gender by applying a post-survey weight based on the population age structure in Raseborg [53] using the following formula:
ω i = N K i n i ,
where N is the number of respondents, K i is desired distribution in the age group, and n i is the number of respondents from the following age–gender group. In this way, we corrected the data and made them representative of the population structure.
Additionally, for the comparative analysis of changes in LQ, we used data collected in a similar survey in 2018–2019 before the pandemic. Similarly to the 2021 questionnaire this dataset consists of evaluation of life satisfaction given on a 0–10 scale, sWQ, and sociodemographic parameters of respondents: age, gender, education, health, and income situation (Supplementary S1; see also [39] for details on LQ assessment). Each response was georeferenced to the corresponding watershed, and the watershed ID was used as a random effect in the model to account for the geographical clustering and nonindependence of close data points.
For the statistical analyses, we then used Spearman and Pearson correlation methods and a linear mixed model with normal errors. First, we correlated the relationship between the personal pandemic effect and perception of the statement that the pandemic was caused by the impact people have on nature. Second, we tested the association between changes in the personal people–nature relationship and the personal effect of the pandemic. Third, we examined the relationship between the pandemic impacts on personal level and the opinion about changes in other people’s relationship with nature. For these three tests, we used the nonparametric Spearman rank correlation method due to the nature of the data (ordinal). Next, we used Pearson correlation to test the relationship between LQ and the personal impact of the pandemic. Lastly, we used a linear model with normal errors to test whether LQ of people is changed during the pandemic in comparison to pre-pandemic times (data collected in 2018–2019), the full research workflow is presented in Figure 2. We followed the approach outlined in a previous study [39] where we added covariates collected in the survey which are important predictors of LQ: age, gender, income, health, education, natural benefits importance, and a factorial variable that indicated the COVID-19 pandemic effect (response collected before (0) or during (1) the pandemic).
All models were run in R statistical software v.3.6.1 [54].

3. Results

We first tested the association regarding the personal COVID-19 impact on people’s opinions about whether the pandemic was caused by the way how people treat nature. There was large variation in responses to these questions, and they were well distributed across the range without any prevailing response option (Figure 3a,b). We found a positive relationship between these variables (rSpearman = 0.17, p < 0.001; Figure 4a).
There was a positive association between the respondents’ personal effect of the pandemic and changes in their relationship with nature on a personal level (rSpearman = 0.12, p < 0.01; Figure 4b).
On the contrary, there was no association between the personal effect of pandemic and the perception of changes in the relationship between people and nature on a general societal level (rSpearman = 0.003, p = 0.95). Across the entire sample, however, respondents typically thought that people started to care a little more about the environment during the pandemic (Figure 5).
We found a negative association between the respondents’ perception of personal level pandemic impact and their perception of their LQ (rSpearman = −0.13, p < 0.01; Figure 6).
Using a linear model approach, we found that the relationship between LQ and the environmental indicator was changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a significant negative association between people’s LQ and the pandemic effect; respondents from the pandemic period survey evaluated their LQ lower (see “pandemic effect” in Table 1; see also Figure 7). However, this effect was conditional on the perceived local coastal water quality. It was revealed by a significant interaction between the pandemic effect and sWQ (see “pandemic effect by sWQ” in Table 1). It reflects that people living in localities with poorer water quality perceived their LQ lower during the pandemic, whereas the pandemic did not affect LQ among people living in localities with higher water quality (Table 1, Figure 7). Among the sociodemographic parameters, health and age were positively associated with LQ, whereas males (in comparison to females) and people with lower income had lower LQ (Table 1). Education had no effect on LQ, whereas people perceiving natural benefits as more important had a higher LQ (Table 1).

4. Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused great stress for societies around the world since the spring of 2020. Due to the nature of the pandemic, it has had the largest impacts on human health. However, the pandemic and its measures to prevent spreading (e.g., closed borders and trade restrictions) have had a huge impact on practically all other spheres of human life in addition to health. Importantly, for the study at hand, a number of studies have demonstrated the increased importance of access to nature for people during the pandemic [55,56]. Changes in the role of the environment together with economic and social disruptions caused by the pandemic can lead to significant fluctuations in LQ. In this study, we sought to investigate how the pandemic affected human–nature relationships and people’s LQ. In our analysis, we focused on the personal pandemic impact expressed by individuals and its effects on the people–nature relationship and on the environment-dependent effect on LQ. Our results confirmed our expectations about the changes in the people–nature relationships caused by the pandemic effect. We found a direct positive association between a self-reported personal pandemic effect and the people–nature relationship on a personal level, suggesting changes toward pro-environmental thinking in human behavior. This can potentially be explained by the negative psychological effect of the pandemic and the related preventive measures released by governments (e.g., closure of all entertainment activities), as well as the effect of the pandemic on mental health and people’s attempts to compensate by spending more time in nature.
Our findings align with other, similar analyses from the pandemic period. A number of scholars found an extraordinary increase of interest in “green areas” from the active phase of the pandemic (March 2020) and related it to the response to stress caused by the pandemic [57,58,59]. We also expected to see changes in the people–nature relationship due to the positive effect of nature on mental health [60,61]. We assume that the positive link between the personal impacts of the pandemic and changes in the relationship with nature on a personal level in our study can be explained by the actual effects that interactions with nature has on psychological resilience of individuals [62]. Over time, the personal impact of the pandemic consequently appears to have led to increased concern about the environment and shifts in behavior toward pro-environmental decisions (consumer behavior). Furthermore, we believe that higher awareness about environmental problems and a search for understanding causes to the pandemic of persons heavily impacted by COVID-19 could explain why we found a positive link between the personal impact of the pandemic and the opinion that the pandemic was caused by the way people treat nature.
However, we did not find an effect of personal impacts of the pandemic on the perception about the general relationship between people and nature in the society. This can at least partly be explained by the overall distribution of answers toward a positive change in the general people–nature relationship (Figure 5). The overrepresentation of responses about positive changes on a general level are potentially associated with a cumulative effect of raised public awareness about nature [63], overall increasing the demand for access to nature for society [64] and knowledge of reported reductions in environmental pollution during the pandemic worldwide [65]. This can potentially also explain our findings about the strong relationship between the pandemic impact and opinion that the pandemic was caused by the way how people treat nature. The awareness about the wildlife trade and its consequences rose during the pandemic times [44].
We further tested the effect of the pandemic on the LQ of the coastal community’s inhabitants. As expected, due to the significant importance of mental and physical health for LQ [66,67], we found a negative effect of the pandemic on LQ. First, we found that the personal impact of the pandemic had a negative impact on LQ assessment, which suggests that an elevated level of stress had a negative impact on the perceived life quality. Second, we investigated whether the pandemic caused a decrease in the people–nature relationship (estimated as the covariation between perceived LQ and sWQ) with survey data collected approximately 1 year from the initial stage of the pandemic (2018–2019) and during the pandemic (2021). Since the study area is located in the coastal zone, water quality is a significant representative environmental indicator due to the importance of the ecosystem services provided by sea for the community [51,52], and it has been shown that subjective assessment of water quality by inhabitants (sWQ) strongly reflects water quality measurements using professional scientific equipment [68], and that perceived rather than objectively measured water quality is more important for LQ in this society [39]. Our result demonstrates a strong negative effect of the pandemic on LQ. However, we found a different effect of the pandemic on LQ depending on how people perceive the quality of their local environment (see “pandemic effect by sWQ” in Table 1). During the pandemic, the LQ of people living in low-WQ areas was lower than before the pandemic, whereas the LQ of people living in high-WQ areas was not affected by the pandemic (Figure 7). Therefore, this finding highlights that the environment is important for the community during a sudden stress, such as a pandemic. The accessibility to nature, as well as maintaining a sufficient quality in the surrounding nature, can potentially mitigate the harsh effect of the stress and keep the LQ of the community at a sufficient level. Nevertheless, despite our finding of a positive effect of local environmental quality on LQ, we cannot ignore the major and leading role of traditional sociodemographic factors for LQ [39], keeping in mind the comprehensive characteristic of this measure.

5. Conclusions

Our findings highlight the significant role of the personal impact of the pandemic on changes in the human–nature relationship. Our results indicate that the level to which a person is affected by the pandemic plays a crucial role in life quality. Furthermore, we compared pre-pandemic assessments of life quality with assessments during the pandemic in the same community and identified significant negative changes. However, our findings indicated a significant role of the quality of the environment for potential mitigation of the sudden stress impact on the life quality of individuals. This signals that local governments should not underestimate the benefits of supporting local environmental initiatives (e.g., facilitating access to nature) and constantly monitoring the changes in people–nature relationships. Lastly, we believe that our results demonstrate the importance of the support of environmental protection programs by local councils for the mitigation of stress effects on societal wellbeing in the future.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su14159496/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.G., L.R. and P.K.; Data curation, R.G.; Formal analysis, R.G. and P.K.; Methodology, R.G., L.R. and P.K.; Project administration, R.G. and P.K.; Supervision, L.R. and P.K.; Writing—original draft, R.G.; Writing—review & editing, R.G., L.R. and P.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Societas pro Fauna et Flora Fennica, Otto A. Malm Donationsfond, Nordenskiöld-samfundet, Kone Foundation grant number 201800932, Academy of Finland grant numbers 309992, 314108 and 335335. The APC was funded by the Baltic University Programme.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study. As is common practice in non-sensitive, anonymous surveys, our survey participants were informed about the anonymity of the survey, what the survey was about and how their responses would be analysed. In accordance with the ethical recommendations of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity, no advance scrutiny of the survey was needed (see https://tenk.fi/en/ethical-review (accessed on 30 May 2022)), because the questionnaire did not in any way threaten the personal integrity of the participants and whose voluntary participation in the survey could be considered as informed consent, since the relevant information about the survey was available to them at the time of responding to the survey.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data is available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Announces COVID-19 Outbreak a Pandemic. 2021. Available online: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-emergencies/coronavirus-covid-19/news/news/2020/3/who-announces-covid-19-outbreak-a-pandemic (accessed on 26 August 2021).
  2. Sohrabi, C.; Alsafi, Z.; O’Neill, N.; Khan, M.; Kerwan, A.; Al-Jabir, A.; Iosifidis, C.; Agha, R. World Health Organization declares global emergency: A review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Int. J. Surg. 2020, 76, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Valjarević, A.; Milić, M.; Valjarević, D.; Stanojević-Ristić, Z.; Petrović, L.; Milanović, M.; Filipović, D.; Ristanović, B.; Basarin, B.; Lukić, T. Modelling and mapping of the COVID-19 trajectory and pandemic paths at global scale: A geographer’s perspective. Open Geosci. 2020, 12, 1603–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhu, N.; Zhang, D.; Wang, W.; Li, X.; Yang, B.; Song, J.; Zhao, X.; Huang, B.; Shi, W.; Lu, R.; et al. A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 727–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhou, P.; Yang, X.-L.; Wang, X.-G.; Hu, B.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, W.; Si, H.-R.; Zhu, Y.; Li, B.; Huang, C.-L.; et al. A pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin. Nature 2020, 579, 270–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Schwerdtle, P.N.; Connell, C.J.; Lee, S.; Plummer, V.; Russo, P.L.; Endacott, R.; Kuhn, L. Nurse expertise: A critical resource in the COVID-19 pandemic response. Ann. Glob. Health 2020, 86, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Feehan, J.; Apostolopoulos, V. Is COVID-19 the worst pandemic? Maturitas 2021, 149, 56–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Padhan, R.; Prabheesh, K.P. The economics of COVID-19 pandemic: A survey. Econ. Anal. Policy 2021, 70, 220–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Higgins-Desbiolles, F. Socialising tourism for social and ecological justice after COVID-19. Tour. Geogr. 2020, 22, 610–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Marinoni, G.; Van’t Land, H.; Jensen, T. The Impact of COVID-19 on higher education around the World; IAU Global Survey Report; International Association of Universities: Paris, France, 2020; Available online: https://www.iau-aiu.net/IMG/pdf/iau_covid19_and_he_survey_report_final_may_2020.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2021).
  11. Ozili, P.K.; Arun, T. Spillover of COVID-19: Impact on the Global Economy. 2020. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3562570 (accessed on 26 August 2021).
  12. Zhang, D.; Hu, M.; Ji, Q. Financial markets under the global pandemic of COVID-19. Finance Res. Lett. 2020, 36, 101528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mofijur, M.; Fattah, I.R.; Alam, M.A.; Islam, A.S.; Ong, H.C.; Rahman, S.A.; Mahlia, T.M.I. Impact of COVID-19 on the social, economic, environmental and energy do-mains: Lessons learnt from a global pandemic. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 343–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bambra, C.; Riordan, R.; Ford, J.; Matthews, F. The COVID-19 pandemic and health inequalities. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2020, 74, 964–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ozbay, G.; Sariisik, M.; Ceylan, V.; Çakmak, M. A comparative evaluation between the impact of previous outbreaks and COVID-19 on the tourism industry. Int. Hosp. Rev. 2022, 36, 65–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bavel, J.J.V.; Baicker, K.; Boggio, P.S.; Capraro, V.; Cichocka, A.; Cikara, M.; Crockett, M.J.; Crum, A.J.; Douglas, K.M.; Druckman, J.N.; et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020, 4, 460–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Morar, C.; Tiba, A.; Basarin, B.; Vujičić, M.; Valjarević, A.; Niemets, L.; Gessert, A.; Jovanovic, T.; Drugas, M.; Grama, V.; et al. Predictors of Changes in Travel Behavior during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Tourists’ Personalities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Morar, C.; Tiba, A.; Jovanovic, T.; Valjarević, A.; Ripp, M.; Vujičić, M.D.; Stankov, U.; Basarin, B.; Ratković, R.; Popović, M.; et al. Supporting Tourism by Assessing the Predictors of COVID-19 Vaccination for Travel Reasons. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Usher, K.; Durkin, J.; Bhullar, N. The COVID-19 pandemic and mental health impacts. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2020, 29, 315–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Moynihan, R.; Sanders, S.; Michaleff, Z.A.; Mae Scott, A.; Clark, J.; To, E.J.; Jones, M.; Kitchener, E.; Fox, M.; Johansson, M.; et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on utilisation of healthcare services: A systematic review. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e045343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Uimonen, M.; Kuitunen, I.; Paloneva, J.; Launonen, A.P.; Ponkilainen, V.; Mattila, V.M. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on waiting times for elective surgery patients: A multicenter study. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0253875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ivbijaro, G.; Brooks, C.; Kolkiewicz, L.; Sunkel, C.; Long, A. Psychological impact and psychosocial consequences of the COVID 19 pandemic Resilience, mental well-being, and the coronavirus pandemic. Indian J. Psychiatry 2020, 62, S395–S403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Vindegaard, N.; Benros, M.E. COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 89, 531–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wheeler, B.W.; Lovell, R.; Higgins, S.L.; White, M.P.; Alcock, I.; Osborne, N.J.; Husk, K.; Sabel, C.E.; Depledge, M.H. Beyond greenspace: An ecological study of population general health and indicators of natural environment type and quality. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2015, 14, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Shanahan, D.; Bush, R.; Gaston, K.; Lin, B.B.; Dean, J.; Barber, E.; Fuller, R.A. Health Benefits from Nature Experiences Depend on Dose. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 28551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Ulrich, R.S. View from a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 1984, 224, 420–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Park, B.J.; Tsunetsugu, Y.; Kasetani, T.; Kagawa, T.; Miyazaki, Y. The physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): Evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2010, 15, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Mao, G.; Cao, Y.; Wang, B.; Wang, S.; Chen, Z.; Wang, J.; Xing, W.; Ren, X.; Lv, X.; Dong, J.; et al. The salutary influence of forest bathing on elderly patients with chronic heart failure. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Dadvand, P.; Villanueva, C.M.; Font-Ribera, L.; Martinez, D.; Basagaña, X.; Belmonte, J.; Vrijheid, M.; Gražulevičienė, R.; Kogevinas, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Risks and benefits of green spaces for children: A cross-sectional study of associations with sedentary behavior, obesity, asthma, and allergy. Environ. Health Perspect. 2014, 122, 1329–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fuertes, E.; Markevych, I.; von Berg, A.; Bauer, C.P.; Berdel, D.; Koletzko, S.; Sugiri, D.; Heinrich, J. Greenness and allergies: Evidence of differential associations in two areas in Germany. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2014, 68, 787–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Andrusaityte, S.; Grazuleviciene, R.; Kudzyte, J.; Bernotiene, A.; Dedele, A.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Associations between neighborhood greenness and asthma in preschool children in Kaunas, Lithuania: A case-control study. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e010341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Lachowycz, K.; Jones, A.P. Greenspace and obesity: A systematic review of the evidence. Obes. Rev. 2011, 12, e183–e189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, Q.; Otsuka, T.; Kobayashi, M.; Wakayama, Y.; Inagaki, H.; Katsumata, M.; Hirata, Y.; Li, Y.; Hirata, K.; Shimizu, T.; et al. Acute effects of walking in forest environments on cardiovascular and metabolic parameters. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2011, 111, 2845–2853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Villeneuve, P.J.; Jerrett, M.; Su, J.G.; Burnett, R.T.; Chen, H.; Wheeler, A.J.; Goldberg, M.S. A cohort study relating urban green space with mortality in Ontario, Canada. Environ. Res. 2012, 115, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. de Vries, S.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Natural environments—Healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environ. Plan. A 2003, 35, 1717–1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Fan, Y.; Das, K.V.; Chen, Q. Neighborhood green, social support, physical activity, and stress: Assessing the cumulative impact. Health Place 2011, 17, 1202–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Chevalier, G.; Sinatra, S.T.; Oschman, J.L.; Sokal, K.; Sokal, P. Earthing: Health implications of reconnecting the human body to the earth’s surface electrons. J. Environ. Public Health 2012, 2012, 291541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. White, M.P.; Alcock, I.; Grellier, J.; Wheeler, B.W.; Hartig, T.; Warber, S.L.; Bone, A.; Depledge, M.H.; Fleming, L.E. Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 7730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Gunko, R.; Rapeli, L.; Vuorisalo, T.; Scheinin, M.; Karell, P. Does water quality matter for life quality? A study of the impact of water quality on well-being in a coastal community. Environ. Manag. 2022, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Morse, J.W.; Gladkikh, T.M.; Hackenburg, D.M.; Gould, R.K. COVID-19 and human-nature relationships: Vermonters’ activities in nature and associated nonmaterial values during the pandemic. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0243697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Soga, M.; Evans, M.J.; Cox, D.T.C.; Gaston, K.J. Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on human–nature interactions: Pathways, evidence and implications. People Nat. 2021, 3, 518–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Naomi, A.S. Access to nature has always been important; with COVID-19, it is essential. HERD Health Environ. Res. Design J. 2020, 13, 242–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Egerer, M.; Lin, B.; Kingsley, J.; Marsh, P.; Diekmann, L.; Ossola, A. Gardening can relieve human stress and boost nature connection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 68, 127483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Borzée, A.; McNeely, J.; Magellan, K.; Miller, J.R.B.; Porter, L.; Dutta, T.; Kadinjappalli, K.P.; Sharma, S.; Shahabuddin, G.; Aprilinayati, F.; et al. COVID-19 Highlights the Need for More Effective Wildlife Trade Legislation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2020, 35, 1052–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Karesh, W.B.; Cook, R.A.; Bennett, E.L.; Newcomb, J. Wildlife trade and global disease emergence. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2005, 11, 1000–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Swift, L.; Hunter, P.R.; Lees, A.C.; Bell, D.J. Wildlife Trade and the Emergence of Infectious Diseases. EcoHealth 2007, 4, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pavlin, B.I.; Schloegel, L.M.; Daszak, P. Risk of importing zoonotic diseases through wildlife trade, United States. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2009, 15, 1721–1726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Smith, K.F.; Behrens, M.; Schloegel, L.M.; Marano, N.; Burgiel, S.; Daszak, P. Reducing the risks of the wildlife trade. Science 2009, 324, 594–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dobson, A.P.; Pimm, S.L.; Hannah, L.; Kaufman, L.; Ahumada, J.A.; Ando, A.W.; Bernstein, A.; Busch, J.; Daszak, P.; Engelmann, J.; et al. Ecology and economics for pandemic prevention. Science 2020, 369, 379–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Weber, M.; Harzer, C.; Huebner, E.S.; Hills, K.J. Measures of life satisfaction across the lifespan. In Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs; Boyle, G.J., Saklofske, D.H., Matthews, G., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 101–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Barbier, E.B.; Hacker, S.D.; Kennedy, C.; Koch, E.W.; Stier, A.C.; Silliman, B.R. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 2011, 81, 166–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Blythe, J.; Armitage, D.; Alonso, G.; Campbell, D.; Esteves Dias, A.C.; Epstein, G.; Marschke, M.; Nayak, P. Frontiers in coastal well-being and ecosystem services research: A systematic review. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2020, 185, 105028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). StatFin. Population Structure. Population According to Age (1-Year) and Sex by Area, 1972–2020. 2021. Available online: https://pxnet2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/StatFin/StatFin__vrm__vaerak/statfin_vaerak_pxt_11re.px/ (accessed on 20 September 2021).
  54. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2014; Available online: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 21 September 2021).
  55. Soga, M.; Evans, M.J.; Tsuchiya, K.; Fukano, Y. A room with a green view: The importance of nearby nature for mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ecol. Appl. 2021, 31, e02248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Robinson, J.M.; Brindley, P.; Cameron, R.; MacCarthy, D.; Jorgensen, A. Nature’s Role in Supporting Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Geospatial and Socioecological Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kleinschroth, F.; Kowarik, I. COVID-19 crisis demonstrates the urgent need for urban greenspaces. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2020, 18, 318–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Ugolini, F.; Massetti, L.; Calaza-Martínez, P.; Cariñanos, P.; Dobbs, C.; Ostoic, S.K.; Marin, A.M.; Pearlmutter, D.; Saaroni, H.; Šauliene, I.; et al. Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use and perceptions of urban green space: An international exploratory study. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 56, 126888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Da Schio, N.; Phillips, A.; Fransen, K.; Wolff, M.; Haase, D.; Ostoić, S.K.; Živojinović, I.; Vuletić, D.; Derks, J.; Davies, C.; et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use of and attitudes towards urban forests and green spaces: Exploring the instigators of change in Belgium. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 65, 127305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Barton, J.; Pretty, J. What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 3947–3955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cox, D.T.C.; Shanahan, D.F.; Hudson, H.L.; Plummer, K.E.; Siriwardena, G.M.; Fuller, R.A.; Anderson, K.; Hancock, S.; Gaston, K.J. Doses of neighborhood nature: The benefits for mental health of living with nature. BioScience 2017, 67, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pearson, D.G.; Craig, T. The great outdoors? Exploring the mental health benefits of natural environments. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rousseau, S.; Deschacht, N. Public awareness of nature and the environment during the COVID-19 crisis. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2020, 76, 1149–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Geng, D.; Innes, J.; Wu, W.; Wang, G. Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on urban park visitation: A global analysis. J. For. Res. 2021, 32, 553–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Khan, I.; Shah, D.; Shah, S.S. COVID-19 pandemic and its positive impacts on environment: An updated review. Int. J. Sci. Environ. Technol. 2021, 18, 521–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Schneiderman, N.; Ironson, G.; Siegel, S.D. Stress and Health: Psychological, behavioral, and biological determinants. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2005, 1, 607–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Thoits, P.A. Stress and Health: Major findings and policy implications. J. Health Soc. Behav. 2010, 51, S41–S53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Gunko, R.; Rapeli, L.; Scheinin, M.; Vuorisalo, T.; Karell, P. How accurate is citizen science? Evaluating public assessments of coastal water quality. Environ. Policy Gov. 2022, 32, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 09496 g001 550
Figure 1. A map of the study area with georeferenced locations of survey respondents (red dots) and administrative municipality border (dashed line).
Figure 1. A map of the study area with georeferenced locations of survey respondents (red dots) and administrative municipality border (dashed line).
Sustainability 14 09496 g001
Sustainability 14 09496 g002 550
Figure 2. The research workflow of the study.
Figure 2. The research workflow of the study.
Sustainability 14 09496 g002
Sustainability 14 09496 g003a 550Sustainability 14 09496 g003b 550
Figure 3. Histograms showing the response distribution for the questions about the personal impact of pandemic. (a) “How much you have been personally affected by the COVID-19 pandemic on a scale from 0 to 10?” The mean value was 5.2 ± 2.6 (SD). (b) “To what extent would you say that the pandemic has been caused by the impact people have on the nature?” The mean value was 5.9 ± 2.7 (SD).
Figure 3. Histograms showing the response distribution for the questions about the personal impact of pandemic. (a) “How much you have been personally affected by the COVID-19 pandemic on a scale from 0 to 10?” The mean value was 5.2 ± 2.6 (SD). (b) “To what extent would you say that the pandemic has been caused by the impact people have on the nature?” The mean value was 5.9 ± 2.7 (SD).
Sustainability 14 09496 g003aSustainability 14 09496 g003b
Sustainability 14 09496 g004a 550Sustainability 14 09496 g004b 550
Figure 4. The effect of the pandemic on personal level. (a) The relationship between the personal impact of the pandemic and the perception of whether the pandemic was caused by the way people treat nature. (b) The relationship between the personal impact of pandemic and changes in people–nature relationship on personal level. The trendline represents regression line with associated 95% confidence intervals, the squares representing the first and third quartile (the 25th and 75th percentiles) and dots located out of the squares representing outliers in the data.
Figure 4. The effect of the pandemic on personal level. (a) The relationship between the personal impact of the pandemic and the perception of whether the pandemic was caused by the way people treat nature. (b) The relationship between the personal impact of pandemic and changes in people–nature relationship on personal level. The trendline represents regression line with associated 95% confidence intervals, the squares representing the first and third quartile (the 25th and 75th percentiles) and dots located out of the squares representing outliers in the data.
Sustainability 14 09496 g004aSustainability 14 09496 g004b
Sustainability 14 09496 g005 550
Figure 5. Response distribution for the question about the people–nature relationship (“Do you think the relationship between people and the nature has been affected by the pandemic?”).
Figure 5. Response distribution for the question about the people–nature relationship (“Do you think the relationship between people and the nature has been affected by the pandemic?”).
Sustainability 14 09496 g005
Sustainability 14 09496 g006 550
Figure 6. The relationship between the personal impact of the pandemic and perceived life quality. The trendline represents regression line with associated 95% confidence intervals, the squares representing the first and third quartile (the 25th and 75th percentiles) and dots located out of the squares representing outliers in the data.
Figure 6. The relationship between the personal impact of the pandemic and perceived life quality. The trendline represents regression line with associated 95% confidence intervals, the squares representing the first and third quartile (the 25th and 75th percentiles) and dots located out of the squares representing outliers in the data.
Sustainability 14 09496 g006
Sustainability 14 09496 g007 550
Figure 7. The interactive effect of the pandemic and perceived coastal water quality on LQ (see Table 1 for statistics). The values of LQ and subjective water quality are weighted according to the population structure. The graph shows regression lines with 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 7. The interactive effect of the pandemic and perceived coastal water quality on LQ (see Table 1 for statistics). The values of LQ and subjective water quality are weighted according to the population structure. The graph shows regression lines with 95% confidence intervals.
Sustainability 14 09496 g007
Table
Table 1. Linear model of the relationship between LQ and period of data collection (pre-pandemic and pandemic). In the model, the level of education is represented by two groups (1—lower education level, 2—higher education level), the level of health is represented by three groups (1—higher health level, 2—intermediate health level, 3—lower health level), the income level is represented by four groups (1—living comfortably on present income, 2—coping on present income, 3—difficult on present income, 4—very difficult on present income), and the gender is represented by two groups (1—females, 2—males), where the first level is always the reference level and not shown in the table. R2 marginal = 0.37 and R2 conditional = 0.38; the significance of each estimate (t-test) is presented as *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, and (*) p < 0.1; p-values < 0.05 are presented in bold.
Table 1. Linear model of the relationship between LQ and period of data collection (pre-pandemic and pandemic). In the model, the level of education is represented by two groups (1—lower education level, 2—higher education level), the level of health is represented by three groups (1—higher health level, 2—intermediate health level, 3—lower health level), the income level is represented by four groups (1—living comfortably on present income, 2—coping on present income, 3—difficult on present income, 4—very difficult on present income), and the gender is represented by two groups (1—females, 2—males), where the first level is always the reference level and not shown in the table. R2 marginal = 0.37 and R2 conditional = 0.38; the significance of each estimate (t-test) is presented as *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, and (*) p < 0.1; p-values < 0.05 are presented in bold.
Dependent VariableIndependent VariablesEstimate ± SEDFFp
Life qualityIntercept5.33 ± 0.27 ***
Pandemic effect−0.78 ± 0.28 **17.720.006
Water quality perception0.08 ± 0.02 ***141.79<0.001
Pandemic effect by sWQ0.09 ± 0.04 *15.750.017
Age0.02 ± 0.01 ***1100.40<0.001
GenderMale—0.15 ± 0.07 *14.730.03
Natural benefits importance 0.23 ± 0.02 ***1107.16<0.001
IncomeCoping −0.35 ± 0.08 ***;
Difficult −0.90 ± 0.11 ***;
Very difficult −1.50 ± 0.70 ***		432.35<0.001
HealthIntermediate −0.59 ± 0.08 ***
Lower −1.94 ± 0.15 ***		290.19<0.001
Education: higher education level0.07 ± 0.0710.770.38
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gunko, R.; Rapeli, L.; Karell, P. Striving with Global Stress on a Local Level: Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Changed the Relationship between People and Nature? Sustainability 2022, 14, 9496. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159496

AMA Style

Gunko R, Rapeli L, Karell P. Striving with Global Stress on a Local Level: Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Changed the Relationship between People and Nature? Sustainability. 2022; 14(15):9496. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159496

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gunko, Ruslan, Lauri Rapeli, and Patrik Karell. 2022. "Striving with Global Stress on a Local Level: Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Changed the Relationship between People and Nature?" Sustainability 14, no. 15: 9496. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159496

APA Style

Gunko, R., Rapeli, L., & Karell, P. (2022). Striving with Global Stress on a Local Level: Has the COVID-19 Pandemic Changed the Relationship between People and Nature? Sustainability, 14(15), 9496. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159496

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop