Anticipated post-pandemic substitution behavior among new outdoor recreationists in the U.S.: analysis across involvement and activity clusters

Purpose: While much research has examined the increase in outdoor recreation and those who began participating in outdoor recreation during the COVID-19 pandemic, to-date no published empirical research has examined perceived post-pandemic recreation participation among the latter group. Research Methods: Through a national panel survey of 902 respondents, we examine differences in perceived post-pandemic substitution behaviors across activity- and involvement-based dusters of new or returning outdoor recreationists using a two-part duster analysis followed by analyses of variance. Results and Findings: Results suggest significant differences exist across activity- and involvement-based dusters. On average, this research suggests that Runners, Purist Gardeners, General Recreationists, and Casual Recreationists are less likely than High Intensity Recreationists and Hunters & Anglers to abandon outdoor recreation after the pandemic. Implications: Implications are provided for both the continued development of substitutability theory and outdoor recreation managers as they adapt toward a post-pandemic future. Specifically, managerial implications concerning the demand for activity-specific facilities and leisure abandonment are provided. Research Contribution: These results provide new knowledge concerning how outdoor recreation participation among new participants may change in a post-pandemic future, and how involvement relates to substitution more broadly.

Psychosocial Factors Influencing Outdoor Recreation During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has created an unprecedented disruption to daily life for large swaths of individuals and resulted in potentially widespread implications for individuals' health and wellbeing. This study utilized an online survey of avid outdoor recreationists to understand the psychosocial factors influencing recreationist behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic across rural, urban cluster, and urban communities in the United States. Confirmatory factor analyses indicate that the five studied psychosocial factors-perceived risk, social norms, recommendations from authority, health benefits, and lifestyle adjustments-exist as unique constructs influencing individuals' outdoor recreation behaviors. Repeated measures analyses suggest individuals rated seeking benefits to their general health as most important when making outdoor recreation decisions, followed by recommendations from authority, then perceptions of risk, with lifestyle adjustments and social norms rated as least important. Lastly, analysis across community types indicated individuals across the rural-urban gradient weighed perceptions of risk and recommendations from authority differently when making outdoor recreation decisions. Managerial implications and future directions for research are discussed.

Ethical Considerations for Qualitative Research Methods During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Emergency Situations: Navigating the Virtual Field

Qualitative research is integral to the pandemic response. Qualitative methods are ideally suited to generating evidence to inform tailored, culturally appropriate approaches to COVID-19, and to meaningfully engaging diverse individuals and communities in response to the pandemic. In this paper, we discuss core ethical and methodological considerations in the design and implementation of qualitative research in the COVID-19 era, and in pivoting to virtual methods-online interviews and focus groups;internet-based archival research and netnography, including social media;participatory video methods, including photo elicitation and digital storytelling;collaborative autoethnography;and community-based participatory research. We identify, describe, and critically evaluate measures to address core ethical challenges around informed consent, privacy and confidentiality, compensation, online access to research participation, and access to resources during a pandemic. Online methods need not be considered unilaterally riskier than in-person data collection;however, they are clearly not the same as in-person engagement and require thoughtful, reflexive, and deliberative approaches in order to identify and mitigate potential and dynamically evolving risks. Ensuring the ethical conduct of research with marginalized and vulnerable populations is foundational to building evidence and developing culturally competent and structurally informed approaches to promote equity, health, and well-being during and after the pandemic. Our analysis offers methodological, ethical, and practical guidance in the COVID-19 pandemic and considerations for research conducted amid future pandemics and emergency situations.