Farmer surveys in Europe suggest that specialized, intensive farms were more likely to perceive negative impacts from COVID-19.

It has been shown that the COVID-19 pandemic affected some agricultural systems more than others, and even within geographic regions, not all farms were affected to the same extent. To build resilience of agricultural systems to future shocks, it is key to understand which farms were affected and why. In this study, we examined farmers' perceived robustness to COVID-19, a key resilience capacity. We conducted standardized farmer interviews (n = 257) in 15 case study areas across Europe, covering a large range of socio-ecological contexts and farm types. Interviews targeted perceived livelihood impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on productivity, sales, price, labor availability, and supply chains in 2020, as well as farm(er) characteristics and farm management. Our study corroborates earlier evidence that most farms were not or only slightly affected by the first wave(s) of the pandemic in 2020, and that impacts varied widely by study region. However, a significant minority of farmers across Europe reported that the pandemic was "the worst crisis in a lifetime" (3%) or "the worst crisis in a decade" (7%). Statistical analysis showed that more specialized and intensive farms were more likely to have perceived negative impacts. From a societal perspective, this suggests that highly specialized, intensive farms face higher vulnerability to shocks that affect regional to global supply chains. Supporting farmers in the diversification of their production systems while decreasing dependence on service suppliers and supply chain actors may increase their robustness to future disruptions. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13593-022-00820-5.

Residential exposure to greenspace and life satisfaction in times of COVID-19: a cross-sectional analysis of 9444 participants from a population-based study in Basel-Stadt and Basel-Landschaft.

BACKGROUND: Subjective well-being is an important target in the COVID-19 pandemic. Residential greenness may help cope with stress and hence influence subjective well-being during this mentally and physically challenging time. METHODS: We analysed the association between residential greenness and life satisfaction in 9,444 adults in the COVCO-Basel cohort. We assessed if the association is modified by age, sex, household income, financial worries, canton of residence, or month of study entry. In addition, we assessed if the association is attributed to specific types of greenspace or accessibility to greenspace. RESULTS: The association between residential greenness and life satisfaction varied by age groups, household income, and financial worries. Residential greenness was positively associated with life satisfaction in those with high household income and the least financially worried, and negatively associated with life satisfaction in the youngest age group (18-29 years) and the most financially worried. Living closer to a forest, but not to a park or an agricultural area, was associated with lower life satisfaction in the youngest age group. CONCLUSIONS: Residential greenness effects on life satisfaction vary according to sociodemographic characteristics. Living in a greener area does not benefit all dwellers in Basel and its region equally, with the most apparent benefit for those with high household income and without financial concerns.

Farmer surveys in Europe suggest that specialized, intensive farms were more likely to perceive negative impacts from COVID-19

It has been shown that the COVID-19 pandemic affected some agricultural systems more than others, and even within geographic regions, not all farms were affected to the same extent. To build resilience of agricultural systems to future shocks, it is key to understand which farms were affected and why. In this study, we examined farmers’ perceived robustness to COVID-19, a key resilience capacity. We conducted standardized farmer interviews (n = 257) in 15 case study areas across Europe, covering a large range of socio-ecological contexts and farm types. Interviews targeted perceived livelihood impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on productivity, sales, price, labor availability, and supply chains in 2020, as well as farm(er) characteristics and farm management. Our study corroborates earlier evidence that most farms were not or only slightly affected by the first wave(s) of the pandemic in 2020, and that impacts varied widely by study region. However, a significant minority of farmers across Europe reported that the pandemic was “the worst crisis in a lifetime” (3%) or “the worst crisis in a decade” (7%). Statistical analysis showed that more specialized and intensive farms were more likely to have perceived negative impacts. From a societal perspective, this suggests that highly specialized, intensive farms face higher vulnerability to shocks that affect regional to global supply chains. Supporting farmers in the diversification of their production systems while decreasing dependence on service suppliers and supply chain actors may increase their robustness to future disruptions. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13593-022-00820-5.

People's perceptions of, willingness-to-take preventive remedies and their willingness-to-vaccinate during times of heightened health threats.

Pandemics, such as the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, represents a health threat to humans worldwide. During times of heightened health risks, the public's perceptions, and acceptance of evidence-based preventive measures, such as vaccines, is of high relevance. Moreover, people might seek other preventive remedies to protect themselves from getting infected (e.g., herbal remedies, nutritional supplements). A recent study on consumers' preference for naturalness showed that people put more weight on perceived naturalness of a preventive remedy compared to a curative one. This result was attributed to the increased focus on perceived effectiveness as opposed to perceived risk. This raises the question whether the current pandemic would shift people's perceptions from prevention to curing and thus, exhibit a preference for synthetic remedies because they are seen as more effective. The present online experiment (conducted in April 2021) investigated people's perceptions of vaccines and remedies within the context of the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. A 2x2 between-subject design with type of remedy (natural vs. synthetic) and salience of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (high vs. low) was conducted in Switzerland in spring 2021 (N = 452). The data did not provide evidence of a curative mindset for preventive remedies, as the participants exhibited a clear preference for the natural remedy compared to the synthetic remedy. Our study stresses the importance of understanding people's mindsets on how to protect themselves from infection with a virus during an ongoing pandemic to tackle misinformation and vaccine hesitancy.

Worldviews, trust, and risk perceptions shape public acceptance of COVID-19 public health measures.

Because of the outbreak of COVID-19, most countries have implemented measures aimed at reducing the number of infected people. However, these measures only work if they are generally accepted by the public. We conducted a two-wave longitudinal survey in Switzerland (n = 1,223) to study the factors that would influence perceived risks and the acceptance of the measures. Our findings showed that people with individualistic worldviews, high general interpersonal trust, low social trust, a low level of perceived risks, and the conviction that risks other than health risks were neglected had less acceptance of the implemented measures compared with people who held the opposite views on the mentioned variables. The number of infected people declined between survey waves 1 and 2. This desired effect not only reduced people's perceived risks but also decreased their social trust and increased the conviction that other risks were neglected. Finally, the acceptance of the measures declined. Our data also support the idea that reduced risk perceptions and a decline in social trust are important drivers for the reduction in the acceptance of the measures in survey wave 2. Our results suggest that as soon as the measures attain success or the public is tired of the implemented restrictions, public acceptance declines, and it seems difficult to prolong the measures as may be desirable from an epidemiological standpoint. The importance of worldviews and trust for public acceptance of the measures further suggests the necessity of a political discussion about the implemented measures.

Reactions of older Swiss adults to the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal survey on the acceptance of and adherence to public health measures.

RATIONALE: An important public health strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic was the protection of people at risk of severe progressions of an infection; namely, older people and people with pre-existing conditions. OBJECTIVE: To improve public health communication, it is vital to understand, which sociodemographic and psychological factors drive older people's acceptance of and compliance with public health measures. METHOD: This goal was pursued in this three-wave longitudinal online study with older adults, collected between March and June during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (N = 327; first and second wave during the national lockdown; third wave: after the lifting of most lockdown measures). RESULTS: The results show that overall acceptance of and adherence to the public health measures were high among older adults and even more so for people with pre-existing conditions (e.g., cancer, type II diabetes). However, some infringements of the measures were observed, and the longitudinal analyses suggest that increases in social trust positively influenced acceptance of measures over time, while trivialising beliefs and health fears impacted older adults' compliance with protective measures over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers insights into the behavioural responses of older adults to an ongoing threat and the associated uncertainty that is part of public communication about the pandemic and protective measures.

The Impact of Trust and Risk Perception on the Acceptance of Measures to Reduce COVID-19 Cases.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19 has had a large impact on the lives of many people worldwide. At the peak of confirmed COVID-19 cases during the first wave in Switzerland (March-April 2020), we conducted a survey in the German-speaking part of the country (N = 1,585). The results suggest that the implemented measures are accepted. The survey participants are more concerned that other family members could catch the virus compared with themselves, and they are worried about its economic impact. The results suggest that how trust is measured is crucial because general trust and social trust have opposite effects on the participants' risk perceptions. People with high general trust perceive less risks associated with COVID-19 compared with people who have low general trust, and people with high social trust perceive more risks compared with people who have low social trust. The results further indicate that perceived risks are important drivers for the acceptance of the government's implemented measures to control COVID-19 and for more precautionary behavior (i.e., contact with fewer people and more hygienic behavior). Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.