As a result of the survey, it reveals that 212 (21%) respondents visited peri-urban forestlands and mountains during the emergency period. The reasons of visiting those places are shown in Fig. 2. More than 40% of respondents who visited peri-urban forestlands and mountains visited there to feel relaxed. Feeling and touching nature was the second main reason and 20 to 25% of them answered the reasons including “to see beautiful landscape”, “to leave from daily routine”, and “to visit safe place”. The reasons directly related to physical activities such as doing supports and recreations were not main reasons. This overall trend of the reasons for visiting mountains shows that the residents were visiting mountains with the reasons related to their mental health. In the main reasons, 24% of the respondents who visited mountains chose “to visit safe place” as a reason for visiting there. This result suggests that peri-urban forestlands and mountains were considered as a safe place during the COVID-19 pandemic in a certain degree.
As for the socioeconomic attributes of the respondents, there was no obvious difference between them except for gender. Figure 3 shows the ratios of male and female respondents who visited / did not visit peri-urban forestlands and mountains. The ratio of the male respondents who visited those places is relatively high compared with the female respondents. It might reflect that relatively older male respondents who might be used to or interested in visiting mountains tended to visit peri-urban forestlands and mountains. The age group, over 60 years old, has the highest ratios of respondents in both categories of respondents who visited / did not visit, and it can be assumed that the older male respondents tended to visit those areas.
Regarding household income of residents, an existing study (Uchiyama & Kohsaka 2020) shows that residents with higher household income tended to visit green areas during the pandemic. However, Fig. 4 indicates that the difference of household income between the respondent groups who visited / did not visit peri-urban forestlands and mountains is unclear. Although relatively small differences of the ratios of respondents in individual household-income groups can be seen between the two respondent groups (Fig. 4), the differences are not clear compared with the result provided by the existing study.
Furthermore, the environmental factors of residential places of respondents were examined. It reveals that the average ratio of forestland and area size of the zip-code district have statistically significant differences between the respondent groups who visited / did not visit peri-urban forestlands and mountains (Tables 1 and 2). As for the ratio of forestland, the average ratio of forestlands in the zip-code districts of respondents who visited those places is higher than that of ones who did not visit (t-test, p < 0.01) (Table 1). This result suggests that the respondents who visited such areas can relatively easily access to forestlands in their residential areas and they might be more familiar with forest environment in their daily life. Moreover, it could be assumed that their residential places are not highly urbanized and not fully covered by built-up areas. The environment which can allow the residents to easily access to forestlands might be a part of contexts which encourage the residents to visit peri-urban forestlands and mountains.
Table 1
Ratios of forestlands in the zip-code districts of respondents who visited / did not visit mountains in the emergency period
Ratio of forestland
|
Visited
|
Did not visit
|
Average (%)
|
8.10
|
4.33
|
Variance
|
332.54
|
158.00
|
Number of respondents
|
212
|
1031
|
Degree of freedom
|
254
|
|
t value
|
2.87
|
|
p value
|
0.004426
|
|
Table 2
Area sizes of the zip-code districts of respondents who visited / did not visit mountains in the emergency period
Area sizes of the zip-code districts
|
Visited
|
Did not visit
|
Average (ha)
|
213.08
|
147.03
|
Variance
|
197,761.2
|
65,189.4
|
Number of respondents
|
212
|
1031
|
Degree of freedom
|
240
|
|
t value
|
2.09
|
|
p value
|
0.037421
|
|
Regarding the area size of zip-code district, the average area size of the zip-code districts of respondents who visited those places is larger than that of ones who did not visit (t-test, p < 0.05) (Table 2). Because generally the zip-code areas sizes are larger in peri-urban areas compared with those in urban areas, it can be assumed that the respondents who visited peri-urban forestlands and mountains are living in peri-urban areas in the research site. In peri-urban areas, the residents can have relatively large lands for their houses and gardens. In addition to the access to forestlands, access to nature such as plants in the gardens might be a factor which can familiarize the residents to visit natural lands such as mountains.
To identify the distribution pattern of residential areas of respondents who visited peri-urban forestlands and mountains during the emergency period, the distribution of the zip-code districts of the respondents is visualized in Fig. 5. In the figure, those of ones who did not visit are also shown and overlaid on the map. As we mentioned in the explanation of the analysis result of area size of zip-code district, the smaller zip-code districts are located in urbanized areas. The central area of Nagoya City which is the capital city of the research site, Aichi Prefecture, is indicated in Fig. 5 with red circle, and the sizes of zip-code areas are relatively small compared with those of the surrounding areas. As it is shown in the map, the green colored areas which are the zip-code districts of respondents who visited peri-urban forestlands and mountains are mainly located outside of the red circle and the sizes of them are relatively large. The result can support the assumptions which we provided based on the analysis of forestland ratios and sizes of zip-code areas, showing that residential areas of respondents who visited peri-urban forestlands and mountains are in peri-urban areas and not concentrated in urbanized areas.
The analysis results of environmental factors suggested that the residents do not have rich experience of visiting forestlands and mountains might not have such places as their destinations to visit during the pandemic.
Regarding the awareness of the residents on forest functions, we asked about their awareness which they had before and after the emergency period. Specifically, the expectations of residents on forest functions were survey using questionnaire. As results, the ratios of respondents who expected certain functions differ between those of the respondents who visited / did not visit peri-urban forestlands and mountains. As an overall trend, the difference between the expectations which the respondents had before and after the emergency period is trivial. The different degrees of expectations between the two groups of the respondents can be seen regarding the functions such as “providing a relaxing space”, “providing an educational space”, and “purification of air and reduction of noise”. Before and after the emergency period, the ratios of respondents who visited mountains and expected such functions are higher than those of respondents who did not visit. After the period, the differences became larger for the functions such as “providing a relaxing space” and “providing an educational space” as show in Fig. 6.
The results here suggest that the respondents who visited peri-urban forestlands and mountains were highly expecting those mental and educational functions for forestlands. having such relatively high expectations for forest might be encouraging the residents to visit those areas during the emergency period.