IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i8p4612-d791555.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influence of COVID-19 Crisis on Motivation and Hiking Intention of Gen Z in China: Perceived Risk and Coping Appraisal as Moderators

Author

Listed:
  • Yunfan Wu

    (Graduate School of Sport Sciences, Waseda University, 3-4-1 Higashifushimi Nishi-Tokyo, Tokyo 2020021, Japan)

  • Keita Kinoshita

    (Faculty of Sport Sciences, Waseda University, 3-4-1 Higashifushimi Nishi-Tokyo, Tokyo 2020021, Japan)

  • Yi Zhang

    (Graduate School of Sport Sciences, Waseda University, 3-4-1 Higashifushimi Nishi-Tokyo, Tokyo 2020021, Japan)

  • Rena Kagami

    (Graduate School of Sport Sciences, Waseda University, 3-4-1 Higashifushimi Nishi-Tokyo, Tokyo 2020021, Japan)

  • Shintaro Sato

    (Faculty of Sport Sciences, Waseda University, 3-4-1 Higashifushimi Nishi-Tokyo, Tokyo 2020021, Japan)

Abstract

People’s lives have drastically changed since the outbreak of COVID-19. One concern during the pandemic has been the level of inactivity among people. Compared to various generations (e.g., baby boomers, generation alpha), Generation Z (Gen Z) traditionally spends much less time in outdoor spaces. Due to the pandemic, their inactiveness is assumed to be even more severe. Hiking, an outdoor activity, has become a possible remedy for young people to exercise in a safer sport environment compared to traditional facility-based activities. Although various studies have supported the link between motivations and hiking intention, the relationship may be altered based on psychological influences unique to the pandemic situations—perceived risk and coping appraisals. The current study was conducted to investigate the relationship between Gen Z’s motivations and hiking intention and moderating roles of perceived risk and coping appraisals in a pandemic environment. Data were collected from Gen Z between 18 and 24 in China ( N = 407). The validity and reliability of all the constructs were assessed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), average variance extracted (AVE), and composite reliability. For testing hypotheses, PROCESS Macro 4.0 was used. The findings proposed that the appraisals of the pandemic situation (i.e., perceived risk and coping ability) moderated the relationship between two of the motivations—intellectual and destination motivations—and hiking intention. As a result, organizers of outdoor sports programs can implement viable strategies and take valid measurements to minimize the fear and worries among people in the time of the crisis.

Suggested Citation

  • Yunfan Wu & Keita Kinoshita & Yi Zhang & Rena Kagami & Shintaro Sato, 2022. "Influence of COVID-19 Crisis on Motivation and Hiking Intention of Gen Z in China: Perceived Risk and Coping Appraisal as Moderators," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-21, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4612-:d:791555
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4612/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4612/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Arthur Carvalho & Stanko Dimitrov & Kate Larson, 2018. "On proper scoring rules and cumulative prospect theory," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 6(3), pages 343-376, November.
    4. Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Kokot, Johanna & Vomhof, Markus & Weßling, Jens, 2017. "Health insurance choice and risk preferences under cumulative prospect theory – an experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 374-397.
    5. Shengxiang She & Yunzhang Tian & Lin Lu & Iveta Eimontaite & Ting Xie & Yan Sun, 2019. "An Exploration of Hiking Risk Perception: Dimensions and Antecedent Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-14, June.
    6. Wang, Jie & Liu-Lastres, Bingjie & Ritchie, Brent W. & Mills, Deborah J., 2019. "Travellers' self-protections against health risks: An application of the full Protection Motivation Theory," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Mona Mirehie & Shintaro Sato & Brian Krohn, 2021. "Participation in Active Sport Tourism and Life Satisfaction: Comparing Golf, Snowboarding, and Long-Distance Running," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-10, September.
    8. Jinkyung Choi & Douglas Nelson & Barbara Almanza, 2019. "Food safety risk for restaurant management: use of restaurant health inspection report to predict consumers’ behavioral intention," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(11), pages 1443-1457, November.
    9. Xin Chen & Zhen-feng Cheng & Gyu-Bae Kim, 2020. "Make It Memorable: Tourism Experience, Fun, Recommendation and Revisit Intentions of Chinese Outbound Tourists," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-24, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Delgosha, Mohammad Soltani & Hajiheydari, Nastaran, 2020. "On-demand service platforms pro/anti adoption cognition: Examining the context-specific reasons," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 180-194.
    2. Farooq, Ali & Laato, Samuli & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Isoaho, Jouni, 2021. "Understanding the impact of information sources on COVID-19 related preventive measures in Finland," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    3. Marie-Eve Laporte & Géraldine Michel & Sophie Rieunier, 2017. "Towards a better understanding of eating behaviour through the concept of Perception of Nutritional Risk," Post-Print halshs-02923251, HAL.
    4. Hajiheydari, Nastaran & Delgosha, Mohammad Soltani & Olya, Hossein, 2021. "Scepticism and resistance to IoMT in healthcare: Application of behavioural reasoning theory with configurational perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    5. José Alberto Martínez-González & Eduardo Parra-López & Almudena Barrientos-Báez, 2021. "Young Consumers’ Intention to Participate in the Sharing Economy: An Integrated Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-21, January.
    6. Helena Hansson & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2014. "Decision Making for Animal Health and Welfare: Integrating Risk‐Benefit Analysis with Prospect Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1149-1159, June.
    7. Stefan A. Lipman & Arthur E. Attema, 2019. "Rabin's paradox for health outcomes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(8), pages 1064-1071, August.
    8. Zamri Ahmad & Haslindar Ibrahim & Jasman Tuyon, 2017. "Institutional investor behavioral biases: syntheses of theory and evidence," Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 40(5), pages 578-603, May.
    9. Morshedi, Mohamad Ali & Kashani, Hamed, 2022. "Assessment of vulnerability reduction policies: Integration of economic and cognitive models of decision-making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    10. Schwanen, Tim & Ettema, Dick, 2009. "Coping with unreliable transportation when collecting children: Examining parents' behavior with cumulative prospect theory," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 511-525, June.
    11. Aleksandar Radic & Michael Lück & Amr Al-Ansi & Bee-Lia Chua & Sabrina Seeler & António Raposo & Jinkyung Jenny Kim & Heesup Han, 2021. "To Dine, or Not to Dine on a Cruise Ship in the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Tripartite Approach towards an Understanding of Behavioral Intentions among Female Passengers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Moncada, J.A. & Tao, Z. & Valkering, P. & Meinke-Hubeny, F. & Delarue, E., 2021. "Influence of distribution tariff structures and peer effects on the adoption of distributed energy resources," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    13. Avineri, Erel, 2012. "On the use and potential of behavioural economics from the perspective of transport and climate change," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 512-521.
    14. Santos, Georgina & Behrendt, Hannah & Teytelboym, Alexander, 2010. "Part II: Policy instruments for sustainable road transport," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 46-91.
    15. Caballero, William N. & Lunday, Brian J., 2019. "Influence modeling: Mathematical programming representations of persuasion under either risk or uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(1), pages 266-282.
    16. Uwe Cantner, 2017. "Foundations of Economic Change: An Extended Schumpeterian Approach," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Pyka & Uwe Cantner (ed.), Foundations of Economic Change, pages 9-49, Springer.
    17. Hermanns, Benedicta & Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Kokot, Johanna & Vomhof, Markus, 2023. "Heterogeneity in health insurance choice: An experimental investigation of consumer choice and feature preferences," hche Research Papers 29, University of Hamburg, Hamburg Center for Health Economics (hche).
    18. Angshuman Ghosh & Sanjeev Varshney & Pingali Venugopal, 2014. "Social Media WOM: Definition, Consequences and Inter-relationships," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 39(3), pages 293-308, August.
    19. Lange, Florian & Brückner, Carolin & Kröger, Birte & Beller, Johannes & Eggert, Frank, 2014. "Wasting ways: Perceived distance to the recycling facilities predicts pro-environmental behavior," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 246-254.
    20. Maren Baars & Michael Goedde‐Menke, 2022. "Ignorance illusion in decisions under risk: The impact of perceived expertise on probability weighting," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(1), pages 35-62, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4612-:d:791555. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.