COVID-19 is reshaping human interactions with the natural environment, potentially generating profound consequences for health and well-being. To assess the effects of COVID-19 on the outdoor recreation participation and subjective well-being of adolescents, as well as how participation in outdoor activities may mitigate declines in subjective well-being, we used a Qualtrics XM panel to conduct a nationally representative survey of youth ages 10–18 across the United States (n = 624) between 30 April and 15 June 2020. Survey questions focused on frequency of participation in outdoor activities before and during the pandemic, as well as changes in subjective well-being. Paired t-tests revealed decreases in both outdoor recreation participation (64% reported declines) and subjective well-being (52% reported declines). A regression model examining correlates of changes in subjective well-being (R² = 0.42) revealed strong associations with changes in outdoor play (B = 0.44, p < 0.001) and nature-based (B = 0.21, p = 0.016) activities. Adolescents’ from all backgrounds who participated in these activities during the pandemic reported smaller declines in subjective well-being. Results highlight the critical role that time outdoors and time in nature play in bolstering adolescents’ resilience to stressors such as the COVID-19 pandemic and underscore the need to facilitate outdoor recreation opportunities for youth during times of crisis.

Restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic significantly altered daily lives and affected human health and well-being. Outdoor and nature-based activities could potentially mitigate some of these negative impacts. To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor recreation and subjective well-being, we combined two samples of U.S. adults collected from April 30^th - June 15^th, 2020 and from August 7^th - August 26^th, 2020 (total n = 2178) using Qualtrics XM. During the pandemic, participation in outdoor activities declined by 35%, participation in nature-based activities declined by 33%, and subjective well-being declined by 24%. Participation in outdoor activities and nature activities prior to the pandemic and during the pandemic predicted smaller declines in subjective well-being. Results highlight the importance of outdoor recreation for building resilience to changes in subjective well-being before and during global crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Growing evidence suggests that connection to nature may be linked to mental health and well-being. Behavioral changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic could negatively affect adolescents’ connection to nature, subsequently impacting health and well-being. We explored the relationship between connection to nature and well-being before and during the pandemic through a nationally representative survey of adolescents across the United States (n = 624) between April and June 2020. Survey items focused on connection to nature, mental well-being, and participation in outdoor activities before and during the pandemic. Paired-sample t-tests revealed declines in connection to nature, mental well-being, and participation in outdoor activities during the pandemic. Multiple linear regression analyses examining connection to nature’s mediating role between outdoor activity participation and mental well-being indicated that connection to nature fueled higher levels of mental well-being at both time intervals. Z scores comparing connection to nature’s mediating role between outdoor activity participation and mental well-being between time intervals indicate that during the pandemic, the direct effect of outdoor activities on mental well-being increased, generating a greater impact than before the pandemic. This study illustrates how the health and well-being benefits associated with adolescents’ outdoor activities are reinforced when those activities also foster a stronger connection to nature.

The efficacy of science communication can be influenced by the cultural values and cognitions of target audiences, yet message framing rarely accounts for these cognitive factors. To explore the effects of message framing tailored to specific audiences, we investigated relationships between one form of cultural cognition—political ideology—and perceptions about the zoonotic origins of the COVID-19 pandemic using a nationally representative Qualtrics XM panel (n = 1,554) during August 2020. First, we examined differences in attitudes towards science (in general) and COVID-19 (specifically) based on political ideology. We found that, compared to conservatives and moderates, liberals trusted science more, were less skeptical of science, perceived greater risk from COVID-19, were more likely to believe in a wildlife origin of COVID-19, and were more likely to support restrictions on wildlife trade. Second, we examined the influence of cultural framing on the perceived validity of science related to COVID-19. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: 1) a technocratic framing that highlighted feats of human ingenuity to overcome zoonoses; 2) a regulatory framing that highlighted regulations and expansions of protected areas for wildlife as a means to prevent zoonoses, and 3) a control article about traffic lights with no cultural framing. After reading the initial framing article, all three groups read the same fictional, yet factually accurate, ‘Nature Science study’ generated by the authors. An OLS regression model revealed a significant interaction between the technocratic framing and political ideology. Relative to the control group, the technocratic framing slightly increased perceived validity of the Nature Science study for conservatives, significantly lowered perceived validity for liberals, and had no impact on moderates. We did not detect any significant interaction between framing and political ideology for the regulatory framing. Findings of this study highlight the need to account for cultural cognitions when communicating about COVID-19 and other zoonotic diseases. Communication strategies carefully designed to resonate with ideologically diverse audiences may ultimately lead to bipartisan support for actions required to promote “One Health” approaches that reduce the impacts of zoonoses on human and environmental health.