Next Article in Journal
Description of the Northern Green Anaconda (Eunectes akayima sp. nov. Serpentes; Boidae): What Is in a Name?
Previous Article in Journal
Age Determination of Rocky Mountain Ridged Mussels (Gonidea angulata) in the Okanagan Basin, Canada
Previous Article in Special Issue
Rock Surface Colonization by Groundwater Microorganisms in an Aquifer System in Quebec, Canada
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 16
Issue 7
10.3390/d16070416
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Linking Perceived Biodiversity and Restorative Benefits in Urban Parks through Place Attachment—A Case Study in Fuzhou, China

by
Jingru Chen
1,
Binsheng Wu
2,
Kunli Dai
3 and
Jiao Yu
4,*
1
College of Arts and Design, Jimei University, Xiamen 361021, China
2
College of Landscape Architecture and Art, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang 330045, China
3
Party School of Jiangxi Provincial Committee of the Communist Party of China, Nanchang 330000, China
4
College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2024, 16(7), 416; https://doi.org/10.3390/d16070416
Submission received: 14 May 2024 / Revised: 7 July 2024 / Accepted: 8 July 2024 / Published: 18 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diversity in 2024)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Enhanced understanding of environmental restoration can be achieved by examining how urban park visitors’ perceptions of biodiversity contribute to their sense of environmental rejuvenation. In this study, a questionnaire survey was conducted among 554 visitors from five representative urban parks in Fuzhou, China, and a structural equation model was used to explore the interactions among perceived biodiversity, place attachment, and self-rated repair. The main findings were as follows: (1) Perceived biodiversity had significant positive and direct effects on place dependence and self-rated restoration, but not on place identity. It is worth noting that place dependence has a deep and direct impact on place identity. (2) Self-rated restoration could be directly influenced by perceived biodiversity and place dependence. The direct impact of perceived biodiversity showed more intensity than place dependence. (3) Place dependence can be the only intermediary or link in the chain between perceived biodiversity and self-rated restoration. Conversely, place identity may not act as an independent intermediary but can play a key role in the chain of intermediaries. The study not only advances our understanding of the complex relationship between perceived biodiversity, place attachment, and self-assessed restoration; it also provides practical implications for urban green eco-design initiatives, thereby contributing to the field of urban landscape planning and formulation.

1. Introduction

Rapid global urbanization has presented significant challenges to human well-being and health [1,2]. Particularly in urban environments, residents are subjected to a spectrum of severe physical and mental health challenges, which are partially attributable to exposure to environmental pollutants and acoustic disturbances, alongside other urban stressors that collectively impact well-being [3]. Research across various developed and developing countries has demonstrated the beneficial impact of urban green spaces on public health [4], notably in improving mental health and reducing the incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. The influence of urban green spaces on public health and well-being is well documented through theories such as the Attention Restoration Theory (ART) [5] and the Stress Recovery Theory (SRT) [6]. ART posits that green environments significantly restore and enhance an individual’s attentional capacity, cognitive functioning, and psychological well-being. Similarly, SRT highlights the role of interaction with green spaces in reducing stress and tension, thereby promoting emotional recovery and positive affective states, which contribute to overall health and well-being. The beneficial attributes of green spaces are multifaceted, encompassing biological, psychological, and social factors, and they operate through complex pathways.
Place attachment [7], defined as the emotional bond individuals form with specific places through repeated visits, often encompasses positive feelings like fondness, satisfaction, and closeness, which contribute to psychological health. In green environments, sensory experiences—visual, auditory, and olfactory—are integral to this attachment. Humans’ innate ‘biophilia’ [8,9] suggests a natural inclination towards and emotional connection with living organisms, a factor that is potentially crucial in developing place attachment [10]. However, there is a tendency in academia to focus predominantly on the environmental attributes of inanimate objects, thus overlooking the dynamic interplay between biodiversity and human health [11]. Though there is some controversy regarding the role of biodiversity perception in urban green spaces for human well-being [12], evidence indicates that diverse species, such as birds and insects, can positively influence mental health, although the relationship is complex and influenced by various metrics of well-being and biodiversity [13,14].
Urban parks [15,16], as integral components of urban green infrastructure, play a pivotal role in the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity, while also providing essential recreational and leisure spaces for urban residents. The introduction of diverse vegetation not only enriches biodiversity but also enhances the public’s aesthetic experience. Furthermore, interactions with various plant and animal species deepen public appreciation of nature and promote health benefits derived from the environment, thus offering an improved restorative experience within urban life. The biodiversity found in urban parks is considered an ecological asset and is widely recognized for its role in facilitating psychological and emotional recovery [17,18]. These restorative benefits influence management strategies for vegetation and animal diversity in parks and prompt urban policymakers to consider how to maximize these benefits by enhancing public place attachment. Moreover, although previous research has explored perceived restorativeness as a mediating factor between biodiversity perception and well-being benefits [19,20], the role of place attachment has been relatively under-researched [21]. This highlights a significant knowledge gap in the existing literature, indicating an urgent need for further research into the role of place attachment in enhancing the perception of biodiversity levels and restorative experiences in urban park environments.
In summary, the initial interaction of park visitors with biodiversity is primarily a physical experience, leading to an iterative process of environmental resilience [22,23], deeply rooted in human–nature emotional connections [24,25]. With the rising global discourse on biodiversity, understanding the intricate relationship between perceived biodiversity, place attachment, and restoration benefits is essential [19]. This understanding not only provides empirical support for human–organism symbiosis but also offers innovative design ideas for optimizing the health functions of urban parks [26]. In this study, we scrutinized the distinct correlation between perceived biodiversity and the characteristic restorative advantages prevalent in urban parks. We also illuminated whether place attachment operates as a mediating factor for the restorative benefits encountered by recreational users. In addition, our study aims to unravel the ways in which perceived biodiversity in urban parks contributes to enhancing the mental health benefits for recreational users. These findings provide valuable insights for policymakers involved in the design, revitalization, maintenance, and enhancement of urban parks.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Perceived Biodiversity

Perceived biodiversity [27] involves an individual’s perception and observation of the diversity of different plant and animal species in the environment. It reflects an individual’s subjective perception that there is life around them [28,29]. This may be slightly different from the actual biodiversity (quantified by experts as the richness of species in the environment). However, it can reflect the level of concern and awareness that an individual has about the living things in their natural environment [30]. Broadly speaking, perceived biodiversity, including the number of species noticed or encountered by participants, is positively correlated with public well-being [31]. For example, White et al. [32] found a significant positive association between increased perceived biodiversity and public perceptions of restoration. However, the possible reason behind this result, as opposed to the inconsistent results for actual biodiversity, lies in the fact that individuals differ in their ability to recognize various plant and animal species [33]. In other words, some participants may not be able to perceive (or accurately perceive) the level of species diversity present in green spaces [34]. Furthermore, research has confirmed that biodiversity in urban green spaces contributes to the well-being of visitors, with influences including stress levels, mood, and attention [35].

2.2. Place Attachment

At the center of this dynamic is place attachment, a key theory in human–place emotions [36,37]. Williams et al. [38] articulated the nature of place attachment, depicting two dimensions: place dependence [39] and place identity [40]. The authors subsequently developed corresponding measurement scales. Place dependence refers to the functional utility of environmental attributes in various environments, including but not limited to urban parks, rural landscapes, and other areas. This concept explores how diverse ecological settings can fulfill visitors’ recreational needs while simultaneously enhancing their emotional ties to these locations through the perception of biodiversity. For instance, the presence of varied species not only offers educational and recreational opportunities but also enhances visitors’ appreciation of nature [15]. This deepened appreciation promotes a sense of belonging, which is instrumental in developing strong place attachment. The interplay between practical usage and emotional engagement through perceived biodiversity exemplifies how place dependence can evolve into place identity. In this evolution, the unique meanings and emotions that individuals associate with specific locales are shaped by their interactions with biodiversity. Collectively, place dependence and place identity create an intricate framework of human–place interactions that appreciate both the functional attributes and the emotional connections fostered by engaging with biodiversity [41].
Consequently, the ensuing hypotheses are formulated based on previous research and the objectives of this study:
H1. 
Perceived biodiversity has a significant positive effect on place identity.
H2. 
Perceived biodiversity has a significant positive effect on place dependence.
H3. 
Place dependence has a significant positive effect on place identity.

2.3. Self-Rated Restoration

Restorative environments [42,43] refer to nature or certain specific environments that help individuals to recover from fatigue or negative emotions, and in general, green spaces are considered to be highly restorative. When an individual has a strong emotional connection with the green environment, it will effectively promote attention recovery and relaxation, contributing to the individual’s restorative perception [44,45]. Although ART proposes a mechanism of beneficial effects on public health and well-being through exposure to nature, so far, only a few studies have delved into the relationship between perceived biodiversity and restoration. For example, Carrus et al. [46] showed that increases in actual biodiversity were associated with increases in perceived restoration in the environment. Although some research has confirmed the effects of perceived biodiversity or place attachment on human emotional well-being, the interrelationships among these three factors still require further exploration [19]. Therefore, in conjunction with these analyses, the present study adopted two dimensions of place attachment (place dependence and place identity) as mediators between perceived biodiversity and self-rated restoration, leading to the subsequent hypotheses and construction of the research model (Figure 1).
Therefore, the following assumptions could be made:
H4. 
Place dependence has a significant positive effect on self-rated restoration.
H5. 
Place identity has a significant positive effect on self-rated restoration.
H6. 
Perceived biodiversity has a significant positive effect on self-rated restoration.
H7. 
Perceived biodiversity has a significant positive effect on self-rated restoration through place dependence.
H8. 
Perceived biodiversity has a significant positive effect on self-rated restoration through place identity.
H9. 
Perceived biodiversity can positively influence self-rated restoration through a chained mediating effect of place dependence and place identity.

3. Methods and Materials

3.1. Study Sites

This study was conducted in Fuzhou city (latitudes 25°15′–26°39′ N and longitudes 118°08′–120°31′ E), located in southeastern China. Fuzhou is characterized by a distinctive estuarine basin landform, featuring prevalent mountains and hills [47]. The region experiences a subtropical monsoon climate, characterized by warmth and humidity, which ensures the presence of evergreen landscapes year-round. To conduct this study, we meticulously selected five representative urban parks in the main urban area of Fuzhou based on their geographical distribution, visitor traffic, and accessibility. These selected parks include Niugangshan Park, Fushan Country Park, West Lake Park, National Forest Park, and Wenquan Park, each showcasing varying scales and design themes. These parks effectively cater to the recreational, leisure, and scenic preferences of urban tourists, residents, and a diverse range of interest groups [48,49]. Their accessibility and substantial visitation rates enhance the feasibility and convenience of this research endeavor. Furthermore, the chosen parks represent common types of urban parks, and their diverse landscapes and rich biological resources provide valuable insights into the assessment of perceived biodiversity and restoration benefits (Figure 2).

3.2. Questionnaire Design and Collection

3.2.1. Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire used in this study comprised four sections, delineated as follows.
The initial section of the questionnaire was dedicated to collecting demographic information from the participants, covering six fundamental aspects including gender, age, education, occupation, monthly income, and total number of visits within the past year. In addition to these quantitative metrics, we incorporated several open-ended questions designed to explore the visitors’ behavioral patterns and motivations. Examples of these inquiries include, “With whom did you visit the park today?” and “What was the primary purpose of your visit today?” These questions, modeled on approaches used in previous research [50], aimed to minimize response bias. It is important to note that the responses to these open-ended questions were not included in the subsequent statistical analysis.
The second section focused on assessing visitors’ perceived biodiversity in urban parks. This focus was motivated by the complexity of quantifying biodiversity comprehensively [22,51]. Recognizing that various species play essential roles in urban biodiversity and can influence visitors’ perceptions and activities [24,52,53], we chose to focus on birds, butterflies, and plants as key indicators of biodiversity [54,55,56]. These species are more easily observed and identified by the public. To measure perceived biodiversity, we developed a five-point scale based on the work of Fuller et al. [57]. Prior to establishing the perceived biodiversity scales in urban parks, we conducted preliminary assessments of the range of species within each category (birds, plants, butterflies) across five selected urban parks, including field surveys and analysis of historical data, to ensure that our scale accurately reflects the level of biodiversity in each park. Then, the participants were asked to estimate the number of species within each category (birds, plants, and butterflies) in the park. Specifically, they were asked, “How many distinct types of birds (or plants, or butterflies) can usually be encountered in this environment?” The scale options were as follows: for birds: 1 = less than 10 species, 2 = 10–20 species, 3 = 21–30 species, 4 = 30–50 species, 5 = more than 50 species; for plants: 1 = less than 10 species, 2 = 10–30 species, 3 = 30–50 species, 4 = 50–80 species, 5 = more than 80 species; and for butterflies: 1 = less than 3 species, 2 = 3–8 species, 3 = 9–15 species, 4 = 16–25 species, 5 = more than 25 species.
The third section was dedicated to assessing the place attachment of urban park visitors [58]. We employed the place attachment measurement scale developed by Williams et al. [38], which includes two dimensions: place dependence and place identity. To adapt this assessment to the Chinese context, we drew upon a study by Yu et al. [59] on place attachment among Chinese visitors. The customized assessment module aimed to examine the degree of place attachment within the urban park environment. Place attachment holds practical implications, as it reflects visitors’ recognition of the biodiversity in the vicinity, influencing their engagement with the urban park setting [60].
The fourth section focuses on evaluating the restorative benefits experienced by urban park visitors. This component involves assessing the perceived restorative potential of Fuzhou’s urban parks. Relevant studies commonly consider attributes such as detachment, escape, fascination, and compatibility as significant components of restorativeness [16]. We utilized the self-rated restoration (SR) scale developed by Han [61], which integrates both the Attention Restoration Theory (ART) and Stress Recovery Theory (SRT) perspectives. This scale comprises four dimensions and 17 items, providing a concise evaluation tool. It is worth noting that these scales have been widely used in assessing environmental restorative benefits (for detailed information, refer to Appendix A). To ensure consistency with other scales in the questionnaire and to minimize participant confusion, we employed a uniform five-point rating scale [62].

3.2.2. Questionnaire Collection and Ethics Statement

The data collection phase extended from 1 April 2023 to 10 May 2023, guided by the following criteria: (1) favorable weather conditions characterized by clear skies, minimal wind, and optimal visibility; (2) random sampling conducted within the urban parks; and (3) data collection scheduled during peak leisure hours for visitors (8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). Individuals who expressed interest and willingness to participate were approached in the five selected parks and provided with a paper-based questionnaire. Additionally, participants were instructed to engage in a brief 3–5 min observation of the surroundings before formally completing the questionnaire. Upon successful completion, participants received a postcard and a cash reward of RMB 50 (approximately USD 7). This study adhered strictly to ethical guidelines and procedures outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, ensuring that all participants were fully informed about the study’s nature and purpose and provided voluntary informed consent. Furthermore, all methods and experimental protocols followed relevant guidelines and regulations, with participation being entirely voluntary and participants being informed that all collected data would be used solely for the study’s purposes and evaluated anonymously.

3.2.3. Statistical Analysis

Hypothetical conceptual modeling serves as a method for causal validation, drawing upon previous research to integrate multiple theories and research findings to achieve the study’s objectives. In contrast to conventional regression analysis, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) allows for the comprehensive analysis of multivariate causal models. SEM achieves this by incorporating latent variables, observed variables, and causal paths when constructing, estimating, and evaluating hypothetical models. In this investigation, data analysis was conducted using SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 26.0 software [63] to assess the rationality and stability of the hypothesized model structure. This verification process ensured the validity and reliability of the questionnaire data, providing a solid foundation for the study by elucidating the relationships among various sets of independent and dependent variables.

4. Results

4.1. Overview of Socio-Demographics

The initial data collection was based on 70 preliminary surveys conducted between 1 April and 5 April 2023. According to the feedback of the respondents, the questionnaire items were further deepened to make them easier to understand. Finally, we engaged with a total of 570 visitors over 18 years old and distributed questionnaires among them. After discarding 16 responses that were either incompletely filled, partially answered, or showed complete agreement across indicators—suggesting potential bias—we obtained 554 valid questionnaires, resulting in a validity rate of 97.2%. As shown in Table 1, respondents were fairly evenly distributed among the five parks, West Lake Park, National Forest Park, Wenquan Park, Fushan Country Park, and Niugangshan Park, with proportions ranging from 19.1% to 20.6%. Gender representation was relatively balanced, with men accounting for 48.9% and women for 51.1%. The majority of respondents fell within the age range of 18 (34.7%) to 35 (28.5%) years old, with fewer participants over 60 years old (5.1%). In terms of education, 39.5% had completed high school or junior college education, followed by 28.9% with undergraduate degrees. In terms of occupation, approximately 36.3% were employed, and freelancers constituted a smaller portion. Concerning monthly household income, 29.4% reported incomes between CYN 8000 and 15,000 (USD 1129 to 2118), which was the highest income bracket. The distribution of participants in the CYN 4000 to 8000 (USD 565 to 1129) income bracket was 26.7%. As for the total number of visits within the past year, 19.5%, 24.5%, 33.2%, and 22.7% of respondents had visited the parks once, 2–5 times, 6–10 times, and 11 times or more, respectively.

4.2. Reliability Testing

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) are widely used analytical tools to assess whether questionnaire reliability and validity meet the testing criteria. Prerequisites for conducting factor analysis include the utilization of the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test within the EFA framework. A KMO value exceeding 0.6 and a Bartlett’s Sig value below 0.005 indicate a strong and statistically significant inter-item correlation, justifying further examination of factor reliability and validity. As shown in Table 2, the KMO values range from 0.665 to 0.953, indicating high questionnaire validity. All Bartlett’s significance values are recorded as 0.000. Therefore, the dataset is ready for subsequent analysis.
The reliability test is a standard procedure for assessing the internal consistency of questionnaires, measuring the extent of consistent outcomes across repeated measurements of all items in a uniform manner. As depicted in Table 3, the Cronbach’s α for each variable question item ranged from 0.747 to 0.929, affirming the heightened reliability of the data. Furthermore, the estimates of latent variables, Average Variance Extracted (AVE), and Composite Reliability (CR), fall within acceptable ranges, indicating robust convergent validity. Table 4 illustrates that the square root of the AVE for variables surpasses inter-variable correlation indices, demonstrating that variables can maintain independence while retaining validity.

4.3. Model Fit Test

Model fit tests are often used to assess the appropriateness of a hypothetical model. Generally, the types of fits assessed are classified as the absolute fit index, comparative fit index, and composite fit index. As shown in Table 5, the fitting indexes of each hypothetical model are in the appropriate range, which confirms that the SEM model proposed in this study has a certain robustness and interpretability.

4.4. Direct Effect Hypothesis Testing

Perceived biodiversity has a direct and statistically significant impact on place dependence (β = 0.319, SE = 0.059, t = 5.879, p < 0.001) and self-rated restoration (β = 0.410, SE = 0.049, t = 8.078, p < 0.001). Additionally, there is a direct relationship between place dependence and place identity (β = 0.487, SE = 0.050, t = 9.030, p < 0.001). Similarly, place dependence (β = 0.282, SE = 0.046, t = 5.405, p < 0.001) and place identity (β = 0.199, SE = 0.049, t = 3.939, p < 0.001) have a direct impact on self-rated restoration. In summary, the analysis reveals significant differences in the two-dimensional structure of place attachment within the current model (Table 6, Figure 3).

4.5. Mediation Effect Test for Place Attachment

To clarify how the impact of perceived biodiversity on self-rated restoration is mediated by place attachment, we applied the bootstrap method for paths H7 (PB→ PD→ SR), H8 (PB→ PI→ SR), and H9 (PB→ PD→ PI→ SR). This is a commonly used mediation analysis method. The result shows that path H7 (estimate = 0.090, p < 0.001) has been confirmed, signifying that perceived biodiversity plays a role in enhancing an individual’s sense of place dependence and self-rated restoration, thereby contributing to the restoration experience. Furthermore, the study has also verified the existence of path H9 (estimate = 0.031, p < 0.001), indicating perceived biodiversity could influence self-rated restoration through the mediation of both place dependence and place identity. To sum up, place dependence is not only an independent intermediary but also a chain intermediary, and place identity has a substantial impact only in the context of a chain intermediary (Table 7).

5. Discussion

5.1. Effects of Perceived Biodiversity on Self-Rated Restoration in Urban Parks

The mechanisms through which human perception of biodiversity influences restoration benefits in urban parks can be multifaceted [22,64]. Our study investigates the impact of perceived biodiversity on self-rated restoration among urban park visitors in Fuzhou City and explores the mediating role of place attachment. Marselle et al. [19] argued that individuals exposed to higher biodiversity in urban park environments were more likely to experience enhanced recovery. Similarly, research conducted in South America indicated that people in such environments derive greater restorative benefits when they perceive a site to be safe, rich in species, natural (as opposed to artificial), and conducive to experiencing the sounds of birds [65]. In addition, our findings (Table 6) reveal a direct positive effect of perceived biodiversity on self-rated restoration (β = 0.410, p < 0.001), which aligns with previous studies [65,66]. In essence, enhancing biodiversity within urban parks can be achieved through various means, including the implementation of eco-friendly management strategies [67] and the preservation of natural areas. Additionally, measures such as providing bird nests and beehives and creating green corridors [68] to connect different areas can effectively attract and sustain diverse wildlife [69]. These initiatives not only contribute to increased biodiversity within urban parks but also offer opportunities for urban residents and visitors to connect with nature, thereby fostering healthier and more robust urban ecosystems [70].
However, some studies present different perspectives. For instance, research on urban park use in New York [71] suggests that certain participants exhibit heightened vigilance against potential threats, particularly in wild urban landscapes (e.g., wilderness, forests, etc.), which can hinder effective stress reduction and restoration benefits [37,72]. Interestingly, despite the presence of vegetation or bird species in most areas, early studies have found that wild vegetation in urban parks or urban forests may elicit fear and unease in visitors [23,25]. On the contrary, modifying the vegetation layout, such as adding open spaces or permeable areas, can positively contribute to a sense of security [17,73]. Nevertheless, these areas can also contribute to the well-being of visitors as long as they are perceived as ecologically diverse, rather than unusually rich in biodiversity [17]. For city managers and landscape architects, raising public awareness of urban biodiversity conservation and perception can be achieved through environmental education, community engagement, and pro-nature initiatives and can be effective in enhancing social well-being [56].

5.2. Higher Perceived Biodiversity Could Strengthen Place Attachment

Previous research has underscored the pivotal role of place attachment in urban parks, shaping visitors’ experiences of recovery in diverse park settings [16,74]. Moreover, urban parks rich in biodiversity may evoke deeper connections with nature among visitors, potentially fostering their sense of self-identity with these natural settings [75]. Place attachment, as a representative category of positive person–place emotions, can serve as an indicator of public well-being and comfort within a specific location [59]. Notably, studies have demonstrated that both place dependence and identity can enhance the restorative benefits offered by urban parks. However, our study found a direct effect of perceived biodiversity on place attachment (β = 0.319, p < 0.001), but it did not establish a statistically significant direct link between perceived biodiversity and place identity (β = 0.086, p > 0.05). This disparity could be attributed to several factors. Place identity represents a more abstract level of emotion, which may rely on a foundation of place dependence [23,25]. Additionally, place identity is influenced by a myriad of factors, including historical, cultural, and social interactions, making biodiversity just one of many contributing elements. Furthermore, place identity typically develops over a long period, whereas the perception of biodiversity may be a more immediate experience. This temporal difference could obscure the direct impact of biodiversity perception on place identity. Moreover, our study did not prompt visitors to describe specific environmental attributes in urban parks that contribute to a sense of place dependence or identity, which should be explored qualitatively in the future. On the other hand, our results revealed a direct effect of ‘place identity’ on ‘self-rated restoration’ (β = 0.199, p < 0.001), suggesting that the geographical and environmental characteristics of urban parks play a critical role in individuals’ sense of recovery, regardless of whether biodiversity is a factor [17,73], which provides valuable insights for further research on how urban parks and natural environments influence individual restoration.

5.3. Mediating Effects of Place Attachment between Perceived Biodiversity and Restorative Benefits

As the result showed, perceived biodiversity not only directly influences self-rated restoration through place dependence (Path H7, estimate = 0.090, p < 0.001) but also indirectly shapes place identity by molding place dependence (Path H9, estimate = 0.031, p < 0.001), subsequently affecting self-rated restoration. Notably, Path H7 exhibits a more pronounced mediating effect than Path H9, underscoring the pivotal role of place dependence as a mediator between perceived biodiversity and self-rated restoration, which suggests that place dependence holds greater significance in the restoration experiences of urban park visitors, surpassing the importance of place identity. This finding aligns with previous studies [21,22] that emphasize the public’s desire, particularly in urban settings, for exposure to rich biodiversity. Furthermore, the previous literature also demonstrated that when individuals perceive a variety of biological sounds in urban parks, such as birdsong and insect chirping, it fosters an emotional connection, encouraging relaxation and healing in the environment [65,76,77]. Opportunities exist for rich biodiversity to evoke emotional connections among recreationists, thereby enhancing their restoration experience by strengthening place attachment. By nurturing and conserving biodiversity-rich urban parks, a positive feedback loop can be established, fostering people’s emotional closeness to nature and enhancing their restoration experience [15].

5.4. Limitation and Future Prospects

This study also has some limitations. Firstly, this study predominantly relied on questionnaire data, which may be susceptible to participant subjectivity and recall bias. Future research should explore more refined methodologies, such as examining how differences in biodiversity perceptions among individuals due to varying personal factors affect their restorative experiences [34,78]. Such studies would not only enhance the objectivity of the data but also contribute to a deeper understanding of the complex interactions between biodiversity perceptions and human health. For example, Muratet et al. [64] found that the public tends to underestimate plant species richness in urban parks, especially when compared to individuals with an ecological background. In addition, individual acquisition of ecological knowledge and related skills [66,79], such as the ability to recognize species, has become a key factor in shaping the interplay between perceived biodiversity, human perceptions, and recreational preferences [80,81]. To enhance the applied relevance of this research, future studies could consider these factors more comprehensively, an extension that would make it possible to explore strategies for realizing the benefits of urban park restoration with greater precision and specificity, thus enhancing the practical relevance of this field of research.

6. Conclusions

This study enhances our understanding of the mechanisms by which perceived biodiversity influences the self-rated restoration of urban park visitors and sheds light on the internal structure of place attachment. The findings indicate that visitors’ perceived biodiversity in urban parks has a direct impact on their self-rated restoration and place attachment, with the exception of place identity. In terms of mediation, perceived biodiversity indirectly affects self-rated restoration through place dependence and place identity. These pathways are significant in explaining how visitors’ perceived biodiversity influences their self-rated restoration and place identity in urban parks. It is noteworthy that among the two dimensions of place attachment, the sense of place dependence plays a more prominent mediating role, whereas affective identity serves as a chain mediator. In addition, our study reveals that the sense of place dependence acts as both an independent mediator and a chain mediator, whereas the sense of place identity solely serves as a chain mediator. As a result, this study not only advances our comprehension of perceived biodiversity, place attachment, and restoration benefits for urban park visitors but also offers insights for urban park landscape planning and practice in the future.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.W. and J.Y.; Methodology, K.D.; Software, B.W. and J.Y.; Formal analysis, B.W. and J.Y.; Investigation, K.D.; Data curation, J.C. and B.W.; Writing—original draft, J.C., B.W., and J.Y.; Writing—review and editing, J.C., B.W., and J.Y.; Supervision, J.Y.; Project administration, J.C.; Funding acquisition, J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Academician Expert Workstation, grant number: YSZ202201.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We extend our deepest gratitude to the editorial team and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback and guidance throughout the review process. We also wish to thank the dedicated staff members of all parks involved in the distribution of our survey for their invaluable support and cooperation. Their contributions were essential to the successful completion of this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Perceived biodiversity, place attachment, and self-rated restoration scale in this study.
Table A1. Perceived biodiversity, place attachment, and self-rated restoration scale in this study.
ScaleVariablesDetail Information
Perceived biodiversity (PB) PB1In this environment, I can usually find _____ different types of bird species.
PB2In this environment, I can usually find _____ different types of plant species.
PB3In this environment, I can usually find _____ different types of butterfly species.
Place dependence (PD) PD1This is the perfect environment for me to relax and unwind.
PD2This environment offers a recreational environment like no other.
PD3Recreational activities are more satisfying here than in other environments.
PD4Though activities can be performed in other environments, this is a better place for these.
PD5I would not want to do the same recreational activities elsewhere.
Place identity (PI) PI1I feel like the environment here has become part of my life.
PI2This environment has a special meaning for me.
PI3I identify with the environment here.
PI4I am very attached to the environment here.
PI5My experiences in this environment have enriched my understanding of myself.
Self-rated restoration (SR) Emotional Dimension (ED)The environment makes me feel elated.
The environment makes me feel confident.
The environment makes me feel good-natured.
The environment makes me feel relaxed.
The environment makes me feel energetic.
Physiological Dimension (PHD)My breathing is becoming faster in this environment.
My muscles are becoming tenser in this environment.
My hands are sweating in this environment.
My heart is beating faster in this environment.
Cognitive Dimension (CD)I am interested in the presented scene in this environment.
I feel attentive to the presented scene in this environment.
My mental fatigue is decreasing in this environment.
I feel attentive in my mind in this environment.
I feel reflective of myself in this environment.
Behavioral Dimension (BD)I would like to explore in this environment.
I would like to visit this environment more often.
I would like to stay longer in this environment.

References

  1. Goldstein, G. Urbanization, health and well-being: A global perspective. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. D Stat. 1990, 39, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Phillips, D.R. Urbanization and human health. Parasitology 1993, 106, S93–S107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zheng, S.; Kahn, M.E. Understanding China’s urban pollution dynamics. J. Econ. Lit. 2013, 51, 731–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kelly, F.J.; Fussell, J.C. Air pollution and public health: Emerging hazards and improved understanding of risk. Env. Geochem. Health 2015, 37, 631–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ohly, H.; White, M.P.; Wheeler, B.W.; Bethel, A.; Ukoumunne, O.C.; Nikolaou, V.; Garside, R. Attention Restoration Theory: A systematic review of the attention restoration potential of exposure to natural environments. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health Part B 2016, 19, 305–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ulrich, R.S.; Simons, R.F.; Losito, B.D.; Fiorito, E.; Miles, M.A.; Zelson, M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1991, 11, 201–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Altman, I.; Low, S.M. Place Attachment; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; Volume 12, ISBN 1468487531. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kellert, S.R. Nature by Design: The Practice of Biophilic Design; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2018; ISBN 0300214537. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gullone, E. The biophilia hypothesis and life in the 21st century: Increasing mental health or increasing pathology? J. Happiness Stud. 2000, 1, 293–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Beery, T.; Jönsson, K.I.; Elmberg, J. From environmental connectedness to sustainable futures: Topophilia and human affiliation with nature. Sustainability 2015, 7, 8837–8854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Elmqvist, T.; Zipperer, W.C.; Güneralp, B. Urbanization, Habitat Loss and Biodiversity Decline: Solution Pathways to Break the Cycle; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 163–175. [Google Scholar]
  12. Stokes, D.L. Things we like: Human preferences among similar organisms and implications for conservation. Hum. Ecol. 2007, 35, 361–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Franco, L.S.; Shanahan, D.F.; Fuller, R.A. A review of the benefits of nature experiences: More than meets the eye. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Grahn, P.; Stigsdotter, U.K. The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 94, 264–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liu, Q.; Zhu, Z.; Zhuo, Z.; Huang, S.; Zhang, C.; Shen, X.; Bosch, C.C.K.v.D.; Huang, Q.; Lan, S. Relationships between residents’ ratings of place attachment and the restorative potential of natural and urban park settings. Urban Urban Green. 2021, 62, 127188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Liu, Q.; Wu, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Fu, W.; Zhuo, Z.; van den Bosch, C.C.K.; Huang, Q.; Lan, S. More meaningful, more restorative? Linking local landscape characteristics and place attachment to restorative perceptions of urban park visitors. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 197, 103763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Parra-Saldívar, A.; Abades, S.; Celis-Diez, J.L.; Gelcich, S. Exploring perceived well-being from urban parks: Insights from a megacity in Latin America. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cameron, R.W.F.; Brindley, P.; Mears, M.; McEwan, K.; Ferguson, F.; Sheffield, D.; Jorgensen, A.; Riley, J.; Goodrick, J.; Ballard, L.; et al. Where the wild things are! Do urban green spaces with greater avian biodiversity promote more positive emotions in humans? Urban Ecosyst. 2020, 23, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Marselle, M.R.; Irvine, K.N.; Lorenzo-Arribas, A.; Warber, S.L. Does perceived restorativeness mediate the effects of perceived biodiversity and perceived naturalness on emotional well-being following group walks in nature? J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 46, 217–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yan, Z.; Yawen, L.; Shiyi, G. Influence Mechanism of Perceived Biodiversity on Mental Restoration in Large Waterfront Green Spaces. Landsc. Archit. 2024, 31, 111–119. [Google Scholar]
  21. Basu, M.; Hashimoto, S.; Dasgupta, R. The mediating role of place attachment between nature connectedness and human well-being: Perspectives from Japan. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 849–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shwartz, A.; Turbé, A.; Simon, L.; Julliard, R. Enhancing urban biodiversity and its influence on city-dwellers: An experiment. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 171, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nielsen, A.B.; Bosch, M.V.D.; Maruthaveeran, S.; Bosch, C.K.V.D. Species richness in urban parks and its drivers: A review of empirical evidence. Urban. Ecosyst. 2014, 17, 305–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Palliwoda, J.; Kowarik, I.; von der Lippe, M. Human-biodiversity interactions in urban parks: The species level matters. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2017, 157, 394–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jansson, M.; Fors, H.; Lindgren, T.; Wiström, B. Perceived personal safety in relation to urban woodland vegetation–A review. Urban Urban Green. 2013, 12, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; de Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2014, 35, 207–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. van Riper, C.J.; Kyle, G.T.; Sherrouse, B.C.; Bagstad, K.J.; Sutton, S.G. Toward an integrated understanding of perceived biodiversity values and environmental conditions in a national park. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 72, 278–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hoyle, H.; Hitchmough, J.; Jorgensen, A. All about the ‘wow factor’? The relationships between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 164, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Schebella, M.F.; Weber, D.; Schultz, L.; Weinstein, P. The wellbeing benefits associated with perceived and measured biodiversity in Australian urban green spaces. Sustainability 2019, 11, 802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Qiu, L.; Lindberg, S.; Nielsen, A.B. Is biodiversity attractive?—On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 119, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dallimer, M.; Irvine, K.N.; Skinner, A.M.J.; Davies, Z.G.; Rouquette, J.R.; Maltby, L.L.; Warren, P.H.; Armsworth, P.R.; Gaston, K.J. Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: Understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. Bioscience 2012, 62, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. White, M.P.; Weeks, A.; Hooper, T.; Bleakley, L.; Cracknell, D.; Lovell, R.; Jefferson, R.L. Marine wildlife as an important component of coastal visits: The role of perceived biodiversity and species behaviour. Mar. Policy 2017, 78, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Phillips, D.; Lindquist, M. Just weeds? Comparing assessed and perceived biodiversity of urban spontaneous vegetation in informal greenspaces in the context of two American legacy cities. Urban Urban Green. 2021, 62, 127151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fischer, L.K.; Honold, J.; Cvejić, R.; Delshammar, T.; Hilbert, S.; Lafortezza, R.; Nastran, M.; Nielsen, A.B.; Pintar, M.; van der Jagt, A.P.; et al. Beyond green: Broad support for biodiversity in multicultural European cities. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 49, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Coldwell, D.F.; Evans, K.L. Visits to urban green-space and the countryside associate with different components of mental well-being and are better predictors than perceived or actual local urbanisation intensity. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 175, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hausmann, A.; Slotow RO, B.; Burns, J.K.; Di Minin, E. The ecosystem service of sense of place: Benefits for human well-being and biodiversity conservation. Environ. Conserv. 2016, 43, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wartmann, F.M.; Stride, C.B.; Kienast, F.; Hunziker, M. Relating landscape ecological metrics with public survey data on perceived landscape quality and place attachment. Landsc. Ecol. 2021, 36, 2367–2393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Williams, D.R.; Patterson, M.E.; Roggenbuck, J.W.; Watson, A.E. Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leis. Sci. 1992, 14, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. White, D.D.; Virden, R.J.; Van Riper, C.J. Effects of place identity, place dependence, and experience-use history on perceptions of recreation impacts in a natural setting. Environ. Manag. 2008, 42, 647–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lewicka, M. Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 209–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hernández, B.; Hidalgo, M.C.; Salazar-Laplace, M.E.; Hess, S. Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-natives. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 310–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Berto, R. Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hartig, T.; Korpela, K.; Evans, G.W.; Gärling, T. A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scand. Hous. Plan. Res. 1997, 14, 175–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ratcliffe, E.; Korpela, K.M. Memory and place attachment as predictors of imagined restorative perceptions of favourite places. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 48, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Markevych, I.; Schoierer, J.; Hartig, T.; Chudnovsky, A.; Hystad, P.; Dzhambov, A.M.; de Vries, S.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Brauer, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 2017, 158, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Carrus, G.; Scopelliti, M.; Lafortezza, R.; Colangelo, G.; Ferrini, F.; Salbitano, F.; Agrimi, M.; Portoghesi, L.; Semenzato, P.; Sanesi, G. Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, J.; Bosch, C.C.K.v.D.; Lin, C.; Liu, F.; Huang, Y.; Huang, Q.; Wang, M.; Zhou, Q.; Dong, J. Effects of personality, health and mood on satisfaction and quality perception of urban mountain parks. Urban Urban Green. 2021, 63, 127210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liu, F.; Fu, W.; Wang, M.; Dong, J. Impact of crowding perception on tourist’ restorative experience: A case study of Fuzhou city parks. Landsc. Archit. 2022, 29, 98–104. [Google Scholar]
  49. Guo, X.; Liu, J.; Albert, C.; Hong, X.-C. Audio-visual interaction and visitor characteristics affect perceived soundscape restorativeness: Case study in five parks in China. Urban Urban Green. 2022, 77, 127738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Robson, C.; McCartan, K. Real World Research, 4th ed.; Wiley: Hokoben, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  51. Wang, G.; Jiang, G.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, Q.; Ji, Y.; Wang, S.; Chen, S.; Liu, H. Biodiversity conservation in a fast-growing metropolitan area in China: A case study of plant diversity in Beijing. Biodivers. Conserv. 2007, 16, 4025–4038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hermy, M.; Cornelis, J. Towards a monitoring method and a number of multifaceted and hierarchical biodiversity indicators for urban and suburban parks. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 49, 149–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Voigt, A.; Kabisch, N.; Wurster, D.; Haase, D.; Breuste, J. Structural diversity: A multi-dimensional approach to assess recreational services in urban parks. Ambio 2014, 43, 480–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chen, B.; Wu, S.; Song, Y.; Webster, C.; Xu, B.; Gong, P. Contrasting inequality in human exposure to greenspace between cities of Global North and Global South. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 4636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Marselle, M.R.; Hartig, T.; Cox, D.T.; de Bell, S.; Knapp, S.; Lindley, S.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Böhning-Gaese, K.; Braubach, M.; Cook, P.A.; et al. Pathways linking biodiversity to human health: A conceptual framework. Environ. Int. 2021, 150, 106420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bratman, G.N.; Anderson, C.B.; Berman, M.G.; Cochran, B.; de Vries, S.; Flanders, J.; Folke, C.; Frumkin, H.; Gross, J.J.; Hartig, T.; et al. Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax0903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fuller, R.A.; Irvine, K.N.; Devine-Wright, P.; Warren, P.H.; Gaston, K.J. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol. Lett. 2007, 3, 390–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Hidalgo, M.C.; Hernandez, B. Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yu, J.; Xu, W.; Zou, Y.; Yang, H.; Ding, Z. Studying what influences the effects of environmental education on visitors of Fuzhou National Park in China—The mediating role of place attachment. Forests 2022, 13, 1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ramkissoon, H.; Weiler, B.; Smith, L.D.G. Place attachment and pro-environmental behaviour in national parks: The development of a conceptual framework. J. Sustain. Tour. 2012, 20, 257–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Han, K. A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2003, 64, 209–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jam, K. Review of A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling: By Whittaker, T. A., & Schumacker, R. E. New York, NY: Routledge, 2022, 400pp. $128.00 (Hardback). Struct. Equ. Model. A Multidiscip. J. 2022, 29, 817–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Schumacker, R.E.; Lomax, R.G. A beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling; Psychology Pess: New York, NY, USA, 2004; 351p. [Google Scholar]
  64. Muratet, A.; Pellegrini, P.; Dufour, A.-B.; Arrif, T.; Chiron, F. Perception and knowledge of plant diversity among urban park users. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 137, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Fisher, J.C.; Irvine, K.N.; Bicknell, J.E.; Hayes, W.M.; Fernandes, D.; Mistry, J.; Davies, Z.G. Perceived biodiversity, sound, naturalness and safety enhance the restorative quality and wellbeing benefits of green and blue space in a neotropical city. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 755, 143095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nghiem, T.P.; Wong, K.L.; Jeevanandam, L.; Chang, C.C.; Tan, L.Y.; Goh, Y.; Carrasco, L.R. Biodiverse urban forests, happy people: Experimental evidence linking perceived biodiversity, restoration, and emotional wellbeing. Urban Urban Green. 2021, 59, 127030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kanagaraj, J.; Senthilvelan, T.; Panda, R.; Kavitha, S. Eco-friendly waste management strategies for greener environment towards sustainable development in leather industry: A comprehensive review. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 89, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wagner, D.L.; Metzler, K.J.; Frye, H. Importance of transmission line corridors for conservation of native bees and other wildlife. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 235, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Fontana, S.; Sattler, T.; Bontadina, F.; Moretti, M. How to manage the urban green to improve bird diversity and community structure. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 101, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Dearborn, D.C.; Kark, S. Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Sonti, N.F.; Campbell, L.K.; Svendsen, E.S.; Johnson, M.L.; Auyeung, D.N. Fear and fascination: Use and perceptions of New York City’s forests, wetlands, and landscaped park areas. Urban Urban Green. 2020, 49, 126601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Tabrizian, P.; Baran, P.K.; Smith, W.R.; Meentemeyer, R.K. Exploring perceived restoration potential of urban green enclosure through immersive virtual environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 55, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bazrafshan, M.; Tabrizi, A.M.; Bauer, N.; Kienast, F. Place attachment through interaction with urban parks: A cross-cultural study. Urban Urban Green. 2021, 61, 127103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gyllin, M.; Grahn, P. Semantic assessments of experienced biodiversity from photographs and on-site observations-a comparison. Environ. Nat. Resour. Res. 2015, 5, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Li, H.; Xie, H.; Woodward, G. Soundscape components, perceptions, and EEG reactions in typical mountainous urban parks. Urban Urban Green. 2021, 64, 127269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hong, J.Y.; Jeon, J.Y. Designing sound and visual components for enhancement of urban soundscapes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2013, 134, 2026–2036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Brown, G.; Raymond, C. The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: Toward mapping place attachment. Appl. Geogr. 2007, 27, 89–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Liang, H.; Lin, Y.; Chen, Y.; Hao, X.; Gao, D.; Yu, N.; Li, Y.; Qiu, L.; Gao, T. The relationships among biodiversity, perceived biodiversity and recreational preference in urban green spaces–A case study in Xianyang, China. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 146, 109916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Muller, N.; Werner, P.; Kelcey, J.G. Urban Biodiversity and Design; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; ISBN 1444318667. [Google Scholar]
  81. Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Junge, X.; Matthies, D. The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 16 00416 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual model of the relationship among perceived biodiversity, place dependence, and self-rated restoration of urban park visitors.
Figure 1. Conceptual model of the relationship among perceived biodiversity, place dependence, and self-rated restoration of urban park visitors.
Diversity 16 00416 g001
Diversity 16 00416 g002
Figure 2. Locations of 5 typical urban parks selected in this study.
Figure 2. Locations of 5 typical urban parks selected in this study.
Diversity 16 00416 g002
Diversity 16 00416 g003
Figure 3. Direct effect test results. (Notes: *** means p < 0.001).
Figure 3. Direct effect test results. (Notes: *** means p < 0.001).
Diversity 16 00416 g003
Table 1. Sociodemographic statistics.
Table 1. Sociodemographic statistics.
Socio-Demographic CharacteristicsCategorizationPercent/%Socio-Demographic CharacteristicsCategorizationPercent/%
Selected urban parksWest Lake Park20.4CareersGovernment official1.6
National Forest Park19.9Service workers20.0
Wenquan Park20.0Casual workers14.4
Fushan Country Park20.6Company staff36.3
Niugangshan Park19.1Students16.1
GenderMale48.9Freelancer11.6
Female51.1Monthly incomeUnder CYN 4000 (USD 565)14.1
Years18~25 years old34.7CYN 4000–8000 (USD 565–1129)26.7
26~35 years old28.5CYN 8000–15,000 (USD 1129–2118)29.4
36~45 years old17.3CYN 15,000–20,000 (USD 2118–2823)15.2
46~60 years old14.4Over CYN 20,000 ’(USD 2823)14.6
Above 60 years old5.1Total number of visitsThe first time19.5
Educational backgroundJunior high school and below16.82~5 times24.5
High school students, junior college39.56~10 times33.2
Bachelor’s degree28.911 times or more22.7
Master’s degree8.5
Doctoral students6.3
Table 2. KMO and Bartlett tests.
Table 2. KMO and Bartlett tests.
VariableKMO Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity
Chi-SquaredfSig
Perceived biodiversity (PB)0.665399.21430.000
Place attachment (PA)Place identity (PI)0.828917.645100.000
Place dependence (PD)0.8691141.515100.000
Self-rated restoration (SR)Emotional Dimension (ED)0.842952.199100.000
Physiological Dimension (PHD)0.782792.28660.000
Cognitive Dimension (CD)0.8571164.612100.000
Behavioral Dimension (BD)0.668383.34430.000
Table 3. Reliability test and aggregation validity test.
Table 3. Reliability test and aggregation validity test.
VariableItemsEstimateAVECRCronbach’s α
Perceived biodiversity (PB)PB10.803 0.509 0.754 0.747
PB20.599
PB30.723
Place attachment (PA)Place identity (PI)PI10.783 0.489 0.827 0.825
PI20.673
PI30.691
PI40.695
PI50.648
Place dependence (PD)PD10.746 0.553 0.861 0.860
PD20.759
PD30.750
PD40.712
PD50.749
Self-rated restoration (SR)Emotional Dimension (ED)0.8180.665 0.888 0.929
Physiological Dimension (PHD)0.828
Cognitive Dimension (CD)0.817
Behavioral Dimension (BD)0.798
Table 4. Distinguishing validity.
Table 4. Distinguishing validity.
PBPIPDSR
PB
PI0.241 ***
PD0.319 *** 0.514 ***
SR0.548 *** 0.443 *** 0.515 ***
AVE0.509 0.489 0.553 0.665
AVE square root0.713 0.699 0.743 0.815
Notes: *** means p < 0.001.
Table 5. Model fit test.
Table 5. Model fit test.
Fit IndexParametersReference RangeValue
Absolute fit indexRMSEA<0.080.022
GFI>0.90.971
AGFI>0.90.96
RMR<0.050.026
Comparative fit indexNFI>0.90.966
CFI>0.90.992
TLI>0.90.991
Composite fit indexPNFI>0.50.802
PCFI>0.50.824
CMIN/DF1~31.275
Table 6. Direct effect test results.
Table 6. Direct effect test results.
Direct PathUnstandardized CoefficientStandardized Coefficient (β)S.E.tp
H2: Perceived biodiversity (PB)⟶Place dependence (PD)0.3480.3190.0595.879***
H3: Place dependence (PD)⟶Place identity (PI)0.4490.4870.059.03***
H4: Place dependence (PD)⟶Self-rated restoration (SR)0.2510.2820.0465.405***
H5: Place identity (PI)⟶Self-rated restoration (SR)0.1920.1990.0493.939***
H6: Perceived biodiversity (PB)⟶Self-rated restoration (SR)0.3990.4100.0498.078***
Note: Only significant paths were displayed, *** means p < 0.001.
Table 7. Intermediation test results.
Table 7. Intermediation test results.
PathEstimateSEPercentile Method
LowerUpperp
Perceived biodiversity (PB)⟶ Place dependence (PD)⟶ Self-rated restoration (SR)0.0900.0210.0520.132***
Perceived biodiversity (PB)⟶ Place identity (PI)⟶ Self-rated restoration (SR)0.0170.011−0.0020.041>0.05
Perceived biodiversity (PB)⟶ Place dependence (PD)⟶ Place identity (PI)⟶ Self-rated restoration (SR)0.0310.0090.0150.052***
Notes: *** means p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, J.; Wu, B.; Dai, K.; Yu, J. Linking Perceived Biodiversity and Restorative Benefits in Urban Parks through Place Attachment—A Case Study in Fuzhou, China. Diversity 2024, 16, 416. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16070416

AMA Style

Chen J, Wu B, Dai K, Yu J. Linking Perceived Biodiversity and Restorative Benefits in Urban Parks through Place Attachment—A Case Study in Fuzhou, China. Diversity. 2024; 16(7):416. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16070416

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Jingru, Binsheng Wu, Kunli Dai, and Jiao Yu. 2024. "Linking Perceived Biodiversity and Restorative Benefits in Urban Parks through Place Attachment—A Case Study in Fuzhou, China" Diversity 16, no. 7: 416. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16070416

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop