How Do Repeated Viewings in Forest Landscapes Influence Young People’s Visual Behaviors and Cognitive Evaluations?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- (1)
- Many researchers have explored the relationship between people’s visual behaviors in a single viewing of landscapes and evaluated the psychological associated factors;
- (2)
- Research on repeated viewings has not systematically examined landscapes. In today’s normal epidemic situation, people are bound to visit the same forest landscape repeatedly. In this context, the questions of “What visual behaviors do people exhibit when they view a landscape many times?” and “What is the relationship between them?” are important. Other issues still need to be discussed in depth;
- (3)
- Because people’s preferences for landscapes are related to their sightseeing intentions and visual behaviors in a single viewing [21,37], there are also differences in people’s visual behaviors across landscapes during repeated viewing experiments [31]; however, the relationships among people’s visual behaviors, psychological evaluations and preferences in repeated viewings is still unclear.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Stimulus
2.3. Participants
2.4. Experimental Design
2.5. Selection of Indexes
2.5.1. Selection of Eye Movement Indexes
2.5.2. Selection of Psychological Cognition Evaluation Indexes
2.5.3. Definition of Terms
2.6. Analysis and Statistics
3. Results
3.1. Analysis of the Characteristics of Visual Behavior When Repeatedly Viewing Forest Landscapes
3.2. Analysis of the Characteristics of Psychological Evaluation When Repeatedly Viewing Forest Landscapes
3.2.1. Analysis of the Characteristics and Differences in Overall Cognitive Evaluation When Repeatedly Viewing Landscapes
3.2.2. Analysis of the Characteristics and Differences in Landscape Elements Participants Focused on When Repeatedly Viewing Landscapes
3.3. Analysis of the Relationship between Visual Behavior Characteristics and Psychological Evaluation Characteristics When Repeatedly Viewing Different Forest Landscapes
4. Discussion
4.1. The Difference in Visual Behavior Characteristics in Repeated Viewings across Landscape Stimuli
- The higher the preference for a landscape, the higher the coincidence degree of young people’s visual behaviors, which produces a similar repeated regression for viewing the landscape. However, when compared with waterscapes, lookout landscapes have lower overall landscape richness, insufficient details and relatively less attractive content. Therefore, the regression behaviors decrease significantly at the second viewing. Liu et al. found that when people view lookout landscapes, when compared with other landscapes, they tend to feel relaxed and peaceful, and their psychological burden is smaller. Especially after becoming familiar with a landscape, a relaxed state of mind is generated more quickly, so the visual regression behavior is more reduced [25]. We guess that because mountaintop landscapes can be reached only after a long journey over a rugged mountain road, people are more inclined to exhibit relatively relaxed visual behavior when viewing them; the effect is similar to the theory of “suppress first to promote” in the field of psychology [50]. In addition, when individuals view waterscapes, they are attracted by their rich details and elements. There is also related theoretical support in the field of psychology: within a certain range that does not exceed the threshold, the complexity of landscapes is positively related to their attractiveness [51];
- All three landscape stimuli with low preference were broadleaf forests, but the plant color (RGB) of broadleaf forest three was different from that of broadleaf forest one and two, and the pixel value of green in LP3 was relatively small; however, there was no obvious difference among them. Therefore, we think that a relatively high saturation of green attracts people more in the same kind of landscape, which is consistent with the conclusions of Neale et al., Serra et al. and Wang et al. [52,53,54]: Green plants are more attractive than plants with other colors. People are attracted when they view green plants, resulting in more positive feedback;
- Although there were significant differences in the coincidence degree of repeated viewings of the six landscape stimuli, they were generally low, which is somewhat consistent with Noton’s conclusion in 1970: Similar visual behaviors occur, but mainly in the initial learning stage [29]. Our findings show that there was a significant difference in the coincidence degree of repeated viewings between landscapes under 15 s gaze conditions. Menon and Levitin et al. pointed out that previous experience allows participants to form expectations or assumptions about objects. This expectation or assumption restricts the cognitive level of participants to objects. According to this theory, the participants had a “Peak shift” when they viewed the landscapes for the second time. This means that when they viewed the picture for the second time, based on the experience of the first viewing, they had formed their own inherent understandings of the spaces to a certain extent, which in turn led to similar visual behaviors in the space at the second viewing. Because perceptual information is caused by the interaction between realistic stimulus information and memory information, and people’s visual behavior is based on their perceptual information, the visual behavior at the second viewing is similar to that at the first viewing [55]. In addition, we suspect that the overall low degree of coincidence may be due to people keeping target information in visual short-term memory (VSTM), which is relatively persistent but has a limited capacity when scanning [56]. This may mean that the established memories of people may be replaced by new memories in a certain time interval, resulting in the gaze mode in memory not being followed subconsciously.
4.2. The Differences in Psychological Evaluations in Repeated Viewings across Landscape Stimuli
4.2.1. Characteristics and Differences in Cognitive Overall Evaluation When Repeatedly Viewing Landscapes
- For a given landscape, viewing it again after one week is not enough for young people to have a high degree of familiarity which affects their comprehensive senses, thus causing negative emotions such as aversion and conflict in response to the landscape. We hypothesize that this may be because people tend to remember the content they like and ignore the content they do not like or find boring. In addition, after analyzing the characteristics of three low-preference landscapes, the three broadleaf forest landscapes had high similarity. According to the eclipsing effect in psychology, when the similar contents are concentrated, it is easy for individuals to mix them in their memories, so they are difficult to regenerate and more likely to cause forgetfulness. A review by Henry L also mentioned this possibility, which may also be one of the factors affecting the participants’ memories [57];
- R. Aiken pointed out that a stable questionnaire will not reveal large differences when the time interval of repeated experiments is relatively short, which is also reflected in our research; however, there are some interesting subtle changes in our analysis [58].
4.2.2. Characteristics and Differences in Landscape Elements Focused on When Repeatedly Viewing Landscapes
4.3. Interaction between Visual Behavior and Psychological Evaluation
4.4. Limitations
- From the perspective of landscape stimulation selection, the selections of high-preference landscapes was rich and reasonable, but there was no significant difference among the three landscapes with low preference; therefore, it is difficult to compare and study them. In addition, the color changes caused by seasons affect people’s visual behaviors, and we will discuss the differences further in the future. The differences between on-site surveys and photos will also have a certain impact on the experimental results. However, finance and data acquisition are inevitable problems. This would be our future research topic;
- On the selection of participants, this study mainly explored the visual behaviors and psychological evaluations of young people under repeated viewings. In future research, the scope could be further expanded to people of all ages;
- Regarding the experimental design, this study explored only the similarities and differences in visual behaviors between the first viewing of the forest landscape and the second viewing one week later. Future research should further explore the similarities and differences in visual behaviors with increased viewings, as well as those of visual behavior at various time intervals;
- Regarding the research method, the CRA method used in this study explored the similarity of visual behaviors, but it could not analyze how the parts differ. It is possible that there is a more scientific and comprehensive way to explore this aspect in the future.
5. Conclusions and Suggestions
5.1. Conclusions
- With the increase in viewing times, all kinds of regression behaviors show a decreasing trend. Young people are more inclined to view areas that they have not viewed before. At the same time, during a second viewing, when young people view an area they did not see in the first viewing, the coincidence degree of visual behavior is generally low, and there are obvious differences across landscapes;
- With increased viewing times, young people’s cognition evaluations of landscapes did not significantly change. However, in the process of repeated viewings, young people are more inclined to view waterscapes and lookout landscapes, and lookout landscapes have a more positive tendency to increase individuals’ preferences during repeated viewings;
- The regression behavior of eye movement is related to young people’s cognitive evaluations and preferences for landscape elements. There is a significant positive correlation between cognitive evaluation and the coincidence degree of fixation points when viewing landscapes, but only distant clarity and the coincidence degree of all kinds of fixation behaviors are significantly and positively correlated. In addition, the landscape type is also related to the likes for specific landscape elements: with increased viewing times, only the number of likes for the lookout landscape increases noticeably.
5.2. Suggestions
- When designing dynamic waterscapes and lookout spaces, more colorful trees should be planted to improve the color richness and layering of the scenery. At the same time, scenic spots with more rolling mountains should be selected to improve the spatial hierarchy, thus enhancing tourists’ revisit intentions;
- When designing static waterscape spaces, it is necessary to plant more brightly colored plants, increase the types of vegetation and maintain a high degree of openness to enhance tourists’ revisit intentions;
- When designing the undergrowth landscape space represented by broadleaf forests, more consideration should be given to the composition and proportion of shrubs and ground cover plants. Vegetation with higher green pixel values should be selected, and plants with different shapes should be matched to increase the complexity of the space to improve the attraction of the landscape.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Landscape Type | Index at the First Viewing— Index at the Second Viewing | Z | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|
HP1 | PSD1—PSD2 | −2.031 a | 0.042 |
LCC1—LCC2 | −0.220 b | 0.826 | |
WCB1—WCB2 | −0.404 b | 0.686 | |
SSH1—SSH2 | −1.045 a | 0.296 | |
WCR1—WCR2 | −0.565 b | 0.572 | |
WSO1—WSO2 | −1.050 b | 0.294 | |
SDL1—SDL2 | −0.402 b | 0.688 | |
WSN1—WSN2 | −0.529 b | 0.597 | |
LTD1—LTD2 | −0.045 b | 0.964 | |
WVA1—WVA2 | −0.426 b | 0.670 | |
HP2 | PSD1—PSD2 | −0.707 b | 0.480 |
LCC1—LCC2 | 0.000 c | 1.000 | |
WCB1—WCB2 | −2.252 b | 0.024 | |
SSH1—SSH2 | −1.437 a | 0.151 | |
WCR1—WCR2 | −1.233 a | 0.218 | |
WSO1—WSO2 | −1.279 a | 0.201 | |
SDL1—SDL2 | −1.660 b | 0.097 | |
WSN1—WSN2 | −0.739 a | 0.460 | |
LTD1—LTD2 | −1.308 b | 0.191 | |
WVA1—WVA2 | −0.955 a | 0.340 | |
HP3 | PSD1—PSD2 | −0.017 b | 0.986 |
LCC1—LCC2 | −0.140 a | 0.889 | |
WCB1—WCB2 | −0.782 a | 0.434 | |
SSH1—SSH2 | −1.547 a | 0.122 | |
WCR1—WCR2 | −1.786 a | 0.074 | |
WSO1—WSO2 | −0.347 a | 0.729 | |
SDL1—SDL2 | −1.171 a | 0.242 | |
WSN1—WSN2 | −0.513 a | 0.608 | |
LTD1—LTD2 | −0.129 a | 0.897 | |
WVA1—WVA2 | −1.354 a | 0.176 | |
LP1 | PSD1—PSD2 | −0.651 b | 0.515 |
LCC1—LCC2 | −0.278 b | 0.781 | |
WCB1—WCB2 | −1.585 b | 0.113 | |
SSH1—SSH2 | −1.196 b | 0.232 | |
WCR1—WCR2 | −1.877 b | 0.061 | |
WSO1—WSO2 | −0.017 b | 0.987 | |
SDL1—SDL2 | −0.213 b | 0.832 | |
WSN1—WSN2 | −0.189 a | 0.850 | |
LTD1—LTD2 | −0.552 b | 0.581 | |
WVA1—WVA2 | −0.163 a | 0.871 | |
LP2 | PSD1—PSD2 | −0.465 b | 0.642 |
LCC1—LCC2 | −0.677 b | 0.498 | |
WCB1—WCB2 | −0.505 b | 0.613 | |
SSH1—SSH2 | −0.776 b | 0.438 | |
WCR1—WCR2 | −2.520 b | 0.012 | |
WSO1—WSO2 | −0.657 b | 0.511 | |
SDL1—SDL2 | −0.772 a | 0.44 | |
WSN1—WSN2 | −0.528 a | 0.598 | |
LTD1—LTD2 | −0.978 b | 0.328 | |
WVA1—WVA2 | −0.847 b | 0.397 | |
LP3 | PSD1—PSD2 | −1.680 b | 0.093 |
LCC1—LCC2 | 0.000 c | 1.000 | |
WCB1—WCB2 | −1.916 b | 0.055 | |
SSH1—SSH2 | −0.183 a | 0.855 | |
WCR1—WCR2 | −1.045 b | 0.296 | |
WSO1—WSO2 | −0.335 b | 0.738 | |
SDL1—SDL2 | −0.222 b | 0.824 | |
WSN1—WSN2 | −0.986 b | 0.324 | |
LTD1—LTD2 | −1.505 b | 0.132 | |
WVA1—WVA2 | −1.422 b | 0.155 |
References
- Wilkes-Allemann, J.; Hanewinkel, M.; Pütz, M. Forest recreation as a governance problem: Four case studies from Switzerland. Eur. J. For. Res. 2017, 136, 511–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mönkkönen, M.; Burgas, D.; Eyvindson, K.; Le Tortorec, E.; Peura, M.; Pohjanmies, T.; Repo, A.; Triviño, M. Solving Conflicts among Conservation, Economic, and Social Objectives in Boreal Production Forest Landscapes: Fennoscandian Perspectives. In Ecosystem Services from Forest Landscapes; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 169–219. [Google Scholar]
- Rosa, C.D.; Larson, L.R.; Collado, S.; Profice, C.C. Forest therapy can prevent and treat depression: Evidence from meta-analyses. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 57, 126943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, C.-P.; Hsieh, H. Beyond restorative benefits: Evaluating the effect of forest therapy on creativity. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 51, 126670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, M.M.; Jones, R.; Tocchini, K. Shinrin-Yoku (Forest Bathing) and Nature Therapy: A State-of-the-Art Review. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Barron, S.; Sheppard, S.; Kozak, R.; Dunster, K.; Dave, K.; Sun, D.; Rayner, J. What do they like about trees? Adding local voices to urban forest design and planning. Trees For. People 2021, 5, 100116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, L.; Chen, X.W.; De Vos, J.; Lai, X.J.; Witlox, F. Applying a random forest method approach to model travel mode choice behavior. Travel Behav. Soc. 2019, 14, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burgin, S.; Hardiman, N. Extreme sports in natural areas: Looming disaster or a catalyst for a paradigm shift in land use planning? J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2012, 55, 921–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ni, M. Research on Forest Park Landscape Design Based on Ecological Aesthetics. Beauty Times 2020, 875, 84–85. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Brooks, S.K.; Webster, R.K.; Smith, L.E.; Woodland, L.; Wessely, S.; Greenberg, N.; Rubin, G.J. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence. Lancet 2020, 395, 912–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Farkic, J.; Isailovic, G.; Taylor, S. Forest bathing as a mindful tourism practice. Ann. Tour. Res. Empir. Insights 2021, 2, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnes, M.R.; Donahue, M.L.; Keeler, B.L.; Shorb, C.M.; Mohtadi, T.Z.; Shelby, L.J. Characterizing Nature and Participant Experience in Studies of Nature Exposure for Positive Mental Health: An Integrative Review. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dupont, L.; Antrop, M.; Van Eetvelde, V. Does landscape related expertise influence the visual perception of landscape photographs? Implications for participatory landscape planning and management. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 141, 68–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anderson, N.C.; Bischof, W.F.; Laidlaw, K.E.W.; Risko, E.F.; Kingstone, A. Recurrence quantification analysis of eye movements. Behav. Res. Methods 2013, 45, 842–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- De Lucio, J.V.; Mohamadian, M.; Ruiz, J.P.; Banayas, J.; Bernaldez, F.G. Visual landscape exploration as revealed by eye movement tracking. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1996, 34, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hughes, H.; Nozawa, G.; Kitterle, F. Global Precedence, Spatial Frequency Channels, and the Statistics of Natural Images. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 1996, 8, 197–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nordh, H.; Hagerhall, C.M.; Holmqvist, K. Tracking Restorative Components: Patterns in Eye Movements as a Consequence of a Restorative Rating Task. Landsc. Res. 2013, 38, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.; Gao, Y.; Zhou, S.; Zhang, T.; Zhang, W.; Meng, H. Psychological Cognitive Factors Affecting Visual Behavior and Satisfaction Preference for Forest Recreation Space. Forests 2022, 13, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amati, M.; Ghanbari Parmehr, E.; McCarthy, C.; Sita, J. How eye-catching are natural features when walking through a park? Eye-tracking responses to videos of walks. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 31, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Y.; Zhang, T.; Zhang, W.; Meng, H.; Zhang, Z. Research on visual behavior characteristics and cognitive evaluation of different types of forest landscape spaces. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 54, 126788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, S.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, W.; Meng, H.; Zhang, T. Visual Behaviour and Cognitive Preferences of Users for Constituent Elements in Forest Landscape Spaces. Forests 2022, 13, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paraskevopoulou, A.T.; Kamperi, E.; Demiris, N.; Economou, M.; Theleritis, C.; Kitsonas, M.; Papageorgiou, C. The impact of seasonal colour change in planting on patients with psychotic disorders using biosensors. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 36, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, L.-M.; Zhang, R.-X.; Jeng, T.-S.; Zeng, Z.-Y. Cityscape protection using VR and eye tracking technology. J. Vis. Commun. Image Represent. 2019, 64, 102639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millar, G.C.; Mitas, O.; Boode, W.; Hoeke, L.; de Kruijf, J.; Petrasova, A.; Mitasova, H. Space-time analytics of human physiology for urban planning. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2021, 85, 101554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.; Hu, M.; Zhao, B. Audio-visual interactive evaluation of the forest landscape based on eye-tracking experiments. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 46, 126476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, C.C.; Castelhano, M.S. The Changing Landscape: High-Level Influences on Eye Movement Guidance in Scenes. Vision 2019, 3, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van den Berg, A.E.; Joye, Y.; Koole, S.L. Why viewing nature is more fascinating and restorative than viewing buildings: A closer look at perceived complexity. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 20, 397–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berto, R.; Massaccesi, S.; Pasini, M. Do eye movements measured across high and low fascination photographs differ? Addressing Kaplan’s fascination hypothesis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- David Noton, L.S. Scanpaths in saccadic eye movements while viewing and recognizing patterns. Vis. Res. 1971, 11, 929–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker-Smith, G.J.; Gale, A.G.; Findlay, J.M. Eye movement strategies in face perception. Perception 1977, 6, 313–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Humphrey, K.; Underwood, G. Domain knowledge moderates the influence of visual saliency in scene recognition. Br. J. Psychol. 2009, 100, 377–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zeni, S.; Laudanna, I.; Baruffaldi, F.; Heimler, B.; Melcher, D.; Pavani, F. Increased overt attention to objects in early deaf adults: An eye-tracking study of complex naturalistic scenes. Cognition 2020, 194, 104061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chua, H.F.; Boland, J.E.; Nisbett, R.E. Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 12629–12633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Eckmann, J.P.; Oliffson Kamphorst, S.; Ruelle, D. Recurrence Plots of Dynamical Systems. Europhys. Lett. 1987, 1, 973–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Webber, C.L.; Zbilut, J.P. Dynamical assessment of physiological systems and states using recurrence plot strategies. J. Appl. Physiol. 1994, 76, 965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zbilut, J.P.; Giuliani, A.; Webber, C.L. Recurrence quantification analysis and principal components in the detection of short complex signals. Phys. Lett. A 1998, 237, 131–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xiang, Y.; Liang, H.; Fang, X.; Chen, Y.; Xu, N.; Hu, M.; Chen, Q.; Mu, S.; Hedblom, M.; Qiu, L.; et al. The comparisons of on-site and off-site applications in surveys on perception of and preference for urban green spaces: Which approach is more reliable? Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 58, 126961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orians, G.H.; Heerwagen, J.H. Evolved Responses to Landscapes; Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Balling, J.D.; Falk, J.H. Development of Visual Preference for Natural Environments. Environ. Behav. 2016, 14, 5–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heerwagen, J.H.; Orians, G.H. Humans, Habitats, and Aesthetics; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Van den Berg, A.E.; Koole, S.L.; Van der Wulp, N.Y. Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J.; Xu, W.; Li, R. Visual preference of trees: The effects of tree attributes and seasons. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 25, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cottet, M.; Vaudor, L.; Tronchère, H.; Roux-Michollet, D.; Augendre, M.; Brault, V. Using gaze behavior to gain insights into the impacts of naturalness on city dwellers’ perceptions and valuation of a landscape. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 60, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dupont, L.; Ooms, K.; Duchowski, A.T.; Antrop, M.; Van Eetvelde, V. Investigating the visual exploration of the rural-urban gradient using eye-tracking. Spat. Cogn. Comput. 2016, 17, 65–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dupont, L.; Ooms, K.; Antrop, M.; Van Eetvelde, V. Testing the validity of a saliency-based method for visual assessment of constructions in the landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 167, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García, L.; Hernández, J.; Ayuga, F. Analysis of the materials and exterior texture of agro-industrial buildings: A photo-analytical approach to landscape integration. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 74, 110–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dupont, L.; Ooms, K.; Antrop, M.; Van Eetvelde, V. Comparing saliency maps and eye-tracking focus maps: The potential use in visual impact assessment based on landscape photographs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 148, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicola, N.; Anderson, W.F.B. Recurrence quantification analysis. Available online: https://psych-barlab.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2015/05/RQA-Introduction.pdf (accessed on 6 September 2022).
- Olivia, A.; Mack, M.L.; Shrestha, M.; Peeper, A. Identifying the Perceptual Dimensions of Visual Complexity of Scenes; Cognitive Science Society: Victoria, BC, Canada, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, B. Modern Landscape Planning and Design; Southeast University Press: Nanjing, China, 2015. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Hu, Z.; Lin, Y. Environmental Psychology; China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2012. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Serra, J.; Manav, B.; Gouaich, Y. Assessing architectural color preference after Le Corbusier’s 1931 Salubra keyboards: A cross cultural analysis. Front. Archit. Res. 2021, 10, 502–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Li, M.; Zhang, X.; Song, L. Modeling the scenic beauty of autumnal tree color at the landscape scale: A case study of Purple Mountain, Nanjing, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 47, 126526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neale, C.; Griffiths, A.; Chalmin-Pui, L.S.; Mendu, S.; Boukhechba, M.; Roe, J. Color aesthetics: A transatlantic comparison of psychological and physiological impacts of warm and cool colors in garden landscapes. Wellbeing Space Soc. 2021, 2, 100038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menon, V.; Levitin, D. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. Br. J. Psychol. 2005, 95, 489–508. [Google Scholar]
- Irwin, D.E. Visual Memory Within and Across Fixations. In Eye Movements and Visual Cognition: Scene Perception and Reading; Rayner, K., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1992; pp. 146–165. [Google Scholar]
- Henry, L.R. Memory Illusions. J. Mem. Lang. 1996, 35, 76–100. [Google Scholar]
- Aiken, L.R. Psychological Testing and Assessment; Pearson Educating Group, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Appleton, J. The Experience of Landscape; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Schiffman, H.R. Sensation and Perception: An Integrated Approach; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Tingting Mou, W.L. Study on the Sight Line Organization of Mountain Parks—A Case Study of Fenghuangshan National Forest Park. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2017, 33, 91–94. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, G.; Yang, J.; Wu, G.; Hu, X. Exploring the interactive influence on landscape preference from multiple visual attributes: Openness, richness, order, and depth. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 65, 127363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lv, Y. On the aesthetic meaning of fractal geometry. China Hous. Facil. 2019, 66–67. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, X. Selection and application of geometric elements in square landscape design. Inter. Archit. China 2020, 206, 106. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Williams, D.R.; Roggenbuck, J.W. Measuring place attachment: Some preliminary results. In Proceedings of the NRPA Symposium on Leisure Research, San Antonio, TX, USA, 20–24 October 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Forgas, J.P. Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychol. Bull. 1995, 117, 39–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Index | Algorithm Formula | Meaning |
---|---|---|
REC | Recurrence as a percentage of all fixation points. This article refers to the coincidence degree of fixation points in repeated viewings. | |
DET | The proportion of diagonal recurrences in a recurrence plot. It indicates the coincidence degree of similar segmented fixation behaviors of people in the process of repeated viewings (similar continuous fixation segments). | |
LAM | The proportion of recurrences that are vertical or horizontal in a recurrence plot. It refers to the coincidence degree of the segmented fixations at one viewing time and the single fixation point at another viewing time. | |
CORM | The distance between the main recurrence cluster in a recurrence plot and the main diagonal line indicates the interval between fixation points that gaze at the same position in repeated viewings. CORM > 0 indicates that the first viewing starts before the second viewing; CORM = 0 indicates that they are basically synchronized; and CORM < 0 indicates that the second viewing starts before the first viewing. |
Evaluation Content | Evaluation Index | |
---|---|---|
Space | Whether the space is open | Can you see the distant landscape |
Whether the space is neat | Whether the space has a sense of hierarchy | |
Color | Whether the color is rich | Whether the color is bright |
Landscape change | Whether the plant species are diverse | Whether the landscape content is changing |
Whether the near-middle landscape is three dimensional | ||
Overall | Whether to visit again | Whether you like it |
Landscape Type | REC | DET | LAM | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Median | Lower Quartile | Upper Quartile | Median | Lower Quartile | Upper Quartile | Median | Lower Quartile | Upper Quartile | |
HP1 (a) | 17.125 cdEF | 11.055 | 24.170 | 50.230 cdeF | 34.675 | 62.515 | 66.670 cdEF | 50.420 | 73.500 |
HP2 (b) | 15.405 deF | 10.288 | 21.780 | 42.230 eF | 33.745 | 51.558 | 57.935 eF | 46.172 | 67.682 |
HP3 (c) | 13.045 af | 8.863 | 17.620 | 38.035 af | 25.850 | 49.638 | 50.610 af | 39.938 | 65.560 |
LP1 (d) | 11.495 ab | 7.415 | 16.983 | 38.160 af | 26.090 | 44.750 | 50.000 af | 33.325 | 63.695 |
LP2 (e) | 11.910 Ab | 7.792 | 17.135 | 32.320 ab | 23.620 | 50.605 | 45.380 Ab | 29.045 | 62.115 |
LP3 (f) | 9.615 ABc | 6.495 | 13.223 | 30.610 ABcd | 22.620 | 37.740 | 43.590 ABcd | 24.855 | 53.770 |
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. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wu, M.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, B.; Meng, H.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, T. How Do Repeated Viewings in Forest Landscapes Influence Young People’s Visual Behaviors and Cognitive Evaluations? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 4753. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064753
Wu M, Gao Y, Zhang Z, Zhang B, Meng H, Zhang W, Zhang T. How Do Repeated Viewings in Forest Landscapes Influence Young People’s Visual Behaviors and Cognitive Evaluations? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(6):4753. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064753
Chicago/Turabian StyleWu, Mengyun, Yu Gao, Zhi Zhang, Bo Zhang, Huan Meng, Weikang Zhang, and Tong Zhang. 2023. "How Do Repeated Viewings in Forest Landscapes Influence Young People’s Visual Behaviors and Cognitive Evaluations?" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 6: 4753. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20064753