Does Adding Local Tree Elements into Dwellings Enhance Individuals’ Homesickness? Scenario-Visualisation for Developing Sustainable Rural Landscapes
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Challenge of Loss of Homesickness Associated with Rural Landscape
1.2. Concept of Homesickness in a Chinese Context
1.3. Development of Chinese Homesickness
1.4. Human-Trees Interactions in the Landscape
1.5. Study Aim and Research Questions
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Survey Design
2.2. Part 1 of the Construction of Evaluation
2.2.1. Assignment and Evaluation Method
2.2.2. Construction of Evaluation System and Determination of Index Weight
2.3. Part 2 of the Scenic Visualisation and Data Processing
2.3.1. Selection of Dwellings Images and Trees
2.3.2. Scenic Visualisation Simulation
2.3.3. Survey and Data Processing
3. Results
3.1. Comparisons of Level of Place-Related Emotional Arousal before and after Picture Processing
3.2. Comparisons of Three Levels of Emotional Response Level after Picture Processing
3.3. Comparison of Emotional Response Level for Manipulated Landscape Scenes with Twelve Different Trees Added to Dwellings
3.4. Cluster Analysis of Emotional Responses to the Manipulated Rural Dwelling Scenes
4. Discussion
4.1. Combination Scenes Change Homesickness Emotion Response
4.2. Different Combinations Lead to Different Homesickness Emotional Response
4.3. Implications
4.4. Limitation and Future Research
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Tang, C.; He, Y.; Zhou, G.; Zeng, S.; Xiao, L. Optimizing the spatial organization of rural settlements based on life quality. J. Geogr. Sci. 2018, 28, 685–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, H.; Ryu, J. Sustaining a Korean Traditional Rural Landscape in the Context of Cultural Landscape. Sustainability 2015, 7, 11213–11239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Agnoletti, M. Rural landscape, nature conservation and culture: Some notes on research trends and management approaches from a (southern) European perspective. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 126, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Junren, W. Economic Globalization and Cultural Pluralism. Soc. Sci. China 2001, 2, 38–48. [Google Scholar]
- Ryan, R.L. Preserving rural character in New England: Local residents’perceptions of alternative residential development. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 61, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, H.; Verburg, P.H.; Liu, L.; Eitelberg, D.A. Spatial Analysis of cultural heritage landscapes in rural China: Land use change and its risks for conservation. Environ. Manag. 2016, 57, 1304–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Morse, C.; Mudgett, J. Longing for landscape: Homesickness and place attachment among rural out-migrants in the 19th and 21st centuries. J. Rural Stud. 2017, 50, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raymond, C.M.; Brown, G.; Weber, D. The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 422–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaoming, L. Temporal and spatial image of Chinese homesickness and its urban humanistic renaissance. Mod. Urban Res. 2016, 8, 2–10. [Google Scholar]
- Stephan, E.; Sedikides, C.; Wildschut, T. Mental travel into the past: Differentiating recollections of nostalgic, ordinary, and positive events. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 42, 290–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen-Pincus, M.; Hall, T.; Force, J.E.; Wulfhorst, J.D. Sociodemographic effects on place bonding. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuan, Y. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Scopelliti, M.; Tiberio, L. Homesickness in university students: The role of multiple place attachment. Environ. Behav. 2010, 42, 335–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chow, K.; Healey, M. Place attachment and place identity: First-year undergraduates making the transition from home to university. J. Environ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lewicka, M. Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31, 207–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyle, G.; Graefe, A.; Manning, R.; Bacon, J. Effects of place attachment on users’ perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 213–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feldman, R. Psychological Bonds with Home Places in a Mobile Society; Regimes of Closure; University of Illinois: Chicago, IL, USA, 1989; p. 191. [Google Scholar]
- Bonaiuto, M.; Aiello, A.; Perugini, M.; Bonnes, M.; Ercolani, A.P. Multidimensional perception of residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in the urban environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 331–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. The experienced psychological benefits of place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 51, 256–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dale, A.; Ling, C.; Newman, L. Does place matter? Sustainable community development in three Canadian communities. Ethics Place Environ. 2008, 11, 267–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muslim, Z. Design Transformation based on nature and identity formation in the design of landscape elements. Environ. Behav. Proc. J. 2016, 1, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roncken, P.A. Rural landscape anatomy: Public space and civil yards in Dutch rural landscapes of the future. J. Landsc. Arch. 2006, 1, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dallas, P. Sustainable environments: Common wood pastures in Norfolk. Landsc. Hist. 2010, 31, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehmann, A. Von Menschen und Bäumen: Die Deutschen und IHR Wald; Rowohlt Verlag GmbH: Berlin, Germany, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Casakin, H.; Reizer, A. Place attachment, residential satisfaction, and life satisfaction: Traditional and renewed kibbutz. Hum. Behav. Soc. Environ. 2017, 27, 639–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soini, K.; Vaarala, H.; Pouta, E. Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural–urban interface. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 104, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solley, C.M.; Messick, S.J. Probability, learning, the statistical structure of concepts, and the measurement of meaning. Am. J. Psychol. 1957, 70, 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ploder, A.; Eder, A. Semantic Differential, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 563–571. [Google Scholar]
- Vargas, L.G. An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 2–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Tress, B.; Tress, G. Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape planning—A study from Denmark. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 64, 161–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lange, E.; Hehl-Lange, S.; Brewer, M.J. Scenario-visualization for the assessment of perceived green space qualities at the urban–rural fringe. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 89, 245–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lange, E. The limits of realism: Perceptions of virtual landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 54, 163–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, E.; Shaad, K.; Girot, C. Developing river rehabilitation scenarios by integrating landscape and hydrodynamic modeling for the Ciliwung River in Jakarta, Indonesia. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 20, 180–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rid, W.; Haider, W.; Ryffel, A.; Beardmore, A.B. Visualisations in Choice Experiments: Comparing 3D Film-sequences and Still-images to Analyse Housing Development Alternatives. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 146, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaltenborn, B.R.P.; Bjerke, T. Associations between Landscape Preferences and Place Attachment: A study in Røros, Southern Norway. Landsc. Res. 2002, 27, 381–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandondo, A. Trees and spaces as emotion and norm laden components of local ecosystems in Nyamaropa communal land, Nyanga District, Zimbabwe. Agric. Hum. Values 1997, 14, 353–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lies, M.M.; Kang, M.; Sample, R.K. Place attachment and design features in a rural senior cohousing community. Hous. Soc. 2017, 44, 41–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, C.; Kuo, H. Bonding to a new place never visited: Exploring the relationship between landscape elements and place bonding. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 546–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riley, R.B. Attachment to the Ordinary Landscape, in Place Attachment; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 1992; pp. 13–35. [Google Scholar]
- Changuklee, C.; Allen, L. Understanding individuals’ attachment to selected destination: An application of place attachment. Tour. Anal. 1999, 4, 173–185. [Google Scholar]
- Lowenthal, D. Past time, present place: Landscape and memory. Geogr. Rev. 1975, 65, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brennan-Horley, C.; Connell, J.; Gibson, C. The Parkes Elvis Revival Festival: Economic development and contested place identities in rural Australia. Geogr. Res. 2007, 45, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.J.; Hu, L.H.; Li, S.H. Investigation on Influences of Prototype Landscape on People’s Environmental Perceptions. Chin. Landsc. Arch. 2010, 7, 46–48. [Google Scholar]
- McClinchey, K.A. Conceptualizing Sense of Place through Multi-Ethnic Narratives at a Multicultural Festival. Available online: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1652&context=ttra (accessed on 29 October 2018).
- McClinchey, K.A.; Carmichael, B.A. The Tourism and Leisure Experience: Consumer and Managerial Perspectives. In The Role and Meaning of Place in Cultural Festival Visitor Experiences; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2010; pp. 59–80. [Google Scholar]
- He, B.; Zhu, J. Constructing community gardens? Residents’ attitude and behaviour towards edible landscapes in emerging urban communities of China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 34, 154–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Relph, E. Place and Placelessness, 2nd ed.; Pion: Forest Row, UK, 1976; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
- Stedman, R.C. Sense of place and forest science: Toward a program of quantitative research. For. Sci. 2003, 49, 822–829. [Google Scholar]
- Manzo, L.C. Beyond house and haven: Toward a revisioning of emotional relationships with places. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharpley, R.; Jepson, D. Rural tourism: A spiritual experience? Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 52–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christou, P.; Farmaki, A.; Evangelou, G. Nurturing nostalgia? A response from rural tourism stakeholders. Tour. Manag. 2018, 69, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duan, Z.; Xu, X. An Analysis of population return from the perspective of rural urbanization. Sustain. Environ. 2017, 2, 309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, B.; Zhao, D.; Zhu, J.; Darko, A.; Gou, Z. Promoting and implementing urban sustainability in China: An integration of sustainable initiatives at different urban scales. Habitat Int. 2018, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogge, E.; Nevens, F.; Gulinck, H. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 82, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stedman, R.C. Understanding place attachment among second home owners. Am. Behav. Sci. 2016, 50, 187–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Period | Social Backgrounds | Subject | Emotional Tendency | Keywords |
---|---|---|---|---|
1912–1949 | Influence of western culture; World war | Scholar (study) | Homeland | Travel, Love, Dilemma |
1949–1999 | Establishment of PRC; Chinese economic reform | Overseas Chinese (live abroad) | Patriotism | Taiwan, Mainland |
2000–2018 | Globalization and Modernization of Economic Culture; Urbanization | Mass groups (Relocating or moving to another town) | Hometown | Image, Spiritual, Culture, Traditional, Modernity, Identity, Urbanization |
Construct | Items | Supporting Literature | |
---|---|---|---|
Topophilia | Local; Nature; Cultural; Territorial; Traditional; | [12,28,29] | |
Place attachment | Place identity | Friendly; Memory; | [30,31] |
Place dependence | Substitute; Satisfaction; | [31,32] | |
Place bonding | Familiarity; Belonging; | [31,33,34,35] | |
Nostalgia | Desire; Comfort; Intimate; Mood; | [36,37,38] | |
Aesthetics | Vitality; Harmonious; Coordinated; Beautiful; | [38,39,40] |
Target Layer (I) | Evaluation Project Layer (II) | Weight | Evaluation Factors (III) | Weight | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Emotion evaluation | topophilia | Nature | 0.3699 | Local | 0.1850 |
Natural | 0.1850 | ||||
Regional Culture | 0.2818 | Cultural | 0.0460 | ||
Territorial | 0.1520 | ||||
Traditional | 0.0837 | ||||
Place attachment | 0.1439 | Familiarity | 0.0480 | ||
Memory | 0.0480 | ||||
Friendly | 0.0480 | ||||
Nostalgia | Psychology | 0.0577 | Mood | 0.0096 | |
Comfort | 0.0481 | ||||
Experience | 0.0577 | Intimacy | 0.0433 | ||
Desirable | 0.0144 | ||||
Landscape aesthetics | 0.0889 | Living | 0.0264 | ||
Beautiful | 0.0480 | ||||
Harmonious | 0.0145 |
Tree | Original Dwelling | Manipulated Landscape |
---|---|---|
tamped-soil dwellings | trees with tamped-soil dwellings | |
Pyrus pyrifolia (Burm.f.) Nakai | white wall dwellings | trees with white wall dwellings |
red brick wall dwellings | trees with red brick wall dwellings |
Tree Species | TSD Configure Trees | WWD Configure Trees | BWD Configure Trees | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Original Picture | Synthetic Picture | t | Original Picture | Synthetic Picture | t | Original Picture | Synthetic Picture | t | |
1. Ginkgo biloba L. | 0.69 | −0.59 | 0.04 * | 0.43 | 0.36 | 0.76 | −0.15 | −1.07 | 0.16 |
2. Amygdalus persica L. | 1.94 | 0.03 * | 2.49 | 0.03 * | 1.04 | 0.01 ** | |||
3. Magnolia liliiflora Desr. | −0.16 | 0.03 * | −0.32 | 0.24 | 0.12 | 0.55 | |||
4. Diospyros kaki Thunb. | 2.45 | 0.48 | 1.92 | 0.06 | 1.51 | 0.01 * | |||
5. Pyrus pyrifolia (Burm.f.)Nakai | 2.05 | 0.28 | 2.49 | 0.01 * | 2.48 | 0.001 ** | |||
6. Yulania denudata (Desr.) D. L. Fu | −0.40 | 0.002 ** | 0.49 | 0.37 | 0.60 | 0.09 | |||
7. Armeniaca mume Sieb. | 1.43 | 0.14 | 1.40 | 0.11 | 0.89 | 0.10 | |||
8. Osmanthus fragrans (Thumb.) Lour. | 1.89 | 0.21 | 1.55 | 0.13 | 1.54 | 0.19 | |||
9. Sapium sebiferum (L.) Roxb. | 1.82 | 0.44 | 1.35 | 0.26 | 1.09 | 0.01 ** | |||
10. Prunus campanulata Maxim. | 0.70 | 0.09 | 0.69 | 0.76 | 0.28 | 0.17 | |||
11. Juniperus chinensis L. | −1.16 | 0.047 * | −0.96 | 0.27 | −0.38 | 0.66 | |||
12. Paulownia tomentosa Steud. | 1.70 | 0.34 | 2.03 | 0.00 ** | 1.21 | 0.05 * |
Scene | Test Value = 0 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
t | df | Sig. (2-Tailed) | Mean Difference | 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | ||
Lower | Upper | |||||
TSD configured trees | 2.73 | 11 | 0.020 * | 0.97 | 0.19 | 1.76 |
WWD configured trees | 3.58 | 11 | 0.004 ** | 1.13 | 0.43 | 1.82 |
BWD configured trees | 2.83 | 11 | 0.016 * | 0.78 | 0.17 | 1.38 |
Tree Species | Test Value = 0 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
t | df | Sig. (2-Tailed) | Mean Difference | 95% Confidence Interval Associated with the Difference | ||
Lower | Upper | |||||
1. Ginkgo biloba L. | −1.04 | 2 | 0.41 | −0.44 | −2.25 | 1.38 |
2. Amygdalus persica L. | 4.34 | 2 | 0.049 * | 1.82 | 0.02 | 3.63 |
3. Magnolia liliiflora Desr. | −0.92 | 2 | 0.45 | −0.12 | −0.68 | 0.44 |
4. Diospyros kaki Thunb. | 7.21 | 2 | 0.02 * | 1.96 | 0.79 | 3.14 |
5. Pyrus pyrifolia (Burm.f.) Nakai | 16.37 | 2 | 0.004 ** | 2.34 | 1.73 | 2.96 |
6. Yulania denudata (Desr.) D. L. Fu | 0.73 | 2 | 0.54 | 0.23 | −1.14 | 1.60 |
7. Armeniaca mume Sieb. | 6.84 | 2 | 0.02 * | 1.25 | 0.47 | 2.04 |
8. Osmanthus fragrans (Thumb.) Lour. | 14.05 | 2 | 0.005 ** | 1.66 | 1.15 | 2.17 |
9. Sapium sebiferum (L.) Roxb. | 6.66 | 2 | 0.02 * | 1.42 | 0.50 | 2.34 |
10. Prunus campanulata Maxim. | 3.95 | 2 | 0.06 | 0.56 | −0.05 | 1.17 |
11. Juniperus chinensis L. | −3.57 | 2 | 0.07 | −0.83 | −1.84 | 0.17 |
12. Paulownia tomentosa Steud. | 6.90 | 2 | 0.02 | 1.64 | 0.62 | 2.67 |
© 2018 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Huang, S.; Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C.; Fu, W.; Qi, J.; Chen, Z.; Zhu, Z.; Dong, J. Does Adding Local Tree Elements into Dwellings Enhance Individuals’ Homesickness? Scenario-Visualisation for Developing Sustainable Rural Landscapes. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3943. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113943
Huang S, Konijnendijk van den Bosch C, Fu W, Qi J, Chen Z, Zhu Z, Dong J. Does Adding Local Tree Elements into Dwellings Enhance Individuals’ Homesickness? Scenario-Visualisation for Developing Sustainable Rural Landscapes. Sustainability. 2018; 10(11):3943. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113943
Chicago/Turabian StyleHuang, Shuping, Cecil Konijnendijk van den Bosch, Weicong Fu, Jinda Qi, Ziru Chen, Zhipeng Zhu, and Jianwen Dong. 2018. "Does Adding Local Tree Elements into Dwellings Enhance Individuals’ Homesickness? Scenario-Visualisation for Developing Sustainable Rural Landscapes" Sustainability 10, no. 11: 3943. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113943