Tranquillity in Urban Classical Chinese Gardens and Modern Parks: The Effect of Natural and Contextual Features

Abstract

Parks and green spaces are an integral part of many urban areas. Such spaces offer a variety of psychological, physical and social benefits promoting a stronger sense of community and allowing people to cope better with everyday stress. These parks are often designed to provide tranquillity for people, and it is now an emerging area of policy in the promotion of quality of life. Tranquillity is considered a natural asset. Although they are vital, tranquil spaces are under threat, and it is, therefore, important to identify and understand such places so that they can be further planned and managed for the benefits that they provide. This study conceptualises the understanding of tranquillity and determines the extent to which a tranquil environment can be achieved. The study identified six parks referred to as “modern parks (MPs)” and “classical Chinese gardens (CCGs)”. Three parks each are located in Hong Kong and Guangzhou. Questionnaires were used to ascertain the importance of tranquil areas and the contribution of park components towards tranquillity. This study investigates the contribution of park elements that include both natural and contextual features. Furthermore, park characteristics and park elements were similarly identified. There were clear differences between natural and contextual features in terms of their potential contribution towards park users’ perceived tranquillity. There is also a striking importance and potential contribution of contextual features within classical Chinese gardens in relation to perceived tranquillity. This study concludes that there is the need to continue to enhance the quality of park spaces with regard to fostering tranquillity in urban areas.

1. Introduction

Urbanisation has long been one of the most extensive and contemporary issues in both developing and developed countries [1,2]. Today, more than 50% of the world’s population lives in urban areas, which cover about 2.4% of the earth’s landmass [3,4]. Such high population density puts pressure on the transformation of green spaces both in or near cities [5], where these areas are regularly given up in the name of development [6]. As a result, urban parks or green spaces have an increasingly essential role in combating typical urban problems, such as a sedentary lifestyle, obesity, and a stressful life, for human well-being [7,8]. Urban parks and green spaces offer visitors a place to relax and make a getaway, engage in sport activities and experience nature, as well as socialise [9,10]. By providing such unique opportunities, urban parks are hence regarded as restorative or tranquil environments. It has, therefore, become imperative to understand the key elements that affect tranquillity in urban parks and open green spaces [11].

With such a high population density in Hong Kong (6690 persons/km²) and Guangzhou (1800 persons/km²), the above-mentioned issues are true. It is a necessity to have tranquil spaces in urban areas [12,13,14]. In these cities, urban parks are normally classified as modern parks (MPs) or classical Chinese gardens (CCGs), where their settings are distinct from each other, which may potentially affect the tranquillity within them. Therefore, this article investigates the contribution of park elements to the perceived tranquillity in MPs and CCGs. In this sense, vital features in MPs can be employed in CCGs, or vice versa. Given the relevance of the study, the objectives of the paper include (1) to evaluate the range of tranquillity in contrasting open spaces in Hong Kong and Guangzhou; (2) to investigate the role of park characteristics and park elements in the CCGs and the MPs. Such comparisons involved investigations in the gardens and parks at both locations. The results of the study will shed light on the perceived tranquillity and the overall characteristics of the park environment. Consequently, the results and analysis add to the growing body of knowledge in this discipline and could help decision makers, planners and managers of CCGs and MPs to consider tranquillity when planning and designing such spaces.

As cities plan, implement and construct, parks, gardens and open spaces, people visit to experience the serenity, peacefulness and the tranquillity that such places provide. In the spatial context of such parks and gardens, it is possible to identify key elements that affect the tranquillity and the park settings. The purpose is to study the parks and gardens that attract people, identify the main settings and park elements and relate these to the perception of tranquillity by park visitors.

The notion of tranquillity, first suggested by Kaplan and Kaplan [15], refers to the psychological state characterised by peacefulness, quietness and calmness. Such a state is achieved when sensory information received by the auditory and visual modalities, and mostly comes from natural sources in a particular area [16]. Tranquillity has also been reported to be affected by both natural and contextual features, as well as the soundscape of the environment. Nevertheless, the soundscape is a perceptual construct as evaluated by several scholars [17,18], and differs slightly from the acoustic environment characterised by physical phenomena [19]. Given the relevance of both visual and auditory factors in an urban green space, it is, therefore, critical to understand human preferences and likings to each individual sound, which contributes to a positive soundscape, tranquillity or otherwise [20]. Such questions have been addressed in several studies, by establishing soundwalks in Italy and the UK [19,21] and analysing opinions of park users [22], etc., in which a general liking for natural sounds, such as sounds from wind and water, was found. In this study, we emphasize the perception of park visitors on soundscape rather than their reaction to numerical values of the acoustic environment. To most visitors to such places, it is the source of the sounds that matter rather than the loudness and sharpness. In this context, this introduction identities the issues of whether or not there are differences of perception in CCGs and MPs in terms of tranquillity, park characteristics and park elements. The results identified the notion of tranquillity in the sites and the characteristics of the parks, as well as the park elements. This was then followed by discussion and conclusion accordingly, in which the study was summarized, limitations were identified and trends of future studies will continue.

Tranquil environments are restorative, and, therefore, individuals in such environments can experience stress reduction, pain and anxiety relief and even recovery from attentional and sensory overload [6,23,24]. In the United Kingdom, tranquillity is an ‘intrinsic characteristic’ of the rural environment, and despite not being ‘intrinsic’, the state of tranquillity within the urban environment is likely to be achievable, and tranquil areas are widely recognised, due to the potential benefits such areas bring to city inhabitants [25,26]. It has been observed that tranquil areas within the urban fabric tend to coincide with urban parks [19]. In the construction of tranquil environments, the presence of natural elements, such as trees, rivers, and ponds, is vital. In such places, the soundscape is dominated by natural sounds, such as the rustling of leaves and the birdsong of different species, all of which contribute to calmness and peacefulness [1,27]. Furthermore, from the psychological perspective, visiting tranquil spaces enhances one’s well-being and ability to reflect on life and goals [1]. Therefore, the knowledge on perceived tranquillity in urban green spaces, such as modern parks (MPs) and classical Chinese gardens (CCGs), particularly the effect of contextual features upon tranquillity, is vital in order to fully realise their restorative potentials.

Indeed, the importance of soundscapes in various settings has been underlined [28,29]. The National Parks of the United States of America regards soundscapes as valuable resources to be preserved [30,31]. Others have indicated that sounds have impacts on visitor experiences [32,33,34]. Many other scholars have also reported that sounds can impact on humans physical and mental health, social behaviour, etc. [35,36]. Where the soundscape is pleasing, it adds to the tranquillity of a place, bringing benefits to people that patronize such places. As researchers study tranquillity in the outdoor environment, the soundscapes within those areas become prominent.

Urban parks, referred to in this study as MPs, represent a typical park landscape that aims to provide a plethora of facilities and amenities in addition to pictorial pleasure [37]. Such visual pleasure is usually provided by a green, restorative and potentially tranquil environment, with various natural features, such as trees, shrubs, and birds, and is occasionally complemented with some open spaces [38]. On the other hand, MPs also encourage sedentary activities, such as picnics and social gatherings, which help in establishing the link between individuals and nature [39]. Meanwhile, in this paper, CCG is used to refer to gardens constructed based on designs from Southern China. Although it involves the appreciation of traditional philosophy, ethics, literature, architecture, and so on, a CCG is really a microcosm of Chinese culture [40]. After development for some 2000 years, CCGs have become a unique treasure of the Chinese culture, as they are distinguishable from any garden system around the globe [41,42]. Consequently, the CCG is appreciated for the various qualities and benefits that it brings to societies [43]. CCGs often have an eco-friendly and liberal layout, with poetic feelings of literati, where there are three main constituents in its landscape, namely contextual features, vegetation, and hydrological features [44]. In this paper, the preceding section has identified the context of tranquillity and the environments of the MPs and the CCGs that people visit. The second section discusses the methodology and the study areas and highlights the data collection and methods, including questionnaire survey and analysis. This is followed by the results and discussion, and then closing with the conclusion and highlighting the direction of future research in the discipline.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Area

Six urban parks were investigated, in which four of them are considered CCGs: Lingnan Garden, Kowloon Walled City Park, Liwanhu Park, and Yuexiu Park, whereas two of them are MPs: Lai Chi Kok Park, and Zhujiang Park. Locations of the study sites in Hong Kong and Guangzhou, respectively, are indicated in the preceding sections.

2.2. Classical Chinese Gardens

According to some scholars, CCGs are constructed according to the inheritance of theories and experience, rather than precise horticultural mathematical and geometric rules [45]. In this trend, the contextual features, or key elements, are put in such a way that the object must be exhibited in situ and be “a part that stands in a contiguous relation that may or may not be recreated”, or in this case, artificial elements relatable to the design philosophy of CCGs [46].

Table 1. Some common contextual features found in CCGs.

No.	Name	References
1	Rocks (geological features)	[47,48,49]
2	Pavement	[49]
3	Pavilions	[43,44,47,48,49]
4	Threshold in buildings	[49]
5	Teahouse	[48]
6	Bridges	[43,44,47,48]
7	Courtyards	[48]
8	Pathways/Covered Corridors	[43,44,47,48]
9	Pagoda	[44]
10	Wall (built with brick, stone, or rammed earth)	[44]
11	Decorated windows	[47]
12	Gates of various shapes (e.g., round, flower-shaped)	[43,47]

summarises numerous contextual features that are most commonly found in present-day CCGs [43,44,47,48,49].

The most notable contextual feature within a CCG is perhaps the pavilion, as it is placed conspicuously within the garden and can be in all kinds of shapes: square, circular, oblong, pentagonal, hexagonal, etc. Figure 1 shows an example of a pavilion in context. Meanwhile, stones and rocks, sometimes called geological features, create scenes using either a single rock or a pile of rocks, which should appear to be slender and carved (Figure 2). Pavements made of bricks, pebbles and stone pieces are another commonly found contextual feature [47]. The use of bridges further enhances the poetic feelings elicited by the garden (Figure 3).

In addition, vegetation selection has always been carefully performed in CCGs, and is primarily based on superficial beauty, as well as the ethical values and literary associations they carry. In this regard, the garden planners aim to demonstrate the poetic charm, while capturing the peacefulness of nature [43,47]. Some popular floras include pine, fir, bamboo, loquat, and plum. Physical characteristics, such as the density of trunks and the shape and colour of leaves, are also major parts of the considerations [42]. Plants are personified, and thus have symbolic meaning—for example, the hollowness and straightness of bamboo suggests the virtue of uprightness and humility in Chinese culture, and the flexibility of a gentlemen, as it never breaks, although it bends, when facing strong gusts, whilst chrysanthemum and red beans symbolise noble moral integrity and lovesickness, respectively [42,43]. In addition, water-related features are employed to contribute to the sense of seclusion and serenity within the garden [43]. Numerous features are used: streams, ponds, creeks, dripping springs, waterfalls, etc.

2.3. Modern Parks

Modern parks (MPs) are typical urban park landscapes that aim to provide utility from a plethora of facilities and amenities, in addition to pictorial pleasure [37]. Publicly available amenities in some parks include tennis courts, basketball courts, playgrounds for children, footpaths, jogging tracks and cycle paths, which offer significant opportunities for visitors of multiple generations to participate in physical activities [50]. Figure 4 illustrates a typical modern park landscape. Apart from the mentioned facilities, given their proximity and accessibility, MPs may also act as a destination to which people frequently visit for walking, cycling, meeting and or other activities [51]. Some other park visitors can be found lying, sitting or standing instead of engaging in other physical activities [52]. In another study, however, McCormack and others [39], suggested that patterns of engagement in park activities are associated with the physical attributes of the modern park itself.

In this context, the study identified parks in both Guangzhou and Hong Kong that are considered modern. Increasingly, urban parks are perceived as necessary and forms a major component of urbanized environments [37]. In most of these parks, the landscape often provides a structure of pedestrian paths with places, including viewing spots, aesthetic places, spaces for grouping of people, places of entertainment, recreation and so on.

Many parks are characterized by elements of park zones that enrich the appearance and attract visitation for various purposes. These can primarily include children’s playgrounds, sports ground for different age groups, park furniture, vegetation and flower beds, etc. The availability of the park elements mostly depends on the size of the park and the theme and history of existence.

These parks in urban areas are considered modern and critical to urban areas in efforts to bring nature into the city. They are designed to encourage biodiversity and social cohesion. In contemporary times, the creation and adoption of urban green spaces as modern parks has become commonplace for cities of all sizes.

Lai Chi Kok Park, located in Mei Foo, Hong Kong, is a modern park (MP) with a size of 16.4 ha (excluding Lingnan Garden), which contains a wide variety of recreational and sport facilities, such as a skate park, swimming pool and an amphitheatre, which is a venue for live performances and cultural events. Geographically, the park is surrounded by Mei Foo Sun Chuen (Phase I) and is also highly accessible from the Mei Foo train station. Zhujiang Park, also known as Pearl River Park, is situated in the Zhujiang New Town, Guangzhou, between two metro stations. It is conveniently located to the north of the Zhujiang River (Figure 5). It has a size of approximately 26.9 ha and is divided into eight zones or gardens. The park is incorporated into the new Tianhe CBD.

2.4. Characteristics of the Study Sites

Lingnan Garden, situated in Mei Foo, Hong Kong, is a CCG constructed in the Lingnan style, and is surrounded by Lai Chi Kok Park (Figure 6). It is conveniently located in the vicinity of Mei Foo Sun Chuen and is about a five minute walk from the underground train station. The garden is divided into ten scenic spots, with the most notable one being “Healthy Pebble Path Zone”. It has a size of 1.25 ha, and the water coverage in the park is approximately 20.8% [53]. The Kowloon Walled City Park (3.1 ha), situated in modern-day Kowloon City, Hong Kong, is a CCG architecturally designed based on the Jiangnan garden style of the early Qing Dynasty [40,45]. The park is divided into 8 landscape features, all of which are subtly blended together. The most famous structure is the “Yamen” in the centre of the park, which formerly served as offices of the Commodore of the Dapeng Brigade and the Kowloon Assistant Military Inspectorate [54]. It is also located in close proximity to a train station (Figure 5). Liwanhu Park, also known as the Liwan Lake Park, is situated in the Liwan District, Guangzhou, which is the populous old town, near Zhongshanba metro station. It has an area of approximately 25.2 ha and is enclosed by Huangsha Avenue (Figure 6). Many people, especially seniors, visit this park during the daytime, since the Liwan Lake itself, along with the vegetation at the shoreside, provides a peaceful and serene environment.

Yuexiu Park is similarly situated near the metro station of the same name, within Yuexiu District, and is the largest park in the city centre of Guangzhou, with a size of approximately 86 ha (Figure 6). It is essentially made of three artificial lakes, as well as the famous Yuexiu Mountain [55]. This classical Chinese garden was constructed in the Lingnan style, with classical pavilions, bridges and decorated corridors, and hence provides a tranquil environment. It also offers a wide variety of activities for park visitors, such as square dance and Cantonese opera, but the amusement park within the park is what actually differentiates from the other large parks in Guangzhou.

Lai Chi Kok Park, located in Mei Foo, Hong Kong, is a modern park (MP) with a size of 16.4 ha (excluding Lingnan Garden), which contains a wide variety of recreational and sport facilities, such as a skate park, swimming pool, and an amphitheatre, which is a venue for live performances and cultural events. Geographically, the park is surrounded by Mei Foo Sun Chuen (Phase I) and is also highly accessible from the Mei Foo train station. Zhujiang Park, also known as Pearl River Park, is situated in the Zhujiang New Town, Guangzhou, between two metro stations. It is conveniently located to the north of the Zhujiang River (Figure 6). It has a size of approximately 26.9 ha and is divided into eight zones or gardens. The park is incorporated into the new Tianhe CBD.

2.5. Questionnaire Design and Data Collection

In this paper, two field studies were conducted in both Guangzhou and Hong Kong from June to August in 2019. These were carried out in order to understand the magnitude of the contribution of each park component towards tranquillity and to test whether the differences between them are statistically significant. The primary assumption is that all components included have positive effect upon tranquillity. Although the parks and gardens in Guangzhou and Hong Kong were treated separately, the methods employed for the field studies were the same.

These methods are employed mainly to understand the perceptions of the soundscape environment that that the users perceive. According to some scholars, [56], the type of questions can be psychoacoustics, semantics and aesthetic perceptions of sounds, which can include the identification of sound sources, types of wanted and unwanted sounds as is reported in this study. The evaluation of sound levels was not an objective of this study and soundscape values were not computed for this purpose.

In order to collect data, questionnaires were designed with experience from previous studies and literature on park visitation [10,11]. The questionnaire designed for the study is based on subjective perception of the soundscape quality at the locations. There are 3 sections in the questionnaire consisting of 27 questions. The first part identifies the visiting information and experiences of the participants at the location. The information collected include the frequency of visiting the park, the reasons for visiting, the length of stay, the purpose of visiting, the state of the park environment and the benefits that the visitors derive. This section also collected information on whether or not the park is tranquil, and the importance of tranquillity, partly using the Likert Scale. The Likert scale is used as one of the most frequently used psychometric tools in social sciences research. This has been used to quantify preferential thinking, feeling and action, where participants are asked to show their level of agreement with a given statement on a metric scale [57].

On a Likert scale of 1 to 6, respondents were asked to indicate to what extent can the tranquillity be improved, and to identify what park items affect the enjoyment of the visit and the characteristics of the features of the location. Part two specifically investigates the tranquillity of the park in terms of perceived soundscape. We also seek to understand the frequency of which the respondent hears the sound and the overall perception of the sounds indicating whether they like it or not. Part three focused on the demographical information of the respondents, including information on gender, age, education background, occupation, and other relevant information.

The survey was conducted face-to-face on both sites and focused on the perceptions of park visitors in rating the tranquillity of the parks on the location. In addition, the questionnaire was designed to identify the extent that contextual park features contribute to and/or harm tranquillity in a given space. Some questions were designed to rate responses on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from highly disagree (1) to highly agree (6), in part two, and respondents were asked to identify acoustic sources perceived in the park and in particular the characteristics of the park. They were further asked to identify dominant and prominent sounds from what they experienced as part of the park characteristics. Participants were also asked to identify their preferences to park elements that constitute the landscapes within the park boundary. The questionnaire is attached in the Supplementary Materials.

The data were collected, compiled and analysed with the SPSS statistical software. The data were subjected to various statistical tests. The first step was the descriptive statistics for various park components and park elements, including means, standard deviation and the Fisher–Pearson standardised moment coefficient (G₁), which measures the lack of symmetry of the data set. Whereas the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test was conducted to compare mean ranks between different park elements, pairwise comparisons between groups of data were also computed to find out which groups are statistically significantly different from others.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Average Rated Tranquillity

Park users were asked whether they perceive this park as being tranquil, on a Likert scale of 1 to 6, with 1 being “Not (Tranquil) At All” and 6 being “Extremely Tranquil”. Rated tranquillity is expressed as T in this paper. The average Likert scale score for this question for Lingnan Garden is the highest amongst the six parks, with an average score of 4.93 ± 0.73, followed by Lai Chi Kok (4.86 ± 0.71) and Kowloon Walled City Park (4.66 ± 0.81) (

Table 2. The average scores of Q11—“Is this park tranquil?”—in 6 parks.

Parameter	Park	Park Type	City	Mean	SD
Perceived Tranquillity (T)	Lingnan Garden	CCG	HK	4.93	0.73
	Lai Chi Kok Park	MP	HK	4.86	0.71
	Kowloon Walled City Park	CCG	HK	4.66	0.81
	Zhujiang Park	MP	GZ	4.55	1.08
	Liwanhu Park	CCG	GZ	3.96	1.11
	Yuexiu Park	CCG	GZ	3.96	1.02
	Average			4.33	1.06

). On the contrary, Liwanhu and Yuexiu Park have the lowest perceived tranquillity, both with 3.96. The sample mean is 4.33 ± 1.06. Regarding the importance of tranquillity during a park visit, the overall average score is 5.00 ± 0.99. Comparisons were also made between two cities, as well as CCG and MP, in which the average T of CCG and MP is 4.16 and 4.62, respectively, and parks in Hong Kong have an average tranquillity rating of 4.78, while for Guangzhou, this rating is 4.18 (

Table 3. The overall perceived tranquillity rating in four locations of the gardens, parks, Guangzhou and Hong Kong.

Parameter		Mean	SD
Perceived Tranquillity (T)	CCG	4.16	1.06
	MP	4.62	1.02
	HK	4.78	0.76
	GZ	4.18	1.10

).

The notion of tranquillity in gardens, parks and green open spaces has been discussed by scholars [1,27], but this study compares the extent of tranquillity in both CCGs and MPs. With the information available in the literature, this is the first time such comparison is conducted. Given that tranquillity is affected by both visual, acoustic and elements of aesthetics, the study identified the relevance of contextual futures prominent in CCGs, as well as vegetation and hydrological features. With this in mind, participants were asked several questions in order to rate the tranquillity of the place that they are visiting. Whereas previous studies paid insufficient attention to park and green space characteristics and elements within them, this study provides an opportunity to systematically investigate the park itself rather than only visitation patterns and or sound characteristics.

3.2. Park Characteristics

Several park characteristics were suggested to the interviewees while they were asked to express to what extent they agreed with each item.

Table 4. The average scores of Q15—“Characteristics of the park”—in 6 parks.

Park Characteristic	Lingnan Garden	Lai Chi Kok Park	Kowloon Walled City Park	Zhujiang Park	Liwanhu Park	Yuexiu Park
Suitable for families to visit	5.00 ± 0.84	5.35 ± 0.71	4.83 ± 1.03	4.77 ± 1.23	4.66 ± 1.04	5.11 ± 0.99
Good place for entertainment	4.73 ± 0.95	4.95 ± 0.85	3.94 ± 1.32	4.12 ± 1.61	4.20 ± 1.07	4.95 ± 1.09
Easy to walk around	5.22 ± 0.73	5.47 ± 0.73	4.39 ± 1.19	5.08 ± 1.02	5.15 ± 0.71	4.93 ± 0.95
Pleasant surrounding areas	5.47 ± 0.63	5.56 ± 0.86	5.20 ± 0.69	5.27 ± 0.91	5.01 ± 0.94	5.30 ± 0.78
Convenient public transport	5.54 ± 0.57	5.48 ± 0.77	4.36 ± 1.46	4.92 ± 1.01	4.83 ± 0.87	5.06 ± 0.96
Good overall ambience	5.31 ± 0.73	5.50 ± 0.53	5.30 ± 0.66	5.09 ± 0.95	4.90 ± 0.91	5.36 ± 0.73
Abundant vegetation cover	5.19 ± 0.77	5.45 ± 0.56	5.11 ± 0.82	5.23 ± 0.97	4.96 ± 0.90	5.31 ± 0.88
Clean and tidy overall	5.17 ± 0.84	5.41 ± 0.68	5.11 ± 0.86	5.23 ± 0.95	4.88 ± 1.02	5.26 ± 0.94
Peaceful and quiet	5.34 ± 0.65	5.23 ± 0.89	5.41 ± 0.64	5.23 ± 0.97	4.69 ± 1.16	4.82 ± 1.08
Plenty of activities to participate	4.19 ± 1.11	3.88 ± 1.23	2.89 ± 1.24	3.63 ± 1.68	4.03 ± 1.25	4.71 ± 1.17

illustrates the average score for each characteristic in each park. The majority of people are of the opinion that Lai Chi Kok Park has abundant vegetation cover (5.45) and it is clean and tidy (5.41), and the park scored the highest in these two categories.

In the course of the field works conducted, on site observation of the sites revealed differences in the landscapes of the physical environment. Although the sites represent public green spaces, there are inherent differences of the locations of elements of recreational amenities that evidently draws people to such places. The park elements as individual components within the open space contribute to tranquillity [12]. Although it is evident that vegetation represents the highest contributing factor to tranquillity in both locations of CCGs and MPs, contextual features are prominent only in the CCGs. Park characteristics are also factors, that are significantly associated with tranquillity as also identified by other scholars [19,22]. The overwhelming response by visitors indicate the study areas as places with “pleasant surrounding areas”. With respect to the acoustic environment, natural sounds are overwhelmingly seen to promote tranquillity in such areas as observed by respondents.

3.3. Soundscape in Tranquility

Although the physical measurements of sound was not a major objective of this study, the perception of noise and sounds in an environment can have impact on the perceived tranquillity at a location. In a place, the sound of the acoustic environment is shaped by all the different sound sources that are present and can also depend on the propagation conditions, such as those in parks and gardens [56].

Dominant sound refers to the sound that dominates the soundscape in terms of perceived loudness, whereas prominent sound refers to a distinctive sound that occurs relatively rarely, having a progression consisting of a preliminary attack, a body of sound and a region of decay [58]. For surveys in Hong Kong, park visitors were introduced to these two concepts and asked to register the dominant and prominent sound they heard at that given instance. Their frequency count is demonstrated in Figure 7. Moreover, a clear division between natural and artificial sounds is illustrated in Figure 8. Respondents were asked to rate whether they think each sound is tranquil and pleasant—for example, 7.1% and 0% of the respondents rated the sound from vehicles as tranquil and pleasant, respectively, as opposed to that for water (85.4%; 71.4%). In the Guangzhou survey, for example, a square dance has an average loudness and frequency of 3.83 and 3.73, respectively.

Subsequently, the identification of dominant and prominent sounds was illustrated by a data-centric model from the responses by visitors: sounds that are in quadrant I, namely square dance, conversation, sport activities, children at play, music, singing, and vehicles, are considered dominant (Figure 8). Meanwhile, no prominent sounds were recognised. Similarly, a clear division between natural and artificial sounds is illustrated in Figure 9, in relation to perceived tranquillity. Respondents were asked to rate whether they think each sound is tranquil and pleasant. Overall, 33.6% and 30.6% of the respondents rated the sound from birds as tranquil and pleasant, as opposed to that for construction (9.0%; 3.5%). The percentage of respondents describing natural sounds, namely wind, water, cicadas and birds, as tranquil never went below 25%, in contrast to that for artificial sounds, at mostly below 20%.

In this study, while no prominent sounds were identified, there was a clear demarcation between natural and artificial sounds in relation to tranquillity, particularly the sound of birds in both locations. Park elements located within specific boundaries contributed towards tranquillity, which is assumed to be positive. Whereas the park elements are grouped in categories based on their intrinsic properties, the prominent ones are collectively of natural resource contexts representing vegetation, wildlife and water elements. Whereas vegetation, especially trees in the CCGs, has the highest mean, small animals, such as squirrels and turtles, contribute the least to the park’s tranquillity. In the category of the contextual features, the pavilions are clearly the favourite in contextualizing the notion of tranquillity in such places. The data analysis showed significant differences in the mean ranks between vegetation and wildlife in the CCGs following the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test in identifying mean ranks between differences in park elements.

It could further be argued that one possible explanation for this result is the proximity of the parks and gardens to populated areas. In addition, the park characteristics, park elements and the natural areas, including vegetation and water areas, provide the amenities and tranquillity for the population within the vicinity. This result in respondents indicating that such places are “pleasant surrounding areas”, “good overall ambience”, “peaceful and quiet”, as well as “easy to work around” among other positive factors that were mentioned.

3.4. Park Elements

Park elements are defined as individual elements that constitute the landscape within the park boundary. The magnitude of contribution of each element towards tranquillity was identified and the statistical differences between them were tested. The primary assumption is that all park elements included have a positive effect on tranquillity.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for various park components in CCGs.

Categories	Components	Mean	SD	G1
Vegetation	Trees	5.01	0.90	−1.12
	Flowers	4.31	1.29	−0.93
	Grassland	4.41	1.17	−0.96
	Shrubs	4.83	0.97	−0.93
	Bonsai	4.23	1.12	−0.76
Wildlife	Small animals	3.89	1.32	−0.31
	Birds	4.43	1.25	−0.78
Water-related features	Waterfall	4.35	1.06	−0.81
	Lake	4.87	1.03	−1.22
	Ponds	4.47	1.07	−0.79
	Rivers	4.19	1.21	−0.38
Contextual features	Geological features	4.48	1.02	−0.90
	Bridges	4.45	0.95	−0.65
	Pavilions	4.54	1.00	−0.86
	Teahouses	4.29	1.31	−0.88

and

Table 6. Descriptive statistics for various park components in MPs.

Categories	Components	Mean	SD	G1
Vegetation	Trees	5.11	0.83	−1.55
	Flowers	4.61	1.05	−1.18
	Grassland	4.53	1.14	−0.94
	Shrubs	4.74	1.07	−0.95
	Bonsai	3.89	1.21	−0.05
Wildlife	Small animals	4.16	1.28	−0.38
	Birds	4.60	1.13	−0.79
Water-related features	Waterfall	4.53	1.04	−0.82
	Lake	4.85	1.08	−1.31
	Ponds	4.51	1.06	−0.69
	Rivers	4.44	1.04	−0.58

illustrate the descriptive statistics for various park elements, including means, standard deviations, and the Fisher–Pearson standardised moment coefficients (G₁), in CCGs and MPs, respectively. G₁ measured the lack of the symmetry of the dataset [54], and according to some scholars [59], the lower and upper limits for non-skewed data are (−0.20, 0.20) when n approaches 400. Virtually all values of G₁ exceeded the thresholds, therefore, suggesting non-normality of the data, thus providing the basis for subsequent inferential statistical analysis. Note that the elements were grouped into several categories based on their intrinsic properties—for instance, forms of flora were collectively tagged as “vegetation”, whereas “wildlife” was used to represent small animals and birds. In CCGs, “trees” is the element with the highest mean (5.01 ± 0.90), followed by “lake” (4.87 ± 1.03), and “shrubs” (4.83 ± 0.97), all of which are features of the natural environment. Meanwhile, small animals, such as squirrels and turtles, contribute the least to the parks’ tranquillity, with a mean of 3.89 (± 1.32). More importantly, the means for contextual features, in descending order, are pavilions (4.54 ± 1.00), geological features (4.48 ± 1.02), bridges (4.45 ± 0.95) and teahouses (4.29 ± 1.31). The top three elements for MPs are the same as CCGs: trees (5.11 ± 0.83), lakes (4.85 ± 1.08) and shrubs (4.74 ± 1.07), with Bonsai (3.89 ± 1.21) being the lowest instead of small animals (4.16 ± 1.28).

A non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test was employed to compare the mean ranks between different park elements as the observations were ordinals, as suggested by University of Essex [60]. Mean ranks between four categories were compared, and the test statistics (adjusted for ties) (CCGs: H = 77.80; p < 0.001; MPs: H = 15.11; p = 0.001) indicate that significant differences occurred in the groups as a whole (Figure 10). Indeed, in CCGs, there are significant differences in the mean ranks between vegetation (1280.17) and wildlife (978.90), vegetation and contextual features (1098.54), wildlife and contextual features, wildlife and water-related features (1206.27), contextual features and water-related features but not between vegetation and water-related features, as indicated by dashed lines between the nodes (Figure 11a). In MPs, statistically significant results occurred between wildlife (467.54) and vegetation (551.79), and wildlife and water-related features (531.25), but not between vegetation and water-related features (Figure 11b).

When all park elements are considered simultaneously, the Kruskal–Wallis H is 193.3 and the p-value is less than (<) 0.001 for CCGs and H = 89.1, p < 0.001 for MPs. Categorically, the test statistics demonstrated that there is at least one pair of park elements that differ significantly within the vegetation (H = 54.89, p < 0.001), wildlife (H = 24.30, p < 0.001) and water-related or hydrological features (H = 36.55, p < 0.001) category, but not within the category of contextual features (p = 0.760) in CCGs, at the significance level of 0.05 (Figure 12). However, for MPs, all the results are statistically significant (i.e., p < 0.05) (Figure 13).

As is evident from the foregoing, vegetation is arguably contributing the most towards perceived tranquillity, despite the variation in park elements. In this regard, trees have the highest contribution, whereas Bonsai has the lowest in both types of parks. One of the differences between CCGs and MPs is the effect of flowers and grassland. Furthermore, contextual features do have a significant role in CCGs’ tranquillity, although statistically, those features do not differ from each other. That is, the presence of the pavilions has the same effect as geological features, bridges, as well as teahouses, for enhancing perceived tranquillity in CCGs. On the other hand, lakes have the same effect as ponds and waterfalls in MPs.

The results in this study indicated the importance of contextual features to perceived tranquillity in CCGs, as compared to natural features, which are conventionally thought to be the only features positively correlating with perceived tranquillity. In fact, this is supported by the argument suggested by previous studies [61], stating that contextual elements are fundamentally of equal importance for the construction of a tranquil space in addition to natural features. As a result, this is somewhat advantageous for CCGs as contextual features are complementing other park characteristics and elements, such as lakes and trees within a landscape, whereas facilities and amenities present in MPs do not count as contextual features [47]. In the current study, however, the average perceived tranquillity (T) within CCGs is slightly lower than that for MPs, despite Lingnan Garden, which is a classical Chinese garden, having the highest average T, amongst all investigated sites. This may be due to the fact that open spaces, frequently found in MPs, can be potential contributors to perceived tranquillity, as they are spacious and they give a sense of escape or gateway to park visitors, particularly for those living in overcrowded cities, such as Hong Kong and Guangzhou. Although the presence of sky is more prominent within the visual scene in open spaces, it was intentionally omitted and was not counted as a natural feature, both in this study and in other studies [62]. This is because some substantial tracts of sky would not normally be within view.

To summarise, establishing more natural features with a relatively high average mean ranks that are statistically significant to other park elements, such as trees and shrubs in the park, will increase the perceived tranquillity in MPs, while establishing the natural features in tandem with any contextual features will increase the perceived tranquillity in CCGs as four factors have the same effect in this study. In addition, the soundscape of CCGs will theoretically be more tranquil and pleasant theoretically, owing to the fact that walls are erected in surrounding CCGs, and hence noise is reflected by such facades, and all artificial sounds have a lower perceived tranquillity than natural sounds. Apparently, the actual noise level is dependent on the conditions of the adjacent roads, such as the number of lanes, traffic flows, and speed limits, on those carriageways, according to the Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (CRTN) [63]. Furthermore, the lack of performance spaces in CCGs, for example, an amphitheatre, theoretically leads to lower noise levels emanating from the singing or playing of music by visitors.

4. Conclusions and Limitations

This study addressed the tranquillity of parks, green spaces and open spaces in urban locations in Hong Kong and Guangzhou, China. The research explored the contrasting perception of classical Chinese gardens and modern parks as places of tranquillity. This study analysed the rate of tranquillity, park characteristics and park elements given that the location of these green open spaces are in proximity to populated areas. These open spaces represent the oasis of green in urban settings and are, therefore, perceived as natural landscapes, and thus attractive to visitors for various reasons. Although the demographics of the visitors was of interest at the onset of the study, it was clear that most visitors may not consciously seek out tranquillity within the parks and gardens but were rather interested in the quietness of the green spaces in the open outdoor environment. Consequently, the understanding and assessing of the natural tranquillity on the locations was an essential part of the process and results will be very relevant to the processes of planning and managing of such green open spaces. Whereas MPs (open spaces, green spaces and urban parks) are established to contribute to the physical and aesthetic qualities of urban neighbourhoods, classic Chinese gardens have been designed over the centuries with the intention of bringing a peaceful state of mind to visitors.

In addition, this article compared the differences between natural and contextual features in terms of their potential contribution towards park users’ perceived tranquillity in distinctive settings of modern parks and classical Chinese gardens in Hong Kong and Guangzhou. The results of the study help to identify differences in park characteristics, park elements and the level of tranquillity. This contributes to the body of literature on gardens, parks and generally green open spaces located in urban areas. Although the landscapes and components of park elements are different between CCGs and MPs, the authors stress the importance and potential contribution of contextual features within classical Chinese gardens in relation to perceived tranquillity, the effects of which cannot be neglected.

Although the study has presented results and added to the broader body of literature in gardens, green spaces and parks, there are limitations, which are characteristics of such research undertakings. One of the limitations of this study, however, is that only four contextual features of CCGs, namely geological features, pavilions, small bridges and teahouses were identified and included, out of about twelve common features found in the literature, as these are the most prominent features within the studied gardens.

While the demography of the 412 respondents was collated, the focus of the study was to identify tranquillity in park and garden spaces. The characterization of the demography of park visitors could have added a dimension to the study that could be relevant in this case. This is important as some scholars [64] had earlier reported affordances for emotions in teenagers as they indicated peacefulness, and peace and quiet as some important values of green spaces. The characteristics of the demography can also give a park–garden–community nexus that could extend beyond the rating of the tranquillity and explore the context of the locations as meeting places, as observed in the fieldworks conducted. It will be useful to study this in the context of MPs and CCGs in Hong Kong and China taking into consideration other cohorts of visitors. Hence, further studies dedicated to examining the association between all contextual features and perceived tranquillity among visitors are recommended. In addition, including the quality of open spaces into the construct of tranquillity may be another feasible research direction. Lastly, given the relevance of sound in tranquillity, it would have been valuable to conduct sound measurements in decibels (dB), including issues, such as equivalent continuous sound level (LAeq), sound exposure level (LAE) and others that represent the overall level measured over a period of time in order to capture the influence of the impact at the period of visit. These can be very relevant as we continue to do research in this direction in the future, so as to understand the noise climate in a specific location.