Exploring the Relationship between Key Perceptual Elements of Urban Secondary Wilderness and Its Restorative Benefits
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- What are the key perceptual elements of USWs?;
- What are the restorative benefits of USWs?;
- Do the key perceived elements of USWs influence its restorative benefits?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
- Constructing a perceptual evaluation system for USWs and extracting key perceptual elements of USWs;
- Measuring the environmental restorative benefits of USWs;
- Analyzing the correlation between key perceptual elements of USWs and environmental restorative benefits.
2.2. Indicator System
2.3. Questionnaire Design
2.4. Study Area
2.5. Subjects
- Researchers selected the main entrance to the USWs, randomly chose groups of visitors and used the “random number method” to invite visitors to participate in the survey;
- Subjects were informed of the purpose and content of the survey, and could discontinue the ongoing survey at any time if they felt any discomfort;
- Subjects were asked to visit the park for more than 15 min to ensure they had a basic understanding of their environment;
- Respondents were then asked to fill out a questionnaire consisting of importance and satisfaction ratings of the perceived elements and the PRS, at the end of which each respondent was able to receive a small gift (valued at less than five dollars).
3. Results
3.1. Description of the Underlying Data
3.2. Extraction of Key Perceptual Elements
3.3. Association of USWs Restorative Benefits with Key Perceptual Elements
4. Discussion
4.1. Key Perceptual Elements of USWs
4.2. Relationship Between Key Perceptual Elements of USWs and Its Restorative Benefits
5. Conclusions
5.1. Theoretical and Practical Implications
5.2. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
S/N | Aofeng | Qishan | Lujitan | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Score | Ranking | Score | Ranking | Score | Ranking | |
A1 | 6.146 | 13 | 6.271 | 14 | 6.058 | 12 |
A2 | 5.044 | 16 | 5.754 | 16 | 5.731 | 15 |
A3 | 6.804 | 6 | 7.046 | 2 | 6.814 | 5 |
A4 | 6.760 | 8 | 6.764 | 4 | 6.752 | 7 |
A5 | 6.815 | 5 | 7.050 | 1 | 7.380 | 2 |
A6 | 5.349 | 15 | 6.343 | 12 | 5.835 | 14 |
A7 | 5.524 | 14 | 6.625 | 6 | 5.628 | 16 |
A8 | 7.473 | 1 | 6.446 | 9 | 7.694 | 1 |
A9 | 7.066 | 2 | 6.407 | 10 | 7.120 | 3 |
A10 | 6.287 | 12 | 6.564 | 8 | 6.169 | 11 |
A11 | 6.895 | 4 | 6.396 | 11 | 6.054 | 13 |
A12 | 7.029 | 3 | 6.832 | 3 | 6.880 | 4 |
B1 | 6.647 | 9 | 6.139 | 15 | 6.719 | 8 |
B2 | 6.804 | 7 | 6.611 | 7 | 6.777 | 6 |
B3 | 4.895 | 17 | 5.425 | 17 | 5.116 | 17 |
B4 | 6.429 | 11 | 6.304 | 13 | 6.351 | 10 |
B5 | 6.549 | 10 | 6.739 | 5 | 6.496 | 9 |
Appendix B
S/N | Aofeng | Qishan | Lujitan | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Score | Ranking | Score | Ranking | Score | Ranking | |
A1 | 6.636 | 2 | 6.454 | 2 | 6.926 | 6 |
A2 | 4.102 | 14 | 5.475 | 13 | 6.649 | 10 |
A3 | 5.749 | 7 | 6.186 | 6 | 6.979 | 3 |
A4 | 5.596 | 8 | 6.179 | 7 | 6.715 | 9 |
A5 | 3.495 | 17 | 6.379 | 4 | 7.198 | 1 |
A6 | 5.320 | 10 | 6.046 | 10 | 6.525 | 12 |
A7 | 6.247 | 5 | 6.593 | 1 | 6.988 | 2 |
A8 | 7.076 | 1 | 6.289 | 5 | 6.938 | 5 |
A9 | 4.920 | 13 | 5.854 | 12 | 6.769 | 7 |
A10 | 5.080 | 11 | 5.879 | 11 | 6.537 | 11 |
A11 | 5.040 | 12 | 5.311 | 14 | 4.517 | 16 |
A12 | 6.604 | 3 | 5.082 | 16 | 6.149 | 15 |
B1 | 3.546 | 16 | 4.689 | 17 | 4.231 | 17 |
B2 | 6.571 | 4 | 6.050 | 9 | 6.959 | 4 |
B3 | 3.720 | 15 | 5.304 | 15 | 6.260 | 14 |
B4 | 6.004 | 7 | 6.175 | 8 | 6.289 | 13 |
B5 | 6.051 | 6 | 6.396 | 3 | 6.731 | 8 |
Appendix C
Dimension | S/N | Aofeng | Qishan | Lujitan |
---|---|---|---|---|
Being away | Q1 | 5.051 | 5.157 | 5.091 |
Q2 | 5.647 | 5.396 | 5.298 | |
Q3 | 5.702 | 5.171 | 5.504 | |
Q4 | 4.996 | 4.804 | 4.769 | |
Q5 | 5.804 | 5.518 | 5.190 | |
Q1–5 | 5.440 | 5.209 | 5.170 | |
Fascination and Compatibility | Q6 | 5.298 | 5.493 | 4.748 |
Q7 | 4.415 | 5.089 | 4.335 | |
Q8 | 4.753 | 5.421 | 4.955 | |
Q9 | 5.120 | 5.350 | 5.095 | |
Q10 | 5.407 | 5.386 | 4.930 | |
Q11 | 5.313 | 5.450 | 5.236 | |
Q12 | 5.465 | 5.414 | 5.252 | |
Q13 | 4.520 | 5.146 | 5.033 | |
Q14 | 5.425 | 5.150 | 5.198 | |
Q15 | 4.185 | 4.711 | 4.620 | |
Q16 | 5.233 | 5.193 | 4.860 | |
Q17 | 5.025 | 5.007 | 4.603 | |
Q6–17 | 5.013 | 5.234 | 4.905 | |
Complexity | Q18 | 4.887 | 5.061 | 5.227 |
Q19 | 4.451 | 4.821 | 4.913 | |
Q20 | 3.949 | 4.539 | 4.517 | |
Q21 | 3.062 | 4.793 | 4.971 | |
Q22 | 5.673 | 5.571 | 5.198 | |
Q18–22 | 4.404 | 4.957 | 4.965 | |
Restorative benefits | Q1–22 | 4.972 | 5.166 | 4.979 |
References
- Soga, M.; Yamaura, Y.; Aikoh, T.; Shoji, Y.; Kubo, T.; Gaston, K.J. Reducing the extinction of experience: Association between urban form and recreational use of public greenspace. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2015, 143, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colléony, A.; Cohen-Seffer, R.; Shwartz, A. Unpacking the causes and consequences of the extinction of experience. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 251, 108788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awoyemi, A.G.; Ibáñez-Rueda, N.; Guardiola, J.; Ibáñez-Álamo, J.D. Human-nature interactions in the Afrotropics: Experiential and cognitive connections among urban residents in southern Nigeria. Ecol. Econ. 2024, 218, 108105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pyle, R.M. The Thunder Tree: Lessons from an Urban Wildland; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Soga, M.; Gaston, K.J. Extinction of experience: The loss of human–nature interactions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 14, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birch, J.; Rishbeth, C.; Payne, S.R. Nature doesn’t judge you—How urban nature supports young people’s mental health and wellbeing in a diverse UK city. Health Place 2020, 62, 102296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jimenez, M.P.; DeVille, N.V.; Elliott, E.G.; Schiff, J.E.; Wilt, G.E.; Hart, J.E.; James, P. Associations between nature exposure and health: A review of the evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cameron, R.W.; Brindley, P.; Mears, M.; McEwan, K.; Ferguson, F.; Sheffield, D.; Jorgensen, A.; Riley, J.; Goodrick, J.; Ballard, L. Where the wild things are! Do urban green spaces with greater avian biodiversity promote more positive emotions in humans? Urban Ecosyst. 2020, 23, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richardson, M.; Passmore, H.A.; Barbett, L.; Lumber, R.; Thomas, R.; Hunt, A. The green care code: How nature connectedness and simple activities help explain pro-nature conservation behaviours. People Nat. 2020, 2, 821–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, L.; White, M.P.; Hunt, A.; Richardson, M.; Pahl, S.; Burt, J. Nature contact, nature connectedness and associations with health, wellbeing and pro-environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 68, 101389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cleary, A.; Fielding, K.S.; Bell, S.L.; Murray, Z.; Roiko, A. Exploring potential mechanisms involved in the relationship between eudaimonic wellbeing and nature connection. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2017, 158, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, Q.Y.; Bao, Y.; Wang, Z.T.; Chen, X.T. Potential recreation service efficiency of urban remnant mountain wilderness: A case study of Yunyan District of Guiyang city, China. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 141, 109081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Wang, X. Urban wilderness based on the view of landscape architecture. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2017, 33, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowarik, I. Urban wilderness: Supply, demand, and access. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 336–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, S.; Patuano, A. Multiple ecosystem services of informal green spaces: A literature review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 81, 127849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X. Urban interstitial space: Strategic research on the planning of wildscape in the context of living environment. Urban Dev. Stud. 2017, 24, 11–16. [Google Scholar]
- Xiangron, W. Wilderness in the City. Landsc. Archit. 2019, 26, 4–5. [Google Scholar]
- Kowarik, I. Working With Wilderness: A Promising Direction for Urban Green Spaces. Landsc. Archit. Front. 2021, 9, 92–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sikorska, D.; Ciężkowski, W.; Babańczyk, P.; Chormański, J.; Sikorski, P. Intended wilderness as a Nature-based Solution: Status, identification and management of urban spontaneous vegetation in cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 62, 127155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drenthen, M. Rewilding in Layered Landscapes as a Challenge to Place Identity. Environ. Values 2018, 27, 405–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gammon, A.R. The Many Meanings of Rewilding: An Introduction and the Case for a Broad Conceptualisation. Environ. Values 2018, 27, 331–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yue, C.; Rui, Y. Urban wildness: Protection and creation of wild nature in urban areas. Landsc. Archit. 2019, 26, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, V.G.; Hill, M. Urban Wildness—A More Correct Term Than” Urban Wilderness”. Landsc. Archit. Front. 2021, 9, 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fayet, C.M.J.; Reilly, K.H.; Van Ham, C.; Verburg, P.H. What is the future of abandoned agricultural lands? A systematic review of alternative trajectories in Europe. Land Use Policy 2022, 112, 105833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, L.; Haase, A.; Heiland, S. Gentrification through green regeneration? Analyzing the interaction between inner-city green space development and neighborhood change in the context of regrowth: The case of Lene-Voigt-Park in Leipzig, Eastern Germany. Land 2020, 9, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Z.; Song, K.; Pan, Y.; Malkinson, D.; Zhang, X.; Jia, B.; Xia, T.; Guo, X.; Liang, H.; Huang, S.; et al. Drivers of spontaneous plant richness patterns in urban green space within a biodiversity hotspot. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 61, 127098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zefferman, E.P.; McKinney, M.L.; Cianciolo, T.; Fritz, B.I. Knoxville’s urban wilderness: Moving toward sustainable multifunctional management. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, J.; You, F.; Hou, C.; Ou, H.; Yin, Y. Reconstruction of urban wilderness habitats based on vegetation rewilding: Taking wildflower meadows as an example. Landsc. Arch. Front. 2021, 9, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahmoudi Farahani, L.; Maller, C. Investigating the benefits of ‘leftover’ places: Residents’ use and perceptions of an informal greenspace in Melbourne. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 41, 292–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulrich, R.S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In Behavior and the Natural Environment; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1983; pp. 85–125. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S.; Brown, T. Environmental Preference: A Comparison of Four Domains of Predictors. Environ. Behav. 1989, 21, 509–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulrich, R.S.; Simons, R.F.; Losito, B.D.; Fiorito, E.; Miles, M.A.; Zelson, M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1991, 11, 201–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lev, E.; Kahn, P.H., Jr.; Chen, H.; Esperum, G. Relatively wild urban parks can promote human resilience and flourishing: A case study of Discovery Park, Seattle, Washington. Front. Sustain. Cities 2020, 2, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lampinen, J.; Tuomi, M.; Fischer, L.K.; Neuenkamp, L.; Alday, J.G.; Bucharova, A.; Cancellieri, L.; Casado-Arzuaga, I.; Ceplova, N.; Cervero, L.; et al. Acceptance of near-natural greenspace management relates to ecological and socio-cultural assigned values among European urbanites. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2021, 50, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yakınlar, N.; Akpınar, A. How perceived sensory dimensions of urban green spaces are associated with adults’ perceived restoration, stress, and mental health? Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 72, 127572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janeczko, E.; Bielinis, E.; Wójcik, R.; Woźnicka, M.; Kędziora, W.; Łukowski, A.; Elsadek, M.; Szyc, K.; Janeczko, K. When urban environment is restorative: The effect of walking in suburbs and forests on psychological and physiological relaxation of young Polish adults. Forests 2020, 11, 591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dobson, J.; Birch, J.; Brindley, P.; Henneberry, J.; McEwan, K.; Mears, M.; Richardson, M.; Jorgensen, A. The magic of the mundane: The vulnerable web of connections between urban nature and wellbeing. Cities 2021, 108, 102989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, M.; Rupprecht, C.D.D.; Furuya, K. Residents’ Perception of Informal Green SpaceA Case Study of Ichikawa City, Japan. Land 2018, 7, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Wang, Z.; Wu, S.; Xie, M. Progress of Research on Ecological and Cultural Values of Urban Wilderness. Landsc. Archit. 2024, 31, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Berg, A.E. Individual Differences in the Aesthetic Evaluation of Natural Landscapes. 1999. Available online: https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/individual-differences-in-the-aesthetic-evaluation-of-natural-lan (accessed on 10 December 2023).
- Liu, L.; Qu, H.; Ma, Y.; Wang, K.; Qu, H. Restorative benefits of urban green space: Physiological, psychological restoration and eye movement analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 301, 113930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, X.; Zhang, X.; Jia, T. Humanization of nature: Testing the influences of urban park characteristics and psychological factors on collegers’ perceived restoration. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 79, 127806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Twedt, E.; Rainey, R.M.; Proffitt, D.R. Beyond nature: The roles of visual appeal and individual differences in perceived restorative potential. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 65, 101322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menzel, C.; Reese, G. Seeing nature from low to high levels: Mechanisms underlying the restorative effects of viewing nature images. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 81, 101804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, Y.; Hou, Y. Forest Visitors’ Multisensory Perception and Restoration Effects: A Study of China’s National Forest Parks by Introducing Generative Large Language Model. Forests 2023, 14, 2412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sona, B.; Dietl, E.; Steidle, A. Recovery in sensory-enriched break environments: Integrating vision, sound and scent into simulated indoor and outdoor environments. Ergo 2019, 62, 521–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiang, Y.-J. Multisensory Stimuli, Restorative Effect, and Satisfaction of Visits to Forest Recreation Destinations: A Case Study of the Jhihben National Forest Recreation Area in Taiwan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 6768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Foellmer, J.; Kistemann, T.; Anthonj, C. Academic Greenspace and Well-Being—Can Campus Landscape be Therapeutic? Evidence from a German University. Wellbeing Space Soc. 2021, 2, 100003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeLauer, V.; McGill-O’Rourke, A.; Hayes, T.; Haluch, A.; Gordon, C.; Crane, J.; Kossakowski, D.; Dillon, C.; Thibeault, N.; Schofield, D. The Impact of Natural Environments and Biophilic Design as Supportive and Nurturing Spaces on a Residential College Campus. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2022, 8, 2000570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pichlerova, M.; Vybost’ok, J.; Onkal, D.; Lamatungga, K.E.; Tamatam, D.; Marcinekova, L.; Pichler, V. Increased appreciation of forests and their restorative effects during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ambio 2023, 52, 647–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gong, C.; Yang, R.; Li, S. The role of urban green space in promoting health and well-being is related to nature connectedness and biodiversity: Evidence from a two-factor mixed-design experiment. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2024, 245, 105020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, K.-S.; Chen, H.-T. Applying Importance–Performance Analysis With Simple Regression Model and Priority Indices to Assess Hotels’ Service Performance. J. Test. Eval. 2014, 42, 455–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martilla, J.A.; James, J.C. Importance-performance analysis. J. Mark. 1977, 41, 77–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berger, C.; Blauth, R.; Boger, D. Kano’s methods for understanding customer-defined quality. Cent. Qual. Manag. J. 1993, 2, 3–36. Available online: https://sid.ir/paper/601079/en (accessed on 17 June 2023).
- Matzler, K.; Sauerwein, E.; Heischmidt, K. Importance-performance analysis revisited: The role of the factor structure of customer satisfaction. Serv. Ind. J. 2003, 23, 112–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, E.C.; Minor, E.S. Assessing social and biophysical drivers of spontaneous plant diversity and structure in urban vacant lots. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 653, 1272–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sikorski, P.; Gawryszewska, B.; Sikorska, D.; Chormanski, J.; Schwerk, A.; Jojczyk, A.; Ciezkowski, W.; Archicinski, P.; Lepkowski, M.; Dymitryszyn, I.; et al. The value of doing nothing—How informal green spaces can provide comparable ecosystem services to cultivated urban parks. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 50, 101339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fisher, J.C.; Irvine, K.N.; Bicknell, J.E.; Hayes, W.M.; Fernandes, D.; Mistry, J.; Davies, Z.G. Perceived biodiversity, sound, naturalness and safety enhance the restorative quality and wellbeing benefits of green and blue space in a neotropical city. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 755, 143095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, F.; Chen, L.; Zan, P. Between Industrial Remains and the Green—Research on Public Perception of Rewilded Postindustrial Landscape. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2022, 38, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Zhao, J. Effects of evergreen trees on landscape preference and perceived restorativeness across seasons. Landsc. Res. 2020, 45, 649–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syed Othman Thani, S.K.; Hussein, H.; Siew Cheok, N. Landscape attributes as stimuli for cognitive restoration in the outdoor environment: A systematic review and thematic analysis. J. Leis. Res. 2024, 55, 441–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eldridge, D.J.; Cui, H.; Ding, J.; Berdugo, M.; Sáez-Sandino, T.; Duran, J.; Gaitan, J.; Blanco-Pastor, J.L.; Rodríguez, A.; Plaza, C.; et al. Urban greenspaces and nearby natural areas support similar levels of soil ecosystem services. npj Urban Sustain. 2024, 4, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, T.; Liu, J.; Li, H. Restorative effects of multi-sensory perception in urban green space: A case study of urban park in Guangzhou, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, L.; Luo, H.; Ma, J.; Huang, Z.; Sun, L.-X.; Jiang, M.-Y.; Zhu, C.-Y.; Li, X. Effects of integration between visual stimuli and auditory stimuli on restorative potential and aesthetic preference in urban green spaces. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 53, 126702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillis, K. Nature-based restorative environments are needed now more than ever. Cities Health 2021, 5, S237–S240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ríos-Rodríguez, M.L.; Rosales, C.; Lorenzo, M.; Muinos, G.; Hernández, B. Influence of perceived environmental quality on the perceived restorativeness of public spaces. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 644763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manyani, A.; Shackleton, C.M.; Cocks, M.L. Attitudes and preferences towards elements of formal and informal public green spaces in two South African towns. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2021, 214, 104147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palliwoda, J.; Priess, J.A. What do people value in urban green? Linking characteristics of urban green spaces to users’ perceptions of nature benefits, disturbances, and disservices. Ecol. Soc. 2021, 26, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peterson, B.A.; Fefer, J.P.; Sharp, R.L.; Brunson, M.M.; Skibins, J.C. To connect or not to connect: Visitor preferences for Wi-Fi and cellular network service at a national park. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2021, 4, 100179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ólafsdóttir, R.; Sæþórsdóttir, A.D. Public perception of wilderness in Iceland. Land 2020, 9, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Jiang, B.; Li, H.; Zhao, B. Do all types of restorative environments in the urban park provide the same level of benefits for young adults? A field experiment in Nanjing, China. Forests 2023, 14, 1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dorman, J.D. Unconfined Wilderness Experiences: What Is Important to Feeling Unconfined While Visiting the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness? 2019. Available online: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/11341/ (accessed on 25 July 2023).
- Tucker, A.R.; DeMille, S.; Newman, T.J.; Polachi Atanasova, C.; Bryan, P.; Keefe, M.; Smitherman, L. How adolescents view the role of the wilderness in wilderness therapy: “I am in the middle of nowhere and that is okay”. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2023, 153, 107045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johansson, M.; Hartig, T.; Frank, J.; Flykt, A. Wildlife and public perceptions of opportunities for psychological restoration in local natural settings. People Nat. 2024, 6, 800–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Luo, Y.Y.; Zhao, W. Natural or artificial? Exploring perceived restoration potential of community parks in Winter city. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 79, 127808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menardo, E.; Brondino, M.; Hall, R.; Pasini, M. Restorativeness in natural and urban environments: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Rep. 2021, 124, 417–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, Y.; Chen, J. Research on quality types classification of design elements of subway entrances in winter cities based on IPA-KANO Method. Archit. J. S 2018, 1, 144–148. [Google Scholar]
- Ye, L.; Zhang, F.; Wu, J. Developing the restoration environment scale. China J. Health Psychol. 2010, 12, 15151518. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.; Rodiek, S.; Wu, C.; Chen, Y.; Li, Y. Stress recovery and restorative effects of viewing different urban park scenes in Shanghai, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 15, 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, H.; Du, X.; Ma, H.; Wang, Z.; Li, Y.; Wu, J. The effect of virtual-reality-based restorative environments on creativity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hu, X.; Xu, H. A new remote sensing index for assessing the spatial heterogeneity in urban ecological quality: A case from Fuzhou City, China. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 89, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, Y.; Chen, Y.; Tong, C. Spatiotemporal evolution of urban green space and its impact on the urban thermal environment based on remote sensing data: A case study of Fuzhou City, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 41, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, I.K.W.; Hitchcock, M. Importance–performance analysis in tourism: A framework for researchers. Tour. Manag. 2015, 48, 242–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Jagt, S. Exploring How Urban Wilderness Connects Urban Residents with Nature. 2022. Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/580395 (accessed on 5 March 2024).
- Wang, R.; Zhao, J.; Meitner, M.J.; Hu, Y.; Xu, X. Characteristics of urban green spaces in relation to aesthetic preference and stress recovery. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 41, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Q.; Zhu, Z.; Zeng, X.; Zhuo, Z.; Ye, B.; Fang, L.; Huang, Q.; Lai, P. The impact of landscape complexity on preference ratings and eye fixation of various urban green space settings. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 66, 127411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, D.; Lindquist, M. Just weeds? Comparing assessed and perceived biodiversity of urban spontaneous vegetation in informal greenspaces in the context of two American legacy cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 62, 127151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Zhuo, Z.; Liu, Q.; Yu, K.; Huang, Q.; Liu, J. The Relationships between Perceived Design Intensity, Preference, Restorativeness and Eye Movements in Designed Urban Green Space. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, B.; Hauer, R.J.; Xu, C.; Li, W. Visualizing evaluation model of human perceptions and characteristic indicators of landscape visual quality in urban green spaces by using nomograms. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 65, 127314. [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]
- Tomitaka, M.; Uchihara, S.; Goto, A.; Sasaki, T. Species richness and flower color diversity determine aesthetic preferences of natural-park and urban-park visitors for plant communities. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2021, 11, 100130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoyle, H.; Hitchmough, J.; Jorgensen, A. All about the ‘wow factor’? The relationships between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2017, 164, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Jiang, W.; Lu, T. Landscape characteristics of university campus in relation to aesthetic quality and recreational preference. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 66, 127389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Javadi, R.; Nasrollahi, N. Urban green space and health: The role of thermal comfort on the health benefits from the urban green space; a review study. Build. Environ. 2021, 202, 108039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Niu, J.; Xiong, J.; Qin, H.; Hu, J.; Deng, J.; Han, G.; Yan, J. Influence of thermal comfort of green spaces on physical activity: Empirical study in an urban park in Chongqing, China. Build. Environ. 2022, 219, 109168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nakarmi, G.; Strager, M.P.; Yuill, C.; Moreira, J.C.; Burns, R.C.; Butler, P. Assessing Public Preferences of Landscape and Landscape Attributes: A Case Study of the Proposed Appalachian Geopark Project in West Virginia, USA. Geoheritage 2023, 15, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, K.; Kirby, M. Wilderness 2.0: What does wilderness mean to the Millennials? J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2015, 5, 262–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boyes, M.; Mackenzie, S.H. Concepts of the wilderness experience and adventure mountaineering tourism. In Mountaineering Tourism; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 92–110. [Google Scholar]
- Ried, A.; Monteagudo, M.J.; Benavides, P.; Le Bon, A.; Carmody, S.; Santos, R. Key aspects of leisure experiences in protected wilderness areas: Notions of nature, senses of place and perceived benefits. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Berg, A.E.; Hartig, T.; Staats, H. Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. J. Soc. Iss. 2007, 63, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venter, Z.S.; Barton, D.N.; Gundersen, V.; Figari, H.; Nowell, M.S. Back to nature: Norwegians sustain increased recreational use of urban green space months after the COVID-19 outbreak. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2021, 214, 104175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Yuan, Y.; Sun, C.; Sun, M. The perceived restorative quality of viewing various types of urban and rural scenes: Based on psychological and physiological responses. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Z.; Hassan, A.; Wang, W.; Chen, Q. Relationship between PSD of park green space and attention restoration in dense urban areas. Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dzhambov, A.M.; Lercher, P.; Browning, M.H.E.M.; Stoyanov, D.; Petrova, N.; Novakov, S.; Dimitrova, D.D. Does greenery experienced indoors and outdoors provide an escape and support mental health during the COVID-19 quarantine? Environ. Res. 2021, 196, 110420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nghiem, T.; Wong, K.; Jeevanandam, L.; Chang, C.; Tan, L.; Goh, Y.; Carrasco, L. Biodiverse urban forests, happy people: Experimental evidence linking perceived biodiversity, restoration, and emotional wellbeing. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 59, 127030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, Y.; Kim, E.J. Differences of restorative effects while viewing urban landscapes and green landscapes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, S.; Oh, W.; Ooka, R.; Wang, L. Effects of environmental features in small public urban green spaces on older adults’ mental restoration: Evidence from Tokyo. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McAllister, E.; Bhullar, N.; Schutte, N.S. Into the woods or a stroll in the park: How virtual contact with nature impacts positive and negative affect. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J.; Xu, W.; Ye, L. Effects of auditory-visual combinations on perceived restorative potential of urban green space. Appl. Acoust. 2018, 141, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, F.; Liu, P.; Kang, J.; Meng, Q.; Wu, Y.; Yang, D. Relationships between landscape characteristics and the restorative quality of soundscapes in urban blue spaces. Appl. Acoust. 2022, 189, 108600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poulsen, M.N.; Nordberg, C.M.; Fiedler, A.; DeWalle, J.; Mercer, D.; Schwartz, B.S. Factors associated with visiting freshwater blue space: The role of restoration and relations with mental health and well-being. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2022, 217, 104282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rickard, S.C.; White, M.P. Barefoot walking, nature connectedness and psychological restoration: The importance of stimulating the sense of touch for feeling closer to the natural world. Landsc. Res. 2021, 46, 975–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, S.; Kim, I. Role of restorative natural environments in predicting hikers’ pro-environmental behavior in a nature trail context. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2024, 41, 596–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sousa-Silva, R.; Zanocco, C. Assessing public attitudes towards urban green spaces as a heat adaptation strategy: Insights from Germany. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2024, 245, 105013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vieira, J.; Matos, P.; Mexia, T.; Silva, P.; Lopes, N.; Freitas, C.; Correia, O.; Santos-Reis, M.; Branquinho, C.; Pinho, P. Green spaces are not all the same for the provision of air purification and climate regulation services: The case of urban parks. Environ. Res. 2018, 160, 306–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conradson, D. Freedom, space and perspective: Moving encounters with other ecologies. In Emotional Geographies; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 103–116. [Google Scholar]
- Hinners, S.J.; Rose, J.; Choi, D.-A.; Park, K. Geographically evaluating urban-wildland juxtapositions across 36 urban areas in the United States. Geogr. Sustain. 2022, 3, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Luo, F.; Gazal, K.A.; Wen, Y.; Lei, H.; Xiao, Z. Exploring the Impact of Psychological Accessibility on the Restorative Perception in Urban Forests: A Case Study of Yuelu Mountain, Central China. Forests 2023, 14, 721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wakulich, K.A. Connecting People to Community and Nature through Ecological Sense of Place: Case Study the Missouri Flat Creek Restoration. Ph.D. Thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, H.; He, X.; He, J.; Li, D.; Liang, M.; Xie, X. Back to the Village: Assessing the Effects of Naturalness, Landscape Types, and Landscape Elements on the Restorative Potential of Rural Landscapes. Land 2024, 13, 910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Q.; Wu, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Fu, W.; Zhuo, Z.; van den Bosch, C.C.K.; Huang, Q.; Lan, S. More meaningful, more restorative? Linking local landscape characteristics and place attachment to restorative perceptions of urban park visitors. Landsc. Urban Plann. 2020, 197, 103763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Key Hierarchy | Quality Attributes | Actual Performance Ranking |
---|---|---|
High | Important | 1–6 |
Charming | ||
Basic | ||
Medium | Important | 7–11 |
Charming | ||
Basic | ||
Low | Important | 12–17 |
Charming | ||
Basic |
Dimension | S/N | Index | Description | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Physiological perception | A1 | Plants | Visual perception of vegetation height, density, and richness | [57,58] |
A2 | Animals | Visual perception of animal numbers, diversity | [57,59] | |
A3 | Landscape color | Visual perception of landscape color vibrancy and diversity | [60] | |
A4 | Landscape seasonal phase | Visual perception of landscape seasonal legibility | [61] | |
A5 | Water | Quality of the water environment, dynamic visual perception | [42] | |
A6 | Boundary | Visual perception of environmental boundary integrity, sense of shelter | [62] | |
A7 | Landform | Perception of terrain relief, diversity | [62] | |
A8 | Climate | Perception of solar radiation, temperature and humidity, and wind speed | [63] | |
A9 | Sound | Auditory perception of biological sounds, such as birdsong, and natural sounds, such as the wind | [64,65] | |
A10 | Air | Olfactory perception of air freshness | [66,67] | |
A11 | Facilities | Perceived completeness and cleanliness of manual services such as roads, streetlights, seats, toilets, etc. | [68,69] | |
A12 | Cell phone signal | Access to cell phone signal | [70,71] | |
psychological perception | B1 | Comfort | Feeling of gentleness and harmony | [50] |
B2 | Freedom | Feeling undisturbed within, freedom of movement, and relaxation of the mind | [72,73] | |
B3 | Stimulation | Experience a unique, stimulating, heart-pumping atmosphere | [62,74] | |
B4 | Fun | Enjoyable atmosphere and interest in the activity | [75,76] | |
B5 | Naturalness | Feeling close to nature and ecological integration | [59,77] |
Dimension | S/N | Description |
---|---|---|
Being away | Q1 | Here I feel far away from what is expected of me. |
Q2 | It’s a place where I’m away from a lot of the pressures of real life. | |
Q3 | It’s a lot different from the environment I’m exposed to in my normal life. | |
Q4 | When I’m here, I don’t have to think about my responsibilities. | |
Q5 | Here, I can put aside my daily chores for a while. | |
Fascination and Compatibility | Q6 | This environment is new to me. |
Q7 | There is a certain monumental significance here. | |
Q8 | Here I can see, hear, feel and think about many things. | |
Q9 | When I stay here, I often make unexpected discoveries. | |
Q10 | There are attractive qualities here. | |
Q11 | My attention is drawn to many interesting things. | |
Q12 | I can do what I like here. | |
Q13 | I feel at one with this place. | |
Q14 | I want to stay here longer. | |
Q15 | I feel like I belong here. | |
Q16 | I can notice many things in this environment without trying hard. | |
Q17 | It brings back memories or imaginations. | |
Complexity | Q18 | I find this environment boring. |
Q19 | I find this environment monotonous. | |
Q20 | The landscape contains too many things. | |
Q21 | I feel like this place is a mess. | |
Q22 | I feel bored here. |
Factor | Aofeng | Qishan | Lujitan | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Score | Ranking | Score | Ranking | Score | Ranking | |
A1 | 0.249 ** | 11 | 0.270 ** | 9 | 0.343 ** | 6 |
A2 | 0.336 ** | 1 | 0.291 ** | 5 | 0.335 ** | 8 |
A3 | 0.291 ** | 7 | 0.227 ** | 15 | 0.372 ** | 1 |
A4 | 0.228 ** | 13 | 0.229 ** | 14 | 0.356 ** | 5 |
A5 | 0.264 ** | 10 | 0.255 ** | 11 | 0.334 ** | 9 |
A6 | 0.181 ** | 17 | 0.285 ** | 7 | 0.276 ** | 17 |
A7 | 0.241 ** | 12 | 0.231 ** | 13 | 0.370 ** | 2 |
A8 | 0.198 ** | 16 | 0.282 ** | 8 | 0.370 ** | 3 |
A9 | 0.331 ** | 3 | 0.237 ** | 12 | 0.325 ** | 10 |
A10 | 0.226 ** | 14 | 0.328 ** | 3 | 0.281 ** | 16 |
A11 | 0.332 ** | 2 | 0.256 ** | 10 | 0.315 ** | 12 |
A12 | 0.294 ** | 6 | 0.351 ** | 2 | 0.287 ** | 15 |
B1 | 0.224 ** | 15 | 0.301 ** | 4 | 0.325 ** | 11 |
B2 | 0.283 ** | 8 | 0.203 ** | 16 | 0.359 ** | 4 |
B3 | 0.308 ** | 4 | 0.287 ** | 6 | 0.311 ** | 13 |
B4 | 0.297 ** | 5 | 0.370 ** | 1 | 0.339 ** | 7 |
B5 | 0.273 ** | 9 | 0.162 ** | 17 | 0.308 ** | 14 |
Key Hierarchy | Aofeng | Qishan | Lujitan |
---|---|---|---|
High | A8 A12 B2 B5 | A1 A3 A5 A7 A8 B5 | A1 A3 A5 A7 A8 B2 |
Medium | A3 A4 B4 | A4 A6 A10 B2 B4 | A2 A4 A9 B5 |
Low | A2 A5 A9 A11 B1 B3 | A2 A12 B1 B3 | A12 B1 B4 |
Factor | Aofeng | Qishan | Lujitan |
---|---|---|---|
A1 | 0.481 ** | 0.479 ** | |
A3 | 0.342 ** | 0.464 ** | |
A5 | 0.415 ** | 0.517 ** | |
A7 | 0.430 ** | 0.569 ** | |
A8 | 0.325 ** | 0.392 ** | 0.567 ** |
B2 | 0.477 ** | 0.494 ** | |
B5 | 0.522 ** | 0.363 ** |
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. |
© 2024 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
Chen, K.; Xu, Y.; Zhan, K.; Gao, Y.; Xie, X. Exploring the Relationship between Key Perceptual Elements of Urban Secondary Wilderness and Its Restorative Benefits. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7383. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177383
Chen K, Xu Y, Zhan K, Gao Y, Xie X. Exploring the Relationship between Key Perceptual Elements of Urban Secondary Wilderness and Its Restorative Benefits. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7383. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177383
Chicago/Turabian StyleChen, Keyan, Yan Xu, Kaiyuan Zhan, Yangshuo Gao, and Xiangcai Xie. 2024. "Exploring the Relationship between Key Perceptual Elements of Urban Secondary Wilderness and Its Restorative Benefits" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7383. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177383