An Investigation of the Restorative Benefits of Different Spaces in an Urban Riverside Greenway for College Students—A Simple Autumn Outdoor Experiment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Research Objects
- (1)
- The residents can easily reach the greenways for recreation.
- (2)
- The greenway should be built within 20 years, so that the quality of greenway construction and adequate infrastructure can be guaranteed to a certain extent.
- (3)
- The greenway should not leave the greenery and water bodies, and the researched greenway should have a certain amount of vegetation and a certain area of water space.
2.2. Participants
2.3. Methods, Data, and Variables
2.3.1. Construction of Evaluation Indicators for Restorative Environmental Factors
2.3.2. Determination of Restorative Environmental Factors
2.3.3. POMS
2.3.4. Restorative Factor Evaluation Scale
2.3.5. Physiological Indicators Measurement Tool
2.4. Experimental Process
2.5. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Normal Distribution Tests for Physiological Indicators
3.2. Paired t-Test for Physiological Indicators
3.3. The Impact of Greenway Spaces on Human Physiological Health Recovery
3.4. Comprehensive Analysis of the Impact of Each Greenway Space on Human Physiological Health Recovery
3.5. Analysis of the Impact of Each Space of the Greenway on the Recovery of Human Mental Health
3.6. Analysis of Greenway Restorative Environmental Factors
3.7. Analysis of Restorative Environmental Factors
3.7.1. Mean Value Analysis
3.7.2. Correlation Analysis
3.7.3. Linear Regression Analysis
4. Discussion
4.1. Greenways and Human Health Recovery
4.2. Restorative Environmental Factors in Different Spaces of NAG
4.3. Landscape Design for Greenway Spaces
4.4. Limitation and Future Study
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Target Layer (A) | Criterion Layer (B) | Index Level (C) |
---|---|---|
Greenway restorative environmental factor evaluation system A | Natural environmental factors B1 | Plant color richness C1 |
Plant height C2 | ||
Ornamental water body C3 | ||
Beautiful and natural revetment C4 | ||
Artificial environmental factors B2 | Landscape sketches richness C5 | |
Harmonious paving C6 | ||
Abundant activity facilities C7 | ||
Appropriate road width C8 | ||
Psychological environment factors B3 | High privacy space C9 | |
Elegant spatial forms C10 | ||
Strong spatial security C11 |
Indicators | Mean | Plural | Sd | Coefficient of Variation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Plant color richness | 4.40 | 5 | 0.6534 | 0.1485 |
Plant height | 2.85 | 2 | 1.0362 | 0.3636 |
Ornamental water body | 4.70 | 5 | 0.6702 | 0.1426 |
Beautiful and natural revetment | 4.30 | 4 | 0.4355 | 0.1013 |
Landscape sketches richness | 4.00 | 4 | 0.6532 | 0.1633 |
Harmonious paving | 4.30 | 4 | 0.5162 | 0.1200 |
Abundant activity facilities | 3.05 | 3 | 1.1451 | 0.3754 |
Appropriate road width | 3.85 | 4 | 0.5328 | 0.1383 |
High privacy space | 4.15 | 4 | 0.6524 | 0.1572 |
Elegant spatial forms | 4.40 | 5 | 0.6210 | 0.1411 |
Strong spatial security | 2.80 | 3 | 1.0895 | 0.3891 |
Target Layer (A) | Criterion Layer (B)/Weights | Index Level (C)/Weights | Combined Weights | Rank |
---|---|---|---|---|
A Greenway restorative environmental factor evaluation system | B1 Natural environmental factors/0.6334 | C1 Plant color richness/0.5485 | 0.3474 | 1 |
C2 Ornamental water body/0.2409 | 0.1321 | 3 | ||
C3 Beautiful and natural revetment/0.2106 | 0.1155 | 4 | ||
B2 Artificial environmental factors/0.1062 | C4 Landscape sketches richness/0.1062 | 0.0113 | 8 | |
C5 Harmonious paving/0.2605 | 0.0277 | 7 | ||
C6 Appropriate road width/0.6336 | 0.0673 | 6 | ||
B3 Psychological environment factors/0.2605 | C7 High privacy space/0.6667 | 0.1737 | 2 | |
C8 Elegant spatial forms/0.3333 | 0.0868 | 6 |
Appendix B
A | B1 | B2 | B3 | Wi |
---|---|---|---|---|
B1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 0.6334 |
B2 | 1/5 | 1 | 1/3 | 0.1062 |
B3 | 1/3 | 3 | 1 | 0.2605 |
CI = 0.019, CR = 0.037, λmax = 3.039 |
B1 | C1 | C2 | C3 | Wi |
---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 0.5485 |
C2 | 1/5 | 1 | 1 | 0.2409 |
C3 | 1/5 | 1 | 1 | 0.2106 |
CI = 0.009, CR = 0.018, λmax = 3.018 |
B2 | C4 | C5 | C6 | Wi |
---|---|---|---|---|
C4 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/5 | 0.1062 |
C5 | 3 | 1 | 1/3 | 0.2605 |
C6 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0.6336 |
CI = 0.019, CR = 0.037, λmax = 3.039 |
B3 | C7 | C8 | Wi |
---|---|---|---|
C7 | 1 | 2 | 0.6667 |
C8 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.3333 |
CI = 0.000, CR = 0.000, λmax = 2.000 |
References
- Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 169–182. [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]
- Grahn, P.; Stigsdotter, U.A. Landscape planning and stress. Urban For. Urban Green. 2003, 2, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McMahan, E.A.; Estes, D. The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis. J. Posit. Psychol. 2015, 10, 507–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hedblom, M.; Gunnarsson, B.; Iravani, B.; Knez, I.; Schaefer, M.; Thorsson, P.; Lundstrom, J.N. Reduction of physiological stress by urban green space in a multisensory virtual experiment. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 10113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bratman, G.N.; Hamilton, J.P.; Daily, G.C. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2012, 1249, 118–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsunetsugu, Y.; Lee, J.; Park, B.-J.; Tyrväinen, L.; Kagawa, T.; Miyazaki, Y. Physiological and psychological effects of viewing urban forest landscapes assessed by multiple measurements. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2013, 113, 90–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coutts, C.; Chapin, T.; Horner, M.; Taylor, C. County-Level Effects of Green Space Access on Physical Activity. J. Phys. Act. Health 2013, 10, 232–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahern, J. Greenways as a Planning Strategy. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995, 33, 131–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, S.; Chen, X.; Ren, H.; Shen, W.; Xiao, R.; Zhang, Q.; Wu, Z.; Su, Y. Landscape structure and network characteristics of the greenway system in Guangzhou City, South China. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2019, 15, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cao, S.; Song, C.; Jiang, S.; Luo, H.; Zhang, P.; Huang, Y.; Yu, J.; Li, K.; Li, N.; Guo, B.; et al. Effects of Urban Greenway Environmental Types and Landscape Characteristics on Physical and Mental Health Restoration. Forests 2024, 15, 679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Little, C.L. Greenways for America; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, Y.; Gu, W.; Liu, T.; Yuan, L.; Zeng, M. Increasing the Use of Urban Greenways in Developing Countries: A Case Study on Wutong Greenway in Shenzhen, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, J.; Lee, H.; Jeong, D.; Shafer, C.S.; Chon, J. The Relationship between User Perception and Preference of Greenway Trail Characteristics in Urban Areas. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.; Liu, L.; Wang, L.; Zhang, X.; Du, Y.; Liu, J. Key indicators of high-quality urbanization affecting eco-environmental quality in emerging urban agglomerations: Accounting for the importance variation and spatiotemporal heterogeneity. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 376, 134087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chi, W.; Lin, G. The Use of Community Greenways: A Case Study on A Linear Greenway Space in High Dense Residential Areas, Guangzhou. Land 2019, 8, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fumagalli, N.; Maccarini, M.; Rovelli, R.; Berto, R.; Senes, G. An Exploratory Study of Users’ Preference for Different Planting Combinations along Rural Greenways. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Z.; Gan, H.; Qian, X.; Leng, J.; Wang, Y.; Wu, P. Riverside Greenway in Urban Environment: Residents’ Perception and Use of Greenways along the Huangpu River in Shanghai, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, R.; Yocom, K.P.; Guo, Y. Utilizing Fractal Dimensions as Indicators to Detect Elements of Visual Attraction: A Case Study of the Greenway along Lake Taihu, China. Land 2023, 12, 883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartig, T. Restorative Environments. Encycl. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 3, 273–279. [Google Scholar]
- Deng, L.; Li, X.; Luo, H.; Fu, E.-K.; Ma, J.; Sun, L.-X.; Huang, Z.; Cai, S.-Z.; Jia, Y. Empirical study of landscape types, landscape elements and landscape components of the urban park promoting physiological and psychological restoration. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 48, 126488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, M.; Smith, A.; Humphryes, K.; Pahl, S.; Snelling, D.; Depledge, M. Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 482–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Zhang, P.; He, Q.; Chen, Z.; Li, X.; Ma, J. An Empirical Study on the Promotion of Students’ Physiological and Psychological Recovery in Green Space on Campuses in the Post-Epidemic Era. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, H.; Tassinary, L.G.; Newman, G.D. Developing the health effect assessment of landscape (HEAL) Tool: Assessing the health effects of community greenspace morphology design on non-communicable diseases. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2024, 244, 104990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aghabozorgi, K.; van der Jagt, A.; Bell, S.; Brown, C. Assessing the impact of blue and green spaces on mental health of disabled children: A scoping review. Health Place 2023, 84, 103141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, H.; Browning, M.; Rigolon, A.; Larson, L.R.; Taff, D.; Labib, S.M.; Benfield, J.A.; Yuan, S.; McAnirlin, O.; Hatami, N.; et al. Beyond “bluespace” and “greenspace”: A narrative review of possible health benefits from exposure to other natural landscapes. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 856, 159292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Herzog, T.R.; Colleen; Maguire, P.; Nebel, M.B. Assessing the restorative components of environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Q.; Yang, M.; Jane, H.-a.; Li, S.; Bauer, N. Trees, grass, or concrete? The effects of different types of environments on stress reduction. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 193, 103654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Honold, J.; Lakes, T.; Beyer, R.; van der Meer, E. Restoration in Urban Spaces: Nature Views from Home, Greenways, and Public Parks. Environ. Behav. 2015, 48, 796–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Y.; Huang, Y.; Zheng, M.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, Q.; He, T.; Ye, J. A Study on the Characteristics and Influencing Factors of Soundscape Perception in Landscape Spaces of Urban Greenways. Forests 2024, 15, 670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, W.; Hu, X.; Song, Z.; Yuan, X. Identifying the integrated visual characteristics of greenway landscape: A focus on human perception. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 99, 104937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cong, Y.; Zhu, R.; Yang, L.; Zhang, X.; Liu, Y.; Meng, X.; Gao, W. Correlation Analysis of Thermal Comfort and Landscape Characteristics: A Case Study of the Coastal Greenway in Qingdao, China. Buildings 2022, 12, 541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, B.; Shi, Q.; Zhang, Y. Evaluation of the Health Promotion Capabilities of Greenway Trails: A Case Study in Hangzhou, China. Land 2022, 11, 547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, M.; Ding, L.; Kou, H.; Tan, S.; Long, H. Effects and Environmental Features of Mountainous Urban Greenways (MUGs) on Physical Activity. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, L.; Gao, X.; Li, J.; Meng, L.; Wang, Z.; Yang, L. Difference of Usage Behavior between Urban Greenway and Suburban Greenway: A Case Study in Beijing, China. Land 2022, 11, 1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, B.; Pang, Z.; He, D.; Lu, Y.; Chen, Y. Effects of neighborhood environment on different aspects of greenway use: Evidence from East Lake Greenway, China. J. Transp. Geogr. 2023, 106, 103488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shan, W.; Xiu, C.; Meng, Y. How to Design Greenway on Urban Land Utilization: Linking Place Preference, Perceived Health Benefit, and Environmental Perception. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, X.; Zhu, Z.; Jin, L.; Wu, L.; Huang, C. Measuring patterns and mechanism of greenway use—A case from Guangzhou, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 34, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Wang, X.; Jiang, X.; Han, J.; Wang, Z.; Wu, D.; Lin, Q.; Li, L.; Zhang, S.; Dong, Y. Prediction of riverside greenway landscape aesthetic quality of urban canalized rivers using environmental modeling. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 367, 133066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.L. Systems Engineering, 5th ed.; China Machine Press: Beijing, China, 2015; pp. 122–123. [Google Scholar]
- Li, R.X.; Hu, W.X. Internet finance development strategy selection based on SWOT and AHP. Stat. Decis. 2018, 34, 71–74. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Z.T.; Chen, Y.; Wei, Y.; Zheng, Q.T. Construction and application of the evaluation index system for high quality development of regional agricultural mechanization. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. (Trans. CSAE) 2021, 37, 64–72. [Google Scholar]
- Dong, H.; Shu, W.; Chen, C.; Sun, C.; You, C. Research on complexity evaluation method of dangerous Driving Scenes. Automot. Eng. 2020, 42, 808–814. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Y.Y.; Wang, S.Q.; Wang, X.B.; Jiang, D. Flood risk assessment in Bangladesh, India and Myanmar based on the AHP weight method and entropy weight method. Geogr. Res. 2020, 39, 1892–1906. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, X.; Jiang, X.Q.; Lu, Y. Study on the rural ecotourism resource evaluation system. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 20, 101131. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, X.P.; Kong, Q.P. The Construction and Application of the Comprehensive Difficulty Model of Mathematical Advanced Examination Questions Based on AHPTheor. J. Math. Educ. 2020, 29, 29–34. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, L.; Liu, X.; Li, Z.; Zhou, Z.H.O.U. A consistency improving method in the analytic hierarchy process based on directed circuit analysis. J. Syst. Eng. Electron. 2019, 30, 112–133. [Google Scholar]
- Song, Z.; Gao, H.; Liu, W.; Li, L.; Zhang, W.; Wang, D. Systematic assessment of dredged sludge dewaterability improvement with different organic polymers based on analytic hierarchy process. J. Environ. Sci. 2021, 103, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rovelli, R.; Senes, G.; Fumagalli, N.; Sacco, J.; De Montis, A. From railways to greenways: A complex index for supporting policymaking and planning. A case study in Piedmont (Italy). Land Use Policy 2020, 99, 104835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S.; Brown, T. Environmental Preference: A Comparison of Four Domains of Predictors. Environ. Behav. 1989, 21, 509–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tae, J.; Jeong, D.; Chon, J. How Can Apartment-Complex Landscaping Space Improve Residents’ Psychological Well-Being?: The Case of the Capital Region in South Korea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, H.; Li, X.; Yang, T.; Tan, S. Research on the Relationship between the Environmental Characteristics of Pocket Parks and Young People’s Perception of the Restorative Effects—A Case Study Based on Chongqing City, China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, S.; Cao, F.; Yang, J. The Study on Spatial Elements of Health-Supportive Environment in Residential Streets Promoting Residents’ Walking Trips. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 5198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, L.; Liu, S.; Liu, S. Mechanisms Underlying the Effects of Landscape Features of Urban Community Parks on Health-Related Feelings of Users. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McNair, D.M.; Lorr, M.; Droppleman, L.F. EdITS Manual for the Profile of Mood States (POMS); Educational and Industrial Testing Service: San Diego, CA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Grove, J.R.; Prapavessis, H. Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of an abbreviated profile of mood states. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 1992, 23, 93–109. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, B.L. Brief introduction of POMS scale and its model for China. J. Tianjin Inst. Phys. Educ. 1995, 10, 35–37. [Google Scholar]
- White, M.P.; Pahl, S.; Wheeler, B.W.; Fleming, L.E.F.; Depledge, M.H. The ‘Blue Gym’: What can blue space do for you and what can you do for blue space? J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. 2016, 96, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Yang, Z.; Chen, Z.; Guo, M.; Guo, P. Optimizing Urban Forest Landscape for Better Perceptions of Positive Emotions. Forests 2021, 12, 1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volker, S.; Kistemann, T. Reprint of: “I’m always entirely happy when I’m here!” Urban blue enhancing human health and well-being in Cologne and Dusseldorf, Germany. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 91, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murakawa, S.; Sekine, T.; Narita, K.-I.; Nishina, D. Study of the effects of a river on the thermal environment in an urban area. Energy Build. 1991, 16, 993–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palmer, S.E.; Schloss, K.B. An ecological valence theory of human color preference. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 8877–8882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, R.; Browning, M.H.E.M.; Kee, F.; Hunter, R.F. Exploring mechanistic pathways linking urban green and blue space to mental wellbeing before and after urban regeneration of a greenway: Evidence from the Connswater Community Greenway, Belfast, UK. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2023, 235, 104739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Houlden, V.; Hong, A.J.A. Is biodiversity of greenspace important for human health and wellbeing? A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 66, 127385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, J.M.; Breed, A.C.; Camargo, A.; Redvers, N. Biodiversity and human health: A scoping review and examples of underrepresented linkages. Environ. Res. 2024, 246, 118115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- 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]
- Deng, L.; Luo, H.; Ma, J.; Huang, Z.; Sun, L.; Jiang, M.; Zhu, C.; 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, 56, 126702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stigsdotter, U.K.; Corazon, S.S.; Sidenius, U.; Refshauge, A.D.; Grahn, P. Forest design for mental health promotion—Using perceived sensory dimensions to elicit restorative responses. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2017, 160, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Appleton, J. The Experience of Landscape; Wiley: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Gatersleben, B.; Andrews, M. When walking in nature is not restorative-the role of prospect and refuge. Health Place 2013, 20, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y.; Zhu, L.; Jiang, C.; Liu, F.; Kang, J. Residential quality, physical activity, and restorative perceptions: A seasonal longitudinal study. Health Place 2024, 89, 103310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Yang, L.; Yu, J.; Guo, S. Do seasons matter? Exploring the dynamic link between blue-green space and mental restoration. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 73, 127612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dai, D.; Bo, M.; Zhou, Y. How Do the Young Perceive Urban Parks? A Study on Young Adults’ Landscape Preferences and Health Benefits in Urban Parks Based on the Landscape Perception Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beute, F.; De Kort, Y.; IJsselsteijn, W. Restoration in Its Natural Context: How Ecological Momentary Assessment Can Advance Restoration Research. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yildirim, M.; Globa, A.; Gocer, O.; Brambilla, A. Multisensory nature exposure in the workplace: Exploring the restorative benefits of smell experiences. Build. Environ. 2024, 262, 111841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeung, Y.-Y.; Yu, C.-P. Cognitive-Emotional Benefits of Weekly Exposure to Nature: A Taiwanese Study on Young Adults. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, T.; Gao, F. Utilizing Multi-Source Geospatial Big Data to Examine How Environmental Factors Attract Outdoor Jogging Activities. Remote Sens. 2024, 16, 3056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Žlender, V.; Gemin, S. Different Environments and Physical Activity before and during the COVID-19 Lockdown: Data from Slovenia. Land 2023, 12, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelley, C.; Mack, D.E.; Wilson, P.M. Does Physical Activity in Natural Outdoor Environments Improve Wellbeing? A Meta-Analysis. Sports 2022, 10, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pasanen, T.; Ojala, A.; Tyrväinen, L.; Korpela, K. Restoration, well-being, and everyday physical activity in indoor, built outdoor and natural outdoor settings. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018, 59, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, X.; Peng, Y.; Song, S.; Wang, H.; Yin, Y.; Wang, J. The nose cooperates with the eyes: The independent and interactive effects of vision and olfaction on the perceived restorativeness of a Metasequoia walkway. Urban For. Urban Green. 2024, 99, 1128425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, X.; Liu, J.; Albert, C.; Hong, X. Audio-visual interaction and visitor characteristics affect perceived soundscape restorativeness: Case study in five parks in China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2022, 77, 127738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hung, S.; Chang, C. Designing for harmony in urban green space: Linking the concepts of biophilic design, environmental Qi, restorative environment, and landscape preference. J. Environ. Psychol. 2024, 96, 102294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, Q.; Hu, C.; Guo, Q.; Li, Y.; Liu, M. How Does Vegetation Landscape Structure of Urban Green Spaces Affect Cultural Ecosystem Services at Multiscale: Based on PLS-SEM Model. Forests 2023, 14, 1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, K.; Li, Z.; Zheng, S.; Qu, H. Quantifying environmental characteristics on psychophysiological restorative benefits of campus window views. Build. Environ. 2024, 262, 111822. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, Y.; Zhang, J.; Yang, X. Effects of Audio-Visual Environmental Factors on Emotion Perception of Campus Walking Spaces in Northeastern China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qi, L.; Hu, Y.; Bu, R.; Xiong, Z.; Li, B.; Zhang, C.; Liu, H.; Li, C. Spatial-temporal patterns and influencing factors of the Building Green View Index: A new approach for quantifying 3D urban greenery visibility. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2024, 111, 105518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Lin, Y.; Meulder, B.; Wang, S. Heterogeneous landscapes of urban greenways in Shenzhen: Traffic impact, corridor width and land use. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 55, 126785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ren, H.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, J.; Wang, X.; Wang, Q. Exploration of a Rural Street Environment: The Difference in Sight between Villagers and Tourists. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, X.; Cen, Q.; Qiu, H. Effects of urban waterfront park landscape elements on visual behavior and public preference: Evidence from eye-tracking experiments. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 82, 127889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Research Space | Waterfront Space | Underwood Space | Lawn Space |
---|---|---|---|
Landscape type | Water body | Midwood | Lawn |
Landscape element | Mainly lakes, trees, shrubs, lawns, greenway, natural revetment | Mainly for trees, shrubs, greenway, landscape pieces, rest facilities, rivers | Mainly for trees, shrubs, lawns, greenway, landscape pieces |
Spatial features | Close proximity to bodies of water, linear spaces with the richest landscape elements, moderate sky visual index | Linear narrow space, farther away from water bodies, lower sky visual index | Open space, farther away from water bodies, highest sky visual index |
Name | Definition |
---|---|
Natural environmental factors | Natural environmental factors include air quality, plant height, plant color richness, plant seasonal/ornamental, water quality, water body ornamental, barge beauty, and natural state. Natural environmental factors are essential for the construction of greenways, and plants, water bodies, and barges are important parts of the natural environment. |
Artificial environmental factors | Artificial environment factors include some artificial facilities such as landscape sketches, seats, roads, and so on; these artificial facilities are set up to meet people’s needs; these artificial facilities are often intended to meet the needs of visitors in the greenway in terms of rest, leisure, and entertainment. These sketches have a certain degree of fun and interactive features that can extend the time people stay there and increase the interest in playing again, so as to relieve stress and eliminate mental fatigue for people participating in the recreation and interaction. |
Psychological environment factors | In the theory of restorative environment, there are scholars who suggest that human beings have both the desire to interact with others and the desire to be alone in life, and some studies have found that people hope that parks will be designed to be more private spaces, in which they can relax and release pressure; this theory reflects the unique requirements of human beings the environmental space. |
Space Type | Physiological Index | Before Recreation | After Recreation | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Statistics | df | Significance | Statistics | df | Significance | ||
>Waterfront space | Heart rate | 0.973 | 30 | 0.637 | 0.944 | 30 | 0.119 |
Systolic blood pressure | 0.976 | 30 | 0.705 | 0.967 | 30 | 0.470 | |
Diastolic blood pressure | 0.959 | 30 | 0.296 | 0.976 | 30 | 0.698 | |
>Underwood space | Heart rate | 0.959 | 30 | 0.289 | 0.979 | 30 | 0.803 |
Systolic blood pressure | 0.971 | 30 | 0.562 | 0.968 | 30 | 0.499 | |
Diastolic blood pressure | 0.987 | 30 | 0.966 | 0.951 | 30 | 0.176 | |
Lawn space | Heart rate | 0.934 | 30 | 0.064 | 0.978 | 30 | 0.756 |
Systolic blood pressure | 0.973 | 30 | 0.629 | 0.955 | 30 | 0.231 | |
Diastolic blood pressure | 0.984 | 30 | 0.928 | 0.943 | 30 | 0.111 |
Space Type | Physiological Index | Before Recreation | After Recreation | t | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
>Waterfront space | Heart rate | 73.03 ± 6.43 | 67.77 ± 7.80 | 4.90 | <0.01 |
Systolic blood pressure | 120.97 ± 9.62 | 113.07 ± 10.45 | 6.52 | <0.01 | |
Diastolic blood pressure | 78.03 ± 4.36 | 70.43 ± 6.71 | 6.49 | <0.01 | |
>Underwood space | Heart rate | 72.50 ± 6.98 | 68.63 ± 7.21 | 3.97 | <0.01 |
Systolic blood pressure | 122.83 ± 10.45 | 117.57 ± 10.29 | 4.96 | <0.01 | |
Diastolic blood pressure | 80.43 ± 5.12 | 75.20 ± 5.66 | 6.94 | <0.01 | |
Lawn space | Heart rate | 71.20 ± 7.00 | 69.50 ± 6.83 | 1.91 | <0.05 |
Systolic blood pressure | 119.97 ± 10.90 | 116.00 ± 12.22 | 3.75 | <0.01 | |
Diastolic blood pressure | 80.47 ± 6.94 | 76.60 ± 6.53 | 4.36 | >0.05 |
Space Type | Physiological Index | Before Recreation (Mean ± Sd) | After Recreation (Mean ± Sd) | Mean Difference |
---|---|---|---|---|
>Waterfront space | Heart rate | 73.03 ± 6.43 | 67.77 ± 7.80 | −5.26 |
Systolic blood pressure | 120.97 ± 9.62 | 113.07 ± 10.45 | −7.90 | |
Diastolic blood pressure | 78.03 ± 4.36 | 70.43 ± 6.71 | −7.60 | |
>Underwood space | Heart rate | 72.50 ± 6.98 | 68.63 ± 7.21 | −3.87 |
Systolic blood pressure | 122.83 ± 10.45 | 117.57 ± 10.29 | −5.27 | |
Diastolic blood pressure | 80.43 ± 5.12 | 75.20 ± 5.66 | −5.23 | |
Lawn space | Heart rate | 71.20 ± 7.00 | 69.50 ± 6.83 | −1.70 |
Systolic blood pressure | 119.97 ± 10.90 | 116.00 ± 12.22 | −3.97 | |
Diastolic blood pressure | 80.47 ± 6.94 | 76.60 ± 6.53 | −3.87 |
Space Type | Restorative Environmental Factors | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | ||
Waterfront space | Max | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Min | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Mean | 3.50 | 3.30 | 3.60 | 3.77 | 4.03 | 3.53 | 3.47 | 3.69 | |
Sd | 1.075 | 1.055 | 0.932 | 1.006 | 0.999 | 1.106 | 1.042 | 1.072 | |
Underwood space | Max | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Min | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
Mean | 3.80 | 3.60 | 3.73 | 4.00 | 2.40 | 2.83 | 3.83 | 3.90 | |
Sd | 0.887 | 1.070 | 1.015 | 0.830 | 1.037 | 1.085 | 0.986 | 1.029 | |
Lawn space | Max | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Min | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Mean | 3.33 | 3.30 | 3.53 | 3.37 | 3.33 | 3.70 | 3.37 | 3.33 | |
Sd | 0.884 | 1.119 | 1.074 | 1.377 | 1.269 | 1.119 | 1.159 | 0.884 |
Space Type | Restorative Environmental Factors | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | C8 | ||
Waterfront space | Significance P | 0.657 | 0.362 | 0.798 | 0.009 | 0.874 | 0.015 | 0.939 | 0.020 |
Pearson correlation coefficient R | 0.085 | −0.172 | −0.049 | 0.467 ** | 0.030 | 0.439 * | 0.015 | 0.429 * | |
Underwood space | Significance P | 0.000 | 0.159 | 0.265 | 0.052 | 0.763 | 0.489 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
Pearson correlation coefficient R | 0.704 ** | 0.264 | 0.210 | 0.358 | −0.057 | 0.131 | 0.597 ** | 0.538 ** | |
Lawn space | Significance P | 0.000 | 0.052 | 0.095 | 0.564 | 0.033 | 0.178 | 0.543 | 0.000 |
Pearson correlation coefficient R | 0.813 ** | 0.359 | 0.311 | 0.110 | 0.391 * | 0.253 | 0.116 | 0.865 ** |
Space Type | Primary Restorative Environmental Factors |
---|---|
Waterfront space | Appropriate road width |
Beautiful and natural revetment | |
Elegant spatial forms | |
Underwood space | Plant color richness |
High-privacy space | |
Elegant spatial forms | |
Lawn space | Plant color richness |
Ornamental water body | |
Elegant spatial forms |
Space Type | Model | R | R2 | R2 after the Adjustment | Errors in Standard Estimates |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Waterfront space | 1 | 0.544 a | 0.296 | 0.211 | 0.676 |
Underwood space | 1 | 0.722 a | 0.522 | 0.467 | 0.678 |
Lawn space | 1 | 0.910 a | 0.827 | 0.807 | 0.456 |
Space Type | Model | Square Sum | df | Mean Square | F | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Waterfront space | Regression | 4.796 | 3 | 1.599 | 3.503 | 0.030 b |
Residual error | 11.410 | 25 | 0.456 | |||
Total | 16.207 | 28 | ||||
Underwood space | Regression | 13.032 | 3 | 4.344 | 9.463 | 0.000 b |
Residual error | 11.935 | 26 | 0.459 | |||
Total | 24.967 | 29 | ||||
Lawn space | Regression | 25.949 | 3 | 8.650 | 41.512 | 0.000 b |
Residual error | 5.417 | 26 | 0.208 | |||
Total | 31.367 | 29 |
Space Type | Model | Unstandardized Coefficient | Standardization Coefficient | Collinear System | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Standard Error | Beta | t | Significance | Allowance | VIF | ||
Waterfront space | (Constant) | 2.636 | 0.540 | 4.883 | 0.000 | |||
Appropriate road width | 0.229 | 0.150 | 0.309 | 1.531 | 0.013 | 0.693 | 1.443 | |
Beautiful and natural revetment | 0.191 | 0.171 | 0.282 | 1.120 | 0.027 | 0.445 | 2.246 | |
Elegant spatial forms | 0.036 | 0.189 | 0.051 | 0.190 | 0.851 | 0.397 | 2.521 | |
Underwood space | (Constant) | 1.037 | 0.575 | 1.804 | 0.083 | |||
Plant color richness | 0.697 | 0.263 | 0.666 | 2.652 | 0.013 | 0.292 | 3.428 | |
High-privacy space | 0.209 | 0.186 | 0.222 | 1.126 | 0.271 | 0.473 | 2.115 | |
Elegant spatial forms | −0.133 | 0.213 | −0.148 | −0.625 | 0.537 | 0.330 | 3.031 | |
Lawn space | (Constant) | 0.011 | 0.367 | 0.031 | 0.976 | |||
Plant color richness | 0.456 | 0.138 | 0.388 | 3.296 | 0.003 | 0.480 | 2.082 | |
Ornamental water body | 0.050 | 0.068 | 0.061 | 0.730 | 0.472 | 0.953 | 1.049 | |
Elegant spatial forms | 0.516 | 0.105 | 0.575 | 4.896 | 0.000 | 0.482 | 2.073 |
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
Zhu, C.; Li, J.; Luo, J.; Li, X.; Li, T.; Wang, W.; Fu, S.; Zeng, W. An Investigation of the Restorative Benefits of Different Spaces in an Urban Riverside Greenway for College Students—A Simple Autumn Outdoor Experiment. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7968. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187968
Zhu C, Li J, Luo J, Li X, Li T, Wang W, Fu S, Zeng W. An Investigation of the Restorative Benefits of Different Spaces in an Urban Riverside Greenway for College Students—A Simple Autumn Outdoor Experiment. Sustainability. 2024; 16(18):7968. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187968
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhu, Chunyan, Jingzhu Li, Jinming Luo, Xi Li, Tianhui Li, Wei Wang, Shanshan Fu, and Weizhen Zeng. 2024. "An Investigation of the Restorative Benefits of Different Spaces in an Urban Riverside Greenway for College Students—A Simple Autumn Outdoor Experiment" Sustainability 16, no. 18: 7968. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187968