Effects of Spatial Type and Scale of Small Urban Open Spaces on Perceived Restoration: An Online Survey-Based Experiment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Creation of Virtual Landscape Site Images
2.2. Restorative Effects Measure and Questionnaire Design
2.3. Procedures
2.4. Statistical Analyses
- Y = continuous variable: restorative effect reported by participant (measured with PRS-11).
- type = categorical variable: plaza (reference), lawn, water.
- scale = categorical variable: 10 × 10 m (reference), 20 × 20 m, 30 × 30 m, 40 × 40 m.
- gender = binary variable: female (reference), male.
- age = categorical variable: 18–25 years old (reference), 26–50 years old, over 50 years old.
- occupation = categorical variable: student (reference), employed, retired, or unemployed.
- design major = binary variable: no (reference), yes.
- the place grown-up = binary variable: countryside (reference), town/city.
- income = categorical variable: under RMB 10,000 (reference), RMB 10,000–30,000, over RMB 30,000.
- β1 = the restorative effect of lawn/water compared to the plaza, after adjusting for scale and demographic variables.
- β2 = the restorative effect of differences in larger scales compared to 10 × 10 m, after adjusting for landscape type and demographic variables.
- β9 = the effect differences of larger scales in lawn/water versus plaza.
- β91 = the effect differences in viewing lawn/water vs. plaza among different age groups.
- demographic characteristics = Plugin in turn: gender, age, occupation, design major, the place grown-up, income.
- β92 = the effect differences in viewing lawn/water vs. plaza among different preference-level groups.
- preference = binary variable: low-level preference (reference), high-level preference.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
3.2. Factors Related to Restorative Effects of Land Sites
3.3. Restorative Effects of Landscape Sites among Different Scales, Age Groups, and Preference Levels
4. Discussion
4.1. Lawn Site Has the Highest Restorative Effects and Is the Most Preferred
4.2. Spatial Scale Is an Effect Modifier for the Association between Site Type and Restoration
4.3. Older Adults Have Higher Perceived Restorations, Young Adults Obtain a Greater Increase in Restoration from Lawn and Plaza
4.4. High Preference Contributes to Larger Differences in the Restorative Effects of Lawn and Plaza
4.5. Limitations and Strengths
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Grahn, P.; Stigsdotter, U.K. The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 94, 264–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.; Sullivan, W.C. Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 148, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schipperijn, J.; Stigsdotter, U.K.; Randrup, T.B.; Troelsen, J. Influences on the use of urban green space—A case study in Odense, Denmark. Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Berg, M.; Wendel-Vos, W.; van Poppel, M.; Kemper, H.; van Mechelen, W.; Maas, J. Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 806–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asgarzadeh, M.; Lusk, A.; Koga, T.; Hirate, K. Measuring oppressiveness of streetscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fung, H.H.; Jiang, D. Cross-cultural psychology of aging. In Handbook of the Psychology of Aging; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; pp. 323–337. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, D.; Fung, H.H. Social and emotional theories of aging. In Work Across the Lifespan; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 135–153. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, L.; Jiang, B. From oppressiveness to stress: A development of Stress Reduction Theory in the context of contemporary high-density city. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 84, 101883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elsadek, M.; Liu, B.; Lian, Z. Green façades: Their contribution to stress recovery and well-being in high-density cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 46, 126446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elsadek, M.; Liu, B.; Xie, J. Window view and relaxation: Viewing green space from a high-rise estate improves urban dwellers’ wellbeing. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 55, 126846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scopelliti, M.; Carrus, G.; Adinolfi, C.; Suarez, G.; Colangelo, G.; Lafortezza, R.; Panno, A.; Sanesi, G. Staying in touch with nature and well-being in different income groups: The experience of urban parks in Bogotá. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 148, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bratman, G.N.; Daily, G.C.; Levy, B.J.; Gross, J.J. The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 138, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabisch, N.; Püffel, C.; Masztalerz, O.; Hemmerling, J.; Kraemer, R. Physiological and psychological effects of visits to different urban green and street environments in older people: A field experiment in a dense inner-city area. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 207, 103998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, W.; Chen, Q.; Jiang, M.; Zhang, X.; Liu, Z.; Tao, J.; Wu, L.; Xu, S.; Kang, Y.; Zeng, Q. The effect of green space behaviour and per capita area in small urban green spaces on psychophysiological responses. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 192, 103637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Den Berg, A.E.; Maas, J.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P. Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 70, 1203–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thompson, C.W.; Roe, J.; Aspinall, P.; Mitchell, R.; Clow, A.; Miller, D. More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Browning, M.H.; Lee, K.; Wolf, K.L. Tree cover shows an inverse relationship with depressive symptoms in elderly residents living in U.S. nursing homes. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 41, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, M.S.; Wheeler, B.W.; White, M.P.; Economou, T.; Osborne, N.J. Research note: Urban street tree density and antidepressant prescription rates—A cross-sectional study in London, UK. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 136, 174–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lottrup, L.; Grahn, P.; Stigsdotter, U.K. Workplace greenery and perceived level of stress: Benefits of access to a green outdoor environment at the workplace. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 110, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bielinis, E.; Takayama, N.; Boiko, S.; Omelan, A.; Bielinis, L. The effect of winter forest bathing on psychological relaxation of young Polish adults. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 276–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bark, R.H.; Osgood, D.E.; Colby, B.G.; Halper, E.B. How do homebuyers value different types of green space? J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2011, 36, 395–415. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Van den Berg, A.E.; Jorgensen, A.; Wilson, E.R. Evaluating restoration in urban green spaces: Does setting type make a difference? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 127, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, C.-P.; Lee, H.-Y.; Luo, X.-Y. The effect of virtual reality forest and urban environments on physiological and psychological responses. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 35, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Nordh, H.; Hartig, T.; Hagerhall, C.; Fry, G. Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban For. Urban Green. 2009, 8, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordh, H.; Hagerhall, C.M.; Holmqvist, K. Tracking Restorative Components: Patterns in Eye Movements as a Consequence of a Restorative Rating Task. Landsc. Res. 2013, 38, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, B.; Chang, C.-Y.; Sullivan, W.C. A dose of nature: Tree cover, stress reduction, and gender differences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 132, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herzog, T.R.; Maguire, C.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]
- Sonntag-Öström, E.; Nordin, M.; Lundell, Y.; Dolling, A.; Wiklund, U.; Karlsson, M.; Carlberg, B.; Järvholm, L.S. Restorative effects of visits to urban and forest environments in patients with exhaustion disorder. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 344–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, I.-C.; Tsai, Y.-P.; Lin, Y.-J.; Chen, J.-H.; Hsieh, C.-H.; Hung, S.-H.; Sullivan, W.C.; Tang, H.-F.; Chang, C.-Y. Using functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to analyze brain region activity when viewing landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 162, 137–144. [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, 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]
- Chiang, Y.-C.; Li, D.; Jane, H.-A. Wild or tended nature? The effects of landscape location and vegetation density on physiological and psychological responses. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 167, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordh, H.; Alalouch, C.; Hartig, T. Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint methodology. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, K.-T. An exploration of relationships among the responses to natural scenes—Scenic Beauty, Preference, and Restoration. Environment and Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2010, 42, 243–270. [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]
- Franěk, M. Landscape Preference: The Role of Attractiveness and Spatial Openness of the Environment. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogge, E.; Nevens, F.; Gulinck, H. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 82, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, S.; Gou, Z.; Chen, L.H. How does enclosure influence environmental preferences? A cognitive study on urban public open spaces in Hong Kong. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2014, 13, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norberg-Schulz, C. Intentions in Architecture; No. 74; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
- Epstein, R.; Kanwisher, N. A cortical representation of the local visual environment. Nature 1998, 392, 598–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiebel, T.; Gallinat, J.; Kühn, S. Testing the Biophilia theory: Automatic approach tendencies towards nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 79, 101725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strumse, E. Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. J. Environ. Psychol. 1994, 14, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Berg, A.E.; Koole, S.L. New wilderness in the Netherlands: An investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 78, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrus, G.; Scopelliti, M.; Lafortezza, R.; Colangelo, G.; Ferrini, F.; Salbitano, F.; Agrimi, M.; Portoghesi, L.; Semenzato, P.; Sanesi, G. Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berto, R. Assessing the restorative value of the environment: A study on the elderly in comparison with young adults and adolescents. Int. J. Psychol. 2007, 42, 331–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornara, F.; Troffa, R. Restorative experiences and perceived affective qualities in different built and natural urban places. In Proceedings of the Revitalising Built Environments: Requalifying Old Places for New Uses, Istanbul, Turkey, 12–16 October 2009; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Qiu, L.; Chen, Q.; Gao, T. The Effects of Urban Natural Environments on Preference and Self-Reported Psychological Restoration of the Elderly. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, C.-P.; Lee, H.-Y.; Lu, W.-H.; Huang, Y.-C.; Browning, M.H. Restorative effects of virtual natural settings on middle-aged and elderly adults. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 56, 126863. [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]
- Lai, K.Y.; Sarkar, C.; Sun, Z.; Scott, I. Are greenspace attributes associated with perceived restorativeness? A comparative study of urban cemeteries and parks in Edinburgh, Scotland. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 53, 126720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Den Berg, A.E.; Koole, S.L.; van der Wulp, N.Y. Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilkie, S.; Stavridou, A. Influence of environmental preference and environment type congruence on judgments of restoration potential. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 12, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoyle, H.; Hitchmough, J.; Jorgensen, A. All about the ‘wow factor’? The relationships between aesthetics, re-storative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 164, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pazhouhanfar, M.; Mustafa Kamal, M.S. Effect of predictors of visual preference as characteristics of urban natural landscapes in increasing perceived restorative potential. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pincetl, S.; Gearin, E. The Reinvention of Public Green Space. Urban Geogr. 2013, 26, 365–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picard, P.; Tran, T. Small urban green areas. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2021, 106, 102418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Wang, X. Reexamine the value of urban pocket parks under the impact of the COVID-19. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 64, 127294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kerishnan, P.B.; Maruthaveeran, S. Factors contributing to the usage of pocket parks―A review of the evidence. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 58, 126985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egerer, M.; Annighöfer, P.; Arzberger, S.; Burger, S.; Hecher, Y.; Knill, V.; Probst, B.; Suda, M. Urban oases: The social-ecological importance of small urban green spaces. Ecosyst. People 2024, 20, 2315991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ugolini, F.; Massetti, L.; Calaza-Martínez, P.; Cariñanos, P.; Dobbs, C.; Ostoić, S.K.; Marin, A.M.; Pearlmutter, D.; Saaroni, H.; Šaulienė, I.; et al. Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use and perceptions of urban green space: An international exploratory study. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 56, 126888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soga, M.; Evans, M.J.; Tsuchiya, K.; Fukano, Y. A room with a green view the importance of nearby nature for mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ecol. Appl. 2021, 31, e2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- 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]
- Gu, J.; Liu, H.; Lu, H. Can Even a Small Amount of Greenery Be Helpful in Reducing Stress? A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gunn, C.; Vahdati, M.; Shahrestani, M. Green walls in schools—The potential well-being benefits. J. Affect. Disord. 2022, 224, 109560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wendel, H.E.W.; Zarger, R.K.; Mihelcic, J.R. Accessibility and usability: Green space preferences, perceptions, and barriers in a rapidly urbanizing city in Latin America. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 272–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, S.; Loukaitou-Sideris, A.; Mukhija, V. Ensuring park equity: A California case study. J. Urban Des. 2018, 24, 385–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, Y.; Miao, S.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, H.; Wu, W. Exploring the health effects of neighborhood greenness on Lilong residents in Shanghai. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 66, 127383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, Y.; Lin, X.; Lin, S.; Chen, Z.; Fu, W.; Wang, M.; Dong, J. Pocket Parks: A New Approach to Improving the Psychological and Physical Health of Recreationists. Forests 2023, 14, 1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bajwoluk, T.; Langer, P. The pocket park and its impact on the quality of urban space on the local and supralocal scale—Case study of Krakow, Poland. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forsyth, A.; Musacchio, L. Designing Small Parks: A Manual for Addressing Social and Ecological Concerns; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Peschardt, K.K.; Stigsdotter, U.K. Associations between park characteristics and perceived restorativeness of small public urban green spaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 112, 26–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, A.F.; Kuo, F.E.; Sullivan, W.C. Views of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children. J. Environ. Psychol. 2002, 22, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bu, J.; Yin, J.; Yu, Y.; Zhan, Y. Identifying the daily activity spaces of older adults living in a high-density urban area: A study using the smartphone-based global positioning system trajectory in Shanghai. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomasso, L.P.; Yin, J.; Laurent, J.G.C.; Chen, J.T.; Catalano, P.J.; Spengler, J.D. The Relationship between Nature Deprivation and Individual Wellbeing across Urban Gradients under COVID-19. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Li, F.; Yin, J. Perceptual difference of urban public spaces between design professionals and ‘laypersons’: Evidence, health implications and ready-made urban design templates. Indoor Built Environ. 2023, 32, 494–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, D.; Yin, J.; Yu, C.P.; Sun, S.; Gabel, C.; Spengler, J.D. Physiological and psychological responses to transitions between urban built and natural environments using the cave automated virtual environment. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2024, 241, 104919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stamps, A.E. Atmospheric Permeability and Perceived Enclosure. Environ. Behav. 2012, 44, 427–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stamps, A.E. Permeability theory and palace Athena. Percept. Mot. Ski. 2013, 116, 806–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.; Wang, Y.; Jia, J. Public perceptions of ecosystem services and preferences for design scenarios of the flooded bank along the Three Gorges Reservoir: Implications for sustainable management of novel ecosystems. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 34, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartig, T.; Korpela, K.; Evans, G.W.; Gärling, T. A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scand. Hous. Plan. Res. 1997, 14, 175–194. [Google Scholar]
- Pasini, M.; Berto, R.; Brondino, M.; Hall, R.; Ortner, C. How to Measure the Restorative Quality of Environments: The PRS-11. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 159, 293–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berto, R. The Role of Nature in Coping with Psycho-Physiological Stress: A Literature Review on Restorativeness. Behav. Sci. 2014, 4, 394–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Senese, V.P.; Pascale, A.; Maffei, L.; Cioffi, F.; Sergi, I.; Gnisci, A.; Masullo, M. The influence of personality traits on the measure of restorativeness in an urban park: A multisensory immersive virtual reality study. Neural Approaches Dyn. Signal Exch. 2020, 151, 347–357. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, H.; Deng, L.; Song, C.; Jiang, S.; Huang, Y.; Wang, W.; Liu, X.; Li, S.; Guo, B.; Peng, L.; et al. Which characteristics and integrations between characteristics in blue–green spaces influence the nature experience? J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2023, 66, 1253–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaei, M.; Emmanuel, N.; Kim, J.; Kim, D.H. Analyzing the impact of green roof functions on the citizens’ mental health in metropolitan cities. Iran. J. Public Health 2021, 50, 900–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenbaum, M.S. Restorative servicescapes: Restoring directed attention in third places. J. Serv. Manag. 2009, 20, 173–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilkie, S.; Clements, H. Further exploration of environment preference and environment type congruence on restoration and perceived restoration potential. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 170, 314–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Element | Characteristics |
---|---|
Surrounding buildings | Height in the range of 6–15 m (2–5 floors). |
Be placed in the same position across different scenes. | |
Without decorations or bright colors on the facades. | |
Plants | Trees are oak (8.5 m high) and fir (9 m or 5.5 m high), and shrubs are American boxwood (2.3 m) and holly (1.3 m). |
Plants are placed in a single row. | |
The proportions among the broadleaf, tall conifer, and short conifer are around 3:1:2. | |
Other factors | 1 m × 1 m blocks are paved on the plaza |
The water is with ripples and close to the ground. | |
The lawn has a yellow-green grass texture. |
Dimension | Items |
---|---|
Fascination | Places like that are fascinating. |
In places like this, my attention is drawn to many interesting things. | |
In places like this, it is hard to be bored. | |
Being Away | Places like that are a refuge from nuisances. |
To get away from things that usually demand my attention I like to go to places like this. | |
To stop thinking about the things that I must get done I like to go to places like this. | |
Coherence | There is a clear order in the physical arrangement of places like this. |
In places like this, it is easy to see how things are organized. | |
In places like this, everything seems to have its proper place. | |
Scope | That place is large enough to allow exploration in many directions. |
In places like that, there are few boundaries to limit my possibility of moving about. |
Scale | Total | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10 m × 10 m | 20 m × 20 m | 30 m × 30 m | 40 m × 40 m | |||
Type | Lawn | 91 | 92 | 94 | 92 | 369 |
Water | 81 | 92 | 99 | 95 | 367 | |
Plaza | 116 | 82 | 99 | 97 | 394 | |
Total | 288 | 266 | 292 | 284 | 1130 |
Participants’ Demographic Information | n | % | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 362 | 32.04 |
Female | 768 | 67.96 | |
Age | 18–25 | 655 | 57.96 |
26–50 | 345 | 30.53 | |
Over 50 | 130 | 11.51 | |
Whether have a design background | Yes | 422 | 37.35 |
No | 708 | 62.65 | |
Occupation | Student | 672 | 59.47 |
Employed | 291 | 25.75 | |
Retired/unemployed | 167 | 14.78 | |
Place grown up | City/town | 688 | 60.88 |
Countryside | 442 | 39.12 | |
Monthly household income (RMB) | Under 10,000 | 560 | 49.56 |
10,000–30,000 | 416 | 36.81 | |
Over 30,000 | 154 | 13.63 | |
Regional distribution | South | 763 | 67.52 |
North | 367 | 32.48 | |
Total | 1130 | 100 |
Restoration | Fascination | Being Away | Coherence | Scope | Preference | Beauty | Openness | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Independent variables | |||||||||
Site type | Plaza (reference) | ||||||||
Lawn | 0.532 ** | 0.690 ** | 1.061 ** | 0.220 | −0.031 | 0.871 ** | 0.739 ** | 0.049 | |
Water | 0.342 * | 0.991 ** | 1.287 ** | 0.037 | −1.594 ** | 0.813 ** | 0.816 ** | −0.516 * | |
Site scale | 10 × 10 m (reference) | ||||||||
20 × 20 m | 0.146 | 0.140 | −0.082 | −0.057 | 0.800 ** | 0.100 | 0.107 | 1.259 ** | |
30 × 30 m | 0.052 | −0.081 | −0.390 | 0.076 | 0.879 ** | 0.035 | 0.060 | 1.497 ** | |
40 × 40 m | 0.197 | 0.023 | −0.400 | 0.169 | 1.396 ** | 0.047 | −0.034 | e | |
Control variables | |||||||||
Gender | Female (reference) | ||||||||
Male | −0.056 | −0.053 | 0.017 | −0.127 | −0.064 | 0.070 | 0.034 | 0.160 | |
Age | 18–25 (reference) | ||||||||
26–50 | 0.385 | 0.502 | 0.281 | 0.416 | 0.320 | 0.622 * | 0.719 * | 0.128 | |
Over 50 | 1.417 ** | 1.804 ** | 1.377 * | 1.098 ** | 1.374 ** | 1.405 ** | 1.718 ** | 1.223 * | |
Design major | No (reference) | ||||||||
Yes | −0.408 * | −0.602 ** | −0.583 * | −0.078 | −0.352 * | −0.719 ** | −0.591 ** | −0.164 | |
Occupation | Student (reference) | ||||||||
Employed | 0.259 | 0.442 | 0.303 | 0.061 | 0.214 | 0.108 | 0.083 | 0.254 | |
Retired/unemployed | 1.253 ** | 1.675 ** | 1.409 ** | 0.798 * | 1.072 * | 1.152 ** | 1.119 * | 1.176 * | |
The place grown-up | Countryside (reference) | ||||||||
Town/city | −0.258 * | −0.252 | −0.330 * | −0.113 | −0.378 * | −0.431 * | −0.318 * | −0.302 * | |
Monthly household income (RMB) | Under 10,000 (reference) | ||||||||
10,000–30,000 | −0.338 * | −0.447 * | −0.319 | −0.192 | −0.377 * | −0.361 * | −0.151 | −0.069 | |
Over 30,000 | −0.239 | −0.296 | −0.241 | −0.172 | −0.252 | −0.295 | −0.225 | −0.078 | |
R2 | 0.203 | 0.239 | 0.173 | 0.099 | 0.215 | 0.217 | 0.204 | 0.196 | |
F | 20.277 | 25.061 | 16.676 | 8.713 | 21.856 | 22.078 | 20.453 | 19.398 | |
p | p < 0.001 |
Scale × Type | Age × Type | Preference × Type | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | SE | p | β | SE | p | β | SE | p | ||
Variable | ||||||||||
Site type | Plaza (reference) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Lawn | 0.23 | 0.27 | 0.389 | 0.71 | 0.18 | <0.001 ** | 0.03 | 0.32 | 0.921 | |
Water | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.33 | 0.62 | 0.18 | 0.001 ** | 0.27 | 0.33 | 0.416 | |
Site scale | 10 × 10 m (reference) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
20 × 20 m | 0.29 | 0.25 | 0.255 | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.374 | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.345 | |
30 × 30 m | −0.34 | 0.24 | 0.155 | 0.07 | 0.16 | 0.671 | 0.07 | 0.16 | 0.67 | |
40 × 40 m | 0.06 | 0.24 | 0.795 | 0.19 | 0.16 | 0.234 | 0.21 | 0.16 | 0.185 | |
Gender | Female (ref) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Male | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.627 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.567 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.697 | |
Age | 18–25 (ref) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
26–50 | 0.42 | 0.24 | 0.077 | 0.61 | 0.28 | 0.031 * | 0.41 | 0.24 | 0.079 | |
Over 50 | 1.42 | 0.31 | <0.001 ** | 1.96 | 0.37 | <0.001 ** | 1.44 | 0.31 | <0.001 ** | |
Design Major | No (ref) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Yes | −0.41 | 0.13 | 0.002 * | −0.43 | 0.13 | 0.001 ** | −0.41 | 0.13 | 0.002 * | |
occupation | Student (ref) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Employed | −0.22 | 0.25 | 0.368 | −0.25 | 0.24 | 0.304 | −0.24 | 0.25 | 0.323 | |
Retired/unemployed | 1.03 | 0.21 | <0.001 ** | 0.97 | 0.21 | <0.001 ** | 0.98 | 0.21 | <0.001 ** | |
The place grown-up | Countryside (ref) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Town/city | −0.26 | 0.13 | 0.037 * | −0.24 | 0.13 | 0.054 | −0.26 | 0.13 | 0.04 * | |
Monthly household income | Under 10,000 (ref) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
10,000–30,000 | −0.35 | 0.13 | 0.006 * | −0.35 | 0.13 | 0.006 * | −0.33 | 0.13 | 0.009 * | |
Over 30,000 | −0.25 | 0.18 | 0.168 | −0.26 | 0.18 | 0.149 | −0.24 | 0.18 | 0.178 | |
Preference | Low (ref) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
High | - | - | - | - | - | - | −0.31 | 0.24 | 0.197 | |
Interaction terms | ||||||||||
Site scale × Site type | scale (10 × 10 m) × type (plaza) (ref) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
scale (20 × 20 m) × type (lawn) | −0.15 | 0.39 | 0.707 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
scale (30 × 30 m) × type (lawn) | 1.01 | 0.39 | 0.009 * | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
scale (40 × 40 m) × type (lawn) | 0.31 | 0.39 | 0.423 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
scale (20 × 20 m) × type (water) | −0.27 | 0.4 | 0.495 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
scale (30 × 30 m) × type (water) | 0.37 | 0.39 | 0.346 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
scale (40 × 40 m) × type (water) | 0.17 | 0.39 | 0.671 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Age × Site type | age (18–25) × type (plaza) (ref) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
age (26–50) × type (lawn) | - | - | - | −0.3 | 0.31 | 0.333 | - | - | - | |
age (over 50) × type (lawn) | - | - | - | −0.71 | 0.46 | 0.12 | - | - | - | |
age (26–50) × type (water) | - | - | - | −0.42 | 0.31 | 0.178 | - | - | - | |
age (over 50) × type (water) | - | - | - | −1.23 | 0.45 | 0.006 * | - | - | - | |
Preference × Site type | preference (low) × type (plaza) (ref) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
preference (high) × type (lawn) | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.61 | 0.36 | 0.09 | |
preference (high) × type (water) | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.08 | 0.36 | 0.827 | |
R2 | 0.196 | 0.196 | 0.193 | |||||||
F | 14.8 | 16.31 | 16.92 | |||||||
p | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
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
Zhai, Y.; Fan, B.; Yu, J.; Gong, R.; Yin, J. Effects of Spatial Type and Scale of Small Urban Open Spaces on Perceived Restoration: An Online Survey-Based Experiment. Land 2024, 13, 1370. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13091370
Zhai Y, Fan B, Yu J, Gong R, Yin J. Effects of Spatial Type and Scale of Small Urban Open Spaces on Perceived Restoration: An Online Survey-Based Experiment. Land. 2024; 13(9):1370. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13091370
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhai, Yujia, Binbin Fan, Jingyao Yu, Ruoyu Gong, and Jie Yin. 2024. "Effects of Spatial Type and Scale of Small Urban Open Spaces on Perceived Restoration: An Online Survey-Based Experiment" Land 13, no. 9: 1370. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13091370