The Influence of Urban Park Attributes on User Preferences: Evaluation of Virtual Parks in an Online Stated-Choice Experiment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Park Attributes and Preferences
2.2. Investigating Environmental Preferences
2.3. Problem Statement
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Design of Virtual Park
3.2. Design of Online Survey
3.3. Participants
3.4. Procedure
3.5. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Sample
4.2. Mixed Multinomial Logit Model
4.3. Latent Class Model
4.4. Class Membership and Personal Characteristics
5. Discussion
5.1. Average Influence of Elements on Preferences
5.2. Preference Heterogeneity
5.3. Identified Classes
5.4. Class Membership and Personal Characteristics
5.5. Limitations and Recommendations
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- UN DESA. 68% of the World Population Projected to Live in Urban Areas by 2050, Says UN. 2018. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html (accessed on 19 October 2020).
- Moore, M.; Gould, P.; Keary, B.S. Global urbanization and impact on health. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2003, 206, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turan, T.; Besirli, A. Impacts of urbanization process on mental health. Anatol. J. Psychiatry 2008, 9, 238–243. [Google Scholar]
- Lorenc, T.; Petticrew, M.; Whitehead, M.; Neary, D.; Clayton, S.; Wright, K.; Thomson, H.; Cummins, S.; Sowden, A.; Renton, A. Fear of crime and the environment: Systematic review of UK qualitative evidence. BMC Public Health 2013, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guite, H.F.; Clark, C.; Ackrill, G. The impact of the physical and urban environment on mental well-being. Public Health 2006, 120, 1117–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steptoe, A.; Feldman, P.J. Neighborhood problems as sources of chronic stress: Development of a measure of neighborhood problems, and associations with socioeconomic status and health. Ann. Behav. Med. 2001, 23, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fink, G. Stress: The Health Epidemic of the 21st Century. Available online: http://scitechconnect.elsevier.com/stress-health-epidemic-21st-century/ (accessed on 19 October 2020).
- Ren, G.Y.; Zhou, Y.; Chu, Z.; Zhou, J.; Zhang, A.; Guo, J. Urbanization effects on observed surface air temperature trends in north China. J. Clim. 2008, 21, 1333–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McKinney, M.L. Effects of urbanization on species richness: A review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst. 2008, 11, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janhäll, S. Review on urban vegetation and particle air pollution-Deposition and dispersion. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 105, 130–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Livesley, S.J.; McPherson, E.G.; Calfapietra, C. The Urban Forest and Ecosystem Services: Impacts on Urban Water, Heat, and Pollution Cycles at the Tree, Street, and City Scale. J. Environ. Qual. 2016, 45, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flores, A.; Pickett, S.T.A.; Zipperer, W.C.; Pouyat, R.V.; Pirani, R. Adopting a modern ecological view of the metropolitan landscape: The case of a greenspace system for the New York City region. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1998, 39, 295–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elmqvist, T.; Handel, S.N.; Aronson, J.; Blignaut, J.N.; Groot, R. Benefits of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alcock, I.; White, M.P.; Wheeler, B.W.; Fleming, L.E.; Depledge, M.H. Longitudinal effects on mental health of moving to greener and less green urban areas. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 1247–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Richardson, E.A.; Pearce, J.; Mitchell, R.; Kingham, S. Role of physical activity in the relationship between urban green space and health. Public Health 2013, 127, 318–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaźmierczak, A. The contribution of local parks to neighbourhood social ties. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 109, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tu, G.; Abildtrup, J.; Garcia, S. Preferences for urban green spaces and peri-urban forests: An analysis of stated residential choices. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 148, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ellicott, K. Raising the Standard: The Green Flag Award Guidance Manual; Keep Britain Tidy: Wigan, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; CUP Archive: Cambridge, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Kruize, H.; Hermans, C.L.M.; de Vries, S.; van den Berg, A. Het gebruik van natuur voor gezondheid in de praktijk: Gebruik, beleving en gezondheid voorafgaand aan de herinrichting van een wijkpark in Breda. Bilthoven 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woolley, H. Urban Open Spaces; Spon Press: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- van den Berg, A.E.; Hartig, T.; Staats, H. Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. J. Soc. Issues 2007, 63, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, A.; Öhrström, E. Noise and well-being in urban residential environments: The potential role of perceived availability to nearby green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G. A theory of urban park geography. J. Leis. Res. 2008, 40, 589–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordh, H.; Hartig, T.; Hagerhall, C.M.; Fry, G. Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban For. Urban Green. 2009, 8, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peschardt, K.K.; Schipperijn, J.; Stigsdotter, U.K. Use of Small Public Urban Green Spaces (SPUGS). Urban For. Urban Green. 2012, 11, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schipperijn, J.; Ekholm, O.; Stigsdotter, U.K.; Toftager, M. Factors influencing the use of green space: Results from a Danish national representative survey. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 95, 130–137. [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]
- Bjerke, T.; Østdahl, T.; Thrane, C.; Strumse, E. Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban For. Urban Green. 2006, 5, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, T.; Liang, H.; Chen, Y.; Qiu, L. Comparisons of landscape preferences through three different perceptual approaches. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jorgensen, A.; Hitchmough, J.; Calvert, T. Woodland spaces and edges: Their impact on perception of safety and preference. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 60, 135–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S.; Ryan, R. With People in Mind: Design And Management Of Everyday Nature; Island Press: Washinton, DC, USA, 1961. [Google Scholar]
- Gobster, P.H. Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientele. Leis. Sci. 2002, 24, 143–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, C.H.; Sasidharan, V.; Elmendorf, W.; Willits, F.K.; Graefe, A.; Godbey, G. Gender and ethnic variations in urban park preferences, visitation, and perceived benefits. J. Leis. Res. 2005, 37, 281–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özgüner, H. Cultural differences in attitudes towards urban parks and green spaces. Landsc. Res. 2011, 36, 599–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, C.S.; Norton, C.; Domene, E.; Hoyer, J.; Marull, J.; Salminen, O. Water as an Element of Urban Design: Drawing Lessons from Four European Case Studies. In Green Energy and Technology; No. 9783319123936; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 17–43. [Google Scholar]
- Bullock, C.H. Valuing urban green space: Hypothetical alternatives and the status quo. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2008, 51, 15–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lindberg, M.; Schipperijn, J. Active use of urban park facilities-Expectations versus reality. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 909–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCormack, G.R.; Rock, M.; Toohey, A.M.; Hignell, D. Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: A review of qualitative research. Heal. Place 2010, 16, 712–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arnberger, A.; Eder, R. Are urban visitors’ general preferences for green-spaces similar to their preferences when seeking stress relief? Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 872–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Xiong, Y.; Wang, Y.; Luo, T. Soundscape effects on visiting experience in city park: A case study in Fuzhou, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 31, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schroeder, H.W. Preferred Features of Urban Parks and Forests. J. Arboric. 1982, 8, 317–322. [Google Scholar]
- Buchel, S.; Frantzeskaki, N. Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 12, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W.Y. Perception and attitude of residents toward urban green spaces in Guangzhou (China). Environ. Manag. 2006, 38, 338–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Dongen, R.P.; Timmermans, H.J.P. Preference for different urban greenscape designs: A choice experiment using virtual environments. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Louviere, J.J.; Schroeder, H.; Louviere, C.H.; Woodworth, G.G. Do the Parameters of Choice Models Depend on Differences in Stimulus Presentation: Visual Versus Verbal Presentation? ACR N. Am. Adv. 1987, NA-14. Available online: https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6657/volumes/v14/NA-14/full (accessed on 21 October 2020).
- Bateman, I.J.; Day, B.H.; Jones, A.P.; Jude, S. Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2009, 58, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patterson, Z.; Darbani, J.M.; Rezaei, A.; Zacharias, J.; Yazdizadeh, A. Comparing text-only and virtual reality discrete choice experiments of neighbourhood choice. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bishop, I.D.; Wherrett, J.A.R.; Miller, D.R. Assessment of path choices on a country walk using a virtual environment. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2001, 52, 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birenboim, A.; Dijst, M.; Ettema, D.; de Kruijf, J.; de Leeuw, G.; Dogterom, N. The utilization of immersive virtual environments for the investigation of environmental preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 189, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higuera-Trujillo, J.L.; López-Tarruella Maldonado, J.; Llinares Millán, C. Psychological and physiological human responses to simulated and real environments: A comparison between Photographs, 360° Panoramas, and Virtual Reality. Appl. Ergon. 2017, 65, 398–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, E.M.; Honjo, T.; Umeki, K. The validity of VRML images as a stimulus for landscape assessment. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 77, 80–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bishop, I.D.; Rohrmann, B. Subjective responses to simulated and real environments: A comparison. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 65, 261–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brush, R.; Chenoweth, R.E.; Barman, T. Group differences in the enjoyability of driving through rural landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 47, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adamowicz, W.; Louviere, J.J.; Swait, J.D. Introduction to Attribute-Based Stated Choice Methods Introduction to Attribute-Based Stated Choice Methods; US Department of Commerce: Washington, DC, USA, 1998.
- Louviere, J.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Swait, J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Hahn, G.J.; Shapiro, S.S. A Catalog and Computer Program for the Design and Analysis of Orthogonal Symmetric and Asymmetric Fractional Factorial Experiments; Schenectady New York: General Electric Research and Development Center: New York, NY, USA, 1966. [Google Scholar]
- 3D Design Software | 3D Modeling on the Web | SketchUp. Available online: https://www.sketchup.com/ (accessed on 19 October 2020).
- Twinmotion-Unreal Engine. Available online: https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/twinmotion (accessed on 19 October 2020).
- 3D Warehouse. Available online: https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/?hl=nl (accessed on 19 October 2020).
- Home page-LimeSurvey-Easy online survey tool. Available online: https://www.limesurvey.org/en/ (accessed on 19 October 2020).
- Aaronson, N.K.; Muller, M.; Cohen, P.D.; Essink-Bot, M.L.; Fekkes, M.; Sanderman, R.; Sprangers, M.A.; te Velde, A.; Verrips, E. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1998, 51, 1055–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diener, E.; Emmons, R.A.; Larsem, R.J.; Griffin, S. The Satisfaction With Life Scale. J. Pers. Assess. 1985, 49, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stata/IC 16.1. Available online: https://www.stata.com/ (accessed on 19 October 2020).
- Hensher, D.A.; Rose, J.M.; Greene, W.H. Experimental Design and Choice Experiments. 2015. Available online: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/applied-choice-analysis/experimental-design-and-choice-experiments/B924CB41729E9590CC636A2B35F712A1 (accessed on 27 November 2020).
- Domencich, T.; McFadden, D.L. Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioral Analysis; North-Holland Publishing Company: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Neath, A.A.; Cavanaugh, J.E. The Bayesian information criterion: Background, derivation, and applications. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 2012, 4, 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zölch, T.; Maderspacher, J.; Wamsler, C.; Pauleit, S. Using green infrastructure for urban climate-proofing: An evaluation of heat mitigation measures at the micro-scale. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 20, 305–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shr, Y.H.; Ready, R.; Orland, B.; Echols, S. How Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 156, 375–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medway, D.; Parker, C.; Roper, S. Litter, gender and brand: The anticipation of incivilities and perceptions of crime prevalence. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 45, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buijs, A.E.; Elands, B.H.M.; Langers, F. No wilderness for immigrants: Cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 91, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, K.K.; Song, Y. Can nearby open spaces substitute for the size of a property owner’s private yard? Int. J. Hous. Mark. Anal. 2008, 1, 147–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Kort, Y.A.W.; Ijsselsteijn, W.A.; Kooijman, J.; Schuurmans, Y. Virtual Laboratories: Comparability of Real and Virtual Environments for Environmental Psychology. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 2003, 12, 360–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Alternative | Number of Trees | Composition of Trees | Public Furniture | Cleanliness | Paths | Playgrounds | Biodiversity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Few trees | Spread | Some benches | No litter | Main | None | None |
2 | Few trees | One Cluster | Many benches | Some litter | Side paths | None | Multiple |
3 | Few trees | Multiple clusters | Some benches | Much litter | Side paths | One | Single |
4 | Few trees | One Cluster | Many benches | Some litter | Main | One | Single |
5 | Some trees | Spread | Some benches | Some litter | Side paths | One | Single |
6 | Some trees | One Cluster | Many benches | No litter | Main | One | Single |
7 | Some trees | Multiple clusters | Some benches | Some litter | Main | None | Multiple |
8 | Some trees | One Cluster | Many benches | Much litter | Side paths | None | None |
9 | Many trees | Spread | Many benches | Much litter | Main | One | Multiple |
10 | Many trees | One Cluster | Some benches | Some litter | Side paths | One | None |
11 | Many trees | Multiple clusters | Many benches | No litter | Side paths | None | Single |
12 | Many trees | One Cluster | Some benches | Some litter | Main | None | Single |
13 | Some trees | Spread | Many benches | Some litter | Side paths | None | Single |
14 | Some trees | One Cluster | Some benches | Much litter | Main | None | Single |
15 | Some trees | Multiple clusters | Many benches | Some litter | Main | One | None |
16 | Some trees | One Cluster | Some benches | No litter | Side paths | One | Multiple |
Personal Characteristic | Category | Number of Respondents | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Female | 299 | 43 |
Male | 398 | 57 | |
Ethnicity | Dutch | 546 | 78 |
Non-Dutch | 151 | 22 | |
Occupation | Full-time | 199 | 29 |
Part-time | 240 | 34 | |
Unemployed/retired | 258 | 37 | |
Net yearly income | Less than €30.000 | 200 | 29 |
€30.000–50.000 | 216 | 31 | |
More than €50.000 | 147 | 21 | |
Prefer not to answer | 134 | 19 | |
Education | Low education | 276 | 39 |
High education | 421 | 61 | |
Household | With children | 142 | 20 |
Without children | 555 | 80 | |
Disability | Not disabled | 526 | 75 |
Disabled | 171 | 25 | |
Total | 697 | 100 |
Predictor | β | p | SD | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | −1.97 | <0.001 | 1.86 | <0.001 |
Few trees | ||||
Some trees | 0.48 | <0.001 | 0.74 | <0.001 |
Many trees | 1.18 | <0.001 | 0.69 | <0.05 |
Spread | ||||
One tree cluster | −1.2 | <0.001 | 0.63 | <0.01 |
Multiple tree clusters | 0.10 | 0.42 | ||
Some benches | ||||
Many benches | 0.45 | <0.001 | ||
Much litter | ||||
Some litter | 0.09 | 0.41 | ||
No litter | 0.17 | 0.12 | 0.60 | <0.01 |
Only main path | ||||
Side paths | 0.13 | 0.09 | 0.59 | <0.01 |
No playground | ||||
Playground | 0.35 | <0.001 | 1.03 | <0.001 |
No flowers | ||||
Single-species flowers | 0.62 | <0.001 | ||
Multi-species flowers | 1.01 | <0.001 |
Predictor | Class One β | p | Class Two β | p |
---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | −1.14 | 0.06 | −2.26 | <0.001 |
Few trees | ||||
Some trees | 0.52 | 0.13 | 0.34 | <0.01 |
Many trees | 1.68 | <0.001 | 0.81 | <0.001 |
Spread | ||||
One tree cluster | −1.43 | <0.001 | −0.86 | <0.001 |
Multiple tree clusters | −0.44 | 0.26 | 0.27 | <0.05 |
Some benches | ||||
Many benches | 0.52 | <0.05 | 0.33 | <0.001 |
Much litter | ||||
Some litter | −0.087 | 0.80 | 0.13 | 0.20 |
No litter | −0.16 | 0.67 | 0.21 | <0.05 |
Only main path | ||||
Side paths | −0.28 | 0.27 | 0.16 | <0.05 |
No playground | ||||
Playground | −0.16 | 0.59 | 0.38 | <0.001 |
No flowers | ||||
Single-species flowers | 1.2 | <0.01 | 0.41 | <0.001 |
Multi-species flowers | 2.18 | <0.001 | 0.59 | <0.001 |
Predictor | β | p |
---|---|---|
Age | 0.03 | <0.001 |
Female | −0.51 | <0.001 |
Disability | 0.18 | <0.05 |
Health | −0.13 | <0.01 |
Dutch | 1.29 | <0.001 |
Household with children | −0.72 | <0.001 |
High education | 0.17 | <0.05 |
Part-time job | −0.23 | <0.05 |
Income kept private | 0.57 | <0.001 |
High income | 0.33 | <0.001 |
Constant | −3.37 | <0.001 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
van Vliet, E.; Dane, G.; Weijs-Perrée, M.; van Leeuwen, E.; van Dinter, M.; van den Berg, P.; Borgers, A.; Chamilothori, K. The Influence of Urban Park Attributes on User Preferences: Evaluation of Virtual Parks in an Online Stated-Choice Experiment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010212
van Vliet E, Dane G, Weijs-Perrée M, van Leeuwen E, van Dinter M, van den Berg P, Borgers A, Chamilothori K. The Influence of Urban Park Attributes on User Preferences: Evaluation of Virtual Parks in an Online Stated-Choice Experiment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(1):212. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010212
Chicago/Turabian Stylevan Vliet, Esther, Gamze Dane, Minou Weijs-Perrée, Eveline van Leeuwen, Mayke van Dinter, Pauline van den Berg, Aloys Borgers, and Kynthia Chamilothori. 2021. "The Influence of Urban Park Attributes on User Preferences: Evaluation of Virtual Parks in an Online Stated-Choice Experiment" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 1: 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010212
APA Stylevan Vliet, E., Dane, G., Weijs-Perrée, M., van Leeuwen, E., van Dinter, M., van den Berg, P., Borgers, A., & Chamilothori, K. (2021). The Influence of Urban Park Attributes on User Preferences: Evaluation of Virtual Parks in an Online Stated-Choice Experiment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010212