How Perceived Sensory Dimensions of Forest Park Are Associated with Stress Restoration in Beijing?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Relevant Theories
1.2. Perceived Sensory Dimensions (PSDs)
1.3. Studies on Forest Park
1.4. Study Goals
- (I)
- PSDs of forest park and their influencing factors;
- (II)
- the relationship between PSDs and stress restoration in forest park;
- (III)
- individual characteristics affecting stress restoration in forest park.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Sites
2.2. Measuring Tool
2.3. Data Collection
2.4. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Individual Characteristics of the Respondents
3.2. The Application Effects of the PSDs and SRRS
3.3. PSDs of Forest Park and Its Influencing Factors
3.4. The Relationship between PSDs and Stress Restoration in Forest Park
3.5. Individual Characteristics Affecting Stress Restoration in Forest Park
4. Discussion
4.1. PSDs of Forest Park and Its Influencing Factors
4.2. The Effects of PSDs to Stress Restoration
4.3. Individual Characteristics Affecting Stress Restoration in Forest Park
4.4. Implications, Limitations and Further Study
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Katsarou, A.L.; Triposkiadis, F.; Panagiotakos, D. Perceived stress and vascular disease: Where are we now? Angiology 2013, 64, 529–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toussaint, L.; Shields, G.S.; Dorn, G.; Slavich, G.M. Effects of lifetime stress exposure on mental and physical health in young adulthood: How stress degrades and forgiveness protects health. J. Health Psychol 2016, 21, 1004–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Shigemi, J.; Mino, Y.; Tsuda, T.; Babazono, A.; Aoyama, H. The relationship between job stress and mental health at work. Ind. Health 1997, 35, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaplan, S. Meditation, restoration, and the management of mental fatigue. Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 480–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chang, C.-Y.; Hammitt, W.E.; Chen, P.-K.; Machnik, L.; Su, W.-C. Psychophysiological responses and restorative values of natural environments in Taiwan. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 85, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bratman, G.N.; Anderson, C.B.; Berman, M.G.; Cochran, B.; de Vries, S.; Flanders, J.; Folke, C.; Frumkin, H.; Gross, J.J.; Hartig, T.; et al. Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax0903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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] [Green Version]
- Hartig, T. Green space, psychological restoration, and health inequality. Lancet 2008, 372, 1614–1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sugiyama, T.; Carver, A.; Koohsari, M.J.; Veitch, J. Advantages of public green spaces in enhancing population health. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 178, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frumkin, H.; Bratman, G.N.; Breslow, S.J.; Cochran, B.; Kahn, P.H., Jr.; Lawler, J.J.; Levin, P.S.; Tandon, P.S.; Varanasi, U.; Wolf, K.L. Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017, 125, 075001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stigsdotter, U.K.; Ekholm, O.; Schipperijn, J.; Toftager, M.; Kamper-Jørgensen, F.; Randrup, T.B. Health promoting outdoor environments—Associations between green space, and health, health-related quality of life and stress based on a Danish national representative survey. Scand. J. Public Health 2010, 38, 411–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, S. Perception and landscape: Conceptions and misconceptions. In Environmental Aesthetics, 1st ed.; Nasar, J.L., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1988; pp. 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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]
- 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 Forest. Urban Green. 2020, 48, 126488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomao, A.; Secondi, L.; Carrus, G.; Corona, P.; Portoghesi, L.; Agrimi, M. Restorative urban forests: Exploring the relationships between forest stand structure, perceived restorativeness and benefits gained by visitors to coastal Pinus pinea forests. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 90, 594–605. [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]
- 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]
- Tong, Z.; Ding, W. A method for planning mandatory green in China. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2011, 35, 378–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LI, D.; Sullivan, W. Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2016, 148, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, US, 1989; Volume 12, p. 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ulrich, R. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In Human Behavior & Environment; Altman, I., Wohlwill, J., Eds.; Behavior and Natural Environmen: New York, NY, USA, 1983; Volume 6, pp. 85–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Memari, S.; Pazhouhanfar, M.; Nourtaghani, A. Relationship between perceived sensory dimensions and stress restoration in care settings. Urban. For. Urban. Green. 2017, 26, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Lin, Y.; You, D.; Zhang, W.; Huang, Q.; Bosch, C.C.K.V.D.; Lan, S. The relationship between self-rated naturalness of university green space and students’ restoration and health. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 34, 259–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malekinezhad, F.; Courtney, P.; Bin Lamit, H.; Vigani, M. Investigating the mental health impacts of university campus green space through perceived sensory dimensions and the mediation effects of perceived restorativeness on restoration experience. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 578241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grhn, P. Landscapes in our minds: People’s choice of recreative places in towns. Landsc. Res. 1991, 16, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jong, K.; Albin, M.; Skärbäck, E.; Grahn, P.; Björk, J. Perceived green qualities were associated with neighborhood satisfaction, physical activity, and general health: Results from a cross-sectional study in suburban and rural Scania, southern Sweden. Health Place 2012, 18, 1374–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Memari, S.; Pazhouhanfar, M.; Grahn, P. Perceived sensory dimensions of green areas: An experimental study on stress recovery. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Chen, H.; Qiu, L.; Gao, T. Application of the eight perceived sensory dimensions as a tool for urban green space assessment and planning in China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 40, 224–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiu, L.; Nielsen, A.B. Are perceived sensory dimensions a reliable tool for urban green space assessment and planning? Landsc. Res. 2015, 40, 834–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, R.; Niu, Q.C.; Zhu, L.; Gao, T.; Qiu, L. Construction of restorative environment based on eight perceived sensory dimensions in green spaces—A case study of the People’s Park in Baoji, China. Landsc. Archit. 2018, 34, 110–114. [Google Scholar]
- 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]
- Akpinar, A. How perceived sensory dimensions of urban green spaces are associated with teenagers’ perceived restoration, stress, and mental health? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 214, 104185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pálsdóttir, A.M.; Stigsdotter, U.K.; Persson, D.; Thorpert, P.; Grahn, P. The qualities of natural environments that support the rehabilitation process of individuals with stress-related mental disorder in nature-based rehabilitation. Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 312–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhang, Y.; Ln, N.; Wu, C.L. Analyses on the development prospect of forest health industry in China. J. Cent. South Univ. For. Technol. Soc. Sci. 2019, 13, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janeczko, E.; Bielinis, E.; Wójcik, R.; Wo´znicka, M.; Kedziora, 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]
- Takayama, N.; Korpela, K.; Lee, J.; Morikawa, T.; Tsunetsugu, Y.; Park, B.-J.; Li, Q.; Tyrväinen, L.; Miyazaki, Y.; Kagawa, T. Emotional, restorative and vitalizing effects of forest and urban environments at four sites in Japan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 7207–7230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhou, C.; Yan, L.; Yu, L.; Wei, H.; Guan, H.; Shang, C.; Chen, F.; Bao, J. Effect of short-term forest bathing in urban parks on perceived anxiety of young-adults: A pilot study in Guiyang, Southwest China. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2019, 29, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Q.Y.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, Y.J.; Huang, Q.T.; Lan, S.R. Tourists’ environmental preferences, perceived restoration and perceived health at Fuzhou National Forest Park. Resour. Sci. 2018, 40, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- You, D.; Liu, Q.Y.; Ai, J.B.; Huang, Q.T.; Lan, S.R. Study on the influence of attachment feelings of forest park tourists on restorative experience. Issues For. Econ. 2018, 38, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, W.; Nie, X.J.; Yan, C.; Lan, S.R.; Xiu, X.T. Research on the relationship among forest park tourists’ restorative perception, place attachment and well-being. Issues For. Econ. 2021, 41, 527–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Simkin, J.; Ojala, A.; Tyrvainen, L. The perceived restorativeness of differently managed forests and its association with forest qualities and individual variables: A field experiment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shanahan, D.F.; Bush, R.; Gaston, K.J.; Lin, B.B.; Dean, J.; Barber, E.; Fuller, R.A. Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 28551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gao, T.; Song, R.; Zhu, L.; Qiu, L. What characteristics of urban green spaces and recreational activities do self-reported stressed individuals like? A case study of Baoji, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Han, K.T. A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 64, 209–232. [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]
- Han, K.T. Responses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and restorativeness. Env. Behav. 2007, 39, 529–556. [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]
- Han, K.T. An exploration of relationships among the responses to natural scenes: Scenic beauty, preference, and restoration. Environ. Behav. 2010, 42, 243–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stigsdotter, K.U.; Grahn, P. Stressed individuals’ preferences for activities and environmental characteristics in green spaces. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10, 295–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barnes, M.R.; Donahue, M.L.; Keeler, B.L.; Shorb, C.M.; Mohtadi, T.Z.; Shelby, L.J. Characterizing nature and participant experience in studies of nature exposure for positive mental health: An integrative review. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Appleton, J. The Experience of Landscape; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Palsdottir, A.M.; Persson, D.; Persson, B.; Grahn, P. The journey of recovery and empowerment embraced by nature—Clients’ perspectives on nature-based rehabilitation in relation to the role of the natural environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 7094–7115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stoltz, J.; Lundell, Y.; Skärbäck, E.; van Den Bosch, M.A.; Grahn, P.; Nordström, E.M.; Dolling, A. Planning for restorative forests: Describing stress-reducing qualities of forest stands using available forest stand data. Eur. J. For. Res. 2016, 135, 803–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ai, J.W.; Liu, J.; Yu, K.Y.; Zhang, J.Z.; Zeng, Q.; Zheng, W.Y. Research on contribution rate of plant community characteristics and stand spatial structure to landscape aesthetics quality of forest parks and its influencing factors. J. Zhejiang A. F. Univ. 2017, 34, 1087–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grahn, P.; Van Den Bosch, M. The impact of sound in health promoting environments. In Care for Sound. Sound Environment, Healing & Health-Care; Mossberg, F., Ed.; Sound Environment Center at Lund University: Lund, Sweden, 2014; pp. 43–59. [Google Scholar]
- Annerstedt, M.; Ostergren, P.O.; Bjork, J.; Grahn, P.; Skarback, E.; Wahrborg, P. Green qualities in the neighbourhood and mental health—Results from a longitudinal cohort study in southern Sweden. Eur. J. Public Health 2012, 22, 275–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- 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]
- Basner, M.; Babisch, W.; Davis, A.; Brink, M.; Clark, C.; Janssen, S.; Stansfeld, S. Auditory and non-auditory effects of noise on health. Lancet 2014, 383, 1325–1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ulrich, R.S. Effects of gardens on health outcomes: Theory and research. In Healing Gardens: Therapeutic Benefits and Design Recommendations; Cooper Marcus, C., Barnes, M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 27–86. [Google Scholar]
- Thompson, C.W. Urban open space in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 60, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maas, J.; van Dillen, S.M.E.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P. Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health Place 2009, 15, 586–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Orians, G.H.; Heerwagen, J.H. Evolved responses to landscapes. In The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992; pp. 555–579. [Google Scholar]
- Mumcu, S.; Duzenli, T.; Özbilen, A. Prospect and refuge as the predictors of preferences for seating areas. Sci. Res. Essays 2010, 5, 1223–1233. [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] [Green Version]
- Fischer, M.A.; Shrout, P.E. Children’s liking of landscape paintings as a function of their perceptions of prospect, refuge, and hazard. Environ. Behav. 2006, 38, 373–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carrus, G.; Lafortezza, R.; Colangelo, G.; Dentamaro, I.; Scopelliti, M.; Sanesi, G. Relations between naturalness and perceived restorativeness of different urban green spaces. Psyecology 2013, 4, 227–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Akpinar, A. How is high school greenness related to students’ restoration and health? Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 16, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bagot, K.L.; Allen, F.C.L.; Toukhsati, S. Perceived restorativeness of children’s school playground environments: Nature, playground features and play period experiences. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 41, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilkie, S.; Clouston, L. Environment preference and environment type congruence: Effects on perceived restoration potential and restoration outcomes. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 368–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nielsen, T.S.; Hansen, K.B. Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health Place 2007, 13, 839–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shanahan, D.F.; Fuller, R.A.; Bush, R.; Lin, B.B.; Gaston, K.J. The health benefits of urban nature: How much do we need? Bioscience 2015, 65, 476–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kumaran, V.V. Location, use, and locational efficiency of health facilities in a Madras neighbourhood. Geogr. Med. 1983, 13, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Zhao, M.Y.; Chen, X.F. The development and management of forest parks in China. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2016, 52, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; 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]
- Keniger, L.E.; Gaston, K.J.; Irvine, K.N.; Fuller, R.A. What are the benefits of interacting with nature? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 913–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Questions | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
visit purpose | exercising | relaxing | being with families or friends | observing nature | |
visit frequency | very few | few | mediate | much | very much |
activity intensity | very low | low | mediate | high | very high |
visit duration | less than one hour | 1–2 h | 2–3 h | 3–4 h | more than four hours |
commuting time | less than one hour | 1–2 h | 2–3 h | 3–4 h | more than four hours |
number of companions | zero | one | two | three | four or more |
Perceived Sensory Dimensions (PSDs) | Variables |
---|---|
Nature | There is a nature quality. |
There is a wild and untouched quality. | |
There are free growing lawns. | |
One is able to spend time in the forest park without coming into contact with too many people. | |
Culture | The forest park is decorated with statues. |
The forest park has the characteristics of a city park. | |
The forest park has different water features, like ponds, canals, etc. | |
Prospect | The lawns are cut. |
It is possible to have a prospect, vistas over the surroundings. | |
Social | It is possible to shop in market stalls, kiosks, etc. |
There are plenty of people and movements in the forest park. | |
There is access to restrooms. | |
There are tables and benches. | |
Space | The forest park has lots of trees. |
The forest park is experienced as spacious and free. | |
It is possible to find areas not crossed by roads and paths. | |
It is possible to find places where a company of several persons can gather. | |
Rich in species | One can detect several animals, like birds, insects, etc. |
The forest park consists of natural plant and animal populations. | |
There are many native plants to study. | |
Refuge | It feels safe spending time in the forest park. |
The forest park contains many bushes. | |
There is play equipment, like swings, slides, etc. | |
It is possible to watch other people being active, playing, practicing sports, etc. | |
Serene | The forest park is silent and calm. |
There are no mopeds. | |
The area is clean and well maintained. | |
There is no traffic noise from the surroundings. |
Mangshan National Forest Park (MS) | Jiufeng National Forest Park (JF) | Xishan National Forest Park (XS) | |
---|---|---|---|
The total number of the questionnaires | 153 | 161 | 176 |
Number of valid questionnaires | 136 | 145 | 151 |
Questionnaire effectiveness | 89% | 90% | 86% |
Mangshan National Forest Park (MS) | Jiufeng National Forest Park (JF) | Xishan National Forest Park (XS) | Percentage | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Men | 79 | 81 | 76 | 54.6% |
Women | 57 | 64 | 75 | 45.4% | |
Age | <13 | 0 | 11 | 4 | 3.5% |
13–17 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2.8% | |
18–25 | 17 | 10 | 13 | 9.2% | |
26–40 | 88 | 80 | 91 | 60.0% | |
>40 | 27 | 41 | 38 | 24.5% | |
Prefer | Yes | 36 | 44 | 47 | 29.4% |
No | 100 | 101 | 104 | 70.6% | |
The level of stress | Average visitors | 87 | 77 | 76 | 55.6% |
Stressed visitors | 49 | 68 | 75 | 44.4% | |
Sum | 136 | 145 | 151 | 100.0% |
Variables | Common Factor Load | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
I feel grouchy—good natured | 0.192 | 0.192 | 0.878 | 0.041 |
I feel anxious—relaxed | 0.119 | 0.126 | 0.915 | 0.004 |
My breathing is getting faster | 0.254 | −0.001 | 0.075 | 0.848 |
My hands are sweating | −0.033 | 0.135 | −0.028 | 0.897 |
I am interested in the present scene | 0.874 | 0.303 | 0.195 | 0.137 |
I feel attentive to the present scene | 0.852 | 0.364 | 0.177 | 0.109 |
I would like to visit here more often | 0.286 | 0.876 | 0.152 | 0.092 |
I would like to stay here longer | 0.328 | 0.843 | 0.210 | 0.069 |
Dimensions | Gender | Prefer | The Level of Stress | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
t | Mean Difference | t | Mean Difference | t | Mean Difference | |
Nature | −2.395 * | −0.171 | −0.703 | −0.055 | 1.936 | 0.138 |
Culture | −0.715 | −0.065 | 0.588 | 0.058 | 2.000 * | 0.181 |
Prospect | −0.921 | −0.072 | 1.142 | 0.096 | 0.094 | 0.007 |
Social | −0.864 | −0.068 | 1.513 | 0.129 | 0.853 | 0.067 |
Space | −0.648 | −0.047 | 0.37 | 0.029 | −0.205 | −0.015 |
Rich in species | −1.91 | −0.177 | 1.068 | 0.107 | −0.365 | −0.034 |
Refuge | −2.411 * | −0.180 | 0.273 | 0.022 | −0.028 | −0.002 |
Serene | −3.253 ** | −0.233 | −0.005 | −0.000 | −0.591 | −0.042 |
Nature | Culture | Prospect | Social | Space | Rich in Species | Refuge | Serene | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | Sum of Squares | 1.960 | 4.475 | 3.113 | 3.479 | 7.919 | 16.075 | 2.002 | 0.23 |
Df | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
Mean Square | 0.490 | 1.119 | 0.778 | 0.870 | 1.980 | 4.019 | 0.501 | 0.058 | |
F | 0.903 | 1.272 | 1.219 | 1.341 | 3.639 ** | 4.586 ** | 0.838 | 0.104 | |
VP | Sum of Squares | 0.180 | 0.036 | 1.546 | 1.195 | 0.075 | 2.876 | 2.323 | 0.429 |
Df | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
Mean Square | 0.060 | 0.012 | 0.515 | 0.398 | 0.025 | 0.959 | 0.774 | 0.143 | |
F | 0.110 | 0.014 | 0.812 | 0.611 | 0.045 | 1.078 | 1.324 | 0.266 | |
VF | Sum of Squares | 4.407 | 7.314 | 4.704 | 3.895 | 3.522 | 8.081 | 9.747 | 3.078 |
Df | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
Mean Square | 1.102 | 1.829 | 1.176 | 0.974 | 0.880 | 2.020 | 2.437 | 0.770 | |
F | 2.111 | 2.142 | 1.899 | 1.565 | 1.602 | 2.267 | 4.363 ** | 1.428 | |
AI | Sum of Squares | 14.755 | 5.320 | 2.211 | 0.273 | 4.098 | 5.137 | 1.000 | 0.713 |
Df | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
Mean Square | 3.689 | 1.330 | 0.553 | 0.068 | 1.024 | 1.284 | 0.250 | 0.178 | |
F | 7.347 ** | 1.52 | 0.877 | 0.105 | 1.858 | 1.434 | 0.425 | 0.332 | |
VD | Sum of Squares | 6.629 | 1.640 | 5.085 | 1.963 | 3.952 | 4.574 | 6.213 | 7.003 |
Df | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
Mean Square | 1.657 | 0.410 | 1.271 | 0.491 | 0.988 | 1.143 | 1.553 | 1.751 | |
F | 3.110 * | 0.467 | 2.042 | 0.751 | 1.797 | 1.277 | 2.643 * | 3.343 * | |
CT | Sum of Squares | 2.253 | 2.798 | 8.008 | 2.755 | 3.907 | 0.895 | 2.623 | 1.198 |
Df | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
Mean Square | 0.563 | 0.699 | 2.002 | 0.689 | 0.977 | 0.224 | 0.656 | 0.299 | |
F | 1.061 | 0.794 | 3.247 * | 1.064 | 1.769 | 0.246 | 1.118 | 0.557 | |
NC | Sum of Squares | 2.096 | 6.264 | 4.389 | 4.663 | 1.767 | 2.599 | 2.382 | 1.161 |
Df | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
Mean Square | 0.524 | 1.566 | 1.097 | 1.166 | 0.442 | 0.650 | 0.596 | 0.290 | |
F | 0.967 | 1.791 | 1.72 | 1.805 | 0.790 | 0.725 | 0.998 | 0.543 |
Parameter | Estimation | Standard Error | df | t | F | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intercept | 2.169 | 0.124 | 259.371 | 17.433 | 303.901 | 0.000 |
Nature | 0.044 | 0.037 | 389.739 | 1.178 | 1.388 | 0.239 |
Culture | −0.031 | 0.032 | 406.435 | −0.962 | 0.926 | 0.336 |
Prospect | 0.077 | 0.038 | 422.998 | 2.045 * | 4.181 * | 0.042 |
Social | 0.126 | 0.040 | 384.400 | 3.138 ** | 9.844 ** | 0.002 |
Space | −0.008 | 0.046 | 422.467 | −0.165 | 0.027 | 0.869 |
Rich in species | 0.042 | 0.032 | 386.746 | 1.302 | 1.696 | 0.194 |
Refuge | 0.143 | 0.041 | 32.986 | 3.489 ** | 12.175 ** | 0.001 |
Serene | 0.127 | 0.038 | 422.978 | 3.361 ** | 11.296 ** | 0.001 |
Factor | Sum of Squares | df | The Mean Square | F |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 3.472 | 4 | 0.868 | 2.767 * |
VP | 1.238 | 3 | 0.413 | 1.294 |
VF | 11.800 | 4 | 2.950 | 9.975 ** |
AI | 0.385 | 4 | 0.096 | 0.298 |
VD | 2.756 | 4 | 0.689 | 2.162 |
CT | 1.614 | 4 | 0.404 | 1.260 |
NC | 1.182 | 4 | 0.296 | 0.916 |
Age (I) | Age (J) | Mean Difference (I–J) | Standard Error | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|
18–25 | <13 | −0.341 * | 0.170 | 0.045 |
13–17 | −0.453 * | 0.184 | 0.014 | |
26–40 | −0.259 ** | 0.095 | 0.007 | |
>40 | −0.307 ** | 0.104 | 0.003 |
VF (I) | VF (J) | Mean Difference (I–J) | Standard Error | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|
very few | few | −0.074 | 0.073 | 0.316 |
moderately | −0.387 ** | 0.070 | 0.000 | |
much | −0.336 ** | 0.104 | 0.001 | |
very much | −0.519 * | 0.209 | 0.013 | |
few | very few | 0.074 | 0.073 | 0.316 |
moderately | −0.314 ** | 0.085 | 0.000 | |
much | −0.262 * | 0.115 | 0.023 | |
very much | −0.446 * | 0.215 | 0.039 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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
An, C.; Liu, J.; Liu, Q.; Liu, Y.; Fan, X.; Hu, Y. How Perceived Sensory Dimensions of Forest Park Are Associated with Stress Restoration in Beijing? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 883. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020883
An C, Liu J, Liu Q, Liu Y, Fan X, Hu Y. How Perceived Sensory Dimensions of Forest Park Are Associated with Stress Restoration in Beijing? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(2):883. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020883
Chicago/Turabian StyleAn, Congying, Jinglan Liu, Qiaohui Liu, Yuqi Liu, Xiaoli Fan, and Yishen Hu. 2022. "How Perceived Sensory Dimensions of Forest Park Are Associated with Stress Restoration in Beijing?" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 2: 883. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020883
APA StyleAn, C., Liu, J., Liu, Q., Liu, Y., Fan, X., & Hu, Y. (2022). How Perceived Sensory Dimensions of Forest Park Are Associated with Stress Restoration in Beijing? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(2), 883. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020883