Next Article in Journal
Intention to Exclusively Breastfeed Is Associated with Lower Rates of Cesarean Section for Nonmedical Reasons in a Cohort of Mothers in Vietnam
Previous Article in Journal
Developing a Personalized Integrative Obesity-Coaching Program: A Systems Health Perspective
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Perceived Sensory Dimensions of Forest Park Are Associated with Stress Restoration in Beijing?

1
School of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
2
College of Forestry, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing 100083, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(2), 883; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020883
Submission received: 8 December 2021 / Revised: 22 December 2021 / Accepted: 10 January 2022 / Published: 13 January 2022

Abstract

:
A growing number of studies suggest that the perceived sensory dimensions (PSDs) of green space are associated with stress restoration offered by restorative environment. However, there is little known about PSDs and stress restoration as well as their relationship to forest park. To fill this gap, an on-site questionnaire survey was conducted in three forest parks in Beijing, as a result of which a total number of 432 completed responses were collected and analyzed. The mean values of PSDs were used to represent PSDs of forest park. Using independent sample t-test and ANOVA, this study analyzed the individual characteristics that affected PSDs and stress restoration. Linear mixed model was used to identify the relationship between PSDs and stress restoration of forest park, which took into account the interactions of stress level and PSDs. The results showed that: (1) the perceived degree of PSDs in forest park from strong to weak was Serene, Space, Nature, Rich in species, Prospect, Refuge, Social and Culture, which varied with visitors’ gender, age, level of stress, visit frequency, activity intensity, visit duration and commuting time; (2) in PSDs, Refuge, Serene, Social and Prospect had significantly positive effects on the stress restoration of forest parks (3) there was no significant difference in the effect of the eight PSDs on the stress restoration between different stress groups; (4) stress restoration was influenced by visitors’ gender, age, visit frequency and visit duration. These findings can offer references for managers to improve the health benefits of forest park for visitors, and can enrich the knowledge about PSDs and stress restoration.

1. Introduction

As urbanization continues to expand and deepen, people have less and less access to nature, and face higher-than-normal levels of stress, which can lead to physiological illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes, as well as many psychological illnesses [1,2,3]. Studies have found that green spaces can significantly reduce the level of stress and promote physical and mental recovery [4,5,6,7,8], and also can improve people’s health condition [9,10,11]. The environment that can provide people with restorative experience is called a restorative environment [12]. Many studies focused on environmental characteristics that influence the restoration potential, such as landscape location and vegetation density [13], landscape type [14], forest stand structure [15], visual preference [16] and perceived features [17]. Among them, it is particularly important to evaluate the characteristics of restorative environment from the perspective of people’s perception [18].

1.1. Relevant Theories

Two complementary theories, attention restoration theory (ART) and psycho-evolutionary theory (PET) (also known as stress reduction theory) provided theoretical reference for researches on both perceived characteristics and restorative potential of environment. When people are in a restorative environment, attention recovery processes and stress reduction processes interact thereby producing cognitive and emotional benefits [19].
ART divides attention into involuntary attention and voluntary attention (also known as directed attention) [20]. According to ART, excessive concentration can lead to “directed attention fatigue”, while natural environment has “soft fascination” [10], so being immersed in nature appeals to people’s preferences for a feeling of relaxing, thus improves attention recovery and cognitive performance [20]. ART posits that restorative environment needs be equipped with Fascination, Being away, Extent and Compatibility [20], which are the bases for perceived sensory dimensions (PSDs) to be identified and classified.
PET considers that humans somehow adapt to natural environments rather than urban ones because humans have evolved in natural environments for so long [21]. Moreover, natural environments can activate the parasympathetic nervous system [22]. Therefore, people staying in natural environments would experience stress reduction on both physiological and psychological levels [23], as well as positive changes in emotional states [24].

1.2. Perceived Sensory Dimensions (PSDs)

Different types of people in the same environment experience different character-istics, some of which are beneficial to people’s health [25]. Measuring environmental attributes from the perspective of users’ perception can identify features that cannot be identified by objective measurement [26]. Furthermore, features identified from a perceptual perspective are directly related to restoration, helping researchers determine which environmental features are popular or restorative. There is a connection between people’s perception of the surroundings through their senses and people’s health [17]. PSDs were developed to evaluate the characteristics of restorative environment from the perception, which consists of eight dimensions: Nature (wild nature not created by humans), Culture (an environment containing an essence of human culture), Prospect (the area with an open view), Social (an environment that is equipped for social activities), Space (a green environment that is spacious and free and has a certain amount of connectedness), Rich in species (an environment which offers a variety of animals and plants), Refuge (a hidden and safe environment, where people can watch other people being active), Serene (a peaceful and secure place) [17,22]. Specially, PSDs correspond to people’s needs for rest, exercise, social contact, entertainment and safety, so it can identify environmental characteristics that reduce pressure and promote human recovery [27], thus offering direction for constructing environment with good stress restoration. PSDs had been recognized as an effective tool to qualitatively analyze and evaluate the perceived characteristics of restorative environment, helping to measure the quality of green space for restorative experiences [24,28]. They also have good application effects in the cultural and environmental background of China [29,30].
The relationship between PSDs and stress restoration offered by a restorative experience of environment has always been a hot topic. In the questionnaire research, urban parks with the stress restoration needed to have Nature, Rich in species, Serene and Refuge [31], while for small public urban green space (SPUGS), Social and Serene were necessary [28]. The result of the laboratory experiment suggested that all the eight PSDs had a significant impact on the stress restoration, and Nature and Serene were the most important factors [27]. Serene, Refuge, and Nature had been proved to be associated with stress restoration for college students [22,32]. Similarly, in the study of adolescents, Nature, Refuge, and Prospect were found to have stress restoration effect [33]. For patients suffering from stress-related diseases, Refuge, Serene, Nature, and Rich in species of gardens can affect the stress restoration [34]. It can be seen that if the research methods, environment types and subjects are different, the results will be different for PSDs research. Further, more studies are needed to analyze the relationship between PSDs and stress restoration. Moreover, in the context of Chinese culture and environmental background, it is not clear how the PSDs are related to the stress restoration.

1.3. Studies on Forest Park

In Beijing, forest park, a natural place where people often go to relax, is the core of providing “forest health” service for people [35]. Forest environments including forest park are the most concerned restorative environments. Researchers have documented the effects of forest environments on stress and anxiety reduction, as well as mood improvement [36,37,38]. At present, the researchers concentrate on not only features of the forest being of restorative potential, but also mechanisms and other factors affecting the restorative potential. On the basis of studies, preference, place attachment and appropriate physical activity were helpful to restoration [39,40,41,42]. Equally important, demographic and access characteristics also influenced the recovery benefits that people derived from forest environments [43,44]. However, to date, studies have rarely investigated the influencing factors both of PSDs and stress restoration, as well as their relationship in forest park.

1.4. Study Goals

Compared with the types of urban green spaces studied previously, such as small public urban green spaces, urban park and garden, forest park has characteristics of large area, richness of species diversity, few visitors and less infrastructure. Therefore, we hypothesize that the PSDs and stress restoration and their relation to forest park is different from other types of urban green spaces. The objective of this study was to explore how PSDs of forest park are associated with stress restoration in Beijing. The specific research contents are identifying:
(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

The research was conducted in Mangshan National Forest Park (MS), Jiufeng National Forest Park (JF) and Xishan National Forest Park (XS), which are located in the suburb of Beijing, the capital of China (Figure 1). Mangshan National Forest Park covers an area of about 1760 ha, about 35 km away from the city center. Jiufeng National Forest Park covers an area of about 729 ha, about 25 km away from the city center. Xishan National Forest Park covers an area of about 442 ha and is about 15 km away from the city center. The three forest parks are dominated by forest landscape resources and have a certain number of artificial facilities (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4).

2.2. Measuring Tool

We designed the questionnaire by referring to relevant literatures [28,29,30]. The questionnaire was divided into three parts.
The first part was the individual characteristics of visitors, including gender, age, preference for forest park for outdoor activity or not (Prefer), level of stress in the last month (LS) and visiting characteristics of forest park (VCs). Six questions were set for visiting characteristics of forest park: visit purpose (VP), visit frequency (VF), activity intensity (AI), visit duration (VD), commuting time (CT) and number of companions (NC). We determined LS of the visitors by directly asking them about their level of stress in the last month. The options were divided into five levels. We defined the visitors who chose “3” and “4” as the stressed visitors (SV), and others as the average visitors (AV) [45]. Regarding visiting characteristics of forest park, concrete items can be seen in Table 1.
The second part was PSDs scale [17], which deleted the activities prohibited in Beijing’s forest parks, such as lighting fires, playing football and so on. At the same time, the selection of variables referred to the application of PSDs by previous research [22]. Consequently, according to the actual conditions and previous applications, we adopt a total of 28 variables of PSDs (Table 2).
The third part was SRRS, a reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative potential of natural environments [46]. The scale consists of eight variables, which are divided into four dimensions of emotional response, physiological response, cognitive response and behavioral response [46]. Compared with the Stress Restoration Scale (PRS) which was more widely used in stress restoration, SRRS adopts a broader concept of recovery [22], and it is much more concise [23]. Therefore, SRRS was used in this research to measure the stress restoration of forest park.
All items in the second part and the third part in the questionnaire had a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = completely disagree to 5 = completely agree.

2.3. Data Collection

Questionnaire survey was conducted on site in three forest parks, respectively, on 6, 13 and 20 June 2021 under similar weather conditions. The questionnaires were distributed to visitors who had already visited the forest park and through the main tour routes (Figure 1). At first, visitors were informed of the purpose and content of the survey, then willing participants were invited to fill out questionnaires during their stay in the area so that the answers would reflect their immediate experience. Participants were selected among visitors in each forest park regardless of their social-demographic characteristics or educational background.

2.4. Data Analysis

In this study, we used Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corporation, Seattle, WA, USA) to record raw data from all questionnaires. All statistical analyses were processed by SPSS 26.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).
First of all, since the PSDs proposed by Grahn et al. [17] were somewhat deleted in this study, reliability and validity test of the scale were conducted. At the same time, in the past application of SRRS, as researchers mainly used slides as experimental materials to study the stress restoration of environment [47,48,49], only Liu Qunyue applied this scale in the real natural environment in his research on the relationship between the naturalness of university green space and its stress restoration [23]. Therefore, this study verified the application effect of the SRRS in forest park.
Then, we used the mean value of each dimension as PSDs of forest park. Independent sample t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to determine the individual characteristics that affected the PSDs of forest park. Gender, Prefer and LS were dichotomous variables, so independent sample t-test was used. Age and visiting characteristics to forest park were multi-classification variables, so ANOVA was used.
To determine the impacts of PSDs of forest park on stress restoration, we used a linear mixed model. In order to control the possible differences between three forest parks, we took “forest park name” as a random factor and eight PSDs as fixed factors. According to the calculation method of SRRS by other researchers [22,50], we first reverse processed the two variables of physiological response, then calculated the average score of eight variables to obtain the stress restoration index, which was taken as the dependent variable. In particular, considering the studies which argued that stress level had influence on the perception of environment characteristics [45,51], the interactions of LS and the eight PSDs were incorporated into the model for secondary analysis. We analyzed the significance of the interactions and compared the model fitting effects before and after including the interactions, in order to determine whether the interactions of the LS and the eight PSDs affect the stress restoration of forest park. In addition, as individual characteristics may have impacts on the stress restoration [33], we took the stress restoration index as the dependent variable, and also used independent sample t-test for dichotomous variables and ANOVA for multi-classification variables to explore the individual characteristics that affect the stress restoration index. After that, least significant difference (LSD) was used to do a post hoc test to accurately analyze the specific impacts of individual characteristics on the stress restoration.

3. Results

3.1. Individual Characteristics of the Respondents

A total of 490 questionnaires were collected, of which 432 were valid, with an effective rate of 88%. The questionnaires issued in each forest park are shown in Table 3.
First, we described the gender, age, Prefer and LS of respondents, and the specific results are shown in the Table 4. Among 432 valid questionnaires, there were slightly more men than women, and the gender ratio was evenly distributed in the three forest parks. In terms of age, the majority of them were people aged 26–40 in all three forest parks, followed by people aged over 40 years old, and then people aged 18–25; 70.6% of the respondents preferred forest park as outdoor activity site, and 44.4% of the respondents chose “4” or “5” on LS, who were considered as the stressed visitors, and others were considered as the average visitors.
In terms of visiting characteristics of forest park, there was little difference between the three forest parks (Figure 5). Most respondents visited forest parks for the purposes of “relaxing” and “being with families or friends”. The visit frequency of respondents to the three forest parks was mainly “few”. As for the activity intensity, respondents in JF thought the activity intensity was slightly stronger than MS and XS. The number of respondents with visit duration in “1–2 h” in MS were one of the most; the visit duration of respondents in JF and XS were similar, mainly in “2–3 h”. The commuting time in the three forest parks was similar, mainly in “less than one hour” and “1–2 h”. In number of companions, the number of “one companion” were the most in MS and XS; the number of “two companions” were the most in JF.

3.2. The Application Effects of the PSDs and SRRS

The results of PSDs reliability test and validity test showed that the Cronbach α coefficient of the scale was 0.876, indicating that the scale had good internal consistency and high reliability. In terms of validity, the KMO value was 0.873, and the significant value of Bartlett’s sphericity test was 0.000, suggesting that the scale had good validity.
The results of SRRS reliability test and validity test showed that the Cronbach α coefficient of the scale was 0.802, indicating that the scale had good internal consistency and high reliability. About validity, the KMO value of the scale was 0.745, and the significant value of Bartlett’s sphericity test was 0.000, indicating that the scale had good validity. Four common factors were obtained after factor analysis of SRRS, and the factor load matrix obtained after rotation of the common factors was shown in Table 5, which was consistent with the result of Han [46]. Therefore, this scale had good application effect in forest park and can be further studied.

3.3. PSDs of Forest Park and Its Influencing Factors

The mean value of each dimension can be seen in Figure 6. The results showed that the perceived degree of PSDs in forest park from strong to weak is Serene, Space, Nature, Rich in species, Prospect, Refuge, Social and Culture.
The independent sample t-test results with gender, Prefer and LS as grouped variables and the eight PSDs as test variables were shown in Table 6. The results suggested that visitors’ perception of Nature, Refuge and Serene varied by gender, with women giving significantly higher ratings to the three dimensions than men. Visitors’ perception of each dimension of forest park was not affected by Prefer. Visitors’ perception of the Culture of forest park varies with the LS, and the perception score of the Culture of stressed visitors is significantly lower than the average visitors.
The results of ANOVA with age and visiting characteristics to forest park as independent variables and the PSDs as dependent variables are shown in Table 7. Activity intensity and visit duration had significant effects on the perception of Nature. Prospect was affected by commuting time. Age had an impact on the perception of both Space and Rich in species. Refuge was influenced by visit frequency and visit duration, and visit duration also affected the perception of Serene. Nevertheless, Culture and Social were not affected by Age and visiting characteristics to forest park.

3.4. The Relationship between PSDs and Stress Restoration in Forest Park

To test the effect of PSDs on stress restoration of forest park, we constructed a linear mixed model for analysis. First, we performed collinearity test on the model, and the results showed that the variance inflation factor (VIF) between variables were all less than 3, indicating low collinearity between variables. Correlation test showed that variables had low correlation (Pearson correlation, r < 0.6). The results of the model showed that the estimated covariance of random effects was less than 0.001, indicating that the differences of the relationship between PSDs and stress restoration among the three forest parks were very low. AIC of the model was 648.215. Among the eight PSDs, Refuge, Serene, Social and Prospect had significant positive effects on the stress restoration (Table 8). Refuge and Serene had similar and the most significant influence on stress restoration, followed by Social. Prospect had the weakest effect on stress restoration. Nature, Culture, Space and Rich in species had no significant effect on stress restoration.
Then, the interactions between LS and eight PSDs were incorporated into the model for analysis, and the results showed that AIC value increased from 667.858 to 675.227 and none of the interactions were significant. The fitting effect of the model decreased, indicating that the model failed to explain the more variation in the data. Therefore, the interactions between LS and eight PSDs had no significant effect on stress restoration, and it was unreasonable to include them in the model.

3.5. Individual Characteristics Affecting Stress Restoration in Forest Park

The results of independent sample t-test suggested that the stress restoration varied with gender, and the assessment of women to stress restoration was significantly higher than men (mean difference = 0.110, p = 0.046). However, Prefer and LS had no significant effect on the stress restoration.
The results of ANOVA showed that age and visit frequency had significant influence on the stress restoration (Table 9). Further, visitors aged 18–25 had a significantly lower stress restoration than other age groups (Table 10). Those visitors whose visit frequency were “very few” and “few” rated the stress restoration significantly lower than those whose visit frequency were “moderately”, “much” and “very much” (Table 11). Hence, visit frequency was positively correlated with stress restoration. In addition, the post hoc test results suggested that visitors whose visit duration were “2–3 h” (mean difference = 0.158, p = 0.03) and “more than 4 h” (mean difference = 0.247, p = 0.013) had significantly higher assessment of stress restoration than those whose visit duration were “1–2 h”. ANOVA and post hoc tests were not significant for visit purpose, activity intensity, commuting time and number of companions.

4. Discussion

4.1. PSDs of Forest Park and Its Influencing Factors

The perceived degree of PSDs in forest park from strong to weak was Serene, Space, Nature, Rich in species, Prospect, Refuge, Social and Culture, which was consistent to some extent with previous result [17]. In addition, Hong Chen et al. [29] evaluated the environment of urban forests in China, and found that the highest score of Nature and Rich in species were obtained, followed by Serene, Space and Refuge, and the lowest score were Prospect, Culture and Social. The reason for the different results may be explained by the type of different environments [29,30,52]. According to our survey, compared with urban forests, forest parks have fewer visitors, higher altitude, larger terrain fluctuations and more open views, so Serene, Space and Prospect are more easily perceived.
In terms of the individual factors influencing the perception of eight PSDs, this study found that gender, age, LS, visit frequency, activity intensity, visit duration and commuting time all affected the perception of visitors in different dimensions. This result verified the previous research [29], that is, individual characteristics and green space using characteristics affect users’ perception of the eight PSDs. On the other hand, a study had concluded that the perception of PSDs by green space users is consistent in gender, age, frequency of visit and activity type [30]. Therefore, whether individual characteristics and the using of green space have impacts on the perception of PSDs needs to be further studied to get more reliable conclusions.

4.2. The Effects of PSDs to Stress Restoration

Linear mixed model results displayed that Refuge, Serene, Social and Prospect had significant positive effects on stress restoration in forest park. All four dimensions have been proved to be significantly correlated with stress restoration in previous studies.
Refuge is a preferred feature of the environment that is critical to human survival based on the Prospect-Refuge Theory (PRT) [53]. People with sadness and tension are more willing to be alone in a private and safe place [54]. Refuge satisfies this need of people and thus improves stress restoration. Studies on small public urban green space (SPUGS) have found people’s preference for Refuge [28]. By an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), Stigsdotter et al. [32] also believed that Refuge has an important influence on stress restoration. What is more, forest stand density and canopy density have been verified to be associated with human recovery [13,15,55,56], which also provided evidences for the recovery of Refuge.
Serene is one of the main reasons for people to visit green spaces [17]. As previously noted, Serene had an important effect on stress restoration [26,57,58,59]. Grahn et al. [17] pointed out that Serene was an undisturbed, quiet and calm environment, which means Serene not only refers to the absence of noise, but also requires soothing sounds [57]. On the other hand, noise can cause people to have stress and related diseases [60], which also implied the important role of Serene in human health.
There were different conclusions about the influence of Social on stress restoration. Stressed people preferred the environment with low sociality [17], because they were difficult to understand, sympathize with and tolerate others [61], therefore, Social had a negative impact on stress restoration [22]. However, in small public urban green spaces (SPUGs), people preferred Social, and Social had a positive impact on stress restoration [28], because sociality is an indispensable demand for people [62]. In addition, social contacts can reduce the feelings of loneliness and increase perceived social support, and become the intermediary of green space to promote health [63]. This study also found the positive impact of Social on the stress restoration of forest park. Therefore, the influence of Social on stress restoration needs further research before more reliable conclusions can be drawn.
The restorative effect of Prospect can be explained from an evolutionary perspective. Human beings originated from grasslands with broad vision [21,64]. Hence, the Prospect-Refuge Theory (PRT) [53] believes that places with broad vision are conducive to discovering dangers and are more suitable for human survival, so people prefer open environments. Previous studies confirmed this view [65,66]. Similarly, study on children [67] and adolescents [33] demonstrated significant influence of Prospect on stress restoration.
In addition, this research did not find that Nature had a significant impact on stress restoration, which is inconsistent with the results of many studies [22,27,68]. The reason may be that for modern people who are used to living in cities, natural places may be considered desolate, which will reduce the sense of security [26].
Another result of this research was the interactions of LS and eight PSDs which had no significant effects on stress restoration, so there was no significant difference in the effect of the eight PSDs on the stress restoration between different stress groups. Therefore, although level of stress affects people’s preference for different dimensions [28,69], such preference does not affect the stress restoration. However, different types of research sites were selected and different scales were used to measure stress restoration in this study from previous research. Consequently, the influence of level of stress on the relationship between PSDs and stress restoration needs to be further studied.

4.3. Individual Characteristics Affecting Stress Restoration in Forest Park

This research showed that gender, age and visit frequency had significant impacts on the stress restoration of forest park, while visit duration also had an impact on the stress restoration but was insignificant. The effects of gender and age on stress restoration had been proven [33,70]. The assessment of women to stress restoration was significantly higher than men, which may be due to the higher perception of Nature, Refuge and Serene. Refuge and Serene were the two dimensions that had the most significant influences on stress restoration. However, studies of children and adolescents found that boys had higher perceived restoration than girls [70,71]. This study also found that in forest park, the evaluation of young people to stress restoration was lower than other age groups. This may be because the forest park’s landscape and environment were not up to the expectations of young people [33]. Nevertheless, Deng et al. [47] found no difference in stress restoration between genders and ages. Moreover, preference for the type of environment had been associated with stress recovery in many studies [50,51,72], which is different from the results of this study. This suggests that further studies are needed to clarify whether gender, age and preference for environment have impacts on the stress restoration of different types of green space.
As it has been proved before, there was a positive connection between frequency or duration people stay in nature areas and restoration from stress [73]. In nature dose framework proposed recently, frequency and duration of exposure to nature being beneficial for people’s health was emphasized again [44], which was further supported by our results. Researchers believed that the nature dose was a mediator in the health benefits people receive from nature [74], so visit frequency and visit duration were the key factors affecting the stress restoration. Therefore, in future research on the stress restoration of forest park, the frequency and duration of the visit to the research site should be considered.

4.4. Implications, Limitations and Further Study

According to our study, forest park has the stress restorative potential, so it needs more attention from researchers, administrators and the public. Among the measures to improve the management of forest park, improving Serene should be considered the most. Besides, due to the low perception of Social in forest park, forest park’s manager can consider appropriately improving Social by adding artificial facilities. At the same time, the Refuge of forest park also should be improved to enhance the stress restoration. For visitors, forest park has higher Prospect compared with other urban green spaces, thus it can be a good choice to enhance health condition. Additionally, it is necessary to conduct a survey about young people’s expectations of the forest environment because young people had a lower assessment of the stress restoration of forest park. The visit frequency and visit duration are usually affected by distance or commuting time. Therefore, the distance from major residential areas and accessibility of urban green space should be considered in future urban planning [75].
This study is not without limitations which should be addressed in the future. Firstly, this study was conducted in mountain-type forest parks in Beijing, and further research needs to be carried out in other types of forest parks, such as river and lake-type forest park, grassland-type forest park and waterfall-type forest park and so on [76]. Secondly, this study focuses on the relationship between perceived quality of forest park and stress restoration, rather than the impact of environmental types on stress restoration, which is also an important factor affecting the relationship [77]. Consequently, future studies on the relationship between PSDs and stress restoration should consider the differences caused by different environmental types. Thirdly, the perceived characteristics of forest park are the focus of this study. Future research can combine the objective characteristics with the perceived characteristics of restorative environment to conduct research [78].

5. Conclusions

This study took forest park as the research site to explore how PSDs are associated with stress restoration in Beijing. We obtained the following conclusions: (I) the perceived degree of PSDs in forest park from strong to weak was Serene, Space, Nature, Rich in species, Prospect, Refuge, Social and Culture, which varied with visitors’ gender, age, level of stress, visit frequency, activity intensity, visit duration and commuting time; (II) in PSDs, Refuge, Serene, Social and Prospect had significantly positive effects on the stress restoration of forest park; (III) there was no significant difference in the effect of the eight PSDs on the stress restoration between different stress groups; (IV) visitors’ gender, age, visit frequency and visit duration also affected the stress restoration of forest park. This research provides references for managers to improve the health benefits of forest park for visitors. It also enriches the research on PSDs and stress restoration as well as their relationship, providing a basis for future research in this content.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.A. and J.L.; questionnaire design, C.A.; data acquisition, C.A., Q.L., Y.L., X.F. and Y.H.; methodology, C.A. and J.L.; writing—original draft preparation, C.A.; writing—review and editing, C.A. and J.L.; visualization, C.A.; supervision, J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Forestry and Grassland Administration, grant number 2021140110 and the Beijing Municipal Forestry and Parks Bureau of China, grant number 2021-LYGGFZC-02-001.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Department of Psychology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Beijing Forestry University. (protocol code: 2021-LYGGFZC-02-001)

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

No publicly archived datasets, analyzed or generated, were used in this study.

Acknowledgments

We would especially like to thank the staff of Mangshan National Forest Park, Jiufeng National Forest Park and Xishan National Forest Park for their support and help for this study as well as the 490 forest park visitors who participated in our survey.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Katsarou, A.L.; Triposkiadis, F.; Panagiotakos, D. Perceived stress and vascular disease: Where are we now? Angiology 2013, 64, 529–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. 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]
  3. 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]
  4. Kaplan, S. Meditation, restoration, and the management of mental fatigue. Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 480–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. 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]
  6. 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]
  7. 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]
  8. Hartig, T. Green space, psychological restoration, and health inequality. Lancet 2008, 372, 1614–1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. 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]
  10. 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]
  11. 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]
  12. 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]
  13. 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]
  14. 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]
  15. 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]
  16. 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]
  17. 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]
  18. Tong, Z.; Ding, W. A method for planning mandatory green in China. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2011, 35, 378–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. 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]
  20. 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]
  21. 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]
  22. 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]
  23. 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]
  24. 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]
  25. Grhn, P. Landscapes in our minds: People’s choice of recreative places in towns. Landsc. Res. 1991, 16, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. 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]
  27. 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]
  28. 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]
  29. 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]
  30. 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]
  31. 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]
  32. 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]
  33. 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]
  34. 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]
  35. 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]
  36. 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]
  37. 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]
  38. 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]
  39. 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]
  40. 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]
  41. 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]
  42. 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]
  43. 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]
  44. 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]
  45. 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]
  46. 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]
  47. 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]
  48. 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]
  49. 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]
  50. 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]
  51. 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]
  52. 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]
  53. Appleton, J. The Experience of Landscape; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  54. 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]
  55. 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]
  56. 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]
  57. 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]
  58. 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]
  59. 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]
  60. 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]
  61. 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]
  62. Thompson, C.W. Urban open space in the 21st century. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002, 60, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. 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]
  64. 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]
  65. 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]
  66. 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]
  67. 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]
  68. 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]
  69. 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]
  70. Akpinar, A. How is high school greenness related to students’ restoration and health? Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 16, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. 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]
  72. 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]
  73. 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]
  74. 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]
  75. Kumaran, V.V. Location, use, and locational efficiency of health facilities in a Madras neighbourhood. Geogr. Med. 1983, 13, 53–65. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  76. 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]
  77. 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]
  78. 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]
Figure 1. The map of research sites and main tour routes in each forest park.
Figure 1. The map of research sites and main tour routes in each forest park.
Ijerph 19 00883 g001
Figure 2. Forest landscape and artificial facilities in Mangshan National Forest Park (MS): (a) Forest landscape; (b) Artificial facilities.
Figure 2. Forest landscape and artificial facilities in Mangshan National Forest Park (MS): (a) Forest landscape; (b) Artificial facilities.
Ijerph 19 00883 g002
Figure 3. Forest landscape and artificial facilities in Jiufeng National Forest Park (JF): (a) Forest landscape; (b) Artificial facilities.
Figure 3. Forest landscape and artificial facilities in Jiufeng National Forest Park (JF): (a) Forest landscape; (b) Artificial facilities.
Ijerph 19 00883 g003
Figure 4. Forest landscape and artificial facilities in Xishan National Forest Park (XS): (a) Forest landscape; (b) Artificial facilities.
Figure 4. Forest landscape and artificial facilities in Xishan National Forest Park (XS): (a) Forest landscape; (b) Artificial facilities.
Ijerph 19 00883 g004
Figure 5. Visiting characteristics to forest park. For visit purpose: 1 = exercising, 2 = relaxing, 3 = being with families or friends, 4 = observing nature. For other visiting characteristics, “1” to “5” means “very few” to “very much” of visit frequency, and “very low” to “very high” of activity intensity, “less than one hour” to “more than four hours” of visit duration and commuting time, “zero” to “four or more” of number of companions.
Figure 5. Visiting characteristics to forest park. For visit purpose: 1 = exercising, 2 = relaxing, 3 = being with families or friends, 4 = observing nature. For other visiting characteristics, “1” to “5” means “very few” to “very much” of visit frequency, and “very low” to “very high” of activity intensity, “less than one hour” to “more than four hours” of visit duration and commuting time, “zero” to “four or more” of number of companions.
Ijerph 19 00883 g005
Figure 6. The mean value of each dimension of PSDs. Data are presented as the means ± SEs.
Figure 6. The mean value of each dimension of PSDs. Data are presented as the means ± SEs.
Ijerph 19 00883 g006
Table 1. Questions on visiting characteristics of forest park and items.
Table 1. Questions on visiting characteristics of forest park and items.
Questions12345
visit purposeexercisingrelaxingbeing with families or friendsobserving nature
visit frequencyvery fewfewmediatemuchvery much
activity intensityvery lowlowmediatehighvery high
visit durationless than one hour1–2 h2–3 h3–4 hmore than four hours
commuting timeless than one hour1–2 h2–3 h3–4 hmore than four hours
number of companionszeroonetwothreefour or more
Table 2. Perceived sensory dimensions (PSDs) and corresponding variables.
Table 2. Perceived sensory dimensions (PSDs) and corresponding variables.
Perceived Sensory Dimensions (PSDs)Variables
NatureThere 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.
CultureThe 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.
ProspectThe lawns are cut.
It is possible to have a prospect, vistas over the surroundings.
SocialIt 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.
SpaceThe 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 speciesOne 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.
RefugeIt 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.
SereneThe 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.
Table 3. The questionnaires issued in each forest park.
Table 3. The questionnaires issued in each forest park.
Mangshan National Forest Park (MS)Jiufeng National Forest Park (JF)Xishan National Forest Park (XS)
The total number of the questionnaires153161176
Number of valid questionnaires136145151
Questionnaire effectiveness89%90%86%
Table 4. The individual characteristics of the respondents in research sites.
Table 4. The individual characteristics of the respondents in research sites.
Mangshan National Forest Park (MS)Jiufeng National Forest Park (JF)Xishan National Forest Park (XS)Percentage
GenderMen79817654.6%
Women57647545.4%
Age<1301143.5%
13–173452.8%
18–251710139.2%
26–4088809160.0%
>4027413824.5%
PreferYes36444729.4%
No10010110470.6%
The level of stressAverage visitors87777655.6%
Stressed visitors49687544.4%
Sum136145151100.0%
Table 5. The factor load matrix of SRRS after rotation.
Table 5. The factor load matrix of SRRS after rotation.
VariablesCommon Factor Load
1234
I feel grouchy—good natured0.1920.1920.8780.041
I feel anxious—relaxed0.1190.1260.9150.004
My breathing is getting faster0.254−0.0010.0750.848
My hands are sweating−0.0330.135−0.0280.897
I am interested in the present scene0.8740.3030.1950.137
I feel attentive to the present scene0.8520.3640.1770.109
I would like to visit here more often0.2860.8760.1520.092
I would like to stay here longer0.3280.8430.2100.069
Note: Bold is the maximum load of the variable on the common factor.
Table 6. The results of independent sample t-test results with gender, Prefer and LS as grouped variables and the eight PSDs as test variables.
Table 6. The results of independent sample t-test results with gender, Prefer and LS as grouped variables and the eight PSDs as test variables.
DimensionsGenderPreferThe Level of Stress
tMean DifferencetMean DifferencetMean Difference
Nature−2.395 *−0.171−0.703−0.0551.9360.138
Culture−0.715−0.0650.5880.0582.000 *0.181
Prospect−0.921−0.0721.1420.0960.0940.007
Social−0.864−0.0681.5130.1290.8530.067
Space−0.648−0.0470.370.029−0.205−0.015
Rich in species−1.91−0.1771.0680.107−0.365−0.034
Refuge−2.411 *−0.1800.2730.022−0.028−0.002
Serene−3.253 **−0.233−0.005−0.000−0.591−0.042
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. Prefer = prefer forest park for outdoor activity or not; LS = level of stress in the last month.
Table 7. The results of ANOVA with age and VCs as independent variables and the PSDs as dependent variables.
Table 7. The results of ANOVA with age and VCs as independent variables and the PSDs as dependent variables.
NatureCultureProspectSocialSpaceRich in SpeciesRefugeSerene
AgeSum of Squares1.9604.4753.1133.4797.91916.0752.0020.23
Df44444444
Mean Square0.4901.1190.7780.8701.9804.0190.5010.058
F0.9031.2721.2191.3413.639 **4.586 **0.8380.104
VPSum of Squares0.1800.0361.5461.1950.0752.8762.3230.429
Df33333333
Mean Square0.0600.0120.5150.3980.0250.9590.7740.143
F0.1100.0140.8120.6110.0451.0781.3240.266
VFSum of Squares4.4077.3144.7043.8953.5228.0819.7473.078
Df44444444
Mean Square1.1021.8291.1760.9740.8802.0202.4370.770
F2.1112.1421.8991.5651.6022.2674.363 **1.428
AISum of Squares14.7555.3202.2110.2734.0985.1371.0000.713
Df44444444
Mean Square3.6891.3300.5530.0681.0241.2840.2500.178
F7.347 **1.520.8770.1051.8581.4340.4250.332
VDSum of Squares6.6291.6405.0851.9633.9524.5746.2137.003
Df44444444
Mean Square1.6570.4101.2710.4910.9881.1431.5531.751
F3.110 *0.4672.0420.7511.7971.2772.643 *3.343 *
CTSum of Squares2.2532.7988.0082.7553.9070.8952.6231.198
Df44444444
Mean Square0.5630.6992.0020.6890.9770.2240.6560.299
F1.0610.7943.247 *1.0641.7690.2461.1180.557
NCSum of Squares2.0966.2644.3894.6631.7672.5992.3821.161
Df44444444
Mean Square0.5241.5661.0971.1660.4420.6500.5960.290
F0.9671.7911.721.8050.7900.7250.9980.543
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; VCs = visiting characteristics to forest park; VP = visit purpose; VF = visit frequency; AI = activity intensity; VD = visit duration; CT = commuting time; NC = number of companions.
Table 8. Effects of PSDs on stress restoration.
Table 8. Effects of PSDs on stress restoration.
ParameterEstimationStandard ErrordftFSig.
Intercept2.1690.124259.37117.433303.9010.000
Nature0.0440.037389.7391.1781.3880.239
Culture−0.0310.032406.435−0.9620.9260.336
Prospect0.0770.038422.9982.045 *4.181 *0.042
Social0.1260.040384.4003.138 **9.844 **0.002
Space−0.0080.046422.467−0.1650.0270.869
Rich in species0.0420.032386.7461.3021.6960.194
Refuge0.1430.04132.9863.489 **12.175 **0.001
Serene0.1270.038422.9783.361 **11.296 **0.001
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table 9. The results of ANOVA with age and visiting characteristics as independent variables and the stress restoration index as dependent variable.
Table 9. The results of ANOVA with age and visiting characteristics as independent variables and the stress restoration index as dependent variable.
FactorSum of SquaresdfThe Mean SquareF
Age3.47240.8682.767 *
VP1.23830.4131.294
VF11.80042.9509.975 **
AI0.38540.0960.298
VD2.75640.6892.162
CT1.61440.4041.260
NC1.18240.2960.916
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; VP = visit purpose; VF = visit frequency; AI = activity intensity; VD = visit duration; CT = commuting time; NC = number of companions.
Table 10. Post hoc test results with age as independent variable and stress restoration index as dependent variable.
Table 10. Post hoc test results with age as independent variable and stress restoration index as dependent variable.
Age (I)Age (J)Mean Difference (I–J)Standard ErrorSig.
18–25<13−0.341 *0.1700.045
13–17−0.453 *0.1840.014
26–40−0.259 **0.0950.007
>40−0.307 **0.1040.003
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table 11. Post hoc test results with VF as independent variable and stress restoration index as dependent variable.
Table 11. Post hoc test results with VF as independent variable and stress restoration index as dependent variable.
VF (I)VF (J)Mean Difference (I–J)Standard ErrorSig.
very fewfew−0.0740.0730.316
moderately−0.387 **0.0700.000
much−0.336 **0.1040.001
very much−0.519 *0.209 0.013
fewvery few0.0740.0730.316
moderately−0.314 **0.0850.000
much−0.262 *0.1150.023
very much−0.446 *0.215 0.039
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; VF = visit frequency.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

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

AMA Style

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 Style

An, 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

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop