Next Article in Journal
Examining the Role of Health Concerns and Willingness to Pay Premium in Driving Purchase Intentions of Organic Food Among Millennials in India: A Structural Model Approach
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of the Digital Economy on Sustainable Fisheries: Insights from Green Total Factor Productivity in China’s Coastal Regions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 6
10.3390/su17062674
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effects of Soundscape Interactions on the Restorative Potential of Urban Green Spaces

by
Xinhui Fei
1,2,
Yuanjing Wu
1,
Jianwen Dong
1 and
Deyi Kong
1,*
1
College of Landscape Architecture and Art, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China
2
Faculty of Forestry, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(6), 2674; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062674
Submission received: 15 February 2025 / Revised: 11 March 2025 / Accepted: 14 March 2025 / Published: 18 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Topic Human–Environmental Relations: Ecotourism and Sustainability)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
From the perspective of landscape environment and human health, this study introduces the concept of soundscape from soundscape ecology. Through two experiments evaluating the restorative properties of soundscapes, it analyzes and compares the differences in restorative benefits among various sounds in urban green spaces. The study further explores the effects of single soundscapes and combined soundscape types on environmental restorative benefits and provides recommendations for creating restorative soundscapes in urban green spaces. The main findings of this study are as follows: (1) Sound types significantly influence soundscape restorative benefits, with notable interactions observed among three single soundscape categories. Significant differences were also found in the restorative effects of different combined soundscapes. (2) The most restorative sounds for anthropogenic, biophonic, and geophonic soundscapes are light background music (1.4193), bird sounds (1.9890), and flowing water sounds (1.2691), respectively. The least restorative sounds are vehicle noise (−2.6210), conversation sounds (−0.8788), and thunder sounds (−0.7840). (3) Significant differences exist between the restorative effects of single and multi-level combined soundscapes. Except for bird sounds, the general restorative pattern is as follows: two-level combined soundscapes > three-level combined soundscapes > single soundscapes.

1. Introduction

In recent years, the accelerated pace of urbanization and increasing social competition have subjected people to rising levels of stress in work and daily life. Prolonged exposure to psychological strain has led to a significant increase in physical, psychological, and mental health problems, including hypertension, sleep disorders, anxiety, and depression [1]. Consequently, the prevalence of psychological disorders has shown an upward trend year by year, posing a serious threat to public health and well-being. As daily stress levels continue to rise [2], the study of the restorative benefits of urban green spaces has become particularly important. The definition of the term “urban green spaces” as provided by United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is as follows: “Green spaces in urban areas are land areas that contain grass, trees, or other vegetation, including public parks, community gardens, and greenways, which help mitigate air pollution, reduce urban heat, and promote mental well-being”.
Historically, humans have recognized the stress-relieving and emotionally soothing effects of natural landscapes, even without deliberate awareness [3,4]. Kaplan [5], from the University of Michigan, formally introduced the concept of restorative environments. They pointed out that a restorative environment refers to an environment that allows people to recover from states of negative, passive mental fatigue and stress. Through experimental research, they found that living in a natural outdoor environment can help individuals recover to some extent from mental stress [6]. Restorative environments are not limited to natural settings; certain human-made landscapes also provide restorative benefits. However, research in this area has predominantly focused on visual landscapes due to the primacy of visual perception in information processing [7,8,9,10,11,12]. Meanwhile, the auditory environment, which plays an irreplaceable role as the second most significant sensory carrier of landscape information, is often overlooked [13,14,15,16].
The auditory environment also has an irreplaceable impact on restorative benefits. The term “soundscape” was first introduced by Canadian environmentalist and composer Schafer in the late 1960s. Schafer [17] described the concept using the phrase “The Music of the Environment” and defined soundscape as “the auditory attributes of a landscape”. He argued that landscapes encompass both visual and auditory components [18,19]. The study of the relationship between living organisms and their acoustic environment is termed soundscape ecology, which emphasizes psychological perception. In soundscape ecology, sounds are categorized into three types [20]: (1) Geophonies: Non-biological sounds produced by natural physical processes such as wind, rain, and thunder. These sounds are often perceived as background noise and exhibit characteristics of masking and blending. (2) Anthrophonies: Human-made sounds generated by activities such as vehicle movement, broadcasting, and construction. These sounds are often eventful and invasive within landscape spaces. (3) Biophonies: Sounds produced by living organisms, such as bird calls and human conversations. These sounds are characterized by complexity and malleability [21,22,23,24,25]. Together, these sound types create unique configurations within soundscape environments [26].
The integration of soundscape research with restorative environment theories is relatively recent, and the research framework remains incomplete. Existing studies can be categorized into three main areas: (1) Theoretical Modeling of Soundscape Restorative Benefits: This involves investigating and psychometrically measuring soundscapes within specific spaces to identify sound sources with positive or negative effects on the environment. The findings are then used to develop strategies for improving sound environment quality. (2) Pathway Analysis of Soundscapes and Perception: These studies focus on analyzing specific sounds within designated environments. By conducting stress tests on participants and comparing perception data using standardized scales, researchers examine the relationship between soundscapes and restorative perception. The results provide valuable references for designing restorative soundscapes in future environments. (3) Interaction Between Soundscapes and Visual Landscapes: This line of research explores the combined effects of auditory and visual stimuli on mental restoration, aiming to identify natural environments that more effectively enhance restorative experiences [27,28].
In the realm of evaluation and experimental methodologies for soundscape restorative research, Zhang Yuan et al. [29] introduced the “Restoration Theory” from environmental psychology into urban design in their book Urban Sound and Health. Their research creatively applied and validated several methodologies, including the “Urban Soundscape and Typical Spatial Soundscape Survey Protocol”, the “Subjective Evaluation Method for Soundscape Restorative Benefits”, and the “On-Site Experimental Method for Soundscape Restoration Based on Attention Testing”. These approaches represent significant methodological advancements in soundscape restorative research. This study was inspired by the work of Zhang and others, adopting and building upon related research and experimental methods.
Over the past few years, research on the restorative benefits of soundscapes has advanced significantly. Scholars have explored how various acoustic environments, particularly natural sounds, contribute to psychological and physiological well-being. For example, the study by Bhan Lam et al. [30] implemented an Automatic Masker Selection System (AMSS) that uses natural sounds to mask traffic noise in urban residential areas. The system employs a pre-trained AI model to select optimal masking sounds and adjust playback levels in real-time. In situ assessments revealed a significant 14.6% improvement in perceived “pleasantness”, correlating with increased restorativeness and positive affectivity among residents. Hui Yang et al. [31]’s research investigated how perceptions of rural soundscapes influence environmental restoration. Findings indicated that positive perceptions of rural soundscapes enhance feelings of nostalgia and place attachment, which in turn contribute to perceptions of environmental restoration. Shan Shu [32] explored how everyday soundscapes in classrooms and urban parks affect children’s restorative experiences. Results showed that sound environments significantly influence children’s perceived restorativeness, with variations based on age and context. Li, H. et al. [33] examined the psychological and physiological restorative effects of five types of natural soundscapes. Cluster analysis revealed distinct restorative profiles for each soundscape type, highlighting the importance of specific natural sounds in promoting human well-being. These studies underscore the critical role of soundscapes in enhancing environmental restorativeness, offering valuable insights for urban planning, environmental design, and public health initiatives.
In summary, this study examines the restorative benefits of single and combined soundscapes in urban green spaces through sound environment simulation experiments from the perspective of environmental and human health. It aims to explore the effects of soundscape interactions on human restorative experiences, encouraging further academic attention to the restorative potential of auditory environments in landscapes.

2. Methods

2.1. Research Design

This study comprises two experiments. Experiment 1 investigates the restorative benefits of single soundscapes. In Experiment 1, the independent variable is the type of sound, while the dependent variable is the soundscape restorative benefit score. The objectives of Experiment 1 are as follows: (1) to evaluate the restorative benefits of single soundscapes in green space environments without visual stimuli, and (2) to identify the most restorative sound type in each category—anthropogenic, biophonic, and geophonic—within the study area. Experiment 2 examines the restorative effects of combined soundscapes. In Experiment 2, the independent variable is the type of combined soundscape, while the dependent variable remains the restorative benefit score. The primary research questions addressed in Experiment 2 include the following: (1) whether there are significant differences in restorative benefits between single and combined soundscapes; (2) whether combining sounds leads to additive restorative effects; (3) and identifying the most restorative type of combined soundscape.

2.2. Research Area

The research focuses on soundscapes within urban green spaces. Six urban parks in Fuzhou City were selected as study sites, representing different types of urban green spaces: comprehensive parks (West Lake Park, Zuohai Park, Minjiang Park, Jinjishan Park), specialized parks (Nanjiangbin Flower Sea Park), and linear green spaces (Fudao). These locations encompass three types of urban green spaces, making them representative for soundscape research.

2.3. Participants and Materials

(1)
Participants
The participants in this study were university students, including senior undergraduates, master’s students, and doctoral candidates aged 20 to 30 years. All participants were capable of understanding and independently completing the tasks. Each experiment involved 76 participants with an equal gender ratio (1:1). To ensure the validity of the results, all participants had normal hearing abilities, which were verified prior to the experiments. There are some limitations in the selection of participants in this study. The experiment mainly involved university students, who possess strong cognitive abilities and esthetic judgment. However, their relatively homogeneous social background may not fully represent the general public. Future research could include participants from diverse occupational backgrounds, such as tourism professionals, rural residents, and cultural researchers, to ensure the broader applicability of the findings. Additionally, future studies could expand the participant group to different age ranges (adolescents, adults, and elderly individuals) to enhance the diversity of participants and improve the study’s applicability.
(2)
Materials
For Experiment 1, soundscape materials were collected through field surveys and questionnaires from the six green spaces. From these, the three most frequently reported sounds from each of the three categories (anthropogenic, biophonic, and geophonic) were selected, totaling nine sounds. We spent a consecutive week in mid-May recording various sounds in the aforementioned parks and categorizing them. Simultaneously, they conducted surveys or interviews with park visitors to investigate the sounds they heard in the park. By combining the results from both methods, the most frequently occurring sounds in three types of soundscapes were identified. Ultimately, the top three sounds from each soundscape type, ranked by frequency, were selected, totaling nine sounds, to be used as materials for subsequent experimental research. These sound samples were standardized in loudness and edited to a consistent duration of 30 s.
For Experiment 2, the most restorative sound from each category (identified in Experiment 1) was combined freely to create seven soundscapes: Single soundscapes include anthropogenic (S1), biophonic (S2), and geophonic (S3). Two-level combinations include anthropogenic + biophonic (S4), anthropogenic + geophonic (S5), and biophonic + geophonic (S6). Three-level combinations include anthropogenic + biophonic + geophonic (S7). These seven soundscapes, labeled S1–S7, served as stimuli for Experiment 2.

2.4. Experimental Procedure

Both experiments were conducted in a laboratory environment with consistent silence to avoid interference. The procedure was explained to participants beforehand, ensuring they understood the tasks and process. Afterward, participants donned headphones to begin the experiment.
In Experiment 1, participants underwent a stress-induction phase using reverse digit span tasks. They then closed their eyes and listened to a randomly assigned 30 s sound sample through headphones. After the sound ceased, participants rated its restorative benefit using the predefined evaluation criteria. This process was repeated for all nine sound samples, interspersed with brief rest periods.
The procedure for Experiment 2 was identical to that of Experiment 1, except that the stimuli were replaced with the seven combined soundscapes (S1–S7). Experiment 2 was conducted one week after Experiment 1 to minimize repetitive effects.
We obtained all the experimental soundscape materials in mid-May. In the experimental process, obtaining relevant sounds as experimental materials is crucial for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the study. The following methods were used to collect and process sound materials: (1) Field recording: equipment: use high-quality recording devices such as omnidirectional microphones and digital audio recorders (e.g., Zoom H5 (Zoom Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), Tascam DR-100 (TASCAM, Montebello, CA, USA)); locations: record sounds in natural environments (e.g., parks, forests, rivers) depending on the research needs; and techniques: ensure minimal background noise, adjust microphone sensitivity, and maintain consistent recording conditions. (2) Laboratory Sound Synthesis: software tools: we use sound design software (e.g., Audacity v3.7.1, Adobe Audition CC2021, MATLAB R2020b, Praat v6.2.0.4) to generate artificial soundscapes or modify recorded sounds; and sound combination: mix different sound elements (e.g., bird calls, wind, water flow) to create specific soundscapes for experimental use.

2.5. Measuring Tools

The Self-Rated Restorative Scale (SRSS) was used to measure participants’ perceived restorative benefits in the experimental soundscapes. The SRSS (Self-Reported Restorativeness Scale) is a tool used to assess the impact of the environment on an individual’s psychological restoration. This scale primarily measures the perceived restorative benefits of a specific environment and is widely applied in environmental psychology, soundscape research, and urban planning. It is mainly used to evaluate restorativeness based on individual self-perception, assessing whether a particular environment helps reduce stress, restore attention, and enhance mental well-being. The scale is typically scored using a Likert scale. The core measurement dimensions include the following: (1) Fascination—whether the environment captures attention and reduces mental fatigue. (2) Compatibility—whether the environment aligns with individual needs and provides a sense of comfort. (3) Being Away—whether the environment offers an escape from daily stress and worries. (4) Extent—whether the environment provides sufficient informational stimuli to maintain interest and support restoration.
The SRSS used in this research contains 20 items and is widely recognized as a reliable tool for evaluating restorative benefits. To better suit the experimental context of auditory environments, minor adjustments were made to the scale’s wording to enhance clarity and relevance.

3. Data Processing and Results

3.1. Data Processing

In Experiment 1, the hypothesis tested was that “There is no significant difference in the restorative perception caused by different sounds, and sound type does not influence soundscape restorative benefits”. To verify this, data from the restorative evaluations of nine sound types were analyzed using one-way ANOVA, homogeneity subset analysis, and descriptive statistics. The results are shown in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3. In Table 2 and Table 3, the numbers 1–3 represent anthropogenic sounds: light background music, construction noise, and vehicle noise; numbers 4–6 represent biophonic sounds: conversation, insect chirps, and bird calls; and numbers 7–9 represent geophonic sounds: rustling leaves, flowing water, and thunder.
The analysis revealed significant differences among the restorative benefits of the nine sound types (p < 0.001), indicating that sound type strongly affects soundscape restorative benefits.
The results shows that the nine sounds are divided into five homogeneity subsets, which indicate that there are significant differences among their restorative benefits. For instance, construction and vehicle noise share similar (negative) restorative effects, while bird calls significantly outperform other sound types.
The ranking of restorative benefits, from highest to lowest, is as follows: bird calls (1.9890), light background music (1.4193), flowing water (1.2691), insect chirps (0.2475), leaves rustling (0.2142), thunder (−0.7840), conversation (−0.8788), construction noise (−2.4756), and vehicle noise (−2.6210). Sounds like thunder, conversation, construction noise, and vehicle noise negatively impact restorative benefits, while bird calls, music, and flowing water positively contribute.

3.2. Restorative Effects of Combined Soundscapes

For Experiment 2 of the soundscape restorative evaluation, the hypothesis proposed was as follows: “There are no significant differences in restorative benefits among different types of combined soundscapes, nor between single soundscapes and combined soundscapes”. To test this hypothesis, restorative evaluation data for seven types of soundscapes from Experiment 2 were analyzed using descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA with seven levels, and homogeneity subset analysis. The results of these statistical tests are presented in Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7. In Table 4, the numbers 1–7 represent the following soundscape types: Single soundscapes: light background music, bird calls, and flowing water. Two-level combined soundscapes: combinations of light background music and bird calls, light background music and flowing water, and bird calls and flowing water. Three-level combined soundscapes: combinations of light background music, bird calls, and flowing water. Among the seven soundscape types, the numbers 1–3 correspond to the three single soundscape categories: anthropogenic sounds, biophonic sounds, and geophonic sounds; numbers 4–6 represent two-level combined soundscapes of anthropogenic and biophonic sounds, anthropogenic and geophonic sounds, and biophonic and geophonic sounds; and number 7 represents the three-level combination of anthropogenic, biophonic, and geophonic sounds.
These results indicate that the restorative benefits of the seven soundscapes vary significantly. The ranking from highest to lowest restorative benefits is as follows: music + bird calls (1.3110) > bird calls + water (1.2968) > bird calls (0.9440) > music + flowing water (0.6247) > music + bird calls + water (0.5240) > flowing water (0.4604) > light background music (0.2308).
This analysis reveals significant differences between the restorative benefits of single and combined soundscapes (p < 0.001). The mean restorative benefit score of combined soundscapes (0.9391) is significantly higher than that of single soundscapes (0.5451).
The results show highly significant differences among the seven combined soundscapes (p < 0.001), indicating that the type of combination plays a critical role in determining restorative benefits.
The seven combined soundscapes are grouped into five homogeneous subsets. For example, light background music (subset 1) and music + bird calls (subset 5) are distinctly different in restorative benefits.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Impact of Soundscape Types on Environmental Restorative Benefits

According to the results of the one-way ANOVA (Table 1), the total sum of squares for soundscape restorative benefits is 1854.647, with 1655.380 attributable to differences among sound types and 199.267 resulting from sampling error. The F-statistic corresponds to a p-value approximately equal to 0, which is less than the significance level α (0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis should be rejected, indicating that the restorative benefits of the nine sound types show significant differences. This result suggests that the type of sound significantly affects the restorative benefits of soundscapes. Although the one-way ANOVA results demonstrate significant differences among the restorative benefits of the nine sound types, the homogeneity subset analysis (Table 2) further reveals distinctions within these differences. The results presented in Table 2 classify the nine sound types into five subsets, showing the following: (1) Construction noise and vehicle noise have similar restorative benefits. (2) Conversation and thunder exhibit comparable restorative effects. (3) Insect chirps and rustling leaves are grouped together due to their similar restorative benefits. (4) Light background music and flowing water also demonstrate similar restorative effects. The differences between these five subsets are more pronounced, indicating distinct restorative effects for specific sound types.
The descriptive statistics (Table 3) provide a detailed ranking of the restorative benefits for the nine sound types. The ranking, from highest to lowest restorative benefits, is as follows: bird calls (1.9890) > light background music (1.4193) > flowing water (1.2691) > insect chirps (0.2475) > rustling leaves (0.2142) > thunder (−0.7840) > conversation (−0.8788) > construction noise (−2.4756) > vehicle noise (−2.6210). Among these, thunder, conversation, construction noise, and vehicle noise exhibit negative effects on soundscape restorative benefits. Conversely, the remaining sound types contribute positively to enhancing the restorative quality of the soundscape. In the three soundscape categories—anthropogenic sounds, biophonic sounds, and geophonic sounds—the sounds with the highest restorative benefits are light background music, bird calls, and flowing water, respectively. These three sounds were also used as stimuli in Experiment 2 for evaluating combined soundscapes.

4.2. The Impact of Soundscape Interactions on Environmental Restorative Benefits

Based on the descriptive statistics (Table 4), the restorative benefits of the seven types of soundscapes are ranked in descending order as follows: light background music + bird calls (1.3110) > bird calls + flowing water (1.2968) > bird calls (0.9440) > light background music + flowing water (0.6247) > light background music + bird calls + flowing water (0.5240) > flowing water (0.4604) > light background music (0.2308). The results indicate that all three two-level combined soundscapes exhibit higher restorative benefits than the three-level combined soundscape. Additionally, with the exception of bird calls, the three-level combined soundscape shows higher restorative benefits than the other two single soundscapes. Overall, two-level combined soundscapes demonstrate the most optimal restorative benefits. However, the findings also reveal that the restorative benefits of soundscapes do not simply increase with the number of combined sounds, nor do they decrease as the number of combined sounds decreases. To better understand the relationships among the restorative benefits of various soundscapes, further analysis was conducted using one-way ANOVA (Table 5 and Table 6) and homogeneity subset tests (Table 7).
Table 5 presents the results of a one-way ANOVA comparing the overall restorative benefits of single and combined soundscapes. The F-statistic corresponds to a p-value close to 0, indicating a highly significant difference between the two groups at a significance level of α = 0.01. By calculating the mean values for each group, it is evident that the restorative benefits of combined soundscapes (0.9391) are significantly higher than those of single soundscapes (0.5451).
Table 6 presents the results of a one-way ANOVA comparing the restorative benefits among the seven soundscapes. Of the total variance in restorative benefits (104.663), 81.219 can be explained by differences in soundscape types, while 23.444 is attributed to sampling error. The explanatory power of soundscape types for restorative benefits is high, as the F-statistic’s corresponding p-value is less than the significance level of α = 0.01. Therefore, the null hypothesis should be rejected, indicating that there are highly significant differences in restorative benefits among the seven soundscapes. In other words, different types and combinations of soundscapes significantly influence environmental restorative benefits. While significant differences exist among the seven soundscapes, the extent of these differences warrants further exploration. The homogeneity subset analysis results (Table 7) classify the seven soundscapes into five subsets. These findings suggest that the restorative benefits of flowing water and the three-level combination of light background music + bird calls + flowing water differ relatively less from each other. Similarly, the differences between light background music + flowing water and bird calls + flowing water are also relatively small compared to other soundscapes.

4.3. Comparative Findings with Previous Studies

In research on auditory landscapes and their impact on human restorative experiences, Marcus et al. [34] studied the design of hospital sound environments and found that pleasant natural soundscapes, such as bird calls, gentle wind, and ocean waves, contribute to the recovery of attention and stress among patients and staff. The researchers emphasized that the perception of pleasant natural sounds should be considered a low-risk, non-pharmacological, and non-invasive intervention that can be incorporated into routine care to accelerate patient recovery. Onosahwo [35] conducted objective physiological experiments and analyzed the physiological data obtained from the tests. The results indicated that natural soundscapes can reduce or mask noise, effectively alleviating urban stress through the masking effect of natural sounds. Similarly, Zhang Yuan [36] focused on urban residents’ mental health and adopted the “restorative environment” concept from environmental psychology as the research framework. Using Shenyang, a high-density urban area, as a case study, Zhang conducted subjective evaluation experiments on the restorative effects of soundscapes. The research explored the influence of soundscapes on individual restoration through two dimensions: “physiological responses” and “attention levels”. These findings align with and reinforce the results of this study, collectively demonstrating that environmental soundscapes have a significant impact on restorative benefits. Generally, biophonic and geophonic sounds positively influence restorative benefits, while anthropogenic sounds tend to diminish them. However, specific results vary depending on the sound type. For example, in this study, light background music (an anthropogenic sound) enhanced restorative benefits, whereas thunder (a geophonic sound) reduced them. Our research underscores the nuanced interactions among soundscapes and highlights the importance of specific combinations in enhancing restorative benefits. The findings provide valuable insights for designing optimal soundscapes in restorative environments.
Based on previous research and the findings of this study, we acknowledge certain limitations in this research and related studies on soundscape restoration. Firstly, regarding the participants, all subjects in this study were university students, ensuring they could accurately understand the experimental procedures and cooperate with the experimental operations. Although the differences in the restorative perception and evaluation of landscape environments between student and non-student populations may not be significant, the representativeness of the student sample is relatively limited. Future research is recommended to expand the participant pool to include individuals from diverse educational backgrounds, professions, and age groups within the general public. This would yield more comprehensive and generalizable findings.
Secondly, regarding the experimental approach, to avoid the influence of unrelated factors such as outdoor temperature, humidity, and wind on the study variables, this research conducted the restorative soundscape experiment in a laboratory setting rather than in actual landscape environments. However, the authenticity of the participants’ environmental experiences was somewhat diminished. To make the findings more reflective of individuals’ restorative perceptions in real-world environments while maintaining control over extraneous factors, it is suggested that future researchers incorporate visual elements and leverage technologies such as virtual reality (VR). Using VR and related equipment, participants could experience more immersive and realistic environments, ultimately producing more accurate and applicable results.

4.4. Comparative Discussion with Previous Studies

This study systematically examines the restorative benefits of different soundscapes in urban green spaces through well-structured experimental methodologies. We employ two controlled experiments to investigate both single and combined soundscapes; based on soundscape ecology, sounds are categorized into three types (anthropogenic, biophonic, and geophonic), ensuring a structured and comprehensive evaluation. We integrate field recordings and participant surveys, ensuring that the selected soundscapes are representative of real-world urban green space environments. The laboratory setting eliminates external environmental variables (e.g., visual and tactile stimuli), isolating the impact of soundscapes on restorative benefits. And we utilize the Self-Reported Restorativeness Scale (SRSS), a widely recognized tool in environmental psychology. Methods such as one-way ANOVA and homogeneity subset analysis are applied, ensuring the reliability of subjective evaluations and the robust statistical validation of findings. Overall, the study is well structured, methodologically sound, and supported by robust experimental design, making it a rational and scientifically valid investigation.
(1)
Theoretical Value of the Study
This study significantly contributes to the theoretical understanding of soundscape restorability in a number of ways. First of all, this was conducted by expanding restorative environment research. While most prior studies focus on visual landscapes, this research emphasizes the auditory dimension, filling a gap in the field of environmental psychology. Secondly, we refined soundscape theory. By classifying soundscapes and analyzing their individual and interactive effects, the study provides deeper insights into how different sounds contribute to psychological restoration. Thirdly, we analyzed interactions between soundscapes. This study introduces novel two-level and three-level soundscape combination models, demonstrating that certain sound combinations offer optimal restorative effects, a concept previously underexplored. To support evidence-based urban planning, the findings validate that certain sound types (e.g., bird calls, flowing water) positively contribute to restoration, while others (e.g., vehicle noise, construction noise) negatively impact well-being. This supports future theoretical models in urban planning and public health. By bridging soundscape ecology, environmental psychology, and urban studies, the research advances theoretical discussions on how soundscapes influence mental well-being.
(2)
Practical Value of the Study
The research findings have a direct impact on urban planning, environmental management, and public health. In the view of urban green space soundscape design, this study provides evidence-based recommendations for designing restorative sound environments in urban green spaces, such as enhancing positive sound elements, vegetation that attracts birds, and water features; reducing negative noise pollution, including traffic noise and construction noise; implementing sound masking techniques, such as using natural sounds to cover urban noise. In the view of public health benefits, this study demonstrates that exposure to specific soundscapes can provide psychological benefits, supporting non-pharmacological interventions to alleviate mental stress in urban populations. In the view of applications in architecture and landscape design, the findings can be applied to hospital gardens, parks, recreational areas, and workplaces, helping to create acoustically optimized environments. Additionally, the study’s insights can guide AI-assisted urban soundscape management and virtual reality-based relaxation therapies, offering innovative applications for urban wellness planning. In the view of policy implications, this research provides scientific evidence for municipal noise control and green space development policies, assisting urban planners in creating healthier living environments.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Research Conclusions

Based on the two experiments conducted in this study, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) The Impact of Sound Types on Restorative Benefits: The type of sound present in the environment significantly influences the restorative benefits of landscapes. Among anthropogenic sounds, light background music enhances restorative benefits, while among biophonic sounds, like bird calls and insect chirps, are beneficial. Similarly, geophonic sounds such as rustling leaves and flowing water positively contribute to restoration. In contrast, vehicle noise and construction noise (anthropogenic sounds), conversation (biophonic sound), and thunder (geophonic sound) have negative effects on restorative benefits. Overall, biophonic and geophonic sounds perform better, whereas anthropogenic sounds generally exhibit poorer restorative effects. (2) Interactions Between Soundscape Types: Interactions between different types of soundscapes reveal that combinations of geophonic sounds and biophonic sounds demonstrate similarly high restorative benefits. Furthermore, the number of sound types in the environment does not exhibit a significant correlation with restorative benefits. However, a general pattern is observed where two-level combined soundscapes show higher restorative benefits than three-level combined soundscapes, which in turn outperform single soundscapes (except for bird calls).

5.2. Suggestions for Soundscape Creation in Green Spaces

Based on the findings of this study, it is evident that the restorative benefits of soundscapes in urban green spaces are closely related to the types of soundscapes present. Therefore, to optimize and enhance the restorative effects of soundscapes in urban green spaces, it is essential to preserve existing natural sounds with positive restorative benefits while employing soundscape design strategies to increase and amplify the occurrence of soundscapes with positive restorative effects and to reduce or mitigate the presence of soundscapes with negative restorative effects. The goal is to optimize the soundscape structure and enhance the restorative benefits of soundscapes within urban green spaces. Specific design strategies and recommendations are as follows:
To enhance the restorative benefits of soundscapes in urban green spaces, positive soundscape design can be employed. Positive soundscape design involves the thoughtful use of sound principles and technological measures to improve existing sound environments that are discordant or have low restorative value. This can include adding new sound elements or amplifying natural sound elements with clear positive restorative effects, allowing listeners to experience an improved acoustic environment. The specific design strategies are as follows: (1) Enhancing Sound Environments in Noisy Areas: Positive soundscape design can effectively enhance the restorative benefits of soundscapes in urban green spaces. This approach involves the thoughtful application of acoustic principles and technologies to improve discordant or low-restorative sound environments by introducing new sound elements or amplifying existing natural sounds with clear positive restorative effects. The goal is to create an improved auditory experience for listeners. Specific design strategies include the following: In areas with poor sound environments and severe noise pollution, the design can draw inspiration from visual landscape techniques, such as the principle of “screening the unsightly and embracing the beautiful”. This approach involves using sound masking and covering techniques to alleviate noise pollution by incorporating or enhancing sounds with clear positive restorative benefits in urban green spaces. For example, in spaces adjacent to noisy roads, construction sites, or areas dominated by anthropogenic and mechanical sounds, features such as waterfalls, small fountains, or artificial cascades can be installed. The sounds of water colliding with stones can absorb noise pollution and mask unwanted sounds, reducing their disruptive impact on the soundscape and creating a high-decibel, tranquil environment. Additionally, based on specific landscape characteristics, melodic sounds with high preference ratings can be introduced. For instance, background music or instrumental tracks can be played to enhance the ambiance of the green space. This approach enriches the diversity of geophonic and high-quality anthropogenic sounds, optimizing the restorative benefits of soundscapes in urban green spaces. These strategies not only mitigate noise pollution but also enhance the overall auditory experience, promoting a more restorative soundscape in urban green spaces. (2) In areas with weaker acoustic environments, the restorative benefits of the landscape environment can be enhanced by creating a low-decibel, tranquil atmosphere. This can be achieved by increasing the use of water features and diversifying the forms of water-related soundscapes. Natural sounds generated by interactions between water and elements such as falling leaves, scattered stones, and wind can harmonize with the surrounding environment, thereby enhancing the restorative quality of the soundscape. Additionally, incorporating landscape elements such as waterfront viewing platforms, gently sloping shorelines, and stepping stones can provide opportunities for people to engage with and appreciate water sounds. (3) The esthetic principles of sound design in traditional Chinese gardens can serve as inspiration for incorporating natural sounds into urban green spaces. Techniques such as “inviting wind and welcoming rain” and “attracting birds and cicadas” can be employed to introduce natural sounds. For instance, planting bird-attracting trees such as willow, locust, elm, banyan, pomegranate, carambola, and cherry, as well as pollinator-friendly flowers like peony, rose, and crabapple, can enhance positive biophonic sounds such as insect chirping and bird song. This not only optimizes the restorative soundscapes of urban green spaces but also promotes biodiversity.
Additionally, certain plants can contribute to beneficial geophysical sounds. For example, bamboo, with its thin and dense leaves, produces a dynamic sound that varies in intensity with the wind. Pine needles, fine and needle-like, create soft and gentle sounds when moved by the breeze, while large pine forests generate harp-like tones when swept by strong winds. Similarly, plane trees, with their broad, dense canopies, produce a crisp sound as rain falls on their large leaves. Planting such species can effectively enhance the geophysical soundscape and its restorative benefits within urban green spaces.
Secondly, the restorative benefits of soundscapes can be improved through negative soundscape design. Negative soundscape design focuses on controlling or reducing sounds within urban green spaces that significantly and adversely impact restorative benefits. This involves the use of artificial measures to minimize or eliminate unnecessary, discordant, or undesirable sound elements in the environment, with particular attention to various types of noise pollution, such as traffic noise and construction noise. Specific design strategies include the following: (1) High-decibel electronic or mechanical equipment usage within and around green spaces can be controlled through measures such as warning signs and area management, with strict limitations on operating hours. (2) Noise reduction and elimination can also be achieved through spatial design and the use of innovative materials. For example, the design of recreational spaces within urban green areas can be enhanced by creating semi-enclosed spaces that incorporate soundproof or sound-absorbing surfaces. Additionally, cultural display walls or landscape installations made from sound-insulating materials can be strategically placed at various environmental nodes within the green space. These elements not only enhance the visual landscape but also serve as effective barriers against noise, thereby creating a more comfortable acoustic environment. (3) Noise propagation from surrounding environments can be effectively mitigated through specific plant configurations. For instance, multilayered vegetation structures can be placed near noise sources outside the green space. In these configurations, trees with large canopies and dense foliage, such as camphor (Cinnamomum camphora), Bauhinia variegata, and Erythrina crista-galli, are preferred. Shrubs with high foliage density and large leaf areas are also recommended. It is important to balance esthetic and ecological considerations when designing tree, shrub, and ground cover arrangements. Overly dense or closed vegetation can hinder plant growth and excessively block scenic views, potentially impacting the visitor experience. Therefore, planting should be conducted in a manner that meets the necessary conditions for healthy plant growth while maintaining an unobstructed visual range for visitors.
In addition to the positive and negative soundscape design interventions mentioned above, urban green spaces should also adopt a “zero-design” approach to soundscape preservation. This approach involves refraining from adding to or altering the soundscape, and instead focusing on preserving the original, intact, and comfortable acoustic environment within the green space. Specific strategies for this approach include the following: (1) At the planning level, strictly limit the channelization of streams and rivers to preserve natural water soundscapes and protect the vegetation surrounding green spaces. (2) Within the principles of safety, ensure the appropriate protection of naturally occurring processes in the landscape, such as decaying wood, ancient vines, and old trees. These elements can create microhabitats for insect colonization and bird nesting, simultaneously providing habitat protection for flora and fauna while maintaining the existing positive soundscapes within the green space. (3) Additionally, under the principle of zero design, activities such as creating soundscape maps for urban green spaces, conducting soundscape evaluations, and organizing soundscape walks can be implemented. These activities not only help identify and document the unique soundscape resources within urban green spaces but also enhance visitors’ awareness and understanding of soundscapes. This indirectly contributes to the preservation of green space soundscapes. Furthermore, by deliberately drawing attention to these aspects during such activities, visitors are more likely to notice and engage with the acoustic environment, thereby fostering a more restorative experience through interaction with the soundscape.
In summary, building on the preservation of high-quality original soundscapes, the soundscape environment of urban green spaces can be enhanced by managing soundscape elements. This involves controlling sound sources with significantly negative restorative effects, appropriately increasing sound sources with positive restorative effects, reducing artificial noise, and introducing more high-quality biophonic and geophysical sounds. These measures aim to create an urban green space soundscape environment with substantial restorative benefits. By applying these strategies, urban green spaces can achieve both enhanced soundscape restoration and improved environmental quality, contributing to the overall well-being of users.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.F. and D.K.; methodology, X.F.; software X.F. and Y.W.; investigation, X.F., Y.W. and D.K.; resources, J.D.; writing—original draft preparation, X.F.; writing—review and editing, D.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Project of Forest Park Engineering Technology Research Center of State Forestry Administration, grant number PTJH15002. Wuyi Mountain National Park Research Institute special project, grant number KJg20009A. Rural ecological product value realization research project, grant number KKy22044XA.

Institutional Review Board Statement

All experimental protocols were approved by Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University Institutional.

Informed Consent Statement

Methods in this study were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s).

Data Availability Statement

The data are not publicly available due to the ongoing research, and the authors will continue to work with it in the future. The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the relevant studies are still ongoing, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the study participants in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Roberts, H.; van Lissa, C.; Hagedoorn, P.; Kellar, I.; Helbich, M. The effect of short-term exposure to the natural environment on depressive mood: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Res. 2019, 177, 108606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Shanahan, D.F.; Astell–Burt, T.; Barber, E.A.; Brymer, E.; Cox, D.T.C.; Dean, J.; Depledge, M.; Fuller, R.A.; Hartig, T.; Irvine, K.N.; et al. Nature–based interventions for improving health and wellbeing: The purpose, the people and the outcomes. Sports 2019, 7, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gascon, M.; Zijlema, W.; Vert, C.; White, M.P.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Outdoor blue spaces, human health and well-being: A systematic review of quantitative studies. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2017, 220, 1207–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Van den Bosch, M.; Ode Sang, Å. Urban natural environments as nature-based solutions for improved public health—A systematic review of reviews. Environ. Res. 2017, 158, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kaplan, S.; Brdwell, L.V.; Sakter, D.B. The museum as a restorative environment. Environ. Behav. 1993, 26, 725–742. [Google Scholar]
  6. White, M.P.; Alcock, I.; Grellier, J.; Wheeler, B.W.; Hartig, T.; Warber, S.L.; Bone, A.; Depledge, M.H.; Fleming, L.E. Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 7730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. 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.; et al. Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017, 125, 075001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kondo, M.C.; Fluehr, J.M.; McKeon, T.; Branas, C.C. Urban green space and its impact on human health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. James, P.; Banay, R.F.; Hart, J.E.; Laden, F. A review of the health benefits of greenness. Curr. Epidemiol. Rep. 2015, 2, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Twohig-Bennett, C.; Jones, A. The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes. Environ. Res. 2018, 166, 628–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Horowitz, S. Therapeutic Gardens and Horticultural Therapy: Growing Roles in Health Care. Altern. Complement. Ther. 2012, 18, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Stokols, D. Establishing and Maintaining Healthy Environments: Toward a Social Ecology of Health Promotion. Am. Psychol. 1992, 47, 6–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Aletta, F.; Kang, J.; Axelsson, Ö. Soundscape descriptors and a conceptual framework for developing predictive soundscape models. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2016, 149, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Joshi, S.; Stavrianakis, K.; Das, S. Substituting restorative benefits of being outdoors through interactive augmented spatial soundscapes. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA, 25–30 April 2020; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  15. Aletta, F.; Oberman, T.; Kang, J. Associations between Positive Health-Related Effects and Soundscapes Perceptual Constructs: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, M.; Kang, J.; Kang, J. Does Soundscape Perception Affect Health Benefits, as Mediated by Restorative Perceptions in Urban Forests? Forests 2023, 14, 1798. [Google Scholar]
  17. Schafer, R. The soundscape: Our sonic environment and the tuning of the world. Zhurnal Vyss. Nervn. Deiatelnosti Im. I P Pavlov. 1999, 38, 569–570. [Google Scholar]
  18. Pijanowski, B.C.; Villanueva-Rivera, L.J.; Dumyahn, S.L.; Farina, A.; Krause, B.L.; Napoletano, B.M.; Gage, S.H.; Pieretti, N. Soundscape Ecology: The Science of Sound in the Landscape. BioScience 2011, 61, 203–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dumyahn, S.L.; Pijanowski, B.C. Soundscape Conservation. Landsc. Ecol. 2011, 26, 1327–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gage, S.H.; Axel, A.C. Visualization of Temporal Change in Soundscape Power of a Michigan Lake Habitat over a 4-Year Period. Ecol. Inform. 2014, 21, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fuller, S.; Axel, A.C.; Tucker, D.; Gage, S.H. Connecting Soundscape to Landscape: Which Acoustic Metrics Reflect Landscape Configuration across an Urban Gradient? Landsc. Ecol. 2015, 30, 1057–1073. [Google Scholar]
  22. Krause, B.L.; Farina, A. Using Ecoacoustic Methods to Survey the Impacts of Climate Change on Biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 195, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pijanowski, B.C.; Farina, A.; Gage, S.H.; Dumyahn, S.L.; Krause, B.L. What Is Soundscape Ecology? An Introduction and Overview of an Emerging New Science. Landsc. Ecol. 2011, 26, 1213–1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Miksis-Olds, J.L.; Donaghay, P.L.; Miller, J.H.; Tyack, P.L.; Nystuen, J.A. Noise Level Correlates with Manatee Use of Foraging Habitats. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2007, 121, 3011–3020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Miksis-Olds, J.L.; Tyack, P.L. Manatee (Trichechus manatus) Vocalization Usage in Relation to Environmental Noise Levels. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2009, 125, 1806–1815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Krause, B.L. Voices of the Wild: Animal Songs, Human Din, and the Call to Save Natural Soundscapes; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  27. Huang, S.; Zheng, Y.; Cheng, L.; Ji, C.; Wang, S.; Dong, J. The impact mechanism of urban park health benefit evaluation based on landscape preference. J. Nanjing For. Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2021, 45, 221–230. [Google Scholar]
  28. Asojo, A.; Hazazi, F. Biophilic Design Strategies and Indoor Environmental Quality: A Case Study. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yuan, Z.; Jian, K.; Hong, J. Urban Sound and Health; China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lam, B.; Ong, Z.-T.; Ooi, K.; Ong, W.-H.; Wong, T.; Watcharasupat, K.N.; Boey, V.; Lee, I.; Hong, J.Y.; Kang, J.; et al. Automating Urban Soundscape Enhancements with AI: In-situ Assessment of Quality and Restorativeness in Traffic-Exposed Residential Areas. Build. Environ. 2024, 266, 112106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, J. Impact of rural soundscape on environmental restoration: The mediating effects of tourism nostalgia and place attachment. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0300328. [Google Scholar]
  32. Shu, S.; Ma, H. Exploring the role of soundscape in restorative experience: A study on children in indoor and outdoor environments. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1004325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, H.; Zhang, X.; Kang, J. Effects of different natural soundscapes on human restoration. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 67812. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hedblom, M.; Gunnarsson, B.; Schaefer, M.; Knez, I.; Thorsson, P.; Lundström, J.N. Sounds of Nature in the City: No Evidence of Bird Song Improving Stress Recovery. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Onosahwo, I.T. Sound as a supportive design intervention for improving health care experience in the clinical ecosystem: A qualitative study. Complement. Ther. Clin. Pract. 2017, 29, 58–96. [Google Scholar]
  36. Yuan, Z. Research on the Restorative Benefits of Soundscapes and Strategies for Improving Sound Environment Quality in Urban Open Spaces. New Archit. 2014, 32, 18–21. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Results of ANOVA between soundscape type and single soundscape recovery.
Table 1. Results of ANOVA between soundscape type and single soundscape recovery.
SourceSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSignificance
Between Groups1655.3808206.923700.933<0.001
Within Groups199.2676750.295
Total1854.647683
Table 2. Homogeneous subset division of restoration of single soundscape.
Table 2. Homogeneous subset division of restoration of single soundscape.
SubsetSound TypeCasesMeanSignificance
1Vehicle Noise76−2.62100.099
Construction Noise76−2.4756
2Conversation76−0.87880.283
Thunder76−0.7840
3Leaves Rustling760.21420.705
Insect Chirps760.2475
4Flowing Water761.26910.089
Light Music761.4193
5Bird Calls761.98901.000
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for single soundscape recovery.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for single soundscape recovery.
Sound TypeCasesMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error95% CI (Lower)95% CI (Upper)
Light Music761.41930.61130.07011.27971.5590
Construction Noise76−2.47560.37990.0436−2.5624−2.3887
Vehicle Noise76−2.62100.30440.0349−2.6905−2.5514
Conversation76−0.87880.80170.0920−1.0620−0.6956
Insect Chirps760.24750.63900.07330.10150.3935
Bird Calls761.98900.41060.04711.89522.0828
Leaves Rustling760.21420.42400.04860.11730.3111
Flowing Water761.26910.50180.05761.15441.3837
Thunder76−0.78400.62850.0721−0.9276−0.6404
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for combined soundscape recovery.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for combined soundscape recovery.
Soundscape TypeCasesMeanStd. DeviationStd. Error95% CI (Lower)95% CI (Upper)
Light Music760.23080.09940.01140.20810.2535
Bird Calls760.94400.19490.02240.89950.9885
Flowing Water760.46040.18210.02090.41880.5020
Music + Bird Calls761.31100.24920.02861.25411.3680
Music + Flowing Water760.62470.16440.01890.58710.6623
Bird Calls + Water761.29680.27460.03151.23401.3595
Music + Bird Calls + Water760.52400.25890.02970.46480.5831
Table 5. Results of variance analysis between single and combined soundscape restorative benefits.
Table 5. Results of variance analysis between single and combined soundscape restorative benefits.
SourceSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSignificance
Between Groups20.230120.230126.989<0.001
Within Groups84.4325300.159
Total104.663531
Table 6. Results of variance analysis among seven combined soundscapes.
Table 6. Results of variance analysis among seven combined soundscapes.
SourceSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSignificance
Between Groups81.219613.536303.137<0.001
Within Groups23.4445250.045
Total104.663531
Table 7. Homogeneous subset division of restorative benefits for seven combined soundscapes.
Table 7. Homogeneous subset division of restorative benefits for seven combined soundscapes.
SubsetSoundscape TypeCasesMeanSignificance
1Light Background Music760.23081.000
2Flowing Water760.46040.064
Music + Bird Calls + Water760.5240
3Music + Flowing Water760.62471.000
4Bird Calls760.94401.000
5Bird Calls + Water761.29680.677
Music + Bird Calls761.3110
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fei, X.; Wu, Y.; Dong, J.; Kong, D. The Effects of Soundscape Interactions on the Restorative Potential of Urban Green Spaces. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2674. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062674

AMA Style

Fei X, Wu Y, Dong J, Kong D. The Effects of Soundscape Interactions on the Restorative Potential of Urban Green Spaces. Sustainability. 2025; 17(6):2674. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062674

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fei, Xinhui, Yuanjing Wu, Jianwen Dong, and Deyi Kong. 2025. "The Effects of Soundscape Interactions on the Restorative Potential of Urban Green Spaces" Sustainability 17, no. 6: 2674. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062674

APA Style

Fei, X., Wu, Y., Dong, J., & Kong, D. (2025). The Effects of Soundscape Interactions on the Restorative Potential of Urban Green Spaces. Sustainability, 17(6), 2674. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062674

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