Next Article in Journal
Environmental Regulation and Corporate Green Transformation: Cognitive and Innovation Channels Within a Financing Boundary
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Variation in Soil Erosion and Potential Pattern of Soil Nutrient Loss in the Southeastern Low Mountains and Hills of the Daxing’anling Mountains
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 18
Issue 16
10.3390/su18168205
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

Research on the Impact of Slopes on Restorative Benefits and Landscape Preferences

by
Shuling Wu
1,
Xingyang Li
2,
Ruiyun Dong
1 and
Jianwen Dong
1,*
1
College of Landscape Architecture and Art, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China
2
Xiamen Academy of Arts and Design, Fuzhou University, Xiamen 361000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(16), 8205; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18168205
Submission received: 7 June 2026 / Revised: 9 July 2026 / Accepted: 7 August 2026 / Published: 11 August 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Urban and Rural Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

(1) Background: As urbanization accelerates worldwide, mental health issues have become a major public health challenge, threatening the social sustainability of cities. Despite growing attention to restorative urban landscapes, the visual characteristics of slopes—an integral yet underexplored component—remain insufficiently studied regarding their psychological benefits. (2) Methods: This study employed an online questionnaire survey across three slope variable groups: gradient, quantity, and shape. Open-ended feedback was also collected to explore latent behavioral intentions. (3) Results: Perceived restorative benefit scores decreased with increasing slope gradient; however, this decline tended to level off when the slope exceeded 30%. Gradient changes primarily influenced emotional, cognitive, and behavioral dimensions, with limited effects on self-reported physiological sensations. Combinations of 2–3 slopes yielded the highest perceived restorative benefits, with significant gender differences observed. Irregular and curved shapes received the highest scores, whereas participants under 18 displayed a unique preference for sharp-edged forms. Open-ended responses frequently mentioned “lying down” and “lying flat.” (4) Conclusions: These findings reveal differentiated effects of slope visual characteristics on psychological restoration and landscape preference, offering evidence-based guidance for health-oriented and sustainable urban landscape design. These findings contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), by demonstrating how slope morphology can be strategically used to create restorative urban environments that support both human well-being and ecological rationality.

1. Introduction

The global urbanization process continues to accelerate, and mental health issues have become a major public health challenge worldwide [1]. According to United Nations projections, 70% of the global population will reside in urban areas by 2050 [2]. This trend is particularly pronounced in rapidly developing countries like China, where urban expansion increasingly distances residents from natural environments. Rapid urbanization and the significant acceleration of urban lifestyles have exacerbated widespread mental health problems, including anxiety and mood disorders [3,4].
The therapeutic potential of natural environments has long attracted scholarly attention. Kaplan’s Attention Restoration Theory (ART) and Ulrich’s Stress Reduction Theory (SRT) have laid the theoretical foundation for this field, revealing the unique role of natural environments in relieving stress, restoring attention, and improving mood [5,6,7]. The Kaplans proposed the concept of “restorativeness,” which refers to the capacity of natural environments to help individuals recover from psychological fatigue. Natural environments have been shown to provide significantly greater perceived restorative benefits than urban built environments, and this benefit is closely related to individual aesthetic preferences for landscapes [8,9,10,11,12,13]. A substantial body of research has empirically confirmed the positive perceived restorative benefits of natural environments. However, the specific landscape elements contributing to these restorative environments have not been thoroughly explored. As research has progressed, scholars have gradually shifted from macro-level benefit validation to micro-level element analysis. For instance, Senese et al. discussed in detail the specific contributions of various natural elements to perceived restorative benefits [14]; Li et al. found that plant configuration has differential effects on perceived restorative benefits [15]; other studies have also examined micro-design elements such as biodiversity [16,17,18], soundscape design [19,20], and waterscape features [21,22,23,24,25].
As a crucial factor in landscape design, topographical elements are gradually gaining attention in restorative landscape research. Appropriate topographical design can create diverse views through vertical undulations and generate novel spatial perceptions and experiences [26,27,28,29,30]. Several scholars have investigated the landscape preferences and perceived restorative benefits of landforms: Deng et al. studied the restorative differences among mountainous terrain, flat lawns, and waterscapes, finding that the restorative effect of mountainous terrain was second only to that of waterscapes [31]; Samir Sayadi et al. discovered that scenes combining moderate slopes with buildings and vegetation were the most preferred [32]; Liu et al. demonstrated that topographical landscape types are associated with greater restorative experiences [33]; Sonntag-Öström et al. found that appropriate topographical variation provides conditions for balancing openness and enclosure, offering privacy and a sense of shelter for solitary meditation [34], a setting that also aligns with the “prospect-refuge” theory [35].
Reviewing existing literature reveals that research on the perceived restorative benefits of topographical elements is largely concentrated in two areas: one comparing the restorative effects of landforms with other landscape elements, and the other focusing on the overall spatial perception and psychological experience induced by landforms themselves. However, most of these studies treat landforms as a holistic, typological background element, with less in-depth exploration of how specific morphological characteristics affect psychological restoration processes. A systematic analysis of the relationship between various topographical parameters and perceived restorative benefits is also lacking. Questions such as “What form of terrain do people prefer most?” and “What form of terrain provides the optimal perceived restorative benefit?” remain to be answered. Through experimental testing, this study explores the influence of topographical elements on perceived restorative benefits and landscape preferences, aiming to provide valuable references for the construction of urban therapeutic landscapes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Variable Selection and Control

Topographical elements encompass various aspects, including shape, slope, position, texture, material, color, and quantity [36,37,38,39,40,41]. Based on previous research, this study selected shape, slope, and quantity as core variables to investigate their effects on perceived restorative benefits and preferences. The specific classifications are as follows:
(1) Slope: Existing research lacks a unified classification standard for slope (slope % = [vertical drop/horizontal distance] × 100%). Samir Sayadi et al. classified slopes below 10% as gentle, 10–20% as moderate, and above 20% as steep [32]; Tang et al. defined 10–25% as moderate slopes and 40–100% as steep slopes [7]; the “Standard for Urban Residential Area Planning and Design” [42]. recommends green space slopes between 5–25%, with slopes exceeding 30% requiring engineering measures such as retaining walls. Synthesizing these classifications indicates that 10% and 20% are key thresholds distinguishing gentle from moderate slopes, 30% is a common threshold for engineering safety design, and 40% represents a critical boundary between steep and very steep slopes. Therefore, this study selected four levels—10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%—covering a complete gradient from gentle to steep slopes. Each level is supported by previous research or engineering practice, avoiding subjective arbitrariness. The consistent 10% interval between levels provides sufficient visual differentiation to elicit varied responses from participants, meeting the experimental requirements for variable continuity and discriminability. Additionally, field surveys of urban park topographies revealed that green spaces for public use typically have slopes ranging from 5% to 15%; landscape sculpting often employs slopes between 15% and 30% to create visual layering; slopes exceeding 30% are more commonly found in special areas like embankments and retaining walls. Thus, the 10–40% range selected in this study essentially covers the possible slope ranges in urban park green spaces, enhancing the practical applicability of the results [43].
(2) Quantity: Research by Arthur E. et al. has shown that changes in the number of landscape elements can significantly affect overall environmental complexity, and measuring complexity through objective, replicable elements is more meaningful for exploring its relationship with perceived environmental restorativeness [44]. For example, Helen Hoyle et al. altered density by increasing tree numbers, and Jiang et al. adjusted complexity by varying flower counts [45,46]. Referring to these studies, the quantity variable should exhibit a gradient from simple to complex within a visually discernible range; too few elements may not create effective differences, while too many may exceed the visual carrying capacity of micro-topography landscapes. Therefore, this study set the number of landform units at 1, 2, 3, and 4.
(3) Shape: Birkhoff’s research indicated that besides spheres, the simplest polygons—such as pyramids, squares, and pentagons—possess high aesthetic value [47]. While squares are theoretically simple shapes, perfectly symmetrical, flat-sloped structures are extremely rare in natural terrains and lack ecological and engineering rationality. Selecting a frustum shape as a variable retains the clear boundaries of simple geometry while being more realistic and receiving high aesthetic scores [48], avoiding the incongruity of squares in natural terrains. Furthermore, humans have evolved a preference for smooth, natural shapes [49], necessitating the inclusion of an irregular shape. This study focuses on visually raised terrain (convex landforms), as they more easily form visual focal points and spatial definition in landscapes and are common in micro-topography design. Concave landforms, due to their different spatial enclosure characteristics, were not included in this experiment. Thus, the shape variables were defined as: irregular, pyramid, hemisphere, and frustum (Table 1).

2.2. Scene Design

First, this study used a DJI Osmo Pocket 3 to collect background and terrain materials in Xiamen Haiguan Park (Fujian Province, China), ensuring the experimental materials conformed to natural environmental characteristics. Second, to ensure that only topographical features differed among the four scenes in each questionnaire group, Adobe Photoshop CC 2019 was used for uniform background processing: the pen tool was used to extract and adjust terrain elements; color and texture adjustments maintained material consistency; smart objects and masks achieved natural integration; finally, terrains with different slopes were added to a unified background to create multiple scene groups, with artificial blurring applied to the edges of terrain samples to simulate realistic natural effects. To ensure the processed images authentically and consistently represented the topographical landscapes, a pre-test was conducted before the formal experiment. Ten landscape architecture graduate students and five ordinary park visitors were invited as evaluators to independently view comparison sets of all experimental images and original photographs. They rated the images on two dimensions: (1) Realism: “Does this image authentically represent a natural topographical landscape?”; (2) Consistency: “Are the materials, lighting, and colors consistent across scenes?” A 5-point Likert scale was used (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Pre-test results showed mean scores of 4.38 ± 0.52 for realism and 4.22 ± 0.48 for consistency, both above 4.0, indicating the image quality met experimental requirements. Based on feedback from the pre-test, a few images with less natural integration were further optimized.
This study focused on the landscape characteristics of landforms and their perceived restorative benefits; therefore, the experimental design did not include flat lawn scenes without landforms in the restorative rating system. This decision was based on two considerations: first, existing literature has clearly confirmed a positive correlation between flat lawns and perceived restorative benefits [50,51,52]; second, to highlight the research focus, we concentrated the experimental variables on the comparative analysis of different topographical elements. In the landscape preference section, considering that some participants might inherently dislike landforms, an additional flat image (Scene E) was included as a control in all three groups for comparison with various topographical landscapes, supplementing quantitative data with public perceptual differences (Figure 1).

2.3. Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire distributed to participants included questions on restorativeness, preference, demographic characteristics, and open-ended questions. For restorativeness, the Self-Rating Restorative Scale (SRRS) was employed, developed by Han based on a combination of Stress Reduction Theory and Attention Restoration Theory. The SRRS has been proven to be a valid and reliable measurement tool for quantifying the restorative impact of various environments on humans [53,54]. It encompasses four dimensions—emotion, physiology, cognition, and behavior—with 8 test items. Research has shown that the SRRS, integrating two theories, is convenient to administer, uses fewer items, and can reduce participant fatigue. Given the established close relationship between perceived restorative benefits and landscape preferences [55,56], a preference question was included. To delve deeper into the drivers behind preferences, two open-ended questions were also included, allowing participants to freely express their reasons: “Why do you like this image?” and “What would you like to do in this environment?” Additionally, as demographic characteristics might influence perceptions of landscape design [57], questions regarding residence, frequency of nature contact, education level, and gender were included at the end. Explanatory notes were added to ensure comprehension. At the beginning of the questionnaire, participants were informed: “1 (leftmost) = negative feeling; 10 (rightmost) = positive feeling.”
In total, each participant answered 8 restorative questions (Table 2), 1 preference question, 2 open-ended questions, and 7 demographic questions. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Fujian Provincial Hospital Affiliated with Fuzhou University (File Number: IEC-SG-013-4.0).

2.4. Participants

The questionnaire was created using the Wenjuanxing platform and distributed via a link and QR code through: (1) sharing in WeChat and QQ groups (university students and parent groups); (2) promotional posts with questionnaire links on platforms like Rednote (v9.13.1) and TikTok (v35.4.0) for public recruitment. The questionnaire was distributed from April 27 to 1 September 2025. Participants were required to be in good health, without serious illnesses or color vision deficiencies that could affect results. Prior to participation, they had not consumed stimulating beverages (alcohol, coffee) and signed informed consent, which included the author’s contact information and allowed them to withdraw at any time. The quantity variation group collected 268 valid responses, the slope variation group collected 249, and the shape variation group collected 210, totaling 727 valid responses.

2.5. Experimental Design

There were three questionnaire groups. During the experiment, participants were randomly shown one group (Group 1: slope variation, Group 2: quantity variation, Group 3: shape variation) and asked to rate individual images based on their feelings. A 10-point Likert scale was used (e.g., “Not at all” (1) to “Very much” (10)). Considering that smaller mobile screens might affect display and user experience, participants were advised in the instructions to use a computer browser for access, with detailed guidance provided. Only one image was displayed at a time to maintain focus and consistency. After rating an image, participants clicked “Next” to proceed. The “Previous” button allowed flexible review and modification of previous ratings. To prevent fatigue and potential bias from image order, a double randomization process was employed. First, participants were randomly assigned to one of the three groups. Second, the presentation order of images within each group was randomized. After rating all four assigned images, all images in that group were displayed together for participants to choose their favorite and answer open-ended questions.

2.6. Data Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 27.0 for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). One-way repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted, followed by post-hoc comparisons with Bonferroni correction. To explore associations between landscape preferences and demographic characteristics, Fisher’s exact test and Pearson’s chi-square test were used, with a significance level of p = 0.05. Participants’ responses to open-ended questions were systematically organized, coded, and analyzed. The text retrieval function in Wenjuanxing was used to identify frequently recurring keywords across all responses, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the reasons for differential perceived restorative benefits and landscape preferences.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

Analysis of demographic characteristics showed that 57% (n = 414) of participants were from urban areas. The age range was broad, including individuals under 18 (n = 69) and adults. In total, 65% (n = 472) held a bachelor’s degree or higher, indicating a relatively high education level. Males comprised 36% (n = 261), females 63% (n = 458), with a few preferring not to disclose or identifying as other. Participants included 11% (n = 80) landscape professionals and 89% (n = 647) non-professionals. The majority expressed a fondness for nature contact, with 67% (n = 487) showing a preference for topographical landscapes (Figure 2). Demographic statistics for each of the three questionnaire groups were also calculated to confirm successful random assignment (Table 3).

3.2. Analysis of Restorative Benefits

Main effect analysis indicated that the three topographical variables—slope, quantity, and shape—all had significant effects on perceived restorative benefits (p < 0.001). All three variables showed medium effect sizes (slope η2 = 0.180, quantity η2 = 0.153, shape η2 = 0.120), with relatively large absolute effect sizes and sufficient statistical power (Table 4), confirming the reliability of the analysis results with adequate sample sizes.
All three variable groups were further analyzed using box plots (Figure 3) and multiple comparison analyses for pairwise group comparisons (Table 5). Box plots used letter annotations to indicate significance, with results detailed below.

3.2.1. Effects of Slope Gradient Variation on Restorative Benefits

Slope variation had a significant effect on perceived restorative benefits (p < 0.001, n = 249). As slope increased from 10% to 40%, scores across the four dimensions (emotion, cognition, behavior, and physiology) generally showed a decreasing trend. However, mean values for all dimensions remained above 5.5. Notably, scores in the emotion, cognition, and behavior dimensions exhibited fluctuations when the slope changed between 20% and 30%.
Further analysis revealed that although self-rated physiological scores decreased with increasing slope, the changes were not statistically significant (p = 0.820, p = 0.434, p = 0.800), indicating a relatively limited impact of slope variation on physiological perception. Only when comparing extreme slopes (10% vs. 40%) did self-rated physiological perception show a significant difference (mean difference = 0.5181, p < 0.001). In contrast, emotion, cognition, and behavior dimensions showed significant changes across the 10% to 30% slope range (p < 0.05).
However, when slope increased from 30% to 40%, changes in these three dimensions were no longer significant (Emotion: p = 0.527; Cognition: p = 0.598; Behavior: p = 0.887) (Table 5, Figure 3).

3.2.2. Effects of Quantity Variation on Restorative Benefits

ANOVA revealed a significant effect of terrain quantity variation on perceived restorative benefits (p < 0.001). When the number of landforms increased from 1 to 2, emotional scores significantly increased by 1.4163 points (p = 0.000), and increased further by 1.2560 points when moving from 1 to 3 (p < 0.001). Self-rated physiological scores showed a similar trend, increasing by 1.1316 points (p < 0.001) for 2 landforms compared with 1, and by 1.2392 points for 3 landforms compared with 1 (p = 0.000). Notably, there were no significant differences between the 2-landform and 3-landform configurations across any dimension. However, when the number increased to 4, scores across all dimensions significantly decreased (Emotion decreased by 1.1435 points, p < 0.001; Physiology decreased by 1.3756 points, p = 0.000; Cognition decreased by 0.9856 points, p = 0.000; Behavior decreased by 1.1220 points, p < 0.001).

3.2.3. Effects of Shape Variation on Restorative Benefits

Landform shape had a significant effect on perceived restorative benefits (p < 0.001). Irregular landforms exhibited the highest perceived restorative benefits across the emotion, physiology, cognition, and behavior dimensions. Emotional scores for irregular shapes were significantly higher than for pyramid shapes (by 1.64 points, p < 0.001), frustum shapes (by 1.34 points, p < 0.001), and hemispheres (by 0.92 points, p < 0.001). Notably, a specific difference was observed between pyramid and frustum shapes: although they showed no significant differences in emotion or self-rated physiological scores (p > 0.05), pyramid shapes scored significantly higher than frustum shapes in the cognitive dimension (by 0.51 points, p = 0.012).
Analysis of the three variable sets revealed significant differences in the impact on perceived restorative benefits. Slope influence showed the most regular trend, with restorative scores exhibiting a clear gradient as slope increased from 10% to 40%. In contrast, within-group differences were more substantial for the shape and quantity variables: irregular landforms achieved mean scores above 7.5, while 2-landform and 3-landform configurations scored even higher, exceeding 8 points. This phenomenon may be related to participant demographics and personal preferences. These findings suggest that while slope effects on perceived restorative benefits are relatively stable, the influence of shape and quantity factors is more susceptible to individual differences. Therefore, we will next explore why people prefer certain landform configurations and the factors underlying these preferences.

3.3. Landscape Preference Analysis

3.3.1. Effects of Slope Gradient Variation on Preferences

Preference analysis in the slope variation group showed that 48.19% of participants most preferred the 10% slope terrain, while 30.52% preferred the flat scene. Further analysis revealed that participants preferring the 10% slope frequently used descriptors such as “gentle” and “comfortable,” whereas those favoring the flat scene tended to use terms like “safe,” “open,” and “flat” (Figure 4).

3.3.2. Effects of Quantity Variation on Preferences

Fisher’s exact test revealed a significant association between terrain quantity and preference (p < 0.001). Most participants showed a preference for configurations with 2 or 3 landforms and the flat scene. In total, 21.05% of participants favored the flat scene, with feedback commonly including evaluative terms like “harmonious” and “comfortable,” indicating that an appropriate number of landforms is more appealing (Figure 4).

3.3.3. Effects of Shape Variation on Preferences

Participants generally preferred irregular landforms and flat scenes. Among those who preferred irregular shapes, 30% of responses in the open-ended questions used descriptors like “natural,” 10% mentioned “gentle” characteristics, while others expressed intuitive preferences. Notably, the group preferring pyramid shapes was predominantly composed of minors, with their feedback frequently including terms like “interesting” and “unique,” suggesting that distinctive forms hold particular appeal for adolescents. In the shape variation group, a large proportion (34.83%) of respondents preferred the completely flat image (Scene E) (Figure 4).

3.3.4. Effects of Demographic Characteristics on Preferences

In the slope variation group, significant differences in slope preferences were found between landscape professionals and non-professionals (p = 0.003). Specifically, 75.20% of landscape professionals showed a clear preference for the 10% slope, while non-professionals’ preferences were more evenly distributed (43.50% preferred 10% slope, 34.40% preferred flat terrain). Both groups showed relatively balanced preferences for 20%, 30%, and 40% slopes (Figure 5).
In the quantity variation group, a more pronounced gender difference emerged: the majority (65.20%) of male participants preferred the 2-landform configuration, whereas a majority (53.20%) of female participants preferred the 3-landform configuration (Figure 5).
Chi-square tests (p < 0.001) revealed a statistically significant association between participant age and shape preference. Participants under 18 showed a preference pattern distinctly different from other age groups, with the vast majority (88.90%) preferring the pyramid shape. This may explain the significant differences observed in the cognitive and behavioral dimension scores. In contrast, other age groups (18–65+) tended to prefer irregular shapes and flat scenes, with relatively balanced proportions (Figure 5).
Frequency of nature contact was significantly correlated with shape preference (p = 0.003). Participants who “rarely/never” contacted nature (66.70%) showed a stronger preference for flat scenes, with relatively even preferences for other shapes. Participants contacting nature “2–3 times a month” (47.30%) showed a preference for irregular shapes, while those with other contact frequencies showed relatively balanced preferences for irregular shapes and flat scenes (Figure 5).
Cross-analysis of the three datasets revealed that among participants who preferred flat scenes, those with “rarely/never” and “2–3 times a month” nature contact frequencies were significantly overrepresented (p < 0.05). This suggests an association between nature contact frequency and landscape preference: groups with more frequent nature contact tended to prefer landscapes with some slope, while those with less contact preferred flat, open spaces.

3.4. Relationship Between Restorative Benefits and Landscape Preferences

The most preferred scenes in the slope, quantity, and shape groups also received the highest perceived restorative benefit scores (Figure 6). Pearson correlation analysis showed a significant positive correlation between the number of people preferring a scene and its perceived restorative benefit score across groups (Slope p = 0.037, Shape p = 0.007, Quantity p < 0.05), indicating a stable positive covariation between landscape preference and perceived restorativeness. This aligns with previous findings that environments rated more highly by people also tend to receive higher restorative perception scores [58]. However, it is crucial to note that correlation does not imply causation; our data do not support a causal inference that “preference leads to higher restorativeness” or vice versa. The covariation more likely reflects a tendency for individuals to simultaneously evaluate the same environment positively on both aesthetic and restorative dimensions. Nevertheless, the practical implication of landscape preference is clear: understanding the aesthetic tendencies of target user groups can help design landscape spaces that are both popular and potentially restorative, effectively attracting users and facilitating their benefit.

3.5. Effects of Spontaneous Bodily Intention on Behavioral Motivation

A considerable proportion of respondents mentioned the intention “to lie down” in the open-ended questions (Slope group n = 97, Shape group n = 106, Quantity group n = 84). This study categorized respondents based on whether they mentioned “wanting to lie down” (0 = mentioned, 1 = not mentioned) and compared their scores on the SRRS behavior dimension across the three topographic feature groups. Results showed that the group expressing the intention “to lie down” consistently scored significantly higher on the behavior dimension than the non-expression group across all terrain types (Slope group p < 0.001; Shape group p = 0.008; Quantity group p = 0.018). This indicates that the spontaneous body intention “to lie down” is a positive influencing factor for behavioral motivation.

4. Discussion

4.1. Slope Gradient Variation Shows a Threshold Effect and Professional Differentiation

The slope variation group study showed that as slope increased, scores for emotion, cognition, and behavior decreased, indicating that environmental features can influence emotional regulation [59]. When slope increased to a certain value, its effect on these dimensions became non-significant. This suggests that reasonable modification of slope can significantly improve landscape restorativeness, but beyond a certain height, other factors need consideration. This reflects Kaplan’s “moderate challenge” principle, where appropriate environmental stimulation best promotes psychological recovery [60]. Regarding self-reported physiological perceptions, although scores showed a general downward trend with increasing slope, the changes were not significant, except for the extreme comparison between 10% and 40%. This echoes Hartig et al.’s findings that changes in objective physiological indicators (e.g., heart rate, skin conductance) often lag behind or are less easily perceived subjectively [61], suggesting that subjective awareness of one’s own physiological state may be less sensitive than changes in emotional or cognitive perception. It is important to emphasize that the “physiological perception” measured here is participants’ subjective estimation of their bodily state (e.g., breathing, sweating), not objective physiological data from instruments; the two should not be directly equated.
After the slope reached 30%, the impact on perceived restorative benefits became non-significant, suggesting a possible threshold effect [62]. This threshold might result from several factors: urban parks rarely feature slopes above 30%, giving participants less behavioral adaptation to steeper gradients. Furthermore, slopes exceeding 30% may be perceived as walking on a steep, unguarded roof—while the novelty or stimulation might not increase significantly, the underlying risk perception inhibits psychological relaxation. This may explain why in the 30–40% slope range, increasing slope does not significantly affect perceived restorative benefits.
Professional background significantly influences slope preferences. Research indicates that professional training in landscape architecture significantly affects landscape preferences [63]. In our experiment, landscape professionals showed a distinct, concentrated preference for scenes with designed landforms (particularly 10% slopes), while non-professionals’ choices were more dispersed, without a strong inclination for or against landforms. This difference may arise because professionals are better able to appreciate and interpret landscapes with complex terrain features. It should be noted that preferences based on systematic knowledge frameworks and those rooted in life experience and cultural cognition each have their own value, together forming a complete landscape evaluation system [64].
Therefore, in design practice, a gradient terrain strategy can be adopted: use gentler slopes to create artistic terrain, satisfying professional aesthetic needs for spatial layering and dynamic views; for high-use public activity areas, combine gentle slopes with flat areas to ensure accessibility and resting comfort. This “elastic terrain” system can stimulate landscape interest and contrast through micro-topographic changes while offering a range of environmental experiences for different groups, thus enhancing the overall restorative potential of the space.

4.2. Quantity Variation Shows a “Rise-and-Fall” Nonlinear Pattern with Gender Differences

The results indicate that the effect of terrain quantity on perceived restorativeness follows an initial increase followed by a decrease, a pattern conceptually similar to the “inverted-U” hypothesis in environmental psychology [65]. However, with only four discrete levels, this study cannot rigorously prove a full inverted-U function; this inference requires further research for confirmation. Nevertheless, the results suggest that a moderate level of terrain complexity maximizes perceived restorative benefits, while overly simple or complex designs reduce effectiveness. The optimal range (2–3 landforms) provides necessary environmental stimulation without causing cognitive overload.
Notably, gender differences emerged in quantity preferences: males tended to prefer more concise configurations (2 landforms), while females favored slightly more complex combinations (3 landforms). This aligns with findings by Åsa Ode Sang et al., who reported that gender influences the perception and use of urban green spaces, with women generally more attuned to the complex details of nature and more inclined to use urban green spaces in daily life [58].
Consequently, landscapes formed artificially or naturally with multi-layered or stepped terrain structures can create a rich and harmonious terrain rhythm in design. Incorporating adjustable micro-topographic elements, such as undulating meadows or terraced platforms, can create three-dimensional landscapes with both visual continuity and experiential diversity. This layered, variable terrain construction caters to the human subconscious desire for both order and change while offering personalized spatial perception dimensions for different users.

4.3. Slope Shape Variation Reflects Evolutionary Preferences and Group Heterogeneity

Irregular terrains demonstrated the most prominent perceived restorative benefits, significantly outperforming other shapes in emotional and physiological dimensions. This suggests an evolutionary preference for smooth, natural forms, aligning with psycho-evolutionary theory and preference matrix theory, as such shapes often signal safety and resource abundance, confirming that natural forms are more stress-reducing than artificial ones.
Although irregular shapes offered the best perceived restorative benefits overall, the under-18 group displayed an exceptional preference for pyramid shapes. One possible speculation for this unique preference for sharp shapes among adolescents is that it may relate to the psychological developmental characteristics of this age group, which seek novelty and stimulation. However, this speculation requires future research that directly measures psychological traits like risk-taking propensity for validation [66]. Other age groups generally preferred irregular shapes and flat scenes, consistent with Tan et al.’s findings that landscape preferences are often age-dependent [67]. This study also found that groups with lower frequencies of nature contact preferred flat scenes more, suggesting that individuals lacking natural experience may find complex landscape information more difficult to process [68].
In conclusion, to address group differences, the main terrain body should prioritize natural forms, while incorporating geometric terrain modules in youth activity areas to cater to their exploratory and adventurous psychological needs. Additionally, natural transition modules, achieved through progressive terrain simplification, can help groups with less nature experience gradually adapt to complex landscapes. This approach enables humanized responses to different users within the same space, respecting both the physiological preference for natural forms and the psychological needs of specific groups, demonstrating design inclusivity.

4.4. Synesthetic Effects of Slope Landscapes: From Visual Affordance to Behavioral Activation

Analysis of participants’ open-ended feedback on terrain landscapes revealed that a substantial majority in all three groups expressed a desire to “lie down” on their preferred image, and this subjective feeling significantly influenced their behavioral intentions. This indicates that participants’ behavioral intentions already contained a clear kinesthetic component from merely viewing terrain images, without actual physical activity. This visual-to-tactile cross-modal association demonstrates the connection between landscape design and synesthesia [69]. Synesthesia, defined as an automatic cross-modal perceptual phenomenon, refers to the stimulation of one sense leading to the perception or experience of another [70]. It is the result of interaction between different sensations, formed by the interplay of different analyzers in the central nervous system, and is a conditioned reflex phenomenon.
In this study, participants’ visual interpretation of terrain features like slope and shape translated into kinesthetic intentions, forming a process of visual-to-kinesthetic synesthesia [71]. Synesthesia serves as a mediator between individuals’ subjective environmental experience and their behavioral responses in that environment [42]. It links landscape perception and environmental behavior, revealing that environmental features influence behavioral decisions not only through cognitive evaluation systems but also directly trigger embodied behavioral intentions via the rapid pathway of synesthesia. This provides a new theoretical perspective for understanding the complete chain of how environmental features inspire behavioral intentions. Specifically, gentler terrains, with their smooth forms, visually create an “affordance” cue [71]—suggesting “this is a good place to lie down”—which significantly enhances users’ restorative experience.
For instance, in the Xuhui Runway Park project designed by Sasaki in Shanghai, the underground commercial frontage section, featuring a sloped lawn, visually suggested “lie-ability,” effectively guiding users’ lying behavior and creating a high-use rest space. This cross-sensory landscape experience provides stronger perceived restorative benefits than visual stimulation alone.

4.5. Limitations and Prospects

This study investigated the influence of topographical features on perceived restorative benefits and landscape preferences through visual experiments. While yielding some valuable findings, several limitations should be acknowledged.
Regarding experimental design and measurement, the study focused solely on the visual perception dimension, neglecting multi-sensory interactions such as touch. The experience of topographical landscapes is inherently multi-sensory, and a single visual channel may underestimate the restorative effects of real environments. Furthermore, the “restorative benefits” measured are participants’ subjective evaluations of restorative experiences, not objective physiological measures (e.g., heart rate, skin conductance). Therefore, conclusions should be interpreted as “the influence of terrain features on perceived restorativeness” and should not be directly generalized to objective physiological or psychological restoration outcomes.
Concerning variable manipulation and analysis, the slope variable used only four discrete levels, with relatively large intervals, potentially missing critical change points within finer ranges. The observed “30–40% threshold effect” is thus a preliminary inference based on the available data; the exact threshold location requires verification with denser slope level designs. Additionally, changes in terrain features inevitably co-vary with attributes like visual complexity and spatial openness. The extent to which observed effects can be precisely attributed to a single topographical variable requires more refined experimental control for separation. Moreover, the analysis of the relationship between restorative benefits and landscape preferences is based on correlational statistics, precluding causal inferences. Causal pathways by which terrain features influence restorative perceptions need further examination using methods like structural equation modeling or experimental manipulation.
Regarding sample representativeness, the online recruitment method resulted in a sample predominantly composed of highly educated, urban residents, with a higher proportion of females, potentially limiting the generalizability of the conclusions. The landscape aesthetics and restorative perceptions of highly educated individuals may differ from the general public, and online questionnaires naturally filter out older adults unfamiliar with internet operations and some rural residents. Some subgroup analyses (e.g., the under-18 group, low nature contact frequency group) had relatively limited sample sizes, potentially affecting the stability of statistical tests. All participants were Chinese; whether the findings apply to other cultural contexts also requires cross-cultural comparative studies for validation. Furthermore, the experiments were conducted in idealized visual environments, without systematically examining how different environmental contexts might moderate the restorative perception of terrain, thus somewhat limiting the applicability of the findings to real, complex landscape scenarios.
To address these limitations, future research could integrate neuroscientific techniques like EEG and incorporate objective physiological indicators (e.g., heart rate, skin conductance) for mutual validation with subjective ratings. Employing VR technology to create multi-sensory interactive experimental environments could systematically manipulate and isolate the contributions of different sensory channels. Using denser slope levels and factorial experimental designs would allow precise characterization of the functional relationship between slope and perceived restorativeness. Combining online and offline recruitment methods, and expanding sample sizes for key subgroups such as adolescents, the elderly, and rural residents, would help test the generalizability of the conclusions. Additionally, cross-cultural comparative studies, along with investigations into how terrain’s restorative effects vary across different environmental settings, could progressively establish a more robust theoretical framework, providing stronger evidence-based guidance for therapeutic landscape design.
Future research should also examine how slope design can contribute to climate-adaptive and low-maintenance landscapes, further reinforcing the sustainability agenda.

5. Conclusions

This study explored the mechanisms by which terrain morphological characteristics influence perceived restorative benefits and landscape preferences. The experiments demonstrated that variations in slope, quantity, and shape all have differential effects on perceived restorative benefits and environmental preferences. The most preferred terrains were gentle slopes around 10%, configurations with 2–3 slope units, and natural curvilinear forms. Terrains providing the optimal perceived restorative benefits similarly featured gentle 10% slopes and natural forms, with configurations of 2–3 slope units yielding the highest benefits.
Specifically, the influence of slope variation on perceived restorative benefits exhibited a non-linear relationship: as slope increased, perceived restorative benefits generally declined, but this decline leveled off when slopes exceeded 30%, with score changes becoming non-significant. Regarding quantity, configurations with 2–3 landforms received the highest scores, while single or four landform configurations scored lower, showing a “rise then fall” non-linear trend, indicating that moderate terrain complexity contributes to higher perceived restorative evaluations. In terms of shape, irregular natural forms performed optimally in both emotional and self-rated physiological dimensions. However, the under-18 age group exhibited a preference for pyramid (triangular) terrains that differed markedly from other age groups.
In conclusion, for urban terrain landscape construction practices, gentle slopes (around 10%), moderate terrain quantities (2–3 units), and near-natural curvilinear forms are most preferred and significantly enhance perceived restorative benefits. The non-linear characteristics of slope influence and the “moderate complexity” effect of terrain quantity provide specific quantitative references for health-oriented landscape design.
These findings provide simple, evidence-based strategies—gentle slopes, moderate terrain complexity, and natural forms—to make urban green spaces more restorative, contributing to healthier and more sustainable cities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.L. and S.W.; methodology, X.L.; software, X.L.; validation, S.W. and J.D.; formal analysis, X.L.; investigation, X.L.; resources, S.W.; data curation, X.L.; writing—original draft preparation, X.L.; writing—review and editing, S.W. and R.D.; visualization, X.L.; supervision, S.W.; project administration, S.W.; funding acquisition, S.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Xiamen Academy of Arts and Design, Fuzhou University, grant number 2025R0013. The APC was funded by the same funder.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The questionnaire was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Fujian Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Fuzhou University (Document No. IEC-SG-013-4.0) on 1 December 2025. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created.

Acknowledgments

The authors sincerely thank Wu Shuling for her valuable guidance and support throughout this research. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Freeman, D. Global mental health challenges in the 21st century. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2022, 6, 1247–1252. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lyu, K.; de Dear, R.; Brambilla, A.; Globa, A. Restorative Benefits of Semi-outdoor Environments at the Workplace: Does the Thermal Realm Matter? Build. Environ. 2022, 222, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chen, Z.; Zhai, X.; Ye, S.; Zhang, Y.; Yu, J. A Meta-analysis of the Impact of Restorative Natural Environments on Urban Residents’ Mental Health and Planning Implications. Urban Plan. Int. 2016, 31, 16–26+43. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Shanahan, D.F.; Franco, L.; Lin, B.B.; Gaston, K.J.; Fuller, R.A. The Benefits of Natural Environments for physical activity. Sports Med. 2016, 46, 989–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ulrich, R.S.; Simons, R.F.; Losito, B.D.; Fiorito, E.; Miles, M.A.; Zelson, M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1991, 11, 201–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yang, C.; Tan, S.H. Health Enhancement Logic and Theoretical Framework of Restorative Environment in Park Green Spaces: Based on Supply-Demand Perspective. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2025, 41, 92–99. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  7. OECD; European Union. Health at a Glance: Europe 2022; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 169–182. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hartig, T.; Kahn, P.H. Living in cities, naturally. Science 2016, 352, 938–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Herzog, T.R.; Maguire, C.P.; Nebel, M.B. Assessing the restorative components of environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Nordh, H.; Alalouch, C.; Hartig, T. Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint methodology. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10, 95–103. [Google Scholar]
  12. Huang, Q.; Yang, M.; Jane, H.-A.; Li, S.; Bauer, N. Trees, grass, or concrete? The effects of different types of environments on stress reduction. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2020, 193, 103654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhang, D.T.; Chen, C.X.; Hong, B.; Li, S.H. Impact of Urban Green Space on Residents’ Health and Its Sustainability. J. Northwest Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2020, 50, 934–942. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Senese, V.P.; Pascale, A.; Maffei, L.; Cioffi, F.; Sergi, I.; Gnisci, A.; Masullo, M. The influence of personality traits on the measure of restorativeness in an urban park: A Multisensory Immersive Virtual Reality study. Neural Approaches Dyn. Signal Exch. 2020, 15, 347–357. [Google Scholar]
  15. Berto, R. The Role of Nature in Coping with Psycho-Physiological Stress: A Literature Review on Restorativeness. Behav. Sci. 2014, 4, 394–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zhang, L.; Dempsey, N.; Cameron, R. Flowers—Sunshine for the soul! How does floral colour influence preference, feelings of relaxation and positive up-lift. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 79, 127795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lin, W.; Zeng, C.; Bao, Z.; Jin, H. The therapeutic look up: Stress reduction and attention restoration vary according to the sky-leaf-trunk (SLT) ratio in canopy landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2023, 234, 104730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Duan, Y.F.; Li, S.H. Effects of Ornamental Forms of Plant Community Landscapes on Human Physiological Responses. Landsc. Archit. 2022, 29, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. 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]
  20. Wang, R.; Zhao, J.; Meitner, M.J.; Hu, Y.; Xu, X. Characteristics of urban green spaces in relation to aesthetic preference and stress recovery. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 41, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, J.; Guo, X.; Hong, X.C.; Zhang, X.W. Study on Individual Influencing Factors of Perceived Restorative Benefits of Soundscape in Urban Parks. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2022, 38, 40–45. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ratcliffe, E.; Gatersleben, B.; Sowden, P.T. Bird sounds and their contributions to perceived attention restoration and stress recovery. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 36, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Alvarsson, J.J.; Wiens, S.; Nilsson, M.E. Stress Recovery during Exposure to Nature Sound and Environmental Noise. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7, 1036–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Weng, Y.X.; Zhu, Y.J.; Dong, J.Y.; Wang, M.; Dong, J. Effects of Campus Green Space Soundscape on Emotion and Attention: A Case Study of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2021, 37, 88–93. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. White, M.; Smith, A.; Humphryes, K.; Pahl, S.; Snelling, D.; Depledge, M. Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 482–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Faggi, A.; Breuste, J.; Madanes, N.; Gropper, C.; Perelman, P. Water as an appreciated feature in the landscape: A comparison of residents’ and visitors’ preferences in Buenos Aires. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 60, 182–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kaczynski, A.T.; Potwarka, L.R.; Smale, B.J.A.; Havitz, M.E. Association of parkland proximity with neighborhood and park-based physical activity: Variations by gender and age. Leis. Sci. 2009, 31, 174–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Meng, R.X.; Xu, L.Q. A Review of the Restorative Potential Model of Small Green Spaces in High-Density Environments. Urban Archit. 2019, 16, 171–175. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhu, Y.J.; Weng, Y.X.; Huang, Y.L.; Wang, M.H.; Dong, J.W. A Preliminary Study on Restorative Soundscape in Campus Using Eye-tracking Analysis: A Case Study of Guanyin Lake in Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University Campus. Sci. Technol. Eng. 2020, 20, 10444–10451. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ulrich, R.S. Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment. Human Behavior and Environment; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1983; pp. 85–125. [Google Scholar]
  31. 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 For. Urban Green. 2020, 48, 126488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sayadi, S.; González-Roa, M.C.; Calatrava-Requena, J. Public preferences for landscape features: The case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy 2009, 26, 334–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liu, B.-X.; Stenlund, T.; Nordin, M.; Lundell, Y.; Ahlgren, C.; Fjellman-Wiklund, A. Study on the effects of different landscapes on elderly people’s body-mind health. Landsc. Archit. 2016, 7, 113–120. [Google Scholar]
  34. Sonntag-Öström, E.; Stenlund, T.; Nordin, M.; Lundell, Y.; Ahlgren, C.; Fjellman-Wiklund, A.; Järvholm, L.S.; Dolling, A. “Nature’s effect on my mind”—Patients’ qualitative experiences of a forest-based rehabilitation programme. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 607–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Crawford, D.W. The experience of landscape. J. Aesthet. Art Crit. 1976, 34, 367–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Ma, Y.H.; Jian, X.F.; Wang, J.S.; Chen, X. Differences in the Efficacy of Green Spaces in Cold-region University Campuses in Alleviating Student Anxiety between Summer and Winter and Their Environmental Driving Mechanisms. J. Chin. Urban For. 2026, 24, 60–67. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  37. Cheng, S.; Li, Z.; Zhang, D.S. Methods and Application for Assessing Visual Characteristics and Natural Healing Potential of Mountain Views in Renewal Areas from a Multi-dimensional Perspective. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2026, 42, 23–31. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  38. Ye, J.J.; Huang, J.Q.; Xiao, L. A Study on the Perceived Restorative Benefits of Planting Scenes in University Campus Living Areas Based on Virtual Reality Technology. Chin. Landsc. Archit. 2023, 39, 97–103. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  39. Cresswell, T. Place: A Short Introduction; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sacks, O. The Mind’s Eye; Picador: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  41. Peters, K. Where Land Meets Sea: Coastal explorations of landscape, representation and spatial experience. J. Hist. Geogr. 2015, 47, 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. GB 50180-2018; Standard for Urban Residential Area Planning and Design. China Architecture & Building Press: Beijing, China, 2018.
  43. Zhang, S.Y.; Yang, Y.; Du, F.J.; Li, X.L.; Kong, Y.R. Formation Mechanism and Scale Development of Therapeutic Landscape Tasks in Urban Blue-Green Spaces. Prog. Geogr. 2025, 44, 1036–1049. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Stamps, A.E. Simulation Effects on Environmental Preference. J. Environ. Manag. 1993, 38, 115–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hoyle, H.; Hitchmough, J.; Jorgensen, A. All about the wow factor? The relationships between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 164, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jiang, B.; Larsen, L.; Deal, B.; Sullivan, W.C. A dose—Response curve describing the relationship between tree cover density and landscape preference. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 139, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Birkhoff, G.D. Aesthetic Measure; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK, 1933. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sheppard, S.R.J. Visual Simulation: A User’s Guide for Architects, Engineers, and Planners; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  49. Stamps, A.; Nasar, J.L.; Hanyu, K. Using Pre-construction Validation to Regulate Urban Skylines. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2005, 71, 73–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bertacchini, F.; Bilotta, E.; Demarco, F.; Pantano, P.; Scuro, C. Multi-objective optimization and rapid prototyping for jewelry industry: Methodologies and case studies. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2021, 112, 2943–2959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. 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]
  52. Hassan, A.; Tao, J.; Li, G.; Jiang, M.; Liu, A.; Jiang, Z.; Liu, Z.; Chen, Q. Effects of Walking in Bamboo Forest and City Environments on Brainwave Activity in Young Adults. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2018, 2018, 9653857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. 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]
  54. Lin, N.; Xie, Y.S.; Zhuo, Z.X.; Huang, Q.T. Measurement and Application of the Self-Rating Restorative Scale in Urban Park Environments. J. Southwest For. Univ. (Soc. Sci.) 2018, 66–71. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  55. Pazhouhanfar, M.; Kamal, M.S.; Maulan, S.; Mariapan, M.; Davoodi, S.R. Relationship between the Preference and Perceived Restorative Potential of Urban Landscapes. HortTechnology 2011, 21, 514–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sang, Å.O.; Knez, I.; Gunnarsson, B.; Hedblom, M. The effects of naturalness, gender, and age on how urban green space is perceived and used. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 18, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Diehl, E.R.M. Conceptual Definitions of Healing Garden Types. Landsc. Archit. 2024, 31, 75–90. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hartig, T.; Evans, G.W.; Jamner, L.D.; Davis, D.S.; Gärling, T. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Van den Berg, A.E.; Jorgensen, A.; Wilson, E.R. Evaluating restoration in urban green spaces: Does setting type make a difference. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 127, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yu, K. Cultural variations in landscape preference: Comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and Western design experts. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995, 32, 107–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Abello, R.P.; Bernaldez, F.G. Landscape preference and personality. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1986, 13, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chang, Y.H.; Feng, X.Y. Research on the Demand Structure and Design Path of Healing Hospital Landscapes. Urban Archit. 2026, 23, 67–70+78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kaplan, S.; Kaplan, R. Cognition and Environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World; Praeger: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  65. Casey, B.J.; Getz, S.; Galvan, A. The adolescent brain. Dev. Rev. 2008, 28, 62–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. de Vries, S.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Natural environments-healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environ. Plan. 2003, 35, 1717–1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Taylor, A.F.; Kuo, F.E. Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park. J. Atten. Disord. 2009, 12, 402–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Stein, B.E.; Stanford, T.R. Multisensory integration: Current issues from the perspective of the single neuron. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2008, 9, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Wang, T.T. A Study on Owen Zuber’s Landscape Perception Theory. Master‘s Thesis, Shandong University, Jinan, China, 2020. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  70. Gibson, J.J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition, 1st ed.; Psychology Press: East Sussex, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  71. Liu, X.Z. Design and Practice of Greenways Based on Synesthesia Theory. Master‘s Thesis, Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao, China, 2015. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 18 08205 g001
Figure 1. Scene images of different slopes.
Figure 1. Scene images of different slopes.
Sustainability 18 08205 g001
Sustainability 18 08205 g002
Figure 2. Analysis of demographic characteristics.
Figure 2. Analysis of demographic characteristics.
Sustainability 18 08205 g002
Sustainability 18 08205 g003
Figure 3. Differences in restorative benefits among different slopes. Note: Two groups without the same letter indicate a significant difference. For example, in the emotional scores of the slope gradient group, P1 (a) and P2 (b) do not share the same letter, indicating that P1 significantly improves emotional feelings compared with P2, and the difference is significant. By contrast, although the emotional scores of P3 (c) and P4 (c) show a downward trend, they share the same letter, indicating no significant difference. In other words, P3 does not significantly affect emotional feelings compared with P4.
Figure 3. Differences in restorative benefits among different slopes. Note: Two groups without the same letter indicate a significant difference. For example, in the emotional scores of the slope gradient group, P1 (a) and P2 (b) do not share the same letter, indicating that P1 significantly improves emotional feelings compared with P2, and the difference is significant. By contrast, although the emotional scores of P3 (c) and P4 (c) show a downward trend, they share the same letter, indicating no significant difference. In other words, P3 does not significantly affect emotional feelings compared with P4.
Sustainability 18 08205 g003
Sustainability 18 08205 g004
Figure 4. Preference levels for different terrain scenes. Note: A, B, C, D, and E correspond to the scenes in Figure 2.
Figure 4. Preference levels for different terrain scenes. Note: A, B, C, D, and E correspond to the scenes in Figure 2.
Sustainability 18 08205 g004
Sustainability 18 08205 g005
Figure 5. Relationship between demographic characteristics and landscape preferences. Note: A, B, C, D, and E correspond to the scenes in Figure 2. The length of each bar indicates the number of people who preferred the scene, while color indicates different demographic characteristics.
Figure 5. Relationship between demographic characteristics and landscape preferences. Note: A, B, C, D, and E correspond to the scenes in Figure 2. The length of each bar indicates the number of people who preferred the scene, while color indicates different demographic characteristics.
Sustainability 18 08205 g005
Sustainability 18 08205 g006
Figure 6. Correlation between restorative benefits and preferences.
Figure 6. Correlation between restorative benefits and preferences.
Sustainability 18 08205 g006
Table 1. Grouping of Terrain Variables.
Table 1. Grouping of Terrain Variables.
Slope Gradient GroupQuantity GroupShape Group
P1: 10%S1: 1X1: Quadrangular pyramid
P2: 20%S2: 2X2: Truncated cone
P3: 30%S3: 3X3: Irregular form
P4: 40%S4: 4X4: Hemispherical form
Note: Terrain in the scenes was digitally modeled and adjusted from original materials using Adobe Photoshop; slope values were preset design values precisely controlled using software rulers and transformation tools.
Table 2. Restorative Scale Questions.
Table 2. Restorative Scale Questions.
DimensionEight Restorative Questions
EmotionIn this environment, how would you describe your emotional changes?
A1: Very irritable 1_2_3_4_5_6_7_8_9_10 Very gentle. Explanation: When viewing the current environment, do you feel irritable and easily annoyed, or calm and gentle?
A2: Very anxious 1_2_3_4_5_6_7_8_9_10 Very relaxed. Explanation: When viewing the current environment, do you feel nervous and uneasy, or relaxed and at ease?
PhysiologyIn this environment, how would you describe your physiological changes?
B1: My breathing is accelerating. Explanation: This item tests whether breathing becomes faster because of stimulation from the current environment, or remains steady.
Accelerated breathing 1_2_3_4_5_6_7_8_9_10 Calm breathing
B2: My palms are sweating. Explanation: This item observes whether the hands become tense and moist because of stimulation from the current environment, or remain relaxed and dry.
Sweaty palms 1_2_3_4_5_6_7_8_9_10 Dry palms
CognitionIn this environment, how would you describe your cognitive changes?
C1: I am interested in the current environment. Explanation: Do you find the current environment boring and dull, or full of interest?
Not at all 1_2_3_4_5_6_7_8_9_10 Very much
C2: My attention is attracted by the current environment. Explanation: Does the current environment distract you, or help you stay focused and engaged?
Not at all 1_2_3_4_5_6_7_8_9_10 Very much
BehaviorIn this environment, how would you describe your behavioral changes?
D1: I would like to visit this place more often. Explanation: Would you be willing to experience this environment again in the future?
Not at all 1_2_3_4_5_6_7_8_9_10 Very much
D2: I would like to stay here for a longer time. Explanation: Would you prefer to shorten your stay in the current environment, or extend it?
Not at all 1_2_3_4_5_6_7_8_9_10 Very much
Table 3. Demographic Characteristics of Participants in Each Questionnaire Group.
Table 3. Demographic Characteristics of Participants in Each Questionnaire Group.
CharacteristicSlope Group (n = 249)Quantity Group (n = 268)Shape Group (n = 210)
Male (%)34.1% (85)37.3% (100)36.7% (77)
Female (%)64.3% (160)61.2% (164)62.4% (131)
Under 18 years old (%)8.4% (21)10.1% (27)10.0% (21)
Bachelor’s degree or above (%)66.3% (165)64.2% (172)64.8% (136)
Landscape professionals (%)10.8% (27)11.2% (30)11.0% (23)
Table 4. Main Effect Analysis of Slope Variables and restorative benefits.
Table 4. Main Effect Analysis of Slope Variables and restorative benefits.
SourceType III Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSignificanceη2
Slope gradient variation408.3653136.12272.783< 0.0010.180
Quantity variation298.712399.57150.081< 0.0010.153
Shape variation390.7933130.26448.499< 0.0010.120
Table 5. Multiple Comparisons among the Three Variable Groups. Note: In the table, P1, P2, P3, and P4 represent the four variables in the slope gradient group, namely 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%. S1, S2, S3, and S4 represent one slope, two slopes, three slopes, and four slopes.X1, X2, X3 and X4 represent triangular form, trapezoidal form, irregular form, and hemispherical form.
Table 5. Multiple Comparisons among the Three Variable Groups. Note: In the table, P1, P2, P3, and P4 represent the four variables in the slope gradient group, namely 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%. S1, S2, S3, and S4 represent one slope, two slopes, three slopes, and four slopes.X1, X2, X3 and X4 represent triangular form, trapezoidal form, irregular form, and hemispherical form.
Slope Gradient GroupPairwise ComparisonSignificanceQuantity GroupPairwise ComparisonSignificanceShape GroupPairwise ComparisonSignificance
EmotionP1P2<0.001 *EmotionS1S20.000 * EmotionX1X20.323
P30.000 * S3<0.001 *X30.000 *
P40.000 * S40.981X4<0.001 *
P2P3<0.001 *S2S30.824X2X3<0.001 *
P40.000 * S4<0.001 *X40.057
P3P40.527S3S4<0.001 *X3X4<0.001 *
PhysiologyP1P20.820 PhysiologyS1S2<0.001 *PhysiologyX1X20.796
P30.032 *S30.000 * X30.000 *
P4<0.001 *S40.936X40.003 *
P2P30.434S2S30.958X2X3<0.001 *
P40.03 *S40.000 * X40.087
P3P40.800 S3S40.000 * X3X4<0.001 *
CognitionP1P2<0.001 *CognitionS1S2<0.001 *CognitionX1X20.012 *
P30.000 * S30.000 * X3<0.001 *
P40.000 * S40.923X40.868
P2P3<0.001 *S2S30.985X2X30.000 *
P4<0.001 *S40.000 * X4<0.001 *
P3P40.598S3S40.000 * X3X4<0.001 *
BehaviorP1P2<0.001 *BehaviorS1S2<0.001 *BehaviorX1X20.159
P30.000 * S3<0.001 *X3<0.001 *
P40.000 * S40.984X40.860
P2P3<0.001 *S2S30.981X2X30.000 *
P4<0.001 *S4<0.001 *X40.005 *
P3P40.887S3S4<0.001 *X3X4<0.001 *
* indicates p < 0.05, reaching the level of statistical significance.
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

Wu, S.; Li, X.; Dong, R.; Dong, J. Research on the Impact of Slopes on Restorative Benefits and Landscape Preferences. Sustainability 2026, 18, 8205. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18168205

AMA Style

Wu S, Li X, Dong R, Dong J. Research on the Impact of Slopes on Restorative Benefits and Landscape Preferences. Sustainability. 2026; 18(16):8205. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18168205

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wu, Shuling, Xingyang Li, Ruiyun Dong, and Jianwen Dong. 2026. "Research on the Impact of Slopes on Restorative Benefits and Landscape Preferences" Sustainability 18, no. 16: 8205. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18168205

APA Style

Wu, S., Li, X., Dong, R., & Dong, J. (2026). Research on the Impact of Slopes on Restorative Benefits and Landscape Preferences. Sustainability, 18(16), 8205. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18168205

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