Exploring the Interplay between Landscape Planning and Human Well-Being: A Scientometric Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Identify general patterns in the output of related materials, including basic information on publications, the distribution of related disciplines, and collaboration patterns;
- Assess the key knowledge map, including the main structure and dynamic development of research topics;
- Construct a conceptual framework that clarifies the pathways through which landscape planning can enhance human well-being based on the research results.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Scientometric Analysis
2.2. Study Design
2.3. Data Collection
2.4. Data Processing
3. Results
3.1. Basic Information about the Research Topic
3.1.1. Annual Publications
3.1.2. Distribution of Research Disciplines
3.1.3. Distribution of Countries and Regions
3.1.4. Highly Influential Related Materials
3.1.5. Collaboration Patterns
3.2. Knowledge Map of the Research Topic
3.2.1. Main Research Keywords
3.2.2. The Main Structure of Research Topics
- Cluster 1: Manage natural capital using landscape planning methods to promote human well-being.
- Cluster 2: Identify health benefits from landscape sources to enhance human well-being from a socio-spatial planning perspective.
- Cluster 3: Create a sustainable living environment against global ecological challenges caused by urbanisation.
3.2.3. Dynamic Development of Research Topics
4. Discussion
4.1. How Can Landscape Planning Promote Human Well-Being?
4.2. Vacuum in This Research Field and Trends in Future Research
- Utility of research results for decision-making
- 2.
- More concerns about intangible values
- 3.
- More concerns about minorities
- 4.
- More evidence from the Global South
4.3. Limitations
- Database source: Our study relied solely on the WoS database, which, although covering a vast range of journals, did not include other significant sources such as grey literature and policy documents. This may have resulted in the exclusion of some relevant studies from our analysis;
- Language bias: We included only papers written in English, which may have resulted in a language bias. Non-English literature, particularly local surveys and case studies, may have provided valuable indigenous knowledge and insights;
- Search strategy: Our search strategy relied on the specific terms ‘landscape planning’ AND (‘human well-being’ OR ‘mental well-being’ OR ‘physical well-being’). However, other researchers may have conducted studies related to landscape planning that did not use these terms, resulting in the omission of relevant studies.
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wang, B.; Zhang, Q.; Cui, F. Scientific research on ecosystem services and human well-being: A bibliometric analysis. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 125, 107449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shekhar, H.; Schmidt, A.J.; Wehling, H. Exploring wellbeing in human settlements—A spatial planning perspective. Habitat Int. 2019, 87, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal3 (accessed on 4 June 2023).
- Happiness Should Have Greater Role in Development Policy—UN Member States. Available online: https://news.un.org/en/story/2011/07/382052 (accessed on 4 June 2023).
- Health Promotion Glossary of Terms. 2021. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240038349 (accessed on 4 June 2023).
- Diener, E. Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, M.E.A. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Volume 5, p. 563. [Google Scholar]
- Zambrano, L.; Aronson, M.F.; Fernandez, T. The Consequences of Landscape Fragmentation on Socio-Ecological Patterns in a Rapidly Developing Urban Area: A Case Study of the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Front. Environ. Sci. 2019, 7, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitmee, S.; Haines, A.; Beyrer, C.; Boltz, F.; Capon, A.G.; de Souza Dias, B.F.; Ezeh, A.; Frumkin, H.; Gong, P.; Head, P.; et al. Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: Report of The Rockefeller Foundation–Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet 2015, 386, 1973–2028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abrams, E.M.; Szefler, S.J. COVID-19 and the impact of social determinants of health. Lancet Respir. Med. 2020, 8, 659–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardinale, B.J.; Duffy, J.E.; Gonzalez, A.; Hooper, D.U.; Perrings, C.; Venail, P.; Narwani, A.; Mace, G.M.; Tilman, D.; Wardle, D.A.; et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 2012, 486, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Taçon, P.S.C.; Baker, S. New and Emerging Challenges to Heritage and Well-Being: A Critical Review. Heritage 2019, 2, 1300–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Llena-Nozal, A.; Martin, N.; Murtin, F. The economy of well-being: Creating opportunities for people’s well-being and economic growth. In OECD Statistics Working Papers; No. 2019/02; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Towards Developing WHO’s Agenda on Well-Being. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240039384 (accessed on 4 June 2023).
- World Health Organization. Urban Green Space Interventions and Health: A Review of Impacts and Effectiveness; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/366036 (accessed on 1 June 2023).
- Bastian, O.; Grunewald, K.; Syrbe, R.-U.; Walz, U.; Wende, W. Landscape services: The concept and its practical relevance. Landsc. Ecol. 2014, 29, 1463–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodiek, J.E. Landscape planning: Its contributions to the evolution of the profession of landscape architecture. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 76, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zube, E.H. Landscape planning education in America: Retrospect and prospect. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1986, 13, 367–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Groot, R. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 75, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Council of Europe. European Landscape Convention. 2000. Available online: https://www.coe.int/en/web/landscape/ (accessed on 17 May 2023).
- Douglas, O.; Lennon, M.; Scott, M. Green space benefits for health and well-being: A life-course approach for urban planning, design and management. Cities 2017, 66, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Özcan, K.; Eren, F. A study on the future of urban models in the third millennium: A sustainable urban model for Kırıkkale, Turkey. Sustain. City IV Urban Regen. Sustain. 2006, 1, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weimann, H.; Björk, J.; Håkansson, C. Experiences of the Urban Green Local Environment as a Factor for Well-Being among Adults: An Exploratory Qualitative Study in Southern Sweden. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Y.; Xiao, T.; Wu, W. Can multiple pathways link urban residential greenspace to subjective well-being among middle-aged and older Chinese adults? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 223, 104405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, D.; Sun, Y.; Yang, Y.; Han, Y.; Xu, C. Urban park use and self-reported physical, mental, and social health during the COVID-19 pandemic: An on-site survey in Beijing, China. Urban For. Urban Green. 2023, 79, 127804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filho, W.L.; Barbir, J.; Sima, M.; Kalbus, A.; Nagy, G.J.; Paletta, A.; Villamizar, A.; Martinez, R.; Azeiteiro, U.M.; Pereira, M.J.; et al. Reviewing the role of ecosystems services in the sustainability of the urban environment: A multi-country analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 262, 121338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bachi, L.; Faria, D.M.; Horta, M.B.; Carvalho-Ribeiro, S. Mapping Cultural Ecosystem Services (CESs) and key urban landscape features: A pilot study for land use policy and planning review. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2021, 13, 420–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milcu, A.I. Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269377 (accessed on 1 June 2023).
- Zhong, W.; Schröder, T.; Bekkering, J. Biophilic design in architecture and its contributions to health, well-being, and sustainability: A critical review. Front. Archit. Res. 2022, 11, 114–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, J.; Jiang, H.; Gu, T.; Liu, Y.; Peng, J. Sustainable landscape pattern: A landscape approach to serving spatial planning. Landsc. Ecol. 2022, 37, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mingers, J.; Leydesdorff, L. A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2015, 246, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zupic, I.; Čater, T. Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organ. Res. Methods 2015, 18, 429–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Luo, S.; Zhang, J.; Furuya, K. Increased Attention to Smart Development in Rural Areas: A Scientometric Analysis of Smart Village Research. Land 2022, 11, 1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, H.; Nijhuis, S.; Newton, C. Freshwater blue space design and human health: A comprehensive research mapping based on scientometric analysis. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2022, 97, 106859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pasadeos, Y.; Phelps, J.; Kim, B.H. Disciplinary impact of advertising scholars: Temporal comparisons of influential authors, works and research networks. J. Advert. 1998, 27, 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2011, 62, 1382–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Web of Science Core Collection. Available online: https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/basic-search (accessed on 17 May 2023).
- Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daily, G.C.; Polasky, S.; Goldstein, J.; Kareiva, P.M.; Mooney, H.A.; Pejchar, L.; Ricketts, T.H.; Salzman, J.; Shallenberger, R. Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aksnes, D.W. Characteristics of highly cited papers. Res. Eval. 2003, 12, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, A.C.K.; Maheswaran, R. The health benefits of urban green spaces: A review of the evidence. J. Public Health 2011, 33, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bratman, G.N.; Hamilton, J.P.; Daily, G.C. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2012, 1249, 118–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J. Urban ecology and sustainability: The state-of-the-science and future directions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 209–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dearborn, D.C.; Kark, S. Motivations for Conserving Urban Biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matsuoka, R.H.; Kaplan, R. People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of Landscape and Urban Planning contributions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 84, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Völker, S.; Kistemann, T. The impact of blue space on human health and well-being—Salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: A review. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2011, 214, 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groenewegen, P.P.; van den Berg, A.E.; de Vries, S.; Verheij, R.A. Vitamin G: Effects of green space on health, well-being, and social safety. BMC Public Health 2006, 6, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chawla, L. Benefits of Nature Contact for Children. J. Plan. Lit. 2015, 30, 433–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Capon, S.; Chambers, L.E.; Mac Nally, R.; Naiman, R.J.; Davies, P.; Marshall, N.; Pittock, J.; Reid, M.; Capon, T.; Douglas, M.; et al. Riparian Ecosystems in the 21st Century: Hotspots for Climate Change Adaptation? Ecosystems 2013, 16, 359–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newman, M.E. Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 5200–5205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Elbakidze, M.; Angelstam, P.; Yamelynets, T.; Dawson, L.; Gebrehiwot, M.; Stryamets, N.; Johansson, K.; Garrido, P.; Naumov, V.; Manton, M. A bottom-up approach to map land covers as potential green infrastructure hubs for human well-being in rural settings: A case study from Sweden. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 168, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noyons, C.M.; Moed, H.F.; Luwel, M. Combining mapping and citation analysis for evaluative bibliometric purposes: A bibliometric study. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1999, 50, 115–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Web of Science Core Collection Help. Available online: https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/hp_full_record.html (accessed on 17 May 2023).
- Von Haaren, C.; Warren-Kretzschmar, B.; Milos, C.; Werthmann, C. Opportunities for design approaches in landscape planning. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 130, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steffen, W.; Persson, Å.; Deutsch, L.; Zalasiewicz, J.; Williams, M.; Richardson, K.; Crumley, C.; Crutzen, P.; Folke, C.; Gordon, L.; et al. The Anthropocene: From Global Change to Planetary Stewardship. Ambio 2011, 40, 739–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, J. Landscape sustainability science: Ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 999–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hausmann, A.; Slotow, R.; Burns, J.; di Minin, E. The ecosystem service of sense of place: Benefits for human well-being and biodiversity conservation. Environ. Conserv. 2016, 43, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jackson, L.E.; Daniel, J.; McCorkle, B.; Sears, A.; Bush, K.F. Linking ecosystem services and human health: The Eco-Health Relationship Browser. Int. J. Public Health 2013, 58, 747–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaich, H.; Bieling, C.; Plieninger, T. Linking ecosystem services with cultural landscape research. Gaia-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 2010, 19, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hadavi, S. Direct and Indirect Effects of the Physical Aspects of the Environment on Mental Well-Being. Environ. Behav. 2017, 49, 1071–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Völker, S.; Kistemann, T. “I’m always entirely happy when I’m here!” Urban blue enhancing human health and well-being in Cologne and Düsseldorf, Germany. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 78, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ode Sang, Å.; 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]
- Gerstenberg, T.; Hofmann, M. Perception and preference of trees: A psychological contribution to tree species selection in urban areas. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 15, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villeneuve, P.J.; Jerrett, M.G.; Su, J.; Burnett, R.T.; Chen, H.; Wheeler, A.J.; Goldberg, M.S. A cohort study relating urban green space with mortality in Ontario, Canada. Environ. Res. 2012, 115, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demoury, C.; Thierry, B.; Richard, H.; Sigler, B.; Kestens, Y.; Parent, M. Residential greenness and risk of prostate cancer: A case-control study in Montreal, Canada. Environ. Int. 2017, 98, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, T.; Zhang, T.; Zhu, L.; Gao, Y.; Qiu, L. Exploring Psychophysiological Restoration and Individual Preference in the Different Environments Based on Virtual Reality. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, Q.; Yang, M.; Jane, H.; 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]
- United Nations (UN). Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html (accessed on 17 May 2023).
- Coutts, C.; Hahn, M. Green Infrastructure, Ecosystem Services, and Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9768–9798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Commission. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/policy-documents/green-infrastructure-gi-2014-enhancing (accessed on 17 May 2023).
- Mosler, S.; Hobson, P. Close-To-Nature Heuristic Design Principles for Future Urban Green Infrastructure. Urban Plan. 2021, 6, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzoulas, K.; Korpela, K.; Venn, S.; Yli-Pelkonen, V.; Kaźmierczak, A.; Niemela, J.; James, P. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 81, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rostami, R.; Lamit, H.; Khoshnava, S.M.; Rostami, R.; Rosley, M.S. Sustainable Cities and the Contribution of Historical Urban Green Spaces: A Case Study of Historical Persian Gardens. Sustainability 2015, 7, 13290–13316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Syrbe, R.; Neumann, I.; Grunewald, K.; Brzoska, P.; Louda, J.; Kochan, B.; Macháč, J.; Dubová, L.; Meyer, P.; Brabec, J.; et al. The Value of Urban Nature in Terms of Providing Ecosystem Services Related to Health and Well-Being: An Empirical Comparative Pilot Study of Cities in Germany and the Czech Republic. Land 2021, 10, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavender, N.; Donnelly, G. Intersecting urban forestry and botanical gardens to address big challenges for healthier trees, people, and cities. Plants People Planet 2019, 1, 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal11 (accessed on 4 June 2023).
- Chen, B.; Tsutsui, S.; Ding, Y.; Ma, F. Understanding the topic evolution in a scientific domain: An exploratory study for the field of information retrieval. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 1175–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldstein, B.E. Can ecosystem management turn an administrative patchwork into a Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem? Northwest Environ. J. 1992, 8, 285–324. Available online: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19931861453 (accessed on 1 June 2023).
- Shafer, C.L. US national park buffer zones: Historical, scientific, social, and legal aspects. Environ. Manag. 1999, 23, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mersey, J.E.; Millward, A.A.; Martinez, R.L.M. Realizing the potential of GIS in community-based management of protected areas. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 2002, 9, 208–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dou, Y.; Yu, X.; Bakker, M.; De Groot, R.; Carsjens, G.J.; Duan, H.; Huang, C. Analysis of the relationship between cross-cultural perceptions of landscapes and cultural ecosystem services in Genheyuan region, Northeast China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2020, 43, 101112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ureta, J.C.; Vassalos, M.; Motallebi, M.; Baldwin, R.; Ureta, J. Using stakeholders’ preference for ecosystems and ecosystem services as an economic basis underlying strategic conservation planning. Heliyon 2020, 6, e05827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fürst, C.; Opdam, P.; Inostroza, L.; Luque, S. Evaluating the role of ecosystem services in participatory land use planning: Proposing a balanced score card. Landscape Ecol. 2014, 29, 1435–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Requena-Mullor, J.M.; Quintas-Soriano, C.; Brandt, J.; Cabello, J.; Castro, A.J. Modeling how land use legacy affects the provision of ecosystem services in Mediterranean southern Spain. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 114008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chan, K.M.A.; Hoshizaki, L.; Klinkenberg, B. Ecosystem Services in Conservation Planning: Targeted Benefits vs. Co-Benefits or Costs? PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e24378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Albert, C.; Schröter-Schlaack, C.; Hansjürgens, B.; Dehnhardt, A.; Döring, R.; Job, H.; Köppel, J.; Krätzig, S.; Matzdorf, B.; Reutter, M.; et al. An economic perspective on land use decisions in agricultural landscapes: Insights from the TEEB Germany Study. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 25, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sannigrahi, S.; Chakraborti, S.; Banerjee, A.; Rahmat, S.; Bhatt, S.; Jha, S.; Singh, L.; Paul, S.K.; Sen, S. Ecosystem service valuation of a natural reserve region for sustainable management of natural resources. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2020, 5, 100014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skubel, R.A.; Maranto, G.M. Introducing Relational Values as a Tool for Shark Conservation, Science, and Management. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paing, J.N.; van Bussel, L.G.; Gomez, R.A.; Hein, L.G. Ecosystem services through the lens of indigenous people in the highlands of Cordillera Region, Northern Philippines. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 308, 114597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dan, M.E.; Olaka, L.A.; Mamo, M.B.; Chalo, D.M.; Cuni-Sanchez, A. Desert landscape services: Insights from pastoralist communities in northern Kenya. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 48, 101243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmitz, M.F. Recreational and Nature-Based Tourism as a Cultural Ecosystem Service. Assessment and Mapping in a Rural-Urban Gradient of Central Spain. Land 2021, 10, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roy, S.; Bose, A.; Majumder, S.; Roy Chowdhury, I.; Abdo, H.G.; Almohamad, H.; Abdullah Al Dughairi, A. Evaluating urban environment quality (UEQ) for class-I Indian city: An integrated RS-GIS based exploratory spatial analysis. Geocarto Int. 2022, 2153932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pukowiec-Kurda, K. The urban ecosystem services index as a new indicator for sustainable urban planning and human well-being in cities. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 144, 109532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atasoy, M. Monitoring the urban green spaces and landscape fragmentation using remote sensing: A case study in Osmaniye, Turkey. Environ Monit Assess 2018, 190, 713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- HU, X.; LIU, X.; LI, J.; JIANG, B. Creating Restorative Nearby Green Spaces for Knowledge Workers: Theoretical Mechanisms, Site Evaluation Criteria, and Design Guidelines. Landsc. Archit. Front. 2022, 10, 9–35. Available online: https://uehh.hku.hk/content/uploads/2022/09/ParkForKnwledgeWorkers.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2023).
- Jaszczak, A.; Pochodyła, E.; Kristianova, K.; Małkowska, N.; Kazak, J.K. Redefinition of Park Design Criteria as a Result of Analysis of Well-Being and Soundscape: The Case Study of the Kortowo Park (Poland). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beery, T.H.; Raymond, C.M.; Kyttä, M.; Olafsson, A.S.; Plieninger, T.; Sandberg, M.; Stenseke, M.; Tengö, M.; Jönsson, K.I. Fostering incidental experiences of nature through green infrastructure planning. Ambio 2017, 46, 717–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mycoo, M. Urban sustainability in Caribbean Small Island Developing States: A conceptual framework for urban planning using a case study of Trinidad. Int. Dev. Plan. Rev. 2018, 40, 143–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lafortezza, R.; Davies, C.; Sanesi, G.; Konijnendijk, C.C. Green Infrastructure as a tool to support spatial planning in European urban regions. Iforest-Biogeosci. For. 2013, 6, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hadavi, S.; Kaplan, R.; Hunter, M.R. How does perception of nearby nature affect multiple aspects of neighbourhood satisfaction and use patterns? Landsc. Res. 2018, 43, 360–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, C.; Shen, G.Q.; Choi, S. Eliciting users’ preferences and values in urban parks: Evidence from analyzing social media data from Hong Kong. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 62, 127172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altamirano, A.; Marien, C.; Catalán, G.; Miranda, A.; Prado, M.; Tits, L.; Vieli, L.; Meli, P. Landscape Disturbance Gradients: The Importance of the Type of Scene When Evaluating Landscape Preferences and Perceptions. Land 2020, 9, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murry, B.A. Wetland Conservation Requires Transition toward Landscape-Scale Interdisciplinary Approaches. Wetlands 2019, 39, 1249–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diaz, J.; Odera, E.; Warner, L. Delving deeper: Exploring the influence of psycho-social wellness on water conservation behavior. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 264, 110404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castillo-Eguskitza, N.; Hoyos, D.; Onaindia, M.; Czajkowski, M. Unraveling local preferences and willingness to pay for different management scenarios: A choice experiment to biosphere reserve management. Land Use Policy 2019, 88, 104200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Costanza, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; Raskin, R.G.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Termorshuizen, J.W.; Opdam, P. Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol. 2009, 24, 1037–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willemen, L.; Veldkamp, A.; Verburg, P.; Hein, L.; Leemans, R. A multi-scale modelling approach for analysing landscape service dynamics. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 100, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papastergiou, E.; Latinopoulos, D.; Evdou, M.; Kalogeresis, A. Exploring Associations between Subjective Well-Being and Non-Market Values When Used in the Evaluation of Urban Green Spaces: A Scoping Review. Land 2023, 12, 700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Araujo Barbosa, C.C.; Atkinson, P.M.; Dearing, J.A. Remote sensing of ecosystem services: A systematic review. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 52, 430–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, G.; Fagerholm, N. Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 13, 119–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, S.; Shi, J.; Lu, T.; Furuya, K. Sit down and rest: Use of virtual reality to evaluate preferences and mental restoration in urban park pavilions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2022, 220, 104336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du Toit, M.J.; Cilliers, S.S.; Dallimer, M.; Goddard, M.; Guenat, S.; Cornelius, S.F. Urban green infrastructure and ecosystem services in sub-Saharan Africa. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 180, 249–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Indicators of Bibliometric Methods | Units of Analysis | Description | Interpretation |
---|---|---|---|
Citation | Document | Calculates the impact of articles, authors, or journals using citation rates. | It can offer details on the relative influence of publications. |
Author | |||
Journal | |||
Co-citation | Document | The frequency with which two units are cited together. | It can provide information regarding how the contents of individual units are related to each other. It may vary over time. |
Author | |||
Journal | |||
Co-author | Author | Connects authors when they co-author papers. | It can be used to examine social networks in research fields. |
Country | |||
Institution | |||
Co-word | Word | Connects keywords when they appear in the same title, abstract, or keyword list. | It can be used to establish the conceptual structure of research fields. |
Bibliographic Coupling | Document | Relates documents, authors, or journals according to how many references they have in common. | It can illustrate the connection between units; the more the bibliographies of two articles overlap, the stronger their connection. |
Author | |||
Journal |
Description | Results |
---|---|
DESCRIPTION OF DATA | |
Timespan | 1992–2023 |
Sources | 197 |
Documents | 439 |
Annual growth rate % | 4.57 |
Average age of documents | 4.95 |
Average citations per document | 32.99 |
References | 25,474 |
DOCUMENT CONTENTS | |
Keywords plus (ID) | 1147 |
Author’s keywords (DE) | 1581 |
AUTHORS | |
Authors | 1778 |
Solo authors | 39 |
AUTHORS COLLABORATION | |
Single-authored docs | 39 |
Co-authors per document | 4.4 |
International co-authorships % | 40.77 |
DOCUMENT TYPES | |
Article | 405 |
Review | 34 |
No. | Fields | Quantity | Proportion |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Environmental Sciences | 172 | 39.18 |
2 | Environmental Studies | 170 | 38.72 |
3 | Ecology | 104 | 23.69 |
4 | Urban Studies | 63 | 14.35 |
5 | Green Sustainable Science Technology | 49 | 11.16 |
6 | Geography | 44 | 10.02 |
7 | Geography Physical | 41 | 9.34 |
8 | Forestry | 40 | 9.11 |
9 | Regional Urban Planning | 39 | 8.88 |
10 | Biodiversity Conservation | 36 | 8.2 |
No. | Title | Author (Year) | Total Citations | TC per Year | Research Areas |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Ecosystem services in decision-making: time to deliver [41]. | Daily, G.C., 2009 | 1164 | 77.60 | Environmental Sciences and Ecology |
2 | The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the evidence [43]. | Lee, A.C.K., 2011 | 818 | 62.92 | Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health |
3 | The impacts of nature experiences on human cognitive function and mental health [44]. | Bratman, G.N., 2012 | 522 | 43.50 | Biodiversity and Conservation |
4 | Urban ecology and sustainability: the state-of-the-science and future directions [45]. | Wu, J.G., 2014 | 477 | 47.70 | Environmental Sciences and Ecology |
5 | Motivations for conserving urban biodiversity [46]. | Dearborn, D.C., 2010 | 369 | 26.36 | Biodiversity and Conservation |
6 | People needs in the urban landscape: analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions [47]. | Matsuoka, R.H., 2008 | 308 | 19.25 | Environmental Sciences and Ecology |
7 | The impact of blue space on human health and well-being salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: a review [48]. | Volker, S., 2011 | 296 | 22.77 | Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health |
8 | Vitamin G: effects of green space on health, well-being, and social safety [49]. | Groenewegen, P.P., 2006 | 259 | 14.39 | Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health |
9 | Benefits of nature contact for children [50]. | Chawla, L., 2015 | 237 | 26.33 | Public Administration |
10 | Riparian ecosystems in the 21st century: hotspots for climate change adaptation? [51]. | Capon, S.J., 2013 | 217 | 19.73 | Environmental Sciences and Ecology |
No. | Sources | TC | TP | H-Index | Web of Science Categories |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Landscape and Urban Planning | 1488 | 27 | 18 | Ecology; Environmental Studies; Geography; Geography, Physical; Regional and Urban Planning; and Urban Studies |
2 | Ecosystem Services | 915 | 17 | 14 | Ecology; Environmental Sciences; and Environmental Studies |
3 | Urban Forestry and Urban Greening | 546 | 19 | 10 | Plant Sciences; Environmental Studies; Forestry; and Urban Studies |
4 | Sustainability | 265 | 31 | 9 | Green and Sustainable Science and Technology; Environmental Sciences; and Environmental Studies |
5 | Land Use Policy | 238 | 16 | 8 | Environmental Studies |
6 | Landscape Ecology | 340 | 10 | 8 | Ecology; Geography, Physical; Geosciences, and Multidisciplinary |
7 | Ecological Indicators | 366 | 12 | 7 | Biodiversity Conservation and Environmental Sciences |
8 | International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health | 390 | 12 | 7 | Environmental Sciences Public, and Environmental and Occupational Health |
9 | Journal of Environmental Management | 416 | 13 | 7 | Environmental Sciences |
10 | Science of the Total Environment | 258 | 9 | 7 | Environmental Sciences |
No. | Keywords | Frequency |
---|---|---|
1 | landscape | 103 |
2 | ecosystem services | 79 |
3 | biodiversity | 68 |
4 | management | 64 |
5 | conservation | 55 |
6 | health | 51 |
7 | framework | 47 |
8 | land-use | 41 |
9 | impacts | 33 |
10 | city | 29 |
11 | indicators | 29 |
12 | climate-change | 28 |
13 | areas | 27 |
14 | challenges | 27 |
15 | urbanisation | 27 |
No. | Keywords Co-Occurrence | Main Topic | Main References |
---|---|---|---|
Cluster 1 | ecosystem services, biodiversity, conservation, framework, management, land-use, services, valuation, bundles, governance, values, climate change, policy, decision-making, protected areas, impacts, sustainability, trade-offs, dynamics, classification, resilience, system | Manage natural capital using landscape planning methods to promote human well-being. | MEA, (2005) [7]; Daily et al., (2009) [41]; Wu, (2013) [58]; Hausmann et al., (2016) [59]; Jackson et al., (2013) [60]; Schaich et al., (2010) [61]; and Bachi et al., (2021) [27] |
Cluster 2 | landscape, health, green space, health, environment, perception, indicators, preference, mental-health, exposure, cultural ecosystem services, forest, space, benefits, urban, physical-activity, impact, city, design, parks, accessibility, climate, vegetation | Identify health benefits from landscape sources to enhance human well-being from a socio-spatial planning perspective. | Bratman et al., (2012) [44]; Lee and Maheswaran, (2010) [43]; Völker and Kistemann, (2011) [48]; Hadavi, S., (2017) [62]; Völker and Kistemann, (2013) [63]; Ode Sang et al., (2016) [64]; Liu et al., (2022) [24]; Chawla, (2015) [50]; Gerstenberg and Hofman, (2016) [65]; Villeneuve et al., (2012) [66]; Demoury et al., (2017) [67]; Gao et al., (2019) [68]; and Huang et al., (2020) [69] |
Cluster 3 | urbanization, cities, areas, diversity, restoration, challenges, ecology, science | Create a sustainable living environment against global ecological challenges caused by urbanization. | UN, (2018) [45]; Coutts and Hahn, (2015) [71]; EEA [72]; Mosler and Hobson, (2021) [73]; Tzoulas et al., (2007) [74]; Rostami et al., (2015) [75]; Syrbe et al., (2021) [76]; and Cavender and Donnelly, (2019) [77] |
Crucial Intermediary Steps | Approaches and Tools Utilising Landscape Planning in Response | References |
---|---|---|
Utilise | Functional analysis and valuation before decision-making. | de Groot, (2006) [19]; Fürst et al., (2014) [85]; and Requena-Mullor et al., (2018) [86] |
Assigning monetary values to natural environment to enhance land use policy. | Chan et al., (2011) [87]; Albert et al., (2017) [88]; and Sannigrahi et al., (2020) [89] | |
Optimising benefits from nature involves integrating conflicting interests and overlaps among stakeholders. | Skubel et al., (2019) [90] and Paing et al., (2022) [91] | |
Identify | Exploring how various landscape structures impact different groups of people positively. | Ode Sang et al., (2016) [64]; Liu et al., (2022) [24]; and Dan et al., (2021) [92] |
Mapping the benefits people obtain from landscape structures. | Elbakidze et al., (2017) [53]; Arnaiz-Schmitz et al., (2021) [93]; and Bachi et al., (2021) [27] | |
Evaluating the quality of landscape structures. | Roy et al., (2022) [94]; Pukowiec-Kurda, (2022) [95]; and Atasoy, (2018) [96] | |
Manage | Developing guidelines for the design of landscape structures based on the needs of people. | Hu et al., (2022) [97]; Jaszczak et al., (2021) [98]; and Beery et al., (2017) [99] |
Providing conceptual models to support spatial planning. | Mycoo, (2018) [100]; Lafortezza et al., (2013) [101]; and Coutts and Hahn, (2019) [71] | |
Gaining insight into people’s perspectives to improve design and planning processes. | Hadavi et al., (2018) [102]; Wan et al., (2021) [103]; and Altamirano et al., (2020) [104] | |
Protect | Proposing conservation approaches on a landscape-scale. | Murry, (2019) [105] |
Identifying factors that encourage pro-environmental behaviour. | Dearborn and Kark, (2010) [46] and Diaz et al., (2020) [106] | |
Investigate individuals’ willingness to pay for various types of land to improve reserve management. | Castillo-Eguskitza et al., (2019) [107] |
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. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, H.; Xie, J.; Luo, S.; Ta, D.T.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, J.; Su, D.; Furuya, K. Exploring the Interplay between Landscape Planning and Human Well-Being: A Scientometric Review. Land 2023, 12, 1321. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071321
Wang H, Xie J, Luo S, Ta DT, Wang Q, Zhang J, Su D, Furuya K. Exploring the Interplay between Landscape Planning and Human Well-Being: A Scientometric Review. Land. 2023; 12(7):1321. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071321
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Huixin, Jing Xie, Shixian Luo, Duy Thong Ta, Qian Wang, Jiao Zhang, Daer Su, and Katsunori Furuya. 2023. "Exploring the Interplay between Landscape Planning and Human Well-Being: A Scientometric Review" Land 12, no. 7: 1321. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071321
APA StyleWang, H., Xie, J., Luo, S., Ta, D. T., Wang, Q., Zhang, J., Su, D., & Furuya, K. (2023). Exploring the Interplay between Landscape Planning and Human Well-Being: A Scientometric Review. Land, 12(7), 1321. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071321