IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v123y2021ics1389934120306912.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A forest experience does not always evoke positive emotion: A pilot study on unconscious facial expressions using the face reading technology

Author

Listed:
  • Wei, Hongxu
  • Hauer, Richard J.
  • He, Xingyuan

Abstract

Studies have demonstrated that a forest experience can improve the mental state of visitors. The questionnaire methodology accounts for most of current findings, but subjective bias in self-reported scores cannot be eliminated. In this study, FireFACE V3.0 software was used to evaluate facial expressions of visitors unconsciously entering (urban experiencer) or leaving an urban forest park (forest experiencer) from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. A total of 458 photos were tested for the hit-rate of machine-recognized facial expression scores to those identified by experts. Neutral, happy, sad, and scared expressions passed the validation test and were used for further analysis. The positive response index (PRI) was calculated as the difference between happy and sad scores. All five variables were analyzed by a mixed-model analysis of variance of walking direction (into the park vs. out of the park), gender (male vs. female), and age (senior, middle-aged, and young) on repeated records every 30 min in a daytime except noon. In the morning, pedestrians walking out of the forest park did not show more positive expressions than those leaving the park. Young visitors walking through the exit averaged a higher sadness score but a lower PRI than middle-aged visitors. In the afternoon, middle-aged visitors walking through the entrance averaged a higher PRI relative to young visitors leaving the park in the morning. Compared to urban experiencers, forest experiencers averaged lower scores for neutral and scared expressions, but forest experiencers unlikely revealed more positive expressions. Therefore, a forest experience does not always evoke positive expression on unconscious faces which was a responsive variable to go with time. Middle-aged people are encouraged to walk in forests with a longer time than youths in the morning. Male visitors, especially those in senior ages, are suggested to spend more time in forests than females.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei, Hongxu & Hauer, Richard J. & He, Xingyuan, 2021. "A forest experience does not always evoke positive emotion: A pilot study on unconscious facial expressions using the face reading technology," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:123:y:2021:i:c:s1389934120306912
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102365
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934120306912
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102365?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vujcic, Maja & Tomicevic-Dubljevic, Jelena, 2018. "Urban forest benefits to the younger population: The case study of the city of Belgrade, Serbia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 54-62.
    2. Maruti Vijayshankar Mishra & Sonia Baloni Ray & Narayanan Srinivasan, 2018. "Cross-cultural emotion recognition and evaluation of Radboud faces database with an Indian sample," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Buijs, Arjen & Lawrence, Anna, 2013. "Emotional conflicts in rational forestry: Towards a research agenda for understanding emotions in environmental conflicts," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 104-111.
    4. Pihel, Johan & Ode Sang, Åsa & Hagerhall, Caroline & Nyström, Marcus, 2015. "Expert and novice group differences in eye movements when assessing biodiversity of harvested forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 20-26.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marek Franěk & Jan Petružálek, 2021. "Viewing Natural vs. Urban Images and Emotional Facial Expressions: An Exploratory Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-10, July.
    2. Marek Franěk & Jan Petružálek & Denis Šefara, 2022. "Facial Expressions and Self-Reported Emotions When Viewing Nature Images," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-16, August.
    3. Ping Liu & Mengnan Liu & Tingting Xia & Yutao Wang & Hongxu Wei, 2021. "Can Urban Forest Settings Evoke Positive Emotion? Evidence on Facial Expressions and Detection of Driving Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-16, August.
    4. Fei Yu & Jianfeng Deng & Xiaogang Ding & Hongyan Ma, 2022. "Interpolated Stand Properties of Urban Forest Parks Account for Posted Facial Expressions of Visitors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-22, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhang, Yingjie & Zhang, Tianzheng & Zeng, Yingxiang & Cheng, Baodong & Li, Hongxun, 2021. "Designating National Forest Cities in China: Does the policy improve the urban living environment?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    2. Bergstén, Sabina & Stjernström, Olof & Pettersson, Örjan, 2018. "Experiences and emotions among private forest owners versus public interests: Why ownership matters," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 801-811.
    3. Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Rosalind & Christie, Michael & Cooper, Nigel & Hockley, Neal & Irvine, Katherine N. & Fazey, Ioan & O’Brien, Liz & Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Ravenscroft, Neil & Raymond, Chris, 2016. "Shared values and deliberative valuation: Future directions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 358-371.
    4. Katarina Haugen, 2016. "Contested Lands? Dissonance and Common Ground in Stakeholder Views on Forest Values," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 107(4), pages 421-434, September.
    5. Ai, Hongshan & Zhou, Zhengqing, 2023. "Green growth: The impact of urban forest construction on economic growth in China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    6. Sanaz Memari & Mahdieh Pazhouhanfar & Patrik Grahn, 2021. "Perceived Sensory Dimensions of Green Areas: An Experimental Study on Stress Recovery," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-19, May.
    7. Grilli, Gianluca & Curtis, John & Hynes, Stephen & O'Reilly, Paul, 2017. "Anglers’ views on stock conservation: Sea Bass angling in Ireland," Papers WP578, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    8. Ruochen Ma & Yuxin Luo & Katsunori Furuya, 2023. "Gender Differences and Optimizing Women’s Experiences: An Exploratory Study of Visual Behavior While Viewing Urban Park Landscapes in Tokyo, Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-14, February.
    9. Mack, Philipp & Kremer, Jakob & Kleinschmit, Daniela, 2023. "Forest dieback reframed and revisited? Forests (re)negotiated in the German media between forestry and nature conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    10. Bin Zhao & Xin Huangfu, 2023. "The More Training, the More Willingness? A Positive Spillover Effect Analysis of Voluntary Behavior in Environmental Protection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-16, June.
    11. Kwang-Hi Park, 2022. "Analysis of Urban Forest Healing Program Expected Values, Needs, and Preferred Components in Urban Forest Visitors with Diseases: A Pilot Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-14, January.
    12. Lan Shen & Yueying Li & Siren Lan & Minfeng Yao, 2022. "Social Benefits Evaluation of Rural Micro-Landscapes in Southeastern Coastal Towns of China—The Case of Jinjiang, Fujian," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-27, June.
    13. Takala, Tuomo & Brockhaus, Maria & Hujala, Teppo & Tanskanen, Minna & Lehtinen, Ari & Tikkanen, Jukka & Toppinen, Anne, 2022. "Discursive barriers to voluntary biodiversity conservation: The case of Finnish forest owners," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    14. Bethmann, Stephanie & Simminger, Eva & Baldy, Jana & Schraml, Ulrich, 2018. "Forestry in interaction. Shedding light on dynamics of public opinion with a praxeological methodology," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 93-101.
    15. Marian Drăgoi & Veronica Toza, 2019. "Did Forestland Restitution Facilitate Institutional Amnesia? Some Evidence from Romanian Forest Policy," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-19, June.
    16. Takala, Tuomo & Lehtinen, Ari & Tanskanen, Minna & Hujala, Teppo & Tikkanen, Jukka, 2020. "Discoursal power and multi-objective forestry in the Finnish print media," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    17. Tianzheng Zhang & Yingxiang Zeng & Yingjie Zhang & Yan Song & Hongxun Li, 2020. "Dynamic and Heterogeneous Demand for Urban Green Space by Urban Residents: Evidence from the Cities in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-15, November.
    18. Kaakinen, Inka & Lehtinen, Ari, 2016. "A bridge that disconnects – On shared and divided socio-spatialities in the pulp mill conflict between Uruguay and Argentina," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 106-112.
    19. Galati, Antonino & Coticchio, Alessandro & Peiró-Signes, Ángel, 2023. "Identifying the factors affecting citizens' willingness to participate in urban forest governance: Evidence from the municipality of Palermo, Italy," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    20. Marini Govigli, V. & Bruzzese, S., 2023. "Assessing the emotional and spiritual dimension of forests: A review of existing participatory methods," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:123:y:2021:i:c:s1389934120306912. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.