IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i16p8526-d613239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Emotional Responses to the Spatial Quality of Urban Green Spaces through Self-Report and Face Recognition Measures

Author

Listed:
  • Lin Qiao

    (Institute of Landscape Architecture, College of Agriculture and Biotechnology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Jingwei Zhuang

    (Institute of Landscape Architecture, College of Agriculture and Biotechnology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Xuan Zhang

    (Institute of Landscape Architecture, College of Agriculture and Biotechnology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
    Institute of Urban and Rural Planning Theories and Technologies, College of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

  • Yang Su

    (The Architectural Design & Research Institute of Zhejiang University Co, Ltd., Hangzhou 310030, China)

  • Yiping Xia

    (Institute of Landscape Architecture, College of Agriculture and Biotechnology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China)

Abstract

Although creating a high-quality urban green space (UGS) is of considerable importance in public health, few studies have used individuals’ emotions to evaluate the UGS quality. This study aims to conduct a multidimensional emotional assessment method of UGS from the perspective of spatial quality. Panoramic videos of 15 scenes in the West Lake Scenic Area were displayed to 34 participants. For each scene, 12 attributes regarding spatial quality were quantified, including perceived plant attributes, spatial structure attributes, and experiences of UGS. Then, the Self-Assessment-Manikin (SAM) scale and face recognition model were used to measure people’s valence-arousal emotion values. Among all the predictors, the percentages of water and plants were the most predictive indicators of emotional responses measured by SAM scale, while the interpretation rate of the model measured by face recognition was insufficiently high. Concerning gender differences, women experienced a significantly higher valence than men. Higher percentages of water and plants, larger sizes, approximate shape index, and lower canopy densities were often related to positive emotions. Hence, designers must consider all structural attributes of green spaces, as well as enrich visual perception and provide various activities while creating a UGS. In addition, we suggest combining both physiological and psychological methods to assess emotional responses in future studies. Because the face recognition model can provide objective measurement of emotional responses, and the self-report questionnaire is much easier to administer and can be used as a supplement.

Suggested Citation

  • Lin Qiao & Jingwei Zhuang & Xuan Zhang & Yang Su & Yiping Xia, 2021. "Assessing Emotional Responses to the Spatial Quality of Urban Green Spaces through Self-Report and Face Recognition Measures," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-22, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:16:p:8526-:d:613239
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8526/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/16/8526/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xun Zhu & Ming Gao & Wei Zhao & Tianji Ge, 2020. "Does the Presence of Birdsongs Improve Perceived Levels of Mental Restoration from Park Use? Experiments on Parkways of Harbin Sun Island in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-18, March.
    2. Xiaohu Zhang & Scott Melbourne & Chinmoy Sarkar & Alain Chiaradia & Chris Webster, 2020. "Effects of green space on walking: Does size, shape and density matter?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(16), pages 3402-3420, December.
    3. Yang Zhang & Agnes E. Van den Berg & Terry Van Dijk & Gerd Weitkamp, 2017. "Quality over Quantity: Contribution of Urban Green Space to Neighborhood Satisfaction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-10, May.
    4. Esther J. Veen & E. Dinand Ekkel & Milan R. Hansma & Anke G. M. de Vrieze, 2020. "Designing Urban Green Space (UGS) to Enhance Health: A Methodology," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Liqing Zhang & Puay Yok Tan, 2019. "Associations between Urban Green Spaces and Health are Dependent on the Analytical Scale and How Urban Green Spaces are Measured," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-18, February.
    6. Tadeusz Ciupa & Roman Suligowski, 2021. "Green-Blue Spaces and Population Density versus COVID-19 Cases and Deaths in Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-17, June.
    7. Michelle C. Kondo & Jaime M. Fluehr & Thomas McKeon & Charles C. Branas, 2018. "Urban Green Space and Its Impact on Human Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-28, March.
    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. Yangyang Shi & Jiao Zhang & Xinyue Shen & Liang Chen & Yunchen Xu & Rui Fu & Yang Su & Yiping Xia, 2022. "Designing Perennial Landscapes: Plant Form and Species Richness Influence the Gaze Perception Associated with Aesthetic Preference," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-17, October.

    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. Liqing Zhang & Yue Wu, 2022. "Negative Associations between Quality of Urban Green Spaces and Health Expenditures in Downtown Shanghai," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Phi-Yen Nguyen & Thomas Astell-Burt & Hania Rahimi-Ardabili & Xiaoqi Feng, 2021. "Green Space Quality and Health: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-38, October.
    3. Zhen Yang & Weijun Gao, 2022. "Evaluating the Coordinated Development between Urban Greening and Economic Growth in Chinese Cities during 2005 to 2019," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-25, August.
    4. Celina Koh & Michelle C. Kondo & Heather Rollins & Usama Bilal, 2022. "Socioeconomic Disparities in Hypertension by Levels of Green Space Availability: A Cross-Sectional Study in Philadelphia, PA," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-13, February.
    5. Kimon Krenz & Ashley Dhanani & Rosemary R. C. McEachan & Kuldeep Sohal & John Wright & Laura Vaughan, 2023. "Linking the Urban Environment and Health: An Innovative Methodology for Measuring Individual-Level Environmental Exposures," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-22, January.
    6. Zheng, Lingwei & Austwick, Martin Zaltz, 2023. "Classifying station areas in greater Manchester using the node-place-design model: A comparative analysis with system centrality and green space coverage," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    7. Shiqi Wang & Ang Li, 2022. "Impacts of COVID-19 Lockdown on Use and Perception of Urban Green Spaces and Demographic Group Differences," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-18, November.
    8. Tingting Lu & Matthew Lane & Dan Van der Horst & Xin Liang & Jianing Wu, 2020. "Exploring the Impacts of Living in a “Green” City on Individual BMI: A Study of Lingang New Town in Shanghai, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-15, September.
    9. Bram Oosterbroek & Joop de Kraker & Sandra Akkermans & Paola Esser & Pim Martens, 2024. "Participatory Design of Urban Green Spaces to Improve Residents’ Health," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    10. Yanlong Guo & Ke Wang & Han Zhang & Zuoqing Jiang, 2022. "Soundscape Perception Preference in an Urban Forest Park: Evidence from Moon Island Forest Park in Lu’an City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-15, December.
    11. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    12. Yuxiang Lan & Qunyue Liu, 2023. "The Restorative and Contingent Value of Biophilic Indoor Environments in Healthcare Settings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-15, July.
    13. Amber L. Pearson & Victoria Breeze & Aaron Reuben & Gwen Wyatt, 2021. "Increased Use of Porch or Backyard Nature during COVID-19 Associated with Lower Stress and Better Symptom Experience among Breast Cancer Patients," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-13, August.
    14. Malik, Khyati & Kim, Sowon & Cultice, Brian J., 2023. "The impact of remote work on green space values in regional housing markets," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    15. Fei Qin & Yiqing Song & George P Nassis & Lina Zhao & Yanan Dong & Cuicui Zhao & Yiwei Feng & Jiexiu Zhao, 2020. "Physical Activity, Screen Time, and Emotional Well-Being during the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-16, July.
    16. A. Haven Kiers & Billy Krimmel & Caroline Larsen-Bircher & Kate Hayes & Ash Zemenick & Julia Michaels, 2022. "Different Jargon, Same Goals: Collaborations between Landscape Architects and Ecologists to Maximize Biodiversity in Urban Lawn Conversions," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, September.
    17. Jaloliddin Rustamov & Zahiriddin Rustamov & Nazar Zaki, 2023. "Green Space Quality Analysis Using Machine Learning Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, May.
    18. Natália Cristina de Oliveira & Pedro Balikian Júnior & Arnaldo Tenório da Cunha Júnior & Edson de Souza Bento & Josealdo Tonholo & Thiago Aquino & Filipe Antonio de Barros Sousa & Gustavo Gomes de Ara, 2023. "Environmental Planning and Non-Communicable Diseases: A Systematic Review on the Role of the Metabolomic Profile," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(14), pages 1-15, July.
    19. Yumeng Meng & Jiaxuan Shi & Mei Lyu & Dong Sun & Hiroatsu Fukuda, 2024. "Research into the Influence Mechanisms of Visual-Comfort and Landscape Indicators of Urban Green Spaces," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, October.
    20. Yonatal Tefera & Veronica Soebarto & Courtney Bishop & John Kandulu & Carmel Williams, 2023. "A Scoping Review of Urban Planning Decision Support Tools and Processes That Account for the Health, Environment, and Economic Benefits of Trees and Greenspace," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(1), pages 1-28, December.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:16:p:8526-:d:613239. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.