IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i20p10944-d658925.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Relationships between Perceived Design Intensity, Preference, Restorativeness and Eye Movements in Designed Urban Green Space

Author

Listed:
  • Yu Wu

    (College of Landscape Architecture, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350000, China)

  • Zhixiong Zhuo

    (Xiamen University Tan Kah Kee College, Zhangzhou 363105, China)

  • Qunyue Liu

    (College of Architecture and Urban Planning, Fujian University of Technology, Fuzhou 350000, China)

  • Kunyong Yu

    (College of Forestry, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350000, China)

  • Qitang Huang

    (College of Landscape Architecture, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350000, China)

  • Jian Liu

    (College of Landscape Architecture, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350000, China)

Abstract

Recent research has demonstrated that landscape design intensity impacts individuals’ landscape preferences, which may influence their eye movement. Due to the close relationship between restorativeness and landscape preference, we further explore the relationships between design intensity, preference, restorativeness and eye movements. Specifically, using manipulated images as stimuli for 200 students as participants, the effect of urban green space (UGS) design intensity on landscapes’ preference, restorativeness, and eye movement was examined. The results demonstrate that landscape design intensity could contribute to preference and restorativeness and that there is a significant positive relationship between design intensity and eye-tracking metrics, including dwell time percent, fixation percent, fixation count, and visited ranking. Additionally, preference was positively related to restorativeness, dwell time percent, fixation percent, and fixation count, and there is a significant positive relationship between restorativeness and fixation percent. We obtained the most feasible regression equations between design intensity and preference, restorativeness, and eye movement. These results provide a set of guidelines for improving UGS design to achieve its greatest restorative potential and shed new light on the use of eye-tracking technology in landscape perception studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu Wu & Zhixiong Zhuo & Qunyue Liu & Kunyong Yu & Qitang Huang & Jian Liu, 2021. "The Relationships between Perceived Design Intensity, Preference, Restorativeness and Eye Movements in Designed Urban Green Space," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:20:p:10944-:d:658925
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/20/10944/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/20/10944/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Youngeun Kang & Eujin Julia Kim, 2019. "Differences of Restorative Effects While Viewing Urban Landscapes and Green Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, April.
    2. Robert B. Noland & Marc D. Weiner & Dong Gao & Michael P. Cook & Anton Nelessen, 2017. "Eye-tracking technology, visual preference surveys, and urban design: preliminary evidence of an effective methodology," Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 98-110, January.
    3. Lien Dupont & Marc Antrop & Veerle Van Eetvelde, 2014. "Eye-tracking Analysis in Landscape Perception Research: Influence of Photograph Properties and Landscape Characteristics," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 417-432, August.
    4. Helena Nordh & Caroline M. Hagerhall & Kenneth Holmqvist, 2013. "Tracking Restorative Components: Patterns in Eye Movements as a Consequence of a Restorative Rating Task," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 101-116, February.
    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. Tingting Su & Kaiping Wang & Shuangshuang Li & Xinyan Wang & Huan Li & Huanru Ding & Yanfei Chen & Chenhui Liu & Min Liu & Yunlu Zhang, 2022. "Analysis and Optimization of Landscape Preference Characteristics of Rural Public Space Based on Eye-Tracking Technology: The Case of Huangshandian Village, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-25, December.
    2. Xinhui Fei & Yanqin Zhang & Deyi Kong & Qitang Huang & Minhua Wang & Jianwen Dong, 2023. "Quantitative Model Study of the Psychological Recovery Benefit of Landscape Environment Based on Eye Movement Tracking Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-19, July.
    3. Hanbin Shen & Xuecong He & Jing He & Danming Li & Mingjie Liang & Xubin Xie, 2024. "Back to the Village: Assessing the Effects of Naturalness, Landscape Types, and Landscape Elements on the Restorative Potential of Rural Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-30, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Keyan Chen & Yan Xu & Kaiyuan Zhan & Yangshuo Gao & Xiangcai Xie, 2024. "Exploring the Relationship between Key Perceptual Elements of Urban Secondary Wilderness and Its Restorative Benefits," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-22, August.

    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. Suling Guo & Wei Sun & Wen Chen & Jianxin Zhang & Peixue Liu, 2021. "Impact of Artificial Elements on Mountain Landscape Perception: An Eye-Tracking Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Chang Li & Yu Yuan & Changan Sun & Minkai Sun, 2022. "The Perceived Restorative Quality of Viewing Various Types of Urban and Rural Scenes: Based on Psychological and Physiological Responses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Youngeun Kang & Eujin Julia Kim, 2019. "Differences of Restorative Effects While Viewing Urban Landscapes and Green Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-19, April.
    4. Wenqing Ding & Qinqin Wei & Jing Jin & Juanjuan Nie & Fanfan Zhang & Xiaotian Zhou & Youhua Ma, 2023. "Research on Public Space Micro-Renewal Strategy of Historical and Cultural Blocks in Sanhe Ancient Town under Perception Quantification," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, February.
    5. Chang Li & Xiaohui Huang, 2022. "Differences in Visual Attraction between Historical Garden and Urban Park Walking Scenes," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-16, October.
    6. Gianni Talamini & Ting Liu & Roula El-Khoury & Di Shao, 2023. "Visibility and symbolism of corporate architecture: A multi-method approach for visual impact assessment," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(9), pages 2407-2429, November.
    7. Nawaf Saeed Al Mushayt & Francesca Dal Cin & Sérgio Barreiros Proença, 2021. "New Lens to Reveal the Street Interface. A Morphological-Visual Perception Methodological Contribution for Decoding the Public/Private Edge of Arterial Streets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-21, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Ruoshi Zhang & Weiyue Duan & Zhikai Zheng, 2024. "Multimodal Quantitative Research on the Emotional Attachment Characteristics between People and the Built Environment Based on the Immersive VR Eye-Tracking Experiment," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-27, January.
    10. Brzoska, P. & Grunewald, K. & Bastian, O., 2021. "A multi-criteria analytical method to assess ecosystem services at urban site level, exemplified by two German city districts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    11. Antonio Santoro & Martina Venturi & Mauro Agnoletti, 2021. "Landscape Perception and Public Participation for the Conservation and Valorization of Cultural Landscapes: The Case of the Cinque Terre and Porto Venere UNESCO Site," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, January.
    12. Tingting Su & Kaiping Wang & Shuangshuang Li & Xinyan Wang & Huan Li & Huanru Ding & Yanfei Chen & Chenhui Liu & Min Liu & Yunlu Zhang, 2022. "Analysis and Optimization of Landscape Preference Characteristics of Rural Public Space Based on Eye-Tracking Technology: The Case of Huangshandian Village, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-25, December.
    13. James Simpson & Kevin Thwaites & Megan Freeth, 2019. "Understanding Visual Engagement with Urban Street Edges along Non-Pedestrianised and Pedestrianised Streets Using Mobile Eye-Tracking," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-17, August.
    14. Xiaohuan Xie & Hanzhi Zhou & Zhonghua Gou & Ming Yi, 2021. "Spatiotemporal Patterns of the Use of Green Space by White-Collar Workers in Chinese Cities: A Study in Shenzhen," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-25, September.
    15. Massimiliano Masullo & Francesca Castanò & Roxana Adina Toma & Luigi Maffei, 2020. "Historical Cloisters and Courtyards as Quiet Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-21, April.
    16. Fabrizio Aimar & Francesca Cavagnino & Marco Devecchi, 2022. "Conservation and Management of Agricultural Landscapes through Expert-Supported Participatory Processes: The “Declarations of Public Interest” in an Italian Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-28, July.
    17. Kyu-Chul Lee & Yong-Hoon Son, 2017. "Exploring Landscape Perceptions of Bukhansan National Park According to the Degree of Visitors’ Experience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-27, July.
    18. Mengyun Wu & Yu Gao & Zhi Zhang & Bo Zhang & Huan Meng & Weikang Zhang & Tong Zhang, 2023. "How Do Repeated Viewings in Forest Landscapes Influence Young People’s Visual Behaviors and Cognitive Evaluations?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(6), pages 1-25, March.
    19. Yujia Zhai & Binbin Fan & Jingyao Yu & Ruoyu Gong & Jie Yin, 2024. "Effects of Spatial Type and Scale of Small Urban Open Spaces on Perceived Restoration: An Online Survey-Based Experiment," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, August.
    20. Massimiliano Masullo & Asli Ozcevik Bilen & Roxana Adina Toma & Gulsen Akin Guler & Luigi Maffei, 2021. "The Restorativeness of Outdoor Historical Sites in Urban Areas: Physical and Perceptual Correlations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-23, May.

    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:20:p:10944-:d:658925. 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.