IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i12p1349-d697080.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of Spatial Elements of Urban Landscape Forests on the Restoration Potential and Preference of Adolescents

Author

Listed:
  • Linjia Wu

    (College of Landscape Architecture, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China)

  • Qidi Dong

    (College of Landscape Architecture, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China)

  • Shixian Luo

    (Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 263-8522, Japan)

  • Wenyuan Jiang

    (College of Landscape Architecture, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China)

  • Ming Hao

    (College of Landscape Architecture, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China)

  • Qibing Chen

    (College of Landscape Architecture, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 611130, China)

Abstract

City green space can promote people’s health and aesthetic satisfaction; however, most extant research focuses on suburban forests and urban parks. Urban landscape forests have important ecological and aesthetic value for urban environments. This study conducted a visual stimulation to examine the impact of four common spatial element combinations in urban landscape forests on teenagers’ recovery potential and preference. The results indicate that urban landscape forests had positive physiological and psychological effects on adolescents, including decreased blood pressure, improved heart rate, reduced anxiety, and improved recovery ability. Diastolic blood pressure relief performance was better among males than females. In addition, a stepwise linear regression analysis was performed to explore the quantitative relationship between spatial elements and recovery and preference values. The results demonstrate that water elements were a significant predictor in the quantitative relationship between spatial elements in landscape forests and restoration and preference values. Terrain, flower, and shrub elements did not have a significant effect on overall restoration and preference values. This study highlights the intervention value of urban landscape forests in promoting the health and well-being of adolescents, with implications for future planning and design of urban landscape forests.

Suggested Citation

  • Linjia Wu & Qidi Dong & Shixian Luo & Wenyuan Jiang & Ming Hao & Qibing Chen, 2021. "Effects of Spatial Elements of Urban Landscape Forests on the Restoration Potential and Preference of Adolescents," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:12:p:1349-:d:697080
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/12/1349/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/12/1349/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giergiczny, Marek & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Żylicz, Tomasz & Angelstam, Per, 2015. "Choice experiment assessment of public preferences for forest structural attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 8-23.
    2. Bieling, Claudia, 2014. "Cultural ecosystem services as revealed through short stories from residents of the Swabian Alb (Germany)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 207-215.
    3. Bieling, Claudia & Plieninger, Tobias & Pirker, Heidemarie & Vogl, Christian R., 2014. "Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 19-30.
    4. Jing Xie & Shixian Luo & Katsunori Furuya & Dajiang Sun, 2020. "Urban Parks as Green Buffers During the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-17, August.
    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. Linjia Wu & Qidi Dong & Shixian Luo & Yanling Li & Yuzhou Liu & Jiani Li & Zhixian Zhu & Mingliang He & Yuhang Luo & Qibing Chen, 2022. "An Empirical Study of the Restoration Potential of Urban Deciduous Forest Space to Youth," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Henry Lippert & Ingo Kowarik & Tanja M. Straka, 2022. "People’s Attitudes and Emotions towards Different Urban Forest Types in the Berlin Region, Germany," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, May.
    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. Xuan Zhang & Haoying Han & Lin Qiao & Jingwei Zhuang & Ziming Ren & Yang Su & Yiping Xia, 2022. "Emotional-Health-Oriented Urban Design: A Novel Collaborative Deep Learning Framework for Real-Time Landscape Assessment by Integrating Facial Expression Recognition and Pixel-Level Semantic Segmentat," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-20, October.
    5. Xiaojia Liu & Xi Chen & Yan Huang & Weihong Wang & Mingkan Zhang & Yang Jin, 2023. "Landscape Aesthetic Value of Waterfront Green Space Based on Space–Psychology–Behavior Dimension: A Case Study along Qiantang River (Hangzhou Section)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-22, February.

    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. Karimi, Azadeh & Yazdandad, Hossein & Fagerholm, Nora, 2020. "Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    2. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    3. Nowak-Olejnik, Agnieszka & Mocior, Ewelina & Hibner, Joanna & Tokarczyk, Natalia, 2020. "Human perceptions of cultural ecosystem services of semi-natural grasslands: The influence of plant communities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    4. Nowak-Olejnik, Agnieszka & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "A systematic review on subjective well-being benefits associated with cultural ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    5. Wright, William C.C. & Eppink, Florian V. & Greenhalgh, Suzie, 2017. "Are ecosystem service studies presenting the right information for decision making?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 128-139.
    6. Sarah Marie Müller & Jasmin Peisker & Claudia Bieling & Kathrin Linnemann & Konrad Reidl & Klaus Schmieder, 2019. "The Importance of Cultural Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity for Landscape Visitors in the Biosphere Reserve Swabian Alb (Germany)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-23, May.
    7. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    8. Sagebiel, Julian & Glenk, Klaus & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2017. "Spatially explicit demand for afforestation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 190-199.
    9. Yue Du & Zan Zou & Yaodong He & Yongge Zhou & Shixian Luo, 2022. "Beyond Blue and Green Spaces: Identifying and Characterizing Restorative Environments on Sichuan Technology and Business University Campus," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-17, October.
    10. Soy-Massoni, Emma & Langemeyer, Johannes & Varga, Diego & Sáez, Marc & Pintó, Josep, 2016. "The importance of ecosystem services in coastal agricultural landscapes: Case study from the Costa Brava, Catalonia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 43-52.
    11. Riechers, Maraja & Barkmann, Jan & Tscharntke, Teja, 2016. "Perceptions of cultural ecosystem services from urban green," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 33-39.
    12. Bieling, Claudia & Plieninger, Tobias & Pirker, Heidemarie & Vogl, Christian R., 2014. "Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 19-30.
    13. Christoph Lambio & Tillman Schmitz & Richard Elson & Jeffrey Butler & Alexandra Roth & Silke Feller & Nicolai Savaskan & Tobia Lakes, 2023. "Exploring the Spatial Relative Risk of COVID-19 in Berlin-Neukölln," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-22, May.
    14. Emad B. Dawwas & Karen Dyson, 2021. "COVID-19 Changed Human-Nature Interactions across Green Space Types: Evidence of Change in Multiple Types of Activities from the West Bank, Palestine," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-21, December.
    15. Shixian Luo & Jing Xie & Katsunori Furuya, 2021. "“We Need such a Space”: Residents’ Motives for Visiting Urban Green Spaces during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-18, June.
    16. Shuping Zhang & Xuehui Sun & Kun Zhang & Xiaozheng Zhang & Renqing Wang & Jian Liu & Shuping Zhang, 2021. "An Attempt To Identify Cultural Ecosystem Services And Related Land Use Types In Rural Areas Under Urbanization," Environment & Ecosystem Science (EES), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 5(2), pages 121-128, September.
    17. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    18. Noszczyk, Tomasz & Gorzelany, Julia & Kukulska-Kozieł, Anita & Hernik, Józef, 2022. "The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the importance of urban green spaces to the public," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    19. Agimass, Fitalew & Lundhede, Thomas & Panduro, Toke Emil & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "The choice of forest site for recreation: A revealed preference analysis using spatial data," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 445-454.
    20. Kim, Do-hun & Sjølie, Hanne K. & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2024. "Psychological distances to climate change and public preferences for biodiversity-augmenting attributes in family-owned production forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(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:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:12:p:1349-:d:697080. 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.