IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i7p2129-d221440.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Differences of Restorative Effects While Viewing Urban Landscapes and Green Landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Youngeun Kang

    (Research Department, Site Planning Co. Ltd., Busan 48505, Korea)

  • Eujin Julia Kim

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, Gangneung-Wonju National University, Gangneung 25457, Korea)

Abstract

Attention Restoration Theory argues that natural objects such as trees and flowers have psychological restoration effects. However, relevant studies have been mostly based on survey methods, and few of them suggest guidelines for restoration environments. This study, therefore, aims to verify the restorative effect of natural objects using eye-tracking methods and a survey regarding visual aesthetics, complexity, and the Perceived Restorativeness Scale, as well 25 various images divided into 4 types: natural scene and close view, natural scene and distant view, built scene and close view, and built scene and distant view. The analysis showed that natural scenes had a stronger positive restorative effect compared to built scenes regardless of differences in the distance. In terms of the overall landscape composition, visual characteristics such as visual aesthetics and complexity had a statistically significant relationship with restorative effect. Additionally, an eye-tracking method was found to be a valid and useful tool for studying the restorative environments by significant differences in the scan path length depending on the four types of landscape images. This study ultimately provides an overview regarding restorative design guidelines not only by using natural elements but also by considering landscape composition in terms of complexity, openness, and so on.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:2129-:d:221440
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/2129/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/2129/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Li, Qian & Huang, Zhuowei (Joy) & Christianson, Kiel, 2016. "Visual attention toward tourism photographs with text: An eye-tracking study," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 243-258.
    3. Bell, Sarah L. & Foley, Ronan & Houghton, Frank & Maddrell, Avril & Williams, Allison M., 2018. "From therapeutic landscapes to healthy spaces, places and practices: A scoping review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 123-130.
    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. Yilin Sun & Li Zhu & Jiang Li & Ni Zhang & Yue Tang & Xiaokang Wang & Honglin Wu, 2023. "Study on the Influence and Optimization of Neighborhood Space on the Perceived Restoration of Rural Left-Behind Older People: The Case of Changsha, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-22, September.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Marjan Shayestefar & Mahdieh Pazhouhanfar & Clarine van Oel & Patrik Grahn, 2022. "Exploring the Influence of the Visual Attributes of Kaplan’s Preference Matrix in the Assessment of Urban Parks: A Discrete Choice Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-19, June.

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Peng Wang & Wenjuan Yang & Dengju Wang & Youjun He, 2021. "Insights into Public Visual Behaviors through Eye-Tracking Tests: A Study Based on National Park System Pilot Area Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Andrews, Gavin J. & Duff, Cameron, 2020. "‘Whole onflow’, the productive event: an articulation through health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. Espigares-Jurado, Francisco & Muñoz-Leiva, Francisco & Correia, Marisol B. & Sousa, Carlos M.R. & Ramos, Célia M.Q. & Faísca, Luís, 2020. "Visual attention to the main image of a hotel website based on its position, type of navigation and belonging to Millennial generation: An eye tracking study," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    11. Greig, Abbie E., 2023. "“This family and the Games are my world”: Conceptualizing the British and European Transplant Games as therapeutic landscapes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 337(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Hyeon-Cheol Kim & Sumi Kim & Zong-Yi Zhu, 2021. "Does Foreign Language Proficiency Help to Enhance Sustainable Online Brand Community Experiences? Modeling the Predictors of Movie Information Sharing Behavior for Young Chinese Students Staying in Ko," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-12, May.
    14. Scott, Darius, 2022. "Uncaring landscapes and HIV peer support in the rural Southern United States," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    15. Proudfoot, Jesse, 2019. "Traumatic landscapes: Two geographies of addiction," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 228(C), pages 194-201.
    16. Buckley, Ralf & Westaway, Diane, 2020. "Mental health rescue effects of women's outdoor tourism: A role in COVID-19 recovery," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    17. Li, Yaoqi & Liu, Biqiang & Xie, Lishan, 2022. "Celebrity endorsement in international destination marketing: Evidence from eye-tracking techniques and laboratory experiments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 553-566.
    18. Triguero-Mas, Margarita & Anguelovski, Isabelle & García-Lamarca, Melissa & Argüelles, Lucía & Perez-del-Pulgar, Carmen & Shokry, Galia & Connolly, James J.T. & Cole, Helen V.S., 2021. "Natural outdoor environments’ health effects in gentrifying neighborhoods: Disruptive green landscapes for underprivileged neighborhood residents," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    19. Krista Schroeder & Levent Dumenci & David B. Sarwer & Jennie G. Noll & Kevin A. Henry & Shakira F. Suglia & Christine M. Forke & David C. Wheeler, 2022. "The Intersection of Neighborhood Environment and Adverse Childhood Experiences: Methods for Creation of a Neighborhood ACEs Index," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(13), pages 1-19, June.
    20. Mihai Țichindelean & Monica Teodora Țichindelean & Iuliana Cetină & Gheorghe Orzan, 2021. "A Comparative Eye Tracking Study of Usability—Towards Sustainable Web Design," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-31, September.

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:2129-:d:221440. 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.