IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/clarxx/v38y2013i1p101-116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tracking Restorative Components: Patterns in Eye Movements as a Consequence of a Restorative Rating Task

Author

Listed:
  • Helena Nordh
  • Caroline M. Hagerhall
  • Kenneth Holmqvist

Abstract

Eye tracking was used to investigate the task of assessing how likely it is that one would be able to rest and recover in small urban spaces and how it affects the view pattern. We assess which environmental components, for example, flowers and trees, participants look at when evaluating restoration likelihood. Further, we compare number of fixations in restorative and non-restorative park photos. Photos were selected based on ratings of low and high likelihood of restoration. Participants were asked to imagine themselves in need of restoration. Photos were presented for 10 seconds each. In contrast to studies adapting a free viewing approach, the present study shows that image properties such as contrast and colour did not attract attention; instead participants looked at components that were of importance for assessing restoration likelihood. The components participants looked at the most were trees, followed by benches and bushes. This presents new information on people's view patterns in relation to the task of rating restoration likelihood. In addition, relations between the park components at which participants looked the most and the ratings on restoration likelihood were explored. As expected, we found a positive correlation between grass and restoration likelihood. The relations were negative for all other variables, although not significant. The negative relations were rather unexpected, and possible explanations for them are discussed. Finally, we analysed the association between number of fixations and restoration likelihood ratings, and no correlation was found.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:clarxx:v:38:y:2013:i:1:p:101-116
    DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2012.691468
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01426397.2012.691468
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01426397.2012.691468?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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).
    13. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:clarxx:v:38:y:2013:i:1:p:101-116. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/clar20 .

    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.