The impact mechanism of urban park health benefit evaluation based on landscape preference

doi:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202107020

JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY ›› 2022, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (5): 221-228.doi: 10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202107020

Previous Articles Next Articles

The impact mechanism of urban park health benefit evaluation based on landscape preference

HUANG Shuo¹^,²(), ZHNEG Yu¹^,^*(), CHENG Linli², JI Chunyue², WANG Shan², DONG Jianwen²

1. Fine Arts & Design College of Minjiang University,Fuzhou 350108,China
2. College of Art / College of Landscape Architecture of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University,Fuzhou 350002,China

Received:2021-07-14 Revised:2021-08-31 Online:2022-09-30 Published:2022-10-19
Contact: ZHNEG Yu E-mail:1904115884@qq.com;953168046@qq.com

Abstract

Abstract:

【Objective】Affected by the new crown pneumonia epidemic, people have put forward higher requirements for the health functions of urban parks. Landscape preference is the result of the interaction between people and the chosen environment, and is closely related to the construction of landscape elements. It is of great significance for studying the construction of healthy landscapes in urban parks. 【Method】Taking the Xihu Park of Fuzhou City as an example, this research used location big data methods, questionnaire survey methods, qualitative grounding methods and structural equation model construction to explore the evaluation mechanism of urban park landscape health benefits based on landscape preference. 【Result】 (1) Compared with the period of the epidemic, the preference for landscape elements of structures and facilities increased by 4.918%, the preforence for space and atmosphere decreased by 4.996%. Relatively speaking, regardless of whether there were any changes in various landscape environments before and after the epidemic, natural elements have always been a very important part of the selection. Tourists preferred the environment with more natural elements. (2) In the reflection characteristics of landscape preferences, the revised legibility (0.45) and mystery (0.59) can effectively reflect landscape preference, in which mystery had the largest influence coefficient. (3) The eliminating fatigue (0.70), focusing (0.67), rejuvenating (0.62) and calming mood (0.56) can effectively reflect the health benefit evaluation, among which the influence coefficient of eliminating fatigue maximum. (4) Landscape preference showed a certain positive impact on the evaluation of health benefits, but the impact coefficient was not significant, and it had an indirect impact through landscape elements.【Conclusion】The qualitative analysis combined with the evaluation results of the structural equation model among landscape elements, landscape preferences and health benefits can provide a certain direction for the improvement of the health benefits of urban parks, then carried out targeted development, protection, transformation and improvement, afterwards improve the effectiveness of the park.

Key words: new crown pneumonia epidemic, landscape preference, health benefit, urban park, Xihu Park, Fuzhou City

CLC Number:

X828
TU984

HUANG Shuo, ZHNEG Yu, CHENG Linli, JI Chunyue, WANG Shan, DONG Jianwen. The impact mechanism of urban park health benefit evaluation based on landscape preference[J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2022, 46(5): 221-228.

Figures/Tables 6

Fig.1

Fig.2

Table 1

Reliability and validity of the model and confirmatory factor analysis results"

项目 item	测量指标 measurement index	单项与总和相关性 individual and total correlation	标准化因子载荷 normalized load factor	t	收敛效度 AVE	组合信度 CR	可靠性系数α Cronbach's α
植物 plant	A1植物颜色	0.795^**	0.781	56.097
	A2植物气味	0.731^**	0.717	50.470	0.573	0.843	0.747
	A3植物造型	0.760^**	0.788	63.197
	A4植物种类丰富度	0.737^**	0.739	65.475
道路与铺装 road and paving	A5道路铺装	0.773^**	0.802	56.734
	A6道路导向性	0.633^**	0.602	57.238
	A7道路造型	0.710^**	0.729	54.600	0.504	0.834	0.749
	A8栈道舒适度	0.638^**	0.595	53.292
	A9铺装质感	0.776^**	0.794	53.899
构筑物与设施 buildings and facilities	A10构筑物造型	0.737^**	0.722	54.852
	A11构筑物颜色	0.768^**	0.760	52.490	0.549	0.829	0.725
	A12设施舒适度	0.678^**	0.691	63.404
	A13设施材质	0.776^**	0.787	56.862
空间与氛围 space and atmosphere	A14水声清晰	0.599^**	0.554	50.046
	A15水质良好	0.667^**	0.660	54.664
	A16水体造型	0.669^**	0.645	50.780
	A17空间类型	0.700^**	0.724	59.659	0.397	0.839	0.779
	A18空间多样性	0.679^**	0.703	58.004
	A19空间认同感	0.509^**	0.497	63.536
	A20氛围持续时间	0.614^**	0.639	65.009
	A21氛围可融入度	0.574^**	0.586	65.621
动物与人 animals and people	A22动物声	0.752^**	0.756	36.935
	A23动物常见性	0.808^**	0.833	33.969	0.510	0.799	0.665
	A24动物丰富度	0.727^**	0.769	40.886
	A25人群聚集	0.525^**	0.429	42.747
一致性 consistency	B1景观是连续的	0.795^**	0.796	55.967
	B2景观是重复的	0.800^**	0.792	48.748	0.636	0.840	0.713
	B3景观层次分明	0.796^**	0.804	57.849
项目 item	测量指标 measurement index	单项与总和相关性 individual and total correlation	标准化因子载荷 normalized load factor	t	收敛效度 AVE	组合信度 CR	可靠性系数α Cronbach's α
易读性 legibility	B4景观可以明确区分	0.744^**	0.736	57.390
	B5不易迷失方向	0.783^**	0.773	52.928	0.585	0.809	0.645
	B6具有明显的标志物	0.768^**	0.785	56.372
复杂性 complexity	B7景观是错综复杂的	0.755^**	0.785	41.813
	B8景观是丰富的	0.584^**	0.522	57.741	0.492	0.790	0.644
	B9没有规则及秩序的	0.800^**	0.839	42.921
	B10景观是变化多端的	0.637^**	0.614	53.784
神秘性 mystery	B11可以吸引人进一步探索	0.770^**	0.784	54.729
	B12景观是迂回的	0.698^**	0.706	43.260	0.570	0.841	0.746
	B13景观是幽深和神秘的	0.812^**	0.816	44.892
	B14景观是新奇的	0.733^**	0.707	44.262
健康效益评估 health benefit assessment	C1可以消除疲劳	0.782^**	0.787	58.751
	C2可以恢复活力	0.722^**	0.713	61.416	0.550	0.830	0.727
	C3可以稳定情绪	0.702^**	0.708	63.976
	C4可以集中注意力	0.758^**	0.756	56.887

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

NVivo qualitative analysis results of the images of Xihu Park, Fuzhou City"

树状节点 tree node	自由节点 free node	数量 number		节点占比/% percentage		树状节点 tree node	自由节点 free node	数量 number		节点占比/% percentage
树状节点 tree node	自由节点 free node	疫情前 before the epidemic	疫情期间 during the epidemic	疫情前 before the epidemic	疫情期间 during the epidemic	树状节点 tree node	自由节点 free node	疫情前 before the epidemic	疫情期间 during the epidemic	疫情前 before the epidemic	疫情期间 during the epidemic
道路与铺装 roads and paving	车行道	10	4	0.134	0.129	空间与氛围 space and atmosphere	瀑布	16	12	0.214	2.515
	台阶	49	29	0.655	0.935		喷泉	51	13	0.682	0.774
	木质地板	7	2	0.094	0.064		水池	670	179	8.954	0.387
	步道	205	80	2.740	2.579		天空	257	78	3.434	0.419
	铺装地板	106	44	1.417	1.418		夕阳	118	24	1.577	5.770
	木栈道	192	97	2.566	3.127		合计			14.860	9.864
	桥	301	143	4.022	4.610	植物 plant	观果乔木	12	4	0.160	0.129
	合计			11.626	12.863		地被	15	9	0.200	0.290
构筑物与设施 structures and facilities	垃圾桶	1	0	0.013	0.000		灌木	86	54	1.149	1.741
	自助机	3	1	0.040	0.032		观花乔木	218	78	2.913	2.515
	娱乐器材	2	0	0.027	0.000		草地	61	29	0.815	0.935
	风车	2	5	0.027	0.161		草本花卉	1213	516	16.210	16.634
	椅子	17	8	0.227	0.258		观叶乔木	1453	535	19.417	17.247
	景墙	149	42	1.991	1.354		盆景	47	34	0.628	1.096
	山石	233	154	3.114	4.965		合计			41.494	40.587
	驳岸	64	32	0.855	1.032	动物与人 animals and people	鸭子	1	0	0.013	0.000
	船	227	106	3.034	3.417		猫	8	0	0.107	0.000
	亭	383	160	5.118	5.158		狗	2	1	0.027	0.032
	现代建筑	117	66	1.564	2.128		人群	51	23	0.682	0.741
	雕塑	120	56	1.604	1.805		鱼	22	3	0.294	0.097
	指示牌	126	65	1.684	2.095		鸟	8	3	0.107	0.097
	廊架	23	25	0.307	0.806		蝴蝶	1	0	0.013	0.000
	路灯	95	33	1.270	1.064		蜗牛	3	0	0.040	0.032
	门	468	209	6.254	6.738		蜜蜂	0	1	0.000	0.032
	古建筑	212	132	2.833	4.255		合计			1.283	1.032
	栏杆	58	12	0.775	0.387
	合计			30.736	35.654

Table 3

Fig.3

References 31

[1]	VAN DEN BERG A E, KOOLE S L, VAN DER WULP N Y. Environmental preference and restoration:how are they related?[J]. J Environ Psychol, 2003, 23(2):135-146.DOI:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00111-1.
[2]	谭少华, 郭剑锋, 赵万民. 城市自然环境缓解精神压力和疲劳恢复研究进展[J]. 地域研究与开发, 2010, 29(4):55-60.
	TAN S H, GUO J F, ZHAO W M. Research progress on the relief of mental stress and fatigue recovery in urban natural environment[J]. Regional Res Development, 2010, 29(4):55-60.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1003-2363.2010.04.012.
[3]	HANSMANN R, HUG S M, SEELAND K. Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks[J]. Urban For Urban Green, 2007, 6(4):213-225.DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2007.08.004.
[4]	宋立民, 鲁苗. 景观偏好的差异性探究[J]. 设计, 2016(21):27-29.
	SONG L M, LU M. The study of the difference of landscape preference[J]. Design, 2016(21):27-29.
[5]	GOBSTER P, CHENOWETH R E. The dimensions of aesthetic preference:a quantitative analysis[J]. J Environ Manag, 1989, 29(1):47-72.
[6]	ZUCKERMAN M, ULRICH R S, MCLAUGHLIN J. Sensation seeking and reactions to nature paintings[J]. Pers Individ Differ, 1993, 15(5):563-576.DOI:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90340-9.
[7]	陈云文, 胡江, 王辉. 景观偏好及栽植空间景观偏好研究回顾[J]. 山东林业科技, 2004, 34(4):54-56.
	CHEN Y W, HU J, WANG H. Review on landscape preference and landscape preference of planting space[J]. J Shandong For Sci Technol, 2004, 34(4):54-56.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1002-2724.2004.04.041.
[8]	KAPLAN R, KAPLAN S, BROWN T. Environmental preference[J]. Environ Behav, 1989, 21(5):509-530.DOI:10.1177/0013916589215001.
[9]	KAPLAN R, KAPLAN S. A psychological perspective[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
[10]	BARROSO F L, PINTO-CORREIA T, RAMOS I L, et al. Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: photo-based questionnaires in the Mediterranean context[J]. Landsc Urban Plan, 2012, 104(3/4):329-342.DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.005.
[11]	YU K J. Cultural variations in landscape preference: comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and western design experts[J]. Landsc Urban Plan, 1995, 32(2):107-126.DOI:10.1016/0169-2046(94)00188-9.
[12]	周春玲, 张启翔, 孙迎坤. 居住区绿地的美景度评价[J]. 中国园林, 2006, 22(4):62-67.
	ZHOU C L, ZHANG Q X, SUN Y K. Scenic beauty estimation of residential quarter green area[J]. Chin Landsc Archit, 2006, 22(4):62-67.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-6664.2006.04.015.
[13]	郑哲. 基于精神病人行为改善作用的庭园康复功能研究[D]. 北京: 中国林业科学研究院, 2014.
	ZHENG Z. Research on rehabilitation effects of garden through psychiatric patients' behavior improvement[D]. Beijing: Chinese Academy of Forestry, 2014.
[14]	唐佳薇. 基于旅游照片的湖南省国家森林公园游客景观偏好研究[D]. 长沙: 中南林业科技大学, 2018.
	TANG J W. Hunan beautiful forest research on tourist landscape preference based on tourist photos in national forest park of Hunan Province[D]. Changsha: Central South University of Forestry & Technology, 2018.
[15]	柯鑫, 韩雪, 许建强. 植物景观健康效益的发展及其应用探究[J]. 城市建筑, 2020, 17(33):139-142.
	KE X, HAN X, XU J Q. Research on the development and application of plant landscape health benefit[J]. Urban Archit, 2020, 17(33):139-142.DOI:10.19892/j.cnki.csjz.2020.33.39.
[16]	NIELSEN T S, HANSEN K B. Do green areas affect health?Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators[J]. Health Place, 2007, 13(4):839-850.DOI:10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.02.001.
[17]	张彩红, 薛伟, 辛颖, 等. 基于层次分析法的贵州玉舍国家森林公园休养地适宜度评价[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 44(2):215-219.
	ZHANG C H, XUE W, XIN Y, et al. Suitability evaluation of rest and recuperation sites in Guizhou Yushe National Forest Park by analythic hierarchy process CAHP[J]. J Nanjing For U (Nat Sci Edi), 2020, 44(2): 215-219. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-2006.201812009.
[18]	HANSMANN R, HUG S M, SEELAND K. Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks[J]. Urban For Urban Green, 2007, 6(4):213-225.DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2007.08.004.
[19]	王晓易. 2017大众点评吃货节开启亿元基金打造内容生态体系[N]. 南方都市报,2015-05-12(2).
[20]	GRIMM L G, YARNOLD P R. Reading and Understanding more Multivariate Statistics[M]. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 2000.
[21]	黄章展, 黄芳铭, 周先捷. 环境偏好与环境恢复性知觉关系之研究--以山景景观为例[J]. 户外游憩研究, 2008, 21(1):1-25.
	HUANG Z Z, HUANG F M, ZHOU X J. The relationship between environmental preference and restorative perception of environment:a case study of mountain landscape[J]. Outdoor Recreation Study, 2008, 21(1):1-25.
[22]	PESCHARDT K K, STIGSDOTTER U K. Associations between park characteristics and perceived restorativeness of small public urban green spaces[J]. Landsc Urban Plan, 2013, 112:26-39.DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.013.
[23]	SUN M H, RYAN C, PAN S. Assessing tourists' perceptions and behaviour through photographic and blog analysis: the case of Chinese bloggers and New Zealand holidays[J]. Tour Manag Perspect, 2014, 12:125-133.DOI:10.1016/j.tmp.2014.09.007.
[24]	STEPCHENKOVA S, ZHAN F Z. Visual destination images of Peru:comparative content analysis of DMO and user-generated photography[J]. Tour Manag, 2013, 36:590-601.DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2012.08.006.
[25]	王志鹏, 王薇, 邢思懿. 城市公园绿地特征和使用方式与人群健康关系研究[J]. 南京林业大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 45(5):223-231.
	WANG Z P, WANG W, XING S Y. Relationship between the characteristics and usage patterns of urban park green space and population health[J]. J Nanjing For Univ(Nat Sci Ed), 2021, 45(5):223-231.DOI:10.12302/j.issn.1000-2006.202006004.
[26]	ÜLENGIN F, KABAK Ö, ÖNSEL Ş, et al. A problem structuring model for analyzing transportation environment relationships[J]. Eur J Oper Res, 2010, 200(3):844-859.DOI:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.023.
[27]	刘群阅, 陈烨, 张薇, 等. 游憩者环境偏好、恢复性评价与健康效益评估关系研究:以福州国家森林公园为例[J]. 资源科学, 2018, 40(2):381-391.
	LIU Q Y, CHEN Y, ZHANG W, et al. Tourists' environmental preferences,perceived restoration and perceived health at Fuzhou National Forest Park[J]. Resour Sci, 2018, 40(2):381-391.DOI:10.18402/resci.2018.02.14.
[28]	柯惠新, 沈浩. 调查研究中的统计分析法[M]. 2版. 北京: 中国传媒大学出版社, 2005.
	KE H X, SHEN H. Statistics in survey research[M]. 2nd ed. Beijing: Communication University of China Press, 2005.
[29]	O'LEARY-KELLY S W, J VOKURKA R. The empirical assessment of construct validity[J]. J Oper Manag, 1998, 16(4):387-405.DOI:10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00020-5.
[30]	CHEN Y S, LIN L S. Structural equation based latent growth curve modeling of watershed attribute-regulated stream sensitivity to reduced acidic deposition[J]. Ecol Model, 2010, 221(17):2086-2094.DOI:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2010.05.010.
[31]	KUPPAM A R, PENDYALA R M. A structural equations analysis of commuters' activity and travel patterns[J]. Transportation, 2001, 28(1):33-54.DOI:10.1023/A:1005253813277.

Metrics

Comments

www.nldxb.njfu.edu.cn

Edited ＆ Published by Editorial Department of Nanjing Forestry University(Natural Sciences Edition)
Address： No.159 Longpan Road,Nanjing 210037 Jiangsu,P.R.China
E-mail ：xuebao@njfu.edu.cn , xuebao@njfu.com.cn
Telephone +86-25-85428247,85427076
Distributed by China International Book Trading Corporation P.O. Box 399, Beijing ,P.R. China

拟合指数 fitting index	评价标准 evaluation standard	修正前结果 results before correction	修正后结果 revised result
卡方自由度比χ²/df	<3	2.134	1.105
拟合优度指数GFI	>0.9(宽松值>0.8)	0.784	0.892
规范拟合指数NFI	>0.9(宽松值>0.8)	0.608	0.808
比较拟合指数CFI	>0.9	0.738	0.977
递增拟合指数IFI	>0.9	0.745	0.978
近似误差均方根RMSEA	<0.1	0.075	0.023

The impact mechanism of urban park health benefit evaluation based on landscape preference

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 6

References 31

Related Articles 11

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

Author

Reader

Reviewer

[1]	LIU Yanfen, HUANG Ruxian, AI Jinwen, YANG Liuqing, YU Kunyong, LIU Jian. The cold island effect and its influence on urban parks in Fuzhou City, China [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2024, 48(3): 295-303.
[2]	YANG He, MI Feng. Associations between urban green space accessibility and mental health of residents from the perspective of socio-economic status [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2024, 48(1): 248-256.
[3]	YANG Yunfeng, YANG Jiaqi. Ecological renovation design of urban parks in subtropical regions based on mosquito prevention and control [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2023, 47(6): 211-218.
[4]	ZHANG Yinfeng, CAI Hongyue, PENG Jingen, LIU Xuejun, XIE Lijuan, ZHANG Hua, WANG Yanmei. Effects of different planting environments on the growth of Rhododendron moulmainense in Shenzhen urban parks [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2023, 47(2): 197-204.
[5]	HOU Xiujuan, YAN Xiaoyun, WANG Bo, LI Xinyuan, BAO Hongguang. Variation characteristics of the air anion and air particulate matter in arid and semi-arid urban park green spaces during summer [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2022, 46(4): 212-220.
[6]	WANG Zhipeng, WANG Wei, XING Siyi. A study on the relationship between the characteristics and usage of urban park green space and population health [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2021, 45(5): 223-231.
[7]	ZHENG Lingyu, PU Haixia, JIANG Zeping. A study on spatial satisfaction of urban parks based on visible green index [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2020, 44(4): 199-204.
[8]	ZHANG Jinguang, WEI Wei, CHENG Yingyi, ZHAO Bing. Study on site selection of small and medium-sized city parks based on GIS suitability evaluation [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2020, 44(1): 171-178.
[9]	YE Jienan, WANG Hao. Feasibility analysis of the function structure and spatial layout of green space for urban park in disaster [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2018, 42(03): 175-181.
[10]	WANG Qian, WANG Cheng^{2 Symbolj@@}, DU Wanguang, XU Chao, GUO Junqi. Exploring the ecological healthy function of Phyllostachys pubescens forest in Qishan Park of Fuzhou in summer [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2018, 42(02): 120-126.
[11]	HONG Zhimeng1,2. Investigation on species abundances of plant communities at Xiamen city parks [J]. JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY, 2009, 33(02): 51-.