| Literature DB >> 31817595 |
Tianyao Zhang1, Jiahui Liu2, Hongyang Li3.
Abstract
Urban green space is believed as a beneficial landscape for mental restoration in the urban settings. This study aims to examine the restorative quality of the urban green space from a multi-sensory perspective, focusing on both direct and indirect connections between visual, auditory, and tactile sensations and mental restoration. Two hundred and fifty park users of Tianhe Park in Guangzhou, China, were surveyed. Data were collected regarding their three types of sensations, i.e., the perceived mental restoration, health-related behavioral activities and emotional responses in the urban park. As a result, visual and auditory sensation were found to be linked with mental restoration directly and indirectly, while the tactile sensation was only associated with mental restoration indirectly; and health-related behaviors and emotional response mediated the relations between the three sensations and mental restoration significantly. It is concluded that the greater effects of auditory sensation and the under-studied potential effects of tactile sensation on mental restoration should be more emphasized in the future design of urban park. This is expected to contribute to the high restorative quality of the urban green space and promote public health.Entities:
Keywords: auditory sensation; emotional response; health-related behaviors; mental restoration; tactical sensation; urban green space; visual sensation
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31817595 PMCID: PMC6950104 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16244943
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Theoretical-indicated framework of multi-sensory perception and restorative effects of urban parks.
Figure 2The location of Tianhe Park, Guangzhou.
Reliability and validity analysis.
| Latent Variable | Observation Variable | α | CR | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visual sensation | 6 | 0.798 | 0.80 | 0.41 |
| Auditory sensation | 5 | 0.741 | 0.72 | 0.46 |
| Tactile sensation | 4 | 0.780 | 0.79 | 0.48 |
| Behavioral activities | 6 | 0.844 | 0.82 | 0.44 |
| Emotional response | 4 | 0.834 | 0.80 | 0.51 |
| Restorative effect | 6 | 0.883 | 0.85 | 0.49 |
| Total | 31 | 0.931 |
Descriptive statistics of the sample.
| Classification | Number of People | Proportion (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 105 | 42 |
| Female | 145 | 58 | |
| Age | Under 18 | 12 | 4.8 |
| 18–30 | 104 | 41.6 | |
| 31–45 | 55 | 22 | |
| 45–60 | 37 | 14.8 | |
| 60 or older | 42 | 16.8 | |
| Who do you like to come to the park? | Child/Children | 99 | 17.43 |
| Lover | 119 | 20.95 | |
| Friends | 137 | 24.12 | |
| Parents | 92 | 16.2 | |
| On one’s own | 121 | 21.3 | |
| Time spent in the park | 20 min or less | 21 | 8.4 |
| 20 min–1 h | 85 | 34 | |
| 1 h–2 h | 90 | 36 | |
| More than 2 h | 51 | 21.6 | |
| General health status | Very good | 67 | 26.8 |
| Good | 129 | 51.6 | |
| General | 54 | 21.6 | |
| Poor | 0 | 0 | |
| Very poor | 0 | 0 | |
| The importance of stress relief of the park | Very important | 79 | 31.6 |
| Important | 130 | 52 | |
| General | 38 | 15.2 | |
| Unimportant | 0 | 0 | |
| Unclear | 3 | 1.2 |
Descriptive analyses of perceived mental restoration, multi-sensory perception, behavioral activities and emotional responses in the urban park (N = 250).
| Items | Mean | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| R1 Physical pain, not comfort | 3.76 | 0.909 |
| R2 Anxiety, depression, stress relief | 3.93 | 0.816 |
| R3 Good mental state and increased concentration | 4.06 | 0.766 |
| R4 Physical health and increased level of activity | 4.12 | 0.754 |
| R5 Increased social interaction and reduced loneliness | 3.96 | 0.806 |
| R6 Improved sleep quality | 4.04 | 0.783 |
|
| ||
| V1 Variety of plants | 4.23 | 0.694 |
| V2 Richness of pants’ color | 4.11 | 0.763 |
| V3 Plant light and shadow mottle | 4.01 | 0.789 |
| V4 Nice road texture | 4.00 | 0.841 |
| V5 Rich terrain, wide view | 4.24 | 0.732 |
| V6 The water is highly ornamental | 3.94 | 0.896 |
|
| ||
| A1 Sweet natural sound | 4.14 | 0.787 |
| A2 Sweet background music | 3.80 | 0.908 |
| A3 Sweet singing, instrumental sound | 4.10 | 0.806 |
| A4 Quiet space | 4.10 | 0.913 |
| A5 No traffic noise | 4.03 | 0.854 |
|
| ||
| T1 The road material is comfortable and the foot feels good. | 4.16 | 0.768 |
| T2 People could get near to the water in the park and even touch it | 3.72 | 1.047 |
| T3 The seat is comfortable to sit up | 4.10 | 0.813 |
| T4 Comfortable grass for flat lay | 3.99 | 0.944 |
|
| ||
| B1 Relax and think (sit, read, and sun) | 3.64 | 1.064 |
| B2 Social interaction (chat, party, playing cards, dating) | 3.26 | 1.243 |
| B3 Fitness activities (fitness of fitness facilities, Tai Chi, dance, playing ball games) | 3.08 | 1.386 |
| B4 Literary activities (painting and calligraphy, musical instruments) | 2.68 | 1.448 |
| B5 Family activities (playing, taking children, walking the dog, taking pictures) | 3.25 | 1.390 |
| B6 Jogging, walking. | 3.84 | 1.080 |
|
| ||
| E1 Comfort (I feel comfort and peace) | 4.26 | 0.651 |
| E2 Pleasant feeling (I feel happy) | 4.27 | 0.680 |
| E3 Sense of belonging (I feel warm and belonged to this place) | 3.98 | 0.801 |
| E4 Attraction (I will come here again) | 4.20 | 0.735 |
Model fit test.
| Fitting Index | Ideal Value | Acceptable Value | Model Predictive Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chi-sqr/DF | 1–2 | 1–3 | 2.706 |
| GFI | >0.9 | >0.7 | 0.766 |
| AGFI | >0.9 | >0.7 | 0.725 |
| RMSEA | <0.08 | <0.09 | 0.082 |
| TLI(NNFI) | >0.9 | >0.7 | 0.781 |
| CFI | >0.9 | >0.7 | 0.801 |
Structural equation model standardized path coefficient of observed variables.
| Items | Standardized Path Coefficient |
|---|---|
|
| |
| R1 Physical pain, not comfort | 0.66 |
| R2 Anxiety, depression, stress relief | 0.63 |
| R3 Good mental state and increased concentration | 0.75 |
| R4 Physical health and increased level of activity | 0.74 |
| R5 Increased social interaction and reduced loneliness | 0.69 |
| R6 Improved sleep quality | 0.75 |
|
| |
| V1 Variety of plants | 0.68 |
| V2 Richness of pants’ color | 0.68 |
| V3 Plant light and shadow mottle | 0.60 |
| V4 Nice road texture | 0.65 |
| V5 Rich terrain, wide view | 0.59 |
| V6 The water is highly ornamental | 0.60 |
|
| |
| A1 Sweet natural sound | 0.73 |
| A2 Sweet background music | 0.52 |
| A3 Sweet singing, instrumental sound | 0.48 |
| A4 Quiet space | 0.63 |
| A5 No traffic noise | 0.63 |
|
| |
| T1 The road material is comfortable and the foot feels good. | 0.63 |
| T2 People could get near to the water in the park and even touch it | 0.73 |
| T3 The seat is comfortable to sit up | 0.73 |
| T4 Comfortable grass for flat lay | 0.68 |
|
| |
| B1 Relax and think (sit, read, and sun) | 0.60 |
| B2 Social interaction (chat, party, playing cards, dating) | 0.64 |
| B3 Fitness activities (fitness of fitness facilities, Tai Chi, dance, playing ball games) | 0.79 |
| B4 Literary activities (painting and calligraphy, musical instruments) | 0.56 |
| B5 Family activities (playing, taking children, walking the dog, taking pictures) | 0.59 |
| B6 Jogging, walking. | 0.75 |
|
| |
| E1 Comfort (I feel comfort and peace) | 0.68 |
| E2 Pleasant feeling (I feel happy) | 0.81 |
| E3 Sense of belonging (I feel warm and belonged to this place) | 0.62 |
| E4 Attraction (I will come here again) | 0.71 |
Results of path analysis: standardized estimates (N = 250).
| Hypothesis | Coefficient | S.E. |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesis 1 Restorative effect←Sensory perception | |||
| Hypothesis 1a Restorative effect←Visual sensation | 0.214 | 0.94 | 0.023 * |
| Hypothesis 1b Restorative effect←Auditory sensation | 0.524 | 0.108 | 0.000 * |
| Hypothesis 1c Restorative effect←Tactile sensation | 0.15 | 0.99 | 0.877 |
| Hypothesis 2 Behavioral activities←Sensory perception | |||
| Hypothesis 2a Behavioral activities←Visual sensation | 0.269 | 0.121 | 0.027 * |
| Hypothesis 2b Behavioral activities←Auditory sensation | 0.345 | 0.134 | 0.010 * |
| Hypothesis 2c Behavioral activities←Tactile sensation | 0.454 | 0.139 | 0.001 * |
| Hypothesis 3 Emotional response←Sensory perception | |||
| Hypothesis 3a Emotional response←Visual sensation | 0.387 | 0.094 | 0.000 * |
| Hypothesis 3b Emotional response←Auditory sensation | 0.254 | 0.096 | 0.008 * |
| Hypothesis 3c Emotional response←Tactile sensation | 0.283 | 0.096 | 0.006 * |
| Hypothesis 4 Emotional response←Behavioral activities | 0.149 | 0.064 | 0.020 * |
| Hypothesis 5 Restorative effect←Behavioral activities | 0.191 | 0.063 | 0.003 * |
| Hypothesis 6 Restorative effect←Emotional response | 0.277 | 0.096 | 0.004 * |
Note: * p < 0.05.
Figure 3Structural equation model path coefficient.
Results of mediation effect analysis (N = 250).
| Variable | Effect | Point Estimate | Bootstrapping 95% Confidence Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower limit | Upper limit | |||
| Visual sensation→Restorative effect | Total effect | 0.383 | 0.230 | 0.559 |
| Indirect effect | 0.170 | 0.053 | 0.320 | |
| Direct effect | 0.214 | 0.046 | 0.405 | |
| Auditory sensation→Restorative effect | Total effect | 0.674 | 0.436 | 0.959 |
| Indirect effect | 0.150 | 0.063 | 0.299 | |
| Direct effect | 0.524 | 0.304 | 0.773 | |
| Tactile sensation→Restorative effect | Total effect | 0.199 | 0.009 | 0.372 |
| Indirect effect | 0.184 | 0.079 | 0.307 | |
| Direct effect | 0.015 | −0.158 | 0.180 | |