| Literature DB >> 35162315 |
Hongda Wang1, Jing Ye1, Muhammad Waqqas Khan Tarin1, Yueyan Liu1, Yushan Zheng1.
Abstract
The service quality and safety perception of urban forests are important factors that influence tourists to choose them as recreation destinations. This study aims to propose a theoretical model of multivariate relationships to explore the relationship between service quality (including visual quality, facility completeness, and accessibility) and safety perception to examine whether visual quality, facility completeness, and accessibility on tourists' safety perception in the urban forest and to explain the specific reasons for the impact. We collected sample data from many urban forest green spaces in Fuzhou through a two-stage field survey (N = 891), and controlling for potential confounders, a structural equation model was used to estimate relationships. Safety perception was divided into safety environment perception, control perception, and safety emotion. Visual quality of an urban forest positively affected safety emotion. Traffic accessibility positively affected control perception. Facility completeness had a positive impact on safety emotion and control perception. Both safety emotion and control perception played an important intermediary role in improving the perception of a safe environment in the multivariate model. Visual quality, facility completeness, and accessibility all had a positive impact on tourists' safety perception of urban forests. The findings suggest that improving the service quality of a green space can effectively improve tourists' evaluation of the safety of the urban forest environment. Specifically, tourists' psychological tolerance to threats and their self-confidence in survival can be enhanced by improving the service quality of a green space.Entities:
Keywords: safety perception scale; structural equation model; urban forest
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35162315 PMCID: PMC8835610 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19031293
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Locations of 5 Urban Forest Recreation Areas in the main city of Fuzhou: S1, the location of the main city of Fuzhou; F1, Fuzhou Forest Park; F2, Fushan Country Park; F3, Fuzhou Urban Forest Trail; F4, Jinjishan Park; F5, Niugangshan Park.
Figure 2Structural equation modeling (SEM) diagram.
Figure 3Location of five walking tour areas in Fuzhou Urban Forest Trail. (W1~W5, walking tour area numbers).
Study site descriptions of Fuzhou Urban Forest Trail.
| Research Positions | Location Description | Pavement Material | Common Animals | Distances from Entrances (m) | Number of Monitors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W1 | Observation deck with wide view | Glass; wood | Birds, squirrels | 1100 | 1 |
| W2 | Wooded horizontal walking trails | Steel frame hollow-out | Snakes, spiders, mosquitoes | 800 | 1 |
| W3 | Rest point at the intersection | Steel frame hollow-out | Birds, squirrels, mosquitoes | 600 | 0 |
| W4 | High-altitude continuous uphill walking path | Steel frame hollow-out | Birds, snakes | 1500 | 2 |
| W5 | Multifunctional event service plaza | Permeable brick | Birds, squirrels, stray dogs | 500 | 3 |
Information derived from the author’s field records.
Results of exploratory analysis.
| Items | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| If I am in danger, I can quickly seek help from the managers of the scenic spot | 0.854 | ||
| If I am in danger, I can easily seek help from others | 0.834 | ||
| If I am in danger, I can quickly find a shelter to hide or protect myself | 0.817 | ||
| If I am in danger, I can quickly determine the direction of travel and escape | 0.717 | ||
| Here, I feel anxious or not anxious | 0.875 | ||
| Here, I feel alone or not alone | 0.822 | ||
| Here, I feel uncomfortable or comfortable | 0.767 | ||
| Here, I feel scared or not scared | 0.725 | ||
| Here, I am not worried about being infested by annoying or scary animals or insects | 0.797 | ||
| There is no dark or obstructed space around | 0.788 | ||
| Here, I will not worry about encountering dangerous people | 0.776 | ||
| There are no obstacles on the road that prevent me from escaping from danger | 0.717 | ||
| Eigenvalue | 6.191 | 1.536 | 1.143 |
| Eigenvalue variance explained (%) | 25.227 | 24.912 | 23.769 |
| Cumulative variance explained (%) | 25.227 | 50.14 | 73.909 |
Factor 1, 2, and 3: commonalities of items.
Reliabilities of categories.
| Category | Items | Var. | Mean | S.D. | Alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safety environment perception | There is no dark or obstructed space around | ENV1 | 4.120 | 1.061 | 0.874 |
| Here, I am not worried about being infested by annoying or scary animals or insects | ENV2 | 4.160 | 1.023 | ||
| Here, I will not worry about encountering dangerous people | ENV3 | 4.260 | 1.043 | ||
| There are no obstacles on the road that prevent me from escaping from danger | ENV4 | 4.210 | 0.992 | ||
| Safety emotion | Here, I feel uncomfortable or comfortable | EMO1 | 4.200 | 1.055 | 0.849 |
| Here, I feel alone or not alone | EMO2 | 4.440 | 0.868 | ||
| Here, I feel anxious or not anxious | EMO3 | 4.500 | 0.820 | ||
| Here, I feel scared or not scared | EMO4 | 4.320 | 0.882 | ||
| Control perception | If I am in danger, I can quickly seek help from the managers of the scenic spot | CON1 | 4.260 | 0.924 | 0.854 |
| If I am in danger, I can easily seek help from others | CON2 | 3.790 | 1.126 | ||
| If I am in danger, I can quickly find a shelter to hide or protect myself | CON3 | 3.800 | 1.127 | ||
| If I am in danger, I can quickly determine the direction of travel and escape | CON4 | 3.680 | 1.108 | ||
| Visual quality | The ecological woodland here is very ornamental | VIS1 | 4.280 | 0.871 | 0.886 |
| The landscape here is very colorful | VIS2 | 4.150 | 0.945 | ||
| Here undulating terrain of the mountain is very beautiful | VIS3 | 4.350 | 0.825 | ||
| The design of the trails here is very beautiful | VIS4 | 4.410 | 0.828 | ||
| Accessibility | It is convenient to get here by public transportation in the city | ACC1 | 3.680 | 0.840 | 0.749 |
| The time it took to get here was in line with my expectations | ACC2 | 3.440 | 0.898 | ||
| The number and location of entrances and exits are convenient for me to reach | ACC3 | 3.560 | 0.957 | ||
| Facility completeness | The identification systems here are very complete and numerous | FAC1 | 4.220 | 0.885 | 0.811 |
| The monitoring facilities and protective fences here are very complete | FAC2 | 4.250 | 0.856 | ||
| The sanitation facilities here are very complete | FAC3 | 4.370 | 0.832 | ||
| The rest facilities here are very complete | FAC4 | 3.990 | 1.028 |
S.D., Standard deviation.
Convergent validity.
| Factor | Variables | Std. Coefficient | AVE | CR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safety environment perception | ESP1 | 0.721 | 0.640 | 0.876 |
| ESP2 | 0.795 | |||
| ESP3 | 0.88 | |||
| ESP4 | 0.797 | |||
| Safety emotion | EMO1 | 0.748 | 0.604 | 0.858 |
| EMO2 | 0.81 | |||
| EMO3 | 0.866 | |||
| EMO4 | 0.671 | |||
| Control perception | BEH1 | 0.866 | 0.599 | 0.854 |
| BEH2 | 0.857 | |||
| BEH3 | 0.754 | |||
| BEH4 | 0.583 | |||
| Visual quality | AES1 | 0.87 | 0.668 | 0.889 |
| AES2 | 0.868 | |||
| AES3 | 0.804 | |||
| AES4 | 0.717 | |||
| Accessibility | ACC1 | 0.761 | 0.507 | 0.755 |
| ACC2 | 0.715 | |||
| ACC3 | 0.656 | |||
| Facility completeness | FAC1 | 0.837 | 0.552 | 0.829 |
| FAC2 | 0.817 | |||
| FAC3 | 0.725 | |||
| FAC4 | 0.561 |
Notes: CR, construct reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.
Discriminant validity and the correlations of variables.
| Variable | Safety Environment Perception | Safety | Control Perception | Visual Quality | Traffic | Facility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Safety environment perception | 0.640 | |||||
| Safety emotion | 0.762 *** | 0.604 | ||||
| Control perception | 0.560 *** | 0.521 *** | 0.599 | |||
| Visual quality | 0.472 *** | 0.518 *** | 0.498 *** | 0.668 | ||
| Accessibility | 0.192 *** | 0.191 *** | 0.312 *** | 0.197 *** | 0.507 | |
| Facility completeness | 0.499 *** | 0.532 *** | 0.574 *** | 0.697 *** | 0.328 *** | 0.552 |
| Square root of AVE | 0.800 | 0.777 | 0.774 | 0.817 | 0.712 | 0.743 |
*** indicates that the p value is less than 0.001, and the diagonal line is the amount of AVE evaluation variance variation extraction.
Summary of hypotheses’ results.
| Hypothesis | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | P | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1-1. Visual quality → safety environment perception | 0.018 | 0.077 | 0.329 | 0.742 | Not accepted |
| H1-2. Visual quality → control perception | 0.114 | 0.063 | 1.773 | 0.076 | Not accepted |
| H1-3. Visual quality → safety emotion | 0.243 | 0.084 | 3.517 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| H2-1. Accessibility → safety environment perception | −0.008 | 0.054 | −0.181 | 0.857 | Not accepted |
| H2-2. Accessibility → control perception | 0.138 | 0.044 | 2.724 | 0.006 | Accepted |
| H2-3. Accessibility → safety emotion | 0.028 | 0.056 | 0.523 | 0.601 | Not accepted |
| H3-1. Facility completeness → safety environment perception | 0.038 | 0.086 | 0.589 | 0.556 | Not accepted |
| H3-2. Facility completeness → control perception | 0.304 | 0.072 | 3.966 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| H3-3. Facility completeness → safety emotion | 0.359 | 0.091 | 4.53 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| H4-1. Safety emotion → safety environment perception | 0.627 | 0.069 | 10.427 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| H4-2. Control perception → safety environment perception | 0.204 | 0.076 | 3.792 | 0.000 | Accepted |
| H4-3. Safety emotion → control perception | 0.277 | 0.047 | 4.76 | 0.000 | Accepted |
S.E.: Approximate standard error; C.R.: Critical ratio.
Figure 4Structural equation modelling results. (Dotted line, hypothesis rejected; solid line, hypothesis accepted).
Test of bootstrap indirect effect.
| Parameter | Estimate | SE | Bias-Corrected 95%CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | P | |||
| VIS → CON → ENV | 0.032 | 0.027 | −0.014 | 0.095 | 0.146 |
| VIS → EMO → ENV | 0.212 | 0.09 | 0.058 | 0.407 | 0.009 |
| FAC → CON → ENV | 0.082 | 0.038 | 0.025 | 0.18 | 0.001 |
| FAC → EMO → ENV | 0.299 | 0.09 | 0.144 | 0.494 | 0.001 |
| ACC → CON → ENV | 0.034 | 0.018 | 0.007 | 0.084 | 0.007 |
| ACC → EMO → ENV | 0.021 | 0.047 | −0.069 | 0.118 | 0.583 |
| EMO → CON → ENV | 0.065 | 0.029 | 0.022 | 0.133 | 0.001 |
Note: SE, bootstrap standard error; CI, confidence interval; VIS, visual quality; ACC, accessibility; FAC, facility completeness; ENV, safety environment perception; EMO, safety emotion; CON, control perception.