| Literature DB >> 35359782 |
Erkang Fu1, Yuxin Ren1, Xi Li1, Lei Zhang1.
Abstract
Rural communities have become a hot topic in academic circles because of their graceful natural environment and great healing potential. However, existing research still lacks attention to the street space in rural communities and rarely considers its integrated visual and soundscape design in terms of their effect on public health. As a result, the healing potential of rural community streets cannot be fully used in design practice. Relevant audiovisual materials were collected from a field investigation in four rural communities in southwestern China. Based on these data, the subjective and objective healing index data of subjects under comprehensive audiovisual conditions were collected and analyzed through laboratory experiments. The results revealed that type of street space affects healing potential, and the artificial-natural enclosed and natural semi-enclosed streets are the street types with the best healing effect. When the total sound pressure level was 55dB(A), the sound combination with birdsong accounting for 70% had a significant positive effect on improving the healing effect of rural community streets. In contrast, the sound combination with birdsong accounting for 50% or less had no significant effect on improving healing. The subjective healing perception of street space in rural communities was significantly positively correlated with aesthetic preferences. There was also a significant correlation between subjective healing perception and physiological index data in the audiovisual combination. This research explored the impact of different types of street space and sound combinations on the healing effect of rural community streets in an integrated audiovisual environment and provided a scientific basis for the healing landscape design of rural community streets in an integrated audiovisual environment. It was expected to provide new ideas for the construction of rural community landscapes, including acoustic landscapes, to promote physical and mental healing.Entities:
Keywords: aesthetic preference; audio-visual interactions; restorative potential; rural community; streetscape
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35359782 PMCID: PMC8961884 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.861072
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Study area and the location of nine different types of streets.
Figure 2Pictures of the different street types taken in study area.
Sound combinations.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| S0 | None | None |
| S1 | 70% | 30% |
| S2 | 50% | 50% |
| S3 | 30% | 70% |
The restorative components scale used in this experiment.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Being-away (B) | B1 There allows me to temporarily forget the troubles of work and daily life. | 0 1 2 3 4 |
| Extent (E) | E1 There are many beautiful associations here. | 0 1 2 3 4 |
| Fascination (F) | F1 There's a lot here that appeals to me. | 0 1 2 3 4 |
| Compatibility (C) | C1 There gives me the opportunity to do what I love to do. | 0 1 2 3 4 |
Figure 3Experimental scene [(a) the participants was waiting in the waiting room to rest and fill in relevant information; (b) the experimenter is conducting the experiment].
Figure 4Flow chart of single-person experiment for visual landscape and auditory soundscape evaluation.
Figure 5Comparison of visual aesthetic quality (VAQ) for different street types (A) and different sound combinations (B).
Figure 6Comparison of different types of street TR.
Figure 7Comparison of street TR under different sound combinations.
Figure 8Comparison of RCS scores for different street types (A) and different sound combinations (B).
Figure 9Comparison of systolic blood pressure (A) and diastolic blood pressure (B) under different sound combinations.
Pearson's correlation results between VAQ and evaluation of RCS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S0 | V1 | 0.605 | 0.435 | 0.588 | 0.665 | 0.665 |
| V2 | 0.444 | 0.515 | 0.441 | 0.436 | 0.552 | |
| V3 | 0.537 | 0.298 | 0.216 | 0.210 | 0.441 | |
| V4 | 0.641 | 0.562 | 0.504 | 0.593 | 0.695 | |
| V5 | 0.600 | 0.521 | 0.470 | 0.536 | 0.655 | |
| V6 | 0.538 | 0.411 | 0.367 | 0.287 | 0.477 | |
| V7 | 0.445 | 0.480 | 0.378 | 0.467 | 0.557 | |
| V8 | 0.552 | 0.581 | 0.529 | 0.591 | 0.703 | |
| V9 | 0.633 | 0.615 | 0.473 | 0.537 | 0.673 | |
| S1 | V1 | 0.693 | 0.596 | 0.454 | 0.499 | 0.669 |
| V2 | 0.509 | 0.491 | 0.464 | 0.423 | 0.600 | |
| V3 | 0.687 | 0.571 | 0.458 | 0.502 | 0.675 | |
| V4 | 0.588 | 0.567 | 0.457 | 0.510 | 0.628 | |
| V5 | 0.596 | 0.538 | 0.492 | 0.474 | 0.623 | |
| V6 | 0.545 | 0.528 | 0.461 | 0.523 | 0.626 | |
| V7 | 0.601 | 0.619 | 0.507 | 0.562 | 0.683 | |
| V8 | 0.530 | 0.441 | 0.390 | 0.490 | 0.584 | |
| V9 | 0.596 | 0.538 | 0.523 | 0.526 | 0.652 | |
| S2 | V1 | 0.542 | 0.555 | 0.439 | 0.615 | 0.638 |
| V2 | 0.543 | 0.569 | 0.519 | 0.591 | 0.658 | |
| V3 | 0.549 | 0.429 | 0.359 | 0.431 | 0.551 | |
| V4 | 0.583 | 0.513 | 0.487 | 0.510 | 0.630 | |
| V5 | 0.556 | 0.563 | 0.430 | 0.561 | 0.642 | |
| V6 | 0.604 | 0.570 | 0.403 | 0.491 | 0.627 | |
| V7 | 0.399 | 0.454 | 0.362 | 0.493 | 0.518 | |
| V8 | 0.613 | 0.564 | 0.514 | 0.502 | 0.678 | |
| V9 | 0.596 | 0.581 | 0.457 | 0.483 | 0.629 | |
| S3 | V1 | 0.717 | 0.652 | 0.633 | 0.682 | 0.761 |
| V2 | 0.646 | 0.660 | 0.562 | 0.620 | 0.709 | |
| V3 | 0.618 | 0.655 | 0.488 | 0.588 | 0.673 | |
| V4 | 0.647 | 0.660 | 0.589 | 0.593 | 0.690 | |
| V5 | 0.165 | 0.205 | 0.160 | 0.212 | 0.224 | |
| V6 | 0.687 | 0.670 | 0.574 | 0.615 | 0.722 | |
| V7 | 0.646 | 0.675 | 0.589 | 0.662 | 0.718 | |
| V8 | 0.618 | 0.678 | 0.646 | 0.573 | 0.696 | |
| V9 | 0.700 | 0.698 | 0.568 | 0.572 | 0.739 |
P < 0.05
P < 0.01.
Pearson's correlation results between TR and evaluation of RCS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S0 | V1 | 0.756 | 0.565 | 0.588 | 0.556 | 0.729 |
| V2 | 0.699 | 0.565 | 0.457 | 0.530 | 0.683 | |
| V3 | 0.570 | 0.471 | 0.260 | 0.271 | 0.551 | |
| V4 | 0.660 | 0.599 | 0.438 | 0.445 | 0.653 | |
| V5 | 0.686 | 0.497 | 0.484 | 0.426 | 0.646 | |
| V6 | 0.721 | 0.481 | 0.456 | 0.360 | 0.600 | |
| V7 | 0.641 | 0.468 | 0.261 | 0.325 | 0.539 | |
| V8 | 0.683 | 0.496 | 0.275 | 0.296 | 0.556 | |
| V9 | 0.712 | 0.558 | 0.498 | 0.513 | 0.681 | |
| S1 | V1 | 0.602 | 0.506 | 0.451 | 0.421 | 0.593 |
| V2 | 0.694 | 0.559 | 0.482 | 0.349 | 0.661 | |
| V3 | 0.692 | 0.596 | 0.548 | 0.516 | 0.718 | |
| V4 | 0.596 | 0.577 | 0.452 | 0.454 | 0.617 | |
| V5 | 0.696 | 0.634 | 0.584 | 0.517 | 0.723 | |
| V6 | 0.717 | 0.595 | 0.548 | 0.495 | 0.720 | |
| V7 | 0.679 | 0.587 | 0.462 | 0.451 | 0.652 | |
| V8 | 0.644 | 0.465 | 0.432 | 0.434 | 0.625 | |
| V9 | 0.759 | 0.573 | 0.535 | 0.483 | 0.705 | |
| S2 | V1 | 0.618 | 0.562 | 0.462 | 0.525 | 0.645 |
| V2 | 0.627 | 0.628 | 0.532 | 0.481 | 0.674 | |
| V3 | 0.597 | 0.485 | 0.403 | 0.506 | 0.625 | |
| V4 | 0.700 | 0.609 | 0.494 | 0.509 | 0.699 | |
| V5 | 0.626 | 0.586 | 0.412 | 0.490 | 0.647 | |
| V6 | 0.736 | 0.686 | 0.511 | 0.457 | 0.727 | |
| V7 | 0.606 | 0.618 | 0.447 | 0.536 | 0.670 | |
| V8 | 0.641 | 0.565 | 0.538 | 0.414 | 0.671 | |
| V9 | 0.543 | 0.546 | 0.490 | 0.478 | 0.613 | |
| S3 | V1 | 0.649 | 0.610 | 0.555 | 0.580 | 0.680 |
| V2 | 0.676 | 0.652 | 0.547 | 0.646 | 0.721 | |
| V3 | 0.590 | 0.543 | 0.429 | 0.539 | 0.605 | |
| V4 | 0.712 | 0.702 | 0.549 | 0.576 | 0.706 | |
| V5 | 0.430 | 0.545 | 0.511 | 0.472 | 0.590 | |
| V6 | 0.664 | 0.504 | 0.484 | 0.561 | 0.629 | |
| V7 | 0.720 | 0.653 | 0.515 | 0.569 | 0.689 | |
| V8 | 0.648 | 0.664 | 0.564 | 0.518 | 0.664 | |
| V9 | 0.667 | 0.535 | 0.538 | 0.574 | 0.676 |
P < 0.05
P < 0.01.
Results of canonical correlation analysis between RCS evaluation and physiological data.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Street photographs +S0 | RCS | 0.172 | 0.216 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Physiological data | ||||||||||
| Street photographs +S1 | RCS | 0.251 | 0.000 | −0.161 | −0.711 | −0.461 | −0.206 | 0.319 | −0.931 | −0.029 |
| Physiological data | ||||||||||
| Street photographs +S2 | RCS | 0.208 | 0.029 | 0.692 | 0.209 | 0.285 | 0.309 | −0.529 | −0.374 | 0.608 |
| Physiological data | ||||||||||
| Street photographs +S3 | RCS | 0.282 | 0.000 | 1.364 | −1.016 | 0.246 | −0.325 | 0.23 | −0.514 | 1.068 |
| Physiological data | ||||||||||
P < 0.05
P < 0.01.