| Literature DB >> 36141697 |
Jinping Lin1, Meiqi Zhou1,2, Huasong Luo2, Bowen Zhang1, Jiajia Feng1, Qi Yi1.
Abstract
Against the background of "the emotional turn" in geography, the study of emotional identification is attracting increasing attention among researchers. Edible landscape resources can satisfy the emotional needs of teachers and students by enabling them to experience pastoral landscapes that carry cultural and landscape values to campus environments. Based on a questionnaire survey of 419 students and teachers at Chenggong University Town in China, this study improved the structural equation modeling (SEM) method to construct a model to analyze the emotional identification mechanism of the campus edible landscape. The research found that emotional identification played an intermediary role between perception and behavioral intention, manifested as an association mechanism in which surface values influence perception, perception influences emotional identification, and emotional identification influences behavioral intention. The emotional identification model revealed the relationship between teachers and students' emotional identification and the value of campus edible landscape resources for the first time. It also uncovered the universality of the association mechanism in the research of emotional geography.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese university town; SEM; campus landscape; edible campus; emotional geography
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36141697 PMCID: PMC9517340 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811425
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Types of edible landscape plants in Chenggong University Town.
| Edible Types | Plant Species |
|---|---|
| Edible | Baozhu pears, Grapes, Oranges, Osmanthus fragrans ‘Latifolius’, Magnolia liliflora Desr., Cedar, Docynia delavayi, Musa basjoo Siebold, Ivy, Ophiopogon, Pumpkin, Kiwi, Houttuynia cordata, Persimmon, Bayberry. |
| Medicinal | Kunming Pittosporum tobira, Cornus kousa subsp, Sapindus, Cinnamomum camphora (L.) Presl., Deyeuxia langsdorffii (Link) Kunth, Itoa orientalis Hemsl, Erythrina variegata Linn, Magnolia delavayi Franch, Jacaranda mimosifolia D. Don, Ficus concinna Miq, Cinnamomum japonicum Sieb, Manglietia insignis, Acer truncatum Bunge, Metasequoia, Michelia alba DC., Ilex microphyllam, Photinia serratifolia (Desfontaines) Kalkman, Camptotheca acuminata, Alnus cremastogyne, Casuarina equisetifolia L., Callistemon rigidus R. Br., Hibiscus rosa-sinensis, Cycas revoluta, Hawthorn, Ficus tikouaBur., Gypsophila paniculata L., Arrhenatherum elatius f. variegatum, Chlorophytum comosum (Thunb.) Baker., Viola phillipina, Ligustrum quihoui Carr, Rosmarinus officinalis, Sapium sebiferum (L.) Roxb. |
| Both edible and medicinal | Rosa rugosa Thunb, Lavender, Prunus paracerasus, Ginkgo, Rosa chinensis Jacq, Osmanthus fragrans, Leonurus japonicus Houtt, Mentha haplocalyx, Pistacia chinensis Bunge, Chrysanthemum, Chimonanthus praecox, Canna indica L., Prunus cerasifera f. atropurpurea, Lagerstroemia indica L., White magnolia, Catalpa ovata G. Don, Loquat, Schisandra chinensis, Cercis chinensis, Lonicera japonica Thunb. |
Questionnaire scale.
| Latent Variables | Observed Variables and Codes | Item Contents |
|---|---|---|
| Perception | GZ1 Functional perception | Campus edible landscape has the functions of leisure, stress relief, and mood adjustment. |
| GZ2 Cultural perception | Campus edible landscape is vital to the construction of campus culture. | |
| GZ3 Brand perception | Campus edible landscape has unique brand value. | |
| GZ4 Richness perception | Chenggong University Town has rich and unique edible landscapes. | |
| GZ5 Layout perception | The layout and planning of the campus edible landscape are reasonable. | |
| GZ6 Beauty perception | Campus edible landscape is beautiful. | |
| GZ7 Service perception | Variety of campus services, security thoughtful, and good service attitude. | |
| GZ8 Quality perception | The campus has good supporting infrastructure and environmental sanitation. | |
| GZ9 Environmental perception | The environment in and around the campus is beautiful and the air is fresh. | |
| Emotional identification | RT1 Environmental protection identification | I agree with protecting campus edible landscapes. |
| RT2 Service identification | I agree with the service philosophy and public services. | |
| RT3 Likeness | I love edible landscapes more than other types of landscapes. | |
| RT4 Attachment | When I look at edible landscapes, I am in a pretty good state of mind and feel very happy. | |
| RT5 Satisfaction | I am very satisfied with visiting and experiencing the edible landscape on campus. | |
| Behavioral intention | XW1 Protective behavior | I would like to participate in the preservation of the campus edible landscape environment and culture |
| XW2 Consumer behavior | I would like to buy food and daily necessities related to the edible landscape on campus. | |
| XW3 Friendly referral behavior | I would like to promote and praise the edible landscape in Chenggong University Town and recommend others to come. |
Reliability and validity test of scale.
| Variable | N | Cronbach’ s α | KMO | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perception | 15 | 0.880 | 0.885 | 0.000 |
| Emotional identification | 9 | 0.895 | 0.883 | 0.000 |
| Behavioral intention | 3 | 0.785 | 0.706 | 0.000 |
| Overall scale | 27 | 0.935 | 0.932 | 0.000 |
Figure 1SEM flow chart.
Figure 2Hypothetical theoretical model.
Confirmatory factor analysis model fitting comparison.
| Fit Index | CMIN/DF | RMR | AGFI | NFI | GFI | IFI | CFI | RMSEA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adaptation value | 1–3 | <0.05 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | <0.08 |
| Initial model | 4.192 | 0.035 | 0.827 | 0.863 | 0.870 | 0.892 | 0.870 | 0.087 |
| Revised model | 2.806 | 0.030 | 0.911 | 0.927 | 0.939 | 0.952 | 0.952 | 0.066 |
The revised confirmatory factor analysis.
| Latent Variable | Observed Variable | Parameter Significance Estimation | Factor Loading | Topic Reliability | Combination Reliability | Convergence Validity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unstd. | S.E. | T-Value |
| Std. | SMC | CR | AVE | ||
| Perception | GZ1 Functional perception | 1.000 | 0.735 | 0.540 | 0.809 | 0.418 | |||
| GZ2 Cultural perception | 1.232 | 0.107 | 11.502 | *** | 0.636 | 0.404 | |||
| GZ3 Brand perception | 1.203 | 0.110 | 10.946 | *** | 0.601 | 0.361 | |||
| GZ4 Richness perception | 1.548 | 0.126 | 12.278 | *** | 0.698 | 0.487 | |||
| GZ6 Beauty perception | 1.411 | 0.114 | 12.388 | *** | 0.689 | 0.475 | |||
| GZ9 Service perception | 0.883 | 0.098 | 8.962 | *** | 0.490 | 0.240 | |||
| Emotional identification | RT2 Service identification | 1.000 | 0.601 | 0.361 | 0.842 | 0.575 | |||
| RT3 Favor | 1.263 | 0.106 | 11.882 | *** | 0.746 | 0.557 | |||
| RT4 Attachment | 1.217 | 0.099 | 12.244 | *** | 0.894 | 0.799 | |||
| RT5 Satisfaction | 1.123 | 0.095 | 11.866 | *** | 0.764 | 0.584 | |||
| Behavioral intention | XW1 Protective behavior | 1.053 | 0.089 | 11.898 | *** | 0.733 | 0.774 | 0.874 | 0.699 |
| XW2 Consumer behavior | 1.062 | 0.089 | 11.895 | *** | 0.732 | 0.774 | |||
| XW3 Friendly recommendation behavior | 1.000 | 0.763 | 0.548 | ||||||
*** p < 0.001 (very significant).
Figure 3Revised emotional identification model of the edible landscape on campus.
Model path and verification.
| Hypothetical Path | Standardization Factor | Verification Result | |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1: Perception influences emotional identification | 0.81 | *** | very significant |
| H2: Emotional identification influences behavior intention | 0.56 | *** | very significant |
| H3: Perception influences behavior intention | 0.27 | 0.008 ** | significant |
** p < 0.01 (significant), *** p < 0.001 (very significant).
Figure 4The association mechanism model.