The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas
Open accessAbstract
Abstract The literature on human experience in green environments had widely showed the positive outcomes of getting in contact with nature. This study addresses the issue of whether urban residents’ evaluations of urban and peri-urban natural settings and the positive outcomes deriving from contact with such settings vary as a function of their biodiversity. A field study assessed benefits and subjective well-being reported by urban residents visiting four different typologies of green spaces, selected on the basis of urban forestry expert criteria according to a 2 × 2 factorial design. The biodiversity level (low vs. high) was crossed with the setting location (urban vs. peri-urban) as follows: urban squares with green elements, urban parks, pinewood forest plantations, and peri-urban natural protected areas. A questionnaire including measures of length and frequency of visits, perceived restorativeness, and self-reported benefits of the visit to the green spaces was administered in situ to 569 residents of four Italian medium-to-large size cities: Bari, Florence, Rome and Padua. Results showed the positive role of biodiversity upon perceived restorative properties and self-reported benefits for urban and peri-urban green spaces. Consistently with the hypotheses reported herein, a mediation role of perceived restorativeness in the relation between experience of natural settings (i.e. higher level of biodiversity) and self-reported benefits was found. The design and management implications of the findings are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879 · Cited by 34,117
The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework
Kaplan, S. (1995) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2 · Cited by 6,923
The New Statistics: Why and How
Cumming, G. (2014) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797613504966 · Cited by 3,200
Fears, phobias, and preparedness: toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning
Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.483 · Cited by 3,147
The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature.
Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x · Cited by 2,535
Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment
Ulrich, R. S. (1983) · Behavior and the Natural Environment · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_4 · Cited by 2,241
Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings
Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Gärling, T. (2003) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(02)00109-3 · Cited by 2,118
Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity.
Fuller, R. A., Irvine, K. N., Devine-Wright, P., Warren, P. H., & Gaston, K. J. (2007) · Biology Letters · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149 · Cited by 1,549
Views to nature: Effects on attention
Tennessen, C. M., & Cimprich, B. (1995) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90016-0 · Cited by 771
Preference for Nature in Urbanized Societies: Stress, Restoration, and the Pursuit of Sustainability
Van Den Berg, A. E., Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2007) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00497.x · Cited by 727
Cited by
A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas
Raymond, C. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M. R., Geneletti, D., & Calfapietra, C. (2017) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008 · Cited by 1,362
Urban Green Space and Its Impact on Human Health
Kondo, M., Fluehr, J., McKeon, T., & Branas, C. (2018) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph15030445 · Cited by 1,187
Aerts, R., Honnay, O., & Van Nieuwenhuyse, A. (2018) · British Medical Bulletin · doi:10.1093/bmb/ldy021 · Cited by 521
Compact city, urban sprawl, and subjective well-being
Mouratidis, K. (2019) · Cities · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2019.04.013 · Cited by 382
Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services
Bryce, R., Irvine, K. N., Church, A., Fish, R., Ranger, S., & Kenter, J. O. (2016) · Ecosystem Services · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.015 · Cited by 267
Metadata
- Authors
- Carrus, G., Scopelliti, M., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Ferrini, F., Salbitano, F., Agrimi, M., Portoghesi, L., Semenzato, P., & Sanesi, G.
- Venue
- Landscape and Urban Planning
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-02
- Volume
- 134
- Pages
- 221-228
- ISSN
- 0169-2046 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1977271773
- Cited by
- 821
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 22.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.022
- The paper
- Carrus, G., Scopelliti, M., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Ferrini, F., Salbitano, F., Agrimi, M., Portoghesi, L., Semenzato, P., & Sanesi, G. (2015). Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landscape and Urban Planning. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.022
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.