Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 821

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 access
Carrus, Giuseppe, Scopelliti, Massimiliano, Lafortezza, Raffaele, Colangelo, Giuseppe, Ferrini, Francesco, Salbitano, Fabio, Agrimi, Mariagrazia, Portoghesi, Luigi, Semenzato, Paolo, Sanesi, Giovanni·2015·Landscape and Urban Planning

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.022

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 11 references

Cited by

See all 821

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.