The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Characteristics of urban green spaces in relation to aesthetic preference and stress recovery
Abstract
Abstract Urban green spaces contribute to both aesthetic appreciation and health benefits for people. However, most previous researchers have focused on the effects of urban green spaces on aesthetic preference or stress restoration. Little research has involved both simultaneously. This paper uses a direct rating approach based on a single-item measurement to explore the effects of characteristics of urban green spaces on both aesthetic preference and perceived restorativeness of 24 images. These images were created using the photomontage technique by manipulating four dimensions: number of trees, flowers, water and small animals (birds or fish) relative to a baseline photograph taken in China. The results indicated that: (1) Aesthetic preference increased with the increase of number of trees and presence of flowers, water and fish in the images; while the restorative potential increased with the number of trees and presence of flowers or water, but was not affected by fish in the images; (2) Though birds increased fascination, they have no significant influence on both preference and overall restorative potential; and (3) there was a strong positive relationship between aesthetic preference and restorative potential. In regards to the approach, the results suggested that the single-item measurement could be applied to evaluate the perceived restorativeness. Potential applications to the practical design of urban green spaces include that planting more trees and brightly color flowers as well as providing access to clear water may be a reliable method to improve both aesthetic preference and restoration simultaneously.
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
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
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
World Urbanization Prospects: The 1996 Revision
Brockerhoff, M., & Nations, U. (1998) · Population and Development Review · doi:10.2307/2808041 · Cited by 5,881
Bergman, E. F., & Appleton, J. (1978) · Geographical Review · doi:10.2307/213516 · Cited by 1,065
A measure of restorative quality in environments.
Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G. W., & Gärling, T. (1997) · Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research · doi:10.1080/02815739708730435 · Cited by 916
White, M., Smith, A., Humphryes, K., Pahl, S., Snelling, D., & Depledge, M. (2010) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.004 · Cited by 914
Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related?
van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(02)00111-1 · Cited by 882
Health effects of viewing landscapes – Landscape types in environmental psychology
Velarde, M. D., Fry, G., & Tveit, M. (2007) · Urban Forestry & Urban Greening · doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2007.07.001 · Cited by 788
Frumkin, H. (2001) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0749-3797(00)00317-2 · Cited by 763
ÖHman, A. (1986) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1986.tb00608.x · Cited by 738
Cited by
Gao, T., Zhang, T., Zhu, L., Gao, Y., & Qiu, L. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph16173102 · Cited by 223
Aesthetic perception analysis of destination pictures using #beautifuldestinations on Instagram
Hauser, D., Leopold, A., Egger, R., Ganewita, H., & Herrgessell, L. (2022) · Journal of Destination Marketing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.jdmm.2022.100702 · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, R., Zhao, J., Meitner, M. J., Hu, Y., & Xu, X.
- Venue
- Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-05
- Volume
- 41
- Pages
- 6-13
- ISSN
- 1610-8167 (ISSN-L)
- 1618-8667
- OpenAlex
- W2919537308
- Cited by
- 367
- References
- 62
- FWCI
- 11.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Characteristics of urban green spaces in relation to aesthetic preference and stress recovery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.03.005
- The paper
- Wang, R., Zhao, J., Meitner, M. J., Hu, Y., & Xu, X. (2019). Characteristics of urban green spaces in relation to aesthetic preference and stress recovery. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.03.005
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.