Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 367

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

Wang, Ronghua, Zhao, Jingwei, Meitner, Michael J., Hu, Yue, Xu, Xiaolin·2019·Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.03.005

Cites

62 of 62 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 62 references

Cited by

See all 367

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.