IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i7p724-d103668.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influences of Landscape Features on Visitation of Hospital Green Spaces—A Choice Experiment Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Kaowen Grace Chang

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, National Chiayi University, Chiayi City 600, Taiwan)

  • Hungju Chien

    (Commerce Technology Application Research Division, Commerce Development Research Institute, Taipei City 106, Taiwan)

Abstract

Studies have suggested that visiting and viewing landscaping at hospitals accelerates patient’s recovery from surgery and help staff’s recovery from mental fatigue. To plan and construct such landscapes, we need to unravel landscape features desirable to different groups so that the space can benefit a wide range of hospital users. Using discrete choice modeling, we developed experimental choice sets to investigate how landscape features influence the visitations of different users in a large regional hospital in Taiwan. The empirical survey provides quantitative estimates of the influence of each landscape feature on four user groups, including patients, caregivers, staff, and neighborhood residents. Our findings suggest that different types of features promote visits from specific user groups. Landscape features facilitating physical activities effectively encourage visits across user groups especially for caregivers and staff. Patients in this study specify a strong need for contact with nature. The nearby community favors the features designed for children’s play and family activities. People across user groups value the features that provide a mitigated microclimate of comfort, such as a shelter. Study implications and limitations are also discussed. Our study provides information essential for creating a better healing environment in a hospital setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaowen Grace Chang & Hungju Chien, 2017. "The Influences of Landscape Features on Visitation of Hospital Green Spaces—A Choice Experiment Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-15, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:7:p:724-:d:103668
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/7/724/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/7/724/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Riccardo Scarpa & Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson, 2007. "Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 617-634.
    2. Kenneth E. Train & Daniel L. McFadden & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 1987. "The Demand for Local Telephone Service: A Fully Discrete Model of Residential Calling Patterns and Service Choices," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(1), pages 109-123, Spring.
    3. Matilda Annerstedt Van den Bosch & Per-Olof Östergren & Patrik Grahn & Erik Skärbäck & Peter Währborg, 2015. "Moving to Serene Nature May Prevent Poor Mental Health—Results from a Swedish Longitudinal Cohort Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-16, July.
    4. Giovanna Calogiuri & Lewis R. Elliott, 2017. "Why Do People Exercise in Natural Environments? Norwegian Adults’ Motives for Nature-, Gym-, and Sports-Based Exercise," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, April.
    5. Riccardo Scarpa & Timothy J. Gilbride & Danny Campbell & David A. Hensher, 2009. "Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(2), pages 151-174, June.
    6. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    7. Kaowen Grace Chang & William C. Sullivan & Ying-Hsuan Lin & Weichia Su & Chun-Yen Chang, 2016. "The Effect of Biodiversity on Green Space Users’ Wellbeing—An Empirical Investigation Using Physiological Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-15, October.
    8. John Rolfe & Jeff Bennett (ed.), 2006. "Choice Modelling and the Transfer of Environmental Values," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3336.
    9. Wang, Xuehong & Bennett, Jeff & Xie, Chen & Zhang, Zhitao & Liang, Dan, 2007. "Estimating non-market environmental benefits of the Conversion of Cropland to Forest and Grassland Program: A choice modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 114-125, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Agnieszka Jaszczak & Ewelina Pochodyła & Katarina Kristianova & Natalia Małkowska & Jan K. Kazak, 2021. "Redefinition of Park Design Criteria as a Result of Analysis of Well-Being and Soundscape: The Case Study of the Kortowo Park (Poland)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-22, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shr, Yau-Huo & Ready, Richard C. & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, 2017. "Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258397, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Ready, Richard & Orland, Brian & Echols, Stuart, 2019. "How Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 375-386.
    3. David Throsby & Anita Zednik & Jorge E. Araña, 2021. "Public preferences for heritage conservation strategies: a choice modelling approach," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 45(3), pages 333-358, September.
    4. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & David A. Hensher, 2010. "Monitoring Choice Task Attribute Attendance in Nonmarket Valuation of Multiple Park Management Services: Does It Matter?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(4), pages 817-839.
    6. Tagliafierro, C. & Boeri, M. & Longo, A. & Hutchinson, W.G., 2016. "Stated preference methods and landscape ecology indicators: An example of transdisciplinarity in landscape economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 11-22.
    7. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Barano Siswa Sulistyawan & Budy P. Resosudarmo & Rene W. Verburg & Pita Verweij & Mia Amalia & Marija Bockarjova, 2022. "Economic valuation of water services related to protected forest management: a case of Bukit Batabuh in the RIMBA corridor, Central Sumatra, Indonesia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(7), pages 9330-9354, July.
    9. David Wuepper, 2017. "What is the value of world heritage status for a German national park? A choice experiment from Jasmund, 1 year after inscription," Tourism Economics, , vol. 23(5), pages 1114-1123, August.
    10. Richard Yao & Riccardo Scarpa & John Rose & James Turner, 2015. "Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(3), pages 433-455, November.
    11. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny & Hynes, Stephen, 2012. "Exploring cost heterogeneity in recreational demand," Working Papers 148832, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    12. Kemper, Nathan & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr. & Popp, Jennie & Bazzani, Claudia, 2016. "The Effects of Honesty Oath and Consequentiality in Choice Experiments," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235381, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. R.K. Blamey & J.W. Bennett & J.J. Louviere & M.D. Morrison & J.C. Rolfe, 2002. "Attribute Causality in Environmental Choice Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(2), pages 167-186, October.
    14. Tadesse, Tewodros & Berhane, Tsegay & Mulatu, Dawit W. & Rannestad, Meley Mekonen, 2021. "Willingness to accept compensation for afromontane forest ecosystems conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    15. Lew, Daniel K., 2018. "Discounting future payments in stated preference choice experiments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 150-164.
    16. Varela, Elsa & Kallas, Zein, 2022. "Extensive Mediterranean agroecosystems and their linked traditional breeds: Societal demand for the conservation of the Majorcan black pig," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    17. Campbell, Danny & Boeri, Marco & Doherty, Edel & George Hutchinson, W., 2015. "Learning, fatigue and preference formation in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 345-363.
    18. Espinosa, Maria & Rodriguez, Macario & Madureira, Livia Maria Costa & Santos, Jose Lima & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2014. "Are models and respondents talking the same language: evidence from stated and inferred discontinuous preferences in a choice experiment valuing public goods?," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182668, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Taro Ohdoko & Kentaro Yoshida, 2012. "Public preferences for forest ecosystem management in Japan with emphasis on species diversity," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(2), pages 147-169, April.
    20. Ildephonse, Musafili, 2015. "An Economic Analysis Of Farmers’ Preferences For Participatory Management Of Volcanoes National Park In Rwanda," Research Theses 265680, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:7:p:724-:d:103668. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.