IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i9p1411-d899387.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on Digital Experience and Satisfaction Preference of Plant Community Design in Urban Green Space

Author

Listed:
  • Xinyi Chen

    (Virtual Landscape Design Laboratory, School of Art & Design, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Wuhan 430205, China)

  • Yuyang Wang

    (Virtual Landscape Design Laboratory, School of Art & Design, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Wuhan 430205, China)

  • Tao Huang

    (Virtual Landscape Design Laboratory, School of Art & Design, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Wuhan 430205, China)

  • Zhengsong Lin

    (Virtual Landscape Design Laboratory, School of Art & Design, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Wuhan 430205, China)

Abstract

In the context of carbon neutrality, it is increasingly important to reduce carbon and increase sinks, and urban green spaces play an important role in carbon sinks. In this paper, we used virtual reality (VR) and photoplethysmographic (PPG) technology to evaluate subject satisfaction regarding urban green space plant community landscape scenes using physiological eye movement and heart rate variability (HRV) data and psychological data obtained according to positive and negative emotional adjectives (PANA). The results of the study showed the following. (1) The physiological data showed the highest visual interest in single-layer grassland. The compound layer of tree-shrub-grass composite woodland communities resulted in the strongest comfort level. (2) The psychological subjective satisfaction evaluation scores were, in descending order: tree-shrub-grass composite woodland (T-S-G) > single-layer grassland (G) > tree-grass composite woodland (T-G) > single-layer woodland (T). (3) The correlation between interest, comfort, and subjective satisfaction was significant, which verified the feasibility of the model of “interest + comfort + subjective evaluation = comprehensive satisfaction”. The results of the study provide theoretical guidance for landscape design based on human perception preferences in the context of carbon neutrality as well as for the implementation of sustainable landscapes to achieve a win–win situation in which carbon sequestration and oxygen release benefits and aesthetics can coexist. The combined physiological and psychological evaluation model can also be applied to other landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Xinyi Chen & Yuyang Wang & Tao Huang & Zhengsong Lin, 2022. "Research on Digital Experience and Satisfaction Preference of Plant Community Design in Urban Green Space," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1411-:d:899387
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1411/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1411/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jiandong Chen & Ping Wang & Ming Gao & Wenxuan Hou & Haiming Liao, 2022. "Carbon sequestration capacity of terrestrial vegetation in China based on satellite data," Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 109-124, January.
    2. Yifan Duan & Shuhua Li, 2022. "Effects of Plant Communities on Human Physiological Recovery and Emotional Reactions: A Comparative Onsite Survey and Photo Elicitation Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-19, January.
    3. Bertram, Christine & Rehdanz, Katrin, 2015. "The role of urban green space for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 139-152.
    4. Han Zhang & Lin Wang, 2022. "Species Diversity and Carbon Sequestration Oxygen Release Capacity of Dominant Communities in the Hancang River Basin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-21, April.
    5. Zhengsong Lin & Yuting Wang & Xinyue Ye & Yuxi Wan & Tianjun Lu & Yu Han, 2022. "Effects of Low-Carbon Visualizations in Landscape Design Based on Virtual Eye-Movement Behavior Preference," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Tian Gao & Huiyi Liang & Yuxuan Chen & Ling Qiu, 2019. "Comparisons of Landscape Preferences through Three Different Perceptual Approaches," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-13, November.
    7. Yinglin Gong & Xiaoyong Luo, 2022. "Experimental Study on the Carbon Sequestration Benefit in Urban Residential Green Space Based on Urban Ecological Carrying Capacity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-15, 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. Yue Chen & Qikang Zhong & Bo Li, 2023. "Positive or Negative Viewpoint Determines the Overall Scenic Beauty of a Scene: A Landscape Perception Evaluation Based on a Panoramic View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-23, July.
    2. Alessio Russo & Giuseppe T. Cirella, 2023. "Urban Ecosystem Services: Advancements in Urban Green Development," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-4, February.

    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. Xinhui Fei & Yanqin Zhang & Deyi Kong & Qitang Huang & Minhua Wang & Jianwen Dong, 2023. "Quantitative Model Study of the Psychological Recovery Benefit of Landscape Environment Based on Eye Movement Tracking Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-19, July.
    2. Yu Cao & Cong Xu & Syahrul Nizam Kamaruzzaman & Nur Mardhiyah Aziz, 2022. "A Systematic Review of Green Building Development in China: Advantages, Challenges and Future Directions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-29, September.
    3. Matthew Dennis & David Barlow & Gina Cavan & Penny A. Cook & Anna Gilchrist & John Handley & Philip James & Jessica Thompson & Konstantinos Tzoulas & C. Philip Wheater & Sarah Lindley, 2018. "Mapping Urban Green Infrastructure: A Novel Landscape-Based Approach to Incorporating Land Use and Land Cover in the Mapping of Human-Dominated Systems," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-25, January.
    4. Hui, Ling Chui & Jim, C.Y., 2022. "Urban-greenery demands are affected by perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices, and socio-demographic and environmental-cultural factors," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    5. Gianni Talamini & Ting Liu & Roula El-Khoury & Di Shao, 2023. "Visibility and symbolism of corporate architecture: A multi-method approach for visual impact assessment," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(9), pages 2407-2429, November.
    6. Tamar Arieli & Gad Schaffer, 2023. "Ideology, environment, and open space in conflict arenas: The discrepancies and harmonizing strategies of West Bank Israeli settlers," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 41(7), pages 1441-1458, November.
    7. Chia-Tsung Yeh & Ya-Yun Cheng & Tsai-Yun Liu, 2020. "Spatial Characteristics of Urban Green Spaces and Human Health: An Exploratory Analysis of Canonical Correlation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-14, May.
    8. Sandra Rousseau & Nick Deschacht, 2020. "Public Awareness of Nature and the Environment During the COVID-19 Crisis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 1149-1159, August.
    9. Krekel, Christian & Rechlitz, Julia & Rode, Johannes & Zerrahn, Alexander, 2020. "Quantifying the Externalities of Renewable Energy Plants Using Wellbeing Data: The Case of Biogas," IZA Discussion Papers 13959, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Tiziana Laureti, 2014. "Life satisfaction and environmental conditions in Italy: a pseudo-panel approach," Discussion Papers 2014/192, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    11. Rasha A. Moussa, 2023. "A Responsive Approach for Designing Shared Urban Spaces in Tourist Villages," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-27, May.
    12. Christine Bertram & Jan Goebel & Christian Krekel & Katrin Rehdanz, 2022. "Urban Land Use Fragmentation and Human Well-Being," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 98(2), pages 399-420.
    13. Welling, Malte & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Lundhede, Thomas, 2025. "Does quantity matter for distance decay? Evidence from two choice experiments on urban green," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    14. Peng Zhan & Guang Hu & Ruilian Han & Yu Kang, 2021. "Factors Influencing the Visitation and Revisitation of Urban Parks: A Case Study from Hangzhou, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-12, September.
    15. Lee, Chi-Chuan & Fang, Yuzhu, 2025. "Climate finance for energy security: An empirical analysis from a global perspective," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 963-978.
    16. Xinman Wang & Rong Zhu & Baoqi Che, 2022. "Spatial Optimization of Tourist-Oriented Villages by Space Syntax Based on Population Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-24, September.
    17. Wang, Hanjie & Yu, Xiaohua, 2023. "Carbon dioxide emission typology and policy implications: Evidence from machine learning," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    18. Phil Lignier & Diane Jarvis & Daniel Grainger & Taha Chaiechi, 2024. "Spatial Heterogeneity and Subjective Wellbeing: Exploring the Role of Social Capital in Metropolitan Areas Using Multilevel Modelling," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 1-23, June.
    19. Kaiser, Caspar & Vendrik, C.M., 2020. "How threatening are transformations of happiness scales to subjective wellbeing research?," INET Oxford Working Papers 2020-19, Institute for New Economic Thinking at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
    20. Jinvo Nam & Nicola Dempsey, 2018. "Community Food Growing in Parks? Assessing the Acceptability and Feasibility in Sheffield, UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-21, August.

    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:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1411-:d:899387. 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.