IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i9p2537-d227665.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of Viewing Photos of Different Types of Rural Landscapes on Stress in Beijing

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaobo Wang

    (College of Architecture and Art, North China University of Technology, Beijing 100144, China)

  • Hanlun Zhu

    (Orient Landscape, Beijing 100015, China)

  • Zhendong Shang

    (College of Architecture and Art, North China University of Technology, Beijing 100144, China)

  • Yencheng Chiang

    (Department of Landscape Architecture, National Chiayi University, Chiayi City 60004, Taiwan)

Abstract

The environment can affect people’s health by relieving stress, and rural landscape as a special environment might influence human’s stress relief. This study takes different types of rural landscapes as the research object to explore their impact on stress levels, which are shown by photos. As an independent variable, the rural landscape is divided into three levels: Type 1 (natural landscape), type 2 (productive landscape), and type 3 (artificial landscape). Seventy-three subjects were randomly assigned to each type of rural landscape. Salivary cortisol, blood pressure, heart rate, and a subjective rating state scale (brief profile of mood states, BPOMS) were used as indicators of stress. At the same time, the influence of preference and familiarity on the stress relieving effect was also discussed. A paired t -test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used as the main statistical methods. In the results of t -test for pre-posttest, significant difference was observed in high blood pressure, heart rate, and total mood disturbance (TMD) of type 1 and type 2, and the high and low blood pressure of type 3; ANOVA analysis revealed that for the difference of pre-posttest, significant difference was observed in the TMD value among the three types; except for type 3, blood pressure, heart rate, and BPOMS values were significantly affected by preference and familiarity. The conclusions include the following: The three types of rural landscapes have a positive effect on relieving stress; the productive landscape has the best effect on relieving stress; and users’ landscape preferences and familiarity with the environment can affect the effect of stress relief in rural landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaobo Wang & Hanlun Zhu & Zhendong Shang & Yencheng Chiang, 2019. "The Influence of Viewing Photos of Different Types of Rural Landscapes on Stress in Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:9:p:2537-:d:227665
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/9/2537/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/9/2537/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Werner Krauß & Kenneth R. Olwig, 2018. "Special issue on pastoral landscapes caught between abandonment, rewilding and agro-environmental management. Is there an alternative future?," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(8), pages 1015-1020, November.
    2. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    3. Daria Sikorska & Piotr Sikorski & Richard James Hopkins, 2017. "High Biodiversity of Green Infrastructure Does Not Contribute to Recreational Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, February.
    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. Emad Alyan & Theo Combe & Dayang Rohaya Awang Rambli & Suziah Sulaiman & Frederic Merienne & Nadia Diyana Mohd Muhaiyuddin, 2021. "The Influence of Virtual Forest Walk on Physiological and Psychological Responses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Hongqidi Li & Wenyi Dong & Zhimeng Wang & Nuo Chen & Jianping Wu & Guangxin Wang & Ting Jiang, 2021. "Effect of a Virtual Reality-Based Restorative Environment on the Emotional and Cognitive Recovery of Individuals with Mild-to-Moderate Anxiety and Depression," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-30, August.

    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. Sergio Cappucci & Serena Nappi & Andrea Cappelli, 2022. "Green Public Areas and Urban Open Spaces Management: New GreenCAL Tool Algorithms and Circular Economy Implications," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, June.
    2. Matzek, Virginia & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Kragt, Marit, 2019. "Mainstreaming of ecosystem services as a rationale for ecological restoration in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 79-86.
    3. Liwen Li & Klaus W. Lange, 2023. "Assessing the Relationship between Urban Blue-Green Infrastructure and Stress Resilience in Real Settings: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-28, June.
    4. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    5. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    6. Andrzej Greinert & Maria Mrówczyńska, 2020. "The Impact of the Process of Academic Education on Differences in Landscape Perception between the Students of Environmental Engineering and Civil Engineering," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-27, June.
    7. Najam uz Zehra Gardezi & Brent S. Steel & Angela Lavado, 2020. "The Impact of Efficacy, Values, and Knowledge on Public Preferences Concerning Food–Water–Energy Policy Tradeoffs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-20, November.
    8. Fan, Yubing & McCann, Laura E., 2015. "Households' Adoption of Drought Tolerant Plants: An Adaptation to Climate Change?," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205544, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Jacqueline Loos & Henrik Von Wehrden, 2018. "Beyond Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing Constitutes Sustainable Agriculture in European Cultural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, May.
    10. Jing Wu & Shen Yang & Xu Zhang, 2019. "Evaluation of the Fairness of Urban Lakes’ Distribution Based on Spatialization of Population Data: A Case Study of Wuhan Urban Development Zone," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-27, December.
    11. Lisiak-Zielińska, Marta & Jałoszyńska, Sylwia & Borowiak, Klaudia & Budka, Anna & Dach, Jacek, 2023. "Perception of biogas plants: A public awareness and preference - A case study for the agricultural landscape," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    12. repec:ehu:biltok:8011 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Reza Keshtkaran & Amin Habibi & Hamidreza Sharif, 2017. "Aesthetic Preferences for Visual Quality of Urban Landscape in Derak High-Rise Buildings (Shiraz)," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(5), pages 1-94, September.
    14. Hermes, Johannes & Albert, Christian & von Haaren, Christina, 2018. "Assessing the aesthetic quality of landscapes in Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 296-307.
    15. Elin Slätmo & Kjell Nilsson & Eeva Turunen, 2019. "Implementing Green Infrastructure in Spatial Planning in Europe," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-21, April.
    16. Allain, Sandrine & Salliou, Nicolas, 2022. "Making differences legible: Incommensurability as a vehicle for sustainable landscape management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    17. Jing Xie & Shixian Luo & Katsunori Furuya & Takahide Kagawa & Mian Yang, 2022. "A Preferred Road to Mental Restoration in the Chinese Classical Garden," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-16, April.
    18. Akbar Rahimi & Mahsa Tarashkar & Banafshe Jahantab, 2021. "Contribution of Design Indicators in Perception of Social Capital, and Interference of Socio-Demographic Information in the Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-14, March.
    19. Tong, Qingmeng & Qiu, Feng, 2020. "Population growth and land development: Investigating the bi-directional interactions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    20. Bullock, Craig & Joyce, Deirdre & Collier, Marcus, 2018. "An exploration of the relationships between cultural ecosystem services, socio-cultural values and well-being," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 142-152.
    21. Kota Mameno & Takahiro Kubo & Hiroyuki Oguma & Yukihiro Amagai & Yasushi Shoji, 2022. "Decline in the alpine landscape aesthetic value in a national park under climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-18, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:9:p:2537-:d:227665. 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.