IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i8p4422-d789293.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Preferred Road to Mental Restoration in the Chinese Classical Garden

Author

Listed:
  • Jing Xie

    (Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 271-8510, Japan)

  • Shixian Luo

    (Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 271-8510, Japan)

  • Katsunori Furuya

    (Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University, Chiba 271-8510, Japan)

  • Takahide Kagawa

    (Department of Forest Management, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Tsukuba 305-8687, Japan)

  • Mian Yang

    (Art College, Sichuan Tourism University, Chengdu 610100, China)

Abstract

The impact that classical gardens have on the well-being and quality of life of visitors, especially city dwellers, is an important topic. Scholars have previously focused on landscape aspects, such as water bodies, plants, rocks, chairs, pavilions, and public squares, in various green spaces but have overlooked the road settings that visitors walk on. This study used the Du Fu Thatched Cottage Museum as the subject region and employed a convenience sampling method ( n = 730) to analyze the preference and mental restoration of different road settings of Chinese classical gardens. According to the findings, the majority of visitors felt that the road settings in these classical gardens provided psychological recovery, and half of the roads received a preference score of five or above. The regression results indicated that nature, culture, space, refuge, and serene were found to be important predictive dimensions for both mental restoration and preference. Furthermore, this study divides landscape elements in road settings into two major categories (natural and artificial elements) and eight subcategories (trees, shrubs, lawns, roads, fences, walls, decorations, and buildings) to investigate the relationship between various types of specific road setting elements and visitors’ perceived preferences as well as restorability. The correlation results showed that in terms of preference, tree > lawn > path > fence > shrub > wall; in terms of restoration, tree > lawn > shrub > fence > path > decoration > building > wall. Overall, the findings of this research can improve visitor preferences and restoration in a given environmental setting, resulting in a more enjoyable experience.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:8:p:4422-:d:789293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/8/4422/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/8/4422/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria Ignatieva & Dagmar Haase & Diana Dushkova & Annegret Haase, 2020. "Lawns in Cities: From a Globalised Urban Green Space Phenomenon to Sustainable Nature-Based Solutions," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-27, March.
    2. Howley, Peter, 2011. "Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 161-169.
    3. Sanaz Memari & Mahdieh Pazhouhanfar & Patrik Grahn, 2021. "Perceived Sensory Dimensions of Green Areas: An Experimental Study on Stress Recovery," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-19, May.
    4. Ling Qiu & Anders Busse Nielsen, 2015. "Are Perceived Sensory Dimensions a Reliable Tool for Urban Green Space Assessment and Planning?," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(7), pages 834-854, October.
    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. Xiangting He & Tongguang Zang & Bingyu Sun & Konomi Ikebe, 2023. "Tourists’ Motives for Visiting Historic Conservation Areas in the Post-Pandemic Era: A Case Study of Kuanzhai Alley in Chengdu, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-16, February.
    2. Huishu Chen & Li Yang, 2023. "Analysis of Narrative Space in the Chinese Classical Garden Based on Narratology and Space Syntax—Taking the Humble Administrator’s Garden as an Example," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Qiongying Xiang & Zhengwei Yuan & Katsunori Furuya & Takahide Kagawa, 2022. "Verification of Psychophysiological Effects of Satoyama Activities on Older Adult Volunteers and Young People in Post-COVID-19 Society: A Case Study of Matsudo City, Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(17), pages 1-15, 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. 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.
    2. Congying An & Jinglan Liu & Qiaohui Liu & Yuqi Liu & Xiaoli Fan & Yishen Hu, 2022. "How Perceived Sensory Dimensions of Forest Park Are Associated with Stress Restoration in Beijing?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-17, January.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Philip Stessens & Frank Canters & Marijke Huysmans & Ahmed Z. Khan, 2020. "Urban green space qualities: An integrated approach towards GIS-based assessment reflecting user perception," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/298795, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. 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.
    9. Tian Gao & Rui Song & Ling Zhu & Ling Qiu, 2019. "What Characteristics of Urban Green Spaces and Recreational Activities Do Self-Reported Stressed Individuals Like? A Case Study of Baoji, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    10. Rolf, Werner & Diehl, Katharina & Zasada, Ingo & Wiggering, Hubert, 2020. "Integrating farmland in urban green infrastructure planning. An evidence synthesis for informed policymaking," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    11. 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.
    12. Barbara Sowińska-Świerkosz & Malwina Michalik-Śnieżek, 2020. "The Methodology of Landscape Quality (LQ) Indicators Analysis Based on Remote Sensing Data: Polish National Parks Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-18, April.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Qindong Fan & Fengtian Du & Hu Li, 2020. "A Study of the Spatial Form of Maling Village, Henan, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-24, September.
    16. Mário Santos & Helena Moreira & João Alexandre Cabral & Ronaldo Gabriel & Andreia Teixeira & Rita Bastos & Alfredo Aires, 2022. "Contribution of Home Gardens to Sustainable Development: Perspectives from A Supported Opinion Essay," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-26, October.
    17. Maria Ignatieva & Diana Dushkova & Daniel Jan Martin & Fahimeh Mofrad & Katherine Stewart & Michael Hughes, 2023. "From One to Many Natures: Integrating Divergent Urban Nature Visions to Support Nature-Based Solutions in Australia and Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-29, March.
    18. Rong Fan & Junxi Fan & Jiayu Song & Kaiyuan Li & Wenli Ji, 2021. "Naturalness in the City: Demographic Groups’ Differences in Preference for Deciduous Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-21, July.
    19. Fedrigotti Valérie Bossi & Troiano Stefania & Fischer Christian & Marangon Francesco, 2020. "Public Preferences for Farmed Landscapes: the Case of Traditional Chestnut Orchards in South Tyrol," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 99-118, March.
    20. Li Cong & Yujun Zhang & Ching-Hui (Joan) Su & Ming-Hsiang Chen & Jinnan Wang, 2019. "Understanding Tourists’ Willingness-to-Pay for Rural Landscape Improvement and Preference Heterogeneity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-20, December.

    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:14:y:2022:i:8:p:4422-:d:789293. 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.