Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Characteristics of urban streets in relation to perceived restorativeness

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology volume 30, pages 309–319 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

The research on the restorative capacity of various environments has been growing exponentially in recent years. However, previous researchers mainly focus on urban green spaces, natural environments or urban landscapes. The streetscapes which have a close tie with residents’ daily life and may have an essential effect on people’s psychological wellbeing have not attracted extensive attention from academic research, failing to provide a cohesive guideline for streetscape design. To address this gap, this paper conducted an experiment to explore the relationship between restorative quality and streetscape characteristics, in which 30 photographs representing the various streetscapes in Xuzhou in eastern China, were used as stimuli, and the restorative qualities of these photographs were measured through online surveys. The results indicated that: (1) the streetscape with higher rate of plants in the view and diverse species of plants implied a high restorative capacity; (2) less non-motor vehicles and clear traffic signs painted on the streets are the other promoters of the restorative capacity of streetscapes. These findings contribute new knowledge about the role of streetscape characteristics to enhance the restorative potential and have applications for designers and urban managers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Prince M, Patel V, Saxena S, Maj M, Maselko J, Phillips MR, et al. Global mental health 1—no health without mental health. Lancet. 2007;370:859–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jiang B, Zhang T, Sullivan WC. Healthy cities: mechanism and research questions regarding the impacts of urban green landscapes on public health and well-being. Landsc Architecture Front. 2015;3:24–35.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Velarde MD, Fry G, Tveit M. Health effects of viewing landscapes—landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry Urban Green. 2007;6:199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kurdoglu O, Kurdoglu BC. Determining recreational, scenic, and historical cultural potentials of landscape features along a segment of the ancient Silk Road using factor analyzing. Environ Monit Assess. 2010;170:99–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Frumkin H. Beyond toxicity: human health and the natural environment. Am J Prev Med 2001;20:234–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol. 1995;15:169–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Park BJ, Furuya K, Kasetani T, Takayama N, Kagawa T, Miyazaki Y. Relationship between psychological responses and physical environments in forest settings. Landsc Urban Plan. 2011;102:24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, Zelson M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol. 1991;11:201–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Aspinall P, Mavros P, Coyne R, Roe J. The urban brain: Analyzing outdoor physical activity with mobile EEG. Br J Sports Med. 2013;49:272–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. van Den Berg AE, Custers MHG. Gardening promotes neuroen-docrine and affective restoration from stress. J Health Psychol. 2011;16:3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tyrväinen L, Ojala A, Korpela K, Lanki T, Tsunetsugu Y, Kagawa T. The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: a field experiment. J Environ Psychol. 2014;38:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hansmann R, Hug SM, Seeland K. Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks. Urban Forestry Urban Green. 2007;6:213–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hartig T, Staats H. The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preference. J Environ Psychol. 2006;26:215–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Ryan R. With people in mind: design and management of everyday nature. Washington, D.C.: Island Press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Li Q. Effect of forest bathing trips on human immune function. Environ Health Prev Med. 2010;15:9–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jim CY, Chen SS. Comprehensive greenspace planning based on landscape ecology principles in compact Nanjing City, China. Landsc Urban Plan. 2003;65:95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tian S, Li J. Restoration and stress relief benefits of urban park ad green space. Chin Landsc Architecture. 2009;25:79–82. In Chinese.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Zhao J, Xu W, Ye L. Effects of auditory-visual combinations on perceived restorative potential of urban green space. Appl Acoust. 2018;141:169–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jacobs AB. Keynote: looking, learning, making. Places. 1997;1:4–7.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Merriman P. Driving places: Marc Augé. Non-places, and the geographies of England’s M1 motorway. Theory Cult Soc. 2004;21:145–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Getz DA, Karow A, Kielbaso JJ. Inner city preferences for trees and urban forestry programs. J Arboric. 1982;8:258–63.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lindal PJ, Hartig T. Effects of urban street vegetation on judgments of restoration likelihood. Urban For Urban Green. 2015;14:200–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lin YH, Tsai CC, Sullivan WC, Chang PJ, Chang CY. Does awareness effect the restorative function and perception of street trees? Front Psychol. 2014;5:906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. van Dillen SME, de Vries S, Groenewegen PP, Spreeuwenberg P. Greenspace in urban neighbourhoods and residents’ health: adding quality to quantity. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66:e8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lindal PJ, Hartig T. Architectural variation, building height, and the restorative quality of urban residential streetscapes. J Environ Psychol. 2013;33:26–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bornioli A, Parkhurst G, Morgan PL. Psychological wellbeing benefits of simulated exposure to five urban settings: an experimental study from the pedestrian’s perspective. J Transp Health. 2018;9:105–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bornioli A, Parkhurst G, Morgan PL. Affective experiences of built environments and the promotion of urban walking. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract. 2019;123:200–15.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Völker S, Kistemann T. The impact of blue space on human health and well-being– Salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: a review. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2011;214:449–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Völker S, Kistemann T. “I’m always entirely happy when I’m here!” Urban blue enhancing human health and well-being in Cologne and Düsseldorf, Germany. Soc Sci Med. 2013;78:113–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jiang B, Chang CY, Sullivan WC. A dose of nature: tree cover, stress reduction, and gender differences. Landsc Urban Plan. 2014;132:26–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nordh H, Hartig T, Hagerhall CM, Fry G. Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban For Urban Green. 2009;8:225–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Arriaza M, Canas-Ortega JF, Canas-Madueno JA, Ruiz-Aviles P. Assessing the visual quality of rural landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan. 2004;69:115–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhao J, Luo P, Wang R, Cai Y. Correlations between aesthetic preferences of river and landscape characters. J Environ Eng Landsc Manag. 2013;21:123–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhao J, Li R, Wei X. Assessing the aesthetic value of traditional gardens and urban parks in China. Urban Des Plan. 2017;170:1–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Holloway L, Hubbard P. People and place: the extraordinary geographies of everyday life. Harlow: Prentice Hall; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Amundsen I. The road through the landscape. Topos: Vakre veger. Road development and landscape architecture in Norway. München: Verlag Georg, D.W., Callwey, G. Co., K.G.; 2004. p. 43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Taylor MS, Wheeler BW, White MP, Economou T, Osborne NJ. Research note: Urban street tree density and antidepressant prescription rates—a cross-sectional study in London, UK. Landsc Urban Plan. 2015;136:174–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Palmer JF, Hoffman RE. Rating reliability and representation validity in scenic landscape assessments. Landsc Urban Plan. 2001;54:149–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Yamashita S. Perception and evaluation of water in landscape: use of photo-projective method to compare child and adult residents’ perceptions of a Japanese river environment. Landsc Urban Plan. 2002;62:3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Nejati A, Rodiek S, Shepley M. Using visual simulation to evaluate restorative qualities of access to nature in hospital staff break areas. Landsc Urban Plan. 2016;148:132–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Staats H, Kieviet A, Hartig T. Where to recover from attentional fatigue: an expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. J Environ Psychol. 2003;23:147–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Xu W, Zhao J, Ye L. Culture is new nature: comparing the restorative capacity of cultural and natural landscapes. Int J Environ Stud. 2018;75:847–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hartig T, Boo A, Garvill J, Olsson T, Garling T. Environmental influences on psychological restoration. Scand J Psychol. 1996;37:378–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Nordh H, Evensen KH, Skår M. A peaceful place in the city—a qualitative study of restorative components of the cemetery. Landsc Urban Plan. 2017;167:108–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Han KT. A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landsc Urban Plan. 2003;64:209–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Jiangsu Statistics Bureau and Jiangsu Statistics Team of the National Statistics Bureau of China. Jiangsu statistical yearbook 2017. Beijing: China Statistics Press; 2018. in Chinese.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Menard S. Applied logistic regression analysis. Sage University paper series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  49. UN-Habitat. State of the world’s cities 2010/2011. Bridging the Urban Divide, London: Earthscan, 2010.

  50. Akpinar A. How is high school greenness related to students’ restoration and health? Urban For Urban Green. 2016;16:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Chang CY, Chen PK. Human response to window views and indoor plants in the workplace. Hortscience. 2005;40:1354–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Thake CL, Bambling M, Edirippulige S, Marx E. A psychoevolutionary approach to identifying preferred nature scenes with potential to provide restoration from stress. Health Environ Res Des J. 2017;10:111–24.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Memari S, Pazhouhanfar M, Nourtaghani A. Relationship between perceived sensory dimensions and stress restoration in care settings. Urban For Urban Green. 2017;26:104–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ohman A. Face the beast and fear the face: animal and social fears as prototypes for evolutionary analyses of emotion. Psychophysiology. 1986;23:123–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Maslow AH. A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev. 1943;50:370–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Staats H, Jahncke H, Herzog TR, Hartig T. Urban options for psychological restoration: common strategies in everyday situations. Plos ONE. 2016;11:e0146213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. van Den Berg AE, Koole SL, van der Wulp NY. Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related. J Environ Psychol. 2003;23:135–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Bell S, Blom D, Rautamäki M, Castel-Branco C, Simson A, Olsen IA. Design of urban forests. In: Konijnendijk CC, Nilsson K, Randrup TB, Schipperijn J, (eds.) Urban Forest Trees. New York, NY: Springer; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ewing R, Handy S, Brownson RC, Clemente O, Winston E. Identifying and measuring urban design qualities related to walkability. J Phys Act Health. 2006;3:S223–S240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wolf KL. Nature in the retail environment: comparing consumer and business response to urban forest conditions. Landscape J. 2004;23:40–51.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Zhang Y, Kang J, Kang J. Effects of soundscape on the environmental restoration in urban natural environments. Noise Health. 2017;19:65–72.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Ratcliffe E, Gatersleben B, Sowden PT. Bird sounds and their contributions to perceived attention restoration and stress recovery. J Environ Psychol. 2013;36:221–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Ratcliffe E, Gatersleben B, Sowden PT. Associations with bird sounds: how do they relate to perceived restorative potential? J Environ Psychol. 2016;47:136–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Pitt H. Therapeutic experiences of community gardens: putting flow in its place. Health Place. 2014;27:84–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Gorman R. Smelling therapeutic landscapes: Embodied encounters within spaces of care farming. Health Place. 2017;47:22–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the 1473 anonymous respondents in our trials, the ten experts who judge the landscape characteristics and the ten students who conduct the online surveys. This research is supported by Humanities and Social Science Research Program of Ministry of Education of China (16YJA760052).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Architecture and Design, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, China

    Jingwei Zhao, Jixian Wu & Hongda Wang

Authors
  1. Jingwei Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jixian Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hongda Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jingwei Zhao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, J., Wu, J. & Wang, H. Characteristics of urban streets in relation to perceived restorativeness. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 30, 309–319 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-019-0188-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-019-0188-4

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links