Abstract
While urban nature has been reported as positively associated with health and well-being, only a few research focused on the health-beneficial effects of the ecological quality of natural environments. When designing urban green spaces, there is a growing need for establishing rich biodiversity and creating spaces where residents can recover from daily demands and stress. This study aims to understand if human aesthetic perceptions align with ecological quality by exploring the correlation between environmental naturalness, measured by avian diversity, and the restorativeness people experience from the natural landscapes. Additionally, we examine the relationship between the naturalness measured objectively and the naturalness people perceive. We conducted surveys to collect perceptions about natural landscapes in Taipei Metropolitan, Taiwan. We retrieved bird survey data from BBS Taiwan to estimate the naturalness levels of the sites and took photographs on-site to generate the interventions. Participants viewed images and evaluated their restoring and natural perceptions of landscapes. There were 128 participants who answered the survey. Our findings reported landscapes with greater objective naturalness, higher avian species richness and the Shannon diversity index scores, were assessed as more natural and were positively associated with perceived restorativeness. Although bird abundance, another objective naturalness measure did not show significant associations between perceived naturalness and restorativeness. People perceive urban nature supporting diverse bird species as more restorative, having a higher potential to provide restoring effects. This paper suggests future research to have more control over other environmental factors to gain a more detailed understanding of the ecological quality of the environment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berto R (2005) Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. J Environ Psychol 25(3):249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001
Cariñanos P, Calaza-Martínez P, O’Brien L, Calfapietra C (2017) The Cost of Greening: Disservices of Urban Trees. In: Pearlmutter D, Calfapietra C, Samson R, O’Brien L, Krajter Ostoić S, Sanesi G, Alonso del Amo R (eds) The Urban Forest: Cultivating Green Infrastructure for People and the Environment. Springer International Publishing, pp 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50280-9_9
Carrus G, Lafortezza R, Colangelo G, Dentamaro I, Scopelliti M, Sanesi G (2013) Relations between naturalness and perceived restorativeness of different urban green spaces. PsyEcology 4(3):227–244. https://doi.org/10.1174/217119713807749869
Carrus G, Scopelliti M, Lafortezza R, Colangelo G, Ferrini F, Salbitano F, Agrimi M, Portoghesi L, Semenzato P, Sanesi G (2015) Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landsc Urban Plan 134:221–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.022
Cox DTC, Shanahan DF, Hudson HL, Plummer KE, Siriwardena GM, Fuller RA, Anderson K, Hancock S, Gaston KJ (2017) Doses of neighborhood nature: the benefits for mental health of living with nature. Bioscience 67(2):147–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw173
Dallimer M, Irvine KN, Skinner AMJ, Davies ZG, Rouquette JR, Maltby LL, Warren PH, Armsworth PR, Gaston KJ (2012) Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. Bioscience 62(1):47–55. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.9
Faeth SH, Bang C, Saari S (2011) Urban biodiversity: patterns and mechanisms. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1223(1):69–81
Felappi JF, Sommer JH, Falkenberg T, Terlau W, Kötter T (2020) Green infrastructure through the lens of one health: a systematic review and integrative framework uncovering synergies and trade-offs between mental health and wildlife support in cities. Sci Total Environ 748:141589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141589
Fisher JC, Irvine KN, Bicknell JE, Hayes WM, Fernandes D, Mistry J, Davies ZG (2021) Perceived biodiversity, sound, naturalness and safety enhance the restorative quality and wellbeing benefits of green and blue space in a neotropical city. Sci Total Environ 755:143095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143095
Forman RTT (2014) Spatial patterns and mosaics. Forman RTT Urban Ecology: Science of Cities. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 31–58
Fuller RA, Irvine KN, Devine-Wright P, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol Lett 3(4):390–394. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149
Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc Ecol 22(7):959–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x
Hartig T, Korpela K, Evans GW, Gärling T (1997) A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Hous Plann Res 14(4):175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02815739708730435
Hartig T, Mitchell R, Vries SD, Frumkin H (2014) Nature and Health. Annu Rev Public Health 35(1):207–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443
Hedblom M, Knez I, Sang AO, Gunnarsson B (2017) Evaluation of natural sounds in urban greenery: potential impact for urban nature preservation. R Soc Open Sci 4(2):Article170037. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170037
Houlden V, Jani A, Hong A (2021) Is biodiversity of greenspace important for human health and wellbeing? A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. Urban Fore Urban Green 66:127385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127385
Hoyle H, Hitchmough J, Jorgensen A (2017) All about the ‘wow factor’? The relationships between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting. Landsc Urban Plan 164:109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.011
Hoyle H, Jorgensen A, Hitchmough JD (2019) What determines how we see nature? Perceptions of naturalness in designed urban green spaces. People Nat 1(2):167–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.19
Hoyle H, Norton B, Dunnett N, Richards JP, Russell JM, Warren P (2018) Plant species or flower colour diversity? Identifying the drivers of public and invertebrate response to designed annual meadows. Landsc Urban Plan 180:103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.017
Hunter M, Askarinejad A (2015) Designer’s approach for scene selection in tests of preference and restoration along a continuum of natural to manmade environments. Front Psychol 6(1228). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01228
Hur M, Nasar JL, Chun B (2010) Neighborhood satisfaction, physical and perceived naturalness and openness. J Environ Psychol 30(1):52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.005
Jorgensen A, Hitchmough J, Dunnett N (2007) Woodland as a setting for housing-appreciation and fear and the contribution to residential satisfaction and place identity in Warrington New Town, UK. Landsc Urban Plan 79(3):273–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.02.015
Kaplan S (1995) The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol 15(3):14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Ryan R (1998) With people in mind: design and management of everyday nature. Island Press, Washington DC
Kardan O, Demiralp E, Hout MC, Hunter MR, Karimi H, Hanayik T, Yourganov G, Jonides J, Berman MG (2015) Is the preference of natural versus man-made scenes driven by bottom–up processing of the visual features of nature? Front Psychol 6(471). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00471
Lin YH, Tsai CC, Sullivan WC, Chang PJ, Chang CY (2014) Does awareness affect the restorative function and perception of street trees? [Original Research]. Front Psychol 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00906
Liu Q, Zhang Y, Lin Y, You D, Zhang W, Huang Q, van den Bosch CCK, Lan S (2018) The relationship between self-rated naturalness of university green space and students’ restoration and health. Urban For Urban Green 34:259–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.008
MacGregor-Fors I (2008) Relation between habitat attributes and bird richness in a western Mexico suburb. Landsc Urban Plan 84(1):92–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.06.010
Marselle MR, Lindley SJ, Cook PA, Bonn A (2021) Biodiversity and health in the urban environment. Curr Environ Health Rep 8(2):146–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-021-00313-9
Methorst J, Bonn A, Marselle M, Bohning-Gaese K, Rehdanz K (2021) Species richness is positively related to mental health? A study for Germany. Landsc Urban Plan 211: Article 104084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104084
Nghiem TPL, Wong KL, Jeevanandam L, Chang CC, Tan LYC, Goh Y, Carrasco LR (2021) Biodiverse urban forests, happy people: experimental evidence linking perceived biodiversity, restoration, and emotional wellbeing. Urban for Urban Green 59: Article 127030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127030
Ode Ã, Fry G, Tveit MS, Messager P, Miller D (2009) Indicators of perceived naturalness as drivers of landscape preference. J Environ Manage 90(1):375–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013
Ortega-Álvarez R, MacGregor-Fors I (2009) Living in the big city: Effects of urban land-use on bird community structure, diversity, and composition. Landsc Urban Plan 90(3):189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.11.003
Qiu L, Lindberg S, Nielsen AB (2013) Is biodiversity attractive?—On-site perception of recreational and biodiversity values in urban green space. Landsc Urban Plann 119:136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.007
Sandifer PA, Sutton-Grier AE, Ward BP (2015) Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst Serv 12:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.12.007
Sandström UG, Angelstam P, Mikusiński G (2006) Ecological diversity of birds in relation to the structure of urban green space. Landsc Urban Plan 77(1):39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.01.004
Schewenius M, McPhearson T, Elmqvist T (2014) Opportunities for increasing resilience and sustainability of urban social–ecological systems: insights from the URBES and the cities and biodiversity outlook projects. Ambio 43(4):434–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0505-z
Sreetheran M, Van Den Bosch CCK (2014) A socio-ecological exploration of fear of crime in urban green spaces–A systematic review. Urban for Urban Green 13(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.11.006
Sullivan WC, Li D (2021) Nature and attention. In: Schutte AR, Torquati JC, Stevens JR (eds) Nature and psychology: Biological, cognitive, developmental, and social pathways to well-being. Springer International Publishing, pp 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69020-5_2
Threlfall CG, Mata L, Mackie JA, Hahs AK, Stork NE, Williams NSG, Livesley SJ (2017) Increasing biodiversity in urban green spaces through simple vegetation interventions. J Appl Ecol 54(6):1874–1883. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12876
Tveit M, Ode Ã, Fry G (2006) Key concepts in a framework for analysing visual landscape character. Landsc Res 31(3):229–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390600783269
Van den Berg AE, Jorgensen A, Wilson ER (2014) Evaluating restoration in urban green spaces: does setting type make a difference? Landsc Urban Plan 127:173–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.04.012
Wood E, Harsant A, Dallimer M, de Chavez AC, McEachan RRC, Hassall C (2018) Not all green space is created equal: Biodiversity predicts psychological restorative benefits from urban green space. Front Psychol 9: Article 2320. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02320
Wu CC, Chang CY (2020) Establishing the ecological planning principles from empirical studies in agricultural environments of Taiwan. Landsc Ecol Eng 16(3):233–247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11355-020-00418-7
Young C, Hofmann M, Frey D, Moretti M, Bauer N (2020) Psychological restoration in urban gardens related to garden type, biodiversity and garden-related stress. Landsc Urban Plan 198: Article 103777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103777
Zhao J, Wu J, Wang H (2020) Characteristics of urban streets in relation to perceived restorativeness. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 30(2):309–319. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-019-0188-4
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Breeding Bird Survey Taiwan shared their bird survey outcomes.
Funding
This research was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, R.O.C. (MOST 104-2410-H-002-207-MY2).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: J. C., C.-C. W., C.-Y. C., J. C.; Methodology: J. C., C.-Y. C.; Data collection: J. C.; Formal analysis and investigation: C.-Y. C., J. C.; Writing—original draft: C.-C. W.; Writing—review and revise: C.-C. W., C.-Y. C.; Funding acquisition: C.-Y. C. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics statement
This study was conducted clearly and honestly, has not been published elsewhere.
Consent to participate and for publication
All of the authors declare their consent to participate and for the publication of this study.
Conflicts of interest/competing interests
All the authors declare no conflicts of interest or competing interests with the publication of this study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Chang, J., Wu, CC. & Chang, CY. Landscape naturalness and restoring benefit: a connection through bird diversity. Urban Ecosyst 27, 41–50 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01425-w
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-023-01425-w