Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Psychophysiological Responses of College Students to Audio-Visual Forest Trail Landscapes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Urban Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Forest trails provide urban residents with contact with nature that improves health and well-being. Vision and hearing are important forms of environmental perception, and visual and auditory stimuli should not be overlooked in forest trail landscapes. This study focused on the health benefits of the audio-visual perception of forest trail landscapes. Forest density (FD) and forest sounds (FS) in forest trail landscapes were examined as visual and auditory variables, respectively. FD was divided into three levels: high (Hd), medium (Md), and low density (Ld). FS were divided into four levels: quiet natural and anthropogenic sounds (QnQa), quiet natural and loud anthropogenic sounds (QnLa), loud natural and quiet anthropogenic sounds (LnQa), and loud natural and loud anthropogenic sounds (LnLa). The levels of these two variables were combined to create 12 conditions. A total of 360 college students were randomly assigned to 12 groups (mapping onto the 12 conditions; N=30 per group). All subjects performed the same 5-min high-pressure task indoors, followed by a 5-min recovery period of experiencing a simulated forest trail landscape (viewing pictures and listening to sounds). Brain waves, blood pressure, blood oxygen saturation (SpO2, measured with a finger monitor), the pulse rate, and mood indicators were collected to analyse the physiological and psychological responses to the audio-visual forest trail landscapes. The results indicated that higher FD and lower FS improved health benefits. The interaction between FD and FS revealed a pattern of combinations that facilitated stress reduction and positive mood recovery. These results are of theoretical value in that they indicate important audio-visual characteristics of forest trail landscapes. In terms of practical applications, these findings support the construction of urban forest trails to provide health benefits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hunter RF, Cleland C, Cleary A, Droomers M, Wheeler BW, Sinnett D, et al. Environmental, health, wellbeing, social and equity effects of urban green space interventions: a meta-narrative evidence synthesis. Environ Int. 2019;130:104923.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Niemelä J, Breuste JH, Guntenspergen G, McIntyre NE, Elmqvist T, James P. Urban ecology: patterns, processes, and applications. New York, USA: Oxford University Press; 2011.

  3. Stigsdotter UK, Ekholm O, Schipperijn J, Toftager M, Kamper-Jørgensen F, Randrup TB. Health promoting outdoor environments - associations between green space, and health, health-related quality of life and stress based on a Danish national representative survey. Scand J Public Health. 2010;38:411–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wallner P, Kundi M, Arnberger A, Eder R, Allex B, Weitensfelder L, et al. Reloading pupils’ batteries: impact of green spaces on cognition and wellbeing. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:1205.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Gore FM, Bloem PJ, Patton GC, Ferguson J, Joseph V, Coffey C, et al. Global burden of disease in young people aged 10–24 years: a systematic analysis. The Lancet. 2011;377:2093–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Huang Q, Yang M, Jane H, Li S, Bauer N. Trees, grass, or concrete? The effects of different types of environments on stress reduction. Landsc Urban Plan. 2020;193:103654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sheldon E, Simmonds-Buckley M, Bone C, Mascarenhas T, Chan N, Wincott M, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for mental health problems in university undergraduate students: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Affect Disord. 2021;287:282–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Jim CY, Chen WY. Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities. 2009;26:187–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chang C-Y, Hammitt WE, Chen P-K, Machnik L, Su W-C. Psychophysiological responses and restorative values of natural environments in Taiwan. Landsc Urban Plan. 2008;85:79–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Martens D, Gutscher H, Bauer N. Walking in “wild” and “tended” urban forests: the impact on psychological well-being. J Environ Psychol. 2011;31:36–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Oh B, Lee KJ, Zaslawski C, Yeung A, Rosenthal D, Larkey L, et al. Health and well-being benefits of spending time in forests: systematic review. Environ Health Prev Med. 2017;22:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhang Z, Wang P, Gao Y, Ye B. Current development status of forest therapy in China. Healthcare. 2020;8(1):61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Roe J. Cities, green space, and mental well-being. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Oxford University Press; 2016. https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-93

    Google Scholar 

  14. Beyer KM, Szabo A, Hoormann K, Stolley M. Time spent outdoors, activity levels, and chronic disease among American adults. J Behav Med. 2018;41:494–503.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Yeon P-S, Jeon J-Y, Jung M-S, Min G-M, Kim G-Y, Han K-M, et al. Effect of forest therapy on depression and anxiety: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:12685.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang Z, Ye B. Forest therapy in Germany, Japan, and China: proposal, development status, and future prospects. Forests. 2022;13:1289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Li Q. Effects of forest environment (Shinrin-yoku/Forest bathing) on health promotion and disease prevention—the establishment of “Forest Medicine”—. Environ Health Prev Med. 2022;27:43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rajoo KS, Karam DS, Abdullah MZ. The physiological and psychosocial effects of forest therapy: a systematic review. Urban For Urban Green. 2020;54:126744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Karppinen S. Outdoor education in a Finnish hospital school: let’s open the doors and take a forest walk. J Outdoor Environ Educ. 2022;25:47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Weimann H, Björk J, Håkansson C. Experiences of the urban green local environment as a factor for well-being among adults: an exploratory qualitative study in southern Sweden. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:2464.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Zheng T, Yan Y, Lu H, Pan Q, Zhu J, Wang C, et al. Visitors’ perception based on five physical senses on ecosystem services of urban parks from the perspective of landsenses ecology. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 2020;27:214–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Annerstedt M, Jönsson P, Wallergård M, Johansson G, Karlson B, Grahn P, et al. Inducing physiological stress recovery with sounds of nature in a virtual reality forest—results from a pilot study. Physiol Behav. 2013;118:240–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen H-T, Yu C-P, Lee H-Y. The effects of forest bathing on stress recovery: evidence from middle-aged females of Taiwan. Forests. 2018;9:403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zhao J, Xu W, Li R. Visual preference of trees: the effects of tree attributes and seasons. Urban For Urban Green. 2017;25:19–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Grinde B, Patil GG. Biophilia: does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6:2332–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Chiang Y-C, Li D, Jane H-A. Wild or tended nature? The effects of landscape location and vegetation density on physiological and psychological responses. Landsc Urban Plan. 2017;167:72–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Burgess J, Harrison CM, Limb M. People, parks and the urban green: a study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban Stud. 1988;25:455–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jiang B, Li D, Larsen L, Sullivan WC. A dose-response curve describing the relationship between urban tree cover density and self-reported stress recovery. Environ Behav. 2016;48:607–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Botteldooren D, Andringa T, Aspuru I, Brown AL, Dubois D, Guastavino C, et al. From sonic environment to soundscape. Soundscape Built Environ. 2015;36:17–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kang J. From dBA to soundscape indices: managing our sound environment. Front Eng Manag. 2017;4:184–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Aletta F, Kang J, Axelsson Ö. Soundscape descriptors and a conceptual framework for developing predictive soundscape models. Landsc Urban Plan. 2016;149:65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Gan Y, Luo T, Breitung W, Kang J, Zhang T.  Multi-sensory landscape assessment: the contribution of acoustic perception to landscape evaluation. J Acoust Soc Am. 2014;136:3200–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Anderson LM, Mulligan BE, Goodman LS, Regen H. Effects of sounds on preferences for outdoor settings. Environ Behav. 1983;15:539–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Maffei L, Masullo M, Aletta F, Di Gabriele M. The influence of visual characteristics of barriers on railway noise perception. Sci Total Environ. 2013;445:41–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zeng C, Lin W, Li N, Wen Y, Wang Y, Jiang W, et al. Electroencephalography (EEG)-Based neural emotional response to the vegetation density and integrated sound environment in a green space. Forests. 2021;12:1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Igarashi M, Aga M, Ikei H, Namekawa T, Miyazaki Y. Physiological and psychological effects on high school students of viewing real and artificial pansies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12:2521–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Polat Z, Kilicaslan C, Kara B, Deniz B. Visual quality assessment of trees and shrubs in the south campus of Adnan Menderes university in spring. Fresenius Env Bull. 2015;24:4303–15.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. 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 

  39. Hsu B-W, Wang M-JJ. Evaluating the effectiveness of using electroencephalogram power indices to measure visual fatigue. Percept Mot Skills. 2013;116:235–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lin W, Chen Q, Zhang X, Tao J, Liu Z, Lyu B, et al. Effects of different bamboo forest spaces on psychophysiological stress and spatial scale evaluation. Forests. 2020;11:616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Goto S, Park B-J, Tsunetsugu Y, Herrup K, Miyazaki Y. The effect of garden designs on mood and heart output in older adults residing in an assisted living facility. HERD Health Environ Res Des J. 2013;6:27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lanki T, Siponen T, Ojala A, Korpela K, Pennanen A, Tiittanen P, et al. Acute effects of visits to urban green environments on cardiovascular physiology in women: a field experiment. Environ Res. 2017;159:176–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Zeng C, Lyu B, Deng S, Yu Y, Li N, Lin W, et al. Benefits of a three-day bamboo forest therapy session on the physiological responses of university students. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:3238.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Lin W, Chen Q, Jiang M, Zhang X, Liu Z, Tao J, et al. The effect of green space behaviour and per capita area in small urban green spaces on psychophysiological responses. Landsc Urban Plan. 2019;192:103637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Peschardt KK, Stigsdotter UK. Associations between park characteristics and perceived restorativeness of small public urban green spaces. Landsc Urban Plan. 2013;112:26–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Hazer M, Formica MK, Dieterlen S, Morley CP. The relationship between self-reported exposure to greenspace and human stress in Baltimore, MD. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018;169:47–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Song C, Ikei H, Igarashi M, Takagaki M, Miyazaki Y. Physiological and psychological effects of a walk in urban parks in fall. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12:14216–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Suh Y-A, Yim M-S. “High risk non-initiating insider” identification based on EEG analysis for enhancing nuclear security. Ann Nucl Energy. 2018;113:308–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Tilley S, Neale C, Patuano A, Cinderby S. Older people’s experiences of mobility and mood in an urban environment: a mixed methods approach using electroencephalography (EEG) and interviews. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14:151.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Badcock NA, Preece KA, de Wit B, Glenn K, Fieder N, Thie J, et al. Validation of the Emotiv EPOC EEG system for research quality auditory event-related potentials in children. PeerJ. 2015;3:e907.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Moon SA, Bae J, Kim K, Cho SY, Kwon G, Lee R, et al. EEG Revealed that fragrances positively affect menopausal symptoms in mid-life women. Exp Neurobiol. 2020;29:389.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Rajoo KS, Karam DS, Aziz NA. Developing an effective forest therapy program to manage academic stress in conservative societies: a multi-disciplinary approach. Urban For Urban Green. 2019;43:126353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Grove JR, Prapavessis H. Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of an abbreviated profile of mood states. Int J Sport Psychol. 1992;23(2):93–109.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Zhu B. Brief introduction of POMS scale and its model for China. J Tianjin Inst Phys Educ. 1995;10:35–7.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Li D, Sullivan WC. Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Landsc Urban Plan. 2016;148:149–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Li D, Deal B, Zhou X, Slavenas M, Sullivan WC. Moving beyond the neighborhood: Daily exposure to nature and adolescents’ mood. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018;173:33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Bjerke T, Østdahl T, Thrane C, Strumse E. Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban For Urban Green. 2006;5:35–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Johansson M, Gyllin M, Witzell J, Küller M. Does biological quality matter? Direct and reflected appraisal of biodiversity in temperate deciduous broad-leaf forest. Urban For Urban Green. 2014;13:28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kaplan S, Peterson C. Health and environment: a psychological analysis. Landsc Urban Plan. 1993;26:17–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. McAllister E, Bhullar N, Schutte NS. Into the woods or a stroll in the park: How virtual contact with nature impacts positive and negative affect. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14:786.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Ising H, Kruppa B. Health effects caused by noise: evidence in the literature from the past 25 years. Noise Health. 2004;6:5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Watts GR, Pheasant RJ. Tranquillity in the Scottish Highlands and Dartmoor National Park–the importance of soundscapes and emotional factors. Appl Acoust. 2015;89:297–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 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 

  65. Guo X, Liu J, Albert C, Hong X-C. Audio-visual interaction and visitor characteristics affect perceived soundscape restorativeness: case study in five parks in China. Urban For Urban Green. 2022;77:127738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Ulrich RS. Natural versus urban scenes: some psychophysiological effects. Environ Behav. 1981;13:523–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Dupont L, Antrop M, Eetvelde VV. Does landscape related expertise influence the visual perception of landscape photographs? Implications for participatory landscape planning and management. Landsc Urban Plan. 2015;141:68–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Carles J, Bernáldez F, Lucio JD. Audio-visual interactions and soundscape preferences. Landsc Res. 1992;17:52–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by the Talent Initiation Program of the Scientific Research Development Fund of Zhejiang A&F University (grant nos.: 2022LFR040 and 2021LFR041).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Landscape Architecture, Zhejiang A&F University, Hangzhou, 311300, China

    Chengcheng Zeng & Wei Lin

  2. College of Landscape Architecture, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, Sichuan, China

    Qibing Chen

Authors
  1. Chengcheng Zeng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wei Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qibing Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wei Lin or Qibing Chen.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Supplementary Information

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zeng, C., Lin, W. & Chen, Q. Psychophysiological Responses of College Students to Audio-Visual Forest Trail Landscapes. J Urban Health 100, 711–724 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-023-00757-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-023-00757-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation