PDF

Published

2024-10-10

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 9 (2024): Published

Section

Research Articles

License

The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.

Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.

Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.

This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.

By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:

  • Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
  • Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
  • Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
  • Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

 

Copyright Statement

1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.

2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.

3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.

About Licence

Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.

This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.

Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.

How to Cite

Amend, L., Mikuni, J., Dehove, M., Dörrzapf, L., Moser, M. K., Resch, B., … Oberzaucher, E. (2024). The impact of urban street green transformation on subjective well-being and evaluation of the location: A case study in Vienna, Austria. Environment and Social Psychology, 9(9). https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v9i9.2861

The impact of urban street green transformation on subjective well-being and evaluation of the location: A case study in Vienna, Austria

Lilian Amend

Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, 1030, Austria

Jan Mikuni

Vienna Cognitive Science Hub

Margot Dehove

Vienna Cognitive Science Hub, University of Vienna, Vienna, 1090, Austria

Linda Dörrzapf

Research unit MOVE, Institute of spatial planning, Technical University of Vienna, Vienna, 1040, Austria

Martin Karl Moser

Department of Geoinformatics, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, 5020, Austria

Bernd Resch

Department of Geoinformatics, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, 5020, Austria Center for Geographic Analysis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

Pia Böhm

Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, 1030, Austria Urban Human, Vienna, 1160, Austria

Katharina Prager

Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, 1030, Austria Urban Human, Vienna, 1160, Austria

Helmut Leder

Vienna Cognitive Science Hub, University of Vienna, Vienna, 1090, Austria Department of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, 1090, Austria

Elisabeth Oberzaucher

Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, 1030, Austria Vienna Cognitive Science Hub, University of Vienna, Vienna, 1090, Austria


DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v9i9.2861


Keywords: urban greening landscape, field study, biophilia designs, well-being, evaluations, green cities

Abstract

Urban green landscapes, such as street- and ground-level greenery, are essential for urban populations, enabling frequent and spontaneous interactions with nature in cities. While many cities have increased their green infrastructure and landscapes, their impact on well-being and environmental evaluations needs to be studied more. In the present study, we conducted a field experiment that directly addressed this aspect. Specifically, on two urban streets in Vienna (Austria), we conducted the same structured field experiment during two different periods, during March and May/June in 2022, resulting in different levels of greenery in two urban streets. We aimed to study if and how varying quantities of greenery in urban street landscapes influence subjective well-being in terms of subjective feelings of stress and affective mood, as well as the restorative potential of the locations. Our results showed that, unlike the often-reported positive impact of urban green spaces, the varying amount of greenery on the streets did not positively affect the well-being or the restorative potential of the locations. The results highlight that simply implementing greenery might not be sufficient to induce positive effects. Instead, more intense and dense greenery would be necessary to achieve the desired outcomes.

References

[1]. Farahani LM, Maller CJ. Perceptions and preferences of urban greenspaces: a literature review and framework for policy and practice. Landsc Online. 2018;61.

[2]. Kabisch N, Haase D. Green spaces of European cities revisited for 1990–2006. Landsc Urban Plan. 2013;110:113–22.

[3]. Grinde B, Patil GG. Biophilia: Does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6(9):2332–43.

[4]. Jabbar M, Yusoff MM, Shafie A. Assessing the role of urban green spaces for human well-being: a systematic review. GeoJournal [Internet]. 2022;87(5):4405–23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-021-10474-7

[5]. Mensah CA, Andres L, Perera U, Roji A. Enhancing quality of life through the lens of green spaces: A systematic review approach. Int J Wellbeing. 2016;6(1):142–63.

[6]. Papastergiou E, Latinopoulos D, Evdou M, Kalogeresis A. Exploring Associations between Subjective Well-Being and Non-Market Values When Used in the Evaluation of Urban Green Spaces: A Scoping Review. Land. 2023;12(3):700.

[7]. Reyes-Riveros R, Altamirano A, De La Barrera F, Rozas-Vásquez D, Vieli L, Meli P. Linking public urban green spaces and human well-being: A systematic review. Urban For Urban Green. 2021;61:127105.

[8]. De Vries S, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP, Spreeuwenberg P. Natural environments—healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environ Plan A. 2003;35(10):1717–31.

[9]. Nielsen TS, Hansen KB. Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health Place. 2007;13(4):839–50.

[10]. White MP, Alcock I, Wheeler BW, Depledge MH. Would you be happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed-effects analysis of panel data. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(6):920–8.

[11]. Li C, Yuan Y, Sun C, Sun M. The Perceived Restorative Quality of Viewing Various Types of Urban and Rural Scenes: Based on Psychological and Physiological Responses. Sustain. 2022;14(7).

[12]. Andreucci MB, Loder A, Brown M, Brajković J. Exploring challenges and opportunities of biophilic urban design: Evidence from research and experimentation. Sustainability. 2021;13(8):4323.

[13]. Kleerekoper L, Van Esch M, Salcedo TB. How to make a city climate-proof, addressing the urban heat island effect. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2012;64:30–8.

[14]. Fuller RA, Gaston KJ. The scaling of green space coverage in European cities. Biol Lett. 2009;5(3):352–5.

[15]. Haase D, Kabisch S, Haase A, Andersson E, Banzhaf E, Baró F, et al. Greening cities–To be socially inclusive? About the alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities. Habitat Int. 2017;64:41–8.

[16]. Zhou W, Wang J. Research on Public Art Intervention in Rural Public Space Transformation. 2018;232(Icadce):319–22.

[17]. Boulton C, Dedekorkut-Howes A, Byrne J. Factors shaping urban greenspace provision: A systematic review of the literature. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018;178:82–101.

[18]. Klepeis NE, Nelson WC, Ott WR, Robinson JP, Tsang AM, Switzer P, et al. The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2001;11(3):231–52.

[19]. Heymans A, Breadsell J, Morrison GM, Byrne JJ, Eon C. Ecological urban planning and design: A systematic literature review. Sustainability. 2019;11(13):3723.

[20]. Panlasigui S, Spotswood E, Beller E, Grossinger R. Biophilia beyond the building: Applying the tools of urban biodiversity planning to create biophilic cities. Sustainability. 2021;13(5):2450.

[21]. Wu W, Yao Y, Song Y, He D, Wang R. Perceived influence of street-level visible greenness exposure in the work and residential environment on life satisfaction: Evidence from Beijing, China. Urban For Urban Green. 2021;62:127161.

[22]. Urban green spaces and health. Copenhagen; 2016.

[23]. Konijnendijk C. Promoting health and wellbeing through urban forests–Introducing the 3-30-300 rule. Tillgänglig via https//iucnurbanalliance org/promoting-health-andwellbeing-through-urban-forests-introducing-the-3-30-300-rule. 2021;

[24]. Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Dadvand P, Márquez S, Bartoll X, Barboza EP, Cirach M, et al. The evaluation of the 3-30-300 green space rule and mental health. Environ Res. 2022;215(June).

[25]. Bjerke T, Østdahl T, Thrane C, Strumse E. Vegetation density of urban parks and perceived appropriateness for recreation. Urban For Urban Green. 2006;5(1):35–44.

[26]. Hwang YH, Yue ZEJ, Ling SK, Tan HHV. It’s ok to be wilder: Preference for natural growth in urban green spaces in a tropical city. Urban For Urban Green. 2019;38:165–76.

[27]. Lis A, Zalewska K, Pardela Ł, Adamczak E, Cenarska A, Bławicka K, et al. How the amount of greenery in city parks impacts visitor preferences in the context of naturalness, legibility and perceived danger. Landsc Urban Plan. 2022;228:104556.

[28]. 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(4):225–35.

[29]. Stone AA, Mackie CE. Subjective well-being: Measuring happiness, suffering, and other dimensions of experience. National Academies Press; 2013.

[30]. Bratman GN, Mehta A, Olvera-Alvarez H, Spink KM, Levy C, White MP, et al. Associations of nature contact with emotional ill-being and well-being: the role of emotion regulation. Cogn Emot. 2024;1–20.

[31]. Kaplan R, Kaplan S. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge university press; 1989.

[32]. Gorgol NK. What Is a Resilient Smart City? Blue–Green Infrastructure as a Strategic Feature of Smart Urban Form: Empirical Evidence with a Particular Focus on the Songdo IBD and Aspern Seestadt in Vienna. Sustain . 2024;16(5).

[33]. Krohne HW, Egloff B, Kohlmann C-W, Tausch A. Positive and negative affect schedule--German version. Diagnostica. 1996;

[34]. Curran SL, Andrykowski MA, Studts JL. Short form of the profile of mood states (POMS-SF): psychometric information. Psychol Assess. 1995;7(1):80.

[35]. Hartig T, Korpela K, Evans GW, Gärling T. A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scand Hous Plan Res. 1997;14(4):175–94.

[36]. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. Perceived stress scale. Meas Stress A Guid Heal Soc Sci. 1994;10(2):1–2.

[37]. Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM. The NR-6: A new brief measure of nature relatedness. Front Psychol. 2013;4:813.

[38]. R Core Team [Internet]. 2017. Available from: http://www.r-project.org/

[39]. Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker BM, Walker SC. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 2015;67(1).

[40]. Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Softw. 2017;82(13).

[41]. Hox JJCM, van de Schoot R, Matthijsse S. How few countries will do? Comparative survey analysis from a Bayesian perspective. In: Survey Research Methods. 2012. p. 87–93.

[42]. Lee S-Y, Song X-Y. Evaluation of the Bayesian and maximum likelihood approaches in analyzing structural equation models with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behav Res. 2004;39(4):653–86.

[43]. Button KS, Ioannidis JPA, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ESJ, et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013;14(5):365–76.

[44]. Lee MD, Wagenmakers E-J. Bayesian cognitive modeling: A practical course. Cambridge university press; 2014.

[45]. Harrell FE, Dupont C. Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous [Internet]. 2024. Available from: https://hbiostat.org/R/Hmisc/



21 Woodlands Close #02-10, Primz Bizhub,Postal 737854, Singapore

Email:editorial_office@as-pub.com