DESIGN OF UNIVERSITY CAMPUS RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica 2020, Vol. XXIX, N°2, 40-49

DOI: 10.24205/03276716.2020.205 40

D

ESIGN OF

U

NIVERSITY

C

AMPUS

R

ECREATION

O

PPORTUNITY

S

PECTRUM

B

ASED ON

E

NVIRONMENTAL

P

SYCHOLOGY

Liqiang Gao, Zhen Liu*, Ruijie Liu, Jun Wang

Abstract

Environmental psychology examines the best way for individuals to adapt to their surroundings. Taking Changsha, China as an example, this paper explores the design of recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) from the perspective of environmental psychology, and identifies the environmental variables that affect the recreation opportunities through questionnaire survey and factor analysis. On this basis, six environmental factors were selected to form an index system, and six types of recreational environments were identified. Then, a university campus recreation opportunity spectrum (UCROS) was set up based on the recreational activities and experience expected for each environment. The established UCROS provide an objective reference for campus planning, making the landscape and resources on campus more rational and explicit.

Key words: University Campus, Environmental Psychology, Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), Environment Variables, Factor Analysis.

Received: 21-01-19 | Accepted: 02-08-19

INTRODUCTION

Environmental psychology is a discipline that studies the interaction between individuals and their environment (Proshansky, 1990), it mainly has three aspects: (1) Basic psychological processes of users in the environment (such as perception of the environment, cognition of the space, experience of the environment and behavior, etc.); (2) Social factors of the environment and the influences (such as personal space, sense of territory, crowding, privacy issues, etc.); (3) The relationship

between the people and the natural

environment on a macro scale (such as the impact of human activities on the climate, etc.) (Martin, Cheung, Knowles et al., 2011). Psychologist Proshansky proposed that every environment has two different attributes at the same time, namely the physical environment and

School of architecture and art, Shijiazhuang Tiedao University, Shijiazhuang 050043, China.

E-Mail: [email protected]

the social environment. In the study of environmental psychology, we should take a

connected viewpoint to comprehensively

consider the mutual influence of social environment, natural environment, and the individuals. The United States proposed the theory of Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) between 1960s and 1970s, the basic intention is to encourage the recreationists to choose a preferred recreational activity in a preferred environment so as to obtain the satisfactory experience they need.

In ROS theory, the recreation environment includes not only the natural and social attributes, but also the managerial attribute. From the perspective of the influence on the psychological feelings of the recreationists, according to different ecological environmental protection requirements and service facilities, the venue is divided into several different areas and developed to vary degrees, creating

recreation opportunities with multiple

sequences (Butler & Waldbrook, 1991; Warzecha, Manning, Lime et al., 2001). This theory is an important embodiment of the

LIQIANG GAO,ZHEN LIU,RUIJIE LIU,JUN WANG

41

combination of environmental psychology and management studies.

In recent years, environmental psychology studies found that the recreational activities in

green open spaces can help make up for people’s

losses in health (for instance, natural environment can increase people's positive emotions (Hietanen & Korpela, 2004; Hietanen, Klemettilä, Kettunen et al., 2007) and release their anxiety and stress, etc. (Tyrväinen, Ojala, Korpela et al., 2014; Adevi & Mårtensson, 2013), sports such as walking, running and cycling can reduce the occurrence of physical illness (Thompson Coon, Boddy, Stein et al., 2011)), namely the theory of restorative environment. Restoration is a key mechanism connecting

experience and health, and it’s a result of the interaction between the individual and the environment. It is also the result of the combined effects of the physical characteristics of the environment, and the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral characteristics of the people (Scopelliti & Giuliani, 2004). The preference of environment is a kind of

evaluation, which means a user’s tendency to

choose a certain environment; A large number of studies have confirmed that the preference of environment is closely related to restorative evaluation, and an environment with higher preference has a higher restorative effect on people (White & Gatersleben, 2011). With the promotion of the "green campus" concept and

the continuous development of higher

education, university campuses have become another type of "green space" for the recreation of teachers and students, so how to give full play to its restorative function is quite important. From the perspective of the recreationists’

preference for the environmental variables and based on environmental psychology and statistical analysis, this study preliminarily constructs a UCROS suitable for the recreational spaces on university campus, in the hopes of providing a theoretical basis for the planning and management of recreational spaces in colleges and universities.

RESEARCH AREA AND METHODS

Research area and elements

The recreation environment is a complex that evolves from the coupling of three aspects: natural environment, social environment, and

managerial environment. The construction of ROS mainly depends on the combination of the condition of the three environmental sequences and their related indicators (Burnett & Conklin, 1979). This study takes 6 campuses of 3 universities (Hunan University, Hunan Normal University, and Central South University) near the famous scenic spot Yuelu Mountain of Changsha City, Hunan Province, China as the research area (see Figure 1), combining the environmental psychology (including visual experience, spatial experience, and activity experience) and the ROS theory, it proposes three recreational environment sequences

(natural, social and managerial), and

preliminarily establishes a recreational environment variable system (see Table 1). The selection of environment variables draws on the existing research results of environmental psychology, for example, in terms of the environmental behavior, color can affect the mood of the users (Stone, & English, 1998), small-scale space has a friendly feeling, and research in this aspect can help designers guide the recreational behavior of the users (Gibson, 2014); in terms of social factors: explore the influence of spatial scale of the environment and the number of users on the user's psychology, such as population density and the size of the campus. The system consists of 31 environment variables (each variable has a corresponding variable code), of which 10 are the natural-type (Natural, Code: N), 9 are the social-type (Social,

Code: S), and 12 are managerial-type

(Managerial, Code: M).

Figure 1

.

Research area and questionnaire

DESIGN OF UNIVERSITY CAMPUS RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY ₄₂

Sample survey and data collection

According to the actual situation of the campus and the selection range of the sample size in the survey (Du, 2010), it was determined that the number of distributed questionnaires was 260, in each school, the questionnaires were distributed according to the number of teachers and students on the campus (see Figure 1). The content of the questionnaire is divided into two parts: in the first part, the preference degrees of 30 environmental variables were graded by the recreationists, through the evaluation of the

preferences of recreationists on the

environment variables of the campus, the factors affecting the recreational experience of the campus could be determined; the second

part is the investigation of the recreationists’

recreational activities and experience in different types of environment. The design of the questionnaires adopted the 5-point Likert scale.

The random sampling method (Lu, Yin, & Kong, 2015) was adopted when distributing questionnaires to students and teachers in the investigated schools, the questionnaires were filled by the respondents themselves or filled by others instead (for tourists with less free time). The questionnaires were distributed on 6 weekend days in April and May. After screening, a total of 224 valid questionnaires were recovered, with an effective rate of 86%. SPSS23.0 was used to conduct statistical analysis on the data obtained through the questionnaire survey, and factor analysis was applied to determine the correlation between the variables and their weights, so as to ensure the spectrum is scientific and rational.

DATA ANALYSIS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF INDICATOR SYSTEM

Environment variable screening based on descriptive statistics

In the questionnaire survey, the respondents were asked to grade the 30 environment variables according to their own preferences with a score between 1 and 5; according to the score value, the degree of the influence of each environment variable on the recreational experience was evaluated. Then based on the size the average value, the preferences of the environment variables were sorted (see Table 1), and the variables were screened again from the perspective of the recreationists. It can be seen

from the table that the average scores of 10 environment variables such as architectures and featured landscapes, green ratio and plant richness, cultural heritage protection level, and convenience of payment methods all exceed "4" points, and the standard deviation is less than

"1", indicating that the creationists’ cognition of

the importance of campus natural environment and cultural heritage and other environment factors is highly consistent. For most variables, the average values are above "3", indicating that most environment variables are of certain

importance to recreationists’ recreational

experience, and it also reflects the rationality of the initially established environment variable system. The system can basically reflect the attributes of the campus environment, wherein

the means of the “restrictions of the venues” and the “population density” are both less than 3,

and the values of the standard deviation are relatively large, that is, they have little effect on

the recreational experience of most

recreationists and their cognition consistency is not high, so these two factors had been deleted, and the remaining 28 environment variables had been kept.

Factor analysis

Reliability test and validity test

First, SPSS 23.0 was used to test the reliability of the remaining 28 environment variables. The obtained Cronbach's Alpha value was 0.818>0.8, indicating high reliability, which has met the prerequisites of factor analysis. Further, the KMO test and Bartlett's test were adopted to test whether the environment variables are suitable for factor analysis. According to the standard given by Kaiser, a KMO value that is larger than 0.7 is suitable for factor analysis. The above data shows that the KMO value is 0.815

and the result of the Bartlett’s test is 0.000

<0.01. The data are significantly different, indicating that the validity of the scale is good and there is a correlation between the variables, which is suitable for factor analysis.

Preliminary determination of the number of factors

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used to extract the principal factors, and the principal components with eigenvalues greater than 1 were taken as the initial common factors to obtain important environment factors affecting

LIQIANG GAO,ZHEN LIU,RUIJIE LIU,JUN WANG

43

recreationists, and they were taken as the secondary indicators for classifying the types of

recreational environment of university

campuses. Based on the nature of the sociological survey, generally, the cumulative variance contribution rate of the retained common factors is not less than 60%. From the "initial eigenvalues" in the output results, it can be obtained (see Table 2) that, out of the 28 components, 6 have eigenvalues exceeding 1. According to the factor analysis results of the recreational environment variables, these 6 factors can explain 64.252% of the variance of all variables, indicating that these 6 factors can relatively comprehensively reflect the conditions of the environment on the campus, and they

satisfy the requirements.

Determine relevant environment variables based on selected factors

The varimax orthogonal rotation was adopted to highlight the representative variables of the main factors, so that the factors could correspond to the environment variables. The larger the value of the variable and the factor, the stronger the correlation between the two. At this time, the variable is classified into the corresponding factor. The variables were arranged according to the numerical value, so that the type of factor to which the variable belongs could be reflected intuitively. From the operation results we can see that, the factor

Table 1.

Ranks of deviation, standard deviation and mean of environment variables

The sorting

(code) environment variables

The average

The standard deviation

The sorting

(code) environment variables

The average

The standard deviation

1 N4 Architecture and

landscape sketches 4.487 0.849 16

M12 Campus night

lighting 3.906 0.977

2 N5 Greenness and

plant richness 4.482 0.849 17

N3 Area of

landscape resources 3.901 0.997

3

M10 Cultural heritage protection

level

4.342 0.989 18 M3 Guide sign 3.820 0.995

4 S1 Convenience of

payment method 4.333 0.996 19 M2 Rest facilities 3.779 0.994

5

M7 Environmental sanitation maintenance level

4.302 0.999 20 M4 Public toilet 3.716 0.991

6 M1 Recreation

facilities 4.275 0.952 21

S6 The realization of recreational

motivation

3.707 0.965

7 N1 Air quality 4.243 0.995 22

S3 Abundance of entertainment

venues

3.617 1.185

8 N2 Local

microclimate 4.032 0.999 23 N7 School campus 3.604 0.996

9 N8 Site spatial scale 4.009 0.946 24 M11 Infrastructure

maintains water平 3.545 0.910

10 N6 Visual aesthetic

degree 4.005 0.999 25

S7 Diversity of recreational

activities

3.478 1.160

11 M8 Campus security

management level 3.996 0.991 26

S8 School

consumption level 3.451 0.986

12 M6 Sports and

fitness facilities 3.987 0.949 27

S5 The timeliness of recreational

activities

3.392 1.139

13 S2 Canteens and

supermarkets 3.937 0.963 28 S2 canteen 3.212 1.163

14 N9 Road accessibility 3.928 0.972 29 M9 Site restrictions

and open conditions 2.824 1.262

15 S4 School popularity 3.910 0.893 30 S9 The population

density 2.815 1.254

Note: "5" represents "very preferred", "4" represents "preferred", "3" represents "general preference", "2" represents "less preferred", "1" represents "no preference at all". The letter label before the environment name is the variable code.

DESIGN OF UNIVERSITY CAMPUS RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY ₄₄

Table 2.

Total variance interpretation of factor extraction

composition

Initial eigenvalue Extract the sum of the squares of the loads

Sum of the squares of the rotating loads

aggregate Percentage variance

The cumulative

/ %

aggregate Percentage variance

The cumulative

/ %

aggregate Percentage variance

The cumulative

/ % 1 5.366 19.163 19.163 5.366 19.163 19.163 4.084 14.586 14.586 2 3.584 12.799 31.962 3.584 12.799 31.962 3.727 13.309 27.895 3 2.852 10.187 42.149 2.852 10.187 42.149 2.996 10.701 38.596 4 2.559 9.140 51.289 2.559 9.140 51.289 2.661 9.505 48.101 5 1.864 6.657 57.946 1.864 6.657 57.946 2.540 9.071 57.172 6 1.766 6.306 64.252 1.766 6.306 64.252 1.982 7.080 64.252 7 .835 2.982 67.234

Extraction method: Principal component analysis

loading coefficients are mainly distributed between 0.5 and 0.9, and only the environment variables with factor loading values greater than 0.5 had been retained to enter the final recreation opportunity environment variable set. From the 28 environment variables, 6 factors had been extracted, and the cumulative explained variation was about 64%, indicating that these 6 factors had contained most of the information of the original variables, so the cumulative contribution rate of the factors is reasonable. Then the common factors were named, and a recreation opportunity indicator system was built on this basis (Table 3). As can be seen from the table, the scale has good credibility, in the internal consistency test, the Cronbach α values of all factors are greater than 0.7, indicating that these factors have good validity (of which the α values of F1, F2, and F3 are all greater than 0.8, the credibility is very high). Each factor explains a core aspect of the recreational environment, of which the natural factors, the managerial factors, and the social factors accounts for two each.

CONSTRUCTION OF UNIVERSITY CAMPUS RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM (UCROS)

Types of university campus recreation environment

Unlike previous ROS studies, university campuses are mainly artificial environment and have complex functions. Therefore, the classification of recreation environments should reflect the characteristics of university campus. From the perspective of the influence of

resource management and environment

variables on the preference of recreationists, and based on existing indicators, the recreation

environment on university campus was divided into 6 types: entrance landscape; research, study and office area; living and consumption area; sports and fitness area, ecological and leisure area; historical and cultural area; with this as a standard, the campuses being surveyed had been divided as follows (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

.

Recreation areas of each campus

Preference of environment factors in recreation environment of different types By analyzing the degree of recreationists’

preference of the environment factors, we can obtain not only the composition characteristics

of the environment preferred by the

recreationists, but also the types of recreation activities they expect to participate in each type of environment and the recreation experience they obtained. From the results of the 5-point Likert scale, we can see the differences in the preference of each environment factor in different environment types (Table 4). Vertical comparison shows that, in terms of the entrance landscape, "campus management level", "natural environment elements", "popularity and campus consumption", and "psychological experience" are more important; in terms of the

LIQIANG GAO,ZHEN LIU,RUIJIE LIU,JUN WANG

45

Table 3.

Factor analysis results of the indicator system

Environmental factors (secondary indicators)

Environmental variables

(tertiary indicators)

The load of a variable on a factor

Factor internal reliability detection

Cumulative variance contribution

rate /%

Mean of factor preference

Factor attribute

Campus management

level (F1)

Convenience of

payment method 0.915

0.891 14.586 4.071 Management

factors Infrastructure

maintenance level 0.825

Cultural heritage

protection level 0.920

Campus security management

level

0.782

Campus night

lighting 0.726

Environmental sanitation maintenance level

0.587

Public service facilities (F2)

Recreation

facilities 0.767

0.863 27.895 3.919 Management

factors

Public toilet 0.821

Rest facilities 0.741

Sports and fitness

facilities 0.725

Guide sign 0.710

Canteens and

supermarkets 0.725

Natural environment elements (F3)

Greenness and

plant richness 0.712

0.808 38.596 4.229 Natural

factors Architecture and

landscape sketches

0.809

Area of landscape

resources 0.840

Local

microclimate 0.751

Air quality 0.621

Popularity and campus consumption (F4)

School

consumption level 0.793

0.794 48.101 3.548 Social factor

canteen 0.737

Abundance of entertainment

venues

0.757

School popularity 0.828

Psychological experience (F5)

Site spatial scale 0.746

0.785 57.172 3.887 Natural

factors Visual aesthetic

degree 0.733

Road accessibility 0.795

School campus 0.758

Recreational activity characteristics

(F6)

The realization of recreational

activities

0.822

0.713 64.252 3.526 Social factor

Diversity of recreational activities

0.708

The timeliness of recreational

activities

DESIGN OF UNIVERSITY CAMPUS RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY ₄₆

Table 4.

Preference of environment factors under different environment types

Environmental factors (secondary indicators)

Mean value of entrance landscape

area

The mean value of research and office

area

Mean of living and consumption

area

Average value of fitness

area

Mean value of ecological

leisure area

The average value of historical

and cultural

areas

Overall importance

Campus management

level

4.133 3.750 4.261 3.672 3.520 4.183 3.920

Public service

facilities 3.370 3.722 4.108 4.212 4.028 3.670 3.852

Natural environment

element

4.016 3.582 3.427 3.351 4.230 4.113 3.787

Popularity and campus consumption

4.081 3.370 3.996 3.317 3.755 3.877 3.733

Psychological

experience 4.003 3.661 3.325 3.607 4.103 3.720 3.737

Characteristics of recreational

activities

3.630 3.255 3.671 3.998 4.046 3.831 3.739

Note: "5" represents "very preferred", "4" represents "preferred", "3" represents "general preference", "2" represents "less preferred", "1" represents "no preference at all".

research, study and office area, the requirement for each environment factor is balanced,

relatively speaking, the preference of “campus management level” and“public service facilities”

is higher; in terms of living and consumption area, the preference is mainly reflected in two

aspects, “campus management level” and “public service facilities”; in terms of sports and

fitness area, the preference of "public service facilities" and "recreation activity characteristics" is higher; in terms of ecological and leisure area, there are more preferred environment factors, respectively are "public service facilities", "natural environment elements", "psychological experience" and "recreation activity characteristics"; in terms of historical and cultural area, the preference of "campus management level" and "natural environment elements" is higher. Horizontal comparison shows that, in environment of different types, the general preference of "campus management level", "public service facilities" and "natural environment factors" is higher, indicating that these three environment factors have a great impact on the campus, they are important factors affecting the recreation experience of the campus, and require more attention in the planning and construction of university campus.

Preference of activities in different

environment types and the recreation

experience

A total of 24 recreational activities were listed in the questionnaire. In term of each environment type, the respondents chose no more than 5 activities they preferred, and the Chi-square test was adopted to analyze the differences in the distribution of activities in different environment types. The value of significance is 0.000, which means the difference is extremely significant, indicating that the

recreationists’ preferences for activities are

significantly different in different types of environment (see Table 5 for the details of activity preferences). For environment of

different types, the respondents’ recreation

experience and their environment preference were subject to the Pearson correlation analysis, and the value of significance is 0.000, which means these two are extremely significantly correlated, indicating that the recreationists’

choice of recreation environment is greatly affected by the demand of recreational experience (for details of recreation experience demand see Table 5).

LIQIANG GAO,ZHEN LIU,RUIJIE LIU,JUN WANG

47

Table 5.

Description of UCROS

Environment type Entrance landscape area Research and office areas Living and consuming area Sports and fitness area Ecological leisure area Historical and cultural district Index attribute The preference evaluation of recreational people to campus environment index Campus management level

*** ** *** ** ** *** Management

Public service

facilities * ** *** *** *** ** Management

Natural environment

element

*** ** * * *** *** Natural

Popularity and campus consumption

*** * *** * ** *** Social

Psychological

experience *** ** * ** *** ** Natural

Characteristics of recreational

activities

** * * *** *** ** Social

Activities and experiences Activities with high recreational preference Taking photos, dating, sketching, visiting exhibitions and humanistic cognition Academic activities, morning reading, recruitment activities, campus cultural festival, visiting exhibition Square party, roller skating, hip-hop, volunteer activities, recruitment activities Square party, roller skating, hip-hop, ball sports, equipment sports Enjoy the scenery, take photos, landscape painting, date fellowship, nature cognition Take photos, humanistic cognition, enjoy the scenery, landscape painting Main recreational experience Feel the campus culture, exchange emotions, appreciate the campus scenery Gain knowledge, feel campus culture, improve comprehensive quality Relieve pressure, feel campus culture, communicate emotions Relieve stress, strengthen body, communicate emotion Relieve stress, get alone time, get close to nature Feel the campus culture, enjoy the campus scenery, harvest knowledge

Note: the importance level of each indicator is divided into three levels: low, medium and high, respectively expressed by "* , **, ***"

Construction of UCROS

University Campus Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (UCROS) mainly has four parts: the types of environment, indicators, activity preferences, and recreational experience. By comparing the differences in the preference of different environment indicators under different types of environment, the relatively important factors in each type of environment were obtained. Based on 6 environment indicators and 6 environment types (referred to as the "6-indicator & 6-type method"), the UCROS was constructed (see Table 5). By dividing the different types of recreation environment on campuses, we can further understand the needs and expectations of recreationists for the environment in terms of natural, social and managerial attributes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

The UCROS constructed based on

environmental psychology can provide objective basis for campus planning and design from the perspective of the selection preferences of teachers and students, and it can make the campus landscape and resource planning more scientific and explicit. At the same time, the indicator system constructed based on UCROS had been adjusted greatly in numbers and names, and its applicability is clearer. The analysis of the UCROS can help campus planners and administrators in macroscopic observation and microscopic-regulation of the region types. However, the UCROS system proposed in this paper is still under exploration, and more scientific indicator systems will be constructed in future research to further enhance the practical value of the ROS.

DESIGN OF UNIVERSITY CAMPUS RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY ₄₈

Recommendations for planning and design Based on the study of UCROS, we propose 6 suggestions for each area of the campus: (1) The entrance landscape area is a transition area between the internal and external spaces of the campus, we should pay attention to the scale control and daily management of this area. (2) The research, study and office area is a concentrated exhibition area of the university's spatial structure, and it is also an important place for the gathering of teachers and students;

usually, it’s close to the entrance, and we should

pay attention to the details of the environment and the design of the cultural spaces. (3) The living and consumption area is a gathering place for students' extracurricular life, we should design humanized spaces for the students. (4) The sports and fitness area is the main space for teachers and students to perform physical exercises and other activities, so we should plant trees in the surroundings to avoid interference and improve the configuration of facilities. (5) The ecological and leisure area is the natural area with the highest green ratio and oxygen concentration on the campus. The design of this area should make use of the terrain to create an ecological environment, and the service radius should be able to cover the entire campus. (6) Historical and cultural area is the space that reflects the historical and cultural background of the university, and this area is usually dominated by ancient buildings, historical sites, and old trees (on new campus, this area is dominated by the school history hall or the library). For well-preserved historic buildings, we should fully explore their values and promote the cultural construction of the campus.

Acknowledgements

This study is funded by the Cultural and Social Science Project of Ministry of Education: The Unity of Nature and Human: Interactive Design of the Spatial Environment of the Fish Ponds in Hui-Style Residence; Project No. 17YJA760015.

REFERENCES

Adevi, A. A., & Mårtensson, F. (2013). Stress rehabilitation through garden therapy: The garden as a place in the recovery from stress.

Urban forestry & urban greening, 12(2), 230-237.

Burnett, G. W., & Conklin, D. G. (1979). Inventorying recreation potentials on dispersed tracts. Journal of Forestry, 77(12), 765-768.

Butler, R. W., & Waldbrook, L. A. (1991). A new planning tool: the tourism opportunity spectrum. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2(1), 2-14.

Du, Z. (2010). Sampling survey and SPSS application.

Gibson, J. J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception: classic edition. Psychology Press.

Hietanen, J. K., & Korpela, K. M. (2004). Do both negative and positive environmental scenes elicit rapid affective processing. Environment and behavior, 36(4), 558-577.

Hietanen, J. K., Klemettilä, T., Kettunen, J. E., & Korpela, K. M. (2007). What is a nice smile like that doing in a place like this? Automatic affective responses to environments influence the recognition of facial expressions. Psychological Research, 71(5), 539-552.

Lu, F. H., Yin, H. W., & Kong, F. H. (2015). The Using Characteristics and Satisfaction of Urban Greenway—A Case Study of the Purple Mountain Greenway in Nanjing. Chinese Landscape Architecture, 9, 12.

Martin, P. R., Cheung, F. M., Knowles, M. C., Kyrios, M., Littlefield, L., Overmier, J. B., & Prieto, J. M. (Eds.). (2011). IAAP handbook of applied psychology. John Wiley & Sons. Proshansky, H. (1990). The Pursuit of

Understanding: An Intellectual History. Irwin Altman and Kathleen Christensen, eds.

Environment and Behaviour Studies.

Scopelliti, M., & Giuliani, M. V. (2004). Choosing restorative environments across the lifespan: A matter of place experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 423-437. Stone, N. J., & English, A. J. (1998). Task type,

posters, and workspace color on mood, satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18(2), 175-185. Thompson Coon, J., Boddy, K., Stein, K., Whear,

R., Barton, J., & Depledge, M. H. (2011). Does participating in physical activity in outdoor natural environments have a greater effect on physical and mental wellbeing than physical activity indoors? A systematic review. Environmental science & technology,

45(5), 1761-1772.

LIQIANG GAO,ZHEN LIU,RUIJIE LIU,JUN WANG

49

Tsunetsugu, Y., & Kagawa, T. (2014). The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment.

Journal of environmental psychology, 38, 1-9. Warzecha, C., Manning, R., Lime, D., & Freimund, W. (2001). Diversity in outdoor recreation: planning and managing a spectrum of visitor

opportunities in and among parks. The George Wright Forum,18(3), 99-111. White, E. V., & Gatersleben, B. (2011). Greenery

on residential buildings: Does it affect preferences and perceptions of beauty.

Journal of environmental psychology, 31(1), 89-98.