Park lighting after dark – is it a route or a place? How people feel in park nightscapes (experiment)

IF 7.9 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ECOLOGY Landscape and Urban Planning Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105098
Aleksandra Lis , Magdalena Zienowicz , Zygmunt Kącki , Paweł Iwankowski , Dorota Kukowska , Vlada Shestak
{"title":"Park lighting after dark – is it a route or a place? How people feel in park nightscapes (experiment)","authors":"Aleksandra Lis ,&nbsp;Magdalena Zienowicz ,&nbsp;Zygmunt Kącki ,&nbsp;Paweł Iwankowski ,&nbsp;Dorota Kukowska ,&nbsp;Vlada Shestak","doi":"10.1016/j.landurbplan.2024.105098","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The objective of our study was to verify: (1) whether adding ambient lighting in addition to path lighting has a positive impact on preferences, sense of safety and related feelings experienced by park visitors after dusk (H1) and whether this impact is differentiated by the features of the space (H2); (2) what features of the park space may influence the feelings tested (RQ1).</p><p>For this purpose, we conducted an experiment in the Botanical Garden in Wrocław, where 114 study participants – randomly divided into two groups (experimental and control) – assessed nightscapes based on 13 variables (feelings). The experimental factor was the addition of ambient lighting (in addition to path lighting also present for the control group). The experiment was based on assessments made in three different places in the park – an open space, semi-open space and non-closed space. Thanks to this, we were able to check whether the features of the space differentiate the effects of the experimental factor and then consider their impact on people's feelings.</p><p>The research found that the impact of the experimental factor (ambient light) is not obvious – it was only apparent in some cases. This factor increased preference for corridor landscapes (semi-open and semi-closed space), but lowered preference in the open landscape. The experimental factor had the strongest effects in the semi-closed, least lit space, and enhanced preferences, surprise and fascination.</p><p>Moreover, comparison of the ratings of these three places showed that some spaces were rated as the safest while others were assessed as the most attractive. The safest turned out to be the semi-open space with typical park lighting, with the highest path illumination intensity, whereas the least safe was the semi-closed space with the least lighting. When it came to most of the other dimensions related to attractiveness and desire to stay in the area (mystery, contact with the surroundings, willingness to spend time there, surprise, fascination and contemplation), the place with an open view, visually attractive landscape and subtle linear point lighting was rated the highest. The remaining spaces were rated lower.</p><p>The findings of the experiment indicate that (1) adding light does not always increase preference for a particular space – sometimes it lowers it, thus indicating the benefits of darkness and natural night light in park landscapes; (2) there are differences between the features of safe nightscapes and attractive and leisurely landscapes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54744,"journal":{"name":"Landscape and Urban Planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Landscape and Urban Planning","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204624000975","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective of our study was to verify: (1) whether adding ambient lighting in addition to path lighting has a positive impact on preferences, sense of safety and related feelings experienced by park visitors after dusk (H1) and whether this impact is differentiated by the features of the space (H2); (2) what features of the park space may influence the feelings tested (RQ1).

For this purpose, we conducted an experiment in the Botanical Garden in Wrocław, where 114 study participants – randomly divided into two groups (experimental and control) – assessed nightscapes based on 13 variables (feelings). The experimental factor was the addition of ambient lighting (in addition to path lighting also present for the control group). The experiment was based on assessments made in three different places in the park – an open space, semi-open space and non-closed space. Thanks to this, we were able to check whether the features of the space differentiate the effects of the experimental factor and then consider their impact on people's feelings.

The research found that the impact of the experimental factor (ambient light) is not obvious – it was only apparent in some cases. This factor increased preference for corridor landscapes (semi-open and semi-closed space), but lowered preference in the open landscape. The experimental factor had the strongest effects in the semi-closed, least lit space, and enhanced preferences, surprise and fascination.

Moreover, comparison of the ratings of these three places showed that some spaces were rated as the safest while others were assessed as the most attractive. The safest turned out to be the semi-open space with typical park lighting, with the highest path illumination intensity, whereas the least safe was the semi-closed space with the least lighting. When it came to most of the other dimensions related to attractiveness and desire to stay in the area (mystery, contact with the surroundings, willingness to spend time there, surprise, fascination and contemplation), the place with an open view, visually attractive landscape and subtle linear point lighting was rated the highest. The remaining spaces were rated lower.

The findings of the experiment indicate that (1) adding light does not always increase preference for a particular space – sometimes it lowers it, thus indicating the benefits of darkness and natural night light in park landscapes; (2) there are differences between the features of safe nightscapes and attractive and leisurely landscapes.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
入夜后的公园照明--是路线还是地点?人们在公园夜景中的感受(实验)
我们的研究目的是验证:(1) 在道路照明之外增加环境照明是否会对黄昏后公园游客的喜好、安全感和相关感受产生积极影响(H1),以及这种影响是否会因空间特征而有所不同(H2);(2) 公园空间的哪些特征可能会影响所测试的感受(问题 1)。为此,我们在弗罗茨瓦夫植物园进行了一项实验,将 114 名研究参与者随机分为两组(实验组和对照组),根据 13 个变量(感受)对夜景进行评估。实验因素是增加环境照明(此外,对照组也有路径照明)。实验在公园的三个不同地点进行,分别是开放空间、半开放空间和非封闭空间。研究发现,实验因素(环境光)的影响并不明显,只是在某些情况下比较明显。该因素增加了人们对走廊景观(半开放和半封闭空间)的偏好,但降低了人们对开放景观的偏好。实验因素对半封闭、光线最暗的空间影响最大,增强了人们的偏好、惊喜和迷恋。此外,对这三个地方的评价进行比较后发现,一些空间被评为最安全,而另一些则被评为最具吸引力。最安全的是有典型公园照明的半开放空间,路径照明强度最高,而最不安全的是照明最少的半封闭空间。在与吸引力和在该地区逗留的愿望有关的其他大多数方面(神秘感、与周围环境的接触、愿意在那里逗留的意愿、惊喜、着迷和沉思),视野开阔、景观吸引人、线性点照明微妙的地方得分最高。实验结果表明:(1) 增加灯光并不总能提高人们对某一特定空间的偏好度,有时反而会降低偏好度,这说明黑暗和自然夜光对公园景观的益处;(2) 安全夜景的特征与有吸引力的休闲景观的特征之间存在差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Landscape and Urban Planning
Landscape and Urban Planning 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
6.60%
发文量
232
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Landscape and Urban Planning is an international journal that aims to enhance our understanding of landscapes and promote sustainable solutions for landscape change. The journal focuses on landscapes as complex social-ecological systems that encompass various spatial and temporal dimensions. These landscapes possess aesthetic, natural, and cultural qualities that are valued by individuals in different ways, leading to actions that alter the landscape. With increasing urbanization and the need for ecological and cultural sensitivity at various scales, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary to comprehend and align social and ecological values for landscape sustainability. The journal believes that combining landscape science with planning and design can yield positive outcomes for both people and nature.
期刊最新文献
A novel method of urban landscape perception based on biological vision process Neighborhood environmental conditions and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: A network analysis in Hong Kong adults Evaluating objective and perceived ecosystem service in urban context: An indirect method based on housing market ‘It’s not necessarily a social space’ − Institutions, power and nature’s wellbeing benefits in the context of diverse inner-city neighbourhoods Air regulation service is affected by green areas cover and fragmentation: An analysis using demand, supply and flow during COVID-19 quarantine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1