绿色形象的背叛?利用模块化绿色系统分析形象认知与绿地使用者行为之间的差距

IF 6 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Urban Forestry & Urban Greening Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128465
{"title":"绿色形象的背叛?利用模块化绿色系统分析形象认知与绿地使用者行为之间的差距","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>While user preferences for green space design have long remained a key subject of inquiry, most studies rely on evaluations of images due to the many challenges of creating actual green spaces for experimentation. However, researchers are increasingly aware of potential discrepancies between image perceptions and actual user behaviour, and many have thus called for more empirical analysis of how users actually interact with different green patterns to make knowledge of greenery design more valid. Although the difficulty of reconfiguring greenery in real open spaces has limited studies comparing image perceptions and actual visitors’ use, recent technological innovations in green infrastructure have made it possible to easily alter greenery layouts and compare the effectiveness of green space designs. Using both photo representations and a modular green system, we empirically tested and compared subject use and evaluations of three greenery patterns: no greenery (NO), open greenery (OP) and enveloping greenery (EN). Although the OP pattern was the most favourably evaluated on the basis of photos, our results indicate that the EN pattern has a significantly positive relationship with the number of visitors, compared with the OP and NO patterns. This finding suggests that subjective perceptions of photos or collages may not correspond to preferable greenery designs for users. Therefore, when developing new green spaces, the gap between images and actual use should be kept in mind and empirical design studies should be conducted <em>in situ</em> to make open spaces more attractive.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49394,"journal":{"name":"Urban Forestry & Urban Greening","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866724002632/pdfft?md5=f4e1e84f0934ac8011b89d73444ec3ef&pid=1-s2.0-S1618866724002632-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The treachery of green images? Using modular green system to analyse the gap between image perceptions and greenspace user behaviour\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ufug.2024.128465\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>While user preferences for green space design have long remained a key subject of inquiry, most studies rely on evaluations of images due to the many challenges of creating actual green spaces for experimentation. However, researchers are increasingly aware of potential discrepancies between image perceptions and actual user behaviour, and many have thus called for more empirical analysis of how users actually interact with different green patterns to make knowledge of greenery design more valid. Although the difficulty of reconfiguring greenery in real open spaces has limited studies comparing image perceptions and actual visitors’ use, recent technological innovations in green infrastructure have made it possible to easily alter greenery layouts and compare the effectiveness of green space designs. Using both photo representations and a modular green system, we empirically tested and compared subject use and evaluations of three greenery patterns: no greenery (NO), open greenery (OP) and enveloping greenery (EN). Although the OP pattern was the most favourably evaluated on the basis of photos, our results indicate that the EN pattern has a significantly positive relationship with the number of visitors, compared with the OP and NO patterns. This finding suggests that subjective perceptions of photos or collages may not correspond to preferable greenery designs for users. Therefore, when developing new green spaces, the gap between images and actual use should be kept in mind and empirical design studies should be conducted <em>in situ</em> to make open spaces more attractive.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49394,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urban Forestry & Urban Greening\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866724002632/pdfft?md5=f4e1e84f0934ac8011b89d73444ec3ef&pid=1-s2.0-S1618866724002632-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urban Forestry & Urban Greening\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866724002632\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Forestry & Urban Greening","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1618866724002632","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,用户对绿地设计的偏好一直是一个重要的研究课题,但由于创建实际绿地进行实验存在诸多挑战,大多数研究都依赖于对图像的评估。然而,研究人员越来越意识到图像感知与用户实际行为之间的潜在差异,因此许多人呼吁对用户如何与不同绿化模式实际互动进行更多实证分析,以使绿化设计知识更加有效。虽然在实际开放空间中重新配置绿化的困难限制了比较图像感知和游客实际使用情况的研究,但最近在绿色基础设施方面的技术创新使人们可以轻松改变绿化布局并比较绿地设计的有效性。我们利用照片和模块化绿化系统,对无绿化(NO)、开放式绿化(OP)和环绕式绿化(EN)三种绿化模式的使用和评价进行了实证测试和比较。虽然根据照片评价,开放式绿化模式最受欢迎,但我们的结果表明,与开放式绿化模式和无绿化模式相比,环绕式绿化模式与游客数量有显著的正相关关系。这一结果表明,对照片或拼贴画的主观感受可能与用户更喜欢的绿化设计并不相符。因此,在开发新的绿地时,应注意图片与实际使用之间的差距,并在现场进行实证设计研究,以提高开放空间的吸引力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The treachery of green images? Using modular green system to analyse the gap between image perceptions and greenspace user behaviour

While user preferences for green space design have long remained a key subject of inquiry, most studies rely on evaluations of images due to the many challenges of creating actual green spaces for experimentation. However, researchers are increasingly aware of potential discrepancies between image perceptions and actual user behaviour, and many have thus called for more empirical analysis of how users actually interact with different green patterns to make knowledge of greenery design more valid. Although the difficulty of reconfiguring greenery in real open spaces has limited studies comparing image perceptions and actual visitors’ use, recent technological innovations in green infrastructure have made it possible to easily alter greenery layouts and compare the effectiveness of green space designs. Using both photo representations and a modular green system, we empirically tested and compared subject use and evaluations of three greenery patterns: no greenery (NO), open greenery (OP) and enveloping greenery (EN). Although the OP pattern was the most favourably evaluated on the basis of photos, our results indicate that the EN pattern has a significantly positive relationship with the number of visitors, compared with the OP and NO patterns. This finding suggests that subjective perceptions of photos or collages may not correspond to preferable greenery designs for users. Therefore, when developing new green spaces, the gap between images and actual use should be kept in mind and empirical design studies should be conducted in situ to make open spaces more attractive.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
289
审稿时长
70 days
期刊介绍: Urban Forestry and Urban Greening is a refereed, international journal aimed at presenting high-quality research with urban and peri-urban woody and non-woody vegetation and its use, planning, design, establishment and management as its main topics. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening concentrates on all tree-dominated (as joint together in the urban forest) as well as other green resources in and around urban areas, such as woodlands, public and private urban parks and gardens, urban nature areas, street tree and square plantations, botanical gardens and cemeteries. The journal welcomes basic and applied research papers, as well as review papers and short communications. Contributions should focus on one or more of the following aspects: -Form and functions of urban forests and other vegetation, including aspects of urban ecology. -Policy-making, planning and design related to urban forests and other vegetation. -Selection and establishment of tree resources and other vegetation for urban environments. -Management of urban forests and other vegetation. Original contributions of a high academic standard are invited from a wide range of disciplines and fields, including forestry, biology, horticulture, arboriculture, landscape ecology, pathology, soil science, hydrology, landscape architecture, landscape planning, urban planning and design, economics, sociology, environmental psychology, public health, and education.
期刊最新文献
Design knowledge of urban agriculture providing ecosystem services. A systematic literature review Predicting the impact of integrated audio-visual environments on perceived restorative benefits across different park types: A field study based on seven parks in Hangzhou, China Larger shrubs can maintain high infiltration and evapotranspiration rates in experimental biofiltration systems impacted by high sediment loads Microhabitat coverage influences avian species composition more than habitat heterogeneity in Hong Kong urban parks The audio-visual incongruency asymmetry. Natural sounds in an urban visual setting are more relaxing than urban sounds in visual nature
×
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