Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Physiological and psychological effects of visits to different linear Spatial landscape on the students: a field experiment in the campus environment

Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition volume 44, Article number: 145 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

There is now a substantial body of evidence supporting the positive impact of urban green spaces on human health and well-being. Most studies in this field have primarily focused on various types of green landscapes. However, there remains a notable gap in research regarding specific green spaces, particularly those associated with linear spatial landscapes, such as pathway spaces. The purpose of this study is to explore the restorative effects of the different types of linear spaces within the campus environments on the students’ physical and mental health.

Methods

We investigated psycho-physiological responses of the participants in each group (N = 40, 20 ± 2.4 years old) to the environments of pre- and post-visiting the different pathway spaces, including avenue passage space (APS), gallery frame passage space (GPS), waterfront road passage space (WPS), driveway passage space (DPS), and indoor corridor passage space (IPS) (Control group). Physiological factors were examined using heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and psychological evaluation was carried out using the Profile of Mood States (POMS), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and the Perceived Restorative Scale (PRS).

Results

The results indicated that SBP, DBP, and HR levels of participants were significantly reduced after visiting APS, FPS, and WPS, whereas remarkable increases in HR were observed in the DPS. The POMS scores for anger-hostility (A-H), fatigue-inertia (F-I), tension-anxiety (T-A), confusion-bewilderment (C-B), and depression-dejection (D-D) were significantly lower, but vigor-activity (V-A) was higher post-visiting than pre-visiting. Furthermore, the participants exhibited significantly reduced anxiety levels and high psychological restoration levels, as indicated by the STAI and PRS. Importantly, the most pronounced changes in measurement indices were observed in the GPS.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrates that exposure to linear spatial landscapes, particularly those featuring abundant landscape elements, safety features, and shelter, such as GPS, holds potential as a therapeutic method for improving physiological functions and as an effective psychological relaxation strategy for students in campus environments.

Introduction

In the ever-evolving modern society and amidst escalating social competition, college students face a range of pressures encompassing both daily life and employment challenges [1]. When confronted with difficulties or setbacks, they frequently experience negative emotions including depression, anger, tension, and fatigue. The World Health Organization (WHO) reports an increasing prevalence of depression among young people. Statistical data indicates that approximately one-quarter of Chinese college students report experiencing depressive symptoms [2]. According to the 2022 China National Mental Health Report, 21.48% of college students were screened as at risk for depression, while 45.28% showed potential anxiety risks. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Chinese college students were required to remain in dormitories for self-quarantine, resulting in restricted recreational and social activities that significantly impacted their emotional well-being [3]. Promoting the physical and mental health of college students remains critically important. With advancements in interdisciplinary approache, alongside established methods such as psychological counseling [4–5], emotional courses [6], sports interventions [7–8], and humanistic care [9], landscape healing has been widely adopted as an effective method for restoring both the physical and mental health of college students [10,11,12,13,14,15].

In recent years, research exploring the connection between landscape environments and the physical and mental well-being of university students has predominantly focused on three key aspects: green spatial configurations, botanical elements (such as color and fragrance), and diverse garden landscape typologies. A substantial body of scientific evidence has consistently demonstrated the beneficial impacts of green landscapes on human physical and mental health [16,17,18,19,20], with particular attention being directed toward spatial refinement studies that examine subtle variations among landscape types and their associated factors. Regarding botanical landscapes, multiple studies have established that their restorative effects depend on various phytomorphological variables. These included phenological phase variations [21], stratified vegetation structures comprising tree-shrub-herb layers [22–23], and canopy density parameters such as sky visibility indices and woody element distribution patterns [24]. When considering different landscape spatial typologies, researchers have undertaken comparisons and analyses of how open space, semi-open space, semi-enclosed space, and enclosed space impact the mental health and personal emotional preferences of college students [25]. Further investigations have examined correlations between collegiate psychological restoration and preferences for different environmental spaces, specifically analyzing blue spaces (water features), green spaces (vegetated areas), and gray spaces (built environments) [26]. Additional research has quantified the stress-reduction and mental fatigue recovery benefits associated with specific campus landscape features, including lawns, woodlands, aquatic elements, floral displays, plazas, and tree-lined avenues [27].

Existing comparative studies have primarily examined the restorative effects of green landscape typologies on collegiate physical and mental health through diverse variable factors. However, a critical distinction must be made that each green landscape space constitutes a unique combination of constituent elements and spatial configurations. Linear spaces, as a broader category of spatial elements, hold significant importance within campus green landscapes and are closely linked to people’s movement patterns. This connection necessitates rigorous investigation into how varied linear spatial designs influence psycho-physiological responses. Current research on linear spaces has predominantly addressed three domains: urban planning and design principles [28], visual quality assessments and perceptual studies [29,30,31,32], and evaluations of aesthetic value coupled with user satisfaction in public linear landscapes such as riverways, greenways, and waterfront developments [33–34]. Parallel investigations have explored health correlations in urban greenways [35–36] and streetscapes [37,38,39,40]. Nevertheless, empirical evidence reveals a notable research gap regarding the psycho-physiological impacts of campus-specific linear landscapes on students. While prior work has investigated autumn-season stress recovery effects mediated by campus street tree configurations [41], such studies typically focus on singular linear space elements like tree species or chromatic variations. Distinct landscape elements constitute diverse configurations of linear campus landscapes. Varied spatial integrations of vegetation, hydrologic features, hardscape components, and paving materials demonstrate measurable impacts on psycho-physiological responses, which seems to be an underexplored domain in existing scholarship.

This investigation sought to examine physiological and psychological responses among university students exposed to distinct campus linear spatial typologies through structured landscape visitation protocols. The experimental design incorporated four intervention groups: avenue passage space (APS), gallery frame passage space (GPS), waterfront road passage space (WPS), and driveway passage space (DPS), with an indoor corridor passage space (IPS) serving as the control condition. Metric assessments of physiological parameters and mood states were conducted pre- and post-visiting during brief visitation sessions within linear landscape configurations at Xi’an Polytechnic University, China. Methodologically, the research centered on a distinct category of linear landscape space, which is characterized by its semi-managed or fully managed green features rather than being of a primitive or wild nature, commonly found within the campus environment. The dual objectives of this inquiry were to quantify the effects of linear spatial landscape exposure on collegiate populations, and provide an empirical framework for optimizing health-oriented linear spatial designs in analogous educational environments.

Materials and methods

Experimental setting

The study was conducted at Xi’an Polytechnic University’s Lintong Campus (34.368°N, 109.214°E) (Fig. 1A), a 60-hectare site with 66.5% vegetated surface coverage. Employing axial spatial analysis combined with time-location sampling techniques, we systematically mapped human-environment interactions across distinct phytogeomorphic units: turfgrass matrices, arboreal zones, hardscape plazas, built environments, and circulation corridors. Firstly, geospatial tessellation of campus green infrastructure using a 100 m×100 m grid system enabled systematic observation of pedestrian movement parameters through georeferenced behavioral mapping (Fig. 1B). Secondly, activity signature analysis framework (ArcGIS 10.4) was implemented for spatiotemporal behavioral signatures extraction, generating multi-layered heatmaps of student-environment interactions across landscape typologies (Fig. 1B) [42]. Notably, compared to other activities, the passing behavior predominated in the campus green landscape space. This observation underscored the close connection between the everyday activities of college students and the linear spatial elements within the campus (Fig. 1C).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Location analysis of experimental setting and characteristic of the students’ behaviour patterns. (A) Test site location, (B) Distributions of behavior patterns, (C) The main linear spatial distribution of the campus

Full size image

The preceding investigation reveals significantly heightened activity frequency in campus linear spaces among university students. Based on this finding, we strategically selected four typologically distinct linear landscape configurations for comparative analysis: Avenue passage space (APS), Gallery frame passage space (GPS), Waterfront road passage space (WPS), and Driveway passage space (DPS). An Indoor corridor passage space (IPS) was incorporated as a controlled reference group. Table 1 details the morphological characteristics and operational parameters of these experimental settings.

Table 1 Basic information about the experimental setting
Full size table

Participants

This study was conducted with 200 participants (age range: 18–22 years; mean ± SD: 20 ± 2.4) primarily comprising university students with corrected-to-normal visual acuity and no diagnosed neurological disorders. The sampling protocol involved three phases: Firstly, Initial recruitment of 256 candidates campus-wide through poster advertisements and social media platforms (e.g., WeChat, QQ). Secondly, Administration of demographic questionnaires capturing age, gender, socioeconomic status, and medical history. Final selection of 200 subjects through stratified sampling ensuring minimal variation in baseline demographic parameters. The cohort exhibited balanced gender distribution (female: n = 100, 50%; male: n = 100, 50%). The participants were randomly allocated using computer-generated randomization to five experimental groups (n = 40 per group). Although strict 1:1 gender ratio was maintained at the cohort level, subgroup allocations showed natural variation (38–42 participants per gender category) due to longitudinal study design constraints. Individuals with a history of heart disease, emotional disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, or color blindness were excluded from the study [41]. Furthermore, female subjects who were menstruating on the day of testing were also excluded, in line with prior research [43]. All participants were encouraged to ensure a good night’s sleep before the day of the experiment to prevent feelings of fatigue or drowsiness. Detailed explanations of the research objectives were provided to the participants, along with written informed consent for all aspects of the study. Participants were assured of their right to withdraw from the study at any point.

Measurements

Physiological indicators

A biofeedback measurement method was used as previously described [44], based on a variety of advanced electronic instruments to display the body’s internal physiological activities stimulated by the visual or auditory signals. This method has been widely used in the field of people–plant relationships to examine the changes of physiological conditions of subjects. In our study, participants’ systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were measured by sphygmomanometer (Omron, HEM-7136, Kyoto, Japan) [21].

Heart rate variability (HRV) and heart rates (HR), which were used to quantify autonomic nervous system responses, were measured using a wearable electrocardiogram sensing system (Polar V 800; Polar Electro. Oy, Finland) [27, 41]. The power levels of the low frequency and high frequency components of HRV were calculated using the maximum entropy method, and heartbeat (R-R) intervals were obtained continuously. The R-R interval (the peak-to-peak interval of heartbeats) carries significant information about the control of heart rate through the autonomic nervous system, which is related to the concentration and tension [45]. The R-R interval is shorter when the heart rate is faster, indicating increased stress responses. The R-R interval is larger when the heart rate is slower, reflecting relaxed and calm.

Psychological indicators

A psychological test method [46] was employed to observe the psychological and social phenomena of groups or individuals using a specific psychological rating scale and to quantitatively evaluate and explain the results. In this experiment, two psychological scales, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the Profile of Mood States (POMS) [21], were used to test subjects’ psychological conditions. The STAI questionnaire was composed of 20 questions, each with a score of 1–4 points. Participants’ state-anxiety scores were determined by summing up their ratings of the 20 questions (e.g., I feel comfortable; I feel confused; I am satisfied). Higher scores indicated higher anxiety levels. The POMS questionnaire consisted of 35 questions and was divided into 6 dimensions: anger-hostility (A-H), depression-dejection (D-D), tension-anxiety (T-A), confusion-bewilderment (C-B), vigor-activity (V-A), and fatigue-inertia (F-I). A higher score for each dimension indicated a higher degree of the specified emotion.

The Perceived Restorative Scale (PRS) [27, 47] was used to evaluate the subjective recovery of the subjects. The scale includes 4 characteristic indicators of Being Away (six items), Fascination (seven items), Extent (four items) and Compatibility (six items), with a total of 23 items [48]. These items such as “This place is a refuge from unwanted distractions (Being Away)”, “This place is fascinating (Fascination)”, “Here is a clear order in the physical arrangement of the place (Extent)”, and “This place does not place demands on me to act in a way I would not choose (Compatibility)” were used to test degree of attention restorativeness after visiting each linear landscape space. The 23 items were rated on a 5-point scale of agreement ranging from − 2 to 2. The higher the score, the greater the proportion of a certain index in landscape restoration.

Experimental design

We employed a one-group pretest-posttest field experimental design to assess the impact of visiting campus linear landscape spaces on participants’ physiological responses and mood states. Specifically, we recorded the physiological and psychological responses of all participants before their exposure to the campus linear landscape space (baseline), with subsequent measurements taken upon their return. By comparing baseline and posttest measurements, we determined the effects of visiting campus linear landscape spaces on participants’ physiological and psychological states.

The experiments were conducted from 15:00 to 18:00 between April and June 2023. The procedure was divided into three stages. The first stage, lasting ten minutes, served as a preparatory phase during which subjects were oriented to the test content and procedures. Participants were fitted with heart rate sensors and allowed a relaxation period to establish baseline measurements. Their psycho-physiological parameters were then recorded, serving as pre-test values. Subsequently, guided by the experimenter, subjects engaged with the experimental setting for 15 min [49]. Following this intervention, the participants’ physiological and psychological parameters were re-measured and documented as post-test values. The trial concluded with standardized instructions for orderly departure (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Procedure and contents of the experiments. APS: Avenue passage space, GPS: Gallery frame passage space, WPS: Waterfront road passage space, DPS: Driveway passage space, IPS: indoor corridor passage space, SBP: Systolic blood pressure, SDP: Diastolic blood pressure, HR: Heart rate, POMS: Profile of Mood States, STAI: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, PRS: Perceived Restorative Scale

Full size image

The five scenarios examined in this study adhered to the established test protocol described earlier. To minimize potential confounding effects from personal behaviors, participants were instructed to walk within the test area at a controlled pace of 50 steps per minute throughout the experimental sessions. They were directed to immerse themselves in the landscape environment through multisensory engagement (sight, smell, and touch) while avoiding non-experimental activities such as mobile phone use, recreational interactions, or early departure. Continuous monitoring of participants’ heart rate and R-R intervals was implemented throughout the experiment using wireless sensors. Blood pressure measurements were obtained pre- and post-intervention, with values calculated as the mean of three consecutive readings to reduce instrumental variability. Environmental controls included real-time meteorological monitoring of campus linear spaces via weather forecasting platforms and portable detectors, ensuring stable experimental conditions: precipitation-free days, ambient temperature averaging 21.8 ± 6.1 °C, relative humidity 54.0 ± 2.1%, and wind speed 1.9 ± 0.5 m/s. Campus authorities temporarily restricted pedestrian traffic in the experimental zones to maintain environmental consistency during data collection.

Data and statistical analysis

Data were analyzed by SPSS19.0 (IBM® SPSS® Statistics, Armonk, NY, USA). A paired sample t-test was used to compare the means for psycho-physiological data in all experimental pre- and post- measurements. The psycho-physiological changes among the different campus linear spaces were determined by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Partial eta squared(ηp2), indicating that the independent variables can explain the size of the overall variance of the dependent variables, was used to report the estimate of effect sized for the ANOVA. In the ANOVA analyses, LSD, S-N-S, and Bonferroni corrections were applied for multiple comparisons. The data were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (mean ± SD). In all comparisons, a p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Effect size was reported using Cohen’s d, representing the standardized difference between the two sets of means for A paired sample t-test.

Results

Tests for physiological effects of different scenes

Prior to comparative analysis of data from experimental groups, baseline values (pre-test measurements) were analyzed. A one-way ANOVA revealed no significant differences in baseline values between groups for systolic blood pressure (SBP) (p = 0.493, ηp2 = 0.035), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (p = 0.995, ηp2 = 0.002), and heart rate (HR) (p = 0.905, ηp2 = 0.011). This demonstrated homogeneity of physiological baseline measurements across experimental groups, confirming that observed changes in physiological indicators during the intervention phase were unaffected by baseline variability. Measurement reliability was thereby established.

Paired samples t-tests revealed significant differences in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (p < 0.01 for all scenes, with Cohen’s d varying from 0.29 to 0.70) among college students in the test groups when compared to the control group. Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) exhibited notable differences in avenue passage space (APS) (p = 0.005, d = 0.37), gallery frame passage space (GPS) (p = 0.001, d = 0.42), and waterfront road passage space (WPS) (p = 0.000, d = 0.76) (Fig. 3). Over the 15-minute landscape visiting activity, heart rate (HR) displayed a decrease in avenue passage space (APS), gallery frame passage space (GPS), and waterfront road passage space (WPS), while an increase was observed in driveway passage space (DPS) and indoor corridor passage space (IPS). Conversely, R-R intervals exhibited an opposing trend (Fig. 4). Overall, HR significantly decreased in APS (p = 0.010, d = 0.92), GPS (p = 0.000, d = 1.02), and WPS (p = 0.000, d = 0.84), while it increased significantly in DPS (p = 0.040, d = 0.33) and IPS (p = 0.010, d = 0.97). R-R intervals changed significantly in APS (p = 0.042, d = 0.55), GPS (p = 0.002, d = 0.70), WPS (p = 0.000, d = 0.98), and IPS (p = 0.006, d = 0.77). (Fig. 3). One-way analysis of variance indicated that the short-term visiting program led to alterations in SBP (p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.273), DBP (p = 0.002, ηp2 = 0.160), HR (p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.435), and R-R (p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.165) in the different linear spatial landscape. Furthermore, no significant changes were observed in SBP and DBP between APS, GPS, and DPS. The variations in HR between GPS, WPS, and DPS were not statistically significant, and the alterations in R-R intervals caused by APS, GPS, and WPS were also not significant (Fig. 5).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Comparison of college students’ physiological indicators (± SD) between pre- and post-visiting different types of linear spatial landscapes. SBP: Systolic blood pressure, DBP: Diastolic blood pressure, HR: Heart rate, R-R: r-r intervals. APS: Avenue passage space, GPS: Gallery frame passage space, WPS: Waterfront pathway space, DPS: Driveway passage space, and IPS: Indoor corridor passage space. N = 40, mean ± SD, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, paired-sample t-test

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Tendency chart of time-course variation in the Heart rate and R-R intervals during different types of linear spatial landscapes. APS: Avenue passage space, GPS: Gallery frame passage space, WPS: Waterfront road passage space, DPS: Driveway passage space, and IPS: Indoor corridor passage space. N = 40

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Comparison of physiological index changing values (the post-measured value subtracts the pre-measured value) among the different types of linear spatial landscapes. SBP: Systolic blood pressure, DBP: Diastolic blood pressure, HR: heart rate, R-R: r-r intervals. APS: Avenue passage space, GPS: Gallery frame passage space, WPS: Waterfront road passage space, DPS: Driveway passage space, and IPS: Indoor corridor passage space. N = 40. mean ± SD. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, one-way ANOVA

Full size image

Tests for psychological effects of different scenes

In addition to the control group (IPS), paired t-tests revealed significant reductions in five of the negative subscales of the Profile of Mood States (POMS), including A-H (APS: p = 0.009, d = 0.76; GPS: p = 0.003, d = 0.97; WPS: p = 0.005, d = 1.21; DPS: p = 0.016, d = 0.97; IPS: p = 0.001, d = 0.91), F-I (APS: p = 0.000, d = 1.03; GPS: p = 0.001, d = 1.01; WPS: p = 0.003, d = 1.28; DPS: p = 0.004, d = 1.17; IPS: p = 0.004, d = 0.74), D-D (APS: p = 0.002, d = 0.90; GPS: p = 0.005, d = 0.88; WPS: p = 0.030, d = 0.94; DPS: p = 0.025, d = 0.82; IPS: p = 0.011, d = 0.56), C-B (APS: p = 0.006, d = 0.76; GPS: p = 0.027, d = 0.80; WPS: p = 0.002, d = 1.32; DPS: p = 0.013, d = 1.03; IPS: p = 0.028, d = 0.57), and T-A (APS: p = 0.005, d = 0.93; WPS: p = 0.006, d = 1.18; DPS: p = 0.014, d = 0.96), substantially decreased from the pretest to posttest. Conversely, the positive mood state (V-A) significantly increased (APS: p = 0.000, d = 1.38; GPS: p = 0.050 d = 0.60; WPS: p = 0.001, d = 1.21; DPS: p = 0.028 d = 0.77), and the state anxiety subscale of the STAI measurement exhibited improvement in the GPS (p = 0.001, d = 1.06) (Figs. 6 and 7A). However, four of the negative subscales of the POMS, A-H (p = 0.001, d = 0.91), T-A (p = 0.003, d = 0.66), F-I (p = 0.004, d = 0.74), D-D (p = 0.011, d = 0.56), and anxiety of STAI scores (p = 0.005, d = 0.85) increased substantially, and score of V-A (p = 0.001, d = 0.91) decreased significantly from the pretest to posttest in the IPS (Figs. 6 and 7A).

One-way analysis of variance revealed that the observation of different linear spatial landscapes led to changes in anxiety (p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.249), T-A (p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.238), A-H (p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.233), F-I (p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.273), D-D (p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.177), and C-B (p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.172), and it beneficially affected V-A (p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.168). Furthermore, there were no significant variations in the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) anxiety scores between APS, WPS, and DPS. The changes in anger-hostility (A-H), fatigue-inertia (F-I), depression-dejection (D-D), and confusion-bewilderment (C-B) in the Profile of Mood States (POMS) scores following the observation of different linear spatial landscapes were not statistically significant. The alterations in tension-anxiety (T-A) caused by APS, WPS, and DPS, as well as vigor-activity (V-A) generated by GPS, WPS, and DPS, were also not statistically significant (Figs. 7B and 8).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Comparison of college students’ POMS scores between pre- and post-visiting different types of linear spatial landscapes. T-A: Tension-anxiety, A-H: Anger-hostility, F-I: Fatigue-inertia, C-B: Confusion-bewilderment, D-D: Depression-dejection, and V-A: Vigor-activity; APS: Avenue passage space, GPS: Gallery frame passage space, WPS: Waterfront road passage space, DPS: Driveway passage space, and IPS: Indoor corridor passage space. N = 40, mean ± SD, *p < 0.05,**p < 0.01, paired-sample t-test

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

STAI-S scores during the different types of linear spatial landscapes. (A) Comparison of college students’ STAI-S scores between pre- and post-visiting different types of linear spatial landscapes. N = 40, mean ± SD, **p < 0.01, paired-sample t-test. (B) Comparison of changing values of STAI-S scores among the different linear spatial landscapes. N = 40, mean ± SD, **p < 0.01, one-way ANOVA. APS: Avenue passage space, GPS: Gallery frame passage space, WPS: Waterfront road passage space, DPS: Driveway passage space, and IPS: Indoor corridor passage space

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Comparison of changing values (the post-measured value subtracts the pre-measured value) of POMS scores among the different types of linear spatial landscapes. T-A: Tension-anxiety, A-H: Anger-hostility, F-I: Fatigue-inertia, C-B: Confusion-bewilderment, D-D: Depression-dejection, and V-A: Vigor-activity; APS: Avenue passage space, GPS: Gallery frame passage space, WPS: Waterfront road passage space, DPS: Driveway passage space, and IPS: Indoor corridor passage space. N = 40, mean ± SD, *p < 0.05,**p < 0.01, one-way ANOVA

Full size image

The results of one-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in the overall scores (p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.217) on the Perceived Restorative Scale (PRS) across different linear spatial landscapes, with higher scores observed in APS and GPS. As depicted in Fig. 9, exploratory analysis results indicate that all four characteristics in the PRS yielded positive scores. Substantial variations were noted in participants’ feelings of ‘being away,’ ‘extent,’ and ‘fascination’ within different linear spatial scenes. Scores for these three characteristics were higher in APS and GPS, while being lower in DPS and WPS. Conversely, the participants’ perception of compatibility with different linear spatial landscapes displayed a higher level of consistency, with scores not reaching the upper limit.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Comparison of the PRS scores among the different types of linear spatial landscapes. Being Away: This place is a refuge from unwanted distractions, Fascination: This place is fascinating, Extent: Here is a clear order in the physical arrangement of the place, and Compatibility: This place does not place demands on me to act in a way I would not choose. APS: Avenue passage space, GPS: Gallery frame passage space, WPS: Waterfront road passage space, DPS: Driveway passage space, and IPS: Indoor corridor passage space. N = 40, mean ± SD, exploratory analysis

Full size image

Discussion

This study investigated the physiological and psychological responses of university students to linear spatial landscapes. Comparative analysis of pre- and post-intervention measurements revealed significant changes in physiological parameters (SBP, DBP, HR, and R-R) and psychological indices (Profile of Mood States (POMS) subscales: A-H, D-D, T-A, C-B, F-I, V-A; and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) scores). These findings align with prior research demonstrating that exposure to linear spatial landscapes promotes relaxation and stress reduction [16, 19, 21,22,23,24,25, 27, 41]. Distinct from earlier studies [16, 19, 41], our analysis of campus linear landscapes identified differential restorative effects: Avenue passage space (APS), Gallery frame passage Space (GPS), and Waterfront road passage space (WPS) exhibited superior restorative outcomes. Conversely, Indoor corridor passage space (IPS) showed elevated physiological indices (SBP, DBP, HR) and negative mood states (A-H, D-D, T-A, C-B, and F-I), alongside reduced positive emotions (V-A) and R-R intervals. This contrast supports the hypothesis that nature-integrated components (e.g., vegetation, water features) enhance stress recovery compared to hardscape-dominated environments [27, 50]. As the control group featuring exclusively artificial elements, IPS results further suggested that campus green space traversal positively influences psycho-physiological recovery relative to indoor settings.

This study highlights the varying physiological and psychological restoration effects of different linear spatial landscapes on college students within a campus environment. Notably, the Gallery frame passage space (GPS) exhibited the most pronounced restoration effect, followed by the Waterfront road passage space (WPS) and Avenue passage space (APS), while the Driveway passage space (DPS) appeared to have the least impact. This gradation correlates with landscape complexity and spatial configuration. GPS achieved optimal restoration through dense vegetation creating sheltered, secure microenvironments [51], while WPS combined aquatic and botanical elements to deliver expansive visual stimuli-aligning with established benefits of “blue spaces” [52]. APS provided semi-private arboreal arrangements, whereas DPS’s monotonous hardscape elicited negative responses. These observations underscored the importance of integrating diverse natural elements, refuge opportunities, and open sightlines in restorative linear spatial design [53]. Notably, APS and GPS scored highest in Perceived restorativeness scale (PRS) dimensions of ‘being away’ (environmental contrast with daily routines) and ‘fascination’ (intrinsic aesthetic engagement) [54, 55], indicating that semi-enclosed linear landscapes with high sensory appeal optimally attract student populations.

It is noteworthy that our research, in contrast to previous studies, was conducted in various linear spatial landscapes. The present study yields two principal methodological advancements. First, experimental site selection was optimized through systematic analysis of college students’ green space visitation patterns, contrasting with the subjective site determination methods employed in earlier work [27, 41, 50]. Second, distinct psycho-physiological response patterns emerged across Gallery frame passage space (GPS), Waterfront passage space (WPS), and Avenue passage space (APS). These observations substantiated that linear landscapes integrating ecological richness (abundant elements, complex community structures), safety provisions, and sheltered environments enhance perceived restorative quality through intensified ‘being away’ and ‘fascination’ dimensions. Such findings can significantly contribute to Attention Restoration Theory by demonstrating the superior efficacy of natural-element-enriched linear landscapes in eliciting restorative effects. Our results provided empirical validation of the psycho-physiological benefits associated with exposure to diversified linear spatial configurations for university populations. Future investigations will quantify health impacts of specific landscape parameters, including plant structural typologies [22] and spatial element composition ratios [24]. While conducted with a restricted sample size in a campus environment, in contrast to natural environment studies employing larger cohorts [49, 56], this study informed practical landscape management. However, passageway landscape planning remains systematically underprioritized, with linear designs demonstrating persistent deficiencies in seasonal adaptability and spatial heterogeneity. Consequently, we recommend that campus administrators and landscape architects allocate greater consideration to the development of linear spatial landscapes, especially Gallery frame passage space (GPS). They should prioritize the design and renewal of GPS, and ensure the maintenance of cleanliness in facilities such as seating areas and pillars. Additionally, they should regulate plant coverage on corridor rooftops while optimizing the layering, structure, and species arrangement of vegetation on both sides, to foster a visually appealing and health-enhancing campus environment.

We must acknowledge that the present study does exhibit limitations. Firstly, each participant visited the linear spatial landscapes only once, during a brief period in a single season. As is widely recognized, the weather conditions (such as temperature, humidity, etc.) and plant characteristics (such as color, morphology, fragrance, etc.) of the linear spatial environment differ across seasons, which may exert different degrees of influence on the experimental measurements. Therefore, the variations in data across different seasons among the participants remain unclear. Secondly, the absence of socio-economic factors regarding confounding variables, such as income, geographical location, cultural background, personality, could influence the accuracy and reliability of the experimental results. Moreover, this study solely employed blood pressure and heart rate measurements to gauge participants’ physiological states. Future research should incorporate the assessment of additional physiological parameters, including brain activity, eye tracking, skin conductance, and salivary cortisol levels. Based on these considerations, we propose possible research directions for the future: (1) Exploring how the time spent in these linear spaces affects the magnitude of their benefits, (2) Investigating whether regular visits to these linear spaces produce cumulative effects, (3) Examining potential differences in responses between students from different disciplines or cultural backgrounds.

Conclusions

Our study revealed that even a short-term landscape-visitation program could induce notable changes in college students’ physiological and psychological indicators across multiple experimental groups. Interestingly, we also found that the restorative effects of different linear spatial landscapes on participants’ well-being varied. Compared with the other linear spatial landscapes, GPS and WPS had better recovery effects on the subjucts. These findings suggest that visiting linear spatial landscapes may offer meaningful benefits for college students, potentially enhancing both physical and mental health.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Ye L, Posada A, Liu Y. A review on the relationship between Chinese adolescents’ stress and academic achievement: stress and academic achievement. New Dir Child Adoles. 2019;2:20265.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Luo XY, Xu QQ, Fan KL, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of depressive symptoms among 140,259 college students during the COVID-19 epidemic normalization in China: A cross-sectional survey. Front Public Health. 2022;10:936700–936700.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet. 2020;395:912–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Bin HE. Effects of group psychological counseling on the social phobia symptoms of the college students. J Luohe Vocat Technol Coll. 2015;14(01):153–55.

  5. Zhang W, Ma X, Yu S, et al. Occupational stress, respect, and the need for psychological counselling in Chinese nurses: a nationwide cross-sectional study. Public Health. 2023;225:72–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhang YJ, Ji ZX, Fan NY, et al. Emotion management for college students: effectiveness of a Mindfulness-Based emotion management intervention on emotional regulation and resilience of college students. J Nerv Mental Disease. 2022;210(9):716–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhou G, Yang B, Li H, et al. The influence of physical exercise on college students’ life satisfaction: the chain mediating role of self-control and psychological distress. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1071615.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhang SH, Zhang L, Liu HX, et al. Effect of physical exercise on mental health diathesis in college students: the chain mediating effect of dispositional mindfulness and emotional intelligence. China J Health Psychol. 2024;32(01):156–60.

  9. Yao NL, Liu YA. Discussion on Humanistic Care and Psychological Counseling in Ideological and Political Education for University Students.Journal of Beijing Jiaotong University(Social Sciences Edition). 2014.

  10. Zhang L, Tan P, Gan D, et al. Assessment of mediators in the associations between urban green spaces and self-reported health. Landsc Urban Plann. 2022. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.landurbplan.

  11. Li SH, Yao YN, Liu C, et al. The effect and mechanism of green space on human physical and mental health: A proposal of green medicine. Chin Landsc Archit. 2019;35(6):5–11.

  12. Jones MV, Gidlow CJ, Hurst G, et al. Psycho-physiological responses of repeated exposure to natural and urban environments. Landsc Urban plann. 2021;209(10):104061.

  13. Zhu W, Wang JJ, Qin B. Quantity or quality? Exploring the association between public open space and mental health in urban China. Landsc Urban plann. 2021;213(1):104128.

  14. Fllmer J, Kistemann T, Anthonj C. Academic greenspace and Well-Being-Can campus landscape be therapeutic?? Evidence from a German university. Space and Society: Wellbeing; 2020. p. 100003.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Li SH. The theory of green healthy City. Chin Landsc Archit. 2020;36(7):14–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Janeczko E, Czyzyk K, Korcz N, Woznicka M, Bielinis E. The psychological effects and benefits of using green spaces in the City: A field experiment with young Polish adults. Forests. 2023;14(3):497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bell SD, White M, Griffiths A, et al. Spending time in the garden is positively associated with health and wellbeing: results from a National survey in England. Landsc Urban Plann. 2020;200:103836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Collins RM, Spake R, Brown KA, et al. A systematic map of research exploring the effect of greenspace on mental health. Landsc Urban Plann. 2020;201:103823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Li SH, Yao YN, Liu C, et al. The effect and mechanism of green space on human physical and mental health: A proposal of green medicine. Chin Landsc Archit. 2019;35(6):5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kabisch N, Catharina Püffel, Masztalerz O, et al. Physiological and psychological effects of visits to different urban green and street environments in older people: A field experiment in a dense inner-city area. Landsc Urban Plann. 2021;207:103998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhao RL, Zhang G, Wang X, et al. Psycho-Physiological effects of a Peony-Viewing program on Middle-Aged and elderly individuals at different phenological stages. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:439.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Duan YF, Li SH. Effects of plant communities on human physiological recovery and mental health: A comparative field study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(2):721.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Huang QY, Yang MY, Jane H-A, Li SH, Baner N. Trees, grass, or concrete? The effects of different types of environments on stress reduction. Landsc Urban Plann. 2020;193:103654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lin W, Zeng CC, Bao ZY, Jin HX. The therapeutic look up: stress reduction and attention restoration vary according to the sky-leaf-trunk (SLT) ratio in canopy landscapes. Landsc Urban Plann. 2023;234:104730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gao T, Zhang T, Zhu L, et al. Exploring Psycho-physiological restoration and individual preference in the different environments based on virtual reality. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(17):3102.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Sun SY, Gao T, Qiu L. Influence of campus environment on psychological restoration of college students in the Post-Epidemic era. Landsc Archit. 2023;30(4):102–7.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wang X, Zhang YL, Zhao RL, et al. Study on the effects of four campus green landscapes on college students’ physiological and psychological indicators. Chin Landsc Archit. 2020;36(9):92–7.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chen XX, Li L, Tan L, Yang L. Study of urban greenway planning based on multi-source data analysis of Spatial potential and user behaviors—the greenway route planning of Haidian district, Beijing. Landsc Archit Front. 2019;7(6):50–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jin X, Wang JG. Assessing linear urban landscape from dynamic visual perception based on urban morphology. Front Architectural Res. 2021;10(1):202–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sun D, Li Q, Gao W et al. On the relation between visual quality and landscape characteristics: a case study application to the waterfront linear parks in Shenyang, China. Environ Res Commun. 2021; 3.

  31. Zhao Y, Wei LY, Li HH. Exploration on the design guidance of compounding visual perception of landscape space in the mountain greenway demonstration section of Quanzhou. Chin Landsc Archit. 2021;37(S2):6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Zhou XC, Cen QY, Qiu HF. Effects of urban waterfront park landscape elements on visual behavior and public preference: evidence from eye-tracking experiments. Volume 82. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2023. p. 127889.

  33. Liu XJ, Chen X, Huang Y, et al. Landscape aesthetic value of waterfront green space based on space–Psychology–Behavior dimension: A case study along qiantang river (Hangzhou Section). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(4):3115.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Cheng SY, Zhai ZR, Sun WZ, et al. Research on the satisfaction of Beijing waterfront green space landscape based on social media data. Land. 2022;11(10):1849.

  35. Chang PJ, Tsou CW, Li YS. Urban-greenway factors’ influence on older adults’ psychological well-being: a case study of Taichung, Taiwan. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2020;49:126606.

  36. Han B, Li D, Chang PJ. The effect of place attachment and greenway attributes on well-being among older adults in Taiwan. Urban Forestry Urban Green. 2021;65:127306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lindal PJ, Hartig T. Effects of urban street vegetation on judgments of restoration likelihood. Urban Forestry Urban Green. 2015;14(2):200–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Glazener A, Sanchez K, Ramani T, et al. Fourteen pathways between urban transportation and health: a conceptual model and literature review. J Transp Health. 2021;21:101070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Chen ZM, Huang R, Huang Y, et al. The measurements of Fine-scale street walkability and precise design control: an Evidence-based approach based on virtual reality and wearable Bio-sensors. Chin Landsc Archit. 2022;38(1):70–5.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Yang TT, Peng HY, Tan SH, et al. From urban stress to Neuro-Urbanization: review and framing of healthy street research from an interdisciplinary perspective. Urban Plann Int. 2023;38(06):29–38.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Guo LN, Zhao RL, Ren AH, et al. Stress recovery of campus street trees as visual stimuli on graduate students in autumn. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;17(1):148.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Mao YQ, Zou YD, Zheng YT, Wang MX. Research on visitors’ preferences for plant landscape spaces in Ulanqab. Chin Landsc Archit. 2022;38(8):123–8.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hummel T, Gollisch R, Wildt G, Kobal G. Changes in olfactory perception during the menstrual cycle. Experientia. 1991;47(7):712–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Chang CY, Chen PK. Human response to window views and indoor plants in the workplace. HortScience. 2005;40:1354–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Michael D, Neil C, Samantha LB, et al. The effect of green exercise on blood pressure, heart rate and mood state in primary school children. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11:3678–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Morfeld M, Petersen C, Krügerbödeker A, et al. The assessment of mood at workplace—Psychometric analyses of the revised profile of mood States (POMS) questionnaire. GMS Psycho-Social-Medicine. 2007;4:Doc06.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Terry H, Kalevi K, Gary W, et al. A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Hous Plann Res. 1997;14(4):175–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Chang CY, Hammitt WE, Chen PK, et al. Psychophysiological responses and restorative values of natural environments in Taiwan. Landsc Urban Plann. 2008;85:79–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Tsunetsugu Y, Lee JY, Park BJ, et al. Physiological and psychological effects of viewing urban forest landscapes assessed by multiple measurements. Landsc Urban Plann. 2013;113:90–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Wang XX, Rodiek S, Wu CZ, et al. Stress recovery and restorative effects of viewing different urban park scenes in Shanghai, China. Urban Forestry Urban Green. 2016;15:112–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Grahn P, Stigsdotter UK. The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landsc Urban Plann. 2010;95(3–4):264–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Vert C, Gascon M, Ranzani O, et al. Physical and mental health effects of repeated short walks in a blue space environment: A randomised crossover study-Science direct. Environ Res. 2020;188:109812–109812.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Stigsdotter UK, Corazona SS, Sidenius U, et al. Forest design for mental health promotion—Using perceived sensory dimensions to elicit restorative responses. Landsc Urban Plann. 2017;160:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Scopelliti M, Giuliani MV. Choosing restorative environments across the life span: A matter of place experience. J Environ Psychol. 2004;24(4):423–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kaplan R, Kaplan S. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ochiai H, Ikei H, Song C, et al. Physiological and psychological effects of a forest therapy program on middle-aged females. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12:15222–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Daoyang Sun and Lihang Xie for kindly providing helpful advice on paper writing and revision. We also appreciate the invaluable comments from anonymous reviewers for improving the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Natural science Basic research Project in Shaanxi Province, China (Project number: 2023-JC-QN-0189). Provincial innovative training program for college students (Project number: S202210709070).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ren-Lin Zhao and Lu-Qi Bai contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Urban Planning and Municipal Engineering, Xi’ an Polytechnic University, Xi’an, 710048, China

    Ren-Lin Zhao, Lu-Qi Bai, Yu-Lin Zhao, Yi-Tian Zhou & Meng Luo

Authors
  1. Ren-Lin Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lu-Qi Bai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yu-Lin Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yi-Tian Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Meng Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

R.-L.Z. contributed to the experimental design, data acquisition, statistical analysis, interpretation of results, manuscript preparation, and modification of the manuscript. M. L. contributed to the experimental design, data acquisition, statistical analysis, interpretation of results, and modification of the manuscript. L.-Q. B. and Y.-L. Z. contributed to experimental implementation, data acquisition, statistical analysis, and manuscript preparation. Y.-T. Z. participated in the data acquisition and contributed to experimental implementation. All authors have read and approved the final version submitted for publication.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ren-Lin Zhao or Meng Luo.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Written informed consent from the subject was acquired prior to the experiment. The study was approved by a local ethics committee incollege of Urban Planning and Municipal Engineering, Xi’ an Polytechnic University, China. All methods were carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, RL., Bai, LQ., Zhao, YL. et al. Physiological and psychological effects of visits to different linear Spatial landscape on the students: a field experiment in the campus environment. J Health Popul Nutr 44, 145 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s41043-025-00903-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s41043-025-00903-5

Keywords

Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition

ISSN: 2072-1315

Contact us