THE INFLUENCE OF COMPLEXITY AND COHERENCE IN PLANTING DESIGN ON STUDENT PREFERENCES AND WELL-BEING
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21837/pm.v23i39.1917Keywords:
Coherence, Complexity, Planting Design, Preference, Well-BeingAbstract
Preference indicators such as complexity, coherence, legibility, and mystery play a crucial role in landscape planting design. Among these, complexity and coherence are often associated with high preference ratings in perceived landscapes. This study examines how students perceive landscapes with varying levels of complexity and coherence in planting compositions and the way these factors influence their preferences and well-being. Understanding these relationships is essential for promoting outdoor engagement and maximizing the benefits of nature for students. A photo-based questionnaire survey was conducted to assess preferences for 51 planting images. Data analysis, including descriptive and exploratory factor analysis using SPSS, revealed significant correlations between landscape complexity, coherence, and preference ratings. The findings highlight how this design elements affect students' psychological responses and overall well-being, offering valuable insights for campus landscape planning. This study contributes to integrating public perception into landscape design decision-making and enhances understanding of the relationship between planting composition and student experiences.
Downloads
References
Babington, A., Hughes, M., Farrell, C., Chambers, J., & Standish, R. J. (2023). Preference for multi-layered, flowering, woody streetscape plantings in a mediterranean-type climate. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 89, 128094.
Gungor, S., & Polat, A. T. (2018). Relationship between visual quality and landscape characteristics in urban parks. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 19(2), 939–948.
Hami, A., & Abdi, B. (2019). Students’ landscaping preferences for open spaces for their campus environment. Indoor and Built Environment, 1–12.
Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., Vries, S. D., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 207–228.
Herzog, T. R., Maguire, C. P., & Nebel, M. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 159–170.
Jimenez, M. P., DeVille, N. V., Elliott, E. G., Schiff, J. E., Wilt, G. E., Hart, J. E., & James, P. (2021). Associations between nature exposure and health: A review of the evidence. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 4790.
Kaiserman, J. (2017). Urban nature for well-being: Design recommendation for psychological benefits in urban public spaces (Publication No. 10598891) [Master of Urban Planning, University of Washington]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3–32.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182.
Kuper, R. (2017). Evaluations of landscape preference, complexity, and coherence for designed digital landscape models. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 407–421.
Kurzi, N. S., Schroth, O., Wan Ismail, W. A., & Mohamed, S. A. (2024). Fostering perceived safety in neighbourhood parks: Exploring the influence of planting design, scenic vistas and maintenance factors. Planning Malaysia Journal, 22(3), 409–424.
Li, D., & Sullivan, W. C. (2016). Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, 149–158.
Liu, J., & Green, R. J. (2023). The effect of exposure to nature on children’s psychological well-being: A systematic review of the literature. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 81, 127846.
Liu, Q., Zhu, Z., Zeng, X., Zhuo, Z., Ye, B., Fang, L., Huang, Q., & Lai, P. (2021). The impact of landscape complexity on preference ratings and eye fixation of various urban green space settings. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 66, 127411.
Mt Akhir, N., Md Sakip, S. R., Abbas, M. Y., & Othman, N. (2021). Analyzing the criteria of planting design for visual landscape quality in campus. Planning Malaysia Journal, 19(16), 39–37.
Nasar, J. L. (1987). Effects of signscape complexity and coherence on the perceived visual quality of retail scenes. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53, 499–509.
Ozer, B., & Baris, M. E. (2013). Landscape design and park users’ preferences. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 82, 604–607.
Scholl, K. G., & Gulwadi, G. B. (2018). College campus landscapes within a learning ecosystem. Planning for Higher Education Journal, 46(2), 50–64.
Southon, G. E., Jorgensen, A., Dunnett, N., Hoyle, H., & Evans, K. L. (2018). Perceived species-richness in urban green spaces: Cues, accuracy and well-being impacts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 172, 1–10.
Taylor, F. A., & Kuo, F. E. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12(5), 402–409.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Human Behavior and Environment, 6, 85–125.
Wang, R., Zhao, J., & Liu, Z. (2016). Consensus in visual preferences: The effects of aesthetic quality and landscape types. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 20, 210–217.
Xie, X., Jiang, Q., Wang, R., & Gou, Z. (2024). Correlation between vegetation landscape and subjective human perception: A systematic review. Buildings, 14(6), 1734.
Yılmaz, S., Özgüner, H., & Mumcu, S. (2018). An aesthetic approach to planting design in urban parks and greenspaces. Landscape Research Group, 1–19.
Zhang, G., Yang, J., Guowei, W., & Hu, X. (2021). Exploring the interactive influence on landscape preference from multiple visual attributes: Openness, richness, order, and depth. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 65(3), 127363.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported License.
Copyright & Creative Commons Licence
eISSN: 0128-0945 © Year. The Authors. Published for Malaysian Institute of Planners. This is an open-access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.
The authors hold the copyright without restrictions and also retain publishing rights without restrictions.
