Landscape Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/clar20

Effects of evergreen trees on landscape preference

and perceived restorativeness across seasons

Ronghua Wang & Jingwei Zhao

To cite this article: Ronghua Wang & Jingwei Zhao (2020) Effects of evergreen trees on
landscape preference and perceived restorativeness across seasons, Landscape Research, 45:5,
649-661, DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2019.1699507

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2019.1699507

Published online: 19 Jan 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 264

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=clar20
LANDSCAPE RESEARCH
2020, VOL. 45, NO. 5, 649–661
https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2019.1699507

Effects of evergreen trees on landscape preference and perceived

restorativeness across seasons
Ronghua Wanga and Jingwei Zhaob
a
School of Geography, Geomatics and Planning, Jiangsu Normal University, Xuzhou, China; bSchool of Architecture
and Design, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, China

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Season is an important factor influencing preference and psychological Evergreen plants; aesthetic
restoration, especially in temperate regions. Evergreen plants can mediate preference; restorative
landscape changes across seasons and increase greenness when deciduous quality; seasonality
trees are leafless. However, what are the impacts of evergreen plants on
preference and restoration? The answers are still unknown and important to
research. To address this gap this study conducted an experiment, in which,
based on four photographs taken on a site in four seasons, 24 images were
created using the photomontage technique by adding evergreen trees to the
original pictures. The results indicated that: (1) evergreen plants significantly
improved the landscape preference only in spring; (2) significant effects of
evergreen plants on psychological restoration in spring, autumn and winter
were noted and (3) types and amounts of evergreen trees had non-significant
impacts on year-round preference and restoration. Additionally, seasonal
transformation had an essential impact on both preference and restoration.

1. Introduction
Urban green spaces tend to be the most common places where residents are able to connect with
nature and undertake various outdoor activities (Jansson, Fors, Lindgren, & Wiström, 2013). Previous
researchers have demonstrated that the green spaces in urban areas provided a relatively low-cost
contribution to improving people’s health physically and psychologically, such as releasing stress
(van den Berg, Maas, Verheij, & Groenewegen, 2010); decreasing health inequality (Mitchell &
Popham, 2008); preventing health risk (Hartig, 2008; Thompson, 2010; Velarde, Fry, & Tveit, 2007)
and improving mental health and resilience (Chawla, Keena, Pevec, & Stanley, 2014). Therefore,
people generally prefer places with a high degree of vegetation than places with a low degree of
vegetation (Herzog, 1989; Schipperijn, Bentsen, Troelsen, Toftager, & Stigsdotter, 2013; van den Berg,
Koole, & van der Wulp, 2003). Vegetation is the most important component of green spaces, and the
benefits of green spaces are closely linked to the property of the vegetation growing on it, such as
species, configuration, coverage, structure and quality (Jiang, Chang, & Sullivan, 2014; Nordh, Hartig,
Hagerhall, & Fry, 2009; Zhao, Luo, Wang, & Cai, 2013). Many plants experience seasonal changes in
flowers, foliage, bark colour and texture. Thus, vegetation is the most powerful force to lead to the
seasonality of green spaces in both functions and appearance. Although seasonal impacts on
landscape perception are widely recognised, they are not well understood, especially the methods
that can promote the positive impacts imposed by seasonal transformation.
In temperate areas, the most common zonal vegetation is deciduous broad-leaved plants which
usually perform an obvious seasonality, where winter is often described as a leafless season. Trees

CONTACT Jingwei Zhao 704568481@qq.com

© 2020 Landscape Research Group Ltd
650 R. WANG AND J. ZHAO

which are predominantly deciduous provide a small perceived restoration and low landscape pre-
ference in winter (Eroğlu, Müderrisoğlu, & Kesim, 2012; Paddle & Gilliland, 2016). Landscape architects
have attempted to combat the lack of ‘green’ in winter through planting evergreens. However, what
will happen to the functions of green spaces after planting evergreens? What types (such as conifer or
broad-leaved plants) and amounts of evergreen plants are much better? In addition, evergreen plants
will grow green all year round, how do they actually impact on the functions of green spaces in spring,
summer and autumn, as well as throughout the year? Existing literature provides fewer clues to
answer these questions. This study tries to find more evidence for them. Since the functions of green
spaces are multiple, it is impossible to include all functions in a case study. Thus, two functions (mental
restoration and visual aesthetic quality) were selected in this study. The reasons are following:
Poor mental health is a growing problem which accounts for 31.5% of deaths all over the world (Prince
et al., 2007), and depression and anxiety are widespread among urban residents in China (Jiang, Zhang, &
Sullivan, 2015). Despite the fact that mental health is related to many factors, an increasing number of
studies have shown the importance of daily access to nature as a positive factor (Kurdoglu & Kurdoglu,
2010; Velarde et al., 2007; Wang, Rodiek, Wu, Chen, & Li, 2016b; Wang, Zhao, Meitner, Hu, & Xu, 2019; Xu,
Zhao, & Ye, 2018; Zhao, Xu, & Li, 2018). On the other hand, a beautiful environment will bring us many
benefits such as promoting recreational activities (Rolloff, 1998; Tyrväinen, Silvennoinen, & Hallikainen,
2017) and attracting tourists (Lothian, 1999). Some researchers suggest that aesthetic quality should be
considered as important natural resources just like water, soil, mines and fossil fuels (Kane, 1981).
Two theories might be used to explain the effects of exposure to nature on psychological
restoration: Attention Restoration Theory (ART) (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989) and Stress Recovery
Theory (SRT) (Ulrich, 1983). Both theories suggest that natural environments are settings where
recovery is associated with a reduction of attentional fatigue (Han, 2010). They further hypothesise
that the benefits of contact with nature include a wide range of other positive reactions related to
functioning and well-being such as emotion, cognition, physiology and behaviour (Han, 2010). In
addition, several well-established theories in environmental psychology suggested a universal con-
sensus in human preference for certain type of natural environments such as Prospect-Refuge
Theory (Appleton, 1996), Biophilia Theory (Wilson, 1984) and Preference Matrix (Kaplan & Kaplan,
1989). These theories suggest that preference is not just an appreciation of beautiful sceneries, but
indicates that environment should meet the biological and/or functional needs of human being
according to the evolutionary perspective (e.g. Appleton, 1996; Ulrich, 1983).

2. Aims and overall framework of this study

The main purpose of the present study is to find reliable evidence to inform landscape design of how
to use evergreen plants to improve landscape preference and restorative quality not only seasonally
but also all year round. An experiment is performed by different manipulations of adding evergreen
trees to a landscape across seasons. The manipulations include three types (conifer, broad-leaved
and combination of the two) and two grades of amount (four and eight) of evergreen trees in four
seasons. The following research questions guide this study:
(1) What are the impacts of different types and amounts of evergreen plants on landscape
preference and restorative quality in each season?
(2) What are the effects of evergreen trees on preference and restoration all year round?
(3) What are the roles of seasonal transformation on preference and restoration?

3. Methods
3.1. Stimuli
Photographs were used as surrogates for real landscapes. This method has been widely used by
previous works (e.g. Arriaza, Canas-Ortega, Canas-Madueno, & Ruiz-Aviles, 2004; Wang, Zhao, & Liu,
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 651

2016a; Zhao et al., 2013; Zhao, Wang, Luo, Xing, & Sun, 2017), and its reliability has been demonstrated
(Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Nassauer, 1983; Palmer & Hoffman, 2001). A green space located on Nanhu
campus of China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, eastern China was selected as the
sample site. On the site, four photographs were taken with the same shooting direction and the same
photographer standing at the same point in spring (2:17 pm, 8 April 2018), summer (2:08 pm,
12 August 2017), autumn (2:15 pm, 8 November 2017) and winter (1:58 pm, 26 January 2018),
respectively. These pictures were photographed level with the eye of the observer (about 1.60 m
above the ground) on clear days to control for similar lighting conditions. The equipment was a Sony
digital camera (NEX 3N) with a focal length of 35 mm. On the site the dominant plants are deciduous,
and several evergreen trees (Cinnamomum camphora and Ligustrum lucidum) are behind the deciduous
trees from the view of shooting. Thus, only in winter or early spring when the deciduous plants are
leafless, these evergreen trees could be seen in the photograph. A part of an evergreen plant (Photinia
serrulata) was always included in the left of photographs in four seasons (see Figure 1).
Based on the four original photographs, three types (conifer [represented by Cedar tree {Cedrus
deodara}]; Broad-leaved tree [represented by Privet tree {Ligustrum lucidum}]; combination of Cedar
and Privet tree) and two grades (four and eight) of amounts of evergreen trees were applied for each
picture using the photomontage simulation. The two species of Cedar and Privet are very popular in
urban green spaces in eastern China. Four or eight evergreen trees were added to the original
photographs. Adding eight evergreen trees aims to approach the optimal ratio suggested by Lu and

Figure 1. Four original photographs (the first row) taken in four seasons, respectively, and 24 images created by photomontage
simulation.
652 R. WANG AND J. ZHAO

Cai (2007) who claimed that the optimal ratio of evergreens and deciduous trees was one to three in
green spaces in Xuzhou. The four evergreen trees were used to explore the effect of a low ratio on
preference and restoration. The photomontage method allows the researcher to create different
images by adding, deleting and composing elements to form a well-integrated image and isolate
environmental components for study to limit the influence of confounding variables (Waldheim
et al., 2014).
At first, four locations in the original pictures were identified, four Cedar trees were added to the
four locations, respectively, then the four Cedar trees were replaced by four Privet trees and the
combination of two Cedar and two Privet trees in turn, creating 12 images. Secondly, the other four
locations in the 12 images were also determined. Then the new four trees of the three types were
added to the corresponding images, respectively, creating new 12 images. The locations of adding
evergreen trees are close to the existing plants to avoid changing the openness of space in the
landscape. Twenty-eight images were collected in total (twenty-four manipulated images and four
original pictures) (Figure 1). In spite of the fact that, compared to deciduous plants, evergreen plants
possess less seasonal changes, they still have some differences in form and colour across four
seasons. In order to make the manipulations more real, a Cedar tree and a Privet tree were selected
to be photographed in the same manner using the same equipment in spring (April), summer
(August), autumn (November) and winter (January). These tree images (removing the backgrounds)
were added to the original photographs of the corresponding season using the software of
Photoshop.

3.2 Measurement of respondents’ landscape preference and mental restoration

The online survey was conducted from 15 April to 3 May, 2018. Researchers have used the online
questionnaire successfully and obtained reliable results in studies associated with landscape pre-
ference assessment and restorative capacity survey (Roth, 2006; Wherrett, 1999; Xu et al., 2018). To
avoid the respondents’ perception of images being manipulated by photomontage, the 28 images
were divided into seven groups, and each group included four images representing the four seasons,
respectively. The seven groups included original, adding eight Privet trees, adding four Privet trees,
adding eight Cedar trees, adding four Cedar trees, adding the combination of four Privet trees and
four Cedar trees, and adding the combination of two Privet trees and two Cedar trees. Each group
was evaluated by different respondents. Therefore, online surveys included seven questionnaires
conducted by seven postgraduates, respectively, using the snowball sampling method to invite
respondents to participate. To avoid one respondent evaluating two questionnaires or more, the
seven students were advised not to invite the respondents in their common circle of friends.
To alleviate any misunderstanding by the participants, landscape preference in these surveys was
defined as ‘beautiful scenery’, and restorative quality ‘the potential to ease mental fatigue caused by
extensive episodes of concentration and focus’ (Kaplan, 1995). When the participants opened the
web page, they found a title ‘Imagine you are in the scenery represented in the picture, please
choose the degree of beauty and restorative quality based on your perception, and please watch the
images on your computer or laptop with a 12 inches or bigger screen size.’ The aesthetic preference
was assessed using a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘1 = not at all’ to ‘7 = very much’ by
referring the manner used by Zhao et al. (2017). The restorative quality was measured using the
Short-version Revised Restoration Scale (SRRS) developed by Han (2003). SRRS consists of eight items
spread equally across the four dimensions of emotion, cognition, physiology and behaviour, which is
a simple and reliable method for psychological restoration measurement and can be utilised
effectively for various landscape types (Paddle & Gilliland, 2016; Xu et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2018).
Respondents marked on a 7-point Likert response format how much they agreed with the items,
ranging from 1 ‘totally disagree’ to 7 ‘totally agree’. The composite score of physiological response
was reversed, because this dimension measures physiological arousal, which is the opposite of
perceived restorativeness (Han, 2003). The mean value of all items listed in the restoration scale
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 653

within respondents was used as the restorative quality of an image. Prior to submitting the survey,
participants could freely change their response for any image. It took an average of 314 s to
complete the questionnaire. Finally, 596 personal evaluations were received: 110 for the original
pictures, 71 for ‘adding eight Privet trees’, 65 for ‘adding four Privet trees’, 113 for ‘adding eight
Cedar trees’, 85 for ‘adding four Cedar trees’, 72 for ‘adding the combination of four Privet trees and
four Cedar trees’, and 80 for ‘adding the combination of two Privet trees and two Cedar trees’.
Lothian (1999) suggested that in research for perception assessment, the minimum number of
respondents was 30. The number of respondents in each group in this study is much more than 30.

3.3. Data analysis

At first, the interclass reliability of landscape preference and restorative scores was tested using SPSS
17.0 software, and the one-way ANOVA was conducted to explore the significance of the effects of
each manipulation on landscape preference or restorative quality. Regression analysis was per-
formed to explore the driving forces of types and amounts of evergreen trees on preference or
restoration.

4. Results
4.1. Reliability
The interclass reliabilities of landscape preference and mental restoration scores across four seasons
were calculated (Table 1). Cronbach’s Alpha fluctuated from 0.705 to 0.790, which showed good
internal reliabilities of the landscape preference and restorative quality for all groups according to
the criterion created by Landis and Koch (1977). Generally speaking, the landscape preference
evaluations had a higher reliability than the restoration surveys.

4.2. Effects of evergreen trees on landscape preference across seasons

The landscape preference scores of the original pictures and the six manipulations across four
seasons were presented in Figure 2. The figure showed that all the manipulations were higher
than the original pictures in spring. The one-way ANOVA showed that there was a significant
difference in preference among the six manipulations and the original picture in spring
(F = 4.247; p < 0.001). The pairwise comparison showed that four of six manipulations signifi-
cantly improved the preference in spring, which included adding eight Privet trees, adding eight
Cedar trees, adding four Cedar trees and adding the combination of four Cedar trees and four
Privet trees (Table 2). However, there was no significant difference in summer (F = 1.330;
p = 0.242), autumn (F = 1.455; p = 0.191) and winter (F = 0.291; p = 0.941), and even some
manipulations in the three seasons reduced the landscape preference of the original pictures
(Figure 2). The pairwise comparison indicated that no manipulation significantly improved the

Table 1. The interclass reliabilities of the landscape preference and the restorative quality across four seasons.
Landscape preference Restorative capacity
Surveys (Cronbach’s Alpha) (Cronbach’s Alpha)
Original photographs 0.743 0.716
Adding eight Privet trees 0.732 0.714
Adding four Privet trees 0.736 0.722
Adding eight Cedar trees 0.790 0.766
Adding four Cedar trees 0.726 0.741
Adding the combination of four Privet trees and four Cedar trees 0.712 0.705
Adding the combination of two Privet trees and two Cedar trees 0.728 0.721
654 R. WANG AND J. ZHAO

Figure 2. Mean preference scores (± standard error) within respondents for 28 images across four seasons.

Table 2. One-way ANOVA for landscape preference between the six manipulations and the original pictures across four seasons.
Spring Summer Autumn Winter
Pairwise comparison (p) (p) (p) (p)
Original picture VS. adding eight Privet trees 0.001 0.566 0.529 0.584
Original picture VS. adding four Privet trees 0.086 0.345 0.516 0.848
Original picture VS. adding eight Cedar trees 0.001 0.140 0.072 0.997
Original picture VS. adding four Cedar trees 0.002 0.070 0.090 0.746
Original picture VS. the combination of four Privet trees and four Cedar trees <0.001 0.288 0.362 0.278
Original picture VS. the combination of two Privet trees and two Cedar trees 0.168 0.985 0.934 0.968

landscape preference in these three seasons (Table 2). These results indicated that only some
manipulations of adding evergreen trees reliably improved the aesthetic quality of green spaces
in spring, in spite of the fact that the mean preference scores of all the manipulations in summer
(5.02), autumn (4.63) and winter (4.05), are slightly higher than the corresponding ones of the
original pictures (4.93 in summer, 4.54 in autumn, 3.98 in winter).
Planting evergreen trees in a place means, they grow there all year round. Therefore, this study
further explored the effect of evergreen trees on year-round landscape preference. The mean values
of landscape preference within four seasons of the manipulations and the original pictures were
given by Figure 3. Although the preference scores of all the manipulations were higher than that of
the original photographs, no manipulation could significantly improve the landscape preference of
the original pictures according to the results of one-way ANOVA. Comparatively, adding the
combination of four Cedars and four Privet trees was the most efficient way to enhance the aesthetic
quality of green spaces.
Figure 2 also clearly indicated that seasonal transformation had an important influence on
landscape preference. The one-way ANOVA showed that there was a significant difference in
preference among four seasons (F = 104.486; p < 0.001). Based on the mean preference score,
summer was the highest, followed by autumn and winter, spring was the lowest. The standard
deviation was 0.487.

4.3. Effects of evergreen trees on restorative quality across seasons

The restorative quality of the six manipulations and the original pictures across four seasons were
shown in Figure 4 which indicated that restorative quality of all the manipulations were higher than
that of the original pictures in spring or winter. The one-way ANOVA showed that there was
a significant difference in restorative quality among the six manipulations and the original picture
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 655

Figure 3. Mean preference scores (± standard error) within four seasons for seven groups of pictures.

Figure 4. Mean restoration scores (± standard error) within respondents for 28 pictures across four seasons.

in spring (F = 5.483; p < 0.001), and all the manipulations significantly enhanced the restorative
quality of the original picture in spring (Table 3). There was a closely significant difference in winter
(F = 2.036; p = 0.059), and only the manipulations of adding four Cedar trees and adding the
combination of four Privet trees and four Cedar trees enhanced the restorative quality significantly
in winter (Table 3). There was also a significant difference in autumn (F = 3.579; p = 0.002), but only
the manipulation of adding the combination of four Privet trees and four Cedar trees significantly
improved the restorative quality in autumn. However, there was no significant difference in summer
(F = 1.254; p = 0.277) and no manipulation enhanced the restorative quality significantly in summer

Table 3. One-way ANOVA for the restorative quality between the six manipulations and the original picture across four seasons.
Spring Summer Autumn Winter
Pairwise comparison (p) (p) (p) (p)
Original picture VS. adding eight Privet trees <0.001 0.665 0.162 0.204
Original picture VS. adding four Privet trees 0.001 0.901 0.960 0.197
Original picture VS. adding eight Cedar trees 0.003 0.384 0.362 0.619
Original picture VS. adding four Cedar trees <0.001 0.091 0.126 0.037
Original picture VS. the combination of four Privet trees and four Cedar trees <0.001 0.792 0.026 0.002
Original picture VS. the combination of two Privet trees and two Cedar trees 0.010 0.368 0.073 0.284
656 R. WANG AND J. ZHAO

(Table 3). To sum up, these results implied that adding evergreen trees to green space had a non-
significant influence on the restorative quality in summer, but had a significant impact in spring. In
autumn or winter, the significance of effects of evergreen trees on the restorative quality depends on
the species and amounts of evergreen trees added (Table 3).
The mean values of the restorative quality of the six manipulations and the original pictures
across seasons were presented in Figure 5. Although no significant difference was found among the
six manipulations and the original pictures (F = 0.122; p = 0.992), all the manipulations improved the
restorative quality of the original pictures. Figure 5 also demonstrated that adding four Cedars and
four Privets was the most efficient method to improve the restorative capacity of green spaces.
The one-way ANOVA showed that there was a significant difference in restorative quality across
seasons (F = 104.486; p < 0.001). Based on the mean restoration scores of the six manipulations and
the original pictures, summer was the highest, followed by autumn and spring, with winter being the
lowest. The standard deviation was 0.869.

4.4. Effects of the types and amounts of evergreen trees on landscape preference and
restorative quality
The one-way ANOVA concluded that no significant difference in landscape preference or restorative
quality across four seasons was found between the three types and two grades of amounts of
evergreen trees, in which the amounts of evergreen trees in spring had a closely significant effect on
the landscape preference (Table 4). Regression analysis, the preference or restorative scores as
dependent and the dummies of plant types (conifer = 1; Broad-leaved tree = 2; combination = 3)
and amounts of tree (eight trees = 1; four trees = 2) as independents, indicated that no significant
predictor was found. These results suggested that, in general, the type and amount of evergreen
trees had a weak influence on both landscape preference and restorative quality in each season.

Figure 5. Mean restoration scores (± standard error) within four seasons for seven groups of pictures.

Table 4. Types and amounts of evergreen trees in relation to landscape preference and restorative quality by one-way ANOVA.
Landscape preference Restorative quality
Amounts of evergreen trees Types of evergreen trees Amounts of evergreen trees Types of evergreen trees
F p F p F p F p
Spring 7.509 0.052 0.017 0.983 0.201 0.677 0.672 0.574
Summer 0.151 0.717 1.328 0.386 0.014 0.912 3.398 0.169
Autumn 0.020 0.893 2.716 0.212 0.192 0.684 0.525 0.637
Winter 1.446 0.296 0.294 0.765 0.048 0.838 0.401 0.701
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 657

5. Discussion
5.1. Evergreen plants in relation to landscape preference and restorative capacity
Although some significant impacts of evergreen plants on landscape preference and restorative
quality in individual season are found by this study, evergreen trees grow in the place all year round.
Thus, year-round effects of evergreen trees are more important than those in a single season. No
significant effect of evergreen trees on the landscape preference and psychological restoration
all year round was recorded in this study. Paddle and Gilliland (2016) also find a similar result
which suggests that, compared to the scenes without evergreens, the scenes including evergreens
do not significantly improve perceived restorativeness. However, all the manipulations of adding
evergreen plants slightly enhance both the landscape preference and the restorative quality when
the mean scores within four seasons are used in the present study (see Figures 3 and 5), which
demonstrates the limited values of evergreens for promoting the two functions. These results are
possibly explained by two reasons. Firstly, although greenness provided by evergreen trees is
a positive factor for improving preference and restoration in the season with leafless (Eroğlu et al.,
2012; Paddle & Gilliland, 2016), deciduous trees in spring or winter allow people to have a greater
view of sky and contact with sunlight, which may increase the visual penetration. Research has also
shown that high visual penetration might favour safety (Jansson et al., 2013), in turn benefit to
psychological well-being (Appleton, 1996; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Secondly, an important impact of
deciduous trees on psychology is the strong sense of ephemeral, which maybe have a contribution
to aesthetic preference or stress relief (Brassley, 1998), while the evergreens keep nearly constant
status all year round.
This study also points out that types and amounts of evergreen plants have a weak influence on
preference and restoration. This can be explained by the fact that the colour is the most significant
factor for visual perception (Eroğlu et al., 2012), and people can mostly realise the differences of
environments from their colours (Robinson, 2004). No matter what types and amounts of evergreen
plants used in this study, they have a similar colour.
This study supports the long standing practices in the landscape design field regarding the
importance of planting for seasonal interest. Because amounts of evergreens have a weak impact
on preference and restoration (Table 4), a few evergreens have a similar efficacy to more evergreens
for providing benefits. Under the condition of limited budgets, a few evergreens will maximise the
impact of small budgets to produce the most supportive environments for people.

5.2. Comparison between landscape preference and restorative quality of evergreen plants
Based on the findings of this study, generally speaking, the landscape preference and restorative
quality have a similar pattern. For example, both of them in summer and autumn are higher than in
spring and winter; the types and amounts of evergreen trees have no significant influence on both in
each season (Table 4). These findings can possibly be explained by the close relation between
landscape preference and restorative quality identified by previous literature (Korpela & Ylén, 2007;
Nordh et al., 2009). However, some differences between them are also noted by the present study.
Firstly, evergreen trees significantly improve the landscape preference only in spring, but they
significantly enhance the restorative quality in spring, autumn and winter. The possible cause may
be that the original landscape in spring is in some chaos because of the unsynchronised growth of
plants, adding evergreen trees increases the coherence which has been evidenced as a promoter for
preference (Herzog & Bosley, 1992; Herzog & Bryce, 2007; Tang, Sullivan, & Chang, 2015). On the
other hand, psychological restoration is directly linked to the greenness (Akpinar, 2016; Nordh et al.,
2009; Wells & Evans, 2003). In winter, autumn and spring, the ratio of greenness in the environment is
lower than that in summer, adding evergreen trees in the three seasons will increase the visual
greenness, and in turn significantly improves the restorative capacity. Similar findings are also
suggested by Paddle and Gilliland (2016) where the scene with evergreens is rated significantly
658 R. WANG AND J. ZHAO

more for restoration than the scene without evergreens in the season with leafless. Secondly, the
standard deviation of the average restoration of four seasons across the six manipulations and the
original pictures (0.869) is much greater than that of the preference (0.487), which means that
restoration is more impressible to evergreen plants than preference. Therefore, despite the fact that
there is a close tie between landscape preference and restorative quality, they are different things. In
practice, design strategies should be formulated according to the established objectives. For
example, following the results of this study, in order to increase the restorative capacity, evergreen
trees should be presented in winter, but for the improvement of landscape preference in winter,
evergreen plants are unavailable (Figure 2).

5.3. Seasonality in landscape preference and restorative capacity

This study demonstrates that, in temperate regions, season is a non-negligible factor in landscape
preference or restorative environment research. This result parallels the finding of Gramann and Rudis
(1994) who suggest that summer views are preferred to winter views. Unfortunately, most previous
studies generally ignore this issue. They usually treat the environment as a static object in situ survey or
using the surrogates such as images or videos (e.g. Li & Sullivan, 2016; Wang & Zhao, 2017; Xu et al.,
2018; Zhao et al., 2013). Environment changes all the time, such as, within a year, experiencing the
seasonality, and in a long time, undergoing the succession driven by natural or artificial force.
Therefore, this study suggests that it is necessary to take the ephemeral into account in such research.
This study indicates that, for both preference and restoration, summer and autumn are better
than spring and winter. Summer representing lush and vibrant scenes, and the time being suitable to
travel has the highest scores in both landscape preference and restorative quality. Autumn, usually
with rich colours, gets the second highest scores. Winter which is always described as the lack of
greenness and vitality in temperate areas possessing a low preference or restoration can make sense.
But it puts forward a challenge for landscape architects providing the landscape that supports
aesthetic and restoration in winter. Surprisingly, spring which is usually considered to have colourful
flowers and symbolise hope and a good future is rated as the second lowest restoration and the
lowest preference score. The reason may be lying in two folds. Firstly, unsynchronised growth and
development of different plant species can be seen apparently in Figure1, where some species such
as willow trees (Salix babylonica) have grown leaves and turned green, but others are still kept in
leafless representing no vitality. Secondly, the scene we use in this study is special, in which it does
not contain the plant species with brightly coloured flowers in spring.

5.4 Limitations and future research

At first, in this study only one sample site is used, which possibly produces mono operation bias,
implying the results might only work in similar environments to the site used in this study. It weakens
the generalisability of the findings. But this inspires a future study which should include a variety of sites.
Secondly, because the questionnaire is written in Chinese, all the respondents are Chinese. Thus,
the cultural background of respondents is homogeneous. However, previous study suggests that
cultural background has a considerable influence on landscape perception (Yu, 1995), which means
that the results are available only in China. Also, the surveys in present study do not include the
demographic variables of respondents. Although existing literature provides less evidence about the
effects of respondents’ variabilities on psychological restoration, previous researchers indicate that
respondents’ demographics have an essential influence on preference assessment (Howley,
Donoghue, & Hynes, 2012; Lindemann-Matthies, Junge, & Matthies, 2010; Svobodova, Sklenicka,
Molnarova, & Salek, 2012; Wang & Zhao, 2017). In order to increase the generalisability of these
results, the future study should recruit respondents from a wide demographic range, especially from
diverse cultural backgrounds. In addition, the different devices used by different respondents may
cause the respondents having different levels of immersion and detection of details of images, which
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 659

may have an impact on the results. In future research, it is better to provide similar devices to the
participants for increasing the reliability of the results.
Thirdly, seasonality of the environment is closely linked to the climate of a specific region. This
study is undertaken in Xuzhou, eastern China, between 33°43′N and 34°58′N latitudes and between
116°22′E and 118°40′E longitudes. Its climate is a typical warm humid monsoon with an average
annual temperature of 14°C and rainfall of 860 mm; its rainfall is mainly from June to September,
which accounts for about 56% of the total rainfall. To find the general rules in the difference of
landscape preference and restorative quality or evergreens’ effects on the two functions across
seasons, research should be performed in various climate zones.
At last, this study only explores the effects of two evergreen species and two grads of amounts of
evergreens on preference and restoration. In fact, many species and numerous grads of amounts of
evergreens in a specific area can be found. In addition, there are also a few factors which can
influence the results, such as distance, location, configuration and size of evergreens, openness of
space, and lays of trees. These factors should be considered in the future study.

6. Conclusions
This study explores evergreen trees’ effects on landscape preference and restorative quality across
seasons. The results indicate that, generally speaking, the types and amounts of evergreen trees have
a weak impact on preference or restoration. Evergreen plants significantly improve the landscape
preference in spring, despite the fact that they do a non-significant improvement for the landscape
preference all year round. For restorative quality, evergreen plants have an essential influence in
spring, autumn and winter, and, just like preference, evergreen trees have a weak influence on the
restorative capacity all year round. In addition, the seasonal transformation has a powerful force for
both preference and restoration. In spite of some limitations, these results provide valuable guide-
lines for not only seasonal interest in planting design, but also better year-round landscapes.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the 7 postgraduates and 596 participants in our trials. This research is supported by the Natural
Science Foundation of Colleges and Universities in Jiangsu Province (19KJB220007).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Colleges and Universities in Jiangsu Province
[19KJB220007].

Notes on contributors
Ronghua Wang received her Master’s degree in Landscape Architecture from Nanjing Forestry University and is now an
Associate Professor in the School of Geography, Geomatics and Planning, Jiangsu Normal University, China. Her
research focuses on healthy landscapes, landscape aesthetic evaluation and ecological landscapes.
Jingwei Zhao received his PhD in Ecology from East China Normal University and a Master’s degree in Landscape
Architecture from Nanjing Forestry University, China. He is a Professor at the School of Architecture and Design, China
University of Mining and Technology. His research interests include landscape design, ornamental plants, landscape
aesthetics and mental recovery environment.
660 R. WANG AND J. ZHAO

References
Akpinar, A. (2016). How is high school greenness related to students’ restoration and health? Urban Forestry and Urban
Greening, 16, 1–8.
Appleton, J. (1996). The experience of landscape (Revised ed.). New York: Wiley.
Arriaza, M., Canas-Ortega, J. F., Canas-Madueno, J. A., & Ruiz-Aviles, P. (2004). Assessing the visual quality of rural
landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 115–125.
Brassley, P. (1998). On the unrecognized significance of the ephemeral landscape. Landscape Research, 23, 119–132.
Chawla, L., Keena, K., Pevec, I., & Stanley, E. (2014). Green schoolyards as havens from stress and resources for resilience
in childhood and adolescence. Health and Place, 28, 1–13.
Eroğlu, E., Müderrisoğlu, H., & Kesim, G. A. (2012). The effect of seasonal change of plants compositions on visual
perception. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management., 20, 196–205.
Gramann, J., Rudis, V. (1994). Effects of hardwood retention, season of year, and landform on the perceived scenic
beauty of forest plots in the Ouachita Mountains. In J. B. Baker (Eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Ecosystem
Management Research in the Ouachita Mountains Pretreatment Conditions and Preliminary Findings; 1993 Oct 26–27
(Vol. 112, pp. 223–228). Hot Springs. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest
Experiment Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. SO.
Han, K.-T. (2003). A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 64, 209–232.
Han, K.-T. (2010). An exploration of relationships among the responses to natural scenes: Scenic beauty, preference, and
restoration. Environment and Behavior, 42, 243–270.
Hartig, T. (2008). Green space, psychological restoration, and health inequality. Lancet, 372, 1614–1615.
Herzog, T. (1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 27–43.
Herzog, T. R., & Bosley, P. J. (1992). Tranquility and preference as affective qualities of natural environments. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 12, 115–127.
Herzog, T. R., & Bryce, A. G. (2007). Mystery and preference in within-forest settings. Environment and Behavior, 39,
779–796.
Howley, P., Donoghue, C. O., & Hynes, S. (2012). Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 104, 66–74.
Jansson, M., Fors, H., Lindgren, T., & Wiström, B. (2013). Perceived personal safety in relation to urban woodland
vegetation – A review. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 12, 127–133.
Jiang, B., Chang, C.-Y., & Sullivan, W. C. (2014). A dose of nature: Tree cover, stress reduction, and gender differences.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 132, 26–36.
Jiang, B., Zhang, T., & Sullivan, W. C. (2015). Healthy cities: Mechanism and research questions regarding the impacts of
urban green landscapes on public health and well-being. Landscape Architecture Frontiers, 3, 24–35.
Kane, P. S. (1981). Assessment landscape attractiveness: A comparative test of two new methods. Applied Geography, 1,
77–96.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 15, 169–182.
Korpela, K. M., & Ylén, M. (2007). Perceived health is associated with visiting natural favourite places in the vicinity.
Health and Place, 13, 138–151.
Kurdoglu, O., & Kurdoglu, B. C. (2010). Determining recreational, scenic, and historical cultural potentials of landscape
features along a segment of the ancient Silk Road using factor analyzing. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
170, 99–116.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics., 33, 159–174.
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.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Junge, X., & Matthies, D. (2010). The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and
aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biological Conservation, 143, 195–202.
Lothian, A. (1999). Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: Is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the
eye of the beholder? Landscape and Urban Planning, 44, 177–198.
Lu, F., & Cai, F. (2007). Investigation on the species and application of garden plants in Xuzhou city. Jiangsu Agricultural
Science., 4, 122–126. (in Chinese).
Mitchell, R., & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: An observational
population study. The Lancet, 372, 1655–1660.
Nassauer, J. I. (1983). Framing the landscape in photographic simulation. Journal of Environmental Management, 17,
1–16.
Nordh, H., Hartig, T., Hagerhall, C. M., & Fry, G. (2009). Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for
restoration. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 8, 225–235.
 LANDSCAPE RESEARCH 661

Paddle, E., & Gilliland, J. (2016). Orange is the new green: Exploring the restorative capacity of seasonal foliage in
schoolyard trees. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13, 497.
Palmer, J. F., & Hoffman, R. E. (2001). Rating reliability and represen-tation validity in scenic landscape assessments.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 149–161.
Prince, M., Patel, V., Saxena, S., Maj, M., Maselko, J., Phillips, M. R., & Rahman, A. (2007). Global mental health 1 – No health
without mental health. The Lancet, 370, 859–877.
Robinson, N. (2004). The planting design handbook (2nd ed.). England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Rolloff, D. B. (1998). Scenic quality at crater lake national park: Visitor perceptions of natural and human inf1uence (PhD
thesis). Oregon State University, Oregon.
Roth, M. (2006). Validating the use of Internet survey techniques in visual landscape assessment – An empirical study
from Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 179–192.
Schipperijn, J., Bentsen, P., Troelsen, J., Toftager, M., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2013). Associations between physical activity
and characteristics of urban green space. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 12, 109–116.
Svobodova, K., Sklenicka, P., Molnarova, K., & Salek, M. (2012). Visual preferences for physical attributes of mining and
post-mining landscapes with respect to the sociodemographic characteristics of respondents. Ecological Engineering,
43, 34–44.
Tang, I.-C., Sullivan, W. C., & Chang, C.-Y. (2015). Perceptual evaluation of natural landscapes: The role of the individual
connection to nature. Environment and Behavior, 47, 596–617.
Thompson, W. C. (2010). Linking landscape and health: The recurring theme. Landscape and Urban Planning, 99,
187–195.
Tyrväinen, L., Silvennoinen, H., & Hallikainen, V. (2017). Effect of the season and forest management on the visual quality
of the nature-based tourism environment: A case from Finnish Lapland. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 32
(4), 349–359.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human
behavior and environment (Vol. 6, pp. 85–125). Plenum, NY: Behavior and Natural Environment.
van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S. L., & van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003). Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they
related. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 135–146.
van den Berg, A. E., Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2010). Green space as a buffer between stressful life
events and health. Social Science and Medicine, 70, 1203–1210.
Velarde, M. D., Fry, G., & Tveit, M. (2007). Health effects of viewing landscapes – Landscape types in environmental
psychology. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 6, 199–212.
Waldheim, C., Hansen, A., Ackerman, J. S., Corner, J., Brunier, Y., & Kennard, P. (2014). Composite landscapes:
Photomontage and landscape architecture. Ostfildern, Germany: Hatje Cantz Verlag.
Wang, R., & Zhao, J. (2017). Demographic groups’ differences in visual preference for vegetated landscapes in urban
green space. Sustainable Cities and Society, 28, 350–357.
Wang, R., Zhao, J., & Liu, Z. (2016a). Consensus in visual preferences: The effect of aesthetic quality and landscape types.
Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 20, 210–217.
Wang, R., Zhao, J., Meitner, M. J., Hu, Y., & Xu, X. (2019). Characteristics of urban green spaces in relation to aesthetic
preference and stress recovery. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 41, 6–13.
Wang, X., Rodiek, S., Wu, C., Chen, Y., & Li, Y. (2016b). Stress recovery and restorative effects of viewing different urban
park scenes in Shanghai, China. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 15, 112–122.
Wells, N., & Evans, G. (2003). Nearby nature a buffer of life stress among rural children. Environment and Behavior, 35,
311–330.
Wherrett, J. R. (1999). Issues in using the Internet as a medium for landscape preference research. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 45, 209–217.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia, the human bond with other species. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Xu, W., Zhao, J., & Ye, L. (2018). Culture is new nature: Comparing the restorative capacity of cultural and natural
landscapes. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 75, 847–865.
Yu, K. (1995). Cultural variations in landscape preference: Comparisons among Chinese sub-groups and western design
experts. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32, 107–126.
Zhao, J., Luo, P., Wang, R., & Cai, Y. (2013). Correlations between aesthetic preferences of river and landscape characters.
Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 21, 123–132.
Zhao, J., Wang, R., Luo, P., Xing, L., & Sun., T. (2017). Visual ecology: Exploring the relationships between ecological
quality and aesthetic preference. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 13, 107–118.
Zhao, J., Xu, W., & Li, Y. (2018). Effects of auditory-visual combinations on perceived restorative potential of urban green
space. Applied Acoustics, 141, 169–177.