Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회지)

The Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of the Number of Visits and Length of Stay in Urban Forests on Subjective Well-Being - A Case Study of Seoul -

도시림의 방문회수와 체류시간이 주관적 웰빙에 미치는 영향 - 서울시를 중심으로 -

  • Hong, Sung-Kwon (Dept. of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Konkuk University) ;
  • Kim, Jong Jin (Dept. of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Konkuk University) ;
  • Kim, Ju Mi (Dept. of Environmental Science, Graduate School, Konkuk University)
  • 홍성권 (건국대학교 산림조경학과) ;
  • 김종진 (건국대학교 산림조경학과) ;
  • 김주미 (건국대학교 대학원 환경과학과)
  • Received : 2018.03.23
  • Accepted : 2018.06.19
  • Published : 2018.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate if subjective well-being could be improved by visiting urban forests near residential areas. Because visiting an urban forest is not an intense positive experience, this research is focused on frequency of affective experience rather than intensity. The independent variables are number of visits and length of stay. The dependent variables are positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction. A polling agency was employed to select 600 respondents by quota sampling, and data was collected by online survey. The results of ANOVA showed that there was no interaction between the number of visits and length of stay. Regardless of the number of visits, the subjective well-being of visitors of urban forests was enhanced: (a) positive affect of respondents who had visited in the past 2 weeks was increased while negative affect was decreased, and (b) life satisfaction for those who had visited at least 1 time per month was enhanced among usual visitors. The stay of length, however, had little effect on the increase or decrease of these three variables. The results of this study support the existing theory that one could reset their genetically determined happiness set point to a higher level by participating in intentional activities such as visiting urban forests that offer ways to achieve long-lasting changes in well-being. This means that it would be a valuable government investment to construct and maintain urban forests for improving citizens' welfare. A few comments were suggested regarding data collection and inclusion of influencing variables to make future subjective well-being studies more reliable.

본 연구는 생활권 도시림의 방문이 시민들의 주관적 웰빙의 향상에 기여하는지를 검토하였다. 도시림 방문은 강한 경험이 아니기 때문에 강도 대신 빈도에 해당하는 방문회수와 체류시간을 독립변수로 사용하였으며, 종속변수는 긍정적 감정, 부정적 감정 및 삶의 만족도이었다. 서울시민을 대상으로 여론조사기관이 온라인 설문으로 수집한 600매의 자료를 분산분석한 결과, (a) 도시림의 방문회수와 체류시간 간에는 상호작용 효과가 없었으며, (b) 방문회수와 상관없이 최근 2주간 도시림을 방문한 사람들은 방문하지 않는 사람들보다 긍정적 감정이 높았으며 부정적 감정은 낮았고, 평소에 한 달에 1번 이상 도시림을 방문한 사람들은 미방문자들보다 삶의 만족도가 높았지만, (C) 방문자들의 체류시간은 긍정적 감정, 부정적 감정 및 삶의 만족도 모두에 영향을 주지 못하였다. 결과적으로, 도시림 방문이란 의도적 활동이 유전적으로 결정된 주관적 웰빙 수준을 변화시킨다는 기존 이론을 확인함으로써, 도시림의 확대와 유지관리는 시민들의 복지향상을 위한 정부의 의미 있는 투자라는 것이 밝혀졌다. 보다 신뢰성 높은 추후연구를 위해 응답자 집단의 선정과 영향변수들의 중요성을 고찰하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Byun, W., J. Lee, E. Seo, Y. Hong and T. Kim (2003) A study on urban resident's preference for developing urban recreational forest: The case study on Seoul. Daegu/Gyungbuk. Gyunggido. Korean Institute of Forest Recreation and Welfare 7(2): 19-25.
  2. Cha, S. and C. Park (1999) Development of green network plan using bird habitat evaluation model: A case study of Seoul, Korea. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 27(4): 29-38.
  3. Chen, Y., X. Lehto and C. Liping (2013) Vacation and well-being: A study of Chinese tourists. Annals of Tourism Research 42: 284-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2013.02.003
  4. Diener, E., D. Wirtz, R. Biswas-Diener, W. Tov, C. Kim-Prieto, D. Choi and S. Oishi (2009) New measures of well-being. In E. Diener, ed., Social Indicators Research Series: Vol. 39. Assessing Well-being: The Collected Works of Ed Diener. New York, NY: Springer Science. pp. 247-266.
  5. Diener, E. and M. Seligman (2004) Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5(1): 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00501001.x
  6. Diener, E. (1984) Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin 95(3): 542-575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542
  7. Diener, E. (1994) Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Social Indicators Research 31(2): 103-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01207052
  8. Diener, E. (2000) Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist 55(1): 34-43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.34
  9. Diener, E. (2009) The science of well being: Reviews and theoretical articles. In E. Diener, ed., Social Indicators Research Series Vol. 37. The Science of Well Being: The Collected Works of Ed Diener. New York, NY: Springer Science. pp. 1-10.
  10. Diener, E., E. Sandvik and W. Pavot (1991) Happiness is the frequency, not the intensity, of positive versus negative affect. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, and N. Schwarz, eds., Subjective Well-Being: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. New York, NY: Pergamon. pp. 119-139.
  11. Diener, E., R. Emmons, R. Larsen and S. Griffin (1985b) The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 49(1): 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
  12. Diener, E., R. Larsen, S. Levine and E. Emmons (1985a) Frequency and intensity: The underlying dimensions of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48(5): 1253-1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.5.1253
  13. Dolnicar, S., K. Lazarevski and V. Yanamandram (2013) Quality of life and tourism: A conceptual framework and novel segmentation base. Journal of Business Research 66(6): 724-729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.010
  14. Dolnicar, S., V. Yanamandram and K. Cliff (2012) The contribution of vacations to quality of life. Annals of Tourism Research 39(1): 59-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.04.015
  15. Dunn, E., D. Gilbert and T. Wilson (2011) If money doesn’t make you happy, then you probably aren’t spending it right. Journal of Consumer Psychology 21(2): 115-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.02.002
  16. Eid, M. and E. Diener (2004) Global judgments of subjective wellbeing: Situational variability and long-term stability. Social Indicators Research 65(3): 245-277. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SOCI.0000003801.89195.bc
  17. Frederick, S. and G. Loewenstein (1999) Hedonic adaptation. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener and N. Schwarz, eds., Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. pp. 302-329.
  18. Fredrickson, B. (1998) What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology 2(3): 300-319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300
  19. Grahn, P. and U. Stigsdotter (2003) Landscape planning and stress. Urban For Urban Green 2(1): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1078/1618-8667-00019
  20. Gyeonggi Research Institute (2005) A Study on the Maximizing Efforts for Effective Use of Urban Forest. Gyeonggi Research Institute.
  21. Hong, S., J. Kim, S. Jung and Y. Tae (2010) An economic valuation of arboretum using choice experiments. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 37(6): 1-11.
  22. Hong, S., K. An and H. Jang (2017) Interactional effects of travel experience and traumatic event on subjective well-being. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 45(2): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.9715/KILA.2017.45.1.001
  23. Hong, S., M. Lee, S. Lee and M. Ahn (2007) Searching for facilities and service programs for the establishment of urban park identification. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 35(5): 29-36.
  24. Jo, H. and T. Ahn (2006) Exploring relationships between urban tree plantings and microclimate amelioration. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture 34(5): 70-75.
  25. Jo, H., J. Kim and H. Park (2016) Effects of pear orchards on carbon reduction. Journal of the American Pomological Society 70(2): 63-73.
  26. Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
  27. Korea Forest Research Institute (2010) Quantification of Public Benefits of Forest. Research Report 10-26.
  28. Korea Forest Service (2014) Statistics of Urban Forest. Korea Forest Service.
  29. Korea Forest Service (2016) Statistics of Urban Forest. Korea Forest Service.
  30. Kwon, H., W. Shin and J. Kim (2004) The comparison of use benefits based on types of urban forest. Korean Institute of Forest Recreation and Welfare 8(2): 37-46.
  31. Lee, J., B. Park, Y. Tsunetsugu, T. Ohira, T. Kagawa and Y. Miyazaki (2011) Effect of forest bathing on physiological and psychological responses in young Japanese male subjects. Public Health 125(2): 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2010.09.005
  32. Lien, J. and G. Buhyoff (1986) Extension of visual quality models for urban forests. Journal of Environmental Management 22(3): 245-254.
  33. Loewe, N., M. Bagherzadeh, L. Araya-Castillo, C. Thieme and J. Batista-Foguet (2014) Life domain satisfactions as predictors of overall life satisfaction among workers: Evidence from Chile. Social Indicator Research 118(1): 71-86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0408-6
  34. Lucas, R., E. Diener and E. Suh (1996) Discriminant validity of wellbeing measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(3): 616-628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.616
  35. Lyubomirsky, S., L, King and E. Diener (2005b) The benefits of frequent positive affect. Psychological Bulletin 131(6): 803-855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803
  36. Lyubomirsky, S., K. Sheldon and D. Schkade (2005a) Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology 9(2): 111-131. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111
  37. Maas, J., R. Verheij, P. Groenewegen, S. de Vries and P. Spreeuwenberg ( 2006) Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 60(7): 587-592. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.043125
  38. McCrae, R. and O. John (1992) An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality 60(2): 175-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x
  39. Ministry of Cultures, Sports and Tourism (2016) 2016 Survey on National Leisure Activity. Ministry of Cultures, Sports and Tourism.
  40. Ministry of Environment (2003) Design and Planning Criteria for the Green Buffer Zone. Ministry of Environment.
  41. Oishi, S., E. Diener, E. Suh and R. Lucas (1999) Value as a moderator in subjective well-being. Journal of Personality 67(1): 157-184. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00051
  42. Pavot, W. and E. Diener (2008) The satisfaction with life scale and emerging construct of life satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology 3(2): 137-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701756946
  43. Pavot, W., F. Fujita and E. Diener (1997) The relation between selfaspect congruence, personality, and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences 22(2): 183-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00196-1
  44. Quoidbach, J., E. Berry, M. Hansenne and M. Mikolajczak (2010) Positive emotion regulation and well-being: Comparing the impact of eight savoring and dampening strategies. Personality and Individual Differences 49(5): 368-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.048
  45. Rusting, C. and R. Larsen (1997) Extraversion, Neuroticism, and susceptibility to positive and negative affect: A test of two theoretical models. Personality and Individual Differences 22(5): 607-612. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00246-2
  46. Shin, D. and D. Johnson (1978) Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Social Indicators Research 5(1): 475-492. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00352944
  47. Shin, W., P. Yeoun, J. Lee, J. Lee and K. Kim (2010) The importantperformance analysis of urban recreational forests. Korean Institute of Forest Recreation and Welfare 14(1): 17-29.
  48. Snyder, C. and S. Lopez (2002) Handbook of Positive Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  49. Takano, T., K. Nakamura and M. Watanabe (2002) Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: The importance of walkable green spaces. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 56(12): 913-918. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.56.12.913
  50. Tyrväinen, L., S. Pauleit, K. Seeland and S. de Vries (2005) Benefits and uses of urban forests and trees. In C. Konijendijk, K. Nilsson, T. Randrup, and J. Schipperijn, eds., Urban Forests and Trees. Berlin: Springer. pp. 81-114.
  51. Ulrich, R. (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224(4647): 420-421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402
  52. Wegener, D. and R. Petty (1994) Mood management across affective states: The hedonic contingency hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66(6): 1034-1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1034
  53. Xiao, Q., E. McPherson, J. Simpson and S. Ustin (1998) Rainfall interception by Sacramento's urban forest. Journal of Arboriculture 24(4): 235-244.
  54. Yardley, J. and R. Rice (1991) The relationship between mood and subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research 24(1): 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00292653
  55. Yoo, R., K. Lee, S. Kim, S. Bae and E. Yoon (2007) A study on the preference analysis by use type of urban forests. Korean Institute of Forest Recreation and Welfare 11(4): 1-6.
  56. http://kosis.kr/
  57. http://www.saramin.co.kr