Impact of Frequency of Visits and Time Spent in
Urban Green Space on Subjective Well-Being
Sung-Kwon Hong 1, Sang-Woo Lee 1,* , Hyun-Kil Jo 2and Miyeon Yoo 3
Department of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Konkuk University, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 05029, Korea
2Department of Ecological Landscape Architecture Design, Kangwon National University,
Chuncheon 24341, Korea
3Graduate Program, Department of Environmental Science, Konkuk University, Gwangjin-gu,
Seoul 05029, Korea
*Correspondence: firstname.lastname@example.org; Tel.: +82-2-450-4120
Received: 11 June 2019; Accepted: 1 August 2019; Published: 2 August 2019
Exposure to green spaces can reduce the negative eﬀects of stress. This study examines
how frequency of visits and time spent in urban green spaces (UGS) aﬀect urban dwellers’ subjective
well-being. We also investigated the numbers of respondents visiting UGS, their primary motivation,
and constraints on their ability to visit. Using quota sampling, an online survey was conducted of
400 residents of Daejeon City, South Korea. ANOVA results indicated no signiﬁcant interactions
between visit frequency and time spent in UGS. Respondents who had visited UGS within the past
two weeks expressed higher positive and lower negative emotions than did non-visitors, regardless
of visit frequency, and regular visitors showed higher general life satisfaction levels. These positive
eﬀects were conﬁrmed by estimated structural equation models. However, the time spent in UGS
did not aﬀect emotions or life satisfaction in general. Heavy users mostly visited UGS to walk,
and light/non-users cited the lack of urban green spaces near their home as the major constraint on
visiting UGS. The estimated structural equation models clearly show positive eﬀects from motivation
and negative eﬀects of constraints and access time to UGS on visit frequency. To improve urban
dwellers’ subjective well-being, UGS should prioritize good walking environments and accessibility.
Keywords: urban green space; positive aﬀect; negative aﬀect; life satisfaction; subjective well-being
A growing body of evidence strongly indicates that living in vegetated areas in urban environments
has various positive eﬀects for urban dwellers, such as improving physical health [
], increasing general life satisfaction and happiness [
], and reducing psychiatric
]. In addition, exposure to natural environments alleviates stress [
cognitive performance [
], enhances positive mood [
], and lowers stress-related illnesses [
Social science studies also reported that vegetation can reduce crime, enhance social safety
increase a sense of attachment [
], improve neighborhood satisfaction [
], and provide
opportunities for frequent social interactions [
], which, in turn, increase community cohesion
and improve the mental health of residents because loneliness and a perceived shortage of social
support can be mediated by frequent social contacts [23,32,34,35].
These various positive eﬀects of green spaces on urban dwellers’ health and well-being are
associated with three mechanisms: attention restoration theory [
], stress reduction theory (or
psycho-evolutionary theory, PET) [
], and biophilia hypothesis [
]. The attention restoration
theory explains that urban environments are not restorative and require high levels of attention
to process the great amount of information (i.e., stress) derived from complex urban systems and
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189; doi:10.3390/su11154189 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 2 of 25
that, because of the evolutionary heritage of humans, green spaces can provide an opportunity to
rest the brain and replenish depleted resources (e.g., [
]). Stress reduction theory suggests that
exposure to green spaces is beneﬁcial for restoration through helping stressed urban dwellers recover
a relaxed emotional state (e.g., [
]); it can signiﬁcantly contribute to better health, promote mental
well-being, enhance social interactions among urban dwellers (e.g., [
]), and increase
physical activities [
]. The biophilia hypothesis indicates that humans have eﬀortless emotional
and psychological preference for green spaces because humans have evolved in natural environments
for thousands of years [
]. Hartig [
] integrates the attention restoration theory and stress
reduction theory—suggesting an “intertwining of the mechanisms”—and ﬁnds that the attractiveness
and use of open spaces are dependent upon the perceived potential restrictiveness of open spaces [
At the same time, the underlying assumption of both the attention restoration theory and stress
reduction theory is eﬀortless exposure to green spaces for resting and restoration eﬀects, and all
humans can experience similar positive eﬀects from green space regardless of geographic location.
In this regard, both attention restoration theory and stress reduction theory can be considered as a part
of the biophilia hypothesis. Although emphasis of each mechanism is slightly diﬀerent, all mechanisms
share a common denominator: complex urban environments are not restorative and have adverse
psychological and physical eﬀects on urban dwellers, and natural environments can recover depleted
states and even enhance positive states in urban dwellers’ minds and bodies. Thus, green spaces,
including grass, shrubs, trees, and water are critical for the psychological and physical well-being of
Among various indicators, well-being has been most widely used to measure the positive eﬀects of
green spaces in urban environments. In general, individual well-being is deﬁned as a multi-dimensional
concept that includes physical health, psychological and social functioning, and subjective well-being
]. Particularly, SWB is an abstract measure of individual well-being [
] and a key concept to
quantify well-being in psychological studies [
]. In general, SWB refers to “how people experience
and evaluate their lives and speciﬁc domains and activities in their lives” [
] and has two aspects:
hedonic (emotional) aspect and eudaimonic (cognitive) aspect [
]. The hedonic approach deﬁnes
happy individuals as those who experience positive emotions more frequently than they do negative
]. According to this perspective, frequent visits to urban green spaces (UGS) can
reduce the frequency of negative emotions and increase the opportunity for positive emotions, leading
to a feeling of happiness in daily life. Interestingly enough, happiness is related to greater success
in various life dimensions, such as marriage, work, community involvement, money, mental health,
physical health, and longevity [
]. From this viewpoint, the success–happiness connection is not one
directional, rather, it should be understood as a reciprocal relationship. It is widely acknowledged that
urban dwellers actively seek activities to sustain increased levels of well-being [
], and small frequent
pleasures (e.g., visiting UGS) in daily life have cumulative signiﬁcant impacts on SWB .
There are three basic components of SWB, which are positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect, and life
satisfaction in general. Positive aﬀect and negative aﬀect represent the emotional aspects of SWB,
whereas life satisfaction in general represents the cognitive aspect of SWB [
]. Often, positive
aﬀect has been shown to be associated with the experience of pleasant (i.e., positive) emotions and
negative aﬀect with unpleasant (i.e., negative) emotions [
]. Clark and Watson [
] reported that
low positive aﬀect and high negative aﬀect are closely tied with depression and anxiety. Meanwhile,
life satisfaction in general refers to a subjective global self-assessment of an individual’s quality of life
according to his/her chosen criteria [
]. SWB is often identiﬁed as “happiness,” and it can considerably
contribute to one’s health and longevity [
]. In this context, one becomes happier in terms of
satisfying one’s own life (i.e., life satisfaction in general) and experiences more positive aﬀect and
less (or an absence of) negative aﬀect. These three components (i.e., positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect,
and life satisfaction in general) are closely correlated to each other, but they should be measured
separately to understand the comprehensive aspects of one’s SWB [
]. According to the bottom-up
theory of life satisfaction, life satisfaction is inﬂuenced by satisfaction with a number of core life
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 3 of 25
domains, such as health, leisure, family, and social life, and each satisfaction can be inﬂuenced by lower
levels of life concerns within the domain [
]. Hence, positive experiences in UGS can improve life
satisfaction through satisfaction in the leisure domain [
]. Numerous prior studies have shown
that visiting UGS can increase satisfaction not only in the leisure domain but also in other domains,
such as mental health (e.g., [
]), physical health (e.g., [
]), social life (e.g., [
and family [
]. Prior studies strongly suggest that UGS is critical infrastructure for sustaining
the well-being of urban residents and that expanding UGS and management are valuable investments
on individual, social, and national levels.
Previous studies have reported that the SWB of urban dwellers can be greatly enhanced by
exposure to natural environments, and the positive eﬀects of natural environments on SWB can be
inﬂuenced by various personal and cultural factors, such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, race,
personal preference, personality traits, and past experiences [
]. Despite the rich evidence
supporting the positive eﬀects of green space on urban dwellers’ SWB, these eﬀects can be signiﬁcantly
inﬂuenced by many personal, socio-cultural, and spatiotemporal factors, which makes the relationship
a complex entity. Thus, the true nature of the relationships between natural environments and SWB, as
well as the eﬀects of various factors, is not fully understood.
From the perspective of urban dwellers’ well-being, demand for urban green space (UGS) has
been continuously increasing globally. The majority of the population in developed countries resides
in urban areas where access to natural environments is limited [
]. According to numerous
studies, urban dwellers have been experiencing more serious psychiatric disorders such as depression,
psychosis, and anxiety disorders than people living in rural or natural areas (e.g., [
]). SWB is a
critical modern public health issue with continuing urbanization worldwide [
] because SWB
is closely tied with psychological and physical health on individual, community, and societal levels.
Particularly, it is an urgent issue for highly urbanized regions and countries. For example, in Korea,
where approximately 90% of the population resides in urbanized areas, the Korean government and
local authorities have been continuously trying to provide more urban green spaces for years to meet
the increasing demand [95–97].
Despite numerous previous studies that investigated the inﬂuences of various factors on the
relationship between UGS and SWB, our understanding of the complex nature of mediating eﬀects is
not clear enough. According to the broaden-and-build theory [
], experiencing positive emotions can
expand one’s awareness and encourage exploratory behaviors. One’s behavioral skills increase, and life
can be enhanced through implementing these additional resources over time, resulting in enhanced
emotional well-being in a virtuous cycle. Similarly, hedonic contingent models argue that an individual
with an enhanced level of well-being more actively seeks out activities to sustain the enhanced level of
well-being, since hedonic rewards are more dependent on hedonic consequences in happy states rather
than sad states [
]. Both the broaden-and-build theory and hedonic contingent models emphasize that
the prior experience of positive emotion impacts people’s tendency to proactively seek out activities to
sustain enhanced well-being.
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the eﬀects of visit frequency and time spent in
UGS on positive/negative aﬀect and life satisfaction in general; these are fundamental components of
urban dwellers’ SWB, and estimations of these eﬀects were inconsistent across previous studies. On the
basis of the broaden-and-build theory and hedonic contingent models, we hypothesized that frequent
visits and more time spent in UGS can enhance urban dwellers’ SWB (i.e., high levels of positive aﬀect
and life satisfaction in general, and low level of negative aﬀect). The second purpose of the study was
to identify the main motivations for and constraints on visiting UGS. In the constraint-eﬀect-mitigation
model (CEM, [
]), motivations and constraints play critical roles in determining whether to participate
in leisure activities, including visiting UGS, and are therefore important factors for planners and
policy-makers in enhancing the subjective well-being of urban residents. Lastly, we estimated two
structural equation models (SEMs) for aﬀect and life satisfaction by integrating sociodemographic
characteristics, the frequency of visiting UGS, motivation, constraints, and access time from home
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 4 of 25
to UGS. By estimating SEMs, it was possible to identify the relative contributions of motivation,
constraints with holding other covariates.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
The study was conducted in 2017 in the city of Daejeon in South Korea. As a major city, Daejeon is
approximately 539,919 km
and has a population of 1.5 million. Daejeon is located in the center of the
country and therefore it is the hub of national transportation systems including railroads and highways.
The annual temperature and precipitation are 13.0
C and 1458 mm, respectively. Daejeon experiences
great seasonal variations in monthly average temperatures ranging from
C in January to 25.6
in August [
], which may aﬀect people’s use of green spaces. About 55.4% (299.3 km
) of the city
is designated as green spaces, including urban natural forests, neighborhood parks, pocket parks,
and children’s parks, which is higher than any other major city in the country. Daejeon is surrounded
by a number of densely forested mountains and shares a boundary with the Dae-Chung dam (64.3 km
surface areas) at its northeast border. The land use/land cover (LULC) map of Daejeon shows the typical
spatial distribution pattern of large cities in South Korea: intensiﬁed developed areas in the center,
a mixture of natural and developed areas outside of the city center, and areas with more vegetation
along the city’s borders, with the exception of the northern part of the city (Figure 1).
Spatial distributions of land use/land cover (LULC), including urban green spaces (UGS),
major mountains and rivers, and the dam surrounding the city. Most urban green spaces are located on
the outer rim of the city, and there are insuﬃcient urban green spaces near residents’ homes (areas
2.2. Sampling and Survey
An online survey of 400 Daejeon residents was conducted by a polling agency between 31 July
and 13 August 2017. We provided sampling quotas, basic deﬁnitions of subjective well-being and
urban green space, and scales of positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect, and life satisfaction. Prior to the main
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 5 of 25
survey, the polling agency conducted a pilot test to ensure the quality of the questionnaire, using a
small number of randomly selected respondents. Using quota sampling by age (from 20 to 59 years
old) and gender, the assigned quota for each age group was 97 for 20–29 years, 97 for 30–39 years, 110
for 40–49 years, and 96 for 50–59 years. The quota for gender groups was the same for male (50%) and
female (50%) respondents (Table 1).
Table 1. Sampling quota by age and gender groups.
Quota Groups Number of Respondents (%) Total
20–29 97 (24.3)
30–39 97 (24.3)
40–49 110 (27.5)
50–59 96 (24.0)
Gender Male 200 (50.0) 400
Female 200 (50.0)
According to the Forest Resources Establishment and Management Act in Korea, UGS refers
to “planted and managed forests or trees in urbanized areas for enhancing urban dwellers’ health,
recreation opportunity, resting, and emotional integrity.” On the basis of this deﬁnition, UGS may
include almost all vegetated spaces in urban areas, such as urban parks, street trees, green walls,
and amusement parks, which is too broad for urban dwellers. For these reasons, the Korean Forest
Service restricted the deﬁnition of UGS to “easily accessible UGS in daily life with minimal time and
ﬁnancial costs” [
]. We adopted this deﬁnition of UGS for this study because it places more emphasis
on UGS in living areas (neighborhoods) and excludes high mountainous forests or large recreational
forests that are located far from respondents’ homes.
2.4. Measuring Positive Aﬀect, Negative Aﬀect, and Life Satisfaction in General
To understand SWB, we measured positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect, and life satisfaction in general.
The Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE) [
] was used to measure respondents’
positive aﬀect (SPANE-P) and negative aﬀect (SPANE-N). SPANE was developed by Diener et al. [
to assess a broad range of emotions by asking respondents to recall activities and experiences in UGS
over the past four weeks through 12 questions (six questions for positive aﬀect and six questions for
negative aﬀect), with answer options on a ﬁve-point Likert scale. Of the six questions for positive
aﬀect and negative aﬀect, three items address emotional experiences in general (e.g., positive aﬀect or
negative aﬀect), and the other three items ask about speciﬁc emotional experiences, such as “joyful”
and “sad,” during the past four weeks. The reliability and validity of SPANE has been examined in a
number of studies (e.g., [
]), and various time frames (e.g., yesterday, past week, past two
weeks, or in general) have been used to measure positive aﬀect and negative aﬀect in association with
SWB (e.g., [
]). Thus, the time frame is not ﬁxed when using SPANE, and we chose the past
two weeks as the time frame for the survey to minimize the possible adverse eﬀects due to respondents’
memory. This time frame has previously been used eﬀectively in a similar study in Korea (e.g., ).
Life satisfaction in general was assessed with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), which contains
ﬁve items with answer responses on a seven-point Likert scale [
]. Since every person assesses
his/her own life in diﬀerent ways, a deﬁnition that reﬂects an individual’s perspectives is required.
SWLS has shown to be an eﬀective measure of an individual’s life satisfaction in general by allowing
the integration of an individual’s perspectives on life satisfaction. A number of previous studies have
demonstrated the reliability and validity of this scale, and it has been widely implemented with a
broad range of age groups and areas of study (e.g., [69,71,105–109]).
In the literature, SWB has been shown to be more strongly associated with the frequency and
duration of an individuals’ positive feelings, not with the intensity of those feelings [
]. Thus, it was
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 6 of 25
rationalized that one’s aﬀective well-being is determined by the frequency of experiencing positive
aﬀect and negative aﬀect, not by the intensity of those experiences. In light of this, we surveyed
the frequency of visits and time spent in UGS in relation to positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect, and life
satisfaction in general.
2.5. Conceptualized Eﬀects of Motivations and Constraints
According to the constraint-eﬀect-mitigation model (CEM) proposed in leisure and recreation,
“motivation” and “constraint” are determinants for one’s participation in certain activities (e.g., visiting
an urban forest). In the CEM model, motivation and constraint directly impact participation, as well as
indirectly impact participation through the “negotiation” process based on one’s previously structured
value system [
] (Figure 2). The outcome (i.e., visiting or not visiting UGS) of the negotiation process
is largely determined by the relative strength of, and interactions between, motivation and constraint
]. The constraint factors negatively aﬀect visiting UGS. However, the constraint factors can
be overcome through negotiation if the motivation factors to visit UGS are strong enough. In our study,
motivation was deﬁned as the desire to enhance positive aﬀect, to lower negative aﬀect, and to increase
life satisfaction by visiting UGS (e.g., [
]). At the same time, constraints were factors that inhibit
visiting UGS or limit satisfaction (e.g., [
]), and negotiation was conceptualized as a variety of tactics
and resources that attenuate the negative inﬂuences of constraints on visiting UGS (e.g., ).
A conceptual diagram of the constraint-eﬀect-mitigation (CEM) model (modiﬁed from [
2.6. Estimating Structural Equation Models
We integrated sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age, presence of children, marital
status, education levels, and monthly income levels) and access time to UGS to quantify the relative
contributions of motivations and constraints on visit frequency and amount of time spent in UGS. It was
hypothesized that sociodemographic variables, access time to UGS, motivation, and constraint aﬀected
visit frequency and the amount of time spent in UGS, and that positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect, and life
satisfaction were aﬀected by visit frequency and time spent in UGS. The fact that we estimated SEM as
a conﬁrmative tool to verify the study results is signiﬁcant. Two separate models for aﬀect and life
satisfaction were estimated using AMOS for SPSS (IBM Statistics Version 25) with the same explanatory
variables (i.e., sociodemographic variables, access time to UGS, motivation, and constraints). We used
the UGS visit frequency within the previous two weeks for the aﬀect model and the usual use of UGS
for the life satisfaction model.
3.1. Validity and Reliability Test of Measurements
A principal component factor analysis with a varimax rotation was conducted to examine the
validity of surveyed SPANE and SWLS. Two factors (i.e., positive aﬀect and negative aﬀect) from SPANE
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 7 of 25
and a single factor (i.e., life satisfaction in general) from SWLS were extracted from the factor analysis.
All of Cronbach’s
values of loaded variables of positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect, and life satisfaction in
general were greater than 0.7, indicating an acceptable level of reliability [
]. Percentage of variance
explained by each factor for positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect, and life satisfaction in general was 32.29%,
31.17%, and 73.89%, respectively (Table 2).
Results of factor analysis with a varimax rotation and reliability test of measurement scale.
Two factors (i.e., positive aﬀect and negative aﬀect) were extracted from the Scale of Positive and
Negative Experience (SPANE), and one factor (i.e., life satisfaction in general) was extracted from the
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). All of Cronbach’s
values of loaded variables were signiﬁcantly
higher than 0.7.
Category Variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Cronbach’s α
Good 0.7778 −0.1824
Pleasant 0.8125 −0.1813
Happy 0.8057 −0.1517
Joyful 0.8103 −0.1828 0.9176
Contended 0.7302 −0.1390
Positive 0.7527 −0.2383
Bad −0.1614 0.8315
Unpleasant −0.1178 0.7823
Sad −0.1625 0.7007
Afraid −0.2119 0.7452 0.9099
Angry −0.1504 0.7520
Negative −0.2666 0.7914
Life satisfaction in
In most ways, my life is close to my ideal. 0.8777
The conditions of my life are excellent. 0.8475
I am satisﬁed with my life. 0.8567 0.9374
So far, I have gotten the important things I want in life. 0.8751
If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.
3.2. Measuring Frequency of Visits and Time Spent in UGS
All variables were collected for the past two weeks and usual use. In cases of the past two
weeks, the most common frequency reported was visiting 1–2 times per week (95 respondents, 23.8%).
The percentage of respondents who did not visit an UGS in the past two weeks was considerably
higher (47.5%) than cases of usual use (9.8%) because a week of surveying time overlapped with the
rainy season. However, respondents visited UGS more frequently after the rainy season ended. For a
particular timeframe, the percentage of weekly visitors (more than once per week) within the past two
weeks was greater than the percentage for usual use. Approximately 47.1% of respondents spent 1–2 h
in UGS, and the second most common frequency reported was less than 1 h (28.6%).
In usual use cases, 123 respondents reported that they visited UGS 1–3 times per month, which was
the most common group (30.8%), and the second most common group reported visits at least once
per year (110 respondents, 27.5%). The combination of these two groups consisted of more than 50%
of the respondents, suggesting that UGS is an important leisure destination for Daejeon residents.
Regarding time spent in the UGS, approximately 45% of respondents reported that they spent 1–2 h
per visit. Only 24 respondents (6.7%) spent more than 3 h in UGS, suggesting that most residents in
the study area spent less than 3 h in UGS (Table 3).
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 8 of 25
Frequency of visits and amount of time spent in the UGS within the past two weeks and
Past Two Weeks Usual Use
Group Percent of
Respondent (%) Group Percent of
Number of visits
Almost everyday 1.5 Almost everyday 2.3
5–6 times/week 0.3 4–6 times/week 2.3
3–4 times/week 7.2 1–3 times/week 23.0
1–2 times/week 23.8 1–3 times/month 30.8
1 time/2 weeks 19.8 1–3 times/year 27.5
No visit 47.5 1 time/years 4.5
No visit 9.8
Total 100.0% Total 100.0
Amount of time
Less than 1 h 28.6 Less than 1 h 25.2
1–2 h 47.1 1–2 h 44.9
2–3 h 18.6 2–3 h 23.3
3–4 h 4.3 3–4 h 5.5
4–5 h 1.0 4–5 h 0.6%
More than 5 h 0.5 More than 5 h 0.6
Total * 100.0% Total * 100.0
* 190 and 39 non-visitors were excluded from the data under the past two weeks and usual use, respectively.
3.3. Segmentation by Frequency and Time Spent
To test SWB caused by frequency of visits and time spent in UGS, respondents were classiﬁed
into three groups for both positive aﬀect/negative aﬀect and life satisfaction in general. Since there are
no known objective criteria in the literature, classiﬁcation was decided on the basis of respondents’
distributions. Due to the high temporal and short-term stability of emotional experience (i.e., positive
aﬀect and negative aﬀect), we classiﬁed respondents who visited UGS more than once per week within
the past two weeks as the “heavy user group” (Hgroup, 131 respondents). The “moderate user group”
(Mgroup, 79 respondents) consisted of respondents who visited UGS once within the past two weeks,
and respondents who did not visit UGS in the past two weeks were classiﬁed as the “non-user group”
(Ngroup, 190 respondents). Similarly, respondents were also classiﬁed into the “long-stay group”
(more than 2 h per visit, 51 respondents), “medium-stay group” (1–2 h per visit, 99 respondents),
and “short-stay group” (less than 1 h per visit, 60 respondents) based on the average time they spent in
UGS per visit. The Ngroup (190 respondents) was excluded from the classiﬁcation based on time spent
because it is not possible to examine the eﬀects of time spent in UGS on positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect,
and life satisfaction in general for non-visitors (Table 4).
As for usual use of UGS, we classiﬁed respondents into three groups: “heavy user group” (Hgroup,
more than once per week), “moderate user group” (Mgroup, 1–3 times per month), and “light/non-user
group” (LNgroup, 1–3 times per year or no visits). The number of respondents classiﬁed as Hgroup,
Mgroup, and LNgroup was 110 (27.5%), 123 (30.8%), and 167 (41.8%), respectively. Respondents were
also classiﬁed into three groups based on average time spent in UGS. The groups were “long stay group”
(more than 2 h per visit, 108 respondents), “medium-stay group” (1–3 h per visit), and “short-stay
group” (less than 1 h, 91 respondents). However, 39 respondents who reported no visits were excluded
from this classiﬁcation (Table 4).
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 9 of 25
Table 4. Segmented respondent groups by frequency of visit and amount of time spent in UGS.
Positive Aﬀect/Negative Aﬀect 1Life Satisfaction 2
1 or more
times/week 32.8 Heavy user
1 or more
1 time/2 weeks
19.8 Moderate user
Non-user group No visit 47.5 Light &
and no visit
Total 100 Total 100
Long stay group more than 2
h/visit 24.3 Long stay group 2 h or
group 1–2 h/visit 47.1 Medium stay
group 1–2 h/visit 44.9
Short stay group
less than 1
Short stay group
less than 1
Total 3100 Total 3100
Past two weeks,
190 and 39 non-visitors were excluded from aﬀective components and life
3.4. Eﬀects of the Frequency of Visits and Time Spent in UGS on SWB
Prior to examining the eﬀects of visiting UGS, we tested for the possible existence of interaction
eﬀects between the frequency of visits and time spent in UGS. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted for positive aﬀect and negative aﬀect experienced in the past two weeks with interaction
eﬀects. The results indicated that there were no interaction eﬀects between frequency of visits and
time spent in UGS on positive aﬀect and negative aﬀect. Also, no interaction eﬀects were observed
between frequency of visits and time spent on life satisfaction in general. Speciﬁcally, the F-statistic
of interaction eﬀects for positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect, and life satisfaction in general was 1.3, 0.37,
and 0.37, respectively, and none of them were signiﬁcant (>0.05), indicating the absence of interaction
eﬀects between frequency of visits and time spent in UGS (Table 5).
The results of ANOVA for testing the possible presence of interaction eﬀects between the
frequency of visits and time spent in UGS.
Category Variable df SS MS F-Value p-Value
Frequency of visits
1 0.1935 0.1935 0.51 0.4766
Time spent 2 2.1949 1.0974 2.88 0.0582
Interaction 2 0.9883 0.4941 1.30 0.2751
Frequency of visits
1 0.7908 0.7908 1.64 0.2019
Time spent 2 0.2570 0.1285 0.27 0.7665
Interaction 2 0.3531 0.1766 0.37 0.6940
Frequency of visits
2 10.1123 5.0561 2.92 0.0554
Time spent 2 0.5146 0.2573 0.15 0.8621
Interaction 4 2.5348 0.6337 0.37 0.8331
df =degrees of freedom, SS =sum of squares and MS =mean squares.
Additional ANOVAs were conducted for positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect, and life satisfaction in
general without interaction eﬀects of two independent variables in order to detect whether there were
diﬀerences in group means. The F-statistic of frequency of visits for positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect,
and life satisfaction in general was 15.11, 11.68, and 4.7, respectively, and their p-values were less than
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 10 of 25
0.01 (Table 6). The results of the F-test indicated that there were signiﬁcant group mean diﬀerences for
positive aﬀect and negative aﬀect based on the frequency of visits to UGS within the past two weeks.
However, there were no signiﬁcant diﬀerences in the distributions of positive aﬀect and negative aﬀect
based on the amount of time spent in UGS. Similarly, the distribution of life satisfaction in general was
signiﬁcantly diﬀerent based on the frequency of visits to UGS for usual users; however, there was no
signiﬁcant diﬀerence for life satisfaction in general based on the amount of time spent in UGS. In sum,
it was evident that variances of positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect, and life satisfaction in general of the
respondents were signiﬁcantly related to the frequency of visits to UGS.
The analyses of variance for positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect, and life satisfaction in general due
to the frequency of visits and amount of time spent in UGS.
Category Variable d.f. SS MS F-Value p-Value
Frequency of visits
2 12.0051 6.0025 15.11 <0.0001
Time spent 2 2.1949 1.0974 2.88 0.0582
Frequency of visits
2 12.0751 6.0375 11.68 <0.0001
Time spent 2 0.2570 0.1285 0.27 0.7659
Frequency of visits
2 16.0261 8.0130 4.70 0.0096
Time spent 2 0.5146 0.2573 0.15 0.8626
Multiple comparison tests (i.e., Duncan test) were used to determine whether there were diﬀerences
in the means of positive aﬀect and negative aﬀect among groups classiﬁed by the frequency of visits
within the past two weeks (Figure 3). The results indicated that there was a signiﬁcant diﬀerence
in the means of positive aﬀect between the user groups (i.e., Hgroup and Mgroup) and non-user
group (Ngroup). Speciﬁcally, the mean positive aﬀect of both the Hgroup (m =3.3741) and the
) was signiﬁcantly higher than the mean positive aﬀect of the Ngroup (m =3.0535).
However, we did not observe a signiﬁcant diﬀerence in mean positive aﬀect between the two user
groups (i.e., Hgroup and Mgroup). Thus, respondents who visited UGS within the past two weeks had
higher levels of positive aﬀect. In contrast, the mean negative aﬀect of both the Hgroup (m =2.4809)
and the Mgroup (m =2.6047) was signiﬁcantly lower than the mean negative aﬀect of the Ngroup
(m =2.8649). Thus, the results of the Duncan test showed that respondents who visited UGS at least
once within the past two weeks experienced considerably lower negative aﬀect than those who did
not. However, there was no signiﬁcant diﬀerence in the means of negative aﬀect between the two user
groups (i.e., Hgroup and Mgroup), despite that the Hgroup had a slightly lower mean of negative
aﬀect than the Mgroup.
In sum, the user groups in the short-term (i.e., past two weeks) had a signiﬁcantly higher mean
positive aﬀect and lower mean negative aﬀect than the non-user group, regardless of the frequency of
visits. Our results emphasize the importance of regular visits to UGS for sustaining positive aﬀect
and retaining low levels of negative emotions. Respondents in the Hgroup and Mgroup were likely
to experience positive emotions more frequently by visiting UGS than respondents in the Ngroup,
and negative emotions of respondents in the Hgroup and Mgroup can be mediated by more frequently
experiencing positive emotions. Our study results indicated that this mediation eﬀect is unlikely to
occur for respondents in the Ngroup. Another important aspect of the results is the recreational needs
of urban dwellers; the recreational demands of respondents in the Hgroup and Mgroup could be
additionally satisﬁed by visiting UGS. However, respondents in the non-user group did not have an
opportunity to fulﬁll their recreational demands in UGS, resulting in a low level of positive aﬀect and
high level of negative aﬀect.
Regarding life satisfaction in general, respondents were classiﬁed into three groups: heavy user
group (Hgroup, visit 1 or more times per week), moderate user group (Mgroup, visit 1–3 times
per month), and light/non-user group (LNgroup, visit 1–3 times per year or no visits) (see Table 4).
A Duncan test was also conducted to detect the means of life satisfaction in general for those three
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 11 of 25
groups. User groups (i.e., Hgroup and Mgroup) had a signiﬁcantly higher mean life satisfaction in
general than the LNgroup (m =3.4335). The Hgroup (m =3.8927) had a slightly higher mean life
satisfaction in general than the Mgroup (m =3.7707), but the diﬀerence was not signiﬁcant (Figure 3).
Duncan test for comparing the mean of positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect, and life satisfaction
among groups classiﬁed by the frequency of visits to UGS within the past two weeks (positive/negative
aﬀect) and usual use (life satisfaction).
3.5. Motivation and Constraint
In our study, we assessed various motivations for visiting UGS using multiple response options in
the survey, such as “to take a walk,” “to rest,” “to exercise and hike,” “to be away from home,” “to spend
time with family members,” and “to enjoy nature” (Figure 4). We found that user groups (i.e., Hgroup
and Mgroup) were more motivated by “to exercise and hike” than the LNgroup. Considering that
health has been recognized as one of the most important life domains [
] and that the study area
is a densely urbanized environment with a lack of space for exercising, the higher SWB of user groups
than the LNgroup can be explained by the satisfaction of the health motivation of visitors to UGS.
Compared to user groups, respondents in the LNgroup reported higher motivations “to rest,” “to be
away from home,” and “to spend time with family members.” The Hgroup’s major motivations for
visiting UGS were “to take a walk” and “to exercise and hike,” while the Mgroup’s primary motivations
were “to take a walk” and “to rest.”
Frequency (%) of motivations for visiting UGS among heavy, moderate, and light/
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 12 of 25
The frequency analysis of constraints indicated that all groups were greatly inﬂuenced by
constraints (Figure 5). Heavy and moderate users sought to enhance SWB using negotiation strategies
despite being inﬂuenced by constraints as much as non-users. The major constraints for the Hgroup
were “poor facilities in UGS” and “no UGS near home,” whereas the Mgroup cited “no time to visit,”
“limited parking,” and “poor public transportation service” as the primary constraints. Notably,
the LNgroup reported “no UGS near home” as the primary constraint. Respondents in the Hgroup
cited “limited information on available UGS” the least as a constraint, implying that heavy users
actively seek out information on available UGS even if the information is diﬃcult to ﬁnd. Meanwhile,
light and non-users reported “limited information on available UGS” as a fairly signiﬁcant constraint.
Frequency (%) of motivations for visiting UGS among heavy, moderate, and light/non-
3.6. Structural Equation Models for Positive/Negative Aﬀect and Life Satisfaction
The study results above indicate that the UGS visit frequency had a signiﬁcant impact on
positive/negative aﬀect and life satisfaction. Thus, we included only the UGS visit frequency in
the estimated SEMs for positive/negative aﬀect and life satisfaction. The estimated model for
positive/negative aﬀect revealed that the number of motivations positively aﬀected the frequency of
visiting urban green space within the previous two weeks while the number of constraints negatively
aﬀected it. The UGS visit frequency was likely to be high if respondents had a greater number of
motivations and fewer constraints (Figure 6). Thus, visit frequency was partially determined by the
number of motivations and constraints. Visit frequency within the previous two weeks was also
aﬀected by age and the access time from home to UGS. In addition, older respondents were likely to
have visited UGS more frequently within the previous two weeks than younger respondents. However,
other sociodemographic characteristics, gender, marital status, education level, monthly income level,
and the presence of children (elementary school) did not show a signiﬁcant eﬀect on UGS visit frequency.
The access time from home to urban green space negatively aﬀected visit frequency, suggesting that
the visit frequency was likely to be low if there was no available UGS near home. The comparison
of the standardized coeﬃcients of paths indicated that the number of motivations (0.19) was a more
critical factor in determining the visit frequency than other variables, such as the number of constraints
0.11), age (0.13), and access time (
0.14). Clearly, the UGS visit frequency within the previous two
weeks increased positive aﬀect (0.26) and lowered negative aﬀect (
0.21), conﬁrming the ANOVA
results (Table 5).
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 13 of 25
A structural equation model (SEM) for positive/negative aﬀect with sociodemographic
variables, access time to urban green space, visit frequency, number of motivations, and number of
constraints. Numbers along the paths indicate signiﬁcant standardized eﬀects of variables (p<0.05).
A SEM for life satisfaction in general was also estimated with the same variable (Figure 7).
For estimating the model, we used the UGS visit frequency by usual use. This frequency was positively
aﬀected by the number of motivations (0.09) and negatively aﬀected by the number of constraints
0.1). Thus, the frequency of visiting urban green space was in part dependent on how many
motivations or constraints each individual had. At the same time, visit frequency was negatively
aﬀected by access time from home to UGS and positively aﬀected by age and education level. Thus,
the UGS visit frequency by usual use was likely to be high if one had a greater number of motivations,
a lower number of constraints, was older, had a higher education level, and if access time to UGS was
short. However, visit frequency was not aﬀected by other sociodemographic characteristics, such as
gender, income level, presence of children, and marital status. Access time from home to urban green
spaces showed a stronger eﬀect on the visit frequency (
0.2) than the number of motivations (0.09),
the number of constraints (
0.1), education level (0.16), or age (0.09) in the estimated life satisfaction
model. As reported earlier (Table 5), the frequency of visiting urban green space revealed a positive
eﬀect on life satisfaction in general.
In sum, both SEMs for positive/negative aﬀect and life satisfaction revealed that the UGS
visit frequency had positive eﬀects on positive/negative aﬀect and life satisfaction. At the same
time, the positive eﬀect of age and negative eﬀect of access time were consistent in both SEMs.
Other sociodemographic characteristics did not show a signiﬁcant eﬀect on the frequency within the
previous two weeks and usual use. Thus, it was clear that older urban dwellers were likely to visit
UGS more frequently than younger people. In addition, access time from home to UGS appeared as a
critical factor for the UGS visit frequency. Longer access time to UGS decreased the visit frequency,
which in turn decreased positive aﬀect and life satisfaction in general and increased negative aﬀect.
Also, both SEMs reinforced the importance of motivations and constraints in using urban green spaces.
The number of motivations consistently increased the visit frequency, resulting in increased positive
aﬀect and life satisfaction and decreased negative aﬀect.
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 14 of 25
A structural equation model for life satisfaction in general with sociodemographic variables,
access time to urban green space, frequency of visit, number of motivations, and number of constraints.
Numbers along the paths indicate signiﬁcant standardized eﬀects of variables (p<0.05).
The goodness-of-ﬁt index of two estimated models was compared with recommended multicriteria
including probability of X
, goodness-of-ﬁt index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-ﬁt index (AGFI),
comparative ﬁt index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), normed ﬁt index (NFI),
and parsimony normed ﬁt index (PNFI) [
]. All indicators of the estimated two models were in the
acceptable range, indicating that the models ﬁtted with the observed relationships of positive/negative
aﬀect and life satisfaction with sociodemographic variables, accessibility, frequency of visit, motivation,
and constraints (Table 7).
Summary of the estimated model ﬁt. All recommended goodness-of-ﬁt indexes of the estimated
aﬀect and life satisfaction models were in the acceptable range.
Goodness-of-Fit Index Criteria Aﬀect Model LSG* Model
Probability of X2p<0.05 <0.00 <0.00
Goodness-of-ﬁt index (GFI) >0.90 0.93 0.94
Adjusted goodness-of-ﬁt index (AGFI) >0.80 0.91 0.91
Comparative ﬁt index (CFI) >0.90 0.95 0.94
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
<0.08 0.05 0.07
Normed ﬁt index (NFI) >0.90 0.92 0.92
Parsimony normed ﬁt index (PNFI) >0.60 0.79 0.74
* LSG =life satisfaction in general.
4.1. Eﬀects of Frequency of Visits and Time Spent in UGS on SWB
Studies have shown that various variables modify the relationship between natural environments
and SWB, such as the quality of green space [
], biodiversity/variation in vegetation
, untended or poorly managed green space conditions [
], types of activities
], the degree of crowding [
], the degree of naturalness [
], proximity to green
space , accessibility , and perceived sense of safety .
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 15 of 25
Our results of ANOVA and SEMs demonstrated that visiting UGS increased respondents’ positive
aﬀect and life satisfaction in general and decreased negative aﬀect. Speciﬁcally, respondents who
visited UGS within the past two weeks showed signiﬁcantly higher positive aﬀect and lower negative
aﬀect than those who did not visit UGS. Similarly, respondents who regularly visited on a weekly or
monthly basis showed a higher level of life satisfaction in general than those who did not visit UGS at
all or only visited a few times (e.g., 1–3 times a year). This was also conﬁrmed by estimated SEMs for
aﬀect and life satisfaction. Regarding the eﬀects of frequency of visits, we did not observe any diﬀerence
between heavy users and moderate users in positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect, and life satisfaction in
general. The amount of time spent in UGS was an insigniﬁcant factor for all components of SWB (i.e.,
positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect, and life satisfaction in general). These results are likely due to the unique
characteristics of aﬀective well-being components (i.e., positive aﬀect and negative aﬀect) and life
satisfaction (i.e., life satisfaction in general). According to the broaden-and-build theory, experiencing
positive emotions can broaden one’s momentary thought-action repertoires, and, in turn, serve to
build one’s enduring personal resources, such as physical, intellectual, social, and psychological
resources. In addition, experiencing positive emotions may initiate reciprocal interactions between
positive emotions and broadened thinking, and lead to increases in emotional well-being over time [
Overall, experiencing pleasant emotions (e.g., visiting UGS) did not persistently produce an increase
in positive emotions. Ong et al. [
] reported that repeatedly experiencing high levels of positive
emotions can mediate the negative inﬂuence of stress on one’s current negative emotions, and this
mediation eﬀect can extend until the following day. In addition, aroused positive aﬀect can be used as
a continuous resource for enhancing one’s ability to respond to new circumstances, resulting in a low
level of negative aﬀect [
]. Repeatedly visiting UGS might evoke a low level of positive emotions, but
such accumulated experiences of positive emotions could enhance individuals’ long-term SWB .
In addition, prior research has shown that the emotional aspects (i.e., positive aﬀect and negative aﬀect)
of SWB have high temporal stability and sensitivity to short-term ﬂuctuations while life satisfaction in
general is relatively stable over time [
]. In theory, life satisfaction (i.e., life satisfaction in general)
is a distinct concept from emotional well-being (i.e., positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect). An individual’s
positive or negative emotions can be derived from his/her cognitive evaluation, and an individual
considers these emotions (i.e., positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect) as criteria when judging his/her life
]. From this perspective, positive aﬀect/negative aﬀect and life satisfaction in general
are interrelated. In general, positive aﬀect/negative aﬀect is a reaction to or appraisal of ongoing events,
whereas life satisfaction in general is a more comprehensive, long-term evaluation of one’s life [
Due to these interactive characteristics of life satisfaction in general and positive aﬀect/negative aﬀect,
respondents’ experienced an increased positive aﬀect after visiting forests which enhanced their daily
life and life satisfaction in general.
In this context, the results of this study suggest that the positive emotions of urban dwellers may
be enhanced by small but frequent pleasurable experiences by visiting UGS in their daily lives, and such
enhanced positive emotions may broaden their coping skills in certain circumstances. For example,
coping resources and friendships can be considerably expanded through the increase in positive
emotions, enabling individuals to cope ﬂexibly and creatively with diﬀerent circumstances. However,
revisiting UGS sustains the increased positive emotions and broadens coping resources, thereby
building a positive cycle of visiting UGS, enhancing positive emotions, and increasing/broadening
coping ability. This positive cycling structure provides critical evidence supporting the need for urban
dwellers to visit UGS and for providing UGS.
We did not observe any signiﬁcant eﬀects based on the amount of time spent in UGS on SWB.
This was possibly because respondents evaluated visiting UGS overall as a positive experience and did
not evaluate individual activities experienced during each visit. This was, in part, associated with the
scale used in the study. Speciﬁcally, SPANE is a scale for measuring how often respondents experienced
positive/negative emotions. Visitors who spend more time in UGS might experience relatively more
positive and negative emotions than those who spend less time in UGS. However, the amount of time
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 16 of 25
spent in UGS did not appear to be a signiﬁcant factor because respondents comprehensively evaluated
visiting UGS based on the diﬀerence in frequency of experiencing the two emotions [
]. In addition,
the amount of time spent in UGS might be associated with the intensity of experienced emotions.
However, we were unable to assess the intensity of emotions experienced during visits with SPANE.
Our results are consistent with the ﬁndings of prior studies (e.g., [
] that indicate that SWB
is inﬂuenced more by frequency of experience (i.e., the frequency of visits to UGS) than intensity of
experience (i.e., amount of time spent in UGS).
However, it is noteworthy that some studies have reported that the amount of time spent is as
important for SWB as frequency of visit (e.g., [
]). For example, university students who
reported longer amounts of time spent in green spaces showed high levels of life satisfaction and
low levels of stress (e.g., [
]). Korpela et al. [
] also reported that longer amounts of time
spent in nature-based recreation are associated with restorative experiences and perceived emotional
well-being, despite being reluctant to conclude that the time spent in urban forests is not associated
with SWB. In addition, the concept of regularity may be more important for life satisfaction than
simply frequency. As discussed earlier, life satisfaction is temporally stable, and there are accumulated
eﬀects of experiencing positive emotions on life satisfaction. In this context, the temporal stability
of life satisfaction may be associated more with regularity of visits to UGS than frequency of visits
]). However, this argument must be conﬁrmed in further studies with separate measures
for eﬀects of regular and irregular visits, while controlling for the total number of visits.
4.2. Eﬀects of Motivation and Constraint
The estimated SEMs for positive/negative and life satisfaction with motivations and constraints
provided signiﬁcant insight into improving the SWB of urban dwellers. In the estimated models,
the number of motivations increased the frequency of visits to UGS while the number of constraints
showed negative impacts. Also, we identiﬁed the primary motivation and constraint. Thus,
the fundamental strategy for improving SWB in urbanized areas must satisfy the primary motivations
while minimizing the constraints. In our study, the most frequently reported motivations included
certain terms such as “walk,” “away from home,” and “nature.” These terms belong to the “being
away” dimension of the attention restoration theory, proposed by Kaplan and Kaplan [
]. In the urban
context, the “being away” dimension is closely associated with visiting or moving to a diﬀerent physical
environment (e.g., UGS and natural areas) or mentally engaging in a completely diﬀerent activity
(e.g., recreational activities in forests or natural areas) as a break from daily urban life. The negative
impacts of access time to UGS on the frequency of visiting UGS were consistent in both SEMs for
positive/negative aﬀect and life satisfaction. At the same time, the number of constraints negatively
aﬀected the UGS visit frequency in the estimated SEMs. An easier way of minimizing the constraints
on visiting UGS may be to focus on the physical aspects of constraints reported by the LNgroup in the
study, such as the distribution of UGS, accessibility to forests, and poor facilities. Previous studies have
also reported the importance of the physical aspects of urban forests to promote visitation of forests,
such as good accessibility, maintained natural areas, and well-designed marked paths (e.g., [
In similar contexts, recent studies have emphasized the importance of urban forest types [
quality of forests , context [47,143], and maintenance of facilities [32,123,124].
However, these terms are very vague and too broad for implementation in the design and planning
process, as well as in the management stage. Landscape designers, planners, and managers need
more information regarding speciﬁc attributes of UGS, such as trails, distributions, and maintenance.
To acquire such speciﬁc information of UGS attributes, the conjoint choice model may be beneﬁcial
because it is able to make direct predictions on choices of respondents in the form of a logit model
by calculating the part-worth of attribute levels obtained from choice-type data [
]. For example,
Hong et al. [
] found that the primary salient attributes aﬀecting whether people visit urban forests
were forest type, paving material of trail, topography, and travel time from home. At the same
time, they were able to specify attribute levels for each forest attribute preferred by forest visitors.
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 17 of 25
Hypothetically, for example, it may be interesting to consider implementing our ﬁndings into a conjoint
choice model study, such as specifying attribute levels (e.g., soil-type pavement, wooden deck, or
porous elastic pavement) of paving materials in the urban forest to satisfy the motivation “to take a
walk” on the basis of people’s choices.
In terms of considering motivations and constraints, personality traits may play signiﬁcant
roles in the negotiation process and even the way in which residents interact with UGS. Recently,
Holt et al. [
] classiﬁed green space users (i.e., undergraduate students) into active and passive
users by interaction types and reported that active users were more likely to report a high quality of
life, low stress, and the experience of positive emotions, whereas passive users of green space (e.g.,
sitting, studying, eating, or socializing in a natural setting) did not experience any change in well-being.
However, we did not collect data to verify the role of respondents’ personality traits in the negotiation
process or the association with their interaction with UGS in this study.
Additional personal and environmental factors have been found to be associated with the use of
UGS, such as perception of access, perception of features, sense of safety, lifestyle, and urban sprawl
]); outdoor temperature (e.g., [
]); percentage of green space (e.g., [
and familiarity with forests (e.g., [
]), despite some inconsistency in the results among the
studies. These factors are presumably used as resources in the negotiation process based on individuals’
value systems but were outside the scope of this study. Such factors may be explored in future studies
to better understand these relationships.
There is rich evidence indicating the numerous positive eﬀects of UGS on urban dwellers, such as
enhancing physical/mental health, social interactions, and SWB, based on the attention restoration
theory, stress reduction theory, and the biophilia hypothesis. In this study, we examined the eﬀects
of frequency of visits and time spent in UGS on the SWB of urban dwellers in the Deajeon, Korea.
In addition, we investigated the primary motivations and constraints of visiting UGS for heavy,
moderate, and light/non-users.
This paper makes a number of contributions to the literature on SWB. First, this study reinforces the
importance of urban green spaces for the subjective well-being of urban dwellers. Second, the results
of ANOVA and SEMs reveal that the frequency of visiting UGS positively aﬀects the likelihood of
experiencing a higher level of positive aﬀect, life satisfaction in general, and a lower level of negative
aﬀect for urban dwellers. However, the amount of time spent in urban green space did not show
any signiﬁcant eﬀects on positive aﬀect, negative aﬀect, or life satisfaction in general. Third, this
study identiﬁes the primary motivations for and constraints on visiting urban green spaces. The most
frequent are, respectively, ‘to take a walk’ and ‘no urban green space near home.’ However, the most
frequent motivations and constraints might vary across cities and countries because urban settings
vary considerably diﬀerent. Finally, the estimated SEMs for positive/negative aﬀect and life satisfaction
in general clearly showed the positive roles of motivation and the negative roles of constraints in
visiting UGS. However, we were not able to delineate the true nature of the negotiation process in the
study. As brieﬂy discussed earlier, many variables such as personality traits, various environmental
factors, motivations, and constraints might be involved in each individual’s negotiation mechanism.
To understand these complex processes, a further study might require a more sophisticated and
comprehensive study design integrating sociodemographic characteristics, previous experiences,
and the given environmental conditions of a respondent, as well as various properties of urban
This study has several limitations. First, the age range of the respondents was limited to 20–59 years
because of costs and the survey method. Particularly, older residents (
60 years old) were excluded
from the target sample based on our use of an online survey method; we were not conﬁdent that
older residents are familiar enough with the online survey method. Leisure activities, such as visiting
UGS, are particularly important for older urban residents, and this group is more likely to visit UGS
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 18 of 25
than any other age group because of the availability of time. In general, older individuals tend to feel
“happiness” from common and frequent experiences, instead of from extraordinary experiences [
Thus, inclusion of older residents might have produced diﬀerent results. Second, we were unable
to include personality traits in the study. The inﬂuence of personality traits on SWB is particularly
important to understand the aﬀective component of SWB [
], and extraversion has been shown
to be associated with experiencing more pleasure while neuroticism has been shown to be related
with experiencing more displeasure [
]. Thus, personality traits could be considered in a future
study to further delineate the nature of happiness associated with visiting UGS. Third, Oishi et al. [
argued that one’s satisfaction in the value-congruent domain was more strongly related to global life
satisfaction than satisfaction with particular domain. This suggests that the level of life satisfaction can
diﬀer among individuals despite visiting the same UGS. This is because the relative importance of
each domain is diﬀerent in each individual’s value system [
]. To reduce the complexity of the study
dimension, we were unable to integrate this issue into the study, and separate further investigations
are required to examine the possible connections between individuals’ relative importance of each
domain and life satisfaction from visiting UGS. In a way, these limitations highlight the importance of
individual value systems. Presumably, one’s value systems can vary by life stage, and personality
traits signiﬁcantly aﬀect the establishment of value systems. Relative importance of each domain in
life satisfaction can be understood as a critical characteristic of an individual’s value system derived
by one’s life stage and personality traits. In addition, we strongly believe that these factors are
signiﬁcantly associated with the negotiation process with one’s own motivations and constraints.
In the study, we investigated the eﬀects of motivations and constraints using SEMs for aﬀect and life
satisfaction models, and we found consistent positive eﬀects for motivations and negative eﬀects for
constraints. However, we were not able to examine how the negotiation process operated in the context
of an individual’s life stage, personality traits, spatial property, and given urban setting, as well as
motivations and constraints. The detailed negotiation process of an individual with relevant factors
could be investigated in an additional study with a more sophisticated study design and survey.
S.-K.H. was responsible for the data acquisition and statistical analysis. S.-W.L. and M.Y.
wrote the manuscript and performed additional statistical analysis. H.-K.J. was the principal investigator of this
project and performed the preliminary study prior to the main survey.
This study was conducted with the support of the ‘R&D Program for Forest Science Technology (Project
No. 2017043B10-1919-BB01)’ provided by the Korea Forest Service (Korea Forestry Promotion Institute).
Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂicts of interest.
Barton, J.L.; Pretty, J. What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health?
A multi-study analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010,44, 3947–3955. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jones, A.; Hillsdon, M.; Coombes, E. Greenspace access, use, physical activity and obesity: Understanding
the eﬀects of area deprivation. Prev. Med. 2009,49, 500–505. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Nielsen, T.S.; Hansen, K.B. Do green areas aﬀect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green
areas and health indicators. Health Place 2007,13, 839–850. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Alcock, I.; White, M.P.; Wheeler, B.W.; Fleming, L.E.; Depledge, M.H. Longitudinal Eﬀects on Mental Health
of Moving to Greener and Less Green Urban Areas. Environ. Sci. Technol.
,48, 1247–1255. [CrossRef]
Weimann, H.; Rylander, L.; Albin, M.; Skärbäck, E.; Grahn, P.; Östergren, P.-O.; Björk, J. Eﬀects of changing
exposure to neighbourhood greenness on general and mental health: A longitudinal study. Health Place
33, 48–56. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
White, M.P.; Alcock, I.; Wheeler, B.W.; Depledge, M.H. Would You Be Happier Living in a Greener Urban
Area? A Fixed-Eﬀects Analysis of Panel Data. Psychol. Sci. 2013,24, 920–928. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bratman, G.N.; Hamilton, J.P.; Daily, G.C. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function
and mental health. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2012,1249, 118–136. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 19 of 25
Marselle, M.R.; Irvine, K.N.; Warber, S.L. Walking for Well-Being: Are Group Walks in Certain Types of
Natural Environments Better for Well-Being than Group Walks in Urban Environments? Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2013,10, 5603–5628. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Astell-Burt, T.; Mitchell, R.; Hartig, T. The association between green space and mental health varies across
the life course. A longitudinal study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health
,68, 578–583. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Irvine, K.N.; Warber, S.L.; Devine-Writght, P.; Gaston, K.J. Understanding urban green space as a health
resource: A qualitative comparison of visit motivation and derived eﬀects among park users in Sheﬃeld,
UK. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013,10, 417–442. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Korpela, K.M.; Yl
n, M.P. Eﬀectiveness of Favorite-Place Prescriptions: A Field Experiment. Am. J. Prev. Med.
2009,36, 435–438. [CrossRef]
Tyrväinen, L.; Ojala, A.; Korpela, K.; Lanki, T.; Tsunetsugu, Y.; Kagawa, T. The inﬂuence of urban green
environments on stress relief measures: A ﬁeld experiment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014,38, 1–9. [CrossRef]
Ulrich, R.S.; Simons, R.F.; Losito, B.D.; Fiorito, E.; Miles, M.A.; Zelson, M. Stress recovery during exposure to
natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1991,11, 201–230. [CrossRef]
Berman, M.G.; Jonides, J.; Kaplan, S. The Cognitive Beneﬁts of Interacting with Nature. Psychol. Sci.
219, 1207–1212. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hartig, T.; Evans, G.W.; Jamner, L.D.; Davis, D.S.; Gärling, T. Tracking restoration in natural and urban ﬁeld
settings. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003,23, 109–123. [CrossRef]
Keniger, L.E.; Gaston, K.J.; Irvine, K.N.; Fuller, R.A. What are the Beneﬁts of Interacting with Nature? Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2013,10, 913–935. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Park, B.J.; Tsunetsugu, Y.; Kasetani, T.; Kagawa, T.; Miyazaki, Y. The physiological eﬀects of Shinrin-yoku
(taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): Evidence from ﬁeld experiments in 24 forests across
Japan. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2010,15, 18. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bratman, G.N.; Daily, G.C.; Levy, B.J.; Gross, J.J. The beneﬁts of nature experience: Improved aﬀect and
cognition. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015,138, 41–50. [CrossRef]
Pilotti, M.; Klein, E.; Golem, D.; Piepenbrink, E.; Kaplan, K. Is Viewing a Nature Video After Work Restorative?
Eﬀects on Blood Pressure, Task Performance, and Long-Term Memory. Environ. Behav.
Ulrich, R.S. View Through a Window May Inﬂuence Recovery from Surgery. Science
Grahn, P.; Stigsdotter, U.A. Landscape planning and stress. Urban For. Urban Green.
,2, 1–18. [CrossRef]
Kuo, F.E.; Sullivan, W.C. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?
Environ. Behav. 2001,33, 343–367. [CrossRef]
Sullivan, W.C.; Kuo, F.E.; Depooter, S.F. The Fruit of Urban Nature: Vital Neighborhood Spaces. Environ. Behav.
2004,36, 678–700. [CrossRef]
Williams, D.R.; Stewart, S.I. Sense of place: An elusive concept that is ﬁnding a home in ecosystem
management. J. For. 1998,96, 18–23. [CrossRef]
Ellis, C.D.; Lee, S.W.; Kweon, B.S. Retail land use, neighborhood satisfaction and the urban forest:
An investigation into the moderating and mediating eﬀects of trees and shrubs. Landsc. Urban. Plan.
2006,74, 70–78. [CrossRef]
Kaplan, R. Nature at the doorstep: Residential satisfaction and the nearby environment. J. Archit. Plan. Res.
Kaplan, R. The Nature of the View from Home: Psychological Beneﬁts. Environ. Behav.
Talbot, J.F.; Kaplan, R. The beneﬁts of nearby nature for elderly apartment residents. Int. J. Aging Hum. Dev.
1991,33, 119–130. [CrossRef]
Barton, J.L.; Pretty, J. Urban ecology and human health and wellbeing. In Urban Ecology, 1st ed.;
Gaston, K.J., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010; pp. 202–229, ISBN 978-0-521-76097-3.
Dadvand, P.; Bartoll, X.; Basagaña, X.; Dalmau-Bueno, A.; Martinez, D.; Ambros, A.; Cirach, M.;
Triguero-Mas, M.; Gascon, M.; Borrell, C.; et al. Green spaces and General Health: Roles of mental
health status, social support, and physical activity. Environ. Int. 2016,91, 161–167. [CrossRef]
Fan, Y.; Das, K.V.; Chen, Q. Neighborhood green, social support, physical activity, and stress: Assessing the
cumulative impact. Health Place 2011,17, 1202–1211. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 20 of 25
Maas, J.; van Dillen, S.M.E.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P. Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind
the relation between green space and health. Health Place 2009,15, 586–595. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Weinstein, N.; Balmford, A.; DeHaan, C.R.; Gladwell, V.; Bradbury, R.B.; Amano, T. Seeing Community
for the Trees: The Links among Contact with Natural Environments, Community Cohesion, and Crime.
BioScience 2015,65, 1141–1153. [CrossRef]
Cacioppo, J.T.; Hughes, M.E.; Waite, L.J.; Hawkley, L.C.; Thisted, R.A. Loneliness as a speciﬁc risk factor
for depressive symptoms: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis. Psychol. Aging
Uchino, B.N. Social Support and Health: A Review of Physiological Processes Potentially Underlying Links
to Disease Outcomes. J. Behav. Med. 2006,29, 377–387. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, UK, 1989; ISBN 978-0521349390.
Kaplan, S. The restorative beneﬁts of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol.
Ulrich, R.S. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan.
,13, 29–44. [CrossRef]
39. Wilson, E.O. Biophilia; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984; ISBN 0674074416.
Wilson, E.O. Biophilia and the Conservation Ethic. In The Biophilia Hypothesis, 1st ed.; Kellert, S.R.,
Wilson, E.O., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1993; pp. 31–41, ISBN 9781559631488.
Carrus, G.; Scopelliti, M.; Lafortezza, R.; Colangelo, G.; Ferrini, F.; Salbitano, F.; Agrimi, M.; Portoghesi, L.;
Semenzato, P.; Sansei, G. Go greener, feel better? The positive eﬀects of biodiversity on the well-being of
individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015,134, 221–228. [CrossRef]
Jiang, B.; Chang, C.Y.; Sullivan, W.E. A dose of nature: Tree cover, stress reduction, and gender diﬀerences.
Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014,132, 26–36. [CrossRef]
Nordh, H.; Østby, K. Pocket parks for people: A study of park design and Use. Urban For. Urban Green.
12, 12–17. [CrossRef]
Staats, H.; Van Gemerden, E.; Hartig, T. Preference for Restorative Situations: Interactive Eﬀects of Attentional
State, Activity-in-Environment, and Social Context. Leis. Sci. 2010,32, 401–417. [CrossRef]
Dempsey, N.; Brown, C.; Bramley, G. The key to sustainable urban development in UK cities? The inﬂuence
of density on social sustainability. Prog. Plan. 2012,77, 89–141. [CrossRef]
Lachowycz, K.; Jones, A.P. Towards a better understanding of the relationship between greenspace and
health: Development of a theoretical framework. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013,118, 62–69. [CrossRef]
Maas, J.; Verheij, R.A.; De Vries, S.; Spreeuwenberg, P.; Groenewegen, P.P. Green space, urbanity, and health:
How strong is the relation? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2006,60, 587–592. [CrossRef]
Mitchell, R. Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in
other environments? Soc. Sci. Med. 2013,91, 130–134. [CrossRef]
Falk, J.H.; Balling, J.D. Evolutionary Inﬂuence on Human Landscape Preference. Environ. Behav.
Ulrich, R.S. Biophilia, Biophobia, and Natural Landscapes. In The Biophilia Hypothesis, 2nd ed.; Kellert, S.R.,
Wilson, E.O., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1995; pp. 73–137, ISBN 9781559631471.
Hartig, T. Green Space, Psychological Restoration, and Health Inequality. Lancet
52. Ewert, A.; Chang, Y. Levels of Nature and Stress Response. Behav. Sci. 2018,8, 49. [CrossRef]
Silva, R.A.; Rogers, K.; Buckley, T.J. Advancing Environmental Epidemiology to Assess the Beneﬁcial
Inﬂuence of the Natural Environment on Human Health and Well-Being. Environ. Sci. Technol.
MacKerron, G.; Mourato, S. Happiness is greater in natural environments. Glob. Environ. Chang.
Saw, L.E.; Lim, F.K.S.; Carrasco, L.R. The Relationship between Natural Park Usage and Happiness Does Not
Hold in a Tropical City. PLoS ONE 2015,10, e0133781. [CrossRef]
National Research Council. The Subjective Well-Being: Measuring Happiness, Suﬀering, and Other Dimensions
of Experience; Stone, A.A., Mackie, C., Eds.; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2013;
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 21 of 25
Diener, E. Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. Am. Psychol.
2000,55, 34–43. [CrossRef]
Lyubomirsky, S.; King, L.; Diener, E. The beneﬁts of frequent positive aﬀect: Does Happiness Lead to Success?
Psychol. Bull. 2005,131, 803–855. [CrossRef]
Wegener, D.T.; Petty, R.E. Mood management across aﬀective states: The hedonic contingency hypothesis.
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1994,66, 1034–1048. [CrossRef]
Fredrickson, B.L. The Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology: The Broaden-and-Build Theory of
Positive Emotions. Am. Psychol. 2001,56, 218–226. [CrossRef]
Dunn, E.W.; Gilbert, D.T.; Wilson, T.D. If money doesn’t make you happy, then you probably aren’t spending
it right. J. Consum. Psychol. 2011,21, 115–125. [CrossRef]
Clark, L.A.; Watson, D. Mood and the mundane: Relations between daily life events and self-reported mood.
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988,54, 296–308. [CrossRef]
Watson, D. Positive Aﬀectivity: The Disposition to Experience Positive Emotional States. In Handbook of
Positive Psychology; Snyder, C.R., Lopez, S.J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002;
pp. 106–119, ISBN 9780195135336.
Watson, D.; Clark, L.A.; Tellegen, A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative
aﬀect: The PANAS scales. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1988,54, 1063–1070. [CrossRef]
Shin, D.C.; Johnson, D.M. Avowed happiness as an overall assessment of the quality of life. Soc. Indic. Res.
1978,5, 475–492. [CrossRef]
Diener, E.; Chan, M.Y. Happy people live longer: Subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity.
Appl. Psychol. Health Well Being 2011,3, 1–43. [CrossRef]
Diener, E.; Seligman, M.E.P. Beyond Money: Toward an Economy of Well-Being. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest
2004,5, 1–31. [CrossRef]
Kahneman, D.; Deaton, A. High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 2010,107, 16489–16493. [CrossRef]
Pavot, W.; Diener, E. Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Psychol. Assess.
,5, 164–172. [CrossRef]
Eid, M.; Diener, E. Global Judgments of Subjective Well- Being: Situational Variability and Long-Term
Stability. Soc. Indic. Res. 2004,65, 245–277. [CrossRef]
Hong, S.-K.; An, K.-J.; Jang, H.-C. Interactional eﬀects of travel experience and traumatic event on subjective
well-being. J. Korean Inst. Landsc. Archit. 2017,45, 1–10. [CrossRef]
Chen, Y.; Lehto, X.Y.; Cai, L. Vacation and well-being: A study of chinese tourists. Ann. Tour. Res.
Loewe, N.; Bagherzadeh, M.; Araya-Castillo, L.; Thieme, C.; Batista-Foguet, J.M. Life Domain Satisfactions
as Predictors of Overall Life Satisfaction Among Workers: Evidence from Chile. Soc. Indic. Res.
Bird, W. Natural Fit: Can Green Space and Biodiversity Increase Levels of Physical Activity? Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds, October 2004. Available online: https://ww2.rspb.org.uk/images/natural_ﬁt_full_
version_tcm9-133055.pdf (accessed on 23 May 2019).
75. Baumeister, R.F.; Tice, D.M. Anxiety and social exclusion. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 1990,9, 165–195. [CrossRef]
House, J.S.; Landis, K.R.; Umberson, D. Social relationships and health. Science
,241, 540–545. [CrossRef]
Morris, N. Health, Well-Being and Open Space: Literature Review. OPENspace, July 2003. Available
Space-literature-review.pdf (accessed on 22 May 2019).
Peters, K.; Elands, B.; Buijs, A. Social interactions in urban parks: Stimulating social cohesion? Urban For.
Urban Green. 2010,9, 93–100. [CrossRef]
Sugiyama, T.; Leslie, E.; Giles-Corti, B.; Owen, N. Associations of neighbourhood greenness with physical
and mental health: Do walking, social coherence and local social interaction explain the relationships?
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2008,62, e9. [CrossRef]
Wood, L.J.; Giles-Corti, B. Is there a place for social capital in the psychology of health and place?
J. Environ. Psychol. 2008,28, 154–163. [CrossRef]
Biedenweg, K.; Scott, R.P.; Scott, T.A. How does engaging with nature relate to life satisfaction? Demonstrating
the link between environment-speciﬁc social experiences and life satisfaction. J. Environ. Psychol.
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 22 of 25
Chen, E.; Miller, G.E.; Shalowitz, M.U.; Story, R.E.; Levine, C.S.; Hayen, R.; Sbihi, H.; Brauer, M. Diﬃcult
Family Relationships, Residential Greenspace, and Childhood Asthma. Pediatrics
Bell, S.L.; Phoenix, C.; Lovell, R.; Wheeler, B.W. Green space, health and wellbeing: Making space for
individual agency. Health Place 2014,30, 287–292. [CrossRef]
Capaldi, C.A.; Dopko, R.L.; Zelenski, J.M. The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness:
A meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 2014,5, 976. [CrossRef]
Cervinka, R.; Röderer, K.; Heﬂer, E. Are nature lovers happy? On various indicators of well-being and
connectedness to nature. J. Health Psychol. 2012,17, 379–388. [CrossRef]
Frumkin, H.; Bratman, G.N.; Breslow, S.J.; Cochran, B.; Kahn, P.H., Jr.; Lawler, J.J.; Levin, P.S.;
Tandon, P.S.; Varanasi, U.; Wolf, K.L.; et al. Nature Contact and Human Health: A Research Agenda.
Environ. Health Perspect. 2017,125, 075001. [CrossRef]
Hartig, T.; Mitchell, R.; de Vries, S.; Frumkin, H. Nature and health. Annu. Rev. Public Health
Markevych, I.; Schoierer, J.; Hartig, T.; Chudnovsky, A.; Hystad, P.; Dzhambov, A.M.; de Vries, S.;
Triguero-Mas, M.; Brauer, M.; Niewenhuijsen, M.J.; et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to
health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 2017,158, 301–317. [CrossRef]
Thompson, C.W.; Roe, J.; Aspinall, P.; Mitchell, R.; Clow, A.; Miller, D. More green space is linked to less
stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc. Urban Plan.
World Health Organization. The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update; World Health Organization: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2008; Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43942 (accessed on 23 May 2019).
McKenzie, K.; Murray, A.; Booth, T. Do urban environments increase the risk of anxiety, depression and
psychosis? An epidemiological study. J. Aﬀect. Disord. 2013,150, 1019–1024. [CrossRef]
Peen, J.; Dekker, J.; Schoevers, R.A.; ten Have, M.; de Graaf, R.; Beekman, A.T. Is the prevalence of psychiatric
disorders associated with urbanization? Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2007,42, 984–989. [CrossRef]
Peen, J.; Schoevers, R.A.; Beekman, A.T.; Dekker, J. The current status of urban-rural diﬀerences in psychiatric
disorders. Acta. Psychiatr. Scand. 2010,121, 84–93. [CrossRef]
Romans, S.; Cohen, M.; Forte, T. Rates of depression and anxiety in urban and rural Canada. Soc. Psychiatry
Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2011,46, 567–575. [CrossRef]
95. Korea Forest Service. Statistics of Urban Forest; Korea Forest Service: Daejeon, Korea, 2014.
96. Korea Forest Service. Statistics of Urban Forest; Korea Forest Service: Daejeon, Korea, 2016.
Hong, S.-K.; Kim, J.-M.; Jo, H.-K.; Lee, S.-W. Monetary Valuation of Urban Forest Attributes in Highly
Developed Urban Environments: An Experimental Study Using a Conjoint Choice Model. Sustainability
2018,10, 2461. [CrossRef]
98. Fredrickson, B.L. What good are positive emotions? Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1998,2, 300–319. [CrossRef]
Hubbard, J.; Mannell, R.C. Testing Competing Models of the Leisure Constraint Negotiation Process in a
Corporate Employee Recreation Setting. Leis. Sci. 2001,23, 145–163. [CrossRef]
Daejeon Metropolitan City Home Page. Available online: https://www.daejeon.go.kr/(accessed on 25 July 2018).
Diener, E.; Wirtz, D.; Biswas-Diener, R.; Tov, W.; Kim-Prieto, C.; Choi, D.-W.; Oishi, S. New Measures of
Well-Being. In Assessing Well-Being: The Collected Works of Ed Diener, 1st ed.; Diener, E., Ed.; Springer:
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; Volume 39, pp. 247–266, ISBN 978-90-481-2353-7.
White, M.P.; Dolan, P. Accounting for the Richness of Daily Activities. Psychol. Sci.
White, M.P.; Pahl, S.; Wheeler, B.W.; Fleming, L.E.F.; Depledge, M.H. The ‘Blue Gym’: What can blue space
do for you and what can you do for blue space? J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 2016,96, 5–12. [CrossRef]
Diener, E.; Larsen, R.J.; Levine, S.; Emmons, R.A. Intensity and Frequency: Dimensions Underlying Positive
and Negative Aﬀect. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1985,48, 1253–1265. [CrossRef]
Arrindell, W.A.; Heesink, J.; Feij, J.A. The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS): Appraisal with 1700 healthy
young adults in The Netherlands. Personal. Individ. Diﬀer. 1999,26, 815–826. [CrossRef]
Gadermann, A.M. Satisfaction with Life Scale Adapted for Children. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life
and Well-Being Research, 1st ed.; Michalos, A.C., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014;
ISBN 978-94-007-0753-5. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 23 of 25
Pavot, W. The validity and utility of global measures of subjective well-being. Pol. Psychol. Bull.
Van Beuningen, J. The Satisfaction WITH Life Scale Examining Construct Validity; Statistics Netherlands: Hague,
The Netherlands, September 2012.
Vassar, M. Satisfaction with Life Scale Score Reliability. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research,
1st ed.; Michalos, A.C., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; ISBN 978-94-007-0753-5. [CrossRef]
Jackson, E.L.; Crawford, D.W.; Godbey, G. Negotiation of Leisure Constraints. Leis. Sci.
White, D.D. A Structural Model of Leisure Constraints Negotiation in Outdoor Recreation. Leis. Sci.
112. Jackson, E.L. Leisure constraints: A survey of past research. Leis. Sci. 1988,10, 203–215. [CrossRef]
Lyu, S.O. Using the Leisure Constraints Negotiation Process to Understand Participants’ Leisure Involvement
and Beneﬁt Realization. Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA, 2012.
Nunnally, J. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978; ISBN 0070474656
Holt, E.W.; Lombard, Q.K.; Best, N.; Smiley-Smith, S.; Quinn, J.E. Active and Passive Use of Green Space,
Health, and Well-Being amongst University Students. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
,16, 424. [CrossRef]
Dolnicar, S.; Yanamandram, V.; Cliﬀ, K. The contribution of vacations to quality of life. Ann. Tour. Res.
39, 59–83. [CrossRef]
Hair, J.F., Jr.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Prentice Hall:
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2010; ISBN 9780138132637.
Taylor, L.; Hochuli, D.F. Creating better cities: How biodiversity and ecosystem functioning enhance urban
residents’ wellbeing. Urban Ecosyst. 2015,18, 747–762. [CrossRef]
Wheeler, B.W.; Lovell, R.; Higgins, S.L.; White, M.P.; Alcock, I.; Osborne, N.J.; Husk, K.; Sabel, C.E.;
Depledge, M.H. Beyond greenspace: An ecological study of population general health and indicators of
natural environment type and quality. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2015,14, 17. [CrossRef]
Francis, J.; Wood, L.J.; Knuiman, M.; Giles-Corti, B. Quality or quantity? Exploring the relationship between
Public Open Space attributes and mental health in Perth, Western Australia. Soc. Sci. Med.
Nordh, H.; Hartig, T.; Hagerhall, C.M.; Fry, G. Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility
for restoration. Urban For. Urban Green. 2009,8, 225–235. [CrossRef]
Nordh, H.; Alaouch, C.; Hartig, T. Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint
methodology. Urban For. Urban Green 2011,10, 95–103. [CrossRef]
Gatersleben, B.; Andrews, M. When walking in nature is not restorative: The role of prospect and refuge.
Health Place 2013,20, 91–101. [CrossRef]
Van den Berg, A.E.; Jorgensen, A.; Wilson, E.R. Evaluating restoration in urban green spaces: Does setting
type make a diﬀerence? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014,127, 173–181. [CrossRef]
Twedt, E.; Rainey, R.M.; Proﬃtt, D.R. Designed Natural Spaces: Informal Gardens Are Perceived to Be More
Restorative than Formal Gardens. Front. Psychol. 2016,7, 88. [CrossRef]
Beyer, K.M.M.; Kaltenbach, A.; Szabo, A.; Bogar, S.; Nieto, F.J.; Malecki, K.M. Exposure to Neighborhood
Green Space and Mental Health: Evidence from the Survey of the Health of Wisconsin. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2014,11, 3453–3472. [CrossRef]
Cooper-Marcus, C.; Sachs, N.A. Therapeutic Landscapes: An Evidence-Based Approach to Designing Healing
Gardens and Restorative Outdoor Spaces; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014; ISBN 9781118231913.
Ong, A.D.; Bergeman, C.S.; Bisconti, T.L.; Wallace, K.A. Psychological resilience, positive emotions,
and successful adaptation to stress in later life. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2006,91, 730–749. [CrossRef]
Hurley, D.B.; Kwon, P. Savoring helps most when you have little: Interaction between savoring the moment
and uplifts on positive aﬀect and satisfaction with life. J. Happiness Stud. 2013,14, 1261–1271. [CrossRef]
Lucas, R.E.; Diener, E.; Suh, E.K. Discriminant validity of well-being measures. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.
71, 616–628. [CrossRef]
Diener, E. Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and op-portunities. Soc. Indic. Res.
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 24 of 25
Diener, E.; Sandvik, E.; Pavot, W. Happiness is the frequency, not the intensity, of positive versus negative
aﬀect. In Subjective Well-Being: An Inter-Disciplinary Perspective; Strack, F., Argyle, M., Schwarz, N., Eds.;
Pergamon Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991; Volume 21, pp. 119–139, ISBN 978-0080372648.
Dzhambov, A.; Hartig, T.; Markevych, I.; Tilov, B.; Dimitrova, D. Urban residential greenspace and mental
health in youth: Diﬀerent approaches to testing multiple pathways yield diﬀerent conclusions. Environ. Res.
2018,160, 47–59. [CrossRef]
Kamitsis, I.; Francis, A. Spirituality mediates the relationship between engagement with nature and
psychological wellbeing. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013,36, 136–143. [CrossRef]
Triguero-Mas, M.; Donaire-Gonzalez, D.; Seto, E.; Valent
n, A.; Smith, G.; Mart
nez, D.; Carrasco-Turigas, G.;
Masterson, D.; Van den Berg, M.; Ambr
s, A.; et al. Living Close to Natural Outdoor Environments in
Four European Cities: Adults’ Contact with the Environments and Physical Activity. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2017,14, 1162. [CrossRef]
van den Berg, M.; van Poppel, M.; van Kamp, I.; Andrusaityte, S.; Balseviciene, B.; Cirach, M.; Danileviciute, A.;
Ellis, N.; Hurst, G.; Masterson, D.; et al. Visiting green space is associated with mental health and vitality: A
cross-sectional study in four European cities. Health Place 2016,38, 8–15. [CrossRef]
Thompson, C.W.; Aspinall, P.; Roe, J. Access to Green Space in Disadvantaged Urban Communities: Evidence
of salutogenic eﬀects based on biomarker and self-report measures of wellbeing. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.
2014,153, 10–22. [CrossRef]
Korpela, K.; Borodulin, K.; Neuvonen, M.; Paronen, O.; Tyrväinen, L. Analyzing the mediators between
nature-based outdoor recreation and emotional well-being. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014,37, 1–7. [CrossRef]
McFarland, A.L.; Waliczek, T.M.; Zajicek, J.M. The Relationship between Student Use of Campus Green
Spaces and Perceptions of Quality of Life. Horttechnology 2008,18, 232–238. [CrossRef]
Wells, N.M.; Lekies, K.S. Nature and the Life Course: Pathways from Childhood Nature Experiences to
Adult Environmentalism. Child. Youth Environ. 2006,16, 1–24.
Zhang, J.W.; Howell, R.T.; Iyer, R. Engagement with natural beauty moderates the positive relation between
connectedness with nature and psychological well-being. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014,38, 55–63. [CrossRef]
James, P.; Banay, R.F.; Hart, J.E.; Laden, F. A Review of the Health Beneﬁts of Greenness. Curr. Epidemiol. Rep.
2015,2, 131–142. [CrossRef]
Verheij, R.A.; Maas, J.; Groenewegan, P.P. Urban-Rural Health Diﬀerences and the Availability of Green
Space. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2008,15, 307–316. [CrossRef]
Louviere, J.J.; Woodworth, G. Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments:
An Approach Based on Aggregate Data. J. Mark. Res. 1983,20, 350–367. [CrossRef]
Bancroft, C.; Joshi, S.; Rundle, A.; Hutson, M.; Chong, C.; Weiss, C.C.; Genkinger, J.; Neckerman, K.; Lovasi, G.
Association of proximity and density of parks and objectively measured physical activity in the United
States: A systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2015,138, 22–30. [CrossRef]
Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.M.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. A systematic review of evidence for the added
beneﬁts to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 2010,10, 456. [CrossRef]
Calogiuri, G.; Chroni, S. The impact of the natural environment on the promotion of active living: An
integrative systematic review. BMC Public Health 2014,14, 873. [CrossRef]
Coon, J.T.; Boddy, K.; Stein, K.; Whear, R.; Barton, J.; Depledge, M.H. Does Participating in Physical Activity
in Outdoor Natural Environments Have a Greater Eﬀect on Physical and Mental Wellbeing than Physical
Activity Indoors? A Systematic Review. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011,45, 1761–1772. [CrossRef]
Lee, A.C.K.; Maheswaran, R. The health beneﬁts of urban green spaces: A review of the evidence.
J. Public Health 2011,33, 212–222. [CrossRef]
Gobster, P.H.; Nassauer, J.I.; Daniel, T.C.; Fry, G. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with
ecology? Landsc. Ecol. 2007,22, 959–972. [CrossRef]
Speake, J.; Edmondson, S.; Nawaz, H. Everyday encounters with nature: Students’ perceptions of and use of
university campus green spaces. Hum. Geogr. 2013,7, 21–31. [CrossRef]
Bhattacharjee, A.; Mogilner, C. Happiness from ordinary and extraordinary experiences. J. Consum. Res.
2014,41, 1–17. [CrossRef]
Pavot, W.; Fujita, F.; Diener, E. The relation between self-aspect congruence, personality, and subjective
well-being. Personal. Individ. Diﬀer. 1997,22, 183–191. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019,11, 4189 25 of 25
McCrae, R.R.; John, O.P. An Introduction to the Five-Factor Model and its Applications. J. Personal.
Bryant, F. Savoring Beliefs Inventory (SBI): A scale for measuring beliefs about savouring. J. Ment. Health
2003,12, 175–196. [CrossRef]
Oishi, S.; Diener, E.; Suh, E.K.; Lucas, R.E. Value as a moderator in subjective well-being. J. Personal.
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).