Demographic Groups’ Differences in Restorative Perception of Urban Public Spaces in COVID-19

Abstract

The health-promoting functions of one’s spatial environment have been widely recognized. Facing the huge loss of mental resources caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, visiting and perception of urban public spaces with restorative potential should be encouraged. However perceived, restorativeness differs from individual features. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has considerable effects on residents’ leisure travel and psychological states. Therefore, the aim of our research is to identify the demographic variables influencing restorative perception of typical urban public spaces under the social background of the COVID-19 pandemic. The research consists of 841 residents’ restorative evaluation of four kinds of urban public spaces according to the Chinese version of the Perceived Restorativeness Scale, including urban green spaces, exhibition spaces, commercial spaces and sports spaces. Then, 10 individual factors were recorded which represented their demographic features and the influence of COVID-19. Then, the relationship between individual features and perceived restoration of different urban public spaces was analyzed, respectively, by using One-way ANOVA and regression analysis. The results show that the urban green spaces were ranked as the most restorative, followed by commercial spaces, sports spaces and exhibition spaces. Further, the findings indicate that significant factors affect the restoration of four typical urban public spaces.

Full text

Citation: Wang, S.; Li, A.
Demographic Groups’ Differences in
Restorative Perception of Urban
Public Spaces in COVID-19. Buildings
2022,12, 869. https://doi.org/
10.3390/buildings12070869
Academic Editor: Dirk
H.R. Spennemann
Received: 18 May 2022
Accepted: 19 June 2022
Published: 21 June 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 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 (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
buildings
Article
Demographic Groups’ Differences in Restorative Perception of
Urban Public Spaces in COVID-19
Shiqi Wang and Ang Li *
School of Architecture and Design, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China;
wangshiqi@cumt.edu.cn
*Correspondence: li_ang@cumt.edu.cn; Tel.: +86-136-2461-4957
Abstract:
The health-promoting functions of one’s spatial environment have been widely recognized.
Facing the huge loss of mental resources caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, visiting and percep-
tion of urban public spaces with restorative potential should be encouraged. However perceived,
restorativeness differs from individual features. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has considerable
effects on residents’ leisure travel and psychological states. Therefore, the aim of our research is to
identify the demographic variables influencing restorative perception of typical urban public spaces
under the social background of the COVID-19 pandemic. The research consists of 841 residents’
restorative evaluation of four kinds of urban public spaces according to the Chinese version of the
Perceived Restorativeness Scale, including urban green spaces, exhibition spaces, commercial spaces
and sports spaces. Then, 10 individual factors were recorded which represented their demographic
features and the influence of COVID-19. Then, the relationship between individual features and
perceived restoration of different urban public spaces was analyzed, respectively, by using One-way
ANOVA and regression analysis. The results show that the urban green spaces were ranked as the
most restorative, followed by commercial spaces, sports spaces and exhibition spaces. Further, the
findings indicate that significant factors affect the restoration of four typical urban public spaces.
Keywords:
urban public space; health-promoting environments; psychological restoration;
demographic variable; COVID-19 pandemic
1. Introduction
The COVID-19 outbreak at the beginning of 2020 has made dramatical effects on
public health both in mind and body all over the world. In China, the social policies and
regulations for dealing with the outbreak limited people’s abilities to partake in typical,
out-of-home social activities, which caused a sharp decline in entertainment activities,
social contact and physical activities. Therefore, emotional problems are common among
urban residents in China after suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic, such as indolence,
anxiety, depression and self-reported stresses [
1
]. The restorative environment is regarded
as having potential and power to renew physical, psychological and social capabilities
consumed in the process of adaptation [
2
]. Regarding the huge need of restoration for
residents, visiting a restorative environment to regain mental capacities and energy is of
great importance, especially during this special time.
There has been extensive published research demonstrating the restorative attributes
of some kinds of urban public spaces (UPSs), including urban green spaces, exhibition
spaces, commercial spaces and sports spaces. First of all, the UPSs are identified as a
typical restorative environment by creating natural experiences [
3
]. Residents who have
close and frequent contacts with parks, gardens or other sources of natural environment
report less stress and negative attitudes [
4
]. Although natural environments are the typical
settings for possessing restorative potential, well-designed constructions are also capable
of attracting involuntary attention and thus promoting restoration from directed attention
Buildings 2022,12, 869. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12070869 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2022,12, 869 2 of 12
fatigue. Museums contribute to restorative experiences for some people. The earliest study
about this was conducted by Kaplan et al. [
5
], which declared the restorative experience
offered by art museums, especially for frequent visitors. Similar conclusions were also
drawn in other museum environment, such as zoos, history museums or galleries [
6
–
8
].
Moreover, Rosenbaum et al. [
9
] illustrated that shopping centers could provide customers
with restorative servicescapes by decorating them with green facilities. On the other hand,
markets or other similar commercial spaces were proved to contain restorative potential by
enhancing social supportive resources and encourage communication and gathering [
10
,
11
].
As we all know, physical activities bring significant emotional benefits by improved self-
esteem, enhanced emotional regulation, adaptation to stress and better sleep quality [
12
],
which is beneficial to physical and mental restoration. The lack of physical activity is a
leading risk factor for depression during the pandemic [
13
]. Therefore, the sports spaces
were concluded as restorative in our studies.
It has been suggested that restorative benefits caused by the environment differ
because of the diversities of demographic characteristics (DCs) [
14
]. Hartig et al. [
15
]
considered gender as a determinant of restorative outcomes by investigating the differences
on the perceived restoration of 26 couples. Regan and Horn [
16
] explored the association
between ages and environmental preference by taking people aged from 6 to 76 years-
old as a sample. Additionally, the person–environment fit theory points that people
tend to prefer an environment which is correlated with their needs or capacities [
17
],
which emphasizes the compatibility between individual attributes and the environment.
For example, monasteries are thought of as a restorative environment only for pilgrims
who could understand its cultural connotations [
18
]. Then, Korpela et al. [
19
] regarded
natural hobbies and natural experience, health self-assessment, life satisfaction and social
support as demographic factors because of their influence on visiting desire and restorative
need. Therefore, the chosen determinants related to personal features are mainly guided
by research about the personality traits referred to above when taking into the distinct
restorative perception of spaces, including gender, age, education, natural hobbies and
natural experiences, health self-assessment, life satisfaction and social support.
The analysis of the research literature above shows the great potential of UPSs and
residents’ strong needs to renew their mental resources. However, the pandemic in China
has been basically brought under control and most of UPSs can be visited normally at
present. Risks of infection still exist and affect people’s behavior and psychology, especially
the frequency and willingness to visit public spaces. Some studies related to the influencing
factors of leisure travel give the present research inspirations. Perceived risk was defined
as the unpredictable consequences of one’ actions [
20
]. In the process of visiting the
destinations, it has a huge influence on people’s decisions and satisfaction [
21
], which,
according to our studies, mainly results from the possibility of inflection of COVID-19.
Therefore, we selected three items that represented the perceived risk caused by the COVID-
19 pandemic as additional demographic variables, including the perceived severity of
COVID-19, perceived risk of visiting and infection history of COVID-19.
To sum up, the present study was inspired by the changes of residents visiting and
perceiving urban public spaces under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic. In consid-
eration of their health and attitude problems caused by social isolation and disease stress, it
is important to find out the restorative outcomes of UPSs during special times such as these
more deeply. Though some published studies have documented the relationship between
restorative perception and demographic characteristics well [
22
], there is little discussion
about the impact of the pandemic, which has significant impacts on behavior patterns and
personal factors.
Although the differences in perceptions of restorative environments among groups
have been widely discussed, the effects of the pandemics have not been explored. Moreover,
published studies mainly focused on urban green spaces and paid less attention to other
kinds of urban public spaces, especially indoor spaces. Considering the proven effects of
DCs on perceived restoration (PR), we hypothesized that people with different DCs will

Buildings 2022,12, 869 3 of 12
make different restorative evaluations of UPSs, and some DCs will consider some types of
UPSs to have more important effects on PR. In order to verify the hypotheses, the aim of
the study is to (1) identify the key DCs influencing restorative perception of typical UPSs
under the social background of the COVID-19 pandemic and (2) evaluate the impact degree
of DCs on restorative perception in four typical UPSs.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Area
Our study area was Xuzhou City (34
◦
N and 117
◦
E), belonging to Jiangsu Province in
consideration of its representativeness of most cities in China. Then 4 kinds of city public
spaces which had been evaluated as restorative in published studies were recognized as
research objects, including (1) city green spaces, (2) exhibition spaces, (3) sports spaces and
(4) commercial spaces. After that, 3 specific buildings or outdoor spaces with different
sizes or appearances in each type were picked in order to show its characteristics more
comprehensively. Additionally, all selected places have good operations and free visitations
during the survey period. Located in main urban areas, there are no obvious economic
or demographic differences among regions. To reduce the interference of social–cultural
factors, we exclude those with special events such as festival celebrations, sales promotions
and sports games. At last, 12 locations have been selected as final survey subjects. Their
information is shown below in Table 1.
Table 1. Information of study areas.
Types of Spaces Place 1 Place 2 Place 3
City green spaces
A1: Yunlong Park, 30.67 ha,
including 8 ha of water
surface, city center
A2: Quanshan Park, 113.33 ha,
including 0.21 ha of water
surface, south of city
A3: Huaihai Park, 39.85 ha,
including 0.43 ha of water
surface, east of city
Exhibition spaces
B1: Xuzhou museum,
building area 12,000 m2, west
of city
B2: Xuzhou Zoo, floor area
73,333 m2, city center
B3: Xuzhou City Wall
Museum, building area
950 m2, city center
Sports spaces
C1: Xuzhou city stadium,
building area 66,700 m2, for
6000 people, west of city
C2: Han gymnasium, building
area 500 m2, south of city
C3: Lide fitness center,
building area 2000 m2, south
of city
Commercial spaces
D1: Hubu mountain
pedestrian street, length
1200 m, center of city
D2: Wanda shopping mall,
building area 53,000 m
2
, south
of city
D3: Kuangxi small market,
building area 700 m2, west
of city
2.2. Perceived Restorativeness Assessment
The questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first part aimed to obtain demographic
information including (1) gender, (2) age, (3) education level, (4) natural hobbies and natural
experiences, (5) health self-assessment, (6) life satisfaction and (7) social support, which
were inspired by published research. The second part was to investigate the effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic on residents’ perception and attitudes, consisting of (8) perceived
severity of COVID-19, (9) perceived risk of visiting the space, and (10) own or familiar
people’ infection of COVID-19. The third part was the Chinese version of Perceived
Restorativeness Scale (PRS) containing 22 items, established by Ye et al. [
23
], which had
high reliability and validity (a = 0.936/ S-B = 0.903), to measure citizens’ obtained perceived
restorativeness after visiting the spaces. The pretest was conducted by 20 people without
professional knowledge from different ages and educational groups, to ensure the clearness
of all questions and acceptable reliability and validity. According to that, a few alterations
were made.
The field survey was conducted during June of 2021, when the spread of COVID-19
had been largely brought under control and residents could visit urban public places more
freely than during the outbreak period. In total, 80 questionnaires were distributed in

Buildings 2022,12, 869 4 of 12
12 places, respectively, with the uniform distribution of genders and ages. People with
professional knowledge, alcohol or drug addiction, mental or physical illnesses, emotional
frustration, and life challenges were excluded. In order to avoid cognitive bias caused
by unfamiliarity with the places, we chose frequent visitors. We notified each participant
about the content and purpose of our experiment and obtained their permission before
proceeding. The survey of each place happened between 9 am and 11 am in sunny weather.
In the end, the 960 questionnaires were taken back. The missing or casual questions were
excluded, and 841 valid ones were obtained.
2.3. Data Analysis
For data analysis, we used SPSS 22.0 software. Firstly, the data was processed by
the method of One-way ANOVA to test if there is a significant difference in restorative
evaluation of UPSs among different demographic groups. The demographic characteristics
which have significant effects on restorative perception of 4 typical urban public spaces were
identified, respectively. Then, to measure the degree of influence degree of demographic
characteristics on perceptive restoration of urban public spaces, the stepwise multiple linear
regression analysis was carried out. Before starting the regression analysis, a correlation
analysis was performed to avoid problems with multicollinearity. These methods have
been widely and frequently used in similar research to analyze the perceptive difference
of people with different demographic characteristics [
24
]. For example, Wang and Zhao
(2017) used these methods to check and assess demographic variables’ effect on landscape
preference [
25
]; Rogge et al. (2007) utilized them to analyze differences in perception of
rural landscapes among different groups [26].
3. Results
3.1. Description of Samples
Firstly, the interclass reliability of demographic information and four parts of the
restorativeness assessment were calculated, respectively. Cronbach’s
α
of demographic
information was 0.908, which showed that the survey data is considered to have internal
consistency. Then, Table 2shows the description of participants’ demographic characteris-
tics, which was similar to population features of Xuzhou in 2010. Additionally, a higher
proportion of respondents are aged between 25 and 30, probably due to a higher frequency
of outdoor excursions in younger people. In addition, by calculating the mean restorative
scores of each type of urban public space, we ranked the urban green spaces (mean = 46.67)
in the order of the most restorative, followed by commercial spaces (mean = 43.44) and
sports spaces (mean = 39.90). Additionally, the exhibition spaces (mean = 39.17) supplied
the least PR values in our results.
3.2. Rating Restorative Experiences of Eight Rooms
The intraclass correlations coefficient was calculated to test the interclass reliability.
The results were Cronbach’s
α
= 0.901, p< 0.001, which showed a high consistency. Then,
the mean scores of each place were calculated to rank their restorative potential (Table 3).
Huaihai Park (A3) had the highest scores followed by Xuzhou Zoo (B2) and Yunlong
Park (A1), while the Xuzhou city (C1) stadium has the lowest scores. The city green
spaces have the highest restoration, followed by commercial spaces, sports spaces and
exhibition spaces.

Buildings 2022,12, 869 5 of 12
Table 2. Description of characteristics of participants (n= 841).
Demographic N % Demographic N %
Gender Life satisfaction
Male 417 49.6 Dis-satisfied 297 35.3
Female 424 50.4 So-so 247 29.4
Age Satisfied 297 35.3
18–30 64 7.6 Social support
31–40 370 44.0 Not much 111 13.2
41–50 92 10.9 Moderate 334 39.7
51–60 136 16.2 Much 396 47.1
Over 61 179 21.3 Perceived severity of COVID-19
Education Not serious 247 29.4
Higher education 284 33.8 A little serious 309 36.8
Without higher education 557 66.2 Very serious 285 33.8
Natural hobbies and Natural experiences Perceived risk of visiting
Few 395 47.0 Not risky 240 28.5
Moderate 358 42.6 A little risky 223 26.5
Many 88 10.4 Very risky 378 45.0
Health self-assessment Infection of COVID-19
Sick 198 23.5 None 756 89.9
Subhealthy 291 34.6 Familiar person’s infection 64 7.6
Healthy 352 41.9 Own infection 21 2.5
Table 3. The restorative ranking of 12 study places.
Places City Green Spaces Exhibition Spaces Sports Spaces Commercial Spaces
A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3
Mean 4.83 4.52 4.98 3.21 4.85 3.36 3.67 4.55 4.32 4.45 4.63 4.51
Grand average 4.78 3.81 4.18 4.53
Ranking 1 4 3 2
3.3. Significant Factors of Perceived Restoration
Using One-way ANOVA, the influential factors were identified (Table 4). There were
significant differences in the restorative perception of urban green spaces among people
with different natural hobbies and natural experiences (F = 4.325, p= 0.039) and life
satisfaction (F = 5.293, p= 0.022). Education (F = 9.248, p= 0.008), social support (F = 3.848,
p= 0.005) and perceived risk of visiting (F = 3.988, p= 0.041) were considerable factors when
regarding people’s perception of exhibition spaces. People with different social support
and perceived risk of visiting show markedly different evaluations of sports spaces. In
commercial spaces, age, gender, perceived risk of visiting and infection of COVID-19 are
important demographic factors. Then, the correlation analysis among identified factors
showed that perceived risk of visiting was related to infection of COVID-19, educational
level was related to life satisfaction and social support, and perceived severity of COVID-19
was related to perceived risk of visiting (Table 5). Apart from that, no statistically significant
correlations existed among demographic factors.
At last, the detailed perceived differences were explored by calculating the mean
and standard deviation of restorative ratings from different groups. Generally speaking,
participants with higher levels of education, natural hobbies and natural experiences,
life satisfaction and social support showed more restorative assessment. However, the
perceived risk of visiting and perceived severity of COVID-19 had negative effects on
restorative perception. Moreover, participants aged 18 to 30 showed the highest rating for
commercial spaces, followed by 41–50 years old, 51–60 years old and >60 years old. The
respondents at the age of 31–41 ranked lowest (Figure 1).

Buildings 2022,12, 869 6 of 12
Table 4. One-way ANOVA among different groups’ assessment of urban public spaces.
Space Demographic Variable Sum of
Squares DF Meansquare F P
Urban green space
(n= 213)
Natural hobbies and Natural
experiences 697.583 2 348.792 4.325 0.039
Life satisfaction 780.500 2 390.250 5.293 0.022
Exhibition space
(n= 207)
Education 2088.008 1 2088.008 9.248 0.008
Social support 1933.000 2 966.500 3.848 0.045
Perceived risk of visiting 1978.755 2 989.377 3.988 0.041
Sports space
(n= 226)
Social support 507.951 2 354.413 3.215 0.31
Perceived severity of
COVID-19 549.668 2 274.834 4.844 0.022
Commercial space
(n= 195)
Age 3168.143 4 792.036 4.066 0.024
Gender 835.204 1 835.204 5.162 0.034
Perceived risk of visiting 506.417 2 253.208 4.345 0.048
Infection of COVID-19 587.503 1 587.503 4.526 0.049
Table 5. Correlations among significant demographic factors.
Gender Age Education Natural
Hobby
Life
Satisfaction
Social
Support
Perceived
Severity of
COVID-19
Perceived
Risk of
Visiting
Infection
of
COVID-19
Gender 0.051 0.758 0.264 0.337 0.215 0.328 0.595 0.175
Age 0.325 0.221 0.157 0.127 0.204 0.215 0.307
Education 0.187 0.289 * 0.324 * 0.126 0.489 0.279
Natural hobby 0.056 0.081 0.192 0.135 0.176
Life satisfaction 0.215 0.384 0.429 0.495
Social support 0.517 0.269 0.124
Perceived severity of
COVID-19 0.159 * 0.178
Perceived risk of
visiting 0.141 **
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.
Figure 1. The description of overall PR of UPSs from different groups.
3.4. Degree of Effect of Demographic Variables
The significant correlations were further described by using the stepwise multiple
linear regression analysis using the demographic factors as independents and the restorative
scores of each participant as dependents. The results showed the degree of influence of
the above key demographic factors on the restorative perception of four kinds of UPSs.
There was no multicollinearity (VIF < 5) or correlation (D-W = 1.7~2.3) problems among
independents. Moreover, all models can fit and describe the data well (Adjusted R
2
> 0.5).

Buildings 2022,12, 869 7 of 12
For urban green spaces, about 75% of restorative scores could be explained by two
predictors including life satisfaction and natural hobbies (R
2
= 0.751). They all had positive
effects on restorative experience. Additionally, natural hobbies and natural experiences
were more significant than life satisfaction (Table 6).
Table 6. The effect of demographic characteristics on restoration of urban green spaces.
Variables Unstandardized
Beta
Standardized
Beta tSig. Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
(Constant) −57.026 - −0.977 0.000 - -
Life satisfaction 7.798 0.694 2.340 0.049 0.359 2.789
Natural hobbies and
Natural experiences 9.963 0.907 2.683 0.036 0.274 3.650
Note: Adjusted R2= 0.751, D-W = 1.904, n= 213.
In exhibition spaces, three factors, including education level, social support and
perceived severity of COVID-19, could clarify about 70% of the total variance in the
restorative scores (R
2
= 0.699). Higher education levels and more social support will
promote restorative experiences obtained by visiting exhibition spaces. Additionally,
educational level had a stronger influence than social support, while the perceived severity
of COVID-19 was considered to be a negative factor for mental restoration (Table 7).
Table 7. The effect of demographic characteristics on restoration of exhibition spaces.
Variables Unstandardized
Beta
Standardized
Beta tSig. Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
(Constant) 30.962 - 1.566 0.000 - -
Education level 24.046 0.605 3.041 0.008 0.986 1.077
Social support 13.900 0.582 2.864 0.011 0.925 1.012
Perceived severity of
COVID-19 −15.235 −0.588 −2.910 0.010 0.991 1.052
Note: Adjusted R2= 0.699, D-W = 1.840, n= 207.
In sports spaces, about 70% of the total variance in the restorative scores could be
illustrated by the factors of social support and perceived severity of COVID-19 (R
2
= 0.727).
They had a similar degree of influence. There was a positive correlation between social
support and perceived restoration, while it was more difficult to perceive restoration in
sports spaces for people who perceived a greater degree of severity in COVID-19 (Table 8).
Table 8. The effect of demographic characteristics on restoration of urban sports spaces.
Variables Unstandardized
Beta
Standardized
Beta tSig. Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
(Constant) - 18.230 0.007 - -
Social support 4.435 0.585 2.598 0.022 0.856 2.526
Perceived severity of
COVID-19 −5.254 −0.577 −2.426 0.023 0.815 1.947
Note: Adjusted R2= 0.727, D-W = 1.882, n= 226.
In commercial spaces, four factors would explain 73% of the variance in the overall
score for restorative assessment (R
2
= 0.731), including age, gender, perceived risk of
visiting and infection of COVID-19. The factor of gender had the largest positive effects on
restoration of commercial spaces, followed by age. Additionally, perceived risk of visiting
and infection of COVID-19 had negative effects (Table 9).

Buildings 2022,12, 869 8 of 12
Table 9. The effect of demographic characteristics on restoration of urban commercial spaces.
Variables Unstandardized
Beta
Standardized
Beta tSig. Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
(Constant) - 3.219 0.013 - -
Age 10.127 0.529 0.957 0.015 0.728 1.064
Gender 8.173 0.646 3.050 0.009 0.891 1.236
Perceived risk of visiting −13.245 −0.156 −2.683 0.036 0.882 1.588
Infection of COVID-19 −24.941 −0.107 −2.127 0.049 0.890 1.397
Note: Adjusted R2= 0.731, D-W = 1.936, n= 195.
From the above results, we can see that different groups indeed show various evalu-
ations of the same spaces, and each type of space had its unique key factors, which was
consistent with results of the ANOVA. Additionally, perceived severity of COVID-19 and
social support were regarded as playing important roles in both exhibition spaces and
sports spaces.
4. Discussion
4.1. Verifying the Rankings of Four Typical UPSs
Our results showed that urban green spaces contained the most restorative potential,
followed by commercial spaces, sports spaces and exhibition spaces, which could be sup-
ported by existing studies. As referred to in much precious research, the green experience
is regarded as a kind of direct and effective resource arousing mental restoration [3,27,28].
Moreover, its outdoor environment supplies good ventilation and spacious places, which
is beneficial to preventing the spread of the virus and avoiding close contact under the
request of antipandemic precautions. Commercial spaces, such as shopping malls and
business streets, are considered to be mechanisms supplying restorative services for cus-
tomers [
9
]. Some special settings, such as comfortable benches, beautiful tables, green
landscape or fountains in commercial spaces, would support customers’ restoration by
promoting social interaction and relaxation [
29
]. Sports could concentrate one’s physical
and mental resources quickly on the current activity, which may clear away random and
disturbing thoughts and renew the directed attention energy. Plenty of studies have proven
the healthy benefits of physical activities [
30
,
31
], such as positive mood and energetic state,
which makes for self-regulation and recovery. However, as a type of drastic and intense
stimulus, it is difficult to arouse the contemplative and peaceful state of mind which is a
symbol of long-lasting restorative results [
32
]. Exhibition spaces supplied the least per-
ceived restorativeness in our results. According to Packer and Bond [
33
] and Ouellette and
Kaplan [
18
], museums on the theme of arts, history, zoos or monasteries were regarded as
restorative environments for some people who could understand the artificial or historical
connotation of exhibits or have related beliefs.
4.2. Identifying Differences in DCs’ Contributions to PR for Different UPSs
The present results showed that there were considerable differences in significant
demographic variables for four typical UPSs. Identifying the key demographic variables
for each kind of UPS would be beneficial for choosing the most effective restorative envi-
ronment for various groups and for making better considerations about individualized
design.
Korpela et al. [
19
] have emphasized the associations between natural hobbies or
natural experiences and mentioning green nature. People with rich natural experiences or
an innate preference for nature have more desire to be around a green environment, and
obtain more pleasure when there. It is in line with our results that natural hobbies and
natural experiences are the most significant factors for urban green spaces. Then, the life
satisfaction reflects the positive or negative trend they interpret regarding environmental
elements [
34
]. Under normal conditions, the optimistic assessment of one’ own life will
result in high restorative perception, which is in line with our results, while the negative

Buildings 2022,12, 869 9 of 12
correlations between the two items have also been proven because of the greater need for
restoration for people with more life stress or terrible mood [35].
The existing emotional bond between commodities or shopping actions and customers
enhance the restorative effect. Additionally, considering the Chinese social phenomenon
of revenge spending during the postpandemic era, commercial spaces may bring much
pleasure and entertainment, especially for females. Therefore, the female customers obtain
more restorative outcomes than males from visiting shopping spaces in our results, which
is consistent with the opinions of Korpela and Hartig [
36
] that restorative psychological
processes proceed more in people’s favorite places than in usual places. This view is
also documented by Caspi et al. [
17
], who state that the environment correlated with
individual’s needs or abilities fits users better. Additionally, the commercial spaces process
more restorative outcomes to participants at the age of 18 to 30, which may be due to their
high frequency of their visits. In addition, most commercial spaces carry a high risk of
spreading the virus because of their poor ventilation and dense flow. Therefore, the degree
of individuals’ perceived risk depends on their access frequency.
Social support has been regarded as an important factor in our results for sports spaces,
which could be inferred from existing conclusions. For example, Staats and Hartig [
37
]
suggested that companies would enhance restoration by offering a sense of safety and more
pleasure, especially in urban environments. Sullivan et al. [
38
] proved the relationship
between restoration and sense of community for individuals living in apartment buildings.
Furthermore, most sporting events build on company or social connections [
39
]. Therefore,
it could be argued that social support, including company, good interpersonal relationships
and sense of community, would result in an increase in restorative perception. Additionally,
perceived severity of COVID-19 was also a reliable predictor of one’s restoration when
visiting the sports spaces. During the outbreak period of the pandemic, the physical
activities dramatically decreased, partly because of the shutdown of gyms and fitness
centers, which caused an increasing need of physical exercise and worries about the
inflection risk of visiting sports spaces at the same time [
40
]. Consequently, it is likely that
the desire to visit sports spaces depends on individuals’ perceived risk of COVID-19 during
the postpandemic era of China.
The comprehensive and correct interpretation of the surrounding environment or
emotional connections to the environment are the premise of compatibility and interaction,
which is a requirement for the restorative process [
41
]. Additionally, frequent or repeat
visitors are more likely to gain restoration than first-time visitors [
5
]. Therefore, participants
with high educational levels more easily reported good evaluations of exhibition spaces
regarding their restorative qualities because of their strong ability to understand and their
investigation while visiting. As discussed above, the social support and low perceived
severity of COVID-19 contribute to satisfying experiences and a sense of safety, which
improve the frequency of exhibition spaces’ visiting.
4.3. Detecting the Influence of Interaction among DCs on PR
Some demographic variables were related in our results, which was consistent with
previous works [
42
]. This explains the reasons of conflicting study results on the degree of
influence of DCs on perception and preference. The interactions among DCs largely depend
on local socioeconomic conditions. For example, the education level would be more likely
to be related to age and income in developing countries than developed countries because
the elderly have less access to high-quality education due to limited resources. Thus, the
studies conducted in different regions or with diverse participants would obtain divergent
results. In our results, people who or whose families or friends have been infected with
COVID-19 perceived a greater risk of visiting UPSs. It is not just because infected history or
related experiences increase the fear and anxiety of the pandemic, but because this group
will usually be identified as high-risk and thus be constrained from visiting UPSs to avoid
the potential possibility of viral transmission. Additionally, educational level was related to
life satisfaction and social support, which was also in line with current national conditions.

Buildings 2022,12, 869 10 of 12
Higher educational levels contribute to larger income and more social respect, which could
enhance life satisfaction and social support.
Detecting the interaction among DCs helps with understanding the differences in
RP of different groups. In the present study, people aged 18 to 30 obtained the strongest
restorative experiences from visiting UPSs. The reasons may link to the interaction between
perceived risk of visiting and infection of COVID-19. This age group has better physical
and mental conditions and are more adventurous, which cause lower rates of disease and
perceived risk. Thus, these two DCs together played an role in the process of perceiving
spatial environment, which should be further explored.
5. Conclusions
Our research finds that DCs have effects on perceived restoration of UPSs, which differ
depending on the type of space. Meanwhile, the factors which could embody the effects of
the COVID-19 pandemic on people’s bodies, minds and behaviors are considered. Overall,
the urban green space is ranked the highest in terms of restorative potential, followed by
commercial spaces, sports spaces and exhibition spaces, and the pandemic has negative
effects on obtaining a restorative experience by adding visiting risk. On this basis, the
significant factors in four typical UPSs were identified and their degrees of influence were
evaluated, which further emphasizes the importance and novelty of this study. For example,
the natural hobbies and life satisfaction are reliable predictors for urban green space.
Based on related studies on the restorative environment, there is no doubt that some
UPSs have positive functions on relieving pressure, arousing mental restoration and pro-
moting health, which city planners, landscape architects and even decision makers should
make full use of, especially regarding the consumption of body and mind caused by
COVID-19. Studies have already been conducted on the effects of DCs on restorative
perception of urban green spaces. Our results are relatively in line with them, even after
focusing on other kinds of UPSs and Chinese samples, which strengthens the foundation
for wider application. Moreover, we also assess the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic,
which promotes the application of the restorative design into dealing with physical and
mental consumption caused by social isolation and pandemic disease aggression. Given
the groups’ differences in preference for choosing restorative places, personalized design
should be carried out to meet the needs of different groups in the processes of building
design and planning layout of UPSs. The results presented here offer more evidence for
understanding the relationship between DCs and perceived restoration, and more guidance
for constructing restorative UPSs efficiently. Meanwhile, it provides directions for city
managers to plan and for urban residents to decide how to visit restorative urban public
spaces nearby.
In consideration of diversity, 12 places respective of four kinds of UPSs were selected
as research locations. However, disadvantages still exist when referring to generalization,
because it is hard to contain all features of the UPSs with limited study areas. Although we
selected participants randomly, some socioeconomic factors are still ignored. For instance,
people with less leisure time, physical disabilities or low accessibility to UPSs have fewer
opportunities to visit UPSs and are excluded in our study. The nonconsideration of the
environmental features of UPSs also represents a possible bias. In addition, using the
Chinese version of Perceived Restorativeness Scale as a measurement tool may lead to
semantic guidance, which can cause a biased restorative assessment.
Thus, to obtain more accuracy and better applicable conclusions, studies with larger
samples and more comprehensive measurements should be conducted. In addition, we
should further analyze the impacts of the pandemic on individual travel behavior and
identify more related demographic factors to carry out a more comprehensive study of
the restorative environment in response to the pandemic. Additionally, differences in
restorative needs of different groups before and after the pandemic should be explored to
carry out more targeted space design.

Buildings 2022,12, 869 11 of 12
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, methodology, S.W. and A.L.; software, validation, for-
mal analysis, writing—original draft preparation, S.W.; investigation, resources and data curation,
writing—review and editing, project administration, S.W.; funding acquisition, A.L. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities,
China, grant number 2021QN1039, and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities,
China, grant number 2021QN1040.
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments:
The authors would like to thank all of the respondents for spending time to
participate in experiments and answer the questionnaires.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Ren, X.; Huang, W.; Pan, H.; Huang, T.; Wang, X.; Ma, Y. Mental Health during the COVID-19 Outbreak in China: A Meta-Analysis.
Psychiatr. Q. 2020,91, 10227. [CrossRef]
2.
Hartig, T. Toward Understanding the Restorative Environment as a Health Resource. Open Space—People Space: An International
Conference on Inclusive Environments. 2004. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241378226_Toward_
Understanding_the_Restorative_Environment_as_a_Health_Resource (accessed on 2 April 2009).
3. Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989.
4.
Maas, J.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P.; de Vries, S.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the
relation? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2006,60, 587–592. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Kaplan, S.; Bardwell, L.V.; Slakter, D.B. The museum as a restorative environment. Environ. Behav. 1993,25, 725–742. [CrossRef]
6.
Packer, J.; Ballantyne, R. Motivational factors and the visitor experience: A comparison of three sites. Curator Mus. J.
2002
,45,
183–198. [CrossRef]
7.
Scopelliti, M.; Giuliani, M.V. Choosing restorative environments across the lifespan: A matter of place experience. J. Environ.
Psychol. 2004,24, 423–437. [CrossRef]
8.
Pals, R.; Steg, L.F.W.; Siero, K.I.; Zee, V.D. Development of the PRCQ: A measure of perceived restorative characteristics of zoo
attractions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009,29, 441–449. [CrossRef]
9.
Rosenbaum, M.S.; Otalora, M.L.; Ramirez, G.C. The restorative potential of shopping malls. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.
2016
,31,
157–165. [CrossRef]
10.
Kang, N.; Ridgway, N.M. The importance of consumer market interactions as a form of social support for elderly consumers. J.
Public Policy Mark. 1996,15, 108–117. [CrossRef]
11. Rosenbaum, M.S. Return on community for consumers and service establishments. J. Serv. Res. 2008,11, 179–196. [CrossRef]
12.
Pretty, J.; Peacock, J.; Sellens, M.; Griffin, M. The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise. Int. J. Environ. Health Res.
2005,15, 319–337. [CrossRef]
13.
Giuntella, O.; Hyde, K.; Saccardo, S.; Sadoff, S. Lifestyle and Mental Health Disruptions during COVID-19. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 2021,118, e2016632118. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Staats, H.; Jahncke, H.; Herzog, T.; Hartig, T. Urban options for psychoogcal restoration: Common strategies in everyday
situations. PLoS ONE 2016,11, e0146213. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15.
Hartig, T.; Lindblom, K.; Ovefelt, K. The home and near home area offer restoration opportunities differentiated by gender. Scand.
Hous. Plan. Res. 1998,15, 283–296. [CrossRef]
16.
Regan, C.L.; Horn, S.A. To nature or not to nature: Associations between environmental preferences, mood states and demographic
factors. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005,25, 57–66. [CrossRef]
17.
Caspi, A.; Roberts, B.W.; Shiner, R.L. Personality development: Stability and change. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
2005
,56, 453–484.
[CrossRef]
18. Ouellette, P.; Kaplan, S. The monastery as a restorative environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005,25, 175–188. [CrossRef]
19.
Korpela, K.M.; Ylén, M.; Tyrväinen, L.; Silvennoinen, H. Determinants of restorative experiences in everyday favorite places.
Health Place 2008,14, 636–652. [CrossRef]
20.
Bauer, R.A. Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking. In Proceedings of the 43rd National Conference of the American Marketing
Assocation, Chicago, IL, USA, 15–17 June 1960; American Marketing Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 1960.
21.
Jonas, A.; Mansfeld, Y.; Paz, S.; Potasman, I. Determinants of Health Risk Perception among Low-risk-taking Tourists Traveling to
Developing Countries. J. Travel Res. 2011,49, 87–99.
22.
Vries, D.S.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P. Natural environments—Healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the
relationship between greenspace and health. Environ. Plan. A 2003,35, 1717–1731. [CrossRef]
23. Ye, L.H.; Zhang, F.; Wu, J.P. Developing the restoration environment scale. China J. Health Psychol. 2010,18, 1515–1518.

Buildings 2022,12, 869 12 of 12
24.
Yao, Y.; Zhu, X.; Xu, Y.; Yang, H.; Wu, X.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Y. Assessing the visual quality of green landscaping in rural residential
areas: The case of Changzhou, China. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2012,184, 951–967. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Wang, R.; Zhao, J. Demographic groups’ differences in visual preference for vegetated landscapes in urban green space. Sustain.
Cities Soc. 2017,28, 350–357. [CrossRef]
26.
Rogge, E.; Nevens, F.; Gulinck, H. Perception of rural landscapes in Flanders: Looking beyond aesthetics. Landsc. Urban Plan.
2007,82, 159–174. [CrossRef]
27.
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]
28. Ulrich, R. Natural versus Urban Scenes Some Psychophysiological Effects. Environ. Behav. 1981,13, 523–556. [CrossRef]
29.
Korpela, K.M.; Hartig, T.; Kaiser, F.G.; Fuhrer, U. Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite places. Environ. Behav.
2001,33, 572–589. [CrossRef]
30.
Timmons, B.W.; Leblanc, A.G.; Carson, V.; Gorber, S.C.; Dillman, C.; Janssen, I. Systematic review of physical activity and health
in the early years (aged 0–4 years). BMC Public Health 2012,17, 773–792. [CrossRef]
31.
Manley, A.F. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Georgia. US Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. 1997.
Available online: www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/sgr/pdf/execsumm.pdf (accessed on 15 September 1997).
32.
Herzog, T.R.; Black, A.M.; Fountaine, K.A.; Knotts, D.J. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative
environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1997,17, 165–170. [CrossRef]
33. Packer, J.; Bond, N. Museums as Restorative Environments. Curator Mus. J. 2010,53, 421–436. [CrossRef]
34.
Feist, G.J.; Bodner, T.E.; Jacobs, J.F.; Miles, M.; Tan, V. Integrating top-down and bottom-up structural models of subjective
well-being: A longitudinal investigation. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1995,68, 138–150. [CrossRef]
35.
Bodin, M.; Hartig, T. Does the outdoor environment matter for psychological restoration gained through running? Psychol. Sport
Exerc. 2003,4, 141–153. [CrossRef]
36. Korpela, K.M.; Hartig, T. Restorative qualities of favourite places. J. Environ. Psychol. 1996,16, 221–233. [CrossRef]
37.
Staats, H.; Kieviet, A.; Hartig, T. Where to recover from attentional fatigue: An expectancy-value analysis of environmental
preference. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003,23, 147–157. [CrossRef]
38.
Sullivan, W.C.; Kuo, F.E.; Depooter, S.F. The fruit of urban nature: Vital neighborhood spaces. Environ. Behav.
2004
,36, 678–700.
[CrossRef]
39.
Shakib, S.; Veliz, P. Race, sport and social support: A comparison between African American and White youths’ perceptions of
social support for sport participation. Int. Rev. Sociol. Sport 2013,48, 295–317. [CrossRef]
40.
Yang, Y.; Joerg, K. Determinants of physical activity maintenance during the COVID-19 pandemic: A focus on fitness apps. Transl.
Behav. Med. 2020,10, 835–842. [CrossRef]
41.
Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol.
1995
,15, 169–182. [CrossRef]
42.
Kaltenborn, B.P.; Bjerke, T. Associations between environmental value orientations and landscape preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan.
2002,59, 1–11. [CrossRef]