[Objective] The proposition that green landscapes promote human health and well-being is widely accepted and supported by extensive empirical evidence. However, this consensus is often interpreted in an overly simplified way, as if “Greener is better”, regardless of landscape type, user characteristics, social, cultural, and historical context. Such a one-size-fits-all understanding risks obscuring important disparities and unintended harms. In response to this concern, this study seeks to develop a more nuanced comprehension of the relationship between green landscapes, health, and well-being. Specifically, we aim to identify the conditions under which green landscapes may not only confer benefits but also produce limited, ambiguous, or even negative impacts on public health well-being, thereby challenging overly generalized claims in both research and practice. [Methods] This study adopted a multi-step, empirical evidence-informed narrative review strategy. First, we conducted a thematic analysis of empirical and conceptual studies published mainly in the last 25 years in peer-reviewed journals indexed in Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and related databases. The search strategy focused on the relationship between green landscapes and health or well-being, with attention to negative outcomes. Guided by an initial scoping of the literature, we identified three intersecting analytic dimensions as central: 1) biodiversity within green landscapes (e.g., species richness, vegetation and wildlife diversity, ecological restoration); 2) socioeconomic, demographic, and cultural characteristics (e.g., gender, age, income, education, ethnicity, migration status, and cultural norms); and 3) perceived safety (e.g., visibility, spatial enclosure, maintenance, crime risk, and gendered experiences of fear). Second, we applied a structured coding scheme during the full-text review to extract information on environmental settings, types and spatial configurations of green space, biodiversity indicators, social and demographic variables, safety-related attributes, and health and well-being outcomes. Third, we synthesized the findings narratively across the three dimensions, with particular emphasis on identifying types of green landscapes and contextual conditions under which negative effects on health and well-being are most likely to occur. [Results] The analysis indicates that the relationship between green landscapes and health and well-being is strongly context-dependent rather than uniformly and universally positive. Higher levels of biodiversity are frequently associated with greater psychological restoration, aesthetic appreciation, and a stronger sense of connectedness to nature. However, under certain conditions biodiversity can also increase health risks. Inappropriate species selection and planting design may elevate allergenic pollen loads and exacerbate respiratory problems, while dense vegetation and overlapping human−wildlife habitats can facilitate human−animal conflicts or support disease vectors and pathogens. In addition, visually “messy”, enclosed, or overgrown vegetation is often perceived as neglected or unsafe, thereby reducing perceived safety and discouraging use. Socioeconomic, demographic, and cultural characteristics further mediate who accesses, uses, and benefits from green landscapes. Gender, age, income, education, and cultural background shape both reliance on nearby green spaces and sensitivity to their design, accessibility, and informal surveillance. Women and elderly often depend more on proximate green areas but are also more affected by deficits in these qualities. More affluent groups typically enjoy greater proximity to high-quality green environments and have more leisure time to use them, whereas disadvantaged populations face educational, spatial, temporal, and cultural barriers and may be exposed to green-led gentrification, displacement, and isolation. As a result, the health benefits and risks associated with green spaces are unevenly distributed and may reinforce existing social and health inequalities. Finally, perceived safety is a critical contextual factor. Poor lighting, dense and visually obstructive vegetation, secluded paths, degraded facilities, and a lack of amenities, management, and active functions are associated with lower perceived safety and, in some contexts, higher crime risks. In certain neighborhoods, parks are linked to gang activity or gender-based violence, particularly deterring women and other vulnerable groups. Socio-racial dynamics and cultural beliefs can further transform potentially restorative environments into “scary spaces,” generating fear, anxiety and avoidance rather than health benefits. [Conclusion] The widely accepted proposition that “green landscapes promote human health and well-being” is, in general, valid. Our intention is not to challenge this important consensus, but rather to develop a deeper, more comprehensive, and more nuanced understanding of this issue. However, the effects of green landscapes need to be assessed more precisely from several perspectives. First, green landscapes encompass multiple types, and different kinds of green space may have distinct health effects, each with its own strengths and limitations. Second, the “people” served by green landscapes are themselves highly heterogeneous and should not be treated as a single, undifferentiated population group; the social, economic, demographic, and cultural characteristics of specific target populations should be fully taken into account. Third, we may need to adopt more non-linear and non-binary modes of thinking: the impacts of green landscapes on health and well-being are not a simple black-and-white issue. Fourth, we should be cautious about an absolutist anthropocentric perspective and give due weight to the broader effects of green space, especially its ecological effects. We argue that the various positive effects of green landscapes are likely to be coupled, and that these coupled effects constitute an important topic for future in-depth research. Finally, it should be emphasized that this study is a narrative review, which cannot quantify the number, proportion, or interrelationships of the different types of issues discussed. We look forward to future reviews that are more systematic and quantitative to further elucidate these questions. We hope this study can provide some new ideas for future research and practice on the health and well-being effects of green landscapes.
| [1] |
GRAD F P . The Preamble of the Constitution of the World Health Organization[J]. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2002, 80(12): 981-984.
|
| [2] |
KNAPP S, ARONSON M F J, CARPENTER E, et al. A Research Agenda for Urban Biodiversity in the Global Extinction Crisis[J]. BioScience, 2021, 71(3): 268-279.
|
| [3] |
GAN J. Relationship Between Urban Biodiversity and Built Environment and in Macro Scale: The Case Study of Shanghai, China[M]// GAN J . Urban Biodiversity and Built Environment. Singapore: Springer Singapore, 2021: 39-76.
|
| [4] |
LIN F Z, ZHU M J, DONG X Y, et al. Revealing Future Effectiveness of Protected Areas for Biodiversity Conservation in the Guangdong−Hong Kong−Macao Greater Bay Area[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2025, 255: 105260.
|
| [5] |
WANG Y, KOTZE D J, VIERIKKO K, et al. What Makes Urban Greenspace Unique: Relationships Between Citizens’ Perceptions on Unique Urban Nature, Biodiversity and Environmental Factors[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2019, 42: 1-9.
|
| [6] |
MÜLLER N, WERNE P. Urban Biodiversity and the Case for Implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity in Towns and Cities// MÜLLER N, WERNER P, KELCEY J G. Urban Biodiversity and Design, 2010: 1-33.
|
| [7] |
CARRUS G, SCOPELLITI M, LAFORTEZZA R, et al. Go Greener, Feel Better? The Positive Effects of Biodiversity on the Well-Being of Individuals Visiting Urban and Peri-Urban Green Areas[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2015, 134: 221-228.
|
| [8] |
GONG C, YANG R T, LI S H . The Role of Urban Green Space in Promoting Health and Well-Being Is Related to Nature Connectedness and Biodiversity: Evidence from a Two-Factor Mixed-Design Experiment[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2024, 245: 105020.
|
| [9] |
VAN DEN BERG A E, VLEK C A J, COETERIER J F . Group Differences in the Aesthetic Evaluation of Nature Development Plans: A Multilevel Approach[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1998, 18(2): 141-157.
|
| [10] |
FEKETE R, VALKÓ O, FISCHER L K, et al. Ecological Restoration and Biodiversity-Friendly Management of Urban Grasslands: A Global Review on the Current State of Knowledge[J]. Journal of Environmental Management, 2024, 368: 122220.
|
| [11] |
LINDEMANN-MATTHIES P, JUNGE X, MATTHIES D . The Influence of Plant Diversity on People’s Perception and Aesthetic Appreciation of Grassland Vegetation[J]. Biological Conservation, 2010, 143(1): 195-202.
|
| [12] |
YEN H Y, CHIU H L, HUANG H Y . Green and Blue Physical Activity for Quality of Life: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2021, 212: 104093.
|
| [13] |
YOUNG C, HOFMANN M, FREY D, et al. Psychological Restoration in Urban Gardens Related to Garden Type, Biodiversity and Garden-Related Stress[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2020, 198: 103777.
|
| [14] |
LUCK G W, DAVIDSON P, BOXALL D, et al. Relations Between Urban Bird and Plant Communities and Human Well-Being and Connection to Nature[J]. Conservation Biology, 2011, 25(4): 816-826.
|
| [15] |
CHEN S H, WANG H Q, XU W Y . Bird Richness as a Mediator Between Greenspace and Mental Health Relationships[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2025, 259: 105360.
|
| [16] |
FULLER R A, IRVINE K N, DEVINE-WRIGHT P, et al. Psychological Benefits of Greenspace Increase with Biodiversity[J]. Biology Letters, 2007, 3(4): 390-394.
|
| [17] |
DEAN J, VAN DOOREN K, WEINSTEIN P . Does Biodiversity Improve Mental Health in Urban Settings?[J]. Medical Hypotheses, 2011, 76(6): 877-880.
|
| [18] |
JIANG B, MAK C N S, ZHONG H, et al. From Broken Windows to Perceived Routine Activities: Examining Impacts of Environmental Interventions on Perceived Safety of Urban Alleys[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2018, 9: 2450.
|
| [19] |
WILLIAMS K J H, CARY J . Landscape Preferences, Ecological Quality, and Biodiversity Protection[J]. Environment and Behavior, 2002, 34(2): 257-274.
|
| [20] |
KAPLAN R, HERBERT E J . Cultural and Sub-cultural Comparisons in Preferences for Natural Settings[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1987, 14: 281-293.
|
| [21] |
JIANG B, LI J L, GONG P, et al. A Generalized Relationship Between Dose of Greenness and Mental Health Response[J]. Nature Cities, 2025, 2(8): 739-748.
|
| [22] |
RATNARATHORN N, CHOTIMANVIJIT B, SANUNSILP N, et al. Effects of Rapid Urbanisation on Human−Snake Conflicts in a Tropical Mega-City: Challenges to Biodiversity Conservation and Healthcare Systems[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2026, 269: 105582.
|
| [23] |
WIERUCKA K, HATTEN C E, MURPHY D, et al. Human-Wildlife Interactions in Urban Asia[J]. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2023, 46: e02596.
|
| [24] |
RAMKE L, KNAPP S, STRAKA T M . How Does the Choice of Trees in Favour of High Carbon Storage Benefit Faunistic Biodiversity in Urban Areas? A Systematic Review[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2025, 261: 105404.
|
| [25] |
LARA B, ROJO J, FERNÁNDEZ-GONZÁLEZ F, et al. Prediction of Airborne Pollen Concentrations for the Plane Tree as a Tool for Evaluating Allergy Risk in Urban Green Areas[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2019, 189: 285-295.
|
| [26] |
CARIÑANOS P, CASARES-PORCEL M . Urban Green Zones and Related Pollen Allergy: A Review. Some Guidelines for Designing Spaces with Low Allergy Impact[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2011, 101(3): 205-214.
|
| [27] |
KASPRZYK I, ĆWIK A, KLUSKA K, et al. Allergenic Pollen Concentrations in the Air of Urban Parks in Relation to Their Vegetation[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2019, 46: 126486.
|
| [28] |
ZHANG M J, DONG R, WANG X X . Plants with Health Risks Undermine Residents’ Perceived Health Status, Evaluations and Expectations of Residential Greenery[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2021, 216: 104236.
|
| [29] |
CHEN M K, YANG Z R, LI H, et al. Changes in Tree Composition and Diversity of Streetscapes and Their Impact on Allergenic Risk of Pollen During Urban Expansion: A Case Study in Chengdu, China[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2026, 265: 105503.
|
| [30] |
CARIÑANOS P, CASARES-PORCEL M, QUESADA-RUBIO J M . Estimating the Allergenic Potential of Urban Green Spaces: A Case-Study in Granada, Spain[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2014, 123: 134-144.
|
| [31] |
SCHMIDT C W . Pollen Overload: Seasonal Allergies in a Changing Climate[J]. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2016, 124(4): A70-A75.
|
| [32] |
YUP K. Climate Change Will Worsens Pollen Allergies. The Nation’s Health, 2023, 53(1): 11.
|
| [33] |
DE VRIES S, VERHEIJ R A, GROENEWEGEN P P, et al. Natural Environments−Healthy Environments? An Exploratory Analysis of the Relationship Between Greenspace and Health[J]. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 2003, 35(10): 1717-1731.
|
| [34] |
DASZAK P, CUNNINGHAM A A, HYATT A D . Emerging Infectious Diseases of Wildlife: Threats to Biodiversity and Human Health[J]. Science, 2000, 287(5452): 443-449.
|
| [35] |
GIBB R, REDDING D W, FRIANT S, et al. Towards a “People and Nature” Paradigm for Biodiversity and Infectious Disease[J]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2025, 380(1917): 20230259.
|
| [36] |
KRUIZE H, VAN KAMP I, VAN DEN BERG M, et al. Exploring Mechanisms Underlying the Relationship Between the Natural Outdoor Environment and Health and Well-Being: Results from the PHENOTYPE Project[J]. Environment International, 2020, 134: 105173.
|
| [37] |
LABIB S M, LINDLEY S, HUCK J J . Spatial Dimensions of the Influence of Urban Green-Blue Spaces on Human Health: A Systematic Review[J]. Environmental Research, 2020, 180: 108869.
|
| [38] |
Biodiversity-Considering Biodiversity in the Strategy and Operations of Organizations-Requirements and Guidelines: ISO 17298: 2025[S/OL]. [2025-08-07]. https://www.iso.org/standard/17298.
|
| [39] |
JALKANEN J, VIERIKKO K, KUJALA H, et al. Identifying Priority Urban Green Areas for Biodiversity Conservation and Equitable Recreational Accessibility Using Spatial Prioritization[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2025, 259: 105356.
|
| [40] |
BORNIOLI A, HOPKINS-DOYLE A, FASOLI F, et al. Sex and the City Park: The Role of Gender and Sex in Psychological Restoration in Urban Greenspaces[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2024, 100: 102476.
|
| [41] |
RIEVES E S, REID C E, CARLSON K, et al. Do Environmental Attitudes and Personal Characteristics Influence How People Perceive Their Exposure to Green Spaces?[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2024, 248: 105080.
|
| [42] |
ARAM F, SOLGI E, HOLDEN G . The Role of Green Spaces in Increasing Social Interactions in Neighborhoods with Periodic Markets[J]. Habitat International, 2019, 84: 24-32.
|
| [43] |
CURRIE M J B, LACKOVA P, DINNIE E . Greenspace Matters: Exploring Links Between Greenspace, Gender and Well-Being with Conservation Volunteers[J]. Landscape Research, 2016, 41(6): 641-651.
|
| [44] |
ROMELLI C, ANDERSON C C, FAGERHOLM N, et al. Why Do People Visit or Avoid Public Green Spaces? Insights from an Online Map-Based Survey in Bochum, Germany[J]. Ecosystems and People, 2025, 21(1): 2454252.
|
| [45] |
JIANG B, MAK C N S, LARSEN L, et al. Minimizing the Gender Difference in Perceived Safety: Comparing the Effects of Urban Back Alley Interventions[J]. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2017, 51: 117-131.
|
| [46] |
UCHIYAMA Y, KOHSAKA R . Access and Use of Green Areas During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Green Infrastructure Management in the “New Normal”[J]. Sustainability, 2020, 12(23): 9842.
|
| [47] |
ODE SANG Å, KNEZ I, GUNNARSSON B, et al. The Effects of Naturalness, Gender, and Age on how Urban Green Space Is Perceived and Used[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2016, 18: 268-276.
|
| [48] |
SANG O, SANG N, HEDBLOM M, et al. Are Path Choices of People Moving Through Urban Green Spaces Explained by Gender and Age? Implications for Planning and Management[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2020, 49: 126628.
|
| [49] |
GAN H M, HUANG Y, ZHAO Z, et al. Green Space Perception and Utilization in Times of Pandemic from the Perspective of Urban Green Resilience: A Comparison Analysis Across Age Groups[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2025, 179: 114201.
|
| [50] |
FONGAR C, AAMODT G, RANDRUP T B, et al. Does Perceived Green Space Quality Matter? Linking Norwegian Adult Perspectives on Perceived Quality to Motivation and Frequency of Visits[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2019, 16(13): 2327.
|
| [51] |
WEI D, LU Y, WU X Y, et al. Greenspace Exposure May Increase Life Expectancy of Elderly Adults, Especially for Those with Low Socioeconomic Status[J]. Health & Place, 2023, 84: 103142.
|
| [52] |
ÖZGÜNER H. Cultural Differences in Attitudes Towards Urban Parks and Green Spaces[J]. Landscape Research, 2011, 36(5): 599-620.
|
| [53] |
PHILLIPS A, KHAN A Z, CANTERS F . Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences[J]. Sustainability, 2021, 13(6): 3461.
|
| [54] |
PINTO L, FERREIRA C S S, PEREIRA P . Environmental and Socioeconomic Factors Influencing the Use of Urban Green Spaces in Coimbra (Portugal)[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2021, 792: 148293.
|
| [55] |
WANG M Y, YAN Y, LI M X, et al. Differences in Emotional Preferences Toward Urban Green Spaces Among Various Cultural Groups in Macau and Their Influencing Factors[J]. Land, 2024, 13(4): 414.
|
| [56] |
LIU M W, TIMMERMANS E J, WAGTENDONK A, et al. Socio-Demographic and Socio-Economic Differences in the Availability of Green Space in the Netherlands[J]. Population and Environment, 2025, 47(3): 26.
|
| [57] |
AAMODT G, NORDH H, NORDBØ E C A . Relationships Between Socio-Demographic/Socio-Economic Characteristics and Neighborhood Green Space in Four Nordic Municipalities: Results from NORDGREEN[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2023, 82: 127894.
|
| [58] |
DAI C Y, MARUTHAVEERAN S, SHAHIDAN M F, et al. Usage of and Barriers to Green Spaces in Disadvantaged Neighborhoods: A Case Study in Shi Jiazhuang, Hebei Province, China[J]. Forests, 2023, 14(2): 435.
|
| [59] |
LI F Z, ZHANG F, LI X, et al. Spatiotemporal Patterns of the Use of Urban Green Spaces and External Factors Contributing to Their Use in Central Beijing[J]. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2017, 14(3): 237.
|
| [60] |
LU Y T, CHEN R N, CHEN B, et al. Inclusive Green Environment for All? An Investigation of Spatial Access Equity of Urban Green Space and Associated Socioeconomic Drivers in China[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2024, 241: 104926.
|
| [61] |
RIGOLON A . A Complex Landscape of Inequity in Access to Urban Parks: A Literature Review[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2016, 153: 160-169.
|
| [62] |
WÜSTEMANN H, KALISCH D, KOLBE J . Access to Urban Green Space and Environmental Inequalities in Germany[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2017, 164: 124-131.
|
| [63] |
PHAM T T H, LACHAPELLE U . Who Participates in Greening Everyday Urban Space? Understanding Community-Led Urban Greening Through the Case of the Green Alleys of Montréal (Canada)[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2026, 266: 105533.
|
| [64] |
GARCÍA-LAMARCA M. Green Gentrification: Urban Sustainability and the Struggle for Environmental Justice[J]. Local Environment, 2017, 22(12): 1563-1565.
|
| [65] |
ANGUELOVSKI I. From Toxic Sites to Parks as (Green) LULUs? New Challenges of Inequity, Privilege, Gentrification, and Exclusion for Urban Environmental Justice[J]. Journal of Planning Literature, 2016, 31(1): 23-36.
|
| [66] |
DEMPSEY N, DOBSON J. Realigning Knowing and Doing: An Agenda for Reflection and Action[M]// DEMPSEY N, DOBSON J . Naturally Challenged: Contested Perceptions and Practices in Urban Green Spaces. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020: 189-196.
|
| [67] |
KLOMPMAKER J O, HART J E, BAILEY C R, et al. Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Disparities in Multiple Measures of Blue and Green Spaces in the United States[J]. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2023, 131: 017007.
|
| [68] |
ASTELL-BURT T, FENG X Q, MAVOA S, et al. Do Low-Income Neighbourhoods Have the Least Green Space? A Cross-Sectional Study of Australia’s most Populous Cities[J]. BMC Public Health, 2014, 14(1): 292.
|
| [69] |
ZHANG Y J, LI Z A, MANDIC S, et al. Associations of Geospatial Measures of Greenspace with Adolescent Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity: A Systematic Review[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2026, 265: 105498.
|
| [70] |
MEI G Y, SUN Y J . Using Landscape Preference Models and Tree-Scale Measurements to Predict Stand Quality[J]. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 2018, 33(3): 255-260.
|
| [71] |
章志都, 徐程扬, 龚岚, 等 . 基于SBE法的北京市郊野公园绿地结构质量评价技术[J]. 林业科学， 2010， 47（8）： 53-60.
|
| [72] |
ZHANG Z D, XUC Y, GONG L, et al. Assessment on Structural Quality of Landscapes in Green Space of Beijing Suburban Parks by SBE Method[J]. Scientia Silvae Sinicae, 2010, 47(8): 53-60.
|
| [73] |
MA B Q, HAUER R J, XU C Y, et al. Visualizing Evaluation Model of Human Perceptions and Characteristic Indicators of Landscape Visual Quality in Urban Green Spaces by Using Nomograms[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2021, 65: 127314.
|
| [74] |
ZHAO J W, HUANG Y D . Physical Characteristics of Urban Green Spaces in Relation to Perceived Safety[J]. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 2021, 147(4): 05021032.
|
| [75] |
HIPP J R, LEE S, KI D, et al. Measuring the Built Environment with Google Street View and Machine Learning: Consequences for Crime on Street Segments[J]. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2022, 38(3): 537-565.
|
| [76] |
BREETZKE G, PEARSON A, TAO S, et al. Greenspace and Gun Violence in Detroit, USA. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 2020, 15(2): 248-265.
|
| [77] |
LIS A, IWANKOWSKI P . Why Is Dense Vegetation in City Parks Unpopular? The Mediative Role of Sense of Privacy and Safety[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2021, 59: 126988.
|
| [78] |
DA COSTA M R, XAVIER C C, DE SOUZA ANDRADE A C, et al. Bullying Among Adolescents in a Brazilian Urban Center: “Health in Beagá” Study[J]. Revista de Saúde Pública, 2015, 49: 1-10.
|
| [79] |
GOBSTER P H, WESTPHAL L M . The Human Dimensions of Urban Greenways: Planning for Recreation and Related Experiences[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2004, 68(2/3): 147-165.
|
| [80] |
PARRA L, MARIN PEIRA J F, LLORET A T, et al. Evaluating the Impact of Natural Products to Improve the Sustainability or Urban Lawns[J]. Cities, 2024, 150: 105097.
|
| [81] |
SIVARAMAN D, LINDNER A S . A Comparative Life Cycle Analysis of Gasoline-, Battery-, and Electricity-Powered Lawn Mowers[J]. Environmental Engineering Science, 2004, 21(6): 768-785.
|
| [82] |
MD MEFTAUL I, VENKATESWARLU K, DHARMARAJAN R, et al. Pesticides in the Urban Environment: A Potential Threat that Knocks at the Door[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2020, 711: 134612.
|
| [83] |
BRAÇE O, GARRIDO-CUMBRERA M, CORREA-FERNÁNDEZ J . Gender Differences in the Perceptions of Green Spaces Characteristics[J]. Social Science Quarterly, 2021, 102(6): 2640-2648.
|
| [84] |
MUDERRISOG H, DEMIR Z . The Relationship Between Perceived Beauty and Safety in Urban Recreation Parks[J]. Journal of Applied Sciences, 2003, 4(1): 72-77.
|
| [85] |
RATNAYAKE R. Sense of Safety in Public Spaces: University Student Safety Experiences in an Australian Regional City[J]. Rural Society, 2017, 26(1): 69-84.
|
| [86] |
NAVARRETE-HERNANDEZ P, VETRO A, CONCHA P . Building Safer Public Spaces: Exploring Gender Difference in the Perception of Safety in Public Space Through Urban Design Interventions[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2021, 214: 104180.
|
| [87] |
PAYDAR M, KAMANI-FARD A, ETMINANI-GHASRODASHTI R . Perceived Security of Women in Relation to Their Path Choice Toward Sustainable Neighborhood in Santiago, Chile[J]. Cities, 2017, 60: 289-300.
|
| [88] |
LIS A, PARDELA Ł, IWANKOWSKI P, et al. The Impact of Plants Offering Cover on Female Students’ Perception of Danger in Urban Green Spaces in Crime Hot Spots[J]. Landscape Online, 2021, 91: 1-14.
|
| [89] |
KRAJTER OSTOIĆ S, VULETIĆ D, KIČIĆ M . Exploring the Negative Perceptions of Tree-Based Urban Green Space. People’s Behaviour and Management Are Crucial[J]. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 2024, 101: 128539.
|
| [90] |
KUO F E, BACAICOA M, SULLIVAN W C . Transforming Inner-City Landscapes: Trees, Sense of Safety, and Preference[J]. Environment and Behavior, 1998, 30(1): 28-59.
|
| [91] |
KAPLAN R, TALBOT J F . Ethnicity and Preference for Natural Settings: A Review and Recent Findings[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 1988, 15(1/2): 107-117.
|
| [92] |
LI H, XUE T, ZHANG A J, et al. Impact of Urban and Cultural Landscape Heritage on Mental Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-synthesis[J]. BMC Public Health, 2025, 25(1): 3095.
|
| [93] |
BRIZI A, RABINOVICH A, LEWIS C . Psychological Outcomes of Local Heritage Engagement: Participation in Community Archeological Excavations Increases Well-Being, Self-Efficacy, and Perceived Community Support[J]. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2023, 53(9): 850-861.
|
| [94] |
WANG Z L, WANG X, LI J J, et al. Urban Green Space and Crime Across Land Use Types and Socio-Racial Contexts: Evidence from Washington, D.C[J]. Applied Geography, 2026, 190: 103972.
|
| [95] |
WO J C, ROGERS E M . Urban Greenspace and Neighborhood Crime[J]. Criminology, 2024, 62(2): 236-275.
|
| [96] |
AFSHAR JAHANSHAHI A, BREM A, SHAHABINEZHAD M . Does Thinking Style Make a Difference in Environmental Perception and Orientation? Evidence from Entrepreneurs in Post-Sanction Iran[J]. Sustainability, 2018, 10(5): 1546.
|
| [97] |
周琼 . 瘴气研究综述[J]. 中国史研究动态， 2006（5）： 12-19.
|
| [98] |
ZHOU Q . Summary of Studies on Malaria[J]. Trends of Recent Researches on the History of China, 2006(5): 12-19.
|
| [99] |
MILLIGAN C, BINGLEY A . Restorative Places or Scary Spaces? The Impact of Woodland on the Mental Well-Being of Young Adults[J]. Health & Place, 2007, 13(4): 799-811.
|
| [100] |
AL-QOBBAJ A A, (SANDY) MARSHALL D J, ALSAUD L A . Demons, Spirits, and Haunted Landscapes in Palestine[J]. Journal of Historical Geography, 2024, 83: 144-152.
|
| [101] |
JAMES S, CRONIN J . When Dark Tourism Goes Para-Terrestrial: Online Legend-Tripping and Touring the Void[J]. Annals of Tourism Research, 2026, 118: 104172.
|
| [102] |
JENSEN J K . Biophobia: Why Some People Hate Nature - and What You Can Do About It[N/OL]. Down to Earth, [2025-12-30]. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/environment/biophobia-why-some-people-hate-nature-and-what-you-can-do-about-it.
|
| [103] |
SÄUMEL I, BUTENSCHÖN S, KREIBIG N . Gardens of Life: Multifunctional and Ecosystem Services of Urban Cemeteries in Central Europe and Beyond: Historical, Structural, Planning, Nature and Heritage Conservation Aspects[J]. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 2023, 10: 1077565.
|
| [104] |
ELASKARY M, YUN E . Death, Resurrection, and Shrine Visitations: An Islamic Perspective[J]. Religions, 2017, 8(3): 34.
|
| [105] |
RIGOLON A. Parks and Young People: An Environmental Justice Study of Park Proximity, Acreage, and Quality in Denver, Colorado[J]. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2017, 165: 73-83.
|
| [106] |
ALLEN D L . Black Faces, White Spaces: Reimagining the Relationship of African Americans to the Great Outdoors by Carolyn Finney[J]. Southeastern Geographer, 2016, 56(4): 473-476.
|
基金资助
中国香港特别行政区研究资助局优配研究金(17626025)
京公网安备11010202008535号
PDF
(685KB)
