The impact of environmental characteristics of place as sense of place elements on atmosphere perception: focusing on P/N evaluations of atmosphere experienced by Japan undergraduate in leisure places

Figures & data

Figure 1. The necessity of the study “atmosphere” through literature review.

Figure 2. The image and atmosphere recognition structure of place.

Table 1. Methodology and significance of similar studies.

	Zhao et al., (2017)	Ehret et al., (2019)	Gandy (2017)	Bille (2015)	Bille and Bjerregaard (2015)
Focus	Is the Conversion of Digital Signals into Physiological Responses through Atmosphere Control Valid?	Exploring the Emotional Interaction between Music and the Environment	Shared moods and bodily responses evoked by urban spaces	Examining the “ecstasy” of things like light as a sensuous experience	Exploring the relationship between atmosphere, material culture, subjectivity, and affect.
Con-nections	Phenomenology	Phenomenology, statistics	Phenomenology, agency, and materialism	Phenomenology	Phenomenology
Investi-gation method	Biosignals according to Likert scale, heart rate, and facial expression variations for emotions	Comparison of Experimental Groups on the Combination of Space and Music	Literature review	Literature review	Literature review
Samples	n29	1a = n50, 1b = n136 and 2 and 3(n = 32)	X	X	X
Quant-itative model	Basic statistics on biosignals, difference verification (T-test)	Verifying differences (T-test, ANOVA)	X	X	X
Meaning	Demonstrating the Effects of Atmosphere on the Ability to Focus and Recover from Stress in a Space	Music and room’s emotional tone both significantly impact overall atmosphere.	Recognition of the complexity and differing interpretations of urban atmospheres	Vagueness in describing atmospheres offers valuable insights	Highlighting how scholars have studied the relationship between staged atmospheres and experience

Table 2. Sense of place evaluation indicators in previous studies.

	Lee (2013)	Lee and Lee (2015)	Choi and Kim (2020)	Knaps et al. (2022)	Wang and Hong (2020)	Bae (2015)	Pyo (2022)
Pass/Continuity	●	●		●	●		●
Diversity/Differentiation	●				●	●	●
Public/Safety		●			●		●
Open/Comfortability		●			●
Activity/Convenience			●	●		●
Satisfaction			●
Historicity				●	●	●
Modernity						●
Identity	●						●
Accessibility		●		●	●		●

Table 3. The derived evaluation indicators of sense of place.

Public/Safety	1	Do you think there are sufficient pedestrian safety-related facilities (e.g., fences, sidewalks, public spaces) in the place you visited?
	2	Do you think there is enough space for pedestrians to rest (e.g., parks, trails, benches) in the place you visited?
Consistency	3	Was the actual atmosphere of the place you visited satisfactory compared to the image you knew before?
Activity/Convenience	4	Do you think there are enough entertainment elements (e.g., busking, games, events, music, etc.) in the place you visited?
	5	Do you think there are enough attractive elements (e.g., history, culture, nature, activities, etc.) in the place you visited?
	6	Do you think there are enough shopping facilities (e.g., malls, department stores, specialty stores, etc.) in the place you visited?
	7	Are there enough famous restaurants or cafes that are introduced through social media or mass media?
Diversity/ Differentiation	8	Does the visit destination offer a good chance of meeting new people other than your companions?
	9	Are there any places to visit, such as famous buildings or historical places, that you would like to take pictures spot?
	10	Are there any special characteristics of the places you visited that are different from other places (regions you don’t visit often)?
Question (Dependent variable): Do you perceive the atmosphere in the places you usually visit for leisure as positive or negative?

Table 4. The construct of survey data.

Overview	Described of variables and building process
Purpose	Identification of the atmosphere and cognitive structure of places frequented by college students for leisure activities
Method	Random survey (Students with Leisure Experience in Tokyo)
Survey period	First survey (July to August 2019) Number of surveys collected: 120 Number of valid data: 106
	Second survey (June to October 2020) Number of surveys collected: 197 Number of valid data: 189
	Total number of valid responses: 295
Personal characteristics	Sex	Male; Female	Multiple choice answer (Nominal scale)
	Age	Under 2nd year of undergraduate: Under 2y(B) Over 3rd year of undergraduate: Over 3y(B)
Place use property	Purpose of visit	Appointment and meeting; Feel the trend; Feel the energy; Relieving stress; Shopping Restaurants and cafes; Cultural facilities; Leisure facilities; Festival and Events etc.; Hobby activities; Educational facilities; For tourism; Feel the natural environment; No purpose; Other
	Places frequently visited for leisure activities	Overall atmosphere of place	Subjective choice
	Recognize the overall atmosphere of the place	The overall atmosphere of the place Adjective expression of the feeling of the atmosphere	Nominal scale and Subjective
Sense of lace Evaluation Indicators	Pedestrian safety; Rest area; Satisfaction; Entertainment; Attraction; Shopping facility; Restaurant/Café; Opportunity to meet; Photo spot; Differentiation		Likert scale (5 Points)

Table 5. Basic statistics of respondents and frequency for the positively and negatively.

Overview		Positively group		Negatively group
		Frequency	%	Frequency	%
Sex	Men	110	57.6	69	66.3
	Women	81	42.4	35	33.7
Age	Under 2y(B)	132	69.1	51	49
	Over 3y(B)	59	30.9	53	51
Purpose	Appointment and meeting	53	27.75	37	35.58
	Feel the trend	27	14.14	10	9.62
	Feel the energy	36	18.85	17	16.35
	Relieving stress	47	24.61	18	17.31
	Shopping	129	67.54	64	61.54
	Restaurants and cafes	93	48.69	51	49.04
	Cultural facilities	12	6.28	4	3.85
	Leisure facilities	21	10.99	10	9.62
	Festival and Events, etc.	23	12.04	13	12.5
	Hobby activities	51	26.7	28	26.92
	Educational facilities	3	1.57	1	0.96
	For tourism	26	13.61	13	12.5
	Feel the natural environment	5	2.62	2	1.92
	No particular purpose	6	3.14	4	3.85
	Etc.	0	0	0	0

Table 6. A score of responses by a group to the atmosphere of usually visit places.

Overview		Mean		S.D.	Variance	Skewness		Kurtosis
		Stats	S.E.			Stats	S.E.	Stats	S.E.
Pedestrian safety	Positively	3.272	0.078	1.076	1.157	−0.023	0.176	−0.771	0.35
	Negatively	3.154	0.112	1.139	1.296	0.174	0.237	−1.002	0.469
Rest area	Positively	3.545	0.088	1.221	1.491	−0.28	0.176	−1.193	0.35
	Negatively	3.048	0.116	1.186	1.405	0.155	0.237	−0.933	0.469
Satisfaction	Positively	4.246	0.065	0.899	0.808	−1.298	0.176	1.707	0.35
	Negatively	4.183	0.094	0.963	0.927	−0.975	0.237	0.213	0.469
Entertainment	Positively	3.927	0.076	1.054	1.11	−0.671	0.176	−0.431	0.35
	Negatively	3.990	0.113	1.153	1.33	−0.988	0.237	0.047	0.469
Attraction	Positively	4.147	0.08	1.105	1.221	−1.146	0.176	0.25	0.35
	Negatively	4.077	0.108	1.103	1.217	−1.083	0.237	0.319	0.469
Shopping facility	Positively	4.571	0.054	0.75	0.562	−1.91	0.176	3.718	0.35
	Negatively	4.442	0.102	1.041	1.084	−2.027	0.237	3.408	0.469
Restaurant and Café	Positively	4.424	0.064	0.885	0.782	−1.773	0.176	3.126	0.35
	Negatively	4.327	0.096	0.98	0.96	−1.269	0.237	0.385	0.469
Opportunity to meet	Positively	3.948	0.077	1.06	1.124	−0.699	0.176	−0.528	0.35
	Negatively	4.010	0.1	1.019	1.039	−0.693	0.237	−0.44	0.469
Photo spot	Positively	3.848	0.083	1.144	1.308	−0.743	0.176	−0.359	0.35
	Negatively	3.721	0.105	1.065	1.135	−0.352	0.237	−0.901	0.469
Differentiation	Positively	3.791	0.076	1.055	1.114	−0.63	0.176	−0.371	0.35
	Negatively	3.856	0.102	1.037	1.076	−0.822	0.237	0.196	0.469

Table 7. T-test on the sense of place evaluation indicators based on atmosphere.

		$\mathbf{F}$	$\mathit{t}$	$\mathit{p}$	Se. d
Public/Safety	Pedestrian safety	.600	−.885	.077*	.1338
	Rest area	2.452	−3.370	.001***	.1473
Activity/Convenience	Entertainment	.327	.480	.032**	.1328
	Attraction	.089	−.518	.605	.1346
	Shopping facility	7.814	−1.220	.023**	.1052
	Restaurant & Cafe	2.860	−.867	.386	.1120
Diversity/Differentiation	Opportunity to meet	.144	.486	.027**	.1274
	Photo spot	.114	−.933	.052*	.1361
	Differentiation	.526	.510	.010***	.1278
Consistency	Satisfaction	1.634	−.564	.573	.1123

*p < 0.1_ **p < 0.05_ ***p < 0.01.

Table 8. Model verification.

Summury	Likelihood-2	344.398a
	Cox and Snell R^2	0.122
	Nagelkerke R^2	0.168
Hosmer & Lemeshow Test result	${\mathit{x}}^2$	38.516
	$\mathit{Degree}\mathit{of}\mathit{Freedom}$	17
	$\mathit{p}$	.002***

*p < 0.1_ **p < 0.05_ ***p < 0.01.

Table 9. Classification and percentage of fit for measurement variables.

		Observations	Model predictive value
			Atmosphere		Modified percentage
			Negative (1)	Positive (2)
Atmosphere	Negative (1)	104	47	57	45.2
	Positive (2)	191	22	169	88.5
	Total percentage	295			73.2

The cut-value is .500.

Table 10. Results of binary logistic regression analysis.

		B	S.E.	Wald	$\mathit{p}$	Odds Exp(B)	EXP(B) 95% C.I.
							Lower	Upper
	(Constant)	2.812	1.205	5.444	0.02	16.636	-	-
Public/Safety	Pedestrian safety	.478	.483	.978	.323	1.613	.625	4.161
	Rest area	0.401	0.118	11.576	.001***	1.494	1.186	1.883
Consistency	Satisfaction	−.596	.788	.572	.450	.551	.118	2.582
Activity/Convenience	Entertainment	.839	.448	3.506	.061*	2.315	.962	5.573
	Attraction	−.316	.553	.326	.568	.729	.247	2.157
	Shopping facility	−2.368	1.386	2.921	.087*	.094	.006	1.416
	Restaurant & Cafe	−.738	.863	.731	.393	.478	.088	2.595
Diversity/Differentiation	Opportunity to meet	−0.402	0.244	2.721	.099**	0.669	0.415	1.079
	Photo spot	.020	.009	4.869	.027**	1.020	1.002	1.039
	Differentiation	1.158	0.372	9.683	.002***	3.184	1.535	6.602

*p < 0.1_ **p < 0.05_ ***p < 0.01.

Zhao, N., A. Azaria, and J. A. Paradiso. 2017. “Mediated Atmospheres: A Multimodal Mediated Work Environment.” Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 1 (3): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3132027.

 Google Scholar

Ehret, S., C. Schroeder, J. Bernet, A. Holzmüller, and R. Thomaschke. 2019. “All or Nothing: The Interaction of Musical and Spatial Atmosphere.” Psychology of Music 49 (3): 513–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735619880288.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gandy, M. 2017. “Urban Atmospheres.” Cultural Geographies 24 (3): 353–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474474017712995.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bille, M. 2015. “Hazy Worlds: Atmospheric Ontologies in Denmark.” Anthropological Theory 15 (3): 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1463499614564889.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bille, M., and P. Bjerregaard. 2015. “Staging Atmospheres: Materiality, Culture, and the Texture of the In-Between.” Emotion, Space and Society 15:31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2014.11.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lee, E. 2013. “Revitalization of Space Image for the Improvement of Streetscape - Focused on the Modern Culture Gol-Mok Daegu.” Journal of Basic Design & Art 14 (2): 309–317.

 Google Scholar

Lee, H.-G., and J.-H. Lee. 2015. “Planning Indicators for Spatial Characteristics Evaluation of Urban Public Space – the Weight Analysis for Activation of Public Space.” The Journal of the Korea Contents Association 15 (9): 9588–9598. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2015.15.0.

 Google Scholar

Youn-Young, C., and K. Ji-Hyun. 2020. “An Analysis of the Frequency of Community Facility Usage on Residential Satisfaction in Public Rental Housing.” SH Urban Research & Insight 10 (1): 23–38. https://doi.org/10.26700/shuri.2020.4.10.1.23.

 Google Scholar

Knaps, F., S. Gottwald, C. Albert, and S. Herrmann. 2022. “Using Meaningful Places As an Indicator for Sense of Place in the Management of Social-Ecological Systems.” Ecology and Society 27 (4): 9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13340-270409.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wang, H.-H., and K.-S. Hong. 2020. “Research on the Establish-Hment of the Evaluation Criteria for the Placeness of Vacant Houses in Local Communities.” Journal of Basic Design & Art 21 (5): 339–354. https://doi.org/10.47294/KSBDA.21.5.25.

 Google Scholar

Yoon kyung B. 2015. “A Study on Developing Placeness Evaluation Items of Street Arts Festivals.” Master’s Degree.

 Google Scholar

Seunghwa P. 2022. “A Study on the Evaluation System for the Social Placeness of the Use of Idle Space in Neighborhood Living Areas.” Doctor’s Degree.

 Google Scholar