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

ABSTRACT

The study of the relationship between the atmosphere of a place and the emotional response of users has been a key focus of traditional sense of place research. While place attachment, image, and behavioral intention have been extensively discussed through various methodologies, the atmosphere of a place has received relatively little attention. The concept of atmosphere is complex and difficult to define, but it is one of the most valuable research themes due to the significant impact that places have on our lives. This study proposes atmosphere as an analytical indicator of sense of place and uses phenomenological discussions from previous studies to conceptualize it and verify its validity as a quantitative indicator. By modeling the characteristics of a place through 10 indicators that were determined to be capable of measuring sense of place through previous studies, statistical significance was found in some independent variables. This finding demonstrates the potential of quantitative studies to complement qualitative studies, which have been the dominant approach in this field. This approach not only enriches traditional qualitative methodologies but also establishes a framework for future investigations into the atmospheric dimensions of place, offering a comprehensive study method for evaluating sense of place.

KEYWORDS:

• Sense of place
• atmosphere
• evaluation indicators
• place image
• exterior space

1. Introduction

This study began with questions such as “What sensibility is required, especially in modern urban spaces?” “Why are ambiguous concepts such as sensibility and atmosphere emerging as important concepts in modern places?” During economic growth, the quality of urban life improved through redevelopment and housing designs. Recently, cultural diversity, sustainability, inclusivity, and participation have become important elements in creating places. This marked a shift in our understanding of space and place. Generally, space and place refer to physical areas; in particular, places created by the relationship between physical and environmental factors and human behavior.

There are various approaches to researching places that can be divided into “place attachment,” “place identity,” and “place image.” “Place attachment” refers to experiencing a particular place and forming an emotional bond. “Place identity” is created when individual attachments are grouped, and people who have not visited a place can maintain the concept of place (Oya 2013). A “place image” is a mental image based on the user’s experience and is recognized by connecting an image with a specific place (Uchida 1987).

This approach to places can integrate into a “Sense of Place” and is closely related to “Atmosphere.” Relph (1976) and Stuart Chapin and Knapp (2015) argued that place attachment and identity are indirectly related to the atmosphere or place spirit. YiFu (2001) described that the experiential value gained through using a place leads to place attachment, which creates an identity and image formation of the place. Many cities traditionally emphasize direct experiences, such as place branding, marketing, and tourism, for creative places. However, with the proliferation of smartphones, indirect experiences through social networks have become possible even without physically visiting a place. This trend suggests that various indirect experiences in the future can influence the atmosphere and image of specific places. Thus, the positive or negative perception of an individual’s place eventually affects the evaluation of that sense of place. However, the study of the atmosphere has superficial limitations in research because of its concept ambiguity and lack of a standardized analysis index compared to studies on image and satisfaction of place (Lee and Nam 2023; Jasmine 2022; Seongrae and YongSoon 2021; YeRi and ChanIl 2019). Although there are primarily studies on the atmosphere using qualitative methods in the field of interior architecture or emotional design, few studies have conducted statistical analysis.

The purpose of this study was to make it clarify the concept of atmosphere and verify its statistical validity as an analysis index of sense of place. Specifically, the causal relationship between the atmosphere and sense of place analysis index can be interpreted through the analysis of the positive and negative perception groups of the atmosphere of the place. The interpretation of causal relationships is based on the influence of place characteristics on the perception of atmosphere, as measured by place perception indicators selected through prior studies. Based on this study, we derived the possibility and implications that the atmosphere can evaluate the sense of place.

2. Literature review

2.1. The relationship between cognitive experience and place attachment, image, identity, behavior intention within the sense of place

The awareness of a place differs according to perceptual and spatial experiences, and psychological factors such as atmosphere also have an influence. As mentioned above, many studies on the sense of place are approached in terms of physical and psychological aspects, such as place attachment, place identity, place image, and cognitive experience. Here, it was judged to be closely related to the psychological aspect, and the focus was placed on the psychological component.

In a study of “place attachment,” Kaida (2015) revealed the relationship between relative sensory differences in attachment to places on different city scales and pro-environmental behavior. The results showed that, although there was no statistically significant difference, attachment to an urban area was greater than that to neighboring living areas. This attachment also varies depending on the intensity of involvement in environmentally friendly behaviors. Regarding participation intensity, Stylidis (2016) argued that the strength of attachment and the likelihood of triggering behavioral intentions rise as the intensity of the sense of belonging experienced by local residents in a location grows, based on the image of the place. Chris Chen et al. (2019) also asserted that the longer someone lives in a place, the more deeply they become connected to it, and the higher their level of attachment to the place. Stylidis et al. (2020) argued that this place attachment contributes to repeat visits and ultimately influences loyalty to the place. Specifically, attachment was found to have a positive impact on the revisit intention of tourists who use the place for non-residential interactions (Mohd Isa 2019). These findings indicate that place attachment can influence behavior.

Several studies (Qu, Xu, and Xingyang 2019; Ramkissoon, David Graham Smith, and Weiler 2013; Song et al. 2019; Tonge, Maria, and Lynnath 2014) that have found that place attachment influences behavioral intentions mainly discuss pro-environmental behaviors. Pro-environmental refers to the behavioral intention to protect or improve a place for the preservation of benefits within a group (Ahmad Daryanto and Zening Song 2021). This means that place attachment can also act as a means of evoking individual psychological responses. These psychological responses can naturally occur not only in groups but also in places where community relationships are rare, such as commercial areas or tourist destinations. Oya (2013) examined the emotional connection between place and individual by focusing on sense of place, place attachment, and place identity. In particular, Otani argues that a positive perception of places determines attachment, which is formed through interactions with places, ownership, and length of residence.

Even groups with similar levels of attachment can exhibit different responses when evaluating the identity of a place. Nogueira’s (2021) study clearly demonstrates the differences in place perception based on the different positions of users. The study argues that despite the different directions in which place image and identity are perceived by place managers, visitors, and institutions, place branding ultimately contributes to overall satisfaction. From a humanistic perspective, images are defined as “psychological representations fixed by repeated experiences” (Panofsky 1983). From an urban perspective, this means that images can be assigned or management directions can be set through place marketing or branding activities (Foroudi et al. 2016). Especially, Kwon and Vogt (2010) analyzed the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral factors through the positive and negative attitudes of residents toward place marketing. They find that cognitive factors are positive in place marketing. They emphasize that the positive and negative emotional sensations of images created by differences in user positions significantly affect place marketing in any direction.

Lentini and Decortis (2010) conducted a study on “cognitive experience,” categorizing the emotional relationships that appear in humans when experiencing the components of physical space into five dimensions. According to Sussman and Hollander (2021), cognitive experience in the field of architecture refers to the process of information processing and the subsequent psychological changes that occur when an individual interacts with their environment. Cognitive experience has been associated with phenomenological theory for the past few decades, as it encompasses several types of perceiving, attending, remembering, and thinking about the surroundings (Sebastien 2020). Ultimately, the meaning of forming a relationship with a place involves developing an attachment to it, translating certain thoughts into actions, drawing an image that serves as a representative visual model of the place, or distinguishing its identity from other places.

Figure 1 shows the psychological processes of place image, place attachment, cognitive experience, and place identity based on previous studies. Cognitive experience can significantly influence place image, place attachment, and place identity. In particular, place attachment contributes to evoking behavioral intention and forming place identity. Therefore, it can be said that the main factor in the discussed sense of place starts from the cognitive experience of seeing, feeling, and perceiving the place, leading to place attachment, and the intensity of attachment leads to the attribution of identity and evokes behavioral intention.

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

2.2. Recognition of images and atmosphere from a phenomenological perspective

Atmospheric studies in the urban and architectural fields have been discussed from a phenomenological perspective. They focus on the atmosphere of people’s experiences. Heidegger (1962) argued that the atmosphere is an everyday phenomenological phenomenon, and that the human-object-space relationship can be connected and expanded into various semantic places. Böhme (2016) further argued that everything is derived from human sensibility, while Hasse (2019) argued that the atmosphere is a sensory expression that reflects situational emotions. Eventually, they contend that the atmosphere is interpreted as a sense of place created by physical, environmental, social, and cultural factors and their interaction. In other words, the atmosphere is influenced by the emotional bonds that people form with a place and can motivate people’s actions and emotions. Although considerable studies have been conducted on the sense of place from various perspectives, such as attachment, psychological aspects, and marketing, there a quantitative study has never focused on the atmosphere of a place. Quantitative results have been derived using emotional indicators to study place attachment and image. In this study, we posit that there is a systematized concept of “Atmosphere” and statistical analysis index using quantitative methodology.

The study of atmosphere has been conducted through the use of images, which are perceived as similar concepts to ensure the reliability and validity of research. SunYoung Moon (2016) derived recommended values for the appropriate lighting environment to evoke the atmosphere, while Kim’s (2016) work analyzed the architects’ works within the phenomenological discourse of atmosphere. The study also mentioned that the overall image of an object, such as experience and emotion, can be interpreted as a spatial atmosphere using architectural vocabulary. Jouan et al. (2021) argued that an immersive experience based on spatial characteristics such as light and shadow can be created through the work of virtually creating the architectural form of a cultural heritage that is visualized in images, thereby allowing for the measurement of atmosphere through the image methodology. However, some studies suggest that there is a gap between the perception of images and atmosphere (Figure 2). These studies claim that images are generally formed based on a holistic perception of a particular object or scene, while atmosphere is formed based on more subjective and personal factors (Bille 2015; de Vaujany et al. 2019; Gandy 2017; Pallasmaa 2014; Stewart 2011).

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

Therefore, from a phenomenological perspective, images and atmosphere are related to the differences in human perception and experience. While images are realized through what people “see,” an atmosphere is a form of emotional response that combines both “seeing” and “feeling” aspects. Ultimately, both images and atmosphere have similar aspects of visual and environmental perception, but they can be distinguished from the process in which the perceived psychological aspect induces an emotional response. An image of a place is in the individual or collective consciousness and includes psychological aspects based on the experience of the physical environment. However, Böhme (2016) argued that a place’s atmosphere recognizes various external factors, such as social, cultural, philosophical, and aesthetic perspectives. Thus, images are more closely related to the environmental characteristics that individuals and groups recognize than to external factors (Lynch 1960).

2.3. Differentiation of studies

The image and atmosphere have the same conditions for experiencing and recognizing the environment, but the image is a conscious element (Lynch 1960) and the atmosphere is an unconscious element (Torida 1997). Images evoke user emotions through visual information regarding a place. This can lead to a new perspective on the place being remembered in the long term. Unlike images, the atmosphere is not limited to the transmission of visual information. It is memorized for a shorter term than images because it is a complex mix of various elements of unconsciousness and emotions. Table 1 discusses the distinctiveness and methodological validity of this study by examining the methods and objectives of previous studies directly related to atmosphere. Zhao et al. (2017) investigated how changes in atmospheric conditions, such as light in space, affect facial expressions and bio responses like heart rate, which can lead to stress reduction and improved concentration. Ehret et al. (2019) noted that the music surrounding a space contributes to creating a positive or negative atmosphere. Gandy (2017) expanded our understanding of the various meanings of atmosphere by examining the changing characteristics of air and light. He differentiated atmosphere from the perspective of urban experience by focusing on the static characteristics of the atmosphere and body responses. Bille (2015) explored how light shapes atmosphere in the Danish context, arguing that the ambiguous language used to describe atmosphere is valuable and recommending a focus on experience and ecology instead of precise definitions. Finally, Bille and Bjerregaard (2015) discussed the relationship between subjective atmosphere and material culture, emphasizing the importance of studying the connection between staged atmosphere and experience from social, aesthetic, and philosophical perspectives.

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

These research mainly explores the phenomenological and physiological effects of light, music, and cognition on atmosphere. Although there are studies that employ digital signals or surveys, it is difficult to determine whether they accurately represent the primary focus of atmosphere research. The majority of qualitative studies focus on discussing the existence or role of atmosphere through phenomenological and philosophical approaches. In order to understand the context and social environment surrounding the research subject, it is necessary to use qualitative research to clarify it as an objective fact and then generalize it through the convergence of common results using quantitative research. Therefore, this study can achieve more comprehensive results by combining quantitative research methods and phenomenological and philosophical approaches. It is also differentiated from previous studies in that it can be used as basic evidence that atmosphere, like an image, can produce meaningful results through the most common and easily accessible statistical measurements.

3. Material and methods

3.1. Research framework

This study aimed to interpret the causal relationship between the atmosphere and the indices of sense of place through an analysis of the positive and negative perception groups. In previous sense of place studies where place image and satisfaction were used as dependent variables, Likert scales were predominantly employed (Hoon 2021; Mun and Yoon 2011; Suh and Hwang 2013; Yoon and Yun 2018). However, due to the ambiguous nature of the concept of atmosphere, using Likert scales may cause confusion and ambiguity among respondents, potentially affecting the direction of the derived analysis. Therefore, we set the following two research frameworks.

First, a nominal scale was established to divide the atmosphere as a dependent variable into positive and negative perceptions. This decision was made to understand the atmosphere phenomenologically by distinguishing between groups with positive and negative perceptions through frequency calculations.

Second, the atmosphere was further broken down using descriptive adjectives. Investigating the atmosphere on a nominal scale, which divides it into positive and negative perceptions, has limitations in providing a detailed description of the atmosphere as perceived by respondents. To address this, the respondents were asked to describe the atmosphere using descriptive adjectives, which were deemed to provide more detailed emotional information and overcome the limitations of the nominal-scale approach.

3.2. Research design

Because of the lack of research on atmospheric evaluation in specific places, we examined studies related to the images of places that are similar to the atmosphere. Table 2 shows the sense of place evaluation indicators derived from nine previous studies. These studies primarily evaluated the image, attachment, and satisfaction of places using ten evaluation indicators. The evaluation indicators with high response rates were “Pass/Continuity,” “Diversity/Differentiation,” “Public/Safety,” “Activity/Convenience,” “Historicity,” and “Accessibility.”

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		●		●	●		●

From Table 2, we derived atmosphere evaluation indicators for places, including “Public/Safety,” “Consistency,” “Activity/Convenience,” and “Diversity/Differentiation.” Detailed information is provided in Table 3. We introduced an item called “Consistency” to measure the alignment between visitors’ mental images and the atmosphere they experienced during their visit. This addition aimed to confirm whether visitors’ satisfaction is influenced when their mental image aligns with the actual atmosphere experienced, thereby affecting the overall atmosphere perception.

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?

In this study, the term “Positive and negative atmosphere,” as perceived by participants, refers to a nominal phenomenon observed when individuals experience dominant positive or negative attitudes or emotions during their visits to a particular place. Additionally, it serves as a perceptual indicator of the physical environment, used to assess the inherent qualities of a place. Sense of place evaluation indicators help identify a location’s unique characteristics or provide insights for enhancing the environment within the same place.

3.3. Data collection

This study conducted a survey among college students enrolled in urban engineering-related courses at C University, situated in the Tokyo metropolitan area, Japan. These students possess a deeper understanding of a place’s characteristics and nature compared to their counterparts in other departments, as they study subjects like Living in Communities, Urban Spatial Analysis, and Urban Planning and Design in Human Places. Due to their academic focus, urban engineering students are less prone to confusion regarding terms related to atmosphere, satisfaction, and image.

Moreover, college students tend to frequent places aligned with their preferences, given their increased daily activities, longer travel distances and durations, and limited leisure time. Additionally, college students play a significant role in shaping the distinctive culture of a place and constitute the most perceptive demographic (Ji-Hee 2013). Matusunaga et al. (2019) contended that college students contribute significantly to a sense of belonging and identity through their habitual use of specific locations, as demonstrated in their study on forming a sense of place in commercial streets concentrated around university business districts.

Due to the impracticality of visiting all areas of Tokyo for direct surveys and the inability of students to specify their usual places, respondents were asked to provide a list of leisure places they visited and describe the atmosphere they experienced during their visits. Assessing the atmosphere is inherently subjective, and students’ interpretations may vary. To address potential discrepancies, we included a dictionary definition of atmosphere in the questionnaire. This aimed to prevent respondents from basing their responses solely on satisfaction or their personal image of the place, which might deviate from the study’s focus.

Furthermore, the survey was structured on a nominal scale, prompting respondents to offer subjective feedback using adjectives to explain why they perceived the atmosphere positively or negatively. This approach allowed for a nuanced and specific response, differentiating our survey from traditional 5-point Likert scale surveys measuring satisfaction or image. Instead of providing ratings on a pre-determined scale, respondents described the atmosphere using descriptors.

To ensure the accuracy of the analysis, respondents were instructed to list places located away from their starting points (home or school) and focusing on students from the metropolitan area moving to Tokyo, the survey targeted areas requiring a significant travel time. The reason for this is to exclude the cases where respondents visit places that are close to their homes because of their convenience, regardless of the environmental characteristics of the place. The survey’s details are outlined in Table 4. In total, 120 and 197 questionnaires were collected during the first and second surveys, respectively. After excluding 22 incomplete responses, a total of 295 valid responses were obtained.

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)

4. Results analysis

Binary logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the causal relationship between the types of atmospheres in a place based on place evaluation indicators. Binary logistic regression analysis is a statistical method that can be used when the dependent variables are binary, meaning that it can have two possible values, such as “positive” or “negative” in this study. The statistical analysis tool used for analysis is “SPSSver22.”

4.1. Basic response characteristics on the atmosphere type

The respondents’ basic statistical items were examined from the collected data by dividing the responses corresponding to sex, age, and purpose of the visit into two groups: those who felt a positive atmosphere and those who felt a negative atmosphere.

Table 5 presents the basic response characteristics. Of the respondents, 191 said that they felt a positive atmosphere in frequently visited places, whereas 104 said that they felt a negative atmosphere. First, the sex distribution of the group that responded to the positive atmosphere was 57.6% men (110 respondents) and 42.4% women (81 respondents). The age distribution was 69.1% teenagers (132 responses) and 30.9% were in their 20s (59 copies). Overall, the proportion of men was higher than that of women, and the proportion of teenagers was higher than those in their 20s. The purpose of the visit was to collect data using a multiple-response method. The most common purpose was “Shopping” (129 copies, 67.54%), followed by “Restaurants and Cafes” (93 copies, 48.63%), and “Appointment and Meeting” (53 copies, 27.75%). In the group that responded that they experienced a negative atmosphere in frequently visited places, 69 copies of men (66.3%) were recovered, while 35 copies of women (33.7%) were recovered, confirming that the proportion of males was higher than that of females. Concerning age, 51 copies (49.0%) were recovered from teenagers, and 53 copies (51.0%) were recovered from 20s. The purpose of the visit was investigated using a multiple-response method, similar to a group that experienced a positive atmosphere. The most common purpose was “Shopping” (64 copies, 61.54%), followed by “Restaurants and Cafes” (51 copies, 49.04%), and “Appointment and Meeting” (37 copies, 35.58%).

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

4.2. Sense of place evaluation indicator by atmosphere recognition in frequently visited places

Descriptive statistics were used to derive satisfaction with the sense of place evaluation indicator according to the type of atmosphere perception by the groups for frequently visited places. Table 6 presents the descriptive statistics of environmental characteristics using place perception indicators, based on the scores for the types of atmospheres felt at the visited place.

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

The results of the survey showed that satisfaction with the sense of place evaluation indicators exceeded 3.0, indicating that all the respondents were satisfied. This is likely because the survey was conducted in places that respondents visited most frequently for leisure activities. Typically, the higher the satisfaction with the surrounding environment at the time of the first visit, the more likely the respondent is to revisit and the more often they are exposed to various environments of the place. Memories of all the experiences that occur in this process form a bond with the place. Therefore, this study attempted to compare sense of place evaluation indicator through a satisfaction scores, assuming that the most frequently visited place was the place where the respondent was most satisfied with leisure activities.

The descriptive statistics showed that satisfaction with most sense-of-place evaluation indicators was higher in the group that felt positive about the atmosphere than in the group that felt negative. However, the indicators of “Entertainment,” “Opportunity to meet,” and “Differentiation” showed higher satisfaction among those who felt the atmosphere of the visit destination negatively. This is likely because these indicators correspond not to external factors that recognize the atmosphere through the environment of the place but to extremely personal internal factors. For example, “Pedestrian safety” is a built environment for facilities where pedestrians can walk and move safely, and “Rest area” also has strong characteristics of built environments such as trails and benches. “Satisfaction,” is also related to the image of a place that is normally known, and according to Kevin Lynch, the elements that make up the urban image are composed of “Path,” “Edge,” “Node,” “District,” and “Landmarks,” which correspond to human judgment on the built environment. “Attractions,” “Shopping facilities,” “Restaurants and cafes,” and “Photo spots” are all built environments that correspond to physical facilities. However, entertainment includes performances and sporting events; therefore, it falls outside the physical realm. Even in the case of “Opportunity to meet,” emotions become more important judgment criteria than facilities. The uniqueness of a place, as implied by “Differentiation,” is also a knowledge factor, not a facility factor. For example, if there is place B that is completely different from place A and place C that has characteristics similar to place A, a person who knows only places A and B will determine that both places A and B are unique. However, a person who knows all the places A, B, and C will determine that only place B is unique. Therefore, it can be argued that the atmosphere of a place is a mixture of environmental and emotional factors.

4.3. T-test between two group means on the sense of place evaluation indicator by atmosphere recognition in the place

A t-test was conducted to determine whether the dependent variable showed significant differences in the mean of the two datasets (the group that felt positive or negative about the visit place’s atmosphere). In Table 7, statistically significant differences were found for the indicators of “Pedestrian safety,” “Rest area,” “Entertainment,” “Shopping facility,” “Opportunity to meet,” “Photo spot,” and “Differentiation.” However, there were no statistically significant differences for the indicators of attraction, restaurants, cafés, or satisfaction. In particular, there was no significant difference between the groups that felt the atmosphere in terms of the satisfaction indicator of how much the usually recognized place image matched the atmosphere when visiting in person. This suggests that the agreement between image and atmosphere is unimportant in any group that feels positive or negative about the atmosphere. Based on these results, the statistical significance differences of the positive and negative atmospheres experienced by the visiting the place was confirmed using the sense of place evaluation indicators.

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.

4.4. Binary logistic regression analysis between two groups on atmosphere recognition in the place

Table 8 shows the overall significance of the regression coefficients derived from the binary logistic regression model. The Nagelkerke R2 value, which indicates the explanatory power of the estimated model, is 0.168, indicating that the overall model explains about 16% of the variance. Although this may seem like a low explanatory power compared to ordinary regression analysis, it is important to note that logistic regression analysis does not assume homoscedasticity of errors, and in many cases, a low value is obtained depending on the predicted probability (Hosmer and Lemeshow 2000). Therefore, they recommend additional goodness-of-fit tests. The Hosmer and Lemeshow Test, a goodness-of-fit test, was conducted. The value of this test approaches 0 as the importance of the independent variables decreases (S. Kim and Jeong 2018). In this study, the value was 0.002***, which is close to 0. This means that the dependent variable is a more important predictor than the independent variables, and the results obtained are statistically significant (Kang et al. 2016).

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 shows the model fit for determining the efficacy of the selected independent variables in explaining the positive and negative feelings about the atmosphere. This is important for examining the classification accuracy of observed and predicted values, and it explains the validity of the prediction model (K. Kim and Kim 2021). The validity of the predictive model consists of the “observed classification” directly observed by the investigator and the “predicted classification (Modified percentage)” reflected in the regression equation. The cut-value presented in the table is 0.500, and the probability of an event occurring if the case is greater than 0.500 in the regression equation (the probability of feeling the atmosphere positively in this study) is classified into “Yes” categories (Harris 2021). Therefore, Table 9 refers to the “PAC: Percentage accuracy in classification” that reflects the rate at which independent variables can be correctly classified as dependent variables, atmosphere, and the derived results are based on more than 70% of PACs, which are reliable figures.

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.

For the group that mainly feels a positive atmosphere in the frequently visited places, 88.5% of the results were obtained, and for the group that feels negatively, 45.2% of the results were obtained. It was revealed that the predictive power for the group that feels negative about the atmosphere was comparatively lower than the group that feels positive. This result is thought to be because the proportion of the group that feels negative about the atmosphere in frequently visited places is smaller in the observation group.

Table 10 presents the results of the binary logistic regression analysis. The dependent variables were Group A, who experienced a positive atmosphere at a visit to a place for leisure activities, and Group B, who experienced a negative atmosphere. As this study aimed to reveal the causal relationship between sense of place evaluation indicators and atmosphere type, the independent variable became a sense of place evaluation indicator.

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.

The analysis showed that the sense of place evaluation indicators affected by the type of Place was “Rest area,” “Entertainment,” “Shopping facility,” “Opportunity to meet,” “Photo spot,” and “Differentiation.”

Satisfaction did not produce a statistically significant value. This result means that satisfaction from the correspondence between the image that is familiar or thought of in everyday life and the atmosphere felt when visiting directly does not affect the perception of atmosphere as positive or negative in the field. This is a very important indicator as it suggests that the atmosphere can be perceived as positive or negative, regardless of whether it is consistent with satisfaction on familiar images (Schoenhammer 2018).

The “Rest area” was B-value was +0.401, his means that the more various facilities and places where pedestrians can relax and rest during a visit, the more positive the atmosphere. The odds ratio (Exp(B)) was 1.494, This means that the probability that respondents can feel positive about the Atmosphere increases by 1.494 times every time their satisfaction with the “Rest area” increases by one point.

For “entertainment”, the B-value was 0.839 and the odds ratio (OR) (Exp(B)) was 2.315, this means that the probability of feeling positive about the atmosphere increases 2.315 times for every increase in satisfaction with the entertainment industry, including entertainment rooms, cinemas, and sports. The more entertainment elements present in a place, the more positive the atmosphere. Entertainment elements can create excitement, fun, and relaxation, thus contributing to a positive atmosphere. For example, a place with various activities, such as live music, dancing, and games, is likely to have a more positive atmosphere than a place with few entertainment options (Ho and 2021).

For “shopping facilities”, the B-value was −2.368, and the odds ratio (Exp(B)) was 0.094, this means that the more respondents think that shopping malls and department stores are sufficient as a place, the more likely they are to feel a negative atmosphere 0.094 times. As the perceived sufficiency of shopping facilities increases, negative perceptions of the atmosphere are likely to result from excessive choices, congestion, and lack of uniformity. This is because facility in modern architecture has focused solely on vision, ignoring the sensory and psychological problems of the relationship between nature and the physical environment (Pallasmaa 2019). For example, people have more choices in places with a wide range of shopping options. However, having too many choices can be stressful (Jeffries 2015). Additionally, congestion caused by the location of shopping facilities can make people feel uncomfortable and lead to negative atmosphere perceptions (Rahman, Shamsuddin, and Ghani 2015). Finally, the surrounding environment may become homogenous, with fewer large-scale shopping facilities. This uniformity does not provide people with a sense of freshness, makes them feel clicky, and is likely to lead to negative perceptions of the atmosphere. Therefore, careful consideration of shopping locations and commercial streets is necessary.

For the “opportunity to meet”, the B-value was −0.042, and the odds ratio (OR) (Exp(B)) was 0.669, This means that the probability of feeling negative about the atmosphere increases by 0.66 times for every increase in the opportunity to meet new people instead of visiting them together. Encounters with new people in Familiar places can provide new opportunities and experiences. However, they can also increase feelings of unfamiliarity and anxiety.

For the photo spot, the B-value was 0.020, and the odds ratio (OR) (Exp(B)) was 1.020, this means that the probability of feeling positive about the atmosphere increases by 1.20 times for every increase in satisfaction with landmark elements, including monumental places.

Finally, in the case of differentiation, the B-value was 1.158 and the odds ratio (Exp(B)) was 3.184, this means that the probability of feeling positive about the atmosphere increases by 3.18 times for every increase in the feeling of being distinguished from the cut place according to the characteristics or identity of the place. It is possible to speculate that this result is due to the fact that the sense of stability that comes from familiarity and comfort in the way we experience an atmosphere acts as a mediating factor that affects certain sensory elements, thereby triggering anticipation or excitement when we encounter a new spatial form (Kirsh 2023).

5. Conclusion and discussion

This study aimed to confirm whether the environmental characteristics of a place affect the perception of atmosphere when used as an analytical indicator of sense of place, and to explore the possibility of atmosphere being treated as a branch of sense of place studies. The findings are summarized as follows.

First, the literature review allowed to systematize the cognitive structures of image and atmosphere. The cognitive structure of atmosphere is similar to the findings of Gandy (2017), Bille (2015), and Bille and Bjerregaard (2015), which suggests that emotional responses are induced by unconscious factors. On the other hand, the cognitive structure of image is similar to Lee (2013) and Foroudi et al. (2016) discuss in that it suggests that emotional responses are induced by visual responses. Therefore, it can infer that image and atmosphere should be distinguished in the experience of perceiving or recognizing the characteristics of a place.

Second, the evaluation scores for the sense of place indicator were higher among those who perceived the place positively, and they also visited more frequently. This result is similar to YiFu (2001) argument that positive emotions are more deeply connected to a place than negative emotions. Similarly, Kim and Kwak (2022) research findings showed that people have a positive attitude towards a place when they have a deep sense of belonging or know a lot of information about it.

Third, statistically significant differences were observed in the place evaluation indicators of “Pedestrian safety,” “Rest area,” “Entertainment,” “Shopping facilities,” “Opportunities to meet,” “Photo Spot,” and “Differentiation” These results suggest that the atmosphere of the visited place is affected differently depending on the environmental characteristics of the proposed place. Additionally, variables that did not show statistically significant differences are “Satisfaction,” “Attractions,” and “Restaurant and Cafe” and they were not deemed valid factors for determining the atmosphere of the place. Considering the relationship between the frequency of visiting a place and satisfaction, as discussed by Lee and Kim (1998), it can be inferred that these factors are more related to the questionnaire items in this study (describing the three most frequently visited places) and are influenced by the frequency of visits rather than the type of atmosphere.

Finally, for the relationship analysis between place evaluation indicators and atmosphere, the results of the binary logistic regression analysis showed that the place evaluation indicators of “Rest area,” “Entertainment,” “Shopping facility,” “Opportunity to meet,” “Photo spot” and “Differentiation” have a significant impact on the atmosphere. Yet, the variable “Pedestrian safety,” which showed a statistical difference based on atmosphere types, was not a direct influencing factor on the atmosphere. These results suggest that “pedestrian safety” is not perceived as an emotional behavioral space or a fluid form of human behavior, but rather as a definitional spatial element (S. Lee et al. 2021). Additionally, the variable “Satisfaction” did not show statistically significant differences in t-tests and binary logistic regression analysis. This contrasts with the findings of (Nam-Yun 2012) who argued that the environment of a place influences satisfaction, indicating that satisfaction and atmosphere are different research indicators.

This study confirms it’s possible to academically study the abstract concept of atmosphere within a place. We research shows a strong link between how positively a place’s atmosphere is perceived and its overall evaluation. Specific elements of sense of place were statistically significant in shaping atmosphere. However, we can also suggest some areas for further research. More work is needed to fully understand the cause-and-effect relationship between the atmosphere of a place and specific patterns of human emotion. I believe focusing on the sense of place elements, particularly “More facilities” could yield valuable insights. Exploring how their modularization (different types/forms) could be used to improve the design of external spaces promises to enhance the overall atmosphere. Overall, this study demonstrates the value of investigating atmosphere, highlighting its impact on the perception of a place and opening avenues for design-focused research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Changguk Kim

Changguk Kim, the first author of this article, is currently a PhD candidate at Chiba University in Japan. He holds a master’s degree from Hanyang University in Korea and has experience working in government-funded research institutes and engineering companies in Korea. His research interests is environmental psychology in specifically focusing on the concept of external space and place atmosphere. His primary goal is to understand human behavior by extracting information from the environment, regarding emotional evaluations, visual perception, and preferences for design elements within a space. He served as a group leader for the Next-Generation Science and Technology Leader NET Activities program organized by the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies. He is also a regular member of the Architectural Institute of Japan and the Urban Planning Institute of Japan.

Dongyun Kwak

Dongyun Kwak is an assistant professor of the Graduate School of Engineering, National University Corporation Chiba University in Japan. He received his Ph.D. in the Graduate School of Science and Technology at the Chiba University. His main research interests include urban design, urban regeneration, living environment innovation through resident participation, behavioral psychology, and the SDGs. He currently serves as the chairman of the Chiba Parasol Gallery Committee, where he is conducting empirical research on the application of the concept of “soft urban design” to urban design in Chiba City. and was awarded the Grand Prix of the Urban Culture Award by Chiba City in 2016.