Interactions between forest landscape elements and eye movement behavior under audio-visual integrated conditions

References

• Ahern S, Beatty J. 1979. Pupillary responses during information processing vary with scholastic aptitude test scores. Science. 205:1289–1292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blasco E, González-Olabarria JR, Rodriguéz-Veiga P, Pukkala T, Kolehmainen O, Palahí M. 2009. Predicting scenic beauty of forest stands in Catalonia (North-east Spain). J For Res. 20:73–78.
   Google Scholar
• Brown AL, Kang J, Gjestland T. 2011. Towards standardization in soundscape preference assessment. Appl Acoust. 72:387–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calleja A, Díaz-Balteiro L, Iglesias-Merchan C, Soliño M. 2017. Acoustic and economic valuation of soundscape: an application to the ‘Retiro’ Urban Forest Park. Urban For Urban Green. 27:272–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carles JL, Barrio IL, De Lucio JV. 1999. Sound influence on landscape values. Landscape Urban Plann. 43:191–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chau K, Lam K, Marafa LM. 2010. Visitors’ response to extraneous noise in countryside recreation areas. Noise Control Eng J. 58:484–492.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen BX, Qi XH, Qiu ZM. 2018. Recreational use of urban forest parks: a case study in Fuzhou National Forest Park, China. J For Res. 23:183–189.
   Google Scholar
• Chen FP, Liao WM. 2012. Construction of an evaluation index system on the forest soundscape. Sci Silvae Sin. 48:56–60.
   Google Scholar
• Cracknell D, White MP, Pahl S, Depledge MH. 2017. A preliminary investigation into the restorative potential of public aquaria exhibits: A UK student-based study. Landscape Res. 42:18–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Coensel B, Botteldooren D. 2005. The quiet rural soundscape and how to characterize it. Acta Acust United Acust. 92:887–897.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dong WH, Liao H, Zhan ZB, Liu B, Wang SK, Yang TY. 2019. New research progress of eye tracking-based map cognition in cartography since 2008. Acta Geog Sinica. 74(3):599–614.
   Google Scholar
• Faggi A, Breuste J, Madanes N, Gropper C, Perelman P. 2013. Water as an appreciated feature in the landscape: A comparison of residents’ and visitors’ preferences in Buenos Aires. J Cleaner Prod. 60:182–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gidlof-Gunnarsson A, Ohrstrom E. 2007. Noise and well-being in urban residential environments: the potential role of perceived availability to nearby green areas. Landscape Urban Plann. 83:115–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gidlof-Gunnarsson A, Ohrstrom E, Ogren M. 2007. Noise annoyance and restoration in different courtyard settings: laboratory experiments on audio-visual interactions. In: Proceedings of the Inter-Noise, Turkey.
   Google Scholar
• Graham OJ. 1999. Measuring the effects of commercial jet boats on the Dart River on the experiences of recreationists in natural settings. Noise Control Eng J. 47:104–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahnemann D, Beatty J. 1967. Pupillary responses in a pitch-discrimination task. Percept Psychophys. 2:101–105.
   Google Scholar
• Hands DE, Brown RD. 2002. Enhancing visual preference of ecological rehabilitation sites. Landscape Urban Plann. 58:57–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Organization for Standardization. 2014. ISO12913-1: 2014 acoustics–soundscape–part I: definition and conceptual framework. Geneva: ISO.
   Google Scholar
• Kalivoda O, Vojar J, Skrivanova Z, Zahradnik D. 2014. Consensus in landscape preference judgments: the effects of landscape visual aesthetic quality and respondents’ characteristics. J Environ Manag. 137:36–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Brown T. 1989. Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environ Behav. 21:509–530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan S. 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol. 15:169–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lange E, Bishop I. 2001. Our visual landscape: analysis, modeling, visualization and protection. Landscape Urban Plann. 54:1–3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee KE, Williams KJH, Sargent LD, Farrell C, Williams NS. 2014. Living roof preference is influenced by plant characteristics and diversity. Landscape Urban Plann. 122:152–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li H, Wang Y, Chen FP. 2018. Evaluation of tourist survey of soundscape in meiling national forest park. Scientia Silvae Sinicae. 54:9–15.
   Google Scholar
• Linton DL. 1968. The assessment of scenery as a natural resource. Scott Geogr Mag. 84:219–238.
   Google Scholar
• Liu J, Kang J, Behm H, Luo T. 2014. Effects of landscape on soundscape perception: soundwalks in city parks. Landscape Urban Plann. 123:30–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu YP, Hu MJ, Zhao B. 2019. Audio-visual interactive evaluation of the forest landscape based on eye-tracking experiments. Urban For Urban Greening. 46:126476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marin LD, Newman P, Manning R, Vaske JJ, Stack D. 2011. Motivation and acceptability norms of human-caused sound in muir woods national monument. Leisure Sci. 33:147–161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro J, Williamson IFuller S. 2017. Traffic noise impacts on urban forest soundscapes in south-eastern australia. Austral Ecoi. 43(2):180–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Forestry and Grassland Administration. 2019. Ten major events of China’s forest tourism in 2018. http://www.forestry.gov.cn/main/72/20190117/163319036474397.html.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson ME, Berglund B. 2006. Soundscape quality in suburban green areas and city parks. Acta Acust United Acust. 92:903–911.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nordh H, Alalouch C, Hartig T. 2011. Assessing restorative components of small urban parks using conjoint methodology. Urban For Urban Green. 10:95–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park L, Lawson S, Kaliski K, Newman P, Gibson A. 2010. Modeling and mapping hikers’ exposure to transportation noise in rocky mountain national park. Park Sci. 26:59–64.
   Google Scholar
• Parsons R, Daniel TC. 2002. Good looking: in defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape Urban Plann. 60:43–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pheasant RJ, Fisher MN, Watts GR, Whitaker DJ, Horoshenkov KV. 2010. The importance of auditory-visual interaction in the construction of “tranquil space”. J Environ Psychol. 30:501–509.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pheasant RJ, Watts GR. 2015. Towards predicting wildness in the United Kingdom. Landscape Urban Plann. 133:87–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qiu YS, Gao J, Zhan Q. 2011. The GIS-based visual landscape evaluation in mountain area: A case study of mount Nan-kun National Forest Park, Guangdong Province. Acta Ecol Sin. 31:1009–1020.
   Google Scholar
• Raimbault M, Dubois D. 2005. Urban soundscapes: experiences and knowledge. Cities. 22:339–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ren X, Kang J. 2015a. Effects of the visual landscape factors of an ecological waterscape on acoustic comfort. Appl Acoust. 96:171–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ren X, Kang J. 2015b. Interactions between landscape elements and tranquility evaluation based on eye tracking experiments. J Acoust Soc Am. 138:3019–3022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodgers J. 2010. Soundscape management at grand canyon national park. Park Sci. 26:46–47.
   Google Scholar
• Sevenant M. 2010. Variation in landscape perception and preference: experiences from case studies in rural and urban landscapes observed by different groups of respondents. Gent (Belgium): Ghent University.
   Google Scholar
• Shafer EL, Brush RO. 1977. How to measure preferences for photographs of natural landscapes. Landscape Plann. 4:237–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Southworth M. 1969. The sonic environment of cities. Environ Behav. 1:49–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Renterghem T, Botteldooren D. 2016. View on outdoor vegetation reduces noise annoyance for dwellers near busy roads. Landscape Urban Plann. 148:203–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Völker S, Kistemann T. 2013. “I’m always entirely happy when I’m here!” Urban blue enhancing human health and well-being in Cologne and Düsseldorf, Germany. Soc Sci Med. 91:141–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang RH, Zhao JW, Liu ZY. 2016. Consensus in visual preferences: the effects of aesthetic quality and landscape types. Urban For Urban Green. 20:210–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watts G, Pheasant RJ. 2013. Factors affecting tranquillity in the countryside. Appl Acoust. 74:1094–1103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White EV, Gatersleben B. 2011. Greenery on residential buildings: does it affect preferences and perceptions of beauty? J Environ Psychol. 31:89–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang J, Zhao L, McBride J, Gong P. 2009. Can you see green? Assessing the visibility of urban forests in cities. Landscape Urban Plann. 91:97–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang JM, Yu YL, You LL. 2015. Segmentation by visitor motivation in Fuzhou national forest park: A factor-cluster approach. Sci Silvae Sin. 51:106–116.
   Google Scholar
• Yao Y, Zhu X, Xu Y, Yang H, Wu X, Li Y, Zhang Y. 2012. Assessing the visual quality of green landscaping in rural residential areas: the case of Changzhou, China. Environ Monitor Assess. 184:951–967.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu BY, Kang J, Ma H. 2014. Effect of design factors on soundscape perception in urban pedestrian street. New Archit. 5:8–11.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao JW, Xu WY, Ye L. 2018. Effects of auditory-visual combinations on perceived restorative potential of urban green space. Appl Acoust. 141:169–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhong Y, Wang WF, Gong P, Gu X. 2017. Evaluation indexes system construction of forest soundscape resources. Ecol Sci. 36:224–230.
   Google Scholar