ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Fine dust risk perception, perceived restorativeness, and environmental policy support among park visitors.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Fine dust (PM2.5) pollution has emerged as a severe environmental and public health issue in South Korea, affecting respiratory health and reducing outdoor physical activity levels. Given these concerns, individuals increasingly seek restorative natural environments to mitigate the psychological and physical effects of poor air quality. This study examines how fine dust risk perception influences individuals' experiences in perceived restorative environments (PRE) and their intention to support environmental policies. Specifically, this study enhances the understanding of how restorative experiences in urban parks and concerns about environmental issues influence recreationists' perspectives on environmental policies. Methods: This study was conducted at Jeju Gotjawal Provincial Park, a well-preserved forest ecosystem known for its ecological importance. A total of 408 visitors were surveyed using purposive sampling. Participants completed a structured questionnaire assessing their fine dust risk perception, perceived restorative experience in nature, and intention to support environmental policies. Data was analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the proposed hypotheses. In addition, a bootstrap analysis was conducted to examine the mediating effects. Results: The findings indicate that individuals who perceive fine dust pollution as a serious issue are more likely to experience a heightened sense of psychological and physical restoration in natural settings. Furthermore, those who find natural environments more restorative tend to express stronger support for environmental policies, suggesting that their positive experiences in nature reinforce their commitment to sustainability. The study also found that perceived restorativeness plays a key role in connecting fine dust risk perception to environmental policy support, emphasizing the importance of personal experiences in shaping pro-environmental attitudes. Conclusions: These results highlight the role of nature-based experiences in fostering both psychological well-being and environmental engagement. As air pollution continues to pose health risks, providing access to clean, green spaces can be an effective intervention for improving public health and encouraging sustainability advocacy. Policymakers and urban planners should integrate green spaces into urban planning to enhance citizens' environmental awareness and engagement. Future studies should explore longitudinal effects and cross-regional comparisons to validate these findings further.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.