ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Restorative effects of small urban parks: a multi-method study using eye-tracking and psychophysiological measures in Fuzhou, China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stress recovery effects of visual exposure to bamboo landscapes in urban parks: Evidence from physiological and psychological responses.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Assessing the restorative environment of pocket parks in old urban districts of Chinese cities in the context of healthy aging.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Personality and spatial familiarity interact to shape affective responses in urban parks: a VR study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Rapid urbanization has intensified psychological stress among urban residents. As highly accessible forms of urban green space, small urban parks play a vital role in fostering psychological resilience and restorative experiences. However, in high-density cities such as Fuzhou, the underlying restorative mechanisms of different types of small parks-along with the moderating effects of gender and specific landscape elements-remain insufficiently understood. Methods: This study adopted a multi-method approach, incorporating psychological assessment via the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS), eye-tracking techniques, and physiological measurements including skin conductance level (SCL) and the low-frequency/high-frequency (LF/HF) ratio of heart rate variability. A total of 55 participants from Fuzhou were exposed to four distinct types of small urban parks-pocket parks, linear waterfront parks, community parks, and small comprehensive parks-to evaluate their restorative outcomes. Results: Both park type and gender exerted significant effects on restorative perceptions and physiological responses ( Conclusion: The restorative effects of small urban parks are jointly influenced by park type, gender, and landscape elements. Small comprehensive parks demonstrated superior performance-primarily due to their diverse and integrated natural landscapes-whereas linear waterfront parks were particularly effective in physiological regulation. Pocket parks and community parks provided comparatively weaker restorative effects, likely constrained by limited amenities and spatial configurations. Females were more sensitive to psychological perceptions (e.g., "being away," "fascination") and physiological responses. Natural elements (e.g., multi-layered vegetation, water bodies) served as core drivers of stable restoration, whereas the role of artificial facilities was context-dependent: traditional architecture enhanced cultural identity, while dense modern facilities potentially increased cognitive load.
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.