4.2 Article

Individual differences in the physiological effects of forest therapy based on Type A and Type B behavior patterns

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1880-6805-32-14

关键词

Forest bathing; Urban environment; Pulse rate; Blood pressure; Individual difference; Type A behavior pattern; Type B behavior pattern; Kwansei Gakuin (KG) daily life questionnaire

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) [16107007]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16107007] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In recent years, the physiological relaxation effects of natural environments have been widely exploited, and although individual differences in the effects of forest therapy are known, assessment methods have not been clearly established. This study used a classification based on Type A and Type B behavior patterns to explain individual differences in physiological responses to forest environments. Methods: We performed physiological experiments in 44 forest and urban (controls) areas. In total, 485 male university students (age, 21.8 +/- 1.6 years) participated in the study. The subjects were asked to visit forest or urban environments randomly and observe each landscape for 15 min. The subjects' pulse rates and blood pressures were tested to evaluate their physiological responses. The Kwansei Gakuin daily life questionnaire was used to identify Type A and Type B behavior patterns in subjects. Results: The pulse rate was significantly lower in the Type B group after exposure to forest areas than after exposure to urban areas, whereas no significant difference was observed in the Type A group. In addition, the pulse rate was significantly lower in the low scoring subjects in the Type B group, which was consistent with changes in their diastolic blood pressure. Conclusions: These results suggest that individual differences in pulse rate and blood pressure in response to forest environments can be explained by Type A and Type B behavior patterns.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据