1 Introduction
With rapid urbanization and the growing influence of the "Healthy City" concept, the quality of human living environments has become a key factor affecting public physical and mental health as well as life satisfaction
[1–
2]. As one of the most intuitive and emotionally evocative elements of the visual environment, landscape color is increasingly recognized for its role in shaping spatial atmosphere, conveying cultural imagery, regulating emotional states, and influencing behavioral patterns
[3–
4]. In recent years, the convergence of Landscape Architecture, Environmental Psychology, Public Health, and Urban Planning has shifted landscape color research from traditional aesthetic evaluation toward empirical studies of health-related effects
[5–
6].
Although numerous observational and experimental studies have examined associations between landscape color and public perception and preference, psychological restoration, and behavioral choice
[7–
13], the evidence remains fragmented. Few integrate temporal dynamics, spatial context, visual attributes, and population heterogeneity. Substantial heterogeneity in research methods and sample compositions remains, and the field has yet to form a unified theoretical framework and practical guidance. Although classical landscape preference theories, such as Stephen Kaplan's preference matrix and Roger S. Ulrich's Stress Reduction Theory
[8], have provided foundational insights into how people respond to visual environments, they were not developed to explain the specific role of color. These frameworks primarily address spatial structure, naturalness, and overall scene composition, leaving the independent and interactive effects of color attributes under-theorized. Moreover, high- and low-fidelity visual cues may influence emotional and cognitive responses differently, yet color has not been systematically integrated into these established models. This theoretical gap justifies a dedicated synthesis of empirical evidence on landscape color and supports the four-dimensional frameworks proposed in this review.
This study aims to synthesize and theoretically reconstruct existing evidence through an integrated four-dimensional analytical framework encompassing time, space, visual stimulus, and population heterogeneity (Fig. 1). The framework structures the independent variables, interactive coupling networks, and core action mechanisms across these dimensions to guide comprehensive evidence synthesis and output-oriented analysis. It seeks to advance the field from phenomenological description toward mechanistic explanation and to inform future research, including dynamic measurement tools, stronger causal inference designs, cross-cultural comparisons, and interdisciplinary dialogue between neuroscience and environmental design. Ultimately, the study provides evidence-based design guidance for healthier human settlements that promote mental health, social cohesion, and cultural memory.
2 Literature Search and Review Framework
2.1 Data Source
This study followed the principles of systematic literature review and conducted literature search and screening within the framework of the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection was used as the database. The search was conducted in March, 2024, the published time span for the articles was set to January 1, 2003, to February 1, 2024. The strategy was constructed around three core elements of landscape color perception research: 1) environmental context, including terms, i.e., "urban landscape" and "city landscape"; 2) the core variable, "color" or "colour"; and 3) the research process, "perception." The resulting search string was "((TS = (urban landscape or cities landscape or city landscape)) AND TS = (color or colour)) AND TS=(perception)."
2.2 Screening Process
Literature screening strictly followed the standard process for narrative reviews, conducted through layered examination of titles, abstracts, and full texts (Fig. 2). To ensure relevance, representativeness, and evidentiary strength, included studies had to meet four criteria: 1) the publication type was a peer-reviewed journal article; 2) the research topic explicitly focused on landscape color attributes; 3) the study subjects were primarily human populations, with attention to human perception, evaluation, or behavioral responses to landscape colors; and 4) the research design was empirical and provided original data, such as questionnaire surveys, experiments, and field observations. Title and abstract screening was performed as the first stage of the two-stage process; after full-text review, 62 studies met the criteria and formed the core evidence base of this review (Fig. 2). These studies varied in methods, contexts, and subject populations, providing an empirical basis for multidimensional analysis of association patterns, effect differences, and underlying mechanisms of landscape color perception.
2.3 Research Process
After literature screening, this review subsequently summarizes, compares, and integrates the empirical evidence along the four dimensions. Based on this, it comprehensively discusses the possible mechanisms underlying the existing findings and identifies sources of methodological variation. It then outlines current limitations and future directions before drawing conclusions. The included literature shows that existing evidence is highly concentrated on exploring and revealing the complex associations between landscape color perception and human psychological and behavioral impact. Accordingly, the article explains association patterns, effect differences, and underlying physiological, psychological, and socio-cultural mechanisms. By synthesizing evidence across these interlocking layers, the review presents a holistic picture of this complex relationship.
3 Landscape Color Perception and Human Responses
Based on the analytical framework, existing empirical research can be organized across four interconnected dimensions.
In terms of the temporal dimension, studies have identified meaningful differences in the impact patterns and mechanisms between short-term exposure and long-term or seasonal exposure. Short-term exposure research primarily examines the immediate effects of color stimuli lasting from moments to several hours on psychological indicators such as emotion, preference, and attention
[14]. In contrast, long-term and seasonal exposure studies track cumulative associations between color environments and psychological restoration, place attachment, and overall wellbeing over weeks, months, or years. Relevant evidence includes preference changes for plant landscapes across seasons, the long-term health benefits of residential green view rates
[15], and the potential influence of color environments on children's emotional development
[5]. A small number of studies compare how the same color attribute may function differently in short-term aesthetic judgment and long-term environmental satisfaction
[16].
Regarding the spatial dimension, differences in urban–rural environments, landscape types, and regional cultural backgrounds are major sources of heterogeneity in color perception. For example, in highly artificial urban environments, studies focus on the harmony of building facade colors
[4], the role of street-furniture color in public space vitality
[17], and the dynamic perception of urban color sequences
[18]. In rural or suburban environments with a stronger natural foundation, research emphasizes the aesthetic value and restorative potential of natural colors
[19]. Specific landscape types, such as plant landscapes, blue spaces
[20], and historical districts
[21], have also developed distinct research threads because of their different color compositions and functional orientations. Cultural–geographical differences provide another entry point for understanding the cultural specificity of color perception
[22].
In the visual-stimulus dimension, research shows a shift from holistic scene perception to more refined attribute analysis. The emotional effects of hue have been most extensively validated
[23]. Further studies delve into the modulating roles of brightness and saturation, including how high brightness combined with mediumto-high saturation can enhance preference
[24] and how different saturation levels of red may be proportioned in landscapes
[16]. More refined research quantifies color-combination principles, such as applying color harmony theories or using algorithms to analyze relationships among color diversity, contrast, and scenic beauty
[25]. Dynamic color attributes
[18] and the multi-sensory interactions of color with texture and form
[26] are also emerging research frontiers.
In the population heterogeneity dimension, existing research has moved beyond the traditional assumption of a homogeneous population and has explored how socio-demographic characteristics and physiological-psychological status filter landscape color perception. Studies have shown that age and gender are fundamental factors shaping emotional responses to color
[13]. Furthermore, socio-cultural attributes, such as cultural background, place attachment, and professional experience endow landscape colors with differentiated cognitive metaphors and cultural memories
[21]. Landscape color research should therefore move beyond an oversimplified "average person" perspective and incorporate age, gender, experience, and their interactions into explanatory frameworks.
In summary, research across these four dimensions provides a foundation for interpreting the complex dynamic mechanism linking environmental stimulus, population heterogeneity, psychological restoration, and behavioral output in landscape color perception (Table 1).
3.1 Temporal Dimension
The duration of landscape color exposure fundamentally shapes its psychological impact, distinguishing two dominant patterns: short-term emotional arousal and long-term cognitive restoration. Short-term exposure refers to color stimuli lasting from seconds to hours, whereas long-term or seasonal exposure denotes cumulative contact over weeks, months, or years. Shortterm exposure primarily operates through an emotion–preference channel. Experimental studies have consistently confirmed that a single color stimulus can rapidly modulate emotional states and aesthetic judgments. Warm tones such as red and orange generally elicit high-arousal positive emotions, including excitement and warmth
[9], whereas cool tones such as blue and green significantly promote low-arousal relaxed states
[20]. Areas of high saturation or strong contrast can serve as visual highlights and capture attention in a bottom-up manner
[14]. At the preference level, research reveals an inverted U-shaped curve indicating that moderate color complexity is optimal, whereas excessive monotony or clutter leads to a decline in evaluation
[16]. Long-term and seasonal exposure primarily influences through a cognitive-restoration channel. Crosssectional and longitudinal evidence demonstrates that long-term residence in environments with high natural color richness, such as those with a high green view rate, is significantly associated with lower self-reported stress levels, stronger psychological restoration, and higher life satisfaction
[1]. Seasonal studies further reveal the value of dynamic color experience; autumn, because of its high color diversity, is often rated as having the highest aesthetic value
[19,
27], while the monotony of winter highlights the importance of evergreen plants and artificial color accents
[28]. The rhythm and continuity of dynamic color sequences are key temporal attributes regulating visual fatigue and pleasure
[18]. Overall, empirical evidence suggests that the psychological and behavioral benefits of landscape color are significantly moderated by exposure duration. This temporal differentiation implies that design practice should distinguish immediate emotional arousal mechanisms under shortterm exposure from cumulative cognitive restoration mechanisms under long-term exposure.
3.2 Spatial Dimension
Spatial and environmental context is a key moderating variable shaping response patterns in color perception, operating mainly through the urban–rural gradient and landscape-type specificity. Along the urban–rural gradient, a significant scarcity-amplification effect is observed
[3]. In highly artificial urban environments, the presence of natural colors can produce strong positive psychological effects with significant marginal benefits. Conversely, disordered and conflicting artificial colors, such as cluttered billboards and uncoordinated building facades, can elicit stronger negative emotions
[29]. In rural environments with strong natural endowments, large expanses of natural color form the basis of aesthetic pleasure and tranquility; incongruent artificial colors may therefore cause substantial aesthetic damage
[19]. As for landscape types, a clear type–color association is evident. The evaluation of plant landscapes centers on vegetation vitality, where the vegetation color richness and contrast show a stable positive correlation with scenic beauty. The vibrant colors of flowering plants are key sources of attraction
[13,
30]. The evaluation of architectural landscapes centers on the conveyance of cultural meaning. Color combinations that align with regional cultural contexts and traditional materials can elicit stronger cultural identification and aesthetic affirmation
[4,
31]. The evaluation of water landscapes focuses on restorative potential, with clear blue–green hues most stably and strongly associated with psychological restoration
[20]. The contrasted preferences between urban and rural color palettes captured across multiple studies reveal a critical logic of background management across spatial gradients. In highly artificialized urban cores, colorsubtraction strategies can reduce visual noise and strengthen the scarcity-amplification effect of natural interventions; conversely, in rural and natural contexts, low-contrast background matching can preserve local material color values and reinforce place identity.
3.3 Visual-Stimulus Dimension
The physical and perceptual attributes of color produce psychological effects through a progression from basic emotion to complex combination. These effects can be understood from three aspects—hue-specific emotional anchoring, modulation by brightness and saturation, and compositional harmony. Fundamentally, hue demonstrates a robust emotional-anchoring effect. Green and blue are commonly associated with calm feelings
[20], whereas red, orange, and yellow are associated with the feelings of vitality and warmth. This pattern has been repeatedly observed across studies in different cultural contexts
[23]. At the modulation level, brightness and saturation fine-tune the basic emotional effects. High brightness often evokes perceptions of lightness and openness, whereas low brightness tends to induce feelings of steadiness and heaviness. High saturation can enhance visual impact and attraction, but excessive use may lead to fatigue, while low saturation conveys an image of elegance and softness
[24]. Brightness and saturation often interact to jointly shape the final emotional tone of a color. At the combination level, research evidence strongly supports a harmony–diversity rule. Optimal aesthetic experience arises from moderate diversity governed by compositional harmony. Color harmony theories based on systems (e.g., Munsell Color System, Natural Color System) have been proven effective in landscape evaluation
[31–
32]. Simply increasing the number of colors without a coherent organizational structure can conversely lead to lower evaluation
[25], whereas color schemes with clear hierarchy and order generally are more preferred. Environmental psychology experiments have further confirmed that color configuration affects cognitive load and visual preferences. Therefore, structured composition principles, such as pairing large areas of harmonious base colors with targeted small-area contrast accents, represent a scientific pathway to prevent visual fatigue and enhance spatial legibility.
3.4 Population Heterogeneity Dimension
The ultimate response to landscape color perception is significantly moderated by individual characteristics, including demographic traits, life experiences, and professional background. These factors are an important source of heterogeneity among studies.
Regarding demographic characteristics, gender differences are significant. Women generally prefer soft, uniform, and moderately saturated color combinations and show stronger requirements for coordination and subtlety. In contrast, men show greater acceptance of and preference for combinations with high contrast, varied colors, and a certain degree of visual impact
[14,
33]. Age is also a key influencing factor. Young people generally significantly favor vivid, dynamic, and varied color environments and tend to seek visual novelty and stimulation
[13], whereas older groups often prefer steady, natural, and harmonious tones associated with tranquility and stability in color environments
[34].
Regarding experiential and professional backgrounds, people's early experiences and knowledge structures shape differentiated color schemas. Individuals with rich childhood nature contact show stronger affinity and aesthetic preference for green and blue hues and their combinations in natural environments, reflecting the lasting influence of early environmental experience on color values
[35–
36]. Professional training also has a strong influence. Designers and planners often evaluate color through cognitive frameworks that emphasize structural attributes such as harmony, regional cultural fit, and design intent. In contrast, the general public is more directly influenced by intuitive perceptual features of the colors, such as vividness, visual attraction, and personal familiarity, reflecting a shift in evaluation criteria from professional norms towards personal experience
[6,
10]. These background differences indicate that the psychological effects of landscape color are not universal but are highly contextualized and personalized. Future research and practice should therefore consider targetuser characteristics to improve the precision and effectiveness of interventions. These factors likely interact; for instance, older designers may evaluate color harmony differently from younger nonprofessionals. Such heterogeneity in color perception and behavioral responses stems from distinct physiological and socio-experiential filtering mechanisms. Healthy human settlements should therefore avoid monistic design logic and instead deploy age-appropriate, stress-relieving, and inclusive color palettes to reduce spatial exclusion and foster social cohesion.
3.5 Influencing Mechanisms
The impact of landscape color on human psychology and behavior is shaped by psychophysiological priming, cognitiveaffective processing, socio-cultural construction, and inclusive design intervention. The mechanism, through which landscape color influences human psychology and behavior, operates through a parallel and synergistic network across four progressive levels: physiological arousal at the psychophysiological level, decoding at the visual-perceptual level, meaning construction at the sociocultural level, and tailored health intervention at the inclusiveresponsive level.
At the psychophysiological level, color, as a perceptual property derived from light signals, generates two initial effects through the visual system. First, light of specific wavelengths may induce physiological states of relaxation or alertness by modulating neuroendocrine and autonomic nervous system activity, laying the foundation for subsequent emotional experience
[1]. Second, color attributes such as high contrast and saturation can capture attention in a bottom-up manner and guide eye-movement trajectories, thereby framing the scope and focus of information processing
[14]. These physiological and attentional responses constitute the sensory and perceptual entry points for color effects and help explain why brief exposure to specific colors can trigger measurable changes in autonomic arousal and attentional orientation.
At the cognitive-affective level, color effects are interpreted and amplified through higher-order psychological processes. Natural colors, represented by green, align with the "soft fascination" mechanism of Attention Reduction Theory, offering low-effort restoration for cognitive resources fatigued by prolonged directed attention
[11]. At the same time, color stimuli activate pre-existing emotional memories and cognitive schemas. Their influence may follow two paths: 1) direct emotional arousal based on evolutionary or broadly shared experience, such as red eliciting excitement
[9]; and 2) symbolic association established through cultural learning and personal experience, such as red representing celebration
[22]. This level transforms raw sensory input into emotional experience and preference evaluation imbued with personal and social significance. Thus, the same color can evoke different affective responses depending on an individual's prior learning and cultural background.
At the socio-cultural level, color influence extends beyond immediate individual psychological reaction into collective identity and sense of place. Spatial environments and functional contexts, such as recreational, transportation, and residential zones, serve as carriers of socio-cultural meaning. "Color genes" formed through long-term natural and cultural interactions in specific regions enable landscape colors aligned with these genes to evoke cultural identity and place attachment
[4]. This effect indicates that color is not merely a physical stimulus or individual aesthetic object but also a socio-cultural practice and representation. By shaping the spirit of place and collective memory, color can influence people's sense of belonging and identity
[21]. These socio-cultural mechanisms operate alongside, and often interact with, the physiological and cognitive pathways described above.
In conclusion, population heterogeneity is not an isolated parallel component in the mechanism diagram; rather, it operates as a cross-cutting, multi-stage filtering and moderating layer. It functions as a biological filter that constrains sensory thresholds at the physiological entry point, a psychological filter that shapes affective interpretation and restorative evaluation, and a socialidentity filter that influences identity resonance at the sociocultural level. By translating general pathways into individualized variations, this heterogeneous mechanism provides a scientific basis for evidence-based design interventions at the inclusiveresponsive level.
4 Discussion
4.1 Research Heterogeneity
The heterogeneity observed in existing research conclusions is not random error but arises from systematic differences in methodological approaches, subject composition, and environmental contexts. These differences collectively constitute the logical chain that generates heterogeneity (Fig. 3).
At the methodological level, variations in color quantification tools, psychological assessment methods, and research media lead to differences in data foundations and ecological validity. Evaluation tools used to capture psychological responses, such as the scenic beauty estimation (SBE) method, which emphasizes overall ranking
[28], and the semantic differential (SD) method, which examines multidimensional perceptions
[37], may extract different types of information from the same color experience. More fundamentally, the choice of research medium—whether highly controlled laboratory simulations
[38] or complex real-world environments filled with noise
[39]—determines the boundaries of the ecological validity of the findings. Pure effects observed in laboratory settings may be enhanced, attenuated, or transformed in complex field contexts. Findings from highly controlled studies therefore cannot be directly generalized to real-world environments without considering environmental complexity.
At the subject level, individual perceptual filters can produce average effects in mixed samples, thereby masking subgroup response differences. Gender, age, life experience, and professional backgrounds shape distinctive perceptual filters and evaluative frames of reference
[40]. Studies using mixed groups may yield an average effect that obscure real and potentially meaningful differences in response patterns among subgroups
[13]. Therefore, undifferentiated population samples themselves can become a source of variation. For example, the same landscape color may be perceived as vivid by younger adults but overwhelming by older adults, or as harmonious by designers but dull by the general public. Such subgroup differences underscore the need for stratified analyses in future research.
At the contextual level, color effects do not occur in isolation but interact with other environmental attributes. Color often interacts with form, material, function, sound, and light to jointly shape the overall perceptual experience. For example, the aesthetic evaluation of architectural color cannot be separated from its architectural style and historical context
[41], and the attractiveness of plant color is linked to its expression of vitality
[42]. This covariance of multidimensional attributes means that color effects in real environments can be enhanced, weakened, or transformed by other elements, helping explain why the same color may have different effects across contexts. Future research should therefore adopt multi-attribute approaches rather than treating color as a single independent variable.
4.2 Current Limitations
The limitations of the current research paradigm constrain the field's development from describing associations toward explaining mechanisms and translating findings into practice. In terms of causal logic in research design, cross-sectional surveys dominate, making it difficult to establish temporal sequence and causality between color exposure and psychological or behavioral outcomes
[43]. Simultaneously, regarding the dynamism of research perspective, existing paradigms often treat color as a static attribute and do not adequately capture its continuous variation under natural lighting, weather changes, and seasonal cycles. Because color perception is essentially a temporal stream of experience, advancing dynamic assessment is crucial for understanding how it works
[44]. In terms of the completeness of evidence types, current research over-relies on subjective self-report data and lacks objective, continuous recording and analysis of how color environments influence actual spatial behavior
[45]. This evidence gap limits the ecological validity and practical relevance of current conclusions.
Theoretical integration and cultural perspective within the field also require expansion. Most studies are based on specific cultural samples, so the generalizability of their conclusions requires cautious consideration
[23]. Dialogue and integration across disciplinary theories remain insufficient. Additionally, the search strategy of this review prioritized terms related to urban environments, which may have resulted in insufficient coverage of studies on purely natural, rural, and blue–green spaces. Promoting cross-cultural comparative research with standardized methods and fostering deeper dialogue among environmental psychology, cognitive neuroscience, cultural geography, and design disciplines would help build more explanatory and inclusive theoretical frameworks.
Finally, limited knowledge translation hinders the application of research findings. A lack of unified methodological standards reduces comparability and cumulative efficiency, and mechanisms for translating scientific discoveries into design guidelines, policy tools, and public education remain underdeveloped. Establishing measurement and reporting norms for core variables within the field and constructing collaborative innovation platforms that connect academia, design practice, and policymakers are inevitable paths for maximizing the social value of landscape color research outcomes. Future research should therefore focus on: 1) developing virtual and augmented reality-based experimental paradigms for dynamic color exposure that simulate diurnal and seasonal variations; 2) establishing cross-cultural color perception databases using standardized stimulus materials; 3) conducting field experiments on color-intervention policies; and 4) integrating eyetracking with physiological sensors to capture real-time emotional responses.
5 Conclusions
This study systematically synthesized empirical evidence on the complex associations between landscape color and human psychological and behavioral responses
[46]. The findings reveal that landscape color effects are structured across four dimensions. In the temporal dimension, short-term color exposure produces immediate psychological effects mainly through emotional arousal
[47], whereas long-term or seasonal exposure produces cumulative effects mainly through cognitive restoration pathway
[12]. In the spatial dimension, the scarcity-amplification effect in urban environments
[48] contrasts with the intrusive-interference effect in rural settings. Different landscape types also show type–color association
[49], reflecting the profound moderating role of environmental context on color perception. In the visual-stimulus dimension, hue serves the foundational function of emotional anchoring, brightness and saturation provide fine-grained contextual modulation, and color combinations follow the aesthetic principle of moderate diversity governed by harmony. In the population heterogeneity dimension, socio-demographic traits and psychophysiological states act as perceptual filters that shape color experience and support a shift from generic design toward age-appropriate and stress-relieving inclusive interventions. Collectively, these findings show that landscape color is co-modulated by time, space, visual attributes, and population characteristics, producing highly contextualized and personalized effects. This also partly explains the source of heterogeneity observed across studies.
Landscape color is an important and malleable environmental factor influencing human psychology and behavior. This review suggests that, as attention to healthy human settlements increases, landscape color planning and design should move beyond aesthetic considerations and be more closely integrated with public health goals, including mental health promotion and community belonging. In practice, it is necessary to establish knowledge translation mechanisms linking scientific research, design innovation, and policymaking. A research–design–policy translation framework could help convert landscape color evidence into practical guidance for healthier, more inclusive, and more restorative human settlements with stronger place identity.
However, this field still faces challenges in the depth of mechanistic explanation, completeness of evidence types, and systematicity of theoretical construction. It is at a critical transition from phenomenological description toward mechanism-oriented explanation and theory building. Methodological bottlenecks in causal inference constrain precise analysis of effect mechanisms. Static research paradigms struggle to capture the dynamic nature of color experience
[50]. The scarcity of behavioral evidence reduces the applied value of theoretical findings, while limited cultural perspectives affect generalizability
[51]. Disciplinary barriers also hinder the innovation and development of integrated theoretical models. These limitations indicate the need for more rigorous research paradigms and more systematic theoretical frameworks.
Future research should establish causal verification systems that combine dynamic tracking and experimental intervention, promote multimodal data collection that integrates subjective reports and objective behavioral measurements, and construct interdisciplinary explanatory frameworks encompassing physiological mechanisms, psychological processes, and socio-cultural dimensions. Future research should strive to overcome the methodological limitations in causal inference, establish systems for tracking dynamic color-exposure processes, enrich objective behavioral evidence, broaden cross-cultural comparison, and foster interdisciplinary theoretical integration, ultimately supporting the long-term goal of improving public well-being.
PDF
(440KB)
