Previous research has consistently shown that exposure to natural environments provides a variety of health benefits. The purpose of this study is to investigate the restorative benefits of non-virtual environments in field experiments as well as the differences in physiological and psychological effects between different types of restorative sites for stressed young adults. This controlled study design used the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), electroencephalogram (EEG), and heart rate variability (HRV) as psychophysiological indicators of individual affect and stress. We used a "stress imposition-greenspace recovery" pre- and post-test mode to simulate the most realistic short-term recovery experience in the park (Grassplots, Square, Forest, and Lakeside) under relatively free conditions. The experimental results show that all four natural spaces in the park have some degree of recovery. However, there were discernible differences in the restorative effects of four selected natural sites. Lakeside and Forest demonstrated the most robust restorative properties in terms of both negative emotion reduction and positive emotion enhancement. In contrast, Square showed the weakest facilitation of recovery, while Grassplots promoted moderate resilience. Physiologically, we found that the EEG-& alpha;% of the Square was significantly lower than the EEG-& alpha;% of the Forest (t = -3.56, p = 0.015). This means that stressed young adults were much more relaxed in the forest than in the paved square. The study answers which types of natural spaces, when considered together, would provide greater restorative benefits to stressed young people participating in natural therapies in urban parks. The study's policy implications include the need to create more green natural spaces, especially forests with multiple plant levels, as well as to improve the restorative nature of urban parks through appropriate landscape space design.
