Objective Waterscapes are essential elements of both natural and urban environments, contributing significantly to physical and mental well-being through their restorative effects. Although research in this field has advanced over the past two decades—driven by the evolution of urban landscapes and methodological innovations—it remains fragmented. A comprehensive framework integrating multiple research perspectives on waterscape restorative effects has yet to be established. Furthermore, the relationships between research perspectives, methodologies, and specific restorative features of waterscapes remain underexplored. These gaps have limited the development of a multidimensional understanding of waterscape restorative effects.

Methods This study employs a literature review and bibliometric analysis to comprehensively assess domestic and international research published from January 1, 1980, to December 31, 2024. A total of 331 English articles and 144 Chinese articles are collected. After reviewing titles and abstracts, 160 articles are selected for in-depth reading and citation analysis, ultimately leading to the inclusion of 78 articles for discussion. Key information from these articles is summarized and presented in tables, including the author, publication year, study location, waterscape type, methods for defining waterscape characteristics, and experimental design. Based on this dataset, a keyword co-occurrence analysis using VOSviewer was conducted to explore the connections among research perspectives, study subjects, and restorative features. These results informed the construction of a structured analytical framework for this review.

Results This paper identifies four major research perspectives: physiological-cognitive, emotional experience, behavioral responses, and sense of place. The physiological-cognitive perspective is grounded in Ulrich’s stress reduction theory (SRT) and Kaplan’s attention restoration theory (ART). Although SRT and ART differ in their interpretations of the restorative process, physiological indicators and psychometric scales are often used in combination. In recent years, the integration of cognitive neuroscience and landscape research has led to the growing use of Electroencephalogram (EEG), eye-tracking, and other neurophysiological methods. The rise of wearable technologies has further enabled in-situ field studies. Unlike traditional outcome-based approaches, physiological data allows for continuous monitoring, shifting the focus toward the dynamics of the restoration process. This not only aids in identifying environmental stressors but also introduces the temporal dimension into restorative research. Compared to physiological data, restorative scales offer nuanced insight into specific restoration dimensions, providing a foundation for examining the relationship between waterscape characteristics and the four core components of ART: being away, extent, fascination, and compatibility. The emotional experience perspective delves into the broad range of affective responses triggered by waterscapes, often focusing on themes like awe, nostalgia, and memory, using varied methodologies. The behavioral responses and sense of place perspectives examine the functional and symbolic roles of waterscapes. Behavioral studies link restorative outcomes with physical activity, social interaction, space utilization, and demographic differences. Research within the sense of place framework highlights the meanings attributed to space and the mediating role of place attachment. Although behavioral responses and sense of place may not directly constitute restorative outcomes, they are integral to understanding waterscape restorative effects. Despite these advancements, current research predominantly focuses on physiological-cognitive and emotional experiences, with limited attention given to behavioral responses and sense of place. Furthermore, the perceptual differences among various population groups in their interactions with waterscapes remain an area for further exploration. The study of waterscape restorative effects focuses not only on understanding individuals’ restorative experiences, but also on identifying the specific characteristics of waterscapes that contribute to restoration. Given the clear biases in how different research perspectives focus on waterscape restorative features, this paper analyzes core literature from four perspectives to compare the waterscape types and restorative features involved. Regarding waterscape types, with the exception of the sense of place perspective, most studies primarily focus on large-scale natural or semi-natural waterscapes like lakes, rivers, and oceans. Conversely, there is comparatively less research on small-scale waterscapes such as artificial cascades, waterfalls, streams, and fountains. At the level of specific waterscape restorative features, physical characteristics have received widespread attention, while the study of functional characteristics is largely concentrated within the sense of place and behavioral response perspectives. Physical characteristics refer to objectively measurable environmental features. Due to their quantifiability, these features can be analyzed in conjunction with psychological scales or physiological indicators to examine their associations with restorative outcomes. Existing research on waterscape restoration has extensively explored factors such as scale and naturalness. However, with the growing emphasis on urban settings, smaller-scale artificial elements have also attracted research interest. Their diverse variability and the multi-sensory experiences they offer, including visual, auditory, and tactile perceptions, still warrant attention for their restorative effects. Compared to scale and naturalness, the effects of multisensory interaction and spatial characteristics of waterscapes on restoration remain significantly underexplored. Existing research on multisensory features is predominantly concentrated on audiovisual modalities, while tactile and olfactory dimensions have received relatively little attention. Moreover, the relationship between waterscape audiovisual features and restorative outcomes remains inconclusive. Additionally, spatial characteristics are believed to influence restorative perceptions, typically assessed using metrics like waterbody width, depth-to-height (D/H) ratios, and perception-based evaluations. Nonetheless, the range of spatial indicators and their quantification methods remains limited. Factors such as spatial layering and landscape depth may also contribute to restorative effects, yet these aspects have received little empirical attention. Compared to physical features, the functional attributes of waterscapes are more closely linked to individual perception and contextual experience, thus exhibiting a higher degree of subjectivity. In human geography, qualitative methods such as interviews, oral histories, and field observations have been widely used to explore the symbolic, cultural, and emotional meanings of waterscapes. In contrast, landscape architecture research has predominantly focused on quantifiable elements such as recreational facilities and visual openness, often overlooking the subjective and experiential dimensions of water-related environments. This methodological bias has led to an overemphasis on recreational and social functions, while interactive features and cultural values remain underexplored. Existing studies suggest that waterscapes can promote a sense of restoration through both active engagement and passive appreciation, with affordance theory highlighting humans’ instinctive search for supportive environmental cues. Waterscape interactions may vary across age groups. For instance, children are more attracted to shallow pools and playful fountains, while young adults tend to prefer swimming. Cultural waterscapes such as holy wells, historic fountains, and symbolic landscapes have also demonstrated restorative potential, though empirical studies remain limited. Given waterscapes’ dual role in conveying historical meaning and shaping urban vitality, further investigation into their cultural and interactive dimensions is warranted.

Conclusion In general, current research is moving beyond a “static observation” paradigm by embracing a more holistic understanding of restorative place experience. Future studies should emphasize the integrated perception of both intrinsic and extrinsic waterscape characteristics, the continuous experience of three-dimensional space, and multi-sensory interactions with water environments. Greater integration of the four research perspectives is needed to establish a more comprehensive framework for studying restorative waterscapes. Furthermore, investigating the theoretical connections between place theory, ART and SRT could offer valuable insights to inform evidence-based waterscape design.