Influence of Perceptual Range on Human Perceived Restoration
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Redefined Contents of the PRS
3.2. Two Different PRS Scores
3.3. PRS with Social Context
3.3.1. Overall PRS
3.3.2. Being Away + Compatibility (BA + COM)
3.3.3. Fascination
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Cohen, D.A.; McKenzie, T.L.; Sehgal, A.; Williamson, S.; Golinelli, D.; Lurie, N. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. Am. J. Public Health 2007, 97, 509–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Floyd, M.F.; Spengler, J.O.; Maddock, J.E.; Gobster, P.H.; Suau, L.J. Park-based physical activity in diverse communities of two US cities: An observational study. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 34, 299–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hartig, T. Three steps to understanding restorative environments as health resources. In Open Space: People Space; Thompson, C.W., Travlou, P., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2007; pp. 163–179. [Google Scholar]
- Hill, K. Design and Planning as Healing Arts: The Broader Context of Health and Environment; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; Volume 1, pp. 203–214. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, R. The role of nature in the urban context. In Behavior and the Natural Environment; Altman, I., Wohlwill, J.F., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1983; pp. 127–161. [Google Scholar]
- Shores, K.A.; West, S.T. Rural and urban park visits and park-based physical activity. Prev. Med. 2010, 50, S13–S17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grahn, P.; Stigsdotter, U.A. Landscape planning and stress. Urban For. Urban Green. 2003, 2, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Völker, S.; Kistemann, T. The impact of blue space on human health and well-being–Salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: A review. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2011, 214, 449–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ulrich, R.S. Natural versus urban scenes some psychophysiological effects. Environ. Behav. 1981, 13, 523–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartig, T.; Böök, A.; Garvill, J.; Olsson, T.; Gärling, T. Environmental influences on psychological restoration. Scand. J. Psychol. 1996, 37, 378–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hartig, T.; Kaiser, F.G.; Bowler, P.A. Further Development of a Measure of Perceived Environmental Restorativeness; Institutet för Bostadsforskning: Fagersta, Sweden, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Purcell, T.; Peron, E.; Berto, R. Why do preferences differ between scene types? Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berto, R. Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, C.Y.; Hammitt, W.E.; Chen, P.K.; Machnik, L.; Su, W.C. Psychophysiological responses and restorative values of natural environments in Taiwan. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 85, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ivarsson, C.T.; Hagerhall, C.M. The perceived restorativeness of gardens–Assessing the restorativeness of a mixed built and natural scene type. Urban For. Urban Green. 2008, 7, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Korpela, K.M.; Hartig, T.; Kaiser, F.G.; Fuhrer, U. Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite places. Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 572–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laumann, K.; Gärling, T.; Stormark, K.M. Rating scale measures of restorative components of environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulrich, R.S.; Simons, R.F.; Losito, B.D.; Fiorito, E.; Miles, M.A.; Zelson, M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1991, 11, 201–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clements, T.L.; Dorminey, S.J. Spectrum matrix landscape design and landscape experience. Landsc. J. 2011, 30, 241–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devlin, A.S.; Bernstein, J. Interactive way-finding: Map style and effectiveness. J. Environ. Psychol. 1997, 17, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ward, T.B.; Foley, C.M.; Cole, J. Classifying multidimensional stimuli: Stimulus, task, and observer factors. J. Exp. Psychol. 1986, 12, 211–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staats, H.; Jahncke, H.; Herzog, T.R.; Hartig, T. Urban options for psychological restoration: Common strategies in everyday situations. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0146213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, M.; Gim, T.H.T.; Sung, J.S. Applying the Concept of Perceived Restoration to the Case of Cheonggyecheon Stream Park in Seoul, Korea. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herzog, T.R.; Rector, A.E. Perceived danger and judged likelihood of restoration. Environ. Behav. 2009, 41, 387–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Staats, H.; Hartig, T. Alone or with a friend: A social context for psychological restoration and environmental preferences. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cutt, H.; Giles-Corti, B.; Knuiman, M.; Burke, V. Dog ownership, health and physical activity: A critical review of the literature. Health Place 2007, 13, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Von Lindern, E.; Bauer, N.; Frick, J.; Hunziker, M.; Hartig, T. Occupational engagement as a constraint on restoration during leisure time in forest settings. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 118, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dirkin, G.R.; Hancock, P.A. Attentional narrowing to the visual periphery under temporal and acoustic stress. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 1984, 55, 457. [Google Scholar]
- Hancock, P.A.; Szalma, J.L.; Weaver, J.L. The distortion of perceptual space-time under stress. In DoD Multidisciplinary Research Program: MURI Operator Performance Under Stress (OPUS), White Paper; Stanford Medicine: Stanford, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Koelmel, E. The Interaction between the Physical Environment and Metaphysical States: The Role of Social Anxiety and Stress in Informing Spatial Perception; The College of Wooster Libraries: Wooster, OH, USA, 2013; Available online: http://openworks.wooster.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6439&context=independentstudy (accessed on 5 May 2018).
- Paul, M.; Lech, R.K.; Scheil, J.; Dierolf, A.M.; Suchan, B.; Wolf, O.T. Acute stress influences the discrimination of complex scenes and complex faces in young healthy men. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2016, 66, 125–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Downs, R.M.; Stea, D. Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior; Aldine Transaction Publishers: Moncton, NB, Canada, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Han, S.G.; Huh, J.H. Estimate of the heat island and building cooling load changes due to the restored stream in Seoul, Korea. Int. J. Urban Sci. 2008, 12, 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hester, R.T. Design for Ecological Democracy; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Zweifela, C.; Van Wezemaela, J. Drawing as a qualitative research tool an approach to field work from a social complexity perspective. Tracey J. Draw. Knowl. 2012, 5, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Lynch, K. Good city form. In Sensuous Criteria for Highway Design; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Sacks, H. Lectures on Conversation; Jefferson, G., Schegloff, E.A., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1992; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Korpela, K.; Hartig, T. Restorative qualities of favorite places. J. Environ. Psychol. 1996, 16, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.H.; Hyun, M.H. The comparison of natural environment and restorative environment in stress-buffering effects. Korean J. Health Psychol. 2004, 9, 609–632. [Google Scholar]
- Hipp, J.A.; Gulwadi, G.B.; Alves, S.; Sequeira, S. The relationship between perceived greenness and perceived restorativeness of university campuses and student-reported quality of life. Environ. Behav. 2016, 48, 1292–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Contents | Number | % | X2 (p) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 93 | 45.8 | 0.001 (0.976) |
Female | 110 | 54.2 | ||
Age (years) | 11–20 | 24 | 11.8 | 1.552 (0.907) |
21–30 | 91 | 44.8 | ||
31–40 | 47 | 23.2 | ||
41–50 | 23 | 11.3 | ||
51–60 | 13 | 6.4 | ||
60+ | 5 | 2.5 | ||
Number of companions | 0 | 15 | 7.4 | 2.811 (0.422) |
1 | 103 | 50.7 | ||
2 | 40 | 19.7 | ||
3+ | 45 | 22.2 | ||
Frequency of visits | once a year | 113 | 55.9 | 2.333 (0.506) |
once a month | 60 | 29.7 | ||
once a week | 17 | 8.4 | ||
twice a week or more | 12 | 5.9 | ||
Travel time | <10 min | 33 | 16.3 | 4.154 (0.245) |
10 min–1 h | 132 | 65.0 | ||
1–2 h | 30 | 14.8 | ||
over 2 h | 8 | 3.9 |
PRS Subclass | Questionnaires | I | II | III |
---|---|---|---|---|
Being Away | It is an escape experience. | 0.738 | ||
Spending time here gives me a good break from my day-to-day routine. | 0.726 | |||
Fascination | The setting has fascinating qualities. | 0.662 | ||
My attention is drawn to many interesting things. | 0.687 | |||
I would like to get to know this place better. | 0.588 | |||
There is nothing worth looking at here (Reverse). | 0.781 | |||
This place is boring (Reverse). | 0.680 | |||
Coherence | There is a great deal of distraction (Reverse). | 0.741 | ||
It is chaotic here (Reverse) | 0.775 | |||
Compatibility | Being here suits my personality. | 0.774 | ||
There is accordance between what I like to do and these surroundings. | 0.760 | |||
I have a sense that I belong here. | 0.738 | |||
I can do things I like here. | 0.683 | |||
I have a sense of oneness with this setting. | 0.716 | |||
Eigenvalues | 6.811 | 2.113 | 1.144 | |
Percentage of total variance | 42.570 | 13.207 | 7.147 | |
Number of test measures | 8 | 4 | 2 |
Internal Spatial Perception Group N = 153 Mean (Standard Deviation) | External Spatial Perception Group N = 50 Mean (Standard Error) | t-Test | |
---|---|---|---|
Overall | 6.34 (1.243) | 5.93 (1.324) | 1.94 * |
BA + COM | 6.62 (1.381) | 6.01 (1.502) | 2.53 ** |
FA | 6.02 (1.820) | 5.40 (1.648) | 2.24 ** |
CH | 5.88 (1.617) | 6.65 (1.782) | −2.70 *** |
© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kim, M. Influence of Perceptual Range on Human Perceived Restoration. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3139. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093139
Kim M. Influence of Perceptual Range on Human Perceived Restoration. Sustainability. 2018; 10(9):3139. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093139
Chicago/Turabian StyleKim, Moohan. 2018. "Influence of Perceptual Range on Human Perceived Restoration" Sustainability 10, no. 9: 3139. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093139