The Perceived Restorativeness of Differently Managed Forests and Its Association with Forest Qualities and Individual Variables: A Field Experiment

Despite increasing research knowledge about the positive well-being effects forests have on citizens, it is still unclear how the quality of forests and individual variables effect the well-being. This research investigated (1) the differences in restorative experiences (components being away, fascination, compatibility and extent, measured by perceived restorativeness (PRS)), and (2) how people evaluate forest qualities in four differently managed forests. Furthermore, this research studied (3) which individual variables (4) as well as forest qualities, explain the overall restorative experience (PRS-score from all components). Altogether, 66 volunteers were taken in small groups to each of the four forest sites once, after their day at work. The participants viewed the forests for 15 min and then walked inside the forests for 30 min. Their perceived restorativeness and perceptions about forest qualities were measured on-site after each visit. Most of the components of PRS differed between the three older forests compared to the young forest. The three older forests also had more preferred qualities, compared to the young commercial forest. From the individual variables, the nature relatedness positively explained the restorative experiences (PRS-score) in old-growth forest and in mature commercial forest. Beauty was the most important quality that explained PRS-score in all forests. Biodiversity positively explained the PRS-score, except in urban recreation forest. However, not all forest qualities need to be present in order to reach high perceived restorativeness and both a pristine or managed old forest can have high restorative values. Also, decaying wood does not seem to diminish forests’ restorative values, but there may be individual differences in its acceptance. Therefore, a greater attention to the overall versatility is needed when managing the forest used for outdooring.


Items
My ideal vacation spot would be a remote, wilderness area. I always think about how my actions affect the environment. My connection to nature and the environment is a part of my spirituality.
I take notice of wildlife wherever I am. My relationship to nature is an important part of who I am.
I feel very connected to all living things and the earth. Table S3. Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS) components and items.

Components Items Being away
It is a place to get away from it all Being away Spending time here gives me a break from my day-to-day routine Fascination My attention is drawn to many interesting things Fascination The setting is fascinating Fascination There is much to explore and discover here Fascination I want to get to know this place better Fascination I want to spend more time looking at the surroundings Compatibility Being here suits my personality Compatibility I can find ways to enjoy myself here Compatibility I have a sense that I belong here Compatibility I have a sense of oneness with this setting Compatibility I can do things I like here Incoherence (Extent) There is too much going on Incoherence (Extent) It is a confusing place Incoherence (Extent) There is a great deal of distraction Incoherence (Extent) It is a chaotic place Note: The reliability measured with Cronbach´s α ranged for the PRS being away component from poor to acceptable, and from good to excellent for the PRS fascination and PRS compatibility components. However, for the PRS incoherence component, the Cronbach´s α ranged from an unacceptable to an acceptable level. In Finnish, the question 'It is a confusing place' can be interpreted as either meaning a positive or negative outcome, so the weak reliability scores were tested as they might be because of this question by excluding it from the incoherence component. The reliability increased to an acceptable level in all four forests with Cronbach´s alphas: Urban=.87,Pristine=.74,Mature=.78,and Young=.82. However, this question was not removed from the PRS incoherence component as it had been validated in earlier studies and could not be removed [24].

Results from the surrounding environmental variables
Other than nature sounds (sound focus other than nature) captured one's attention significantly more in the old-growth (p < .01) and young commercial forests (p < .01) than in the mature commercial forest, and more in the old-growth forest (p ≤ .01) than in the urban recreation forest. The average noise level (dBA) was significantly higher in the urban recreation forest compared to the other three forests (p < .01), but there was no correlation between the average noise (dBA) and components of the PRS in different forests on the Spearman correlation.
There were no significant differences on temperatures between the forests, but there was a correlation between some components of the PRS and the average temperature on the Pearson correlation in a young commercial forest and a mature commercial forest. Please see Table D above for sound focus other than nature, noise level and temperature. Step 1 Note. Urban: R2 adj. = .33***, Pristine: R2 adj. = .68***, Mature: R2 adj. = .52***, Young: R2 adj. = .63***.
Note: ***Step is significant at a level of p < .001, **at a level of p < .01 level and *at a level of p < .05. B = regression coefficient, standardized beta = β. R 2 =coefficient of determinations. CI = Confidence Intervals.
Detailed description of steps 1 and 2, (the step 3 can be seen in the article) In step 1, the higher educational level (Uni) was negatively associated to the perceived restorativeness in urban recreation forest (β=-.31, p=0.017) and in old-growth forest (β=-.32, p=0.010). Also the higher temperature was negatively associated to the perceived restorativeness in young commercial forest (β=-.29, p=0.020) but not in other three forests.
When adding the variables in the step 2, that describes the participant´s relationship with nature (see Table A), the model become significant in old-growth forest (p=0.001), mature commercial forest (p=0.012) and in young commercial forest (p=0.050) with corresponding coefficient of determinations of 27%, 15% and 14% of the variation of perceived restorativeness. The Nature Relatedness had positive association with the perceived restorativeness in old-growth forest (β=.46, p=0.001) and in mature commercial forest (β=.43, p=0.002) while the association with the educational level in step 1 disappeared in the old-growth forest. The childhood spent in the city was close to significant association with less effective restorativeness in the old-growth forest than the childhood spent in the countryside (β=-.23, p=0,053). The work related to nature was negatively associated to the perceived restorativeness in the young commercial forest (β=-.30, p=0.015), where also the negative connection with higher temperature remained (β=.-24, p=0.048). The negative connection remained in the urban recreation forest although it was now smaller (β=-.25, p=0.049).
Multicollinearity can be detected from tolerance and VIF-values. The tolerance-value should not be below 0.2, and if it is less than 0.4, then there is some concern, whereas the VIF-value should not be above 5.0. In the final multiple regression model (step 3), there was no multicollinearity detected among individual variables with the lowest tolerance value of 0.630 and the highest VIF value of 1.588 (in the case of Nature Relatedness Scale in the old-growth forest). The lowest tolerance value of 0.298, and the VIF value of 3.357 among the forest qualities was detected for the adjective-pair in the case of beautiful-ugly in the young commercial forest, indicating acceptable multicollinearity with some concerns, and therefore the model is approximate. Each model obtained acceptable results indicating no autocorrelation from the Durbin Watson test with values ranging between 1.698-2.630 (acceptable values 0-4). Table S6. Correlations between PRS components, PRS-score, semantic differential adjective pair, sound focus other than nature sound and temperature in Urban forest after the experiment.
Note. **. Correlation is significant at p < .01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at a level of p < .05 (2-tailed).  Table S7. Correlations between PRS components, PRS-score, semantic differential adjective pair, sound focus other than nature sound and temperature in Pristine forest after the experiment.
Note. **. Correlation is significant at p < .01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at a level of p < .05 (2-tailed).  Table S8. Correlations between PRS components, PRS-score, semantic differential adjective pair, sound focus other than nature sound and temperature in Mature forest after the experiment.
Note. **. Correlation is significant at p < .01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at a level of p < .05 (2-tailed).  Table S9. Correlations between PRS components, PRS-score, semantic differential adjective pair, sound focus other than nature sound and temperature in Young forest after the experiment.
Note. **. Correlation is significant at p < .01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at a level of p < .05 (2-tailed).      Table S13. Correlations or nonparametric test values of the null hypothesis between the PRS-score and temperature, individual variables and five adjectivepairs that were chosen in to the multiple regression model in Young forest.