Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (2013) 163–170
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening
journal homepage: www.elsevier.de/ufug
Influence of environmental preference and environment type congruence on
judgments of restoration potential
Stephanie Wilkie ∗ , Andri Stavridou
Department of Psychology, St. Peter’s Campus, University of Sunderland, Sunderland SR6 0DD, UK
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords:
Directed attention
Environmental psychology
Place identity
a b s t r a c t
This study (N = 120) explored whether congruence between environmental preference and environment
type influenced judgments of likelihood for directed attention restoration. The study differs from previous
research by operationally defining preference as a representation of place identity from environmental
psychology rather than as the attractiveness of the location. Preference was also treated as an influence on
judgments of restoration potential instead of a consequence of directed attention fatigue. Persons experiencing images congruent with their environmental preference were expected to rate similar locations
highest in restoration potential compared to incongruent images; however, this was not fully supported.
Those with a nature preference perceived congruent environments as the most potentially restorative,
but this was higher than, rather than equal to, the restoration expectations of those in the urban congruent
condition. As expected, nature preferences influenced judgments of urban settings; this incongruence was
rated least restorative. Persons with an urban preference perceived both nature and urban environments
equal in restoration potential; this may explain circumstances when environment choice appears inconsistent to cognitive restoration goals. Water quality in the settings also influenced restoration judgments;
pleasant waterscapes resulted in the best expectations. The findings illustrate the potential contribution
of place identity from environmental psychology to the study of attention restoration outcomes and
further support the growing literature endorsing the positive potential of urban settings.
© 2013 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Directed attention refers to ‘attention that requires effort and
is susceptible to fatigue’ (Berto et al., 2010, p. 494). It is considered a necessary but exhaustible resource (Cohen and Spacapan,
1978; Driver, 2001); and depletion of directed attention stores
results in diminished cognitive performance and executive control (Van der Linden et al., 2003; Berto, 2005; Kaplan and Berman,
2010). However, restoration of this attention capacity and recovery
from directed attention fatigue (DAF) is well documented in natural
environments, particularly in comparison to urban settings, with
exposure to nature resulting in improved performance on a variety
of cognitive tasks (e.g., Hartig et al., 1991; Berto, 2005; Berman et al.,
2008). One theory used to understand natures’ positive impact
on directed attention is attention restoration theory (ART, Kaplan,
1995). According to ART, nature is superior to urban environments
in the recovery from DAF because natural environments possess
four specific characteristics which encourage involuntary attention: fascination, being away, extent or coherence (i.e., richness),
and compatibility with restoration goals (Kaplan, 1995). In loca-
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 191 515 2601; fax: +44 191 515 2781.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Wilkie).
1618-8667/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2013.01.004
tions which possess these qualities, directed attention disengages
while involuntary attention takes over, thus resulting in restoration
of directed attention capacity.
Individuals, it seems, do anticipate nature’s positive influence
on directed attention, rating it higher for perceived likelihood of
recovery from DAF (Herzog et al., 1997; Laumann et al., 2001;
Hartig and Staats, 2006) and recommending it to others in times
of stress (Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2003). Studies have also found
nature was more preferred by those experiencing cognitive fatigue
(Hartig and Staats, 2006) and a visit to a preferred place resulted
in better restoration outcomes (van den Berg et al., 2003; Korpela
and Ylén, 2009). Proponents of ART argue it is the need for
directed attention restoration and the perceived likelihood for
that restoration to occur in a particular location which creates
a general preference for nature over urban environments (e.g.,
Laumann et al., 2001; Herzog et al., 2003; van den Berg et al.,
2003; Hartig and Staats, 2006). This account implies the perceived
likelihood for restoration is what drives a universal nature preference that subsequently results in choosing nature when seeking
restoration from DAF. However, we believe there are two potential
limitations with the implied causal link between perceived likelihood for restoration and environmental preference proposed by
ART.
164
S. Wilkie, A. Stavridou / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (2013) 163–170
The first limitation is the assertion that environmental preference is primarily based on the need for directed attention
restoration. This view is based on ART’s evolutionary position
that our preference for nature is because of its usefulness in
terms of survival (Joye and van den Berg, 2011); and as a result,
attention restoration theorists have treated environmental preference as a consequence of the perceived likelihood exposure to
a nature environment would reduce attention fatigue and facilitate directed attention recovery (e.g., Galindo and Rodriguez, 2000;
Herzog et al., 2003; Staats et al., 2003; Hartig and Staats, 2006;
Martens et al., 2011). Yet the findings of several studies contradict
the evolutionary cause and effect relationship between restoration
judgments and preference suggested by ART. In some instances,
scenes perceived as highly restorative were not necessarily those
which were highly preferred (Peron et al., 2002); nor was restoration found to predict environmental preference (Han, 2010). Even
more curiously, nature is not always chosen for restoration from
DAF, even when perceived as the best option to achieve this goal
(Herzog et al., 2002). Together, these findings raised a question
about whether the type of environment, perceived likelihood for
restoration, and environmental preference may interact in ways
other than those predicted by ART when individuals make decisions on where to fulfill their attention restoration goals. This study
explores one particular interaction, environment type and environmental preference, as an influence on perceived likelihood for
restoration. Specifically, the study tests if the congruence between
environment type and an individual’s environmental preference
which has an effect. In testing this relationship, an important
distinction is made between our approach and that of attention
restoration theorists because environmental preference was considered an antecedent influence on judgments of an environment’s
directed attention restoration potential.
A second limitation was related to the definition of environmental preference implemented in ART research. Even though early
ART research considered environmental preference as a multidimensional construct (Kaplan, 1977), preference has been almost
exclusively defined as either liking the environment or finding it
attractive (Herzog, 1985; Herzog et al., 2003; van den Berg et al.,
2003; Hartig and Staats, 2006; Han, 2010; White and Gatersleben,
2011). We found this definition too restrictive. Environmental preference is more than an aesthetic judgment of the environment;
and we believe most preference studies using this definition do not
consider the potential diversity of person–place relationships. One
aspect of person–place relationships which is under-researched in
attention restoration studies is place identity. In the present study,
environmental preference is viewed as a characteristic of the individual’s place identity (Lalli, 1992; Drosletis and Vignoles, 2010) or
the ‘dimensions of self that define the individual’s personal identity in relation to the physical environment. . .’ (Proshansky, 1978,
p. 155). Several studies support our belief that place identity may
be relevant to environmental perceptions which could ultimately
shape location choice when seeking directed attention restoration.
For example, Kyle et al. (2004a, 2004b) found individuals with
higher place identity associated with the Appalachian Trail in the
U.S. perceived setting density and greater problems of overuse,
crowding, and encroachment. Place attachment, a component of
place identity (Lalli, 1992; Drosletis and Vignoles, 2010), also influenced location choice for recreation and stress recovery (Adevi
and Grahn, 2011). In addition, people also develop bonds with
places not typically considered restorative because people-place
relationships are inextricably linked to the individual’s identity,
as well as a multitude of goals beyond cognitive restoration (Lalli,
1992; Drosletis and Vignoles, 2010; Scannell and Gifford, 2010);
and it is these personal ties to particular location types which
provide a basis for one’s environmental preference (Kyle et al.,
2004; Drosletis and Vignoles, 2010). Therefore, studies of attention
restoration should explore if environmental preference defined in
a manner which accounts for an environment-related identity processes effects perceived likelihood for restoration judgments and
potentially location choice for these goals.
This research is also conducted as part of the growing challenge
to the view of urban environments as non-restorative. Although
there is little dispute that exposure to nature can have positive outcomes for cognition, mood, and mental health conditions
such as depression (e.g., van den Berg et al., 2003; Berto, 2005;
Berman et al., 2012); there is also evidence urban green environments can offer a range of similar benefits (Hernández and
Hidalgo, 2005; Karmanov and Hamel, 2008; Martens et al., 2011).
Further understanding location choices in situations of DAF may
help to encourage engagement with places suited to both the individual’s restoration goals, their place-identity related preferences,
and maximize their restoration outcomes and enhance general
well-being. Exploring the potential influence of environmental
preference on decision-making in circumstances of DAF may also
aid in overcoming negative expectations associated with places
which are incongruent with the individual’s environmental preference, for example in the case of persons’ with strong nature
identities who find themselves in urban settings which they consider to be non-restorative.
Study aim and hypotheses
To address two perceived limitations in the environmental preference research grounded in ART, the current research differed
both in terms of the hypothesized direction of the relationship
between environmental preference and perceived likelihood for
restoration; and by the operational definition of environmental preference. Few directed attention restoration studies have
operationally defined environmental preference as anything other
than a general aesthetic rating of the environment; and, to our
knowledge, none defined it as a representation of place identity.
Nor have prior studies determined how environmental preference may potentially drive perceived likelihood for restoration
judgments in situations of DAF. The aim is to explore whether
congruence between environmental preference and environment
type influenced views of restorative potential; and propose it is the
interaction between these two variables which may explain the
counter-intuitive behavior of an individual failing to choose nature
even when aware it is generally the most suited to DAF recovery
goals. The following hypotheses were tested:
• H1 : The highest restoration potential ratings would be expected
for images congruent with the preferred environment compared
to incongruent ones.
• H2 : A nature preference/urban environment incongruence would
result in the lowest levels of perceived restoration potential.
Method
Sample characteristics
A predominantly female (80%) sample of students (N = 120) from
a northeastern English university received class credit for participation. The mean age of the sample was 22.91 years (SD = 7.09). The
study followed British Psychological Society (BPS) ethics guidelines
(BPS, 2010) and was approved by the university ethics committee.
Participants indicated if they considered themselves ‘a city person or a country person’ as a method of capturing environmental
preference as a representation of their place identity. A similar
urban/country person distinction has been used in place identity research (Knez, 2005). ‘Country persons’ were categorized as
S. Wilkie, A. Stavridou / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (2013) 163–170
having a nature preference (n = 48) and city persons as having an
urban preference (n = 65).
Experimental stimuli and materials
As a control, water type (pleasant, unpleasant, no water) was
manipulated in both environments resulting in six stimuli conditions (Fig. 1). Previously presence of water influenced both
environmental preference ratings (i.e., attractiveness) and attention restoration outcomes (Laumann et al., 2001; White et al.,
2010), while perceived water quality significantly influenced the
perceived likelihood for restoration in coastal locations (Hipp and
Ogunseitan, 2011). The pleasant water condition included water
imagery such as coastlines or well-maintained canals, whilst the
unpleasant water condition included imagery of water features
which were poorly maintained, with murky water, or established
algae blooms. To increase ecological validity, images were chosen to be relatively familiar with some including people, modes
of transportation, or physical structures.
The 12-item version of the Perceived Restoration Scale (SRPRS,
Hartig et al., 1997) measured the extent to which exposure to environments similar to the stimuli were considered likely to result
in directed attention restoration. Although other measures of the
perceived likelihood for restoration exist (Laumann et al., 2001;
Han, 2003; Hartig et al., 2003; Pals et al., 2009), the PRS has been
widely used and has established reliability and validity information
(e.g., Hartig et al., 1997; Han, 2003). The full scale contained16 Likert items (1 = not at all to 7 = completely) representing four aspects
of restorative places (Being Away, Fascination, Coherence/extent,
Compatibility). Evidence indicated these items represent two factors, coherence and general restorativeness (Hartig et al., 1996,
1997). Only the 12 SRPRS items representing general restorativeness were used; and Cronbach’s alpha indicated these items had
good internal consistency in the present study (.81).
Design and procedure
The study implemented a quasi-experimental design consisting of a congruence independent variable with four levels.
These levels were created based on environmental preference
(nature/urban) and environment type (nature/urban). Two conditions were congruent: nature preference/nature imagery (n = 23)
and urban preference/urban imagery (n = 30); and two were
incongruent: nature preference/urban imagery (n = 25) and urban
preference/nature imagery (n = 35). The dependent variable of
perceived restoration potential was calculated as the mean of the
SRPRS items.
After a study briefing and provision of consent to participate,
students were randomly allocated to one of the six imagery conditions (see Fig. 1). The 20-minute session took place during a normal
university day in the second academic term. Others have used daily
academic demands as an indicator of cognitive fatigue (e.g., Hartig
and Staats, 2006; Karmanov and Hamel, 2008); therefore, it was
expected the participants would be experiencing a similar level of
DAF. They received course credit for participation but could choose
from a large number of projects; therefore, participation was considered voluntary.
Participants viewed a slide show presented using E-prime. It
consisted of 10 images specific to their experimental condition.
Each image was presented for 15 s on a continuous loop lasting 7 min consistent with previous studies, (van den Berg et al.,
2003; Berto, 2005). Other studies have used slide shows effectively
(Ulrich, 1979; Peron et al., 2002; Herzog et al., 2003; Staats et al.,
2003; Berto, 2005; Hartig and Staats, 2006; Berman et al., 2008;
Ryan et al., 2010), with little difference between real-world exposure, video or slide-shows of images (Hartig et al., 1997; Kjellgren
165
and Buhrkall, 2010). This method was chosen over actual environmental exposure to reduce participant burden during the winter
months when data collection took place; and, because engagement
with the environment would result in ratings of actual restoration instead of anticipated restoration likelihood. After exposure to
the experimental stimuli, participants completed the demographic
questions and were instructed to consider environments like those
they had just viewed in the slide show when completing the SRPRS.
Finally, all participants viewed a humorous video of a baby laughing to counteract any negative effects from viewing non-preferred
environments or unpleasant water images.
Results
The analysis sample was reduced to 113 due to single item
missing values and identification of one case as an outlier on the
dependent variable. Data was analyzed using SPSS version 19.0.
Prior to the main analysis, several checks for possible confounds
were conducted. Restoration potential ratings did not differ by gender, t (112) = −0.05, p = 0.96; or by age, F (1, 109) = 2.12, p = 0.13.
They also did not did not differ solely by environmental preference (t = 0.36, df = 111, p = 0.72); and indicates that both participants
with a nature preference and those with an urban preference were
equally able to perceive an environment’s for restoration potential.
Effect of environment and water type
The results of a 2 × 3 (Environment × Water Type) betweensubjects ANOVA on restoration potential indicated a significant
main effect of both environment (F (1, 109) = 17.23, p < 0.001,
2 p = 0.14) and water type (F (1, 109) = 12.04, p < 0.001, 2 p = 0.18).
Nature environments were rated higher in potential for restoration (M = 5.78, SE = 0.13) than urban ones (M = 4.81, SE = 0.13). Post
hoc analyses of the main effect of water type using bonferroni
adjustment indicated the pleasant water condition was perceived
as significantly more restorative (M = 5.76, SE = 0.16) than both the
no water (M = 5.18, SE = 0.16, p = 0.03) and unpleasant water conditions (M = 4.64, SE = 0.16, p < 0.01); while presence of unpleasant
water was rated lower than no water (p = 0.05). Effect sizes for the
main effects were small to moderate (Ferguson, 2009). The interaction between environment and water type was not significant, F
(1, 109) = 1.86, p = 0.16.
Effect of environmental preference/environment type congruence
The primary analysis of interest used a quasi-independent
variable created based on the congruence between environmental preference and environmental type. A between-subjects 4
× 3 (environmental preference/environment type congruence ×
water type) ANOVA was conducted and post hoc comparisons
used bonferonni adjustment. The interaction between the primary independent variable and water was non-significant (F (6,
101) = 0.72, p = 0.64). Fig. 2 illustrated the effect of environmental
preference/environment type congruence on perceived restoration potential (F (3, 101) = 6.32, p = 0.001, 2 p = 0.16). A nature
preference/nature imagery congruence resulted in significantly
higher perceived restoration potential ratings than an urban preference/urban imagery congruence (p = 0.02). The difference between
the congruent nature preference/nature imagery and incongruent
urban preference/nature imagery conditions was non-significant
(p = 0.72). Essentially, exposure to nature images, irrespective of
location, resulted in the highest expectations of restoration. Persons with an urban preference also viewed the congruent urban
and incongruent nature images as equal in restorative potential
(p = 0.63). There was, however, a difference in restoration potential ratings between incongruent preference/imagery conditions
166
S. Wilkie, A. Stavridou / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (2013) 163–170
Fig. 1. Examples of environmental stimuli. (A) Nature with pleasant water. (B) Nature with unpleasant water. (C) Nature with no water. (D) Urban with pleasant water. (E)
Urban with unpleasant water. (F) Urban with no water.
(p = 0.01); those in the nature preference/urban imagery condition
provided the lowest perceived restoration ratings compared to the
urban preference/nature imagery condition as predicted.
Discussion
The study aim was to explore if congruence between environmental preferences, defined here as a representation of place
identity, and environment type influenced judgments of the environment’s restorative potential. Specifically, it was hypothesized
the congruence between environmental preference and the type
of environment influenced perceptions of the likelihood for recovery from directed attention fatigue (DAF). Congruent environments
were expected to be perceived as most restorative, irrespective of
whether they were nature or urban ones; and the incongruence
between a nature preference/exposure to urban locations to result
in the lowest ratings.
The expected effect of environmental preference/environment
type congruence was only partially supported since congruence did not always result in higher perceived restoration
potential. Those in the congruent nature preference/nature environment imagery condition anticipated the greatest likelihood for
S. Wilkie, A. Stavridou / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (2013) 163–170
167
Fig. 2. Mean perceived restoration potential by environmental preference/environment type congruence. Restoration Potential was rated on a seven-point scale from ‘not
at all’ to ‘completely’.
restoration from similar locations; but this level was higher than
the corresponding congruent urban condition contrary to the first
hypothesis. Perceived likelihood for restoration ratings in the congruent nature condition also did not differ significantly from the
incongruent nature condition, which was a mismatch between an
urban preference and nature environment, thus indicating nature
was considered the more restorative location generally. However,
people exposed to images congruent to their urban preference
perceived similar locations as equal in restoration potential to those
with the same urban preference exposed to incongruent images of
nature settings. As the second hypothesis predicted, the incongruence between a preference for nature and exposure to urban images
resulted in the lowest perceived restoration potential ratings for
similar urban locations.
Although not a specific study aim, the presence of water did
impact judgments of restoration potential. Locations with pleasant waterscapes were considered potentially more restorative than
ones containing negative imagery or those without water. In addition, there was a significant main effect of environment type.
Nature settings were judged as being potentially more restorative
than urban settings; however, it is important to note the urban settings which include images of both general urban vistas and urban
green spaces were also rated as potentially restorative rather than
non-restorative; but just not to the same extent as nature locations.
Methodological considerations
Several study limitations related to the sample, measurement,
and general design which should be addressed. One methodological issue was that the sample was comprised of students and was
primarily female in composition. The use of a quasi-independent
variable for environmental preference also resulted in unequal
sample sizes for this variable, with lower representation of those
who preferred nature in the study. Together, these issues limit the
generalizability of the findings.
Two measurement issues also merit discussion. Our method
of capturing environmental preference, considered to be representative of the individual’s place identity, differed from most
studies focused on preference in the attention restoration theory
(ART) literature. Some might criticize our operational definition of
environmental preference because it was a forced choice option
rather than rating the degree of preference using a Likert scale;
but our dichotomous method of categorization has previously
differentiated people amongst several place identity processes,
particularly when associated with preference-congruent locations
(Knez, 2005). Yet, we acknowledge there are still potential limitations with a forced-choice item as a measure of environmental
preference more generally. Subsequent studies should confirm the
choice between being a ‘country person’ or a ‘city person’ does measure environmental preference and that it represents place-related
identity by establishing convergent validity with other identity
measures. This may be accomplished by determining if city and
country persons differ on existing measures of place identity (e.g.,
Drosletis and Vignoles, 2010) and in the level of emotional connection to with nature (e.g., Perrin and Benassi, 2009). Studies could
also confirm these categorizations represent environmental preference by asking the respondent where they prefer to spend their
time.
Another measurement issue relates to use of perceived likelihood for restoration using a Likert scale of general restorativeness
(SRPRS, Hartig et al., 1996, 1997). This scale, although widely used,
has been criticized for its inability to consistently represent the
four aspects of restoration predicted by attention restoration theory
(Laumann et al., 2001). Although a valid concern in studies testing the theoretical predictions of ART, we believe the measure was
suited to the aim of the current study which was to test how preference and environment interacted to influence perceptions of an
environment’s restoration potential. However, the perceived likelihood for restoration did rely on self-report ordinal data which is
not without limitations. Since this study focused on subjective perceptions of an environment’s suitability for restoration, we believe
168
S. Wilkie, A. Stavridou / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (2013) 163–170
ordinal data was the most suitable to the research aim. We do
also recognize that anticipation of restoration is not the same as
achieving recovery from DAF. Future studies should determine if
differences of perceived likelihood for restoration translate into
actual differences in restoration outcomes (e.g., improved directed
attention capacity) in preferred environments.
The use of images rather than experience in the environment may be considered a weakness based on the argument that
immersion within the environment, referred to extent in attention restoration theory (Kaplan, 1995), is important to successful
restoration. We counter this concern in two ways. First, a number
of studies indicated imagery can have similar restorative benefits
(Berman et al., 2008; Berto et al., 2010; Kjellgren and Buhrkall,
2010) and simple visualization of an environment also had this
effect (Ryan et al., 2010). We also felt that imagery was more appropriate to understanding judgments of restoration potential as an
influence on making the decision about whether to engage with
an environment or not. If the respondents had been immersed in
nature or urban contexts, estimation of restoration potential and
location choice become irrelevant since participants are in situ.
Another critique relates to specific image content, which was not
varied as in other studies (e.g., Herzog, 1985; Berto et al., 2010).
Manipulation of qualities such as coherence or fascination would
have introduced a further layer of complexity outside the scope of
general preference; and images were selected which were likely
to be encountered on a typical visit to the location to maximize
ecological validity.
Other studies also controlled for time of the day and day of week
of participation (Hartig and Staats, 2006; Martens et al., 2011); but
unfortunately, this information was not recorded. However, random assignment to experimental conditions at varying times/days
should have precluded this from being a confounding factor. Finally,
this was an independent subjects design without baseline measures
of DAF fatigue because such fatigue was presumed based on the participant situation. Participants were students who were mid-way
into a second term going about their normal academic routines so
should have been experiencing cognitive fatigue (Hartig and Staats,
2006) but this should be explicitly measured in future studies using
a repeated measures design.
Environmental preference and environment type congruence as a
compliment to attention restoration theory’s account of
environmental preference
This study originated from two perceived limitations of ART’s
explanation of our environmental preference for nature in times of
DAF. The first limitation related to the dominant view of attention
restoration theorists that environmental preference is a functional,
evolutionary response to nature; and preference results from the
individual’s need for restoration of directed attention resources.
The second limitation was that environmental preference has
almost exclusively been defined as an aesthetic judgment of an
environment. We acknowledge the considerable body of evidence
to support both assertions; however, our concern was the preference/restoration literature rarely, if ever, considered individual
factors beyond the experience of directed attention fatigue which
may also contribute to judgments of these environments (and subsequent location choice). To counter these limitations, this study
provided evidence environmental preference does influence judgments of restoration potential and that environmental preference
may represent something more than ‘liking’ a location or finding it
attractive.
The findings indicated that, in some cases, the congruence
between environmental preference and type influenced judgments
perceived likelihood for restoration from directed attention fatigue.
This congruence was particularly important to nature lovers who
anticipated the best restoration in nature and the least in urban
settings, while those with an urban preference were able to see
equivalent restoration potential in either type of environment.
Additionally, nature was considered as the most likely location
to result in cognitive restoration irrespective of preference. Overall, the results support earlier studies which found nature was
perceived as more restorative than urban locations (Herzog et al.,
1997; Laumann et al., 2001; Hartig and Staats, 2006); and with
ART’s assertion that nature is superior in aid of the restoration goals
(Kaplan, 1995; Berman et al., 2008). However, ART would also have
predicted that everyone exposed to urban imagery would have
lower expectation for restoration, which was not the case. Those
with an urban place-related identity (i.e., city persons) viewed
both urban and nature settings as equivalent in their ability to
aid recovery from DAF; and, on average, urban locations were
judged as being ‘rather’ likely to result in restoration instead of
non-restorative which would be expected by ART. This suggests
that the urban environment is perceived as possessing similar
benefits to nature when urban environments are generally preferred; and supports Karmanov and Hamel’s (2008) findings that
well-designed urban environments can rival nature for restoration
outcomes.
The results also suggested environmental preference can be
defined in terms of place identity; and preference defined in this
way does have an effect on expectations for attention restoration. In doing so, the study outcomes supported ART’s premise
of compatibility, or congruence between location and goal, as
important to restoration (Kaplan, 1995; Scopelliti and Giluliani,
2004). This study indicated identity-compatible locations could
also have an influence; and in some cases, locations incompatible with this preference may preclude restoration because people
are less likely to see the environment’s restoration potential. This
is likely a particular component of place identity known as placecongruent continuity (Knez, 2005; Drosletis and Vignoles, 2010),
which refers to the locations suitability to the individual’s beliefs.
Identity-related compatibility could explain the curious choice of
an environment inconsistent with restoration goals (Herzog et al.,
2003). It may have been less-than-suitable location choices for
restoration goals were actually based on reasoned decisions by persons with a strong urban-related place identity who anticipated the
same benefit in their preferred urban setting. However, the preference/environment congruence explanation we proposed here for
this restoration goal/location choice inconsistency is only speculative and should be tested in future studies. One way to do confirm
this explanation would be to assess the relative importance of
directed attention recovery goals compared to personal environmental preference when selecting locations for the recovery from
DAF.
Applications for urban design
The information presented may be useful to those responsible
for urban green space management or health initiatives in urban
locations, particularly when presented with the challenge of a lack
of uptake with local facilities. Korpela and Ylén (2009) established
favorite place prescriptions are beneficial to mood and cognitive
restoration and the findings here illustrate a potential means for
engaging those with a strong urban-related place identity with
urban green spaces. Nisbit and Zelenski (2011) noted people underestimate nature’s benefit; it also appears persons with a nature
preference may underestimate the benefit of urban environments.
Therefore, programs could also be targeted to those with a strong
nature-related identity but residing in urban settings to remind
them of the equivalent restorative benefits to be found in their
‘non-preferred’ urban setting; and highlight to people with a nature
preference that they should consider their own expectation of a lack
S. Wilkie, A. Stavridou / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (2013) 163–170
of restoration may be precluding positive outcomes in urban green
spaces.
Another important finding relevant to the development of urban
green spaces was the clear influence of varying water types on perceptions of restoration likelihood. White et al. (2010) speculated
it is not simply the presence of water that has this influence. This
study confirmed views of water sources which are neglected will
detract from user perceptions. This could result in a lack of usage
of the space more generally; therefore, it is important that such
features are continually maintained.
Conclusion
Despite its limitations, this study contributed to the growing
body of literature endorsing the potential benefits of urban environments for directed attention restoration (Hernández and Hidalgo,
2005; Sanesi et al., 2006; Karmanov and Hamel, 2008; Grahn and
Stigsdotter, 2010; Stigsdotter and Grahn, 2011). Persons with an
urban preference certainly perceived this benefit in the current
study; and the findings supported earlier work which found urban
and natural environments were equivalent for affective restoration (Karmanov and Hamel, 2008). By addressing two limitations
of the attention restoration account of environmental preference,
the study also provided an argument for a complimentary approach
between the predominant evolutionary view of restorative environments (Joye and van den Berg, 2011) and one based in the
person–place literature of environmental psychology. Exploration
of the influences of place identity and concepts such place attachment and place dependence in conjunction with factors established
in ART should provide further insight on location choice when seeking restoration from a number of life stressors. Finally, we hope the
findings were informative for those involved with the design and
management of urban green spaces and used to facilitate increased
engagement with health initiatives in these locations.
References
Adevi, A., Grahn, P., 2011. Attachment to certain natural environments: a basis for
choice of recreational settings, activities, and restoration from stress. Environment and Natural Resources Research 1, 36–52.
Berman, M., Jonides, J., Kaplan, S., 2008. The cognitive benefits for interacting with
nature. Psychological Science 19, 1207–1212.
Berman, M., Kross, E., Krpan, K., Askren, M., Burson, A., Deldin, P., Kaplan, S.,
Sherdell, L., Gotlib, I., Jonides, J., 2012. Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders
140, 300–305.
Berto, R., 2005. Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional
capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25, 249–259.
Berto, R., Baroni, M., Zainaghi, A., Bettella, S., 2010. An exploratory study of the
effect of high and low fascination environments on attentional fatigue. Journal
of Environmental Psychology 30, 494–500.
British Psychological Society, 2010. Code of human research ethics. Leicester, Author.
Cohen, S., Spacapan, S., 1978. The aftereffects of stress: an attentional interpretation.
Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior 3, 43–57.
Driver, J., 2001. A selective review of selective attention research from the past
century. British Journal of Psychology 92, 53–78.
Drosletis, O., Vignoles, V., 2010. Towards an integrative model of place identification:
dimensionality and predictors of intrapersonal-levels place preferences. Journal
of Environmental Psychology 30, 23–34.
Ferguson, C., 2009. An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians and researchers.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 40, 532–538.
Galindo, M., Rodriguez, C., 2000. Environmental aesthetics and psychological wellbeing: relationships between preference judgments for urban landscapes and
other relevant affective responses. Psychology in Spain 2000 (4), 13–27.
Grahn, P., Stigsdotter, U., 2003. Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forestry and
Urban Greening 2, 1–18.
Grahn, P., Stigsdotter, U., 2010. The relation between perceived sensory dimensions
of urban green space and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning 94,
264–275.
Han, K., 2003. A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of
natural environments. Landscape and Urban Planning 64, 209–232.
Han, K., 2010. An exploration of relationships among responses to natural scenes:
scenic beauty, preference, and restoration. Environment and Behavior 42,
243–270.
169
Hartig, T., Evans, G., Jamner, L., Davis, D., Garling, T., 2003. Tracking restoration
in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23,
109–123.
Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G., Gärling, T., 1996. Validation of a measure of perceived
environmental restorativeness. Göteburg Psychological Reports 26, 1–64.
Hartig, T., Mang, M., Evans, G., 1991. Restorative effects of natural environment
experiences. Environment and Behavior 23, 3–26.
Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G., Gärling, T., 1997. A measure of restorative quality
in environments. Scandanavian Housing and Planning Research 14, 175–194.
Hartig, T., Staats, H., 2006. The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology 26,
215–226.
Hernández, B., Hidalgo, C., 2005. Effect of urban vegetation on psychological restorativeness. Psychological Reports 96, 1025–1028.
Herzog, T., 1985. A cognitive analysis of preference for waterscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 5, 225–241.
Herzog, T., Black, A., Fountaine, K., Knotts, D., 1997. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 17, 165–176.
Herzog, T., Chen, H., Primeau, J., 2002. Perception of the restorative potential of
natural and other settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 22, 295–306.
Herzog, T., Maguire, C., Nebel, M., 2003. Assessing the restorative components of
environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23, 159–170.
Hipp, J., Ogunseitan, O., 2011. Effect of environmental conditions on perceived psychological restorativeness of coastal parks. Journal of Environmental Psychology
31, 421–429.
Joye, Y., van den Berg, A., 2011. Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of
evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research. Urban Forestry
and Urban Greening 10, 261–268.
Kaplan, R., 1977. Patterns of environmental preference. Environment and Behavior
9, 195–216.
Kaplan, S., 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: towards an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15, 169–182.
Kaplan, S., Berman, M., 2010. Directed attention as a common resource for executive
functioning and self-regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5, 43–57.
Karmanov, D., Hamel, R., 2008. Assessing the restorative potential of contemporary
urban environment(s): beyond the nature versus urban dichotomy. Landscape
and Urban Planning 86, 115–125.
Kjellgren, A., Buhrkall, H., 2010. A comparison of the restorative effect of a natural
environment with that of a simulated natural environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30, 464–472.
Knez, I., 2005. Attachment and identity as related to place and its perceived climate.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 25, 207–218.
Korpela, K., Ylén, M., 2009. Effectiveness of favorite-place prescriptions: a field
experiment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 36, 435–438.
Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., Bacon, J., 2004a. Effect of activity involvement and
place attachment on recreationists’ perceptions of setting density. Journal of
Leisure Research 36, 209–231.
Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R., Bacon, J., 2004b. Effects of place attachment on users’
perceptions of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting. Journal
of Environmental Psychology 24, 213–225.
Kyle, G., Mowen, A., Tarrant, M., 2004. Linking place preferences with place meaning: an examination of the relationship between place motivation and place
attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24, 439–454.
Lalli, M., 1992. Urban-related identity: theory, measurement, and empirical findings.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 12, 285–303.
Laumann, K., Garling, T., Stormark, K.M., 2001. Rating scale measures of restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21,
31–44.
Martens, D., Gutscher, H., Bauer, N., 2011. Walking in ‘wild’ and ‘tended’ urban
forests: the impact on psychological well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology 31, 36–44.
Nisbit, E., Zelenski, J., 2011. Underestimating nearby nature: affective forecasting errors obscure the happy path to sustainability. Psychological Science 22,
1101–1106.
Pals, R., Steg, L., Siero, F., van der Zee, K., 2009. Development of the PRCQ: a measure
of the perceived restorativeness of zoo attractions. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 441–449.
Peron, E., Berto, R., Purcell, T., 2002. Restorativeness, preference, and the
perceived naturalness of places. Medio Ambiente y Comporamiento Humano 3,
19–34.
Perrin, J., Benassi, V., 2009. The connectedness to nature scale: a measure of emotional connection to nature? Journal of Environmental Psychology 29, 434–440.
Proshansky, H., 1978. The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior 10,
147–169.
Ryan, R., Weinstein, N., Bernstein, J., Brown, K., Mistretta, L., Gagné, M., 2010. Vitalizing effects of being outdoors and in nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology
30, 159–168.
Sanesi, G., Lafortezza, R., Bonnes, M., Carrus, C., 2006. Comparison of two different approaches for assessing the psychological and social dimensions of green
spaces. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 5, 121–129.
Scannell, L., Gifford, R., 2010. Defining place attachment: a tripartite organizing
framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30, 1–10.
Scopelliti, M., Giluliani, M., 2004. Choosing restorative environments across the lifespan: a matter of place experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24,
423–437.
170
S. Wilkie, A. Stavridou / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 12 (2013) 163–170
Staats, H., Kievet, A., Hartig, T., 2003. Where to recover from attentional fatigue: an
expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23, 147–157.
Stigsdotter, U., Grahn, P., 2011. Stressed individuals’ preference for activities and
environmental characteristics in green spaces. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 10, 295–304.
Ulrich, R., 1979. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape Research
4, 17–23.
van den Berg, A.E., Koole, S., Van der Wulp, N., 2003. Environmental preference and
restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology 23,
135–146.
Van der Linden, D., Frese, M., Meijman, T., 2003. Mental fatigue and the control of
cognitive processes: effects on perseveration and planning. Acta Psychologia
113, 45–65.
White, E., Gatersleben, B., 2011. Greenery on residential buildings: does it affect
preferences and perceptions of beauty? Journal of Environmental Psychology,
89–98.
White, M., Smith, A., Humphryes, K., Pahl, S., Snelling, D., Depledge, M., 2010. Blue
space: the importance of water for preference, affect and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (4),
482–493.