Relations between naturalness and perceived

01. CARRUS:01. CARRUS 09/08/13 11:17 Página 227

Relations between naturalness and perceived restorativeness of different urban green spaces

1

GIUSEPPE CARRUS1, 4, RAFFAELE LAFORTEZZA2, GIUSEPPE COLANGELO2, IVANA DENTAMARO2, MASSIMILIANO2SCOPELLITI3, 4 AND 3GIOVANNI SANESI2

University of Roma Tre, Italy; University of Bari, Italy; LUMSA University, Italy; 4CIRPAInteruniversity Research Centre on Environmental Psychology, Italy

Abstract Green spaces have positive effects on human well-being and quality of life in cities. So far, studies in this field mainly compared preferences for, and outcomes of contact with, natural vs. built environments. Less attention has been given to the study of the psychological effects of contact with green spaces differing in their degree of naturalness. This paper thus aims at understanding the relation between ecological (e.g., level of naturalness) and psychological factors (e.g., perceived restorativeness) in shaping evaluations of different urban and peri-urban green spaces. Five typologies of green space have been identified in the city of Bari (southern Italy), ranging from minimum (i.e., high level of man-made elements) to maximum levels of naturalness (i.e., low level of man-made elements). A set of pictures of the different urban green space typologies was shown to fifty undergraduate students of the University of Bari, and then measures of perceived restorativeness were taken. Results show that perceived restorativeness is the highest in peri-urban green spaces, and increases significantly as a function of the level of naturalness. Keywords: Naturalness, perceived restorativeness, urban green space typologies.

Las relaciones entre la naturalidad y el potencial restaurador percibido de diferentes zonas verdes urbanas Resumen Las zonas verdes tienen efectos positivos sobre el bienestar y la calidad de vida de los habitantes de las ciudades. Hasta el momento, los estudios en este campo han llevado a cabo fundamentalmente comparaciones entre las preferencias hacia ambientes naturales y las preferencias hacia ambientes construidos, así como entre las consecuencias del contacto con ambos ambientes. Pero se ha prestado menos atención al estudio de los efectos psicológicos del contacto con zonas verdes con distinto grado de naturalidad. Este artículo pretende por tanto ayudar a comprender la relación entre los factores ecológicos (nivel de naturalidad) y psicológicos (potencial restaurador percibido) y su efecto en las valoraciones de distintas zonas verdes urbanas y periurbanas. Se identificaron cinco tipologías de zona verde en la ciudad de Bari (sur de Italia), oscilando entre niveles mínimos (alta presencia de elementos de fabricación humana) y máximos (baja presencia de elementos de fabricación humana) de naturalidad. Se mostró un conjunto de fotografías de las distintas tipologías de zonas verdes urbanas a cincuenta estudiantes de grado de la Universidad de Bari, y a continuación se tomaron medidas de potencial restaurador percibido. Los resultados muestran que el potencial restaurador percibido más alto es el registrado en las zonas verdes periurbanas, y que aumenta significativamente en función del nivel de naturalidad. Palabras clave: Naturalidad, potencial restaurador percibido, tipologías de zonas verdes urbanas. English version in pages / Versión en inglés en páginas: 227-234 (References in pages / Referencias en páginas: 242-244) Spanish version in pages / Versión en español en páginas: 235-242 (Translation / Traducción: Miguel del Río) Authors’ Address / Correspondencia con los autores: Giuseppe Carrus. Università Roma Tre – Dipartimento di Scienze della Formazione. Via Milazzo 11b – 00185 Rome, Italy. T +39 06 57339819. F +39 06 44703879. E-mail: carrus@ uniroma3.it; [email protected] Manuscript received: July 19, 2012. Accepted: May 26, 2013. Original recibido: 19 de julio de 2012. Aceptado: 26 de mayo de 2013. © 2013 by Fundación Infancia y Aprendizaje, ISSN: 2171-1976

Psyecology, 2013, 4 (3), 227-244


228

Psyecology, 2013, 4 (3), pp. 227-244

Green spaces have positive effects on human well-being and quality of life in cities for many different reasons (Groenewegen, van den Berg, de Vries, & Verheij, 2006; Maller, Townsend, Brown, & St. Leger, 2002; Takano, Nakamura, & Watanabe, 2002). On the environmental side, they can mitigate atmospheric pollution (McPherson & Simpson, 1998; Nowak, 1994), noise (Fang & Ling, 2005; Gidlöf-Gunnarsson & Öhrström, 2007), microclimate (Dentamaro, Lafortezza, Colangelo, Carrus, & Sanesi, 2010; Lafortezza, Carrus, Sanesi, & Davies, 2009), and provide biodiversity (Alvey, 2006; Sanesi, PadoaSchioppa, Lorusso, Bottoni, & Lafortezza, 2009). On the social side, they promote social cohesion (Coley, Sullivan, & Kuo, 1997; Kuo, 2003; Maas, van Dillen, Verheij, & Groenewegen, 2009; Peters, Elands, & Buijs, 2010). More importantly, with reference to well-being, nearby residential green spaces promote physical activity (Pretty, Peacock, Sellens, & Griffin, 2005; Takano et al., 2002) and contribute to reducing health inequalities (Mitchell & Popham, 2008). Environmental psychological research has also accumulated converging evidence on the psychological benefits of contact with green spaces, such as recovery from stress and direct attention restoration (Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan, 2008; Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2003; Hartig, Evans, Jamner, Davis, & Gärling, 2003; Kaplan, 2001; Laumann, Gärling, & Stormark, 2003; Scopelliti & Giuliani, 2004; Ulrich et al., 1991; van den Berg, Hartig, & Staats, 2007; van den Berg, Koole, & van der Wulp, 2003). However, less attention has been given to the study of the psychological effects of contact with different typologies of green spaces. This paper addresses this issue by answering the question whether, and in which way, the perceived restorativeness of urban natural settings is linearly associated to the objective degree of naturalness of such settings, as assessed through commonly shared criteria among forestry science experts. The perceived restorativeness of urban nature A theoretical basis for many of the studies reviewed above is offered by theories either on stress reduction (Ulrich, 1983), on direct attention restoration (ART, Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989), or by integrative models on restorative environments (Kaplan, 1995). Many studies have investigated restoration by measuring actual changes in the physiological or psychological state of an individual, together with the analysis of the perceived environmental characteristics identified by ART as the basic mechanisms for psychological restoration (i.e., being away, fascination, extent – a combination of coherence and scope in the environment – and compatibility), and showed a strong association between restoration itself and the perception of these restorative environmental components, and thus between actual restoration and perceived restorativeness (e.g., Hartig, 2004). In addition, a positive relationship between perceived restorativeness, preference, and familiarity has been ascertained by previous studies (Hernandez, Hidalgo, Berto, & Peron, 2001; Purcell, Peron, & Berto, 2001). The majority of studies on restorative environments have compared natural and urban settings, and consistently found that people prefer and perceive as more restorative natural environments than urban ones (Berman et al., 2008; Berto, 2005; Hartig et al., 2003; Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991; Hernandez et al., 2001; Herzog, Maguire, & Nebel, 2003; Korpela & Hartig, 1996; Laumann et al., 2003; Purcell et al., 2001; Staats & Hartig, 2004; Ulrich et al., 1991). This can be explained because of the strong restorative qualities of natural settings. However, exceptions to this general pattern are worth noting, and can be informative about conditions for which this relation does not hold, or is moderated by other factors. For example, a work on wilderness by Koole and van den Berg (2005), showed that wilderness appreciation is hampered by mortality salience. Indeed, as these authors suggest, ancient fears of nature might still be present in contemporary urban dwellers, and can be triggered by exposure to particular kinds of wild nature (e.g., Bixler & Floyd,


Naturalness and restorativeness of urban green / G. Carrus et al.

1997). These reactions can be explained by different processes. For example, automatic reactions of fear (and escape) after detection of animal predators’ cues have been described as a basic mechanism in mammalian evolution (Öhman & Mineka, 2000). Other authors suggested the possibility of attitudinal ambivalence towards wilderness and urban nature, with people judging them both good and bad at the same time (Bonnes, Passafaro, & Carrus, 2011). In addition to the possible moderators of the relation between exposure to nature and psychological restoration (either actual or perceived), a relevant research question to be addressed is whether there is an association between the naturalness and restorative potential of environments. In fact, a rather unexplored issue relates to the perceived restorativeness of different types of urban green spaces. Studies investigating the perceived restorativeness of mixed natural and built scenes partly can help to address this question (e.g., Hernandez & Hidalgo, 2005; Nordh, Alalouch, & Hartig, 2011; Nordh, Hartig, Hagerhall, & Fry, 2009; Peron, Berto, & Purcell, 2002). For example, Peron et al. (2002) compared the perceived restorative benefits of different outdoor scenes belonging to three perceived naturalness categories: Natural, built, and scenes with intimate mixtures of natural and built elements. They found that mixed environments are often perceived as being the same as natural environments. Another study, conducted in Slovenia by Simoni (2006), examined urban landscapes with varying content and character of natural elements, structural complexity, spatial organization, etc. Findings ascertained that the particular character and spatial organization of the natural elements influenced perception and hence, preference for certain uses, and selection of landscape scenes as restorative environments. Tenngart, Ivarsson, and Hagerhall (2008) aimed to examine the perceived restorativeness of two types from the same mixed “built-natural” scene type (gardens) rather than contrasting built vs. natural settings. The result showed that different gardens obtained significantly different restorativeness scores. The bigger garden with a more natural character and open views of fields was perceived as more restorative than the smaller garden, characterized by very high maintenance and care level, and thus less natural. In a recent study, Felsten (2009) compared the perceived restorativeness of indoor campus settings that varied with their view of nature. College students were instructed to imagine themselves as cognitively fatigued, in an attempt to find an environment for a study break. The students rated settings with views of dramatic natural murals with trees, rolling hills, coasts and waterfalls as more restorative than settings with window views of real, but mundane nature, with built structures present. Settings that lacked views of real or simulated nature were rated as the least restorative. In sum, the literature reviewed here suggests that natural settings have greater restorative potential than built ones; individuals perceive nature as being highly restorative, and prefer nature over other settings. However, research in this field has not yet clarified enough whether, and in which ways, the perceived restorativeness and the objective degree of naturalness of urban natural settings are associated. In this paper, we present the result of a study exploring this issue. Aims and hypotheses This study aimed at assessing the perceived restorativeness of different typologies of urban green spaces, varying in the degree of naturalness. On the basis of the theories on restorative environments and related empirical studies reviewed so far, we expected that urban green space typologies characterized by higher a level of naturalness would have greater perceived restorative potential than those with lower levels. We also aimed at controlling for the possible confounding effects of familiarity, given its relation to perceived restorativeness (e.g., Hernandez et al., 2001; Purcell et al., 2001). In particular, our aim was to check whether the relation between naturalness and

229


230

Psyecology, 2013, 4 (3), pp. 227-244

perceived restorativeness applies to settings that are familiar and unfamiliar to the individual. Method Participants Data were gathered in June 2010. Fifty undergraduate students at the University of Bari, Italy were involved in this study (25 males and 25 females). Age ranged between 19 to 33 years (M = 25.2; SD = 3.3). No subjects were eliminated. Study stimuli Each participant was asked to assess a total of 10 color photographs of different typologies of urban green spaces. Because of the previously reported association between perceived restorativeness and familiarity, we wanted to rule out the possibility that the link between perceived restorativeness and naturalness occurs only for settings that are highly familiar to the subjects. Therefore, five pictures were taken from the city of Bari (southern Italy, where the participants lived) and five from another city (Cagliari, Sardinia). The photographs ranged from minimum levels of naturalness (i.e., high level of man-made elements) to maximum levels (i.e., minimum level of man-made elements). The photographs represented the following five typologies of urban green space: Urban square with trees and vegetation, urban forest, urban park, botanical garden, and periurban green area. The different urban green spaces were selected by forestry science experts as examples of settings with increasing levels of naturalness, on the basis of the following parameters: Species richness, degree of canopy closure, artificiality vs. naturalness, prospect, physical accessibility, and beauty, commonly used in the urban forestry science sector (e.g., Hofmann, Westermann, Kowarik, & van der Meer, 2012). In all typologies considered, man-made elements were always aesthetically pleasant. The photographs were taken on sunny summer days with similar light and weather conditions. The ten pictures used are reported in Figure 1. Procedure The study took place in a laboratory, without disturbance (noise, temperature too high or too low, other people, etc.). To control for the possible effects of sequence, for half of the subjects the presentation sequence was “Bari – Neutral City”; for the other half the sequence was “Neutral City – Bari”. The photographs were shown one at a time and stayed on the computer screen while subjects made their judgments on the first three parts of the questionnaire. When the subjects had completed the questions concerning a single picture, using as much time as they needed, the same procedure was repeated for the next picture. The procedure took approximately 30 minutes to complete. Participation was voluntary and a T-shirt was given to each participant as compensation. Measures The following measures were employed: 1) A short version of the Italian Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS/IT; Pasini, Berto, Scopelliti, & Carrus, 2009) was used to reduce the cognitive load for respondents. The short version of PRS/IT already was tested in the Italian context, and proved to be valid and reliable (Scopelliti et al. 2012). Following the theoretical framework proposed by Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) and empirically supported by Hartig, Korpela, Evans and Gärling (1997) in the development of the original PRS, it included five items, one for each of the restorative properties: Being-Away (“Spending time here gives me a good break from my day-to-day routine”), Fascination (“This place has fascinating qualities”),


Naturalness and restorativeness of urban green / G. Carrus et al.

FIGURE 1 Pictures of familiar and unfamiliar places used in the study

Familiar setting (Bari)

Unfamiliar setting (Cagliari)

Square

Urban Park

Pine-wood

Botanical garden

Peri-urban area

Coherence (“Things and activities that I see here are naturally integrated”), Scope (“There is much to explore and discover here”), Compatibility (“In this place I can do things I like”). 2) Single item measures of perceived naturalness (“This place is natural”) and familiarity (“This place is familiar to me”) , used in previous research (Purcell et al., 2001; van den Berg et al., 2003). All the items were rated on a five-point scale, ranging from 1 = “Not at all”, to 5 = “Very much”. Demographic questions concerning gender, age, and place of residence also were included. Results Manipulation Check To check for the manipulation of the naturalness of the settings, we compared the perceived naturalness scores through a repeated measures ANOVA, with p-level