IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i11p6464-d570032.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychological Restoration and the Effect of People in Nature and Urban Scenes: A Laboratory Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Chris Neale

    (Center for Design & Health, School of Architecture, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA)

  • Stephanie Lopez

    (Department of Urban and Environmental Planning, School of Architecture, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA)

  • Jenny Roe

    (Center for Design & Health, School of Architecture, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA)

Abstract

It is well-evidenced that exposure to natural environments increases psychological restoration as compared to non-natural settings, increasing our ability to recover from stress, low mood, and mental fatigue and encouraging positive social interactions that cultivate social cohesion. However, very few studies have explored how the inclusion of people within a given environment—either urban or natural settings—affect restorative health outcomes. We present three laboratory-based studies examining, first, the effect of nature vs. urban scenes, and second, investigating nature ‘with’ vs. ‘without’ people—using static and moving imagery—on psychological restoration and social wellbeing. Our third study explores differences between urban and natural settings both with vs. without people, using video stimuli to understand potential restorative and social wellbeing effects. Outcome measures across all studies included perceived social belonging, loneliness, subjective mood, and perceived restorativeness. Studies 1 and 2 both used a within group, randomized crossover design. Study 1 ( n = 45, mean age = 20.7) explored static imagery of environmental conditions without people; findings were consistent with restorative theories showing a positive effect of nature exposure on all outcome measures. Study 2 compared nature scenes with vs. without people ( n = 47, mean age = 20.9) and we found no significant differences on our outcome measures between either social scenario, though both scenarios generated positive wellbeing outcomes. Study 3, conducted on Amazon Mechanical Turk, employed an independent group design with subjects randomly assigned to one of four conditions; an urban vs. nature setting, with vs. without people. We explored the effect of moving imagery on psychological restoration ( n = 200, mean age = 35.7) and our findings showed no impact on belonging, loneliness, or mood between conditions, but did show that—regardless of the inclusion of people—the nature settings were more restorative than the urban. There were no differences in psychological restoration between nature conditions with vs. without people. We discuss the implications for restorative environment research exploring social-environmental interactions.

Suggested Citation

  • Chris Neale & Stephanie Lopez & Jenny Roe, 2021. "Psychological Restoration and the Effect of People in Nature and Urban Scenes: A Laboratory Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6464-:d:570032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6464/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6464/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katinka H. Evensen & Helena Nordh & Ramzi Hassan & Aslak Fyhri, 2021. "Testing the Effect of Hedge Height on Perceived Safety—A Landscape Design Intervention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hongqidi Li & Xueyan Du & Huirui Ma & Zhimeng Wang & Yue Li & Jianping Wu, 2022. "The Effect of Virtual-Reality-Based Restorative Environments on Creativity," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-38, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:11:p:6464-:d:570032. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.