- Email: [email protected]
To nature or not to nature: Associations between environmental preferences, mood states and demographic factors
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66 www.elsevier.com/locate/yjevp
To nature or not to nature: Associations between environmental preferences, mood states and demographic factors Clair L. Regan, Sandra A. Horn Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, University Road, Highfield, Southampton, Hants SO17 1BJ, UK Available online 13 March 2005
Abstract Thematic analysis of free-response questionnaires explored the role of mood states and demographic factors in moderating preferences for natural environments, in children and adults. Individual differences influenced overall preferences (nature or not nature) but had few significant effects on between-mood comparisons. Current theories on the restorative properties of natural environments suggest that (i) the stressed mood state would be associated most strongly with a preference for nature and (ii) that demographic factors would not strongly influence preference for nature in the stressed mood state. Results lend only partial support to these views. When the sample was divided into sub-categories by age, gender, rural/urban home environment, proportion of nature around home environment, nature hobbies and nature holidays, the mood state relaxed produced a greater percentage of nature preference responses than stressed. Stressed was, however, ranked first or second for preference for green nature in 10 of the 13 sub-groups. The implications of the findings are discussed in the light of restorative theories. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
We can never have enough of nature. We must be refreshed by the sight of inexhaustible vigour, vast and titanic features, the sea-coast with its wrecks, the wilderness with its living and its decaying trees, the thunder-cloud, and the rain. (Thoreau). I have never felt salvation in nature. I love cities above all. (Michelangelo). Are these two views at opposite poles, or is one opinion more typical than the other? We may assume that we are, to some degree, influenced by the environments we grew up in, our current residential location, our occupation, hobbies, age or gender when it comes to environmental preference. Can these factors be over-ridden under particular circumstances; do environmental preferences converge as a result of a particular trigger, e.g. mood? The belief that being in a natural environment is good for our mental (see Kellert, 1997, Chapter 1; Lundberg, 1998) and physical (see Parsons, 1991, 1995) health is E-mail address: [email protected] (C.L. Regan). 0272-4944/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.01.001
not new. Many medical professionals, among them Florence Nightingale, have encouraged people to go to the country to convalesce after illness. Research studies (e.g. Ulrich, 1984; Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991; Ulrich, Simons, Losito, & Fiorito, 1991; Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2001) appear to provide some validation for these views. The best known of these is Ulrich’s (1984) study. Ulrich examined hospital records for 23 pairs of cholecystectomy patients matched on a number of presurgery variables. Within each pair, one patient’s window view was of a natural scene, the other’s a brick wall. Ulrich found that those with natural views had shorter post-operative hospital stays, received fewer negative evaluative comments in nurses’ notes, and took fewer potent analgesics, than those in similar rooms with windows facing a wall. The two groups did not differ in the doses of anti-anxiety drugs taken and it therefore seems unlikely that the findings were mediated by differing stress levels. Theories (e.g. Ulrich, 1983; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich et al., 1991; Kaplan, 1995) have been developed to explain why being in a natural environment is
ARTICLE IN PRESS 58
C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
beneficial, and the term restorative environment (‘‘an environment in which the recovery of mental energies and effectiveness is enhanced’’ Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989, p. 6), has been used in describing its psychological benefits. Ulrich et al. (1991) and Ulrich (1983) argue that viewing or being around nature reduces stress. Ulrich et al. (see, for example, p. 202) cite and use Baum et al.’s (1985) definition: ‘‘stress is the process by which an individual responds psychologically, physiologically, and often with behaviours, to a situation that challenges or threatens well-being’’. If preference for nature is related to awareness of its restorative potential, a higher preference for nature should be evident when the need to experience its restorative properties is greatest—in the current study, when imagining feeling stressed. Korpela and colleagues (see below) conducted a series of studies on restoration, self-regulation and place preferences in Finnish populations. Korpela (1992) asked 17–18 year olds to write an essay about their favourite place. Eighty eight per cent of participants could easily identify one; however 11% ‘‘maintained that there were many places they enjoyed, that none of them were ‘number one’, or that their selection of a favourite place depended on their moods and feelings’’. The current study is concerned with this latter factor— to what extent does preference for place depend on moods and feelings? Korpela, however, was only interested in favourite places in general and found that the highest proportion of participants chose private homes (39%) and only 15% mentioned natural settings. A later study (Korpela & Hartig, 1996) used a withinparticipant design to look at favourite vs. unpleasant places vs. other scenes. Nature was not mentioned by any participants for the ‘‘unpleasant places’’ condition. Responses coded ‘‘home’’ were the most common favourite places (14%); closely followed by ‘naturally occurring water’ (13%) and then ‘‘greenery’’ (8%). Korpela, Hartig, Kaiser, and Fuhrer (2001) used a between-participants design to explore the type of places undergraduates describe when asked about a favourite place or an unpleasant place. Using content analysis, they found that natural environments were overrepresented in the favourite place answers (48%) and under-represented in the unpleasant place answers (5%). Korpela, Kytta, and Hartig (2002) have recently extended previous methodology to examine the favourite places of children. Their participants were 8–9 or 12–13 years from similar city centre areas. The data was collected via structured interviews using a questionnaire based on previous research. In contrast to results obtained from adolescents and young adults, natural settings did not predominate among the children’s favourite places. A trend was seen for girls to select natural settings as their favourite place more often than did boys but no associations were found between nature, age, and favourite places. Korpela et al. (2002) also
compared children whose favourite place was a natural one with the rest of the sample, to investigate whether natural favourite places were more associated with cognitive restoration and relaxation than were the others. They reported (p. 394) that ‘‘the children who identified a natural favourite place tended to agree with the need for cognitive restoration and relaxation as a reason to visit the place slightly more often than the children selecting other places (78% and 74%, respectively)’’. The current study was strongly influenced by Francis and Cooper-Marcus (1991), in which participants were asked about the types of environments they like to be in under particular conditions. This study is often cited as evidence that people intuitively feel that there are benefits of being around nature when stressed, despite the fact that the word ‘‘stress’’ was not mentioned to the participants. Francis and Cooper-Marcus wrote that their interest is ‘‘in what might be considered the ‘selfhelp’ environmental choices made by individuals feeling stressed or depressed’’ (p. 178). Their participants, architecture and landscape architecture students, were instructed: ‘‘think about some time in your lives when you were feeling low or depressed and remember going to a particular place or setting that helped to lift your spirits or to bring solace or relief’’ (p. 178). They were then asked to give a brief written description of the place. Content analysis of the resulting scripts showed that water, trees and plants were mentioned frequently. Although the study was influential in the development of the current one, neither the term ‘‘low’’ nor ‘‘depressed’’ has been used here, because it was felt that the use of specific mood states (rather than the vague term ‘‘low’’) would be more informative, from both theoretical and practical perspectives, and because ‘‘depressed’’ is generally perceived as a clinical condition and this study was concerned with moods common to the general population. The mood state in the current study thought to be most analogous to Francis and Cooper-Marcus’ description of ‘‘low or depressed’’, is upset rather than stressed (Francis and Cooper-Marcus use the term ‘‘upset’’ when describing their 1991 study in a later paper). It is worth noting, however, that participants in their study appear to have included a range of negative moods including stressed in their responses. In order to determine whether all negative moods elicit comparable responses, the mood scared was included, as well as stressed and upset in the current study. Korpela et al. (2001, p. 577) state that in Francis and Cooper-Marcus’ 1991 study, ‘‘natural features and a possibility for privacy were the most important attributes’’. To some extent this is true (when rank ordered, privacy was mentioned most often, meteorological elements second, water third, and trees/plants fourth, out of the ten qualities identified) but examination of the
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
data reveals that the actual percentages do not justify the conclusion that most people chose a place with natural features. ‘‘Private places in public settings’’ was mentioned by 47.2% of participants; meteorological elements by 39.3%; water by 37.1% and trees/plants by 33.7%. Green nature was mentioned by only a third of the sample. Surprisingly, a later study by Francis and Cooper-Marcus (1992) appears to have made less of an impact in the literature than the 1991 study, despite the larger sample and results more in keeping with the opinion that natural features are an important attribute in places chosen when experiencing negative moods. Stamps (1996, 1999) conducted meta-analyses in which the relative contribution of ‘‘respondent’’ (i.e. demographic) factors, were examined. Stamps (1999) reported correlations between demographic variables in various groups, using a range of environmental scenes. Across the studies, males’ and females’ preferences were highly correlated (but between both children aged 12 and under, and people aged over 12 years; and between special interest groups and other participants, correlations were low). It is possible that these results would have been different had only preferences for natural landscapes been included. Stamps (1996) found that across a range of five scene types (one of which could be termed natural), the place explained more of the variance (40%) than the people (10%). When only nature scenes were considered, this finding was reversed (people–29%; places–7%). This suggests that demographic differences are an important factor for nature scene preferences, something that tends to be overlooked in studies that simply make between place comparisons. Strumse (1996, p. 18) argued that ‘‘an examination of the role of demographics in visual landscape preference ? brings to the surface the more general issue of the universality of human nature vs. cultural variability’’. He describes how differences in preference attributable to characteristics of individuals would support a constructivist assumption, but ‘‘from the position of evolutionary psychology, cultural variability is not a challenge to claims of universality’’. In the current study, demographic factors are not explored solely to examine if a general desire to be around nature is associated with individual characteristics or circumstances. Of interest is the possibility that they may have a variable influence dependent on mood state, e.g. weaker for stressed.
1. Objectives of the present study From the existing literature there is no way of knowing if people are as likely, or more likely, to prefer natural settings when experiencing positive moods than
59
when their mood state is low. Furthermore, there is currently no literature on whether the apparent desire of individuals to be around natural environments when stressed is moderated by demographic factors, e.g. the environment in which they are currently living; their age (Francis and Cooper-Marcus only compared adolescent and adult responses); or other preferences, such as their choice of job or hobbies.
2. Research questions 1. Is there evidence to suggest that a stressed mood state is more likely to prompt people to seek out nature than are other mood states, particularly positive ones? 2. Is there evidence to suggest that demographic factors (gender; age; residential experience; experiences in nature) have less influence on likelihood to want to be around nature when stressed than they do for other mood states, particularly positive ones?
3. Design A within-participant design was employed in which information was elicited about seven mood states (excited, happy, ill or in pain, relaxed, scared, stressed, upset) via a questionnaire that consisted of sentences to be completed by the participants and some forced choice alternatives e.g.: When I feel really (e.g. happy) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
for example ifyyyyyyyyyyyyyy I like to go toyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy I like this place becauseyyyyyyyyyyy it looks and sounds likeyyyyyyyyyyy I like to go alone/with a group of people/with only one other person
The same format was used for each mood state and biographical questions were interspersed. The child and adult versions were phrased slightly differently and eight versions of each type of questionnaire were used so that the mood states could be presented in different orders. Despite not technically being a mood state, ‘‘ill or in pain’’ was included as a variable as this type of research is often applied to health-care settings, possibly due to the influence of Ulrich’s (1984) study. Although Ulrich (p. 421) points out that his findings would not necessarily generalize to other patient groups, the results suggest that there may be benefits of being in/viewing natural environments when ill or in pain as well as when stressed. This variable will be referred to as ‘‘ill’’ throughout this paper.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 60
C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
Between-participant comparisons were also carried out using the biographical data (i.e. sex, age, occupation, hobbies, ideal choice of holiday, residential factors).
4. Methodology 4.1. Participants Of the 417 participants, 43% were children (n ¼ 178: 39.3% male; age range ¼ 6–17 years; median age ¼ 13 years; mean age ¼ 13.28 years, S.D. ¼ 2.759). They were recruited mainly from schools in Hampshire but also from a school in Greater Manchester. The adults (n ¼ 239: 38.5% male, 61.1% female; age range ¼ 18–76 years; median age ¼ 41 years; mean age ¼ 37.42 years, S.D. ¼ 16.256) were recruited by various means and included students (psychology and other); and University Retired Staff Club members. 4.2. Procedure The children attended schools in leafy city suburbs. They completed the questionnaires individually within the classroom environment. The majority of the adults completed the questionnaires unsupervised. The mood state questions were presented in eight different sequences to reduce order effects. The participants were also asked about their age; sex; current and previous environments lived in; perception of amount of nature around their home; occupation; hobbies; and holidays. The first 250 questionnaires were used, in conjunction with relevant literature (Francis & Cooper-Marcus, 1991; Hart, 1979; Malinowski & Thurber, 1996), to develop a codebook for thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998) in which data is classified in a binary manner (present or absent) for each theme. The adult and child versions of the questionnaire differed somewhat in the way questions were phrased but, as these differences were minor, all the data was considered together in developing the codebook. Inter-rater reliability (percentage agreement of presence between the first author and an independent rater) was 76.4%. A minimum of 70% is typically considered acceptable in this type of research (Boyatzis, 1998, p. 156).
5. Results The first research question (is there evidence to suggest that a stressed mood state is more likely to prompt people to seek out nature than are other mood states y?) sought to address the issue of whether there is a hierarchical association between mood states and a desire to be around nature, and if so whether this is compatible with the idea that preference for natural environments
is influenced by an evolutionary predisposition to seek restoration from stress in such environments. It was also noted that the literature predicted similar, but weaker, preferences to be around nature when ill or upset. The second research question concerned the impact of demographic influences on desire to be around nature. Previous literature predicted these would be reduced for stressed and possibly also ill or upset relative to when thinking about positive mood states. All response rates for the mood state questions were above 80%; even when the sample was split into adults and children. There was less missing data relating to positive moods (relaxed; happy; excited) than to negative moods (scared; stressed; upset). The exception to this was ill. When the independent variables were examined, the children and adults were found to differ in terms of residential background. The children were most likely to state they lived in city suburbs, while the adults reported living in smaller population density areas. Participants also responded to items from which the relative proportion of natural to urban features in their current home location could be determined. There was no difference in the percentage of adult and child responses coded as having ‘‘equal amounts of natural and urban features around home location’’ (65% and 68%, respectively); however, a higher percentage of the adults made responses coded as ‘‘more natural than urban features around home location’’ than did the children (32% vs. 17%). This is not surprising, considering the adults also reported living in less populated areas than did the children (adults—city: 28%, town: 44%, rural: 28%; children—city: 67%, town: 17%, rural: 16%). When previous home locations were examined, the adults clearly show greater experience with all location types; the differences between groups were significant in all instances. Taken together, the current and previous home location data suggest that residential experience was as great a differentiating variable between these two groups as was age. Despite the diversity of places from which both adults and children were recruited, the biographical differences between the two groups, mean that direct comparisons for the dependent variables would be inappropriate; age comparisons were made, however, within the groups. The children were split into four groups based on the school system (infant: 6–7 years, n ¼ 7; top junior: 10–11 years, n ¼ 66; senior: 12–15 years, n ¼ 54; sixth form: 16–17 years, n ¼ 51). The adults were divided into wider age bands, with cutoff points determined by developmental stage The first band consisted primarily of students (18–25 years, n ¼ 90); the second, people settling down in terms of careers and/or family life (26–45 years, n ¼ 51); the third, people starting to look ahead to change, perhaps their children leaving home, retirement (46–60 years,
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
61
Table 1 Description of nature themes Label
Definition
Description of occurrence
Description of qualifications
Description of exclusions
Wild nature
Presence of trees; bushes and plants occurring naturally or large natural landscapes such as fields
Plants and trees found in area where they have not been specifically planted by humans. Theme can be assumed to be present when word ‘‘countryside’’ is used.
Most trees will have been planted by humans at some point but unless this is explicitly apparent, e.g. in an orchard this does not exclude the theme being present. Bushes and plants can be assumed to be wild unless being tended to, e.g. in a garden. Although not wild unless lying fallow, fields come under this theme
Plants other than those where it is apparent they are wild
Cultivated nature
Presence of plants and mowed lawns (either specifically stated or implied) that indicate human cultivation
Wherever there are cultivated elements of nature present such as grass and plants.
Natural water (NW)
Presence of naturally occurring water i.e. sea, river, waterfall, stream, noncommercial lakes
Green nature (GN)
Wild nature or cultivated nature
Any nature
GN or NW
Description either specifically states (e.g. lake) or implies (e.g. beach) presence of naturally occurring water Anything coded as wild nature or cultivated nature using criteria above Anything coded as green nature or natural water using criteria above
n ¼ 80); and the fourth group were either retired or close to that stage (60+ years, n ¼ 18). 5.1. Nature themes The nature themes are described in Table 1. The focus of interest was within participant data. Different frequencies of mentioning nature were found across mood states (see Table 2). Only data from participants who made at least one nature response was considered for within-participant comparisons (62.1% of the total sample; 72.8% of adults; 47.8% of children). Initial analyses revealed a much higher degree of concordance between the wild and cultivated nature themes than between either of these and the natural water theme. The preference for wild nature and cultivated nature themes was highest in both cases for the relaxed mood state, then stressed, then upset. Thus, preference for wild and cultivated nature could not be differentiated on the basis of mood. The pattern of preference for naturally occurring water, however, was
Presence has to be significant, e.g. either mentioned, or if not mentioned assumed to be present in large quantities, e.g. in a park Swimming only implies theme present if it is clear that this is not in a swimming pool
Bushes or trees where it is apparent that they are not wild, e.g. in an orchard Bushes and trees unless it is obvious that they are cultivated, e.g. orchard or in cultivated setting, e.g. garden Natural water
different. Again, relaxed produced the most responses for this theme, but this was followed by happy. As a result, the first two themes were combined into a ‘‘green nature’’ theme (GN), and naturally occurring water (NW) was considered separately. The combined GN theme was binary coded (GN present or GN absent) as in the original themes. The first set of analyses concerns the proportion of the total sample mentioning nature for at least one mood state; the second makes comparisons across moods and only uses data from those participants who mentioned nature at least once. 5.2. Proportion of the ‘‘mentioned nature at least once’’ sub-sample who made nature responses for each mood state Having nature hobbies, liking nature holidays, and living in nature dominated/ low population areas were all associated with a higher likelihood of wanting to be around GN (see Table 3). No association was found between either gender or age and mentioning GN.
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
62
Table 2 Rank order (and percentage) of total sample ðn ¼ 417Þ mentioning each type of nature for each mood state
Wild nature Cultivated nature Natural water Green nature Any nature
Excited
Happy
Ill
Relaxed
5 6 4 5 5
4 3 2 4 3
7 5 6 6 6
1 1 1 1 1
(4.1) (1.6) (4.9) (5.5) (9.8)
(8.3) (4.0) (9.4) (12.4) (18.0)
(2.1) (2.4) (3.2) (4.5) (7.2)
(12.4) (8.6) (17.4) (20.7) (33.8)
Scared
Stressed
Upset
6 6 7 6 7
2 2 3 2 2
3 3 4 3 4
(3.0) (1.5) (2.7) (4.4) (5.6)
(11.7) (6.0) (7.1) (17.7) (21.9)
(9.6) (4.0) (4.5) (13.3) (16.7)
Note. Percentages within o.05 of each other are tied in terms of rank. Table 3 Significant associations between demographic factors and mentioning green nature n
Demographic factor
Nature hobbies 389 Nature holidays 356 Amount of nature in area currently lived in 328 Type of place currently lived in 387
df w2
p
1 1 2 1
o.001 o.001 o.005 o.05
23.039 18.617 11.607 6.406
Table 4 Significant associations between demographic factors and mentioning natural water Demographic factor
n
df
w2
p
Nature hobbies Nature holidays
389 356
1 1
4.837 8.723
o.05 o.005
People who had nature hobbies and nature holidays were more likely to mention NW than the rest of the sample (see Table 4). There was no association between gender, age, or residential factors, and NW. Having nature hobbies and liking nature holidays both increased the likelihood of mentioning GN and NW; residential factors influenced desire to be around GN but not NW. There was a significant correlation between mentioning nature holidays and nature hobbies (r ¼ :248; po:001). There was also a significant correlation between ‘‘proportion of nature’’ and ‘‘type of place currently lived in’’; as population density decreased the proportion of nature increased (r ¼ :402; po:01). Only 12 participants mentioned nature occupations. They did not differ significantly from the rest of the sample in mentioning GN or NW, and no further comparative analyses were made using these data. 5.3. Demographic factors within the ‘‘mentioned nature at least once’’ sub-sample and mentioning nature for the different mood states For the second set of analyses the question was: is there an association between mentioning nature for any of the different mood states and demographic factors? In
order to answer this question, the sample was reduced to those participants who mentioned the relevant nature theme at least once (GN: n ¼ 200; NW: n ¼ 139). 5.4. Rank orders The percentage of participants who made GN responses for each mood ranged from 9.1% to 42.3%; those mentioning NW, from 7.0% to 51.1% (see Table 5). This suggests that desire to be around nature may indeed vary according to mood state. It was thought that if people were more drawn to nature when stressed than at other times, a larger percentage would mention the nature themes for stressed than for other mood states. However, from Table 5 it can be seen that nature themes were mentioned most often for relaxed. It was also suggested that upset and ill would result in a higher proportion of nature responses than the positive mood states; this was true of upset for GN but not for NW. Ill had a low ranking, in terms of proportion of responses, for both themes. As with upset, stressed appeared less associated with NW than with GN. Approximately the same proportion of people mentioned GN and NW for happy (GN—25.1%; NW—26.4%). A higher proportion of people mentioned GN for stressed (35.8%) than for happy, whereas the proportion preferring NW when stressed (20.3%) was lower. In order to determine the influence of demographic factors on associations between mood and desire to be around nature, categories were formed that reflected possible moderating factors (see Tables 6 and 7). From the rankings above, it is apparent that preference for natural environments was strongest overall when participants imagined feeling relaxed. For NW, relaxed was consistently ranked first with happy tending to rank second. For GN, however, the relative proportions of people mentioning GN for each mood state suggest that women more than men, children more than adults, and people who may be assumed to have less regular contact with nature (e.g. via home location, hobbies or holidays) are as likely or more likely to think of nature as a place they would like to be when stressed as when relaxed. Stressed was ranked first or second for (percentage of participants mentioning) GN in 10 of the 13 sub-groups. These results indicate that the relative
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
63
Table 5 Rank order (and percentage) of sub-samples mentioning each type of nature for each mood state
Green nature Natural water
n
Excited
Happy
Ill
Relaxed
Scared
Stressed
Upset
200 139
5 (11.4) 4 (14.8)
4 (25.1) 2 (26.4)
6 (9.2) 6 (9.5)
1 (42.3) 1 (51.1)
6 (9.1) 7 (7.0)
2 (35.8) 3 (20.3)
3 (26.7) 5 (12.7)
Note. Only includes participants who mentioned the relevant nature theme for at least one mood state. Percentages within o.05 of each other are tied in terms of rank.
Table 6 Rank order (and percentage) of sub-groups mentioning green nature for each mood state na
Excited
Happy
Ill
Relaxed
Scared
Stressed
Upset
Sex Male Female
69 110
5 (15.6) 6 (8.2)
4 (19.2) 3 (29.1)
7 (9.7) 5 (8.8)
1 (42.1) 1 (42.7)
6 (14.3) 7 (5.9)
3 (26.9) 2 (41.5)
2 (30.2) 4 (24.3)
Age Adult Child
125 54
6 (7.5) 4 (20.0)
3 (30.2) 6 (13.0)
7 (7.0) 5 (14.0)
1 (48.2) 2 (28.1)
5 (9.9) 7 (7.4)
2 (33.1) 1 (42.3)
4 (28.0) 3 (23.5)
Nature hobby Yes No
68 104
5 (14.7) 5 (9.6)
4 (25.4) 4 (22.9)
7 (8.5) 5 (9.3)
1 (51.9) 2 (35.4)
6 (10.2) 7 (8.7)
2 (36.4) 1 (36.3)
3 (30.0) 3 (25.0)
Nature hols. Yes No
58 105
7 (8.6) 5 (12.4)
3 (31.0) 4 (20.9)
4 (16.4) 7 (5.6)
1 (54.8) 2 (34.8)
6 (14.5) 6 (6.1)
2 (39.7) 1 (35.6)
4 (16.1) 3 (29.8)
Prop. nature More Equal/less
48 111
5 (12.5) 5 (11.3)
2 (35.6) 4 (21.6)
7 (8.2) 7 (8.0)
1 (52.0) 1 (40.9)
6 (11.1) 6 (8.2)
3 (29.8) 2 (37.8)
4 (25.0) 3 (24.1)
Area lived in Rural Town City
49 51 67
6 (8.2) 6 (6.5) 4 (16.4)
2 (39.6) 4 (25.9) 4 (16.2)
7 (6.0) 7 (5.6) 6 (14.7)
1 (50.0) 1 (51.8) 2 (31.5)
5 (10.9) 5 (9.1) 7 (7.7)
3 (32.0) 2 (29.2) 1 (42.9)
4 (20.8) 2 (29.4) 2 (31.3)
Note. Only includes participants who mentioned green nature for at least one mood state. Percentages within o.05 of each other are tied in terms of rank. a Median number of participants contributing to each row (exact numbers for each cell vary due to missing data).
association between being stressed and wanting to be around nature is stronger for GN than for NW. 5.5. Statistical analyses The alpha level was adjusted (Bonferroni correction) to .007 for comparisons of the seven mood states on each demographic factor. For GN, based on the rank orders, responses to stressed appeared to be less influenced by demographic factors, than relaxed. The differences did not reach statistical significance, however. Having nature hobbies (n ¼ 119; df ¼ 1; w2 ¼ 8:459; po:005) and being in the 23–45 age group (n ¼ 86; df ¼ 3; w2 ¼ 11:547; po:01) were significantly associated with a preference for NW. Those with nature hobbies were more likely than the rest of the sample to mention NW for stressed. Age appeared
to have some association with responses to upset in that a much higher proportion of the 23–45 age group mentioned nature for this mood state than did the rest of the adult sample (18–22 years: 3.4%; 23–45 years: 38.8%; 46–60 years: 16.7%; 60+ years: 0%).
6. Discussion 6.1. Mentioning the nature themes at least once Consistent with Korpela (1992), less than two-thirds of the participants mentioned either of the nature themes (GN or NW) at least once. Although preference for nature for stressed relative to other mood states was of interest, rather than the overall proportion of people mentioning nature, the latter factor did reduce the
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
64
Table 7 Rank order (and percentage) of sub-groups mentioning natural water for each mood state na
Excited
Happy
Ill
Relaxed
Scared
Stressed
Upset
Sex Male Female
42 82
5 (14.6) 4 (14.8)
3 (20.9) 2 (29.3)
4 (15.9) 6 (6.1)
1 (50.0) 1 (51.7)
6 (11.1) 7 (5.1)
2 (25.0) 3 (18.1)
7 (9.5) 5 (14.3)
Age Adult Child
85 40
5 (7.7) 2 (27.3)
2 (25.9) 2 (27.5)
7 (5.8) 4 (17.5)
1 (55.4) 1 (41.9)
6 (6.7) 6 (7.7)
3 (21.4) 4 (17.9)
4 (15.1) 6 (7.5)
Nature hobby Yes No
42 77
5 (14.6) 3 (14.5)
2 (38.1) 2 (19.2)
7 (4.8) 5 (11.5)
1 (51.1) 1 (49.4)
6 (8.6) 7 (6.6)
3 (35.7) 4 (13.0)
4 (17.4) 6 (10.4)
Nature hols. Yes No
42 74
5 (11.9) 4 (15.5)
2 (35.9) 2 (20.0)
6 (7.1) 6 (11.0)
1 (50.0) 1 (50.0)
7 (5.4) 7 (5.6)
3 (28.6) 3 (16.2)
4 (15.8) 5 (11.8)
Prop. nature More Equal/less
27 77
4 (14.8) 5 (12.2)
3 (22.2) 2 (26.7)
4 (14.8) 6 (7.8)
1 (53.6) 1 (50.6)
7 (7.4) 7 (4.3)
2 (30.8) 3 (17.7)
4 (14.8) 4 (14.1)
Area lived in Rural Town City
30 43 43
7 (3.6) 5 (12.5) 2 (20.5)
2 (34.5) 2 (23.3) 2 (20.9)
5 (6.7) 6 (9.3) 7 (7.0)
1 (50.0) 1 (59.6) 1 (43.8)
4 (10.0) 7 (2.6) 6 (7.9)
2 (34.5) 3 (13.6) 4 (17.5)
5 (6.7) 3 (13.6) 5 (15.9)
Note. Only includes participants who mentioned natural water for at least one mood state. Percentages within o.05 of each other are tied in terms of rank. a Median number of participants contributing to each row (exact numbers for each cell vary due to missing data).
power for between-participant comparisons. Despite this, it is still possible to make some general conclusions regarding the relationship between demographic factors and preference for natural environments: 1. Factors relating to where participants lived were thought most likely to influence their declared preference for nature. The post hoc variable ‘‘perception of proportion of nature around home location’’ was expected to be a reliable measure of access to nature. As only 26 people were coded as living in places with fewer natural than urban features, however, it appears that the sample was skewed in the range of environments people live in. Nevertheless, the amount of nature in the home environment does appear to have some influence on the proportion of people mentioning GN. This may, however, have been due to unequal numbers in the cells and it would not, therefore, be advisable to read too much into this finding. The ‘‘type of place currently lived in’’ (rural/village; town; or city) can, however, be considered an appropriate substitute to draw conclusions about the effect of access to nature, as this variable was significantly correlated with ‘‘proportion of nature around home location’’. Support is provided for the tentative findings of the ‘‘proportion of nature’’ analyses in that the rural/village group contained the highest proportion of people mentioning GN.
2. Having nature hobbies was highly correlated with a preference for nature holidays. Both factors were related to a greater likelihood of mentioning nature. This is consistent with previous studies showing that people in special interest nature groups, e.g. environmental organizations, have higher overall preferences for natural landscapes (see Strumse, 1996). 3. Gender was not associated with mentioning either GN or NW, a finding consistent with the meta-analysis conducted by Stamps (1999) for landscape preference in general, but not with Strumse’s (1996) finding that women had significantly higher preferences for green grassy fields and flowers than did men. 4. The age group data suggests that mentioning NW is not influenced by age but that mentioning GN might be. Based on the analyses here, however, it is not possible to draw any conclusions about what effect, if any, age has over and above that of home location (the majority of the 18–25 year old group, for instance were students and would probably have been living in areas of the city that were less expensive and therefore may have had less access to nearby nature). Korpela et al. (2001), report that their child participants mentioned nature less than did adults and adolescents in previous studies. This was also the case here; however, differences in the home environment variables prevent any conclusions being drawn.
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
Overall, the analyses in this section indicated that demographic factors, in particular home location, had more of an influence on desire to be around GN than desire to be around NW. Those participants with more nature around their homes were more likely to mention wanting to be around GN at least once. Age may have influenced preference for GN but this was far from clear. The people who had nature hobbies and/or holidays were much more likely to mention wanting to be around nature for at least one mood state than were the rest of the sample. 6.2. Mentioning nature for each mood state The results of this study provided some tentative support for the view that there is a relationship between being stressed and wanting to be around nature. In cases where relaxed was not ranked first, stressed always assumed this position. The fact that people tended to say they wanted to be around nature more when relaxed than when stressed does not necessarily affect theories that nature is beneficial for people who are stressed. If it is assumed that most people who are feeling relaxed want to stay that way, this data suggests that people believe (consciously or otherwise) that going to a natural environment is a good way to go about this. Many people who are feeling stressed would rather feel relaxed; however, feeling stressed can be adaptive in some situations, e.g. to increase focus before deadlines. Many of the students in this sample gave impending exams or essay deadlines as an example of when they feel stressed and when asked where they like to be when feeling this way, gave answers such as ‘‘in the library’’ or ‘‘at my computer’’. 6.3. Demographic factors It was thought that individual characteristics would influence the overall proportion of participants mentioning nature themes but less so for stressed than for the other mood states. Access to nature, for instance, was expected to have an effect on the proportion of people mentioning going to nature overall (which to some extent it did). There were so few examples of demographic characteristics influencing responses for any mood state, however, that the second research question cannot adequately be answered. The demographic analyses fail to show any influence of social/ environmental factors that could have been responsible for inflating the findings for relaxed relative to those for stressed even though possible trends can be seen in the rank order data for GN (see above). This may, however, have been due to lack of power as it was not a case of ‘‘all mood state responses were affected by demographic factors’’, but rather ‘‘no mood state responses were affected by demographic factors’’.
65
7. Conclusion Rank order data suggested that mood state does have an influence on desire to be around nature, however, contrary to predictions from restoration theories this was not strongest for negative mood states. Both green nature and natural water environments were mentioned most frequently for relaxed. In the case of NW, this was followed by another positive mood state (happy). Two negative mood states (stressed and upset), however, resulted in the next highest frequencies of mentioning nature for GN. Ulrich’s stress reduction theory (see Ulrich, 1983; Ulrich et al., 1991) proposes that exposure to natural environments leads to a reduction in stress. The results obtained here suggest that nature (of any type) is associated primarily with relaxation, but that green nature may be sought more often than natural water when experiencing negative moods. The available data in this study did not allow for a thorough investigation of the influence of demographic factors. As expected, some (residential experience, leisure interests) did have an influence on declared preference for being around nature, however, there was no statistical support for the hypothesis that this influence would be reduced in times of stress. While it is recognized that descriptive data should be treated with extreme caution when not backed up statistically, the rank order data for GN in particular, does suggest that the influence of mood, on preference for nature (perhaps moderated by some demographic factors), is an area worthy of further investigation. This study could be improved upon by employing a design that allowed for responses to be made while participants actually experience different moods rather than relying on the use of imagined or remembered mood states. It is also limited by the adult and child samples appearing to come from different sub-populations (e.g. in terms of residential experience), therefore making it inappropriate to draw any conclusions regarding potential development influences between these two sub-groups. Nevertheless, despite the limitations above, this study has a tighter methodology and larger sample than many studies of its kind and thus makes an important contribution to the restorative environments literature. Although there is some research support for the view that people like to be in natural environments, there is little evidence to suggest that this preference is stronger when people experience, or think about, negative mood states. Despite this, the idea of nature as a restorative environment (originating from theories proposed by, e.g. Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich, 1983; Ulrich et al., 1991) is increasingly being reincorporated into health care and social settings. Examples include the use of hospital bed curtains with murals of nature scenes (see www.bedscapes.com) and
ARTICLE IN PRESS 66
C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
green gyms (see www.greengym.co.uk). This paper does not deny that nature may be restorative; however, it does suggest a need for caution before interpreting previous literature (e.g. Francis & Cooper-Marcus, 1991) as evidence that people intuitively feel there are benefits of being around nature when stressed and, therefore will appreciate opportunities to access nature when experiencing stress. Acknowledgements This research is part of the first author’s Ph.D. programme at the University of Southampton: Professor Bob Remington’s co-supervisory role in the development of the thesis is gratefully acknowledged. Sincere thanks are also due to Prof. Terry Hartig, Uppsala University, for his encouragement and constructive comments regarding earlier versions of this work. References Baum, A., Fleming, R., & Singer, J.E. (1985). Understanding environmental stress: Strategies for conceptual and methodological integration. In A. Baum, & J.E. Singer (Eds.), Advances in Environmental Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates, Vol 5, Methods and Environmental Psychology, 185–205. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Developing themes and codes. In Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Francis, C., & Cooper-Marcus, C. (1991). In J. Urbiba-Soria, P. Ortega-Andeane, & R. Bechtel (Eds.), Places people take their problems. Oklahoma City: EDRA. Francis, C., & Cooper-Marcus, C. (1992). Restorative places: Environment and emotional well-being. Boulder, Colorado, USA: EDRA. Hart, R. (1979). Place values and feelings. In Children’s experience of place (pp. 155–187). New York: Irvington. Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural-environment experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3–26. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature—toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Kellert, S. R. (1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Washington, DC: Island Press. Korpela, K. M. (1992). Adolescents favorite places and environmental self-regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 249–258. Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221–233. Korpela, K., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F., & Fuhrer, U. (2001). Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite places. Environment and Behavior, 33, 572–589. Korpela, K., Kytta, M., & Hartig, T. (2002). Restorative experience, self-regulation, and children’s place preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 387–398. Lundberg, A. E. (1998). The environment and mental health: A guide for clinicians. NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Malinowski, J. C., & Thurber, C. A. (1996). Developmental shifts in the place preferences of boys aged 8–16 years. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 45–54. Parsons, R. (1991). The potential influences of environmental perception on human health. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 1–23. Parsons, R. (1995). Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics—conundrum, canard or curiosity. Landscape And Urban Planning, 32, 227–244. Stamps, A. E. (1996). People and places: variance components of environmental preferences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 323–334. Stamps, A. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14, 155–175. Strumse, E. (1996). Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 17–31. Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Coping with ADD—the surprising connection to green play settings. Environment and Behavior, 33, 54–77. Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85–125). New York: Plenum. Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420–421. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., & Fiorito, E. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201–230.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66 www.elsevier.com/locate/yjevp
To nature or not to nature: Associations between environmental preferences, mood states and demographic factors Clair L. Regan, Sandra A. Horn Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, University Road, Highfield, Southampton, Hants SO17 1BJ, UK Available online 13 March 2005
Abstract Thematic analysis of free-response questionnaires explored the role of mood states and demographic factors in moderating preferences for natural environments, in children and adults. Individual differences influenced overall preferences (nature or not nature) but had few significant effects on between-mood comparisons. Current theories on the restorative properties of natural environments suggest that (i) the stressed mood state would be associated most strongly with a preference for nature and (ii) that demographic factors would not strongly influence preference for nature in the stressed mood state. Results lend only partial support to these views. When the sample was divided into sub-categories by age, gender, rural/urban home environment, proportion of nature around home environment, nature hobbies and nature holidays, the mood state relaxed produced a greater percentage of nature preference responses than stressed. Stressed was, however, ranked first or second for preference for green nature in 10 of the 13 sub-groups. The implications of the findings are discussed in the light of restorative theories. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
We can never have enough of nature. We must be refreshed by the sight of inexhaustible vigour, vast and titanic features, the sea-coast with its wrecks, the wilderness with its living and its decaying trees, the thunder-cloud, and the rain. (Thoreau). I have never felt salvation in nature. I love cities above all. (Michelangelo). Are these two views at opposite poles, or is one opinion more typical than the other? We may assume that we are, to some degree, influenced by the environments we grew up in, our current residential location, our occupation, hobbies, age or gender when it comes to environmental preference. Can these factors be over-ridden under particular circumstances; do environmental preferences converge as a result of a particular trigger, e.g. mood? The belief that being in a natural environment is good for our mental (see Kellert, 1997, Chapter 1; Lundberg, 1998) and physical (see Parsons, 1991, 1995) health is E-mail address: [email protected] (C.L. Regan). 0272-4944/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.01.001
not new. Many medical professionals, among them Florence Nightingale, have encouraged people to go to the country to convalesce after illness. Research studies (e.g. Ulrich, 1984; Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991; Ulrich, Simons, Losito, & Fiorito, 1991; Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2001) appear to provide some validation for these views. The best known of these is Ulrich’s (1984) study. Ulrich examined hospital records for 23 pairs of cholecystectomy patients matched on a number of presurgery variables. Within each pair, one patient’s window view was of a natural scene, the other’s a brick wall. Ulrich found that those with natural views had shorter post-operative hospital stays, received fewer negative evaluative comments in nurses’ notes, and took fewer potent analgesics, than those in similar rooms with windows facing a wall. The two groups did not differ in the doses of anti-anxiety drugs taken and it therefore seems unlikely that the findings were mediated by differing stress levels. Theories (e.g. Ulrich, 1983; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich et al., 1991; Kaplan, 1995) have been developed to explain why being in a natural environment is
ARTICLE IN PRESS 58
C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
beneficial, and the term restorative environment (‘‘an environment in which the recovery of mental energies and effectiveness is enhanced’’ Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989, p. 6), has been used in describing its psychological benefits. Ulrich et al. (1991) and Ulrich (1983) argue that viewing or being around nature reduces stress. Ulrich et al. (see, for example, p. 202) cite and use Baum et al.’s (1985) definition: ‘‘stress is the process by which an individual responds psychologically, physiologically, and often with behaviours, to a situation that challenges or threatens well-being’’. If preference for nature is related to awareness of its restorative potential, a higher preference for nature should be evident when the need to experience its restorative properties is greatest—in the current study, when imagining feeling stressed. Korpela and colleagues (see below) conducted a series of studies on restoration, self-regulation and place preferences in Finnish populations. Korpela (1992) asked 17–18 year olds to write an essay about their favourite place. Eighty eight per cent of participants could easily identify one; however 11% ‘‘maintained that there were many places they enjoyed, that none of them were ‘number one’, or that their selection of a favourite place depended on their moods and feelings’’. The current study is concerned with this latter factor— to what extent does preference for place depend on moods and feelings? Korpela, however, was only interested in favourite places in general and found that the highest proportion of participants chose private homes (39%) and only 15% mentioned natural settings. A later study (Korpela & Hartig, 1996) used a withinparticipant design to look at favourite vs. unpleasant places vs. other scenes. Nature was not mentioned by any participants for the ‘‘unpleasant places’’ condition. Responses coded ‘‘home’’ were the most common favourite places (14%); closely followed by ‘naturally occurring water’ (13%) and then ‘‘greenery’’ (8%). Korpela, Hartig, Kaiser, and Fuhrer (2001) used a between-participants design to explore the type of places undergraduates describe when asked about a favourite place or an unpleasant place. Using content analysis, they found that natural environments were overrepresented in the favourite place answers (48%) and under-represented in the unpleasant place answers (5%). Korpela, Kytta, and Hartig (2002) have recently extended previous methodology to examine the favourite places of children. Their participants were 8–9 or 12–13 years from similar city centre areas. The data was collected via structured interviews using a questionnaire based on previous research. In contrast to results obtained from adolescents and young adults, natural settings did not predominate among the children’s favourite places. A trend was seen for girls to select natural settings as their favourite place more often than did boys but no associations were found between nature, age, and favourite places. Korpela et al. (2002) also
compared children whose favourite place was a natural one with the rest of the sample, to investigate whether natural favourite places were more associated with cognitive restoration and relaxation than were the others. They reported (p. 394) that ‘‘the children who identified a natural favourite place tended to agree with the need for cognitive restoration and relaxation as a reason to visit the place slightly more often than the children selecting other places (78% and 74%, respectively)’’. The current study was strongly influenced by Francis and Cooper-Marcus (1991), in which participants were asked about the types of environments they like to be in under particular conditions. This study is often cited as evidence that people intuitively feel that there are benefits of being around nature when stressed, despite the fact that the word ‘‘stress’’ was not mentioned to the participants. Francis and Cooper-Marcus wrote that their interest is ‘‘in what might be considered the ‘selfhelp’ environmental choices made by individuals feeling stressed or depressed’’ (p. 178). Their participants, architecture and landscape architecture students, were instructed: ‘‘think about some time in your lives when you were feeling low or depressed and remember going to a particular place or setting that helped to lift your spirits or to bring solace or relief’’ (p. 178). They were then asked to give a brief written description of the place. Content analysis of the resulting scripts showed that water, trees and plants were mentioned frequently. Although the study was influential in the development of the current one, neither the term ‘‘low’’ nor ‘‘depressed’’ has been used here, because it was felt that the use of specific mood states (rather than the vague term ‘‘low’’) would be more informative, from both theoretical and practical perspectives, and because ‘‘depressed’’ is generally perceived as a clinical condition and this study was concerned with moods common to the general population. The mood state in the current study thought to be most analogous to Francis and Cooper-Marcus’ description of ‘‘low or depressed’’, is upset rather than stressed (Francis and Cooper-Marcus use the term ‘‘upset’’ when describing their 1991 study in a later paper). It is worth noting, however, that participants in their study appear to have included a range of negative moods including stressed in their responses. In order to determine whether all negative moods elicit comparable responses, the mood scared was included, as well as stressed and upset in the current study. Korpela et al. (2001, p. 577) state that in Francis and Cooper-Marcus’ 1991 study, ‘‘natural features and a possibility for privacy were the most important attributes’’. To some extent this is true (when rank ordered, privacy was mentioned most often, meteorological elements second, water third, and trees/plants fourth, out of the ten qualities identified) but examination of the
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
data reveals that the actual percentages do not justify the conclusion that most people chose a place with natural features. ‘‘Private places in public settings’’ was mentioned by 47.2% of participants; meteorological elements by 39.3%; water by 37.1% and trees/plants by 33.7%. Green nature was mentioned by only a third of the sample. Surprisingly, a later study by Francis and Cooper-Marcus (1992) appears to have made less of an impact in the literature than the 1991 study, despite the larger sample and results more in keeping with the opinion that natural features are an important attribute in places chosen when experiencing negative moods. Stamps (1996, 1999) conducted meta-analyses in which the relative contribution of ‘‘respondent’’ (i.e. demographic) factors, were examined. Stamps (1999) reported correlations between demographic variables in various groups, using a range of environmental scenes. Across the studies, males’ and females’ preferences were highly correlated (but between both children aged 12 and under, and people aged over 12 years; and between special interest groups and other participants, correlations were low). It is possible that these results would have been different had only preferences for natural landscapes been included. Stamps (1996) found that across a range of five scene types (one of which could be termed natural), the place explained more of the variance (40%) than the people (10%). When only nature scenes were considered, this finding was reversed (people–29%; places–7%). This suggests that demographic differences are an important factor for nature scene preferences, something that tends to be overlooked in studies that simply make between place comparisons. Strumse (1996, p. 18) argued that ‘‘an examination of the role of demographics in visual landscape preference ? brings to the surface the more general issue of the universality of human nature vs. cultural variability’’. He describes how differences in preference attributable to characteristics of individuals would support a constructivist assumption, but ‘‘from the position of evolutionary psychology, cultural variability is not a challenge to claims of universality’’. In the current study, demographic factors are not explored solely to examine if a general desire to be around nature is associated with individual characteristics or circumstances. Of interest is the possibility that they may have a variable influence dependent on mood state, e.g. weaker for stressed.
1. Objectives of the present study From the existing literature there is no way of knowing if people are as likely, or more likely, to prefer natural settings when experiencing positive moods than
59
when their mood state is low. Furthermore, there is currently no literature on whether the apparent desire of individuals to be around natural environments when stressed is moderated by demographic factors, e.g. the environment in which they are currently living; their age (Francis and Cooper-Marcus only compared adolescent and adult responses); or other preferences, such as their choice of job or hobbies.
2. Research questions 1. Is there evidence to suggest that a stressed mood state is more likely to prompt people to seek out nature than are other mood states, particularly positive ones? 2. Is there evidence to suggest that demographic factors (gender; age; residential experience; experiences in nature) have less influence on likelihood to want to be around nature when stressed than they do for other mood states, particularly positive ones?
3. Design A within-participant design was employed in which information was elicited about seven mood states (excited, happy, ill or in pain, relaxed, scared, stressed, upset) via a questionnaire that consisted of sentences to be completed by the participants and some forced choice alternatives e.g.: When I feel really (e.g. happy) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
for example ifyyyyyyyyyyyyyy I like to go toyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy I like this place becauseyyyyyyyyyyy it looks and sounds likeyyyyyyyyyyy I like to go alone/with a group of people/with only one other person
The same format was used for each mood state and biographical questions were interspersed. The child and adult versions were phrased slightly differently and eight versions of each type of questionnaire were used so that the mood states could be presented in different orders. Despite not technically being a mood state, ‘‘ill or in pain’’ was included as a variable as this type of research is often applied to health-care settings, possibly due to the influence of Ulrich’s (1984) study. Although Ulrich (p. 421) points out that his findings would not necessarily generalize to other patient groups, the results suggest that there may be benefits of being in/viewing natural environments when ill or in pain as well as when stressed. This variable will be referred to as ‘‘ill’’ throughout this paper.
ARTICLE IN PRESS 60
C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
Between-participant comparisons were also carried out using the biographical data (i.e. sex, age, occupation, hobbies, ideal choice of holiday, residential factors).
4. Methodology 4.1. Participants Of the 417 participants, 43% were children (n ¼ 178: 39.3% male; age range ¼ 6–17 years; median age ¼ 13 years; mean age ¼ 13.28 years, S.D. ¼ 2.759). They were recruited mainly from schools in Hampshire but also from a school in Greater Manchester. The adults (n ¼ 239: 38.5% male, 61.1% female; age range ¼ 18–76 years; median age ¼ 41 years; mean age ¼ 37.42 years, S.D. ¼ 16.256) were recruited by various means and included students (psychology and other); and University Retired Staff Club members. 4.2. Procedure The children attended schools in leafy city suburbs. They completed the questionnaires individually within the classroom environment. The majority of the adults completed the questionnaires unsupervised. The mood state questions were presented in eight different sequences to reduce order effects. The participants were also asked about their age; sex; current and previous environments lived in; perception of amount of nature around their home; occupation; hobbies; and holidays. The first 250 questionnaires were used, in conjunction with relevant literature (Francis & Cooper-Marcus, 1991; Hart, 1979; Malinowski & Thurber, 1996), to develop a codebook for thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998) in which data is classified in a binary manner (present or absent) for each theme. The adult and child versions of the questionnaire differed somewhat in the way questions were phrased but, as these differences were minor, all the data was considered together in developing the codebook. Inter-rater reliability (percentage agreement of presence between the first author and an independent rater) was 76.4%. A minimum of 70% is typically considered acceptable in this type of research (Boyatzis, 1998, p. 156).
5. Results The first research question (is there evidence to suggest that a stressed mood state is more likely to prompt people to seek out nature than are other mood states y?) sought to address the issue of whether there is a hierarchical association between mood states and a desire to be around nature, and if so whether this is compatible with the idea that preference for natural environments
is influenced by an evolutionary predisposition to seek restoration from stress in such environments. It was also noted that the literature predicted similar, but weaker, preferences to be around nature when ill or upset. The second research question concerned the impact of demographic influences on desire to be around nature. Previous literature predicted these would be reduced for stressed and possibly also ill or upset relative to when thinking about positive mood states. All response rates for the mood state questions were above 80%; even when the sample was split into adults and children. There was less missing data relating to positive moods (relaxed; happy; excited) than to negative moods (scared; stressed; upset). The exception to this was ill. When the independent variables were examined, the children and adults were found to differ in terms of residential background. The children were most likely to state they lived in city suburbs, while the adults reported living in smaller population density areas. Participants also responded to items from which the relative proportion of natural to urban features in their current home location could be determined. There was no difference in the percentage of adult and child responses coded as having ‘‘equal amounts of natural and urban features around home location’’ (65% and 68%, respectively); however, a higher percentage of the adults made responses coded as ‘‘more natural than urban features around home location’’ than did the children (32% vs. 17%). This is not surprising, considering the adults also reported living in less populated areas than did the children (adults—city: 28%, town: 44%, rural: 28%; children—city: 67%, town: 17%, rural: 16%). When previous home locations were examined, the adults clearly show greater experience with all location types; the differences between groups were significant in all instances. Taken together, the current and previous home location data suggest that residential experience was as great a differentiating variable between these two groups as was age. Despite the diversity of places from which both adults and children were recruited, the biographical differences between the two groups, mean that direct comparisons for the dependent variables would be inappropriate; age comparisons were made, however, within the groups. The children were split into four groups based on the school system (infant: 6–7 years, n ¼ 7; top junior: 10–11 years, n ¼ 66; senior: 12–15 years, n ¼ 54; sixth form: 16–17 years, n ¼ 51). The adults were divided into wider age bands, with cutoff points determined by developmental stage The first band consisted primarily of students (18–25 years, n ¼ 90); the second, people settling down in terms of careers and/or family life (26–45 years, n ¼ 51); the third, people starting to look ahead to change, perhaps their children leaving home, retirement (46–60 years,
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
61
Table 1 Description of nature themes Label
Definition
Description of occurrence
Description of qualifications
Description of exclusions
Wild nature
Presence of trees; bushes and plants occurring naturally or large natural landscapes such as fields
Plants and trees found in area where they have not been specifically planted by humans. Theme can be assumed to be present when word ‘‘countryside’’ is used.
Most trees will have been planted by humans at some point but unless this is explicitly apparent, e.g. in an orchard this does not exclude the theme being present. Bushes and plants can be assumed to be wild unless being tended to, e.g. in a garden. Although not wild unless lying fallow, fields come under this theme
Plants other than those where it is apparent they are wild
Cultivated nature
Presence of plants and mowed lawns (either specifically stated or implied) that indicate human cultivation
Wherever there are cultivated elements of nature present such as grass and plants.
Natural water (NW)
Presence of naturally occurring water i.e. sea, river, waterfall, stream, noncommercial lakes
Green nature (GN)
Wild nature or cultivated nature
Any nature
GN or NW
Description either specifically states (e.g. lake) or implies (e.g. beach) presence of naturally occurring water Anything coded as wild nature or cultivated nature using criteria above Anything coded as green nature or natural water using criteria above
n ¼ 80); and the fourth group were either retired or close to that stage (60+ years, n ¼ 18). 5.1. Nature themes The nature themes are described in Table 1. The focus of interest was within participant data. Different frequencies of mentioning nature were found across mood states (see Table 2). Only data from participants who made at least one nature response was considered for within-participant comparisons (62.1% of the total sample; 72.8% of adults; 47.8% of children). Initial analyses revealed a much higher degree of concordance between the wild and cultivated nature themes than between either of these and the natural water theme. The preference for wild nature and cultivated nature themes was highest in both cases for the relaxed mood state, then stressed, then upset. Thus, preference for wild and cultivated nature could not be differentiated on the basis of mood. The pattern of preference for naturally occurring water, however, was
Presence has to be significant, e.g. either mentioned, or if not mentioned assumed to be present in large quantities, e.g. in a park Swimming only implies theme present if it is clear that this is not in a swimming pool
Bushes or trees where it is apparent that they are not wild, e.g. in an orchard Bushes and trees unless it is obvious that they are cultivated, e.g. orchard or in cultivated setting, e.g. garden Natural water
different. Again, relaxed produced the most responses for this theme, but this was followed by happy. As a result, the first two themes were combined into a ‘‘green nature’’ theme (GN), and naturally occurring water (NW) was considered separately. The combined GN theme was binary coded (GN present or GN absent) as in the original themes. The first set of analyses concerns the proportion of the total sample mentioning nature for at least one mood state; the second makes comparisons across moods and only uses data from those participants who mentioned nature at least once. 5.2. Proportion of the ‘‘mentioned nature at least once’’ sub-sample who made nature responses for each mood state Having nature hobbies, liking nature holidays, and living in nature dominated/ low population areas were all associated with a higher likelihood of wanting to be around GN (see Table 3). No association was found between either gender or age and mentioning GN.
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
62
Table 2 Rank order (and percentage) of total sample ðn ¼ 417Þ mentioning each type of nature for each mood state
Wild nature Cultivated nature Natural water Green nature Any nature
Excited
Happy
Ill
Relaxed
5 6 4 5 5
4 3 2 4 3
7 5 6 6 6
1 1 1 1 1
(4.1) (1.6) (4.9) (5.5) (9.8)
(8.3) (4.0) (9.4) (12.4) (18.0)
(2.1) (2.4) (3.2) (4.5) (7.2)
(12.4) (8.6) (17.4) (20.7) (33.8)
Scared
Stressed
Upset
6 6 7 6 7
2 2 3 2 2
3 3 4 3 4
(3.0) (1.5) (2.7) (4.4) (5.6)
(11.7) (6.0) (7.1) (17.7) (21.9)
(9.6) (4.0) (4.5) (13.3) (16.7)
Note. Percentages within o.05 of each other are tied in terms of rank. Table 3 Significant associations between demographic factors and mentioning green nature n
Demographic factor
Nature hobbies 389 Nature holidays 356 Amount of nature in area currently lived in 328 Type of place currently lived in 387
df w2
p
1 1 2 1
o.001 o.001 o.005 o.05
23.039 18.617 11.607 6.406
Table 4 Significant associations between demographic factors and mentioning natural water Demographic factor
n
df
w2
p
Nature hobbies Nature holidays
389 356
1 1
4.837 8.723
o.05 o.005
People who had nature hobbies and nature holidays were more likely to mention NW than the rest of the sample (see Table 4). There was no association between gender, age, or residential factors, and NW. Having nature hobbies and liking nature holidays both increased the likelihood of mentioning GN and NW; residential factors influenced desire to be around GN but not NW. There was a significant correlation between mentioning nature holidays and nature hobbies (r ¼ :248; po:001). There was also a significant correlation between ‘‘proportion of nature’’ and ‘‘type of place currently lived in’’; as population density decreased the proportion of nature increased (r ¼ :402; po:01). Only 12 participants mentioned nature occupations. They did not differ significantly from the rest of the sample in mentioning GN or NW, and no further comparative analyses were made using these data. 5.3. Demographic factors within the ‘‘mentioned nature at least once’’ sub-sample and mentioning nature for the different mood states For the second set of analyses the question was: is there an association between mentioning nature for any of the different mood states and demographic factors? In
order to answer this question, the sample was reduced to those participants who mentioned the relevant nature theme at least once (GN: n ¼ 200; NW: n ¼ 139). 5.4. Rank orders The percentage of participants who made GN responses for each mood ranged from 9.1% to 42.3%; those mentioning NW, from 7.0% to 51.1% (see Table 5). This suggests that desire to be around nature may indeed vary according to mood state. It was thought that if people were more drawn to nature when stressed than at other times, a larger percentage would mention the nature themes for stressed than for other mood states. However, from Table 5 it can be seen that nature themes were mentioned most often for relaxed. It was also suggested that upset and ill would result in a higher proportion of nature responses than the positive mood states; this was true of upset for GN but not for NW. Ill had a low ranking, in terms of proportion of responses, for both themes. As with upset, stressed appeared less associated with NW than with GN. Approximately the same proportion of people mentioned GN and NW for happy (GN—25.1%; NW—26.4%). A higher proportion of people mentioned GN for stressed (35.8%) than for happy, whereas the proportion preferring NW when stressed (20.3%) was lower. In order to determine the influence of demographic factors on associations between mood and desire to be around nature, categories were formed that reflected possible moderating factors (see Tables 6 and 7). From the rankings above, it is apparent that preference for natural environments was strongest overall when participants imagined feeling relaxed. For NW, relaxed was consistently ranked first with happy tending to rank second. For GN, however, the relative proportions of people mentioning GN for each mood state suggest that women more than men, children more than adults, and people who may be assumed to have less regular contact with nature (e.g. via home location, hobbies or holidays) are as likely or more likely to think of nature as a place they would like to be when stressed as when relaxed. Stressed was ranked first or second for (percentage of participants mentioning) GN in 10 of the 13 sub-groups. These results indicate that the relative
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
63
Table 5 Rank order (and percentage) of sub-samples mentioning each type of nature for each mood state
Green nature Natural water
n
Excited
Happy
Ill
Relaxed
Scared
Stressed
Upset
200 139
5 (11.4) 4 (14.8)
4 (25.1) 2 (26.4)
6 (9.2) 6 (9.5)
1 (42.3) 1 (51.1)
6 (9.1) 7 (7.0)
2 (35.8) 3 (20.3)
3 (26.7) 5 (12.7)
Note. Only includes participants who mentioned the relevant nature theme for at least one mood state. Percentages within o.05 of each other are tied in terms of rank.
Table 6 Rank order (and percentage) of sub-groups mentioning green nature for each mood state na
Excited
Happy
Ill
Relaxed
Scared
Stressed
Upset
Sex Male Female
69 110
5 (15.6) 6 (8.2)
4 (19.2) 3 (29.1)
7 (9.7) 5 (8.8)
1 (42.1) 1 (42.7)
6 (14.3) 7 (5.9)
3 (26.9) 2 (41.5)
2 (30.2) 4 (24.3)
Age Adult Child
125 54
6 (7.5) 4 (20.0)
3 (30.2) 6 (13.0)
7 (7.0) 5 (14.0)
1 (48.2) 2 (28.1)
5 (9.9) 7 (7.4)
2 (33.1) 1 (42.3)
4 (28.0) 3 (23.5)
Nature hobby Yes No
68 104
5 (14.7) 5 (9.6)
4 (25.4) 4 (22.9)
7 (8.5) 5 (9.3)
1 (51.9) 2 (35.4)
6 (10.2) 7 (8.7)
2 (36.4) 1 (36.3)
3 (30.0) 3 (25.0)
Nature hols. Yes No
58 105
7 (8.6) 5 (12.4)
3 (31.0) 4 (20.9)
4 (16.4) 7 (5.6)
1 (54.8) 2 (34.8)
6 (14.5) 6 (6.1)
2 (39.7) 1 (35.6)
4 (16.1) 3 (29.8)
Prop. nature More Equal/less
48 111
5 (12.5) 5 (11.3)
2 (35.6) 4 (21.6)
7 (8.2) 7 (8.0)
1 (52.0) 1 (40.9)
6 (11.1) 6 (8.2)
3 (29.8) 2 (37.8)
4 (25.0) 3 (24.1)
Area lived in Rural Town City
49 51 67
6 (8.2) 6 (6.5) 4 (16.4)
2 (39.6) 4 (25.9) 4 (16.2)
7 (6.0) 7 (5.6) 6 (14.7)
1 (50.0) 1 (51.8) 2 (31.5)
5 (10.9) 5 (9.1) 7 (7.7)
3 (32.0) 2 (29.2) 1 (42.9)
4 (20.8) 2 (29.4) 2 (31.3)
Note. Only includes participants who mentioned green nature for at least one mood state. Percentages within o.05 of each other are tied in terms of rank. a Median number of participants contributing to each row (exact numbers for each cell vary due to missing data).
association between being stressed and wanting to be around nature is stronger for GN than for NW. 5.5. Statistical analyses The alpha level was adjusted (Bonferroni correction) to .007 for comparisons of the seven mood states on each demographic factor. For GN, based on the rank orders, responses to stressed appeared to be less influenced by demographic factors, than relaxed. The differences did not reach statistical significance, however. Having nature hobbies (n ¼ 119; df ¼ 1; w2 ¼ 8:459; po:005) and being in the 23–45 age group (n ¼ 86; df ¼ 3; w2 ¼ 11:547; po:01) were significantly associated with a preference for NW. Those with nature hobbies were more likely than the rest of the sample to mention NW for stressed. Age appeared
to have some association with responses to upset in that a much higher proportion of the 23–45 age group mentioned nature for this mood state than did the rest of the adult sample (18–22 years: 3.4%; 23–45 years: 38.8%; 46–60 years: 16.7%; 60+ years: 0%).
6. Discussion 6.1. Mentioning the nature themes at least once Consistent with Korpela (1992), less than two-thirds of the participants mentioned either of the nature themes (GN or NW) at least once. Although preference for nature for stressed relative to other mood states was of interest, rather than the overall proportion of people mentioning nature, the latter factor did reduce the
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
64
Table 7 Rank order (and percentage) of sub-groups mentioning natural water for each mood state na
Excited
Happy
Ill
Relaxed
Scared
Stressed
Upset
Sex Male Female
42 82
5 (14.6) 4 (14.8)
3 (20.9) 2 (29.3)
4 (15.9) 6 (6.1)
1 (50.0) 1 (51.7)
6 (11.1) 7 (5.1)
2 (25.0) 3 (18.1)
7 (9.5) 5 (14.3)
Age Adult Child
85 40
5 (7.7) 2 (27.3)
2 (25.9) 2 (27.5)
7 (5.8) 4 (17.5)
1 (55.4) 1 (41.9)
6 (6.7) 6 (7.7)
3 (21.4) 4 (17.9)
4 (15.1) 6 (7.5)
Nature hobby Yes No
42 77
5 (14.6) 3 (14.5)
2 (38.1) 2 (19.2)
7 (4.8) 5 (11.5)
1 (51.1) 1 (49.4)
6 (8.6) 7 (6.6)
3 (35.7) 4 (13.0)
4 (17.4) 6 (10.4)
Nature hols. Yes No
42 74
5 (11.9) 4 (15.5)
2 (35.9) 2 (20.0)
6 (7.1) 6 (11.0)
1 (50.0) 1 (50.0)
7 (5.4) 7 (5.6)
3 (28.6) 3 (16.2)
4 (15.8) 5 (11.8)
Prop. nature More Equal/less
27 77
4 (14.8) 5 (12.2)
3 (22.2) 2 (26.7)
4 (14.8) 6 (7.8)
1 (53.6) 1 (50.6)
7 (7.4) 7 (4.3)
2 (30.8) 3 (17.7)
4 (14.8) 4 (14.1)
Area lived in Rural Town City
30 43 43
7 (3.6) 5 (12.5) 2 (20.5)
2 (34.5) 2 (23.3) 2 (20.9)
5 (6.7) 6 (9.3) 7 (7.0)
1 (50.0) 1 (59.6) 1 (43.8)
4 (10.0) 7 (2.6) 6 (7.9)
2 (34.5) 3 (13.6) 4 (17.5)
5 (6.7) 3 (13.6) 5 (15.9)
Note. Only includes participants who mentioned natural water for at least one mood state. Percentages within o.05 of each other are tied in terms of rank. a Median number of participants contributing to each row (exact numbers for each cell vary due to missing data).
power for between-participant comparisons. Despite this, it is still possible to make some general conclusions regarding the relationship between demographic factors and preference for natural environments: 1. Factors relating to where participants lived were thought most likely to influence their declared preference for nature. The post hoc variable ‘‘perception of proportion of nature around home location’’ was expected to be a reliable measure of access to nature. As only 26 people were coded as living in places with fewer natural than urban features, however, it appears that the sample was skewed in the range of environments people live in. Nevertheless, the amount of nature in the home environment does appear to have some influence on the proportion of people mentioning GN. This may, however, have been due to unequal numbers in the cells and it would not, therefore, be advisable to read too much into this finding. The ‘‘type of place currently lived in’’ (rural/village; town; or city) can, however, be considered an appropriate substitute to draw conclusions about the effect of access to nature, as this variable was significantly correlated with ‘‘proportion of nature around home location’’. Support is provided for the tentative findings of the ‘‘proportion of nature’’ analyses in that the rural/village group contained the highest proportion of people mentioning GN.
2. Having nature hobbies was highly correlated with a preference for nature holidays. Both factors were related to a greater likelihood of mentioning nature. This is consistent with previous studies showing that people in special interest nature groups, e.g. environmental organizations, have higher overall preferences for natural landscapes (see Strumse, 1996). 3. Gender was not associated with mentioning either GN or NW, a finding consistent with the meta-analysis conducted by Stamps (1999) for landscape preference in general, but not with Strumse’s (1996) finding that women had significantly higher preferences for green grassy fields and flowers than did men. 4. The age group data suggests that mentioning NW is not influenced by age but that mentioning GN might be. Based on the analyses here, however, it is not possible to draw any conclusions about what effect, if any, age has over and above that of home location (the majority of the 18–25 year old group, for instance were students and would probably have been living in areas of the city that were less expensive and therefore may have had less access to nearby nature). Korpela et al. (2001), report that their child participants mentioned nature less than did adults and adolescents in previous studies. This was also the case here; however, differences in the home environment variables prevent any conclusions being drawn.
ARTICLE IN PRESS C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
Overall, the analyses in this section indicated that demographic factors, in particular home location, had more of an influence on desire to be around GN than desire to be around NW. Those participants with more nature around their homes were more likely to mention wanting to be around GN at least once. Age may have influenced preference for GN but this was far from clear. The people who had nature hobbies and/or holidays were much more likely to mention wanting to be around nature for at least one mood state than were the rest of the sample. 6.2. Mentioning nature for each mood state The results of this study provided some tentative support for the view that there is a relationship between being stressed and wanting to be around nature. In cases where relaxed was not ranked first, stressed always assumed this position. The fact that people tended to say they wanted to be around nature more when relaxed than when stressed does not necessarily affect theories that nature is beneficial for people who are stressed. If it is assumed that most people who are feeling relaxed want to stay that way, this data suggests that people believe (consciously or otherwise) that going to a natural environment is a good way to go about this. Many people who are feeling stressed would rather feel relaxed; however, feeling stressed can be adaptive in some situations, e.g. to increase focus before deadlines. Many of the students in this sample gave impending exams or essay deadlines as an example of when they feel stressed and when asked where they like to be when feeling this way, gave answers such as ‘‘in the library’’ or ‘‘at my computer’’. 6.3. Demographic factors It was thought that individual characteristics would influence the overall proportion of participants mentioning nature themes but less so for stressed than for the other mood states. Access to nature, for instance, was expected to have an effect on the proportion of people mentioning going to nature overall (which to some extent it did). There were so few examples of demographic characteristics influencing responses for any mood state, however, that the second research question cannot adequately be answered. The demographic analyses fail to show any influence of social/ environmental factors that could have been responsible for inflating the findings for relaxed relative to those for stressed even though possible trends can be seen in the rank order data for GN (see above). This may, however, have been due to lack of power as it was not a case of ‘‘all mood state responses were affected by demographic factors’’, but rather ‘‘no mood state responses were affected by demographic factors’’.
65
7. Conclusion Rank order data suggested that mood state does have an influence on desire to be around nature, however, contrary to predictions from restoration theories this was not strongest for negative mood states. Both green nature and natural water environments were mentioned most frequently for relaxed. In the case of NW, this was followed by another positive mood state (happy). Two negative mood states (stressed and upset), however, resulted in the next highest frequencies of mentioning nature for GN. Ulrich’s stress reduction theory (see Ulrich, 1983; Ulrich et al., 1991) proposes that exposure to natural environments leads to a reduction in stress. The results obtained here suggest that nature (of any type) is associated primarily with relaxation, but that green nature may be sought more often than natural water when experiencing negative moods. The available data in this study did not allow for a thorough investigation of the influence of demographic factors. As expected, some (residential experience, leisure interests) did have an influence on declared preference for being around nature, however, there was no statistical support for the hypothesis that this influence would be reduced in times of stress. While it is recognized that descriptive data should be treated with extreme caution when not backed up statistically, the rank order data for GN in particular, does suggest that the influence of mood, on preference for nature (perhaps moderated by some demographic factors), is an area worthy of further investigation. This study could be improved upon by employing a design that allowed for responses to be made while participants actually experience different moods rather than relying on the use of imagined or remembered mood states. It is also limited by the adult and child samples appearing to come from different sub-populations (e.g. in terms of residential experience), therefore making it inappropriate to draw any conclusions regarding potential development influences between these two sub-groups. Nevertheless, despite the limitations above, this study has a tighter methodology and larger sample than many studies of its kind and thus makes an important contribution to the restorative environments literature. Although there is some research support for the view that people like to be in natural environments, there is little evidence to suggest that this preference is stronger when people experience, or think about, negative mood states. Despite this, the idea of nature as a restorative environment (originating from theories proposed by, e.g. Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich, 1983; Ulrich et al., 1991) is increasingly being reincorporated into health care and social settings. Examples include the use of hospital bed curtains with murals of nature scenes (see www.bedscapes.com) and
ARTICLE IN PRESS 66
C.L. Regan, S.A. Horn / Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (2005) 57–66
green gyms (see www.greengym.co.uk). This paper does not deny that nature may be restorative; however, it does suggest a need for caution before interpreting previous literature (e.g. Francis & Cooper-Marcus, 1991) as evidence that people intuitively feel there are benefits of being around nature when stressed and, therefore will appreciate opportunities to access nature when experiencing stress. Acknowledgements This research is part of the first author’s Ph.D. programme at the University of Southampton: Professor Bob Remington’s co-supervisory role in the development of the thesis is gratefully acknowledged. Sincere thanks are also due to Prof. Terry Hartig, Uppsala University, for his encouragement and constructive comments regarding earlier versions of this work. References Baum, A., Fleming, R., & Singer, J.E. (1985). Understanding environmental stress: Strategies for conceptual and methodological integration. In A. Baum, & J.E. Singer (Eds.), Advances in Environmental Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates, Vol 5, Methods and Environmental Psychology, 185–205. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Developing themes and codes. In Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Francis, C., & Cooper-Marcus, C. (1991). In J. Urbiba-Soria, P. Ortega-Andeane, & R. Bechtel (Eds.), Places people take their problems. Oklahoma City: EDRA. Francis, C., & Cooper-Marcus, C. (1992). Restorative places: Environment and emotional well-being. Boulder, Colorado, USA: EDRA. Hart, R. (1979). Place values and feelings. In Children’s experience of place (pp. 155–187). New York: Irvington. Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural-environment experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3–26. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature—toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. Kellert, S. R. (1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Washington, DC: Island Press. Korpela, K. M. (1992). Adolescents favorite places and environmental self-regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 249–258. Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221–233. Korpela, K., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F., & Fuhrer, U. (2001). Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite places. Environment and Behavior, 33, 572–589. Korpela, K., Kytta, M., & Hartig, T. (2002). Restorative experience, self-regulation, and children’s place preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 387–398. Lundberg, A. E. (1998). The environment and mental health: A guide for clinicians. NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Malinowski, J. C., & Thurber, C. A. (1996). Developmental shifts in the place preferences of boys aged 8–16 years. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 45–54. Parsons, R. (1991). The potential influences of environmental perception on human health. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 1–23. Parsons, R. (1995). Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental aesthetics—conundrum, canard or curiosity. Landscape And Urban Planning, 32, 227–244. Stamps, A. E. (1996). People and places: variance components of environmental preferences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 323–334. Stamps, A. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14, 155–175. Strumse, E. (1996). Demographic differences in the visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in western Norway. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 17–31. Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Coping with ADD—the surprising connection to green play settings. Environment and Behavior, 33, 54–77. Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85–125). New York: Plenum. Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420–421. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., & Fiorito, E. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201–230.