Closure of view to the urban matrix has positive effects on perceived restorativeness in urban forests in Helsinki, Finland

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 107, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 361-369

  Hauru, Kaisa ^a   Lehvävirta, Susanna ^a,b   Korpela, Kalevi ^c   Kotze, D Johan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^c TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Attention restoration theory; Coherence; Edge effect; Restorative potential; Spruce forest

Indexed keywords

COHERENT LIGHT; CONSERVATION; HOUSING; ROADS AND STREETS; URBAN GROWTH; VEGETATION;

ATTENTION RESTORATIONS; EDGE EFFECT; FOREST INTERIORS; FOREST VEGETATION; HELSINKI , FINLAND; PERCEIVED RESTORATIVENESS; RESTORATIVE POTENTIAL; SPRUCE FOREST;

FORESTRY;

CONIFEROUS FOREST; EDGE EFFECT; FOREST DYNAMICS; FOREST ECOSYSTEM; HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; PERCEPTION; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; URBAN AREA; URBAN ECOSYSTEM; URBANIZATION;

FINLAND; FORESTS; HOUSINGS; PLANTS; RESTORATION;

FINLAND; HELSINKI; VARSINAIS-SUOMI;

PICEA;

EID: 84865278614     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Anonymous. Regional statistics of the greater Helsinki area. (2007). Accessed 17.01.12. http://www.aluesarjat.fi/.
2. Brown T.C., Daniel T.C. Context effects in perceived environmental quality assessment: Scene selection and landscape quality ratings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1987, 7:233-250.
3. Chang C.Y., Hammitt W.E., Chen P.K., Machnik L., Su W.C. Psychophysiological responses and restorative values of natural environments in Taiwan. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 85:79-84.
4. Chen B., Adimo O.A., Bao Z. Assessment of aesthetic quality and multiple functions of urban green space from the users' perspective. The case of Hangzhou Flower Garden, China. Landscape and Urban Planning 2009, 93:76-82.
5. Chen J., Franklin J.F., Spies T.A. Vegetation responses to edge environments in old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Ecological Applications 1992, 2(4):387-396.
6. Galea S., Vlahov D. Urban health: Evidence, challenges, and directions. Annual Review of Public Health 2005, 26:341-365.
7. Gilbert O.L. The ecology of urban habitats 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
8. Hamberg L., Lehvävirta S., Kotze D.J. Forest edge structure as a shaping factor of forest understorey vegetation in urban forests in Finland. Forest Ecology and Management 2009, 257:712-722.
9. Hamberg L., Lehvävirta S., Malmivaara-Lämsä M., Rita H., Kotze D.J. The effects of habitat edges and trampling on understorey vegetation in urban forests in Helsinki, Finland. Applied Vegetation Science 2008, 11:83-98.
10. Hamberg L., Malmivaara-Lämsä M., Lehvävirta S., O'Hara B., Kotze D.J. Quantifying trampling and edge effect on forest understorey vegetation-a field experiment. Journal of Environmental Management 2010, 91:1811-1820.
11. Han K.-T. Responses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and restorativeness. Environment and Behavior 2007, 39:529-556.
12. Hartig T., Evans G.W., Jamner L.D., Davis D.S., Gärlig T. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2003, 23:109-123.
13. Hartig T., Korpela K., Evans G.W., Gärling T. Validation of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness. Göteborg Psychological Reports 1996, 26:7.
14. Hartig T., Korpela K., Evans G.W., Gärling T. A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research 1997, 14:175-194.
15. Herzog T.R., Black A.M., Fountaine K.A., Knotts D.J. Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1997, 17:165-170.
16. Herzog T.R., Kirk K.M. Pathway curvature and border visibility as predictors of preference and danger in forest settings. Environment and Behavior 2005, 37:620-639.
17. Herzog T.R., Kutzli G.E. Preference and perceived danger in field/forest settings. Environment and Behavior 2002, 34:819-835.
18. Herzog T.R., Maguire C.P., Nebel M.B. Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2003, 23:159-170.
19. Hietanen J.K., Klemettilä T., Kettunen J., Korpela K.M. What is a nice smile like that doing in a place like this? Automatic affective responses to environments influence the recognition of facial expressions. Psychological Research 2007, 71:539-552.
20. Kaplan S. A model of person-environment compatibility. Environment and Behavior 1983, 15:311-332.
21. Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1995, 15:169-182.
22. Kaplan S., Kaplan R. The experience of nature. A psychological perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, New York.
23. Kiecolt-Glaser J.K., McGuire L., Robles T.F., Glaser R. Emotions, morbidity, and mortality: New perspectives from psychoneuroimmunology. Annual Review of Psychology 2002, 53:83-107.
24. Korpela K.M., Hartig T. Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1996, 16:221-233.
25. Korpela K.M., Hartig T., Kaiser F.G., Fuhrer U. Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite places. Environment and Behavior 2001, 33:572-589.
26. Korpela K.M., Ylén M. Perceived health is associated with visiting natural favorite places in the vicinity. Health and Place 2007, 13:138-151.
27. Korpela K., Ylén M., Tyrväinen L., Silvennoinen H. Determinants of restorative experiences in everyday favorite places. Health and Place 2008, 14:636-652.
28. Laumann K., Gärling G., Stormark K.M. Rating scale measures of restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2001, 21:31-44.
29. Lee S.W., Ellis C.D., Kweon B.S., Hong S.K. Relationship between landscape structure and neighborhood satisfaction in urbanized areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 85:60-70.
30. Maas J., Verheij R.A., Groenewegen P.P., de Vries S., Spreeuwenberg P. Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation?. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2006, 60:587-592.
31. Malmivaara-Lämsä M., Hamberg L., Haapamäki E., Liski J., Kotze D.J., Lehvävirta S., et al. Edge effects and trampling in boreal urban forest fragments-impacts on the soil microbial community. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 2008, 40:1612-1621.
32. Matlack G.R., Litvaitis J.A. Forest edges. Maintaining Biodiversity in Forest Ecosystems 1999, 210-233. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. M.L. Hunter (Ed.).
33. Murcia C. Edge effects in fragmented forests: Implications for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 1995, 10:58-62.
34. Niemelä J., Saarela S.R., Söderman T., Kopperoinen L., Yli-Pelkonen V., Väre S., et al. Using the ecosystem services approach for better planning and conservation of urban green spaces: A Finland case study. Biodiversity and Conservation 2010, 19:3225-3243.
35. Nordh H., Hartig T., Hagerhall C.M., Fry G. Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2009, 8:225-235.
36. Purcell T., Peron E., Berto R. Why do preferences differ between scene types?. Environment and Behavior 2001, 33:93-106.
37. R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2009, R Development Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.r-project.org/.
38. Ruddell E.J., Hammitt W.E. Prospect refuge theory: A psychological orientation for edge effect in recreation environments. Journal of Leisure Research 1987, 19:249-260.
39. Saukkonen T. Helsingin kaupungin luonnonhoidon linjaus 2011 2011, The Public Works Department, the Street and Park Division, The City of Helsinki, (in Finnish, with English summary).
40. Sievänen, T., & Neuvonen, M. (2011). Luonnon virkistyskäyttö 2010 (The recreation demand survey 2010). Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute, p. 212 (in Finnish).
41. Staats H., Gatersleben B., Hartig T. Change in mood as a function of environmental design: Arousal and pleasure on a simulated forest hike. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1997, 17:283-300.
42. Stamps A.E. Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature 1999, 14:155-156.
43. Stamps A.E. Visual permeability, locomotive permeability, safety, and enclosure. Environment and Behavior 2005, 37:587-619.
44. Tennegart Ivarsson C.T.I, Hagerhall C.M. The perceived restorativeness of gardens-Assessing the restorativeness of a mixed built and natural scene type. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2008, 7:107-118.
45. Tyrväinen L., Silvennoinen H., Kolehmainen O. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2003, 1:135-149.
46. Tyrväinen L., Silvennoinen H., Korpela K., Ylén M. Luonnon merkitys kaupunkilaisille ja vaikutus psyykkiseen hyvinvointiin. Luontomatkailu, metsät ja hyvinvointi 2007, 57-77. Finnish Forest Research Institute, Vantaa, Working Papers of Finnish Forest Research Institute 52 (in Finnish). L. Tyrväinen, S. Tuulentie (Eds.).
47. Tzoulas K., Korpela K., Venn S., Yli-Pelkonen V., Kaźmierczak A., Niemelä J., et al. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning 2007, 81:167-178.
48. Ulrich R.S. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 1984, 224:420-421.
49. Ulrich R.S., Simons R.F., Losito B.D., Fiorito E., Miles M.A., Zelson M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1991, 11:201-230.
50. van den Berg A.E., Hartig T., Staats H. Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues 2007, 63:79-96.
51. Zeng H., Peltola H., Väisänen H., Kellomäki S. The effects of fragmentation on the susceptibility of a boreal forest ecosystem to wind damage. Forest Ecology and Management 2009, 257:1165-1173.