Studying The Preoccupations That Prevent People From Going Into Green Space

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volumn 118, Issue , 2013, Pages 98-102

  Hitchings, Russell ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Public health; Qualitative methods; Transactional approach; Urban green space

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION; ECOLOGY;

GREEN SPACES; INTERVIEW STUDY; QUALITATIVE METHOD; TRANSACTIONAL APPROACH; URBAN GREEN SPACES;

PUBLIC HEALTH;

GREENSPACE; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; URBAN ATMOSPHERE; URBAN DEVELOPMENT; URBAN POPULATION; URBAN REGION;

EID: 84882927013     PISSN: 01692046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.006     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Bixler R., Floyd M. Nature is scary, disgusting and uncomfortable. Environment and Behavior 1997, 29:443-467.
2. Boone C., Buckley G., Grove J., Sister C. People and parks: An environmental justice enquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2009, 99:767-787.
3. Bringslimark T., Hartig T., Grindal Patil G. Adaptation to windowlessness: Do office workers compensate for a lack of visual access to the outdoors?. Environment and behavior 2011, 43:469-487.
4. Brown T., Bell M. Off the couch and on the move: Global public health and the medicalisation of nature. Social Science and Medicine 2007, 64:1343-1354.
5. Byrne J., Wolch J. Nature, race, and parks: Past research and future directions for geographic research. Progress in Human Geography 2009, 33:743-765.
6. Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment What are we scared of? The value of risk in designing public space 2005, Author, London.
7. Eden S. Environmental solutions. Environment and Planning A 2009, 41:2037-2040.
8. Ewing R. Can the physical environment determine physical activity levels?. Exercise and Sport Science Review 2005, 33:69-75.
9. Gobster P. Landscape and urban planning at 100: Looking back and moving forward. Landscape and Urban Planning 2011, 100:315-317.
10. Grahn P., Stigsdotter U. The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning 2010, 94:264-275.
11. Grinde B., Grindal Patil G. Biophilia: Does visual contact with nature impact on health and well-being?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2009, 6:2332-2343.
12. Han K.-T. Influence of limitedly visible leafy indoor plants on the psychology, behaviour, and health of students at a junior high school in Taiwan. Environment and Behavior 2009, 41:658-692.
13. Hartig T. Nature experience in transactional perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning 1993, 25:17-36.
14. Hartig T. Where best to take a booster break?. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2006, 31:350.
15. Hartig T., Mang M., Evans G. Restorative effects of natural environment experience. Environment and Behavior 1991, 23:3-26.
16. Heerwagen J., Orians G. Adaptation to windowlessness: A study of the use of visual décor in windowed and windowless offices. Environment and Behavior 1986, 18:623-639.
17. Herzog T., Chen H., Primeau J. Perception of the restorative potential of natural and other settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2002, 22:295-306.
18. Hitchings R. Urban green space from the inside out: An argument for the approach and a study with city workers. Geoforum 2010, 41:855-864.
19. Hitchings, R. (2010b). Indoor office workers and outdoor nature. Policy report. Available from author.
20. Jorgensen A. Beyond the view: Future directions in landscape aesthetics research. Landscape and Urban Planning 2011, 100:353-355.
21. Kaplan R. The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landscape and Urban Planning 1993, 26:193-201.
22. Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, New York.
23. Kaplan R., Kaplan S., Ryan R. With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature 1998, Island Press, Washington.
24. Kellert S., Wilson E.O. The biophilia hypothesis 1993, Island Press, Washington.
25. Kuo F., Sullivan W. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?. Environment and Behavior 2001, 33:343-367.
26. Kweon B.-S., Ulrich R., Walker V., Tassunary L. Anger and stress: The role of landscape posters in an office setting. Environment and Behavior 2008, 40:355-381.
27. Lohr V., Pearson-Mims C. Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and conical tree forms. Environment and Behavior 2006, 38:667-688.
28. Martin C., Warren P., Kinzig A. Neighborhood socioeconomic status is a useful predictor of perennial landscape vegetation in residential neighborhoods and embedded small parks of Pheonix, AZ. Landscape and Urban Planning 2004, 69:355-368.
29. Moore E. A prison environment's effect on health care service demands. Journal of Environmental Systems 1981, 11:17-34.
30. Natural England 'Nature nearby': Accessible natural greenspace guidance 2010, London, Author.
31. Nisbet E., Zelenski J. Underestimating nearby nature: Affective forecasting errors obscure the happy path to sustainability. Psychological Science 2011, 22:1101-1106.
32. Park J., O'Brien L., Roe J., Ward Thompson C., Mitchell R. The natural outdoors and health: Assessing the value and potential contribution of secondary public data sets in the UK to current and future knowledge. Health and Place 2011, 17:269-279.
33. Pennebaker J., Lightner J. Competition of internal and external information in an exercise setting. Journal of personality and social psychology 1980, 39:165-174.
34. Pergams O., Zaradic P. Is love of nature in the US becoming love of electronic media? 16-Year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies, playing video games, internet use, and oil prices. Journal of Environmental Management 2006, 80:387-393.
35. Pretty J., Peacock J., Sellens M., Griffin M. The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 2005, 15:319-337.
36. Skår M. Forest dear and forest fear: Dwellers' relationships to their neighbourhood forest. Landscape and Urban Planning 2010, 98:110-116.
37. Staats H., Hartig T. Alone or with a friend: A social context for psychological restoration and environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2004, 24:199-211.
38. Staats H., Van Gemerden E., Hartig T. Preference for restorative situations: Interactive effects of attentional state, activity-in-environment, and social context. Leisure Studies 2010, 32:401-417.
39. Stamps A. Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature 1999, 14:155-175.
40. Summit J., Sommer R. Further studies of preferred tree shapes. Environment and Behavior 1999, 31:550-576.
41. Taylor W. Transforming work breaks to promote health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2005, 29:461-465.
42. Ulrich R. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 1983, 420-421.
43. Van den Berg A., 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.
44. Ward Thompson C. Urban open spaces in the 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 2002, 60:59-72.
45. Ward Thompson C. Linking landscape and health: The recurring theme. Landscape and Urban Planning 2011, 99:187-195.
46. Worpole K. Regaining an interior world. Landscape Design 2000, 289:20-22.