Effect of predictors of visual preference as characteristics of urban natural landscapes in increasing perceived restorative potential

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 145-151

  Pazhouhanfar, Mahdieh ^a   Mustafa Kamal, M S ^b  

^a GOLESTAN UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

^b UNIVERSITY PUTRA MALAYSIA   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Attention restoration theory; Information processing theory; Landscape design; Mental fatigue; Restorative environment

Indexed keywords

LANDSCAPE CHANGE; PREDICTION; RESTORATION ECOLOGY; STUDENT; URBAN AREA;

MALAYSIA;

EID: 84896734981     PISSN: 16188667     EISSN: 16108167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ufug.2013.08.005     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986, 51:1173-1182.
2. 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 2008, 85:79-84.
3. Eys M.A., Carron A.V., Bray S.R., Brawley L.R. Item wording and internal consistency of a measure of cohesion: the group environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 2007, 29:395-402.
4. Felsten G. Where to take a study break on the college campus: an attention restoration theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2009, 29:160-167.
5. Galindo M.P., Hidalgo M.C. Aesthetic preferences and the attribution of meaning: environmental categorization processes in the evaluation of urban scenes. International Journal of Psychology 2005, 40:19-27.
6. Grahn P., Stigsdotter U.A. Landscape planning and stress. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2003, 2:1-18.
7. Guo-Qingke H.D.Z., Qingke W.G. Effects of positively and negatively worded items in personality measurement. Acta Psychologica Sinica 2006, 38:626-632.
8. Han K.-T. A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landscape and Urban Planning 2003, 64:209-232.
9. Han K.-T. Responses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and restorativeness. Environment and Behavior 2007, 39:529-556.
10. Han K.T. An exploration of relationships among the responses to natural scenes. Environment and Behavior 2009, 42:243-270.
11. Hansmann R., Hug S.-M., Seeland K. Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2007, 6:213-225.
12. Hartig T., Kaiser F.G., Bowler P.A. Further development of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness 1997, Institute for Housing Research, Uppsala University, Gävle, Working Paper No. 5.
13. Hartig T., Korpela K., Evans G.W., Gaerling T. Validation of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness. Goteborg Psychological Reports 1996, 26:1-64.
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. Hartig T., Staats H. The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2006, 26:215-226.
16. Herzog T.R. A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1989, 9:27-43.
17. 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.
18. Herzog T.R., Chen H.C., Primeau J.S. Perception of the restorative potential of natural and other settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2002, 22:295-306.
19. Herzog T.R., Maguire C.P., Nebel M.B. Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2003, 23:159-170.
20. Hidalgo M.C., Berto R., Galindo M.P., Getrevi A. Identifying attractive and unattractive urban places: categories, restorativeness and aesthetic attributes. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano 2006, 7:115-133.
21. Hull Iv R.B., Stewart W.P. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1992, 12:101-114.
22. Joye Y., van den Berg A. Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2011, 10:261-268.
23. Kaplan R., Kaplan S., Ryan R.L. With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature 1998, Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
24. Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1995, 15:169-182.
25. Kaplan S., Kaplan R. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press.
26. Kaplan S., Kaplan R. The nature of the view from home: psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior 2001, 33:507-542.
27. Karmanov D., Hamel R. Assessing the restorative potential of contemporary urban environment(s): beyond the nature versus urban dichotomy. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 86:115-125.
28. Korpela K., Hartig T. Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1996, 16:221-233.
29. 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.
30. Laumann K., Garling T., Stormark K.M. Rating scale measures of restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2001, 21:31-44.
31. Lee Y., Ellis M., Chen A. Designing preferable virtual worlds: an analogy of space. AMCIS 2009 Proceedings 2009, 1-9.
32. Lee Y., Kozar K.A. Designing usable online stores: a landscape preference perspective. Information and Management 2009, 46:31-41.
33. Lindal P.J., Hartig T. Architectural variation, building height, and the restorative quality of urban residential streetscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2013, 33:26-36.
34. 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.
35. Pals R., Steg L., Siero F.W., van der Zee K.I. Development of the PRCQ: a measure of perceived restorative characteristics of zoo attractions. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2009, 29:441-449.
36. Pasini M., Berto R., Scopelliti M., Carrus G. Measuring the restorative value of the environment: contribution to the validation of the Italian version of the Perceived Restorativeness Scale. Bollettino di psicologia applicata 2009, 257:3-11.
37. Purcell T., Peron E., Berto R. Why do preferences differ between scene types?. Environment and Behavior 2001, 33:93-106.
38. Ryan R.L. Exploring the effects of environmental experience on attachment to urban natural areas. Environment and Behavior 2005, 37:3-42.
39. 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.
40. Staats H., Kieviet A., Hartig T. Where to recover from attentional fatigue: an expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2003, 23:147-157.
41. Tenngart Ivarsson C., 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.
42. Ulrich R.S. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 1984, 224:420-421.
43. Velarde M.D., Fry G., Tveit M. Health effects of viewing landscapes-landscape types in environmental psychology. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 2007, 6:199-212.
44. Weems G.H., Onwuegbuzie A.J., Schreiber J.B., Eggers S.J. Characteristics of respondents who respond differently to positively and negatively worded items on rating scales. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 2003, 28:587-606.