![spacer](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090120063836im_/http://www.ehponline.org/siteimages/transpixel.gif)
| | ![spacer](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090120063836im_/http://www.ehponline.org/siteimages/transpixel.gif) | | ![spacer](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090120063836im_/http://www.ehponline.org/siteimages/transpixel.gif) |
Research Article
|
Topophilia and the Quality of Life Oladele A. Ogunseitan Department of Environmental Health, Science, and Policy, University of California, Irvine, California, USA Abstract With this research I tested the hypothesis that individual preferences for specific ecosystem components and restorative environments are significantly associated with quality of life (QOL) . A total of 379 human subjects responded to a structured 18-item questionnaire on topophilia and to the 26-item World Health Organization’s Quality of Life (WHOQOL-Bref) instrument. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed four domains of topophilia (ecodiversity, synesthetic tendency, cognitive challenge, and familiarity) and four domains of QOL (physical, psychological, social, and environmental) . Synesthetic tendency was the strongest domain of topophilia, whereas the psychological aspect of QOL was the strongest. Structural equation modeling was used to explore the adequacy of a theoretical model linking topophilia and QOL. The model fit the data extremely well: 2 = 5.02, p = 0.414 ; correlation = 0.12 (p = 0.047) . All four domains of topophilia were significantly correlated with the level of restoration experienced by respondents at their current domicile [for cognitive challenge: r = 0.19 ; p < 0.01 ; familiarity: r = 0.12 ; p < 0.05 ; synesthetic tendency: r = 0.18 ; p < 0.01 ; ecodiversity (the highest value) : r = 0.28 ; p < 0.01]. Within ecodiversity, preferences for water and flowers were associated with high overall QOL (r = 0.162 and 0.105, respectively ; p < 0.01 and 0.05, respectively) . Within the familiarity domain, identifiability was associated with the environmental domain of QOL (r = 0.115 ; p < 0.05) , but not with overall QOL. These results provide a new methodologic framework for linking environmental quality and human health and for implementing evidence-based provision of restorative environments through targeted design of built environments to enhance human QOL. Key words: ecosystems, mental health, nature, quality of life, restorative environments, stress, topophilia. Environ Health Perspect 113:143-148 (2005) . doi:10.1289/ehp.7467 available via http://dx.doi.org/ doi:10.1289/ehp.7467 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 22 November 2004] Address correspondence to O.A. Ogunseitan, Department of Environmental Health, Science, and Policy, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-7070 USA. Telephone: (949) 824-6350. Fax: (949) 824-2056. E-mail: oaogunse@uci.edu I am grateful for the assistance of A. Castro, C. Yi, S. Ly, and M. Poulin. The research benefited from the expertise and insight of E.A. Holman and from the inspirational work of M. Lin in the nexus of architecture and the human experience. This project was funded by grants from the Claire Trevor School of the Arts and the Program in Industrial Ecology at the University of California at Irvine. The author declares he has no competing financial interests. Received 30 July 2004 ; accepted 22 November 2004. |
|
|
![spacer](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090120063836im_/http://www.ehponline.org/siteimages/transpixel.gif) |
Mental stress is an underestimated and growing component
of disease burden in many parts of the world (Saxena et al. 2003). The roles
of both natural and constructed environments in relieving mental stress have
long been suspected but are poorly understood. Tuan (1999) originally defined
topophilia as the affective bond between people and place or environmental
setting. Topophilia is presumed to be a vivid and personal experience, but
research is scarce on the determinants of individual preferences and on the
potential health benefits derived from such experiences. The few existing studies
have not adequately deconstructed the confounding of affective and cognitive
processes in aesthetic response versus tangible health outcomes (e.g., Parsons
1991; Ulrich 1979). Furthermore, quantitative assessments of the values associated
with the considerable financial investment by societies in naturalistic environmental
design, landscape architecture, and ecosystem conservation through wildland
natural preserves are rare. When available, the results of such studies are
often inconclusive or contradictory. The proximate causes of particular topophilia
are embedded in measurable characteristics: environmental perception, defined
as the response of senses to external stimuli and purposeful activity; attitude,
or ingrained cultural stances; and values, the rank-ordered conception of preferences
that emerge following a personalized exercise in trade-offs among alternative
scenarios. Environmental designers have long exploited the basic ideas of topophilia
to create presumably attractive surroundings that restore mental health based
on the use of materials, sensory stimuli, and arrangements that remind people
of the place and environmental settings that are comforting and/or associated
with healing potential (Carlson 2000; Porteous 1996).
In the tradition of environmental psychology, “restorative
environments” are defined as specific geographical contexts that renew
diminished functional capabilities and enhance coping strategies and resources
for managing stress (Hartig and Staats 2003). There is also general consensus
that measuring restoration according to this definition is complicated. In
urban cultures where restorative environments are conventionally linked to
few and remote vestiges of forest wilderness or pristine water views, it is
increasingly important to understand the role of landscape design and public
art in providing sanctuaries where a sense of balance can be restored to hectic
lifestyles. However, parameters such as age, sex, ethnic background, and socioeconomic
status have powerful influences on individual and group perception of restorative
environments as defined by artificial public spaces in confined urban centers
(Hartig et al. 2003; Laumann et al. 2003). In this research project I sought
to identify common features of preferred restorative environments in a sample
population according to the categories typically associated with topophilia:
synesthetic tendency (commingling of sensory stimuli and the memory of place),
environmental familiarity, cognitive challenge, and ecodiversity (Janzen 1998;
Tuan 1993, 1999). The specification of topophilic preferences is potentially
more informative if the preferences are linked to tangible benefits for human
health and welfare. In this regard, the literature on restorative environments
has lacked a quantitative measure of restoration, although there have been
some preliminary empirical excursions into the putative linkages between individual
environment preferences and restoration (Staats et al. 1997, 2003; van den
Berg et al. 2003). Those studies typically request that stressed subjects declare
their preference (e.g., which is more “beautiful”?) for either
a forested landscape or the concrete world of an urban downtown. Hence, the
fine-level characteristics of built versus natural ecosystems have not been
adequately captured (Ulrich 1993).
In the present study, I assessed the mental health profile
of respondents to the topophilia survey by means of the World Health Organization’s
quality of life survey instrument (WHOQOL-Bref). The WHO defines quality of
life (QOL) as “an individual’s perception of their position in
life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live, and
in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns” (WHOQOL
Group 1994, 1995, 1998a, 1998b). Both the 100-question (WHOQOL-100) and 26-question
(WHOQOL-Bref) versions have been validated across many cultures, in several
countries, and for different contexts of health, well-being, and occupational
stress (Kuyken et al. 1994; Nasermoaddeli et al. 2003; Skevington et al. 2004;
Weatherall et al. 2004). WHOQOL-Bref is recommended when it is advisable to
minimize the time burden on respondents. Furthermore, it has been shown to
have excellent psychometric properties of reliability, and it performed well
in tests of validity across the four domains of health, namely, physical health,
psychological well-being, social relationships, and environmental support (Saxena
et al. 2001).
As a seminal exploration of the linkages between QOL and
preferred environmental and ecosystem features, the present study explicitly
posed the hypothesis that those exhibiting high QOL are more likely to describe
their domicile as providing access to restorative environments defined by specific
components of the landscape. I further hypothesized that preference for the
specific topophilia domain of ecodiversity is associated with high QOL. The
hypotheses were tested by statistical analyses of responses to structured questionnaires.
The population sampled for this study identified preferences for water bodies,
flowers, and spatial familiarity restoration.
The results provide insight into specific aspects of ecosystems
and artificial landscapes that are more likely to support restoration and the
enhancement of QOL. Importantly, the set of methods developed here provides
a strategy for future investigations addressing the response of diverse populations
in different urban environments to various aspects of natural and artificial
topography.
Human subject pool. Human subjects for
the study were recruited at the University of California at Irvine between
August 2001 and August 2002. For most respondents, the campus represented
both residential and work environments during periods of concentrated academic
activity.
It is partly for this reason that construction and landscape developmental
plans for many campuses recognize the need to provide oases for recreation,
reflection, and mental restoration. However, there has never been a systematic
study of preferences for landscape design relative to the level of restoration
experienced after study-induced stress or fatigue. Respondents were recruited
from well-visited locations across campus, including library, bookstore,
restaurant, and athletic fields. The average amount of time required for
completion of
the questionnaire was 15 min. The recruitment material was approved by the
institutional review board for research on human subjects at the University
of California, Irvine.
A cover letter introduced the research project and informed
potential respondents that participation is voluntary and confidentiality is
assured throughout the entire process. Each survey was denoted by a numerical
identifier. Self-reported information was collected on baseline characteristics
such as sex, age, level of education attained, marital status, and ethnic background.
Information was also collected on the location of permanent domicile and on
the length of time that respondents have spent living and working or schooling
at the specific campus.
Table 1
![Table 1](image/table1sm.gif)
|
Topophilia rating. Restorative environment
is used in the context of this study to mean a place associated with relief
from mental stress or fatigue. There are few standardized quantitative measures
of the specific components of restorative environments (Laumann et al. 2001).
In this study, composite measures for environmental perception and preferences
for specific ecosystem components and landscape design were integrated in an
18-item questionnaire (questionnaire items 8-25 in Table 1). This measure
of topophilia was developed using the theoretical foundations provided by the
work of Tuan and existing theories of restorative environments (Betrabet 1996;
Hartig and Evans 1993; Hertzog et al. 2003; Tuan 1999). Respondents rated their
preferences for specific categories of ecosystem components and environmental
and landscape design characteristics on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being most
effective toward respondent’s expectation of restoration experience.
This set of questions focused on the level of importance that respondents accorded
to ecosystem components regardless of whether or not they have current access
or they expect to actually experience the benefits of exposure to the items
being rated. For example, the questions in this category were framed as follows: “Rate
the following characteristics (or sensory qualities/ecological components)
of an environment according to your expectation of how effective they will
be in making you feel refreshed or experience restoration, on a scale of 1-10
with 10 being most effective.”
Confirmatory factor analyses identified four specific domains
underlying topophilia: cognitive challenge (e.g., complexity and coherence),
synesthetic tendency (e.g., colors and sounds), ecodiversity (e.g., water bodies
and trees), and familiarity (e.g., identifiability and privacy). For these
domains, statistical factor loadings all exceeded 0.60, and Cronbach ![alpha](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090120063836im_/http://www.ehponline.org/image/alpha.GIF) -values
ranged from 0.68 to 0.87 (Table 2). The last question in the section on topophilia
ratings asked respondents to actually rate the campus according to the number
and kinds of accessible restorative environments, on a scale of 1 to 10 with
10 representing saturation (i.e., all subcategories within topophilia are accessible).
This question addressed the extent to which various environmental elements
were not only present, but also provided satisfying restorative effects in
respondents’ current environment. The question was phrased as follows: “On
a scale of 1 to 10, rate your current home environment according to the abundance
and variety of restorative environments that are accessible to you.”
Table 2
![Table 2](image/table2sm.gif)
|
Assessing QOL. I used the brief version of
the WHO’s QOL survey instrument (WHOQOL-Bref) in this study to assess
the QOL of respondents according to the four minor domains of physical health
(seven categorical items), psychological welfare (six items), social relationships
(three items), and environmental support (eight items). The four minor domains
were statistically modeled to produce an overall score for the QOL for each
respondent. The reliability of the associations between the observed variables
and the latent domain of QOL was excellent, according to the consistently high
Cronbach ![alpha](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090120063836im_/http://www.ehponline.org/image/alpha.GIF) -values computed for the models (Table 2). WHOQOL-Bref instrument
was used with permission from the WHO (Üstün TB, personal correspondence).
A syntax file for checking the data and computing domain scores was obtained
from M. Power (University of Edinburgh, Scotland). The WHOQOL-Bref scores were
created and interpreted exactly as specified by the WHOQOL Group (1994, 1995,
1998a, 1998b). Factor loadings for all four domains exceeded 0.6, and Cronbach
![alpha](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090120063836im_/http://www.ehponline.org/image/alpha.GIF) -values ranged from 0.71 to 0.77 (Table 2).
Statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics,
correlation coefficients, and regression analyses were conducted using SPSS
statistical software (version 12.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Structural equation
modeling to identify relationships among the domains of topophilia and QOL
was conducted using Amos software (version 5.0; SPSS, Inc.).
Results
Human subjects. Table 1 shows the descriptive
statistics and general properties of the sample population. A total of 379
respondents completed the questionnaire. The average age of respondents was
23 years, ranging from 17 to 60 years. Females represented 58% of the sample
population. The sample was ethnically diverse, but of those who registered
their ethnicity, more respondents (24%) claimed Asian ethnicity than others
(17% Caucasian, 4% Hispanic, 3% African American, and 4% mixed ethnicity).
The majority (88%) of the sample population reported being single (9% married;
3% divorced or separated). Most respondents (79%) were pursuing undergraduate
degree programs, and a large majority (88%) reported themselves to be healthy
at the time of the survey.
![Figure 1](image/fig1sm.gif)
Figure 1. The statistical model of the association
between topophilia, QOL, and their proximate determinants. Structural
equation modeling was used to generate confirmatory loading factors for
the relationships between each of the questionnaire items for topophilia
and the standardized WHOQOL-Bref model. Boxes at level T-1 represent
the four major domains of topophilia that were revealed by principal
components analysis of responses to rating preferences for questionnaire
items included in the boxes at level T-2. Level T-0 in the oval shape
represents the latent variable of topophilia. Similarly, boxes at level
Q-1 represent the four major domains of QOL identified through principal
components analysis of responses to questionnaire items at level Q-2.
Level Q-0 in the rectangular shape represents measured values for QOL.
The factor values not in parentheses are from this study; comparative
values for an international field trial of WHOQOL-Bref are included (in
parentheses) from the general instrument validation study reported by
Skevington et al. (2004). |
Statistical model. It was important to first
determine whether the responses to questions posed to assess topophilia clustered
together in easily recognizable groups. Indeed, confirmatory factor analyses
demonstrated four domains underlying topophilia: ecodiversity (questionnaire
items 20-25 in Table 1), synesthetic tendency (items 15-19), cognitive
challenge (items 8-11), and familiarity (items 12-14). Structural
equation modeling showed that all four domains loaded onto the latent construct
of topophilia. The strongest domain was synesthetic tendency (0.84), and the
weakest domain was cognitive challenge (0.37) (Figure 1).
Four major domains of human experience are also generally
recognized to contribute to human self-reporting of QOL. Figure 1 shows the
results of confirmatory factor analyses demonstrating that the four recognized
domains of WHOQOL-Bref (i.e., physical health, psychological well-being, social
relationships, and environmental support) also loaded highly on the underlying
latent construct of QOL. These factor loadings are comparable with those identified
in an international population sample by the WHOQOL Group (1994, 1995, 1998a,
1998b). The strongest domain was psychological well-being (0.81), and the weakest
domain was social relationships (0.66).
I also used structural equation modeling to test the relationship
between the latent variable of topophilia and the overall QOL scores based
on WHOQOL-Bref. The statistical model showed extremely good fit with the data,
linking observed overall QOL score and the latent variable of topophilia that
was derived from all the four major domains: 2 (df = 5, n =
379) = 5.02 (p = 0.414). The correlation between topophilia and QOL
score is 0.12 (p = 0.047) (Figure 1). The smallest loading factor among
the four underlying determinants of topophilia was 0.37 for the domain of cognitive
challenge. Therefore, I tested a new model without the cognitive challenge
domain, and the fit between the data and model improved slightly: 2 (df
= 2, n = 379) = 1.84 (p = 0.398). For this new model, the correlation
between topophilia and QOL remained at 0.12 (p = 0.040). Therefore,
I judged the model with all four domains of topophilia to be the best model,
although further research is warranted to improve the factor loading for the
cognitive challenge domain, which currently includes questions on complexity,
mystery, coherence, and texture.
Variance and correlations among the domains of topophilia
and QOL.Topophilia. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being
the most effective in supporting a restorative experience, the mean rating
of topophilia subcategories ranged from the lowest observed value of 4.75
(SD = 2.67) for complexity to the highest observed value of 7.90 (SD =
2.32) for the presence of trees (Table 1). The mean (± SD) rating
of restoration opportunities attributed to respondents’ location
was 7.1 ± 1.9, also on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the
most saturated with opportunities for experiencing restoration.
Quality of life. Most respondents ranked their QOL
very highly (mean ~ 3.98 ± 0.81; on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being
the highest QOL). Similarly, most respondents were satisfied with their health
status (mean = 3.69 ± 0.89). Respondents mostly felt that their lives
are meaningful (mean = 3.76 ± 0.96), and most enjoyed a healthy physical
environment (mean = 3.54 ± 0.83). The computed scores for the four domains
of QOL were reasonably high, consistent with scores observed by WHOQOL Group
(1994, 1995, 1998a, 1998b) for healthy international populations. The computed
score for the physical health domain was the highest (mean = 15.22 ± 2.24;
on a scale of 1-20, with 20 being the highest). The lowest domain score
was for the environment domain (mean = 14.38 ± 2.33). The overall QOL
computed from the domain scores was also high (mean = 14.69 ± 2.11)
(Table 1).
Table 3
![Table 3](image/table3sm.gif)
|
Correlations. Table 3 shows the correlation
matrix between the domains of topophilia and the domains of QOL. The data
show that only the “ecodiversity” category of topophilia was
significantly correlated to the overall QOL (r = 0.123; p < 0.05),
and within this category, the presence of flowers (r = 0.162; p < 0.01)
and proximity to lakes/ocean (r = 0.129; p < 0.05) were
significantly correlated with the overall QOL. All the major categories of
topophilia were
significantly correlated with the rating of opportunities for restoration
at the current domicile of the respondents, but the domain of familiarity
was
significant only at the p = 0.05 level, whereas cognitive challenge,
synesthetic tendency, and ecodiversity were significant at the p =
0.01 level (Table 3).
Discussion
What are the tangible health benefits to its citizens of
society’s investment in ecologic conservation, environmental design,
and expensive landscape architecture? There is near universal agreement that
these investments are justifiable, but until now there have been no straightforward
methodologies for providing quantitative answers to this question because of
the widely acknowledged variations in individual preferences and valuation
of environmental quality across regional, national, political, and cultural
boundaries. This study linked, for the first time, a standardized globally
validated measure of human QOL with the indicators of human preferences for
ecosystem attributes that have been associated with restorative environments.
In addition to providing this linkage, the results of this study also suggest
a quantitative strategy for proactive assessment of user preferences for specific
landscape features before the implementation of environmental design initiatives
aimed at enhancing public health and welfare.
This study was conducted primarily among an educated youthful
population sample inhabiting a societal microcosm. This is considered an important
strength of the study in the sense that both the population and site are supported
by considerable societal economic expenditure as an investment in future generations.
However, appropriate caution is warranted before the data can be extrapolated
to major urban centers--for example, in the construction of large parks
for populations having lower levels of education, different ethnic composition,
or different kinds of stressors. That said, it is important to note that the
WHOQOL-Bref model scores observed in this study are not significantly different
from those measured for healthy populations in most parts of the world (Saxena
et al. 2001; Skevington et al. 2004) (Figure 1).
This study yielded two major findings: a) The overall
QOL score is significantly associated with high rating of topophilia, and b)
environmental and landscape design strategies associated with cognitive challenge--complexity,
coherence, and the use of textural stimulation--are less effective in
creating impressions of environmental restoration, whereas ecologic designs
using ecodiversity themes--particularly the presence of flowers, lakes,
or oceans--are generally perceived as providing restorative environments.
The implications of these two major findings are discussed in the following
sections.
Linkage of topophilia, restoration, and QOL. The
major finding of this study is that a statistically valid model explicitly
connects a standardized measure of the overall QOL scores with the latent construct
of topophilia (correlation = 0.12; p = 0.047). Furthermore, all the
factor loadings from the four precisely defined domains (ecodiversity, synesthetic
tendency, environmental familiarity, and cognitive challenge) were significant,
and the reliability according to Cronbach -values was very good for the
latent construct of topophilia (Table 2). These findings provide a strong
tool for
studies attempting to bridge the current epistemologic gap between personal
preferences for environmental or ecologic resources and mental health. There
is a long history of research on the theoretical underpinnings of the specific
identities of person-environment interactions that enhance the restorative
experience (Betrabet 1996; Kaplan 1995, 2001; King et al. 2002; Korpela et
al. 2001). However, empirical validations of these theoretical constructs
are rare. Among the dominant theories of restorative environments is attention
restoration theory (ART), which posits that intensive or prolonged use of
directed
attention leads to fatigue of the mechanisms that serve it, and that the
recovery of effective functioning (restoration) is enabled by experience
of certain
components of a restorative environment (Hertzog et al. 2003; Kaplan 1995). ART
is particularly relevant to populations encamped in densely populated geographical
locations with the fatigue-prone occupations. According to ART, restorative
environments are characterized by four features: “being away,” “extent,” “fascination,” and “compatibility” (Hertzog
et al. 2003). The topophilia domains used in the present study differ substantially
from ART features, although there are overlaps. For example, certain aspects
of “being away” and “compatibility” are captured by
the “environmental familiarity” index used in this study. Similarly,
the “extent” feature of ART is most similar to the “cognitive
challenge” category, whereas the “fascination” feature of
ART is most similar to the “synesthetic tendency” construct used
here. Perhaps the most salient advantage of the strategy used here is the explicit
presentation of “ecodiversity” as a category. In ART, the main
focus is to explain why people prefer natural environments to artificial
(built) environments. This limitation has prevented empirical analysis of
just what
part of nature people find extensive, fascinating, or compatible. The finding
of the present research eliminates this limitation and provides a solid context
for further empirical testing of the determinants of restorative environments.
Ecodiversity themes are paramount in the environmental
restoration experience. The results of this research further buttress
previous findings that when presented with opportunities for restoration,
people rank proximity to natural/wildlife environments higher than landscape
or urban constructions that overemphasize complex designs or artificial
sensory stimulation, although these latter criteria can also contribute
to the overall restoration experience. Specifically, the presence of flowers
and water bodies are identified in this study as major factors that are
associated with QOL and the experience of restorative environments. This
level of pinpointing has been previously difficult to establish because
most research on environmental preferences have relied on composite measures
of “nature,” such as photographs of forests or nature hikes
(Hartig et al. 1994). Specifically, van den Berg et al. (2003) noted that
the absence of mediational analyses in past research has led to inadequate
evidence for the intricacies of the theoretically sound and empirically
supported line of reasoning that people typically demonstrate a fondness
for nature more than the built environment. The functional accounting of
environmental preferences suggests that individuals are attracted to environments
that provide tangible benefits to health and that the level of attraction
depends on the baseline of measurable health status (Hertzog et al. 2003).
To use a pertinent metaphor, drivers whose automobiles rarely run out of
gas are also more likely to pay attention to their fuel gauges and to know
the locations of the best refueling stations, being picky about the cost
of fuel and brand name of each station. That is, they are more likely to
indulge in preferential rating of refueling stations than drivers who are
stressed and less attentive. To bring this metaphor home to the present
study, those who maintain a high QOL are also more likely to rank high
on topophilia and to more clearly identify those components of the environment
that afford high levels of regular restoration.
In addition to pointing out the positive associations between
specific components of ecodiversity and mental health, it is also noteworthy
to emphasize the surprising finding that none of the components of the synesthetic
sensory stimuli category showed strong statistical association with QOL. So,
for example, the anecdotal linkages that have been made in the academic literature,
and even in commercial enterprises regarding the health benefits of listening
to sounds associated with wildlife and natural settings (e.g., ocean waves,
wind-rustled leaves, cricket sounds), are not strongly supported here. However,
it is equally important to note the subjective nature of such preferences,
and a much larger subject sample may be required to reach firm conclusions
in this direction.
Conclusion
This study demonstrated a statistically significant association
between QOL and topophilia using a standardized, internationally validated
measure of QOL developed by the mental health group of the WHO, and a new construct
of environmental preferences defined by the latent variable of topophilia.
Synesthetic tendency is the strongest domain of topophilia, and psychological
well-being is the strongest domain of QOL. Furthermore, the study demonstrated
in the sample population that the appreciation of ecologic diversity is the
strongest component of topophilia that is associated with QOL. Within the ecodiversity
subdomain, the appreciation of flowers and water bodies are correlated with
high QOL, but not the presence of animals, trees, or hilly terrains. These
findings are consistent with other findings regarding the ubiquitous preference
of natural environments instead of built environments, in the sense that no
strong associations were observed between environmental features of complexity
and coherence, which are typically assumed to be artificial features. In addition,
there were no strong associations between the experience of sensory stimuli,
such as sound, smell, or color, and QOL, possibly because of a high level of
variance in the latent variable entitled synesthetic tendency. This study provides
a new empirical way of assessing restoration and other health benefits that
have been t |
|
![spacer](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090120063836im_/http://www.ehponline.org/siteimages/transpixel.gif) |
[References Listed in PubMed] References
Betrabet G. 1996. The garden as a restorative environment:
a theoretical perspective. J Ther Horticult 8:15-20.
Carlson A. 2000. Aesthetics and the Environment: The Appreciation
of Nature, Art, and Architecture. London:Routledge.
Hartig T, Bowler PA, Wolf A. 1994. The psychological ecology
of ecological restoration. Restor Manag Notes 12:133-137.
Hartig T, Evans GW. 1993. Psychological foundations of
nature experience. Adv Psychol 96:427-457.
Hartig T, Evans GW, Jamner LD, Davis
DS, Gärling T.
2003. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. J Environ Psychol
23:109-123.
Hartig T, Staats H. 2003. Guest editors’ introduction:
restorative environments. J Environ Psychol 23:103-107.
Hertzog TR, Maguire CP, Nebel MB. 2003. Assessing the restorative
components of environments. J Environ Psychol 23:159-170.
Janzen D. 1998. Gardenification of wildland nature and
the human footprint. Science 279: 1312-1313.
Kaplan S. 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward
an integrated framework. J Environ Psychol 15: 169-182.
Kaplan S. 2001. Meditation, restoration, and the management
of mental fatigue. Environ Behav 33: 480-506.
King A, Stokols D, Talen E, Brassington ES, Killingsworth
R. 2002. Theoretical approaches to the promotion of physical activity: forging
a transdisciplinary paradigm. Am J Prev Med 23:15-25.
Korpela KM, Hartig T, Kaiser FG, Fuhrer U. 2001. Restorative
experience and self-regulation in favorite places. Environ Behav 33:572-589.
Kuyken W, Orley J, Hudelson P, Sartorius N. 1994. Quality
of life assessment across cultures. Int J Ment Health 23:5-27.
Laumann K, Garling T, Stormark KM. 2001. Rating scale measures
of restorative components of environments. J Environ Psychol 21:31-34.
Laumann K, Garling T, Stormark KM. 2003. Selective attention
and heart rate responses to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol
23:25-134.
Nasermoaddeli A, Sekine M, Hamanishi S, Kagamimori S. 2003.
Associations between sense of coherence and psychological work characteristics
with changes in quality of life in Japanese civil servants: a 1-year follow-up
study. Ind Health 41:236-241.
Parsons R. 1991. The potential influences of environmental
perception on health. J Environ Psychol 11: 1-23.
Porteous JD. 1996. Environmental Aesthetics: Idea, Politics
and Planning. London:Routledge.
Saxena S, Carlson D, Billington R, WHOQOL Group. 2001.
The WHO quality of life assessment instrument (WHOQOL-Bref): the importance
of its items for cross-cultural research. Qual Life Res 10:711-721.
Saxena S, Sharan P, Saraceno B. 2003.
Budget and financing of mental health services: baseline information on 89
countries from WHO’s
Project Atlas. J Ment Health Policy Econ 6:135-143.
Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O’Connell KA, WHOQOL Group.
2004. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-Bref quality of life assessment:
psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report
from the WHOQOL group. Qual Life Res 13:299-310.
Staats H, Gattersleben B, Hartig T. 1997. Change in mood
as a function of environmental design: arousal and pleasure on a simulated
forest hike. J Environ Psychol 17: 283-300.
Staats H, Kieviet A, Hartig T. 2003. Where to recover from
attentional fatigue: an expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference.
J Environ Psychol 23: 147-157.
Tuan Y-F. 1993. Passing Strange and Wonderful: Aesthetics,
Nature, and Culture. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Tuan Y-F. 1999. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception,
Attitudes, and Values. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ulrich RS. 1979. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being.
Landsc Res 4:17-23.
Ulrich RS. 1993. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes.
In: The Biophilia Hypothesis (Kellert SR, Wilson EO, eds). Washington, DC:Island
Press, 73-137.
Van den Berg AE, Koole SL, van der Wulp NY. 2003. Environmental
preference and restoration: (how) are they related? J Environ Psychol 23:135-146.
Weatherall M, McPherson K, Taylor W, Simpson R. 2004. Avoiding
pitfalls of correlation coefficients in the assessment of measurement instruments
in rehabilitation research. Clin Rehab 18:186-194.
WHOQOL Group. 1994. Development of the WHOQOL: rationale
and current status. Int J Mental Health 23: 24-56.
WHOQOL Group. 1995. The World Health Organization Quality
of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization.
Soc Sci Med 41: 1403-1409.
WHOQOL Group. 1998a. Development of the World Health Organization
WHOQOL-Bref quality of life assessment. Psych Med 28:551-558.
WHOQOL Group. 1998b. The World Health Organization Quality
of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties.
Soc Sci Med 46: 1569-1585.
Last Updated: January 11, 2005 |
|
![spacer](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090120063836im_/http://www.ehponline.org/siteimages/transpixel.gif) |
|
| |