Impact of the perceived sensory dimensions of an atypical environment on perceived environmental restorativeness ( Impacto de las dimensiones sensoriales percibidas de un ambiente atípico sobre la percepción de restauración ambiental )

Abstract

Spanish

This study documents the restorative influence of an atypical natural environment characterized in terms of its ecosystem as Tamaulipan Thornscrub (TT), considering a classification of urban green areas based on eight perceived sensory dimensions (PSD). A sample of 444 university students (62% women; age range 18–29) evaluated the restorative potential of a set of images from the TT ecosystem classified in one of the following PSD categories: Diverse, Natural, Open, Cohesive, Social, Cultural, Sheltered and Serene. Analysis conducted using non-parametric repeated measures tests showed that Diverse and Serene PSD are significantly more restorative than the other dimensions, while Natural and Cohesive are the least restorative. The TT ecosystem overall was perceived to possess moderate global restorative potential. The interaction between PSD, the TT ecosystem, perceived environmental restorativeness and its contribution to the promotion of public health is discussed. Finally, the use of certain PSD in green areas is suggested along with the consideration of studying specific eco-biological factors.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akpınar

(2021). How perceived sensory dimensions of urban green spaces are associated with teenagers’ perceived restoration, stress, and mental health? Landscape and Urban Planning, 214, 104185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104185

Balling

J. D.

Falk

J. H

. (2009). Evolutionary influence on human landscape preference. Environment and Behaviour, 42(4), 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916509341244

Carrus

Lafortezza

Colangelo

Dentamaro

Scopelliti

Sanesi

. (2013). Relations between naturalness and perceived restorativeness of different urban green spaces. PsyEcology, 4(3), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1174/217119713807749869

CONABIO . (s.f.). Ecosistemas de México, Matorrales. Biodiversidad mexicana. Retrieved December 25, 2022, from https://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/ecosistemas/Matorral

Del Carmen-Robles

E. H.

Andaverde-Vega

A. A.

Tirado-Medina

. (2022). Caracterización desde la psicología ambiental de un ecosistema atípico en áreas verdes urbanas: Discutiendo la relevancia de los factores ecobiológicos en ambientes salutogénicos. Decumanus, 8(8), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.20983/decumanus.2022.1.3

Ellis

E. C.

Beusen

A. H. W.

Goldewijk

K. K

. (2020). Anthropogenic biomes: 10,000 BCE to 2015 CE. Land, 9(5), 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9050129

Fuller

R. A.

Irvine

K. N.

Devine-Wright

Warren

P. H.

Gaston

K. J

. (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3(4), 390–394. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149

Graciano-Ávila

Alanis

Treviño

González

Rubio-Camacho

Mata

. (2018). Caracterización y estructura florística de un grupo funcional vegetal del matorral espinoso tamaulipeco. Gayana – Botanica, 75(1), 512–523. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-66432018000100512

Grahn

Stigsdotter

U. K

. (2010). The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(3–4), 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.10.012

10.

Hartig

Korpela

Evans

G. W.

Gärling

. (1997). A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 14(4), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02815739708730435

11.

Hartig

Mitchell

de Vries

Frumkin

. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35(1), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443

12.

Haviland-Jones

Rosario

H. H.

Wilson

McGuire

T. R

. (2005). An environmental approach to positive emotion: flowers. Evolutionary Psychology, 3(1), 104–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490500300109

13.

Honold

Lakes

Beyer

van der Meer

. (2016). Restoration in urban spaces: Nature views from home, greenways, and public parks. Environment and Behavior, 48(6), 796–825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514568556

14.

Ivarsson

C. T.

Hagerhall

C. M

. (2008). The perceived restorativeness of gardens – Assessing the restorativeness of a mixed built and natural scene type. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2008.01.001

15.

Kaplan

. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2

16.

Kaplan

. (1989). The experience of nature. A psychological perspective. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

17.

Malekinezhad

Bin Lamit

. (2017). Investigation into restoration experience: The effects of perceived sensory dimension and perceived restorativeness. Preprints . https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints201708.0085.v1

18.

Markevych

Schoeierer

Hartig

Chudnovsky

Hystade

Dzhambovf

A. M.

de Vries

Triguero-Mash Fuertes

. (2017). Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environmental Research, 158, 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.028

19.

Martínez-Soto

de la Fuente

L. A.

Ruiz Correa

. (2021). Exploring the links between biophilic and restorative qualities of exterior and interior spaces in Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(717116), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.717116

20.

Martínez-Soto

González-Santos

. (2020). Affective psychological restoration through mediated exposure to the environment (Restauración psicológica afectiva a partir de la exposición mediada del ambiente). PsyEcology, 11(3), 289–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/21711976.2020.1730133

21.

Martínez-Soto

González-Santos

Barrios

F. A

. (2014). Affective and restorative valences for three environmental categories. Perceptual and Motor Skills: Perception, 119(3), 901–923. https://doi.org/10.2466/24.50.PMS.119c29z4

22.

Martínez-Soto

Montero y López-Lena

M. E.

(2008). Escala de restauración ambiental percibida EPRA: Diferencias por edad y sexo en muestras de adolescentes y adultos mexicanos. In Rodríguez

& Chapin

(Eds.), Linking differences/defining actions: proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association (pp. 70–77). EDRA.

23.

Memari

Pazhouhanfar

Nourtaghani

. (2017). Relationship between perceived sensory dimensions and stress restoration in care settings. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 26, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.06.003

24.

Molina-Guerra

V. M.

Mora-Olivo

Alanís-Rodríguez

Soto-Mata

B. E.

Patiño-Flores

A. M

. (2019). Plantas características del matorral espinoso tamaulipeco en México. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo Léon.

25.

Peron

Berto

Purcell

. (2002). Restorativeness, preference and the perceived naturalness of places. Medio Ambiente y Comportamiento Humano, 3(1), 19–34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284578875_Restorativeness_preference_and_the_perceived_naturalness_of_places

26.

Peschard

K. K.

Stigsdotter

U. K

. (2013). Associations between park characteristics and perceived restorativeness of small public urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 112, 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.013

27.

Peschardt

K. K.

(2014). Health promoting pocket parks in a landscape architectural perspective [Doctoral Dissertation]. Departamento de Geociencias y Manejo de Recursos Naturales, University of Copenhagen.

28.

Qiu

Chen

Gao

. (2021). The effects of urban natural environments on preference and self-reported psychological restoration of the elderly. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(509), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020509

29.

Rodríguez

J. P.

Rodríguez-Clark

K. M.

Baillie

J. M.

Ash

Benson

Boucher

Brown

Burgess

N. D.

Zamin

. (2011). Definición de Categorías de UICN para Ecosistemas Amenazados. Conservation Biology, 25(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01598.x

30.

Sánchez

Flores

Cruz-Leyva

I. A.

Velázquez

. (2009). Estado y transformación de los ecosistemas terrestres por causas humanas. In Sarukhán

(Ed.), Capital natural de México (Vol. II, pp. 75–129). CONABIO. Estado de conservación y tendencias de cambio.

31.

Sidenius

(2017). The Therapy Garden Nacadia®: The interplay between evidence-based health design in landscape architecture, nature-based therapy and the individual (Doctoral Dissertation). Departamento de Geociencias y Manejo de Recursos Naturales, University of Copenhagen.

32.

Stoltz

(2020). Perceived sensory dimensions. A human centred approach to environmental planning and design [Doctoral Dissertation]. Departamento de Geografía Física, Stockholm University.

33.

Sullivan

Kaplan

. (2015). Nature! Small steps that can make a big difference. Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9(2), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586715623664

34.

Ulrich

R. S

. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85–125). Plenum Press.

35.

Vujčić

M. J.

Tomićević-Dubljevi

. (2018). Urban forest benefits to the younger population: The case study of the city of Belgrade, Serbia. Forest Policy and Economics, 96, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.08.006

36.

Wang

Zhao

Meitner

M. J.

. (2019). Characteristics of urban green spaces in relation to aesthetic preference and stress recovery. Urban Forestry & Urban Greenery, 41, 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.03.005

37.

Zhu

Hassan

Wang

Chen

. (2022). Relationship between PSD of park green space and attention restoration in dense urban areas. Brain Sciences, 12(6), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci12060721