Fractal Dimension Links Responses to a Visual Scene to Its Biodiversity

Abstract

Humans appear to have an innate, beneficial response and preference for natural over urban scenes, yet “natural” is an ambiguous concept that varies from culture to culture. In looking for a commonality to natural scenes that tends to be lacking in built scenes, many researchers have turned to fractal geometry, finding that fractal dimension can predict preference. Here, I calculated the fractal dimension of the dominant land-sky edge at a variety of sites having varying depths of water table and levels of biodiversity (specifically, “species richness”). I then investigated changes in human physiological arousal (magnitude of skin conductance responses) in response to images of those scenes. Sites with high biodiversity were shown to have a significantly higher associated fractal dimension than low-biodiversity sites, whereas shallow versus deep water-table sites showed no significant difference. When shown the images, the magnitude of skin conductance responses for human viewers showed a negative correlation with fractal dimension. Replicating earlier findings, ranked preference for a scene showed a positive correlation with fractal dimension. Taken together, these findings suggest an evolved response to stimuli associated with a healthy ecosystem: Patterns of healthy vegetative growth determine visual fractal dimension, which reduces physiological arousal upon observation, this being experienced as a positive emotional state and expressed as a preference for that environment. Key Words: Fractal—Natural environment—Biodiversity—Restorative environment—Skin conductance response.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abarbanel

H. D. I.

(1996). Analysis of observed chaotic data. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.

Balling

J. D.

, & Falk

J. H.

(1982). Development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior, 14, 5–28.

Brown

J. H.

, Gupta

V. K.

, Li

B.-L.

, Milne

B. T.

, Restrepo

, & West

G. B.

(2002). The fractal nature of nature: Power laws, ecological complexity and biodiversity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 357, 619–626.

Cheung

K. C.

, & Wells

N. M

. (2004). The natural environment & human well-being: Insights from fractal composition analysis?. HarFA—Harmonic and Fractal Image Analysis, 1, 76–82. Retrieved February 2, 2011, from http://www.fch.vutbr.cz/lectures/imagesci/includes/harfa_e_journal.inc.php

Glass

, & Mackey

M. C.

(1988). From clocks to chaos: The rhythms of life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gotelli

N. J.

, & Colwell

R. K.

(2001). Quantifying biodiversity: Procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters, 4, 379–391.

Hagerhall

C. M.

, Purcell

, & Taylor

(2004). Fractal dimension of landscape silhouette outlines as a predictor of landscape preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 247–255.

Hagerhall

C. M.

, Laike

, Taylor

R. P.

, Küller

, & Martin

T. P.

(2008). Investigations of human EEG response to viewing fractal patterns. Perception, 37, 1488–1494.

Jackson

R. B.

, Moore

L. A.

, Hoffmann

W. A.

, Pockman

W. T.

, & Linder

C. R

. (1999). Ecosystem rooting depth determined with caves and DNA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 96, 11387–11392.

10.

Joye

(2007). Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: The case of biophilic architecture. Review of General Psychology, 11, 305–328.

11.

Kals

, Schumacher

, & Montada

(1999). Emotional affinity toward Nature as a motivational basis to protect Nature. Environment and Behavior, 31, 178–202.

12.

Keller

J. M.

, Crownover

R. M.

, & Chen

R. Y.

(1987). Characteristics of natural scenes related to the fractal dimension. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 9, 621–627.

13.

Krummel

J. R.

, Gardner

R. H.

, Sugihara

, O'Neill

R. V.

, & Coleman

P. R.

(1987). Landscape patterns in a disturbed environment. Oikos, 48, 321–324.

14.

Lyubomirsky

, King

, & Diener

(2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success?. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.

15.

Mandelbrot

B. B.

(1983). The fractal geometry of nature. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Co.

16.

Natural History Museum. (2009). Popular estimates of biodiversity value: Using species richness. Retrieved December 2, 2009, from www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/worldmap/diversity/species.htm

17.

Olff

, & Ritchie

M. E.

(2002). Fragmented nature: Consequences for biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, 83–92.

18.

Párraga

C. A.

, Troscianko

, & Tolhurst

D. J.

(2000). The human visual system is optimised for processing the spatial information in natural visual images. Current Biology, 10, 35–38.

19.

Parsons

, & Hartig

(2000). Environmental psychophysiology. In Cacioppo

J. T.

, Tassinary

L. G.

, & Berntson

G. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

20.

Purcell

A. T.

, Lamb

R. J.

, Mainardi Peron

, & Falchero

(1994). Preference or preferences for landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14, 195–205.

21.

Rayner

, & Pollatsek

(1992). Eye movements and scene perception. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 342–376.

22.

Rogowitz

B. E.

, & Voss

R. F.

(1990). Shape perception and low dimension fractal boundary contours. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Vision: Methods, Models and Applications, SPIE/SPSE Symposium on Electron Imaging, 1249, 387–394.

23.

Roszak

(1992). The voice of the Earth. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

24.

Sersen

E. A.

, Clausen

, & Lidsky

(1978). Autonomic specificity and stereotypy revisited. Psychophysiology, 5, 60–67.

25.

Spehar

, Clifford

C. W. G.

, Newell

B. R.

, & Taylor

R. P

. (2003). Universal aesthetic of fractals. Computers & Graphics, 27, 813–820.

26.

Stevens

(2007). Affective response to 5μT ELF magnetic field-induced physiological changes. Bioelectromagnetics, 28, 109–114.

27.

Stevens

(2010). Embedment in the environment—a new paradigm for wellbeing?. Perspectives in Public Health, 130, 265–269.

28.

Ulrich

R. S.

(1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In Altman

& Wohlwill

J. F.

(Eds.) Behavior and the natural environment: Human behavior and environment—advances in theory and research volume 6 (pp. 85–126). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

29.

Ulrich

R. S.

, Simons

R. F.

, Losito

B. D.

, Fiorito

, Mile

M. A.

, & Zelson

(1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201–230.