We investigated the extent to which the amount of sky and other contents affect expectations that window views will support psychological restoration in an urban context. The study involved 102 digital view images across which the amount of sky and other contents were varied systematically through manipulation of variables relevant to urban densification. University students (N = 212) rated images on restorative quality (being away, fascination), restoration likelihood, or preference. We aggregated the ratings for each variable for each image and used the images as cases in analyses. Amount of sky and presence of a window box with greenery had direct positive effects on restoration likelihood judgments, as well as indirect effects mediated by being away and fascination. Ground-level views with people and street trees evoked ratings similar to those for some views with sky, but the views judged most restorative and most liked were those with the most sky.
AppletonJ. (1996). The experience of landscape (Rev. ed.). London, England: Wiley.
2.
BeatleyT. (1999). Green urbanism: Learning from European cities. Washington, DC: Island Press.
3.
BensonE. D.HansenJ. L.SchwartzA. L.Jr.SmershG. T. (1998). Pricing residential amenities: The value of a view. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 16, 55-73. doi:10.1023/A:1007785315925
4.
BishopI. D.LangeE.MahbubulA. M. (2004). Estimation of the influence of view components on high-rise apartment pricing using a public survey and GIS modeling. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, 439-452. doi:10.1068/b3042
5.
BonaiutoM.FornaraF.BonnesM. (2003). Indexes of perceived residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in urban environments: A confirmation study on the city of Rome. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 41-52. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00236-0
6.
BourassaS. C.HoesliM.SunJ. (2004). What’s in a view?Environment and Planning A, 36, 1427-1450. doi:10.1068/a36103
7.
BrascheS.BischofW. (2005). Daily time spent indoors in German homes: Baseline data for the assessment of indoor exposure of German occupants. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 208, 247-253. doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2005.03.003
8.
BringslimarkT.HartigT.PatilG. G. (2009). The psychological benefits of indoor plants: A critical review of the experimental literature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 422-433. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.001
9.
BringslimarkT.HartigT.PatilG. G. (2011). Adaptation to windowlessness: Do office workers compensate for a lack of visual access to the outdoors?Environment and Behavior, 43, 469-487. doi:10.1177/0013916510368351
10.
ChangC.-Y.ChenP. K. (2005). Human response to window views and indoor plants in the workplace. HortScience, 40, 1354-1359.
11.
ConnollyM. (2013). Some like it mild and not too wet: The influence of weather on subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 457-473. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9338-2
12.
DahlkvistD.HartigT.NilssonA.HögbergH.SkovdahlK.EngströmM. (2016). Relationships between garden greenery and the health of older people in residential care facilities: A multi-level cross-sectional study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72, 2065-2076. doi:10.1111/jan.12968
13.
DzhambovA.HartigT.MarkevychI.TilovB.DimitrovaD. (2018). Urban residential green space and mental health in youth: Different approaches to testing multiple pathways yield different conclusions. Environmental Research, 160, 47-59. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2017.09.015
14.
GalindoM. P.HidalgoM. C. (2005). Aesthetic preferences and the attribution of meaning: Environmental categorization processes in the evaluation of urban scenes. International Journal of Psychology, 40, 19-26. doi:10.1080/00207590444000104
15.
GardnerD. G.CummingsL. L.DunhamR. B.PierceJ. L. (1998). Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Education and Psychological Measurement, 58, 898-915. doi:10.1177/0013164498058006003
16.
GärlingT. (1969). Studies in visual perception of architectural spaces and rooms. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 10, 257-268. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.1969.tb00035.x
17.
GonzalezM. T.HartigT.PatilG. G.MartinsenE. W.KirkevoldM. (2010). Therapeutic horticulture in clinical depression: A prospective study of active components. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 66, 2002-2013. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05383.x
18.
HartigT. (2012). Restorative housing environments. In SmithS. J. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of housing and home (Environments section, pp. 144-147). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
19.
HartigT. (2017). Restorative environments. In SteinJ. (Ed.), Reference module in neuroscience and biobehavioral psychology (pp. 1-9). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.05699-6
20.
HartigT.EvansG. W.JamnerL. D.DavisD. S.GärlingT. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109-123. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00109-3
21.
HartigT.KahnP. H.Jr. (2016). Living in cities, naturally. Science, 352, 938-940. doi:10.1126/science.aaf3759
22.
HartigT.KaiserF. G.BowlerP. A. (1997). Further development of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness (Working Paper No. 5). Gävle, Sweden: Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University.
23.
HartigT.KorpelaK.EvansG. W.GärlingT. (1997). A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research, 14, 175-194. doi:10.1080/02815739708730435
24.
HartigT.StaatsH. (2006). The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 215-226. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.07.007
25.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
26.
HeerwagenJ. H.OriansG. H. (1986). Adaptations to windowlessness: A study of the use of visual decor in windowed and windowless offices. Environment and Behavior, 18, 623-639. doi:10.1177/0013916586185003
27.
HerzogT. R.BlackA. M.FountaineK. A.KnottsD. J. (1997). Reflection and attentional recovery as two distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 165-170. doi:10.1006/jevp.1997.0051
28.
HurM.NasarJ. L.ChunB. (2010). Neighborhood satisfaction, physical and perceived naturalness and openness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 52-59. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.005
29.
KaplanR. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior, 33, 507-542. doi:10.1177/00139160121973115
30.
KaplanR.KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
31.
KaplanR.KaplanS.RyanR. L. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.
32.
KaplanS. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182. doi:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
33.
KaplanS.BermanM. G. (2010). Directed attention as a common resource for executive functioning and self-regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 43-57. doi:10.1177/1745691609356784
34.
KaplanS.KaplanR.WendtJ. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception & Psychophysics, 12, 334-356. doi:10.3758/BF03207221
35.
KayaN.ErkipF. (2001). Satisfaction in a dormitory building: The effects of floor height on the perception of room size and crowding. Environment and Behavior, 33, 35-53. doi:10.1177/00139160121972855
36.
KellertS. R.HeerwagenJ. H.MadorM. L. (2008). Bringing buildings to life: The theory and practice of biophilic building design. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
37.
KorpelaK. M.HartigT. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221-233. doi:10.1006/jevp.1996.0018
38.
KorpelaK. M.HartigT.KaiserF.FuhrerU. (2001). Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite places. Environment and Behavior, 33, 572-589. doi:10.1177/00139160121973133
39.
KorpelaK. M.PasanenT. P.RepoV.HartigT.StaatsH.MasonM.. . . ThompsonC.W. (2018). Environmental strategies of affect regulation and their associations with subjective well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 562. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00562
40.
LeeK. E.WilliamsK. J. H.SargentL. D.WilliamsN. S. G.JohnsonK. A. (2015). 40-second green roof views sustain attention: The role of micro-breaks in attention restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 42, 182-189. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.04.003
41.
LinY.-H.TsaiC.-C.SullivanW. C.ChangP.-J.ChangC.-Y. (2014). Does awareness affect the restorative function and perception of street trees?Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 906. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00906
42.
LindalP. J. (2013). Restorative environmental design for densifying cities (Doctoral thesis). Faculty of Architecture, Design & Planning, University of Sydney, Australia.
43.
LindalP. J.HartigT. (2013). Architectural variation, building height, and the restorative quality of urban residential streetscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33, 26-36. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.09.003
44.
LindalP. J.HartigT. (2015). Effects of urban street vegetation on judgments of restoration likelihood. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14, 200-209. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2015.02.001
45.
MasoudinejadS. (2013). Sky’s window: Effects of view to the sky on the quality of urban housing (Doctoral thesis). Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
46.
پنجره آسمان: واکاوی اثرات دید به آسمان بر کیفیت خانه شهری. رساله دکتری معماری(1392) تهران: دانشگاه شهیدبهشتی’ دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی.) (مسعودی نژاد، سپیده
47.
MilgramS. (1970). The experience of living in cities. Science, 167, 1461-1468.
48.
Municipality of Tehran. (2012). Tehran’s new comprehensive plan (Final ed.). Tehran, Iran: Urban Planning and Architecture Section, Municipality of Tehran.
49.
‘ضوابط و مقررات طرح تفصیلی جدید شهر تهران (نسخه نهایی) .شهرداری شهر تهران. (1392). معاونت شهرسازی و معماری. (شهرداری شهر تهران)
50.
NordhH.HartigT.HägerhällC. M.FryG. (2009). Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility for restoration. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8, 225-235. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2009.06.003
51.
OriansG. H. (1980). Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. In LockardJ. S. (Ed.), The evolution of human social behavior (pp. 49-66). New York, NY: Elsevier.
52.
OzdemirA. (2010). The effect of window views’ openness and naturalness on the perception of rooms’ spaciousness and brightness: A visual preferences study. Scientific Research and Essays, 5, 2275-2287.
53.
PurcellA. T.PeronE.BertoR. (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types?Environment and Behavior, 33, 93-106. doi:10.1177/00139160121972882
54.
ShinW. S. (2007). The influence of forest view through a window on job satisfaction and job stress. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 22, 248-253. doi:10.1080/02827580701262733
55.
SogaM.GastonK. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: The loss of human–nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14, 94-101. doi:10.1002/fee.1225
56.
StaatsH.HartigT. (2004). Alone or with a friend: A social context for psychological restoration and environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 199-211. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.005
57.
StaatsH.JahnckeH.HerzogT. R.HartigT. (2016). Urban options for psychological restoration: Common strategies in everyday situations. PLoS ONE, 11, e0146213. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146213
58.
StaatsH.KievietA.HartigT. (2003). Where to recover from attentional fatigue: An expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 147-157. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00112-3
59.
StaatsH.van GemerdenE.HartigT. (2010). Preference for restorative situations: Interactive effects of attentional state, activity-in-environment and social context. Leisure Sciences, 32, 401-417. doi:10.1080/01490400.2010.510990
60.
StampsA. E. (1990). Use of photographs to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 907-913. doi:10.2466/PMS.71.7.907-913
61.
StampsA. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14, 155-175. doi:10.1177/08854129922092630
62.
StampsA. E. (2000). Psychology and the aesthetics of the built environment. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
63.
StampsA. E. (2002). Entropy, visual diversity and preference. Journal of General Psychology, 129, 300-320. doi:10.1080/00221300209602100
64.
StampsA. E. (2005). Visual permeability, locomotive permeability, safety and enclosure. Environment and Behavior, 37, 587-619. doi:10.1177/0013916505276741
65.
StampsA. E. (2010). Effects of permeability on perceived enclosure and spaciousness. Environment and Behavior, 42, 864-886. doi:10.1177/0013916509337287
66.
StampsA. E. (2011). Effects of area, height, elongation, and color on perceived spaciousness. Environment and Behavior, 43, 252-273. doi:10.1177/0013916509354696
67.
StampsA. E.SmithS. (2002). Environmental enclosure in urban settings. Environment and Behavior, 34, 781-794. doi:10.1177/001391602237246
68.
ThwaitesK.HelleurE.SimkinsI. (2005). Restorative urban open space: Exploring the spatial configuration of human emotional fulfillment in urban open space. Landscape Research, 30, 525-548. doi:10.1080/01426390500273346
69.
TyrväinenL. (1997). The amenity value of the urban forest: An application of the hedonic pricing method. Landscape and Urban Planning, 37, 211-222. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(97)80005-9
70.
UlrichR. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In AltmanI.WohlwillJ. F. (Eds.), Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 85-125). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
71.
UlrichR. S.SimonsR. F.LositoB. D.FioritoE.MilesM.ZelsonM. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
72.
van den BergA. E.KooleS. L.van der WulpN. Y. (2003). Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 135-146. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00111-1
73.
von LindernE.HartigT.LercherP. (2016). Traffic-related exposures, constrained restoration, and health in the residential context. Health & Place, 39, 92-100. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.12.003
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
