We investigated whether the vegetative state depicted in stimuli and the date of evaluation were related to restorative potential (RP) and preference ratings. Stimuli depicted flowering, foliated, or autumn-colored plants in scattershot, clustered, or formal arrangements that represented complexity values equal to zero, 2, or 4 bits of Shannon’s information entropy. Analyses included 77 and 105 respondents’ RP and preference ratings from September and January, respectively, along with 106 respondents’ fascination and complexity estimations from September. Evaluation dates did not relate to respondents’ RP and preference ratings. Respondents rated flowering and autumn-colored views significantly higher in RP and preference than foliated, 4-bit views higher than 2-bit, and 2-bit views higher than zero-bit. Flowering and autumn-colored foliage, view area, and plant region quantities indirectly affected RP ratings through preference. Important landscape design and practice implications follow: Flowering plants and red or yellow autumn-colored foliage may increase users’ preference and RP.
AbkarM.KamalM. S. M.MaulanS.MariapanM.DavoodiS. R. (2011). Relationship between the preference and perceived restorative potential of urban landscapes. HortTechnology, 21, 514-519.
2.
BuhyoffG. J.WellmanJ. D. (1979). Seasonality bias in landscape preference research. Leisure Sciences, 2, 181-190. doi:10.1080/01490407909512914
3.
EroğluE.MüderrisoğluH.Akıncı KesimG. (2012). The effect of seasonal change on plants compositions on visual perception. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, 20, 196-205. doi:10.3846/16486897.2011.646007
4.
GrissomR. J. (1994). Probability of the superior outcome of one treatment over another. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 314-316. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.314
5.
HanK.-T. (2010). An exploration of relationships among the responses to natural scenes. Environment and Behavior, 42, 243-270. doi:10.1177/0013916509333875
6.
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
7.
HartigT.KorpelaK.EvansG. W.GärlingT. (1997). A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 14, 175-194. doi:10.1080/02815739708730435
8.
Haviland-JonesJ.RosarioH. H.WilsonP.McGuireT. R. (2005). An environmental approach to positive emotion: Flowers. Evolutionary Psychology, 3, 104-132. doi:10.1177/147470490500300109
9.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
10.
HerzogT. R.KropscottL. S. (2004). Legibility, mystery, and visual access as predictors of preference and perceived danger in forest settings without pathways. Environment and Behavior, 36, 659-677. doi:10.1177/0013916504264138
11.
HerzogT. R.MaguireC. P.NebelM. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 159-170. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00113-5
12.
HoyleH.HitchmoughJ.JorgensenA. (2017). All about the “wow factor”? The relationships between aesthetics, restorative effect and perceived biodiversity in designed urban planting. Landscape and Urban Planning, 164, 109-123. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.011
13.
HoyleH.NortonB.DunnettN.RichardsJ. P.RussellJ. M. (2018). Plant species or flower colour diversity? Identifying the drivers of public and invertebrate response to designed annual meadows. Landscape and Urban Planning, 180, 108-113. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.017
14.
JauhiainenJ. S.MönkkönenM. (2005). Seasonality: Nature, people’s preferences and urban planning in Oulunsalo, Finland. Landscape Research, 30, 273-281. doi:10.1080/01426390500044499
15.
JoyeY.van den BergA. (2011). Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 10, 261-268. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2011.07.004
16.
JungeX.SchüpbachB.WalterT.SchmidB.Lindemann-MatthiesP. (2015). Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 133, 67-77. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.010
17.
KaplanR.KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
KaplanR.KaplanS.RyanR. L. (1998). With people in mind: Design and management of everyday nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.
19.
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
20.
KaufmanA. J.LohrV. I. (2004). Does plant colour affect emotional and physiological responses to landscape?Acta Horticulturae, 639, 229-233. doi:10.17660/actahortic.2004.639.29
21.
KuperR. (2015). Preference, Complexity, and Color Information Entropy Values for Visual Depictions of Plant and Vegetative Growth. HortTechnology, 25, 625-634.
22.
KuperR. (2017a). Evaluations of landscape preference, complexity, and coherence for designed digital landscape models. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 407-421. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.002
23.
KuperR. (2017b). Restorative potential, fascination, and extent for digital landscape models. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 28, 118-130. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2017.10.002
24.
LaumannK.GärlingT.StormarkK. M. (2003). Selective attention and heart rate responses to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 125-134. doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(02)00110-x
25.
MartensD.GutscherH.BauerN. (2011). Walking in “wild” and “tended” urban forests: The impact on psychological well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 36-44. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.11.001
26.
NordhH.HartigT.HagerhallC. 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
27.
OdeÅHagerhallC. M.SangN. (2010). Analyzing visual landscape complexity: Theory and application. Landscape Research, 35, 111-131. doi:10.1080/01426390903414935
28.
PalmerJ. F. (1990). Aesthetics of the northeastern forest: The influence of season and time since harvest. In MoreT.DonnellyM. P.GraefeD. A.VaskeJ. J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 1990 northeastern recreation researchers symposium (pp. 185-190). Radnor, PA: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
29.
PurcellT.PeronE.BertoR. (2001). Why do preferences differ between scene types?Environment and Behavior, 33, 93-106. doi:10.1177/00139160121972882
30.
ShannonC. E.WeaverW. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
31.
SommerR.GuentherH.BarkerP. A. (1990). Surveying householder response to street trees. Landscape Journal, 9, 79-85. doi:10.3368/lj.9.2.79
32.
SonnenfeldJ. (1969). Equivalence and distortion of the perceptual environment. Environment and Behavior, 1, 83-99. doi:10.1177/001391656900100106
33.
SouthonG. E.JorgensenA.DunnettN.HoyleH.EvansK. L. (2017). Biodiverse perennials meadows have aesthetic value and increase residents’ perceptions of site quality in urban green-space. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 105-118. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.08.003
34.
SpellerbergI. F.FedorP. J. (2003). A tribute to Claude Shannon (1916-2001) and a plea for more rigorous use of species richness, species diversity, and the “Shannon-Weiner Index.”Global Ecology and Biogeography, 12, 177-179. doi:10.1046/j.1466-822X.2003.00015.x
35.
StampsA. E. (1993). Simulation effects on environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Management, 38, 115-132. doi:10.1006/jema.1993.1033
36.
StampsA. E. (1999). Demographic effects in environmental aesthetics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Planning Literature, 14, 155-175. doi:10.1177/08854129922092630
37.
StampsA. E. (2002). Entropy, visual diversity, and preference. The Journal of General Psychology, 129, 300-320. doi:10.1080/00221300209602100
38.
StampsA. E. (2003). Advances in visual diversity and entropy. Environment and Planning B, 30, 449-463. doi:10.1068/b12986
39.
StampsA. E. (2004). Mystery, complexity, legibility, and coherence: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 1-16. doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(03)00023-9
40.
TennessenC.CimprichB. (1995). Views to nature: Effects on attention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 77-85. doi:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90016-0
41.
TodorovaA.AsakawaS.AikohT. (2004). Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sappora, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 403-416. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.11.001
42.
van den BergA. E.JorgensenA.WilsonE. R. (2014). Evaluating restoration in urban green spaces: Does setting type make a difference?Landscape and Urban Planning, 127, 173-181. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.04.012
43.
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
44.
ZhengB.ZhangY.ChenJ. (2011). Preference to home landscape: Wildness or neatness?Landscape and Urban Planning, 99, 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.08.006
