Abstract

It is well-evidenced that exposure to natural environments increases psychological restoration as compared to non-natural settings, increasing our ability to recover from stress, low mood, and mental fatigue and encouraging positive social interactions that cultivate social cohesion. However, very few studies have explored how the inclusion of people within a given environment—either urban or natural settings—affect restorative health outcomes. We present three laboratory-based studies examining, first, the effect of nature vs. urban scenes, and second, investigating nature ‘with’ vs. ‘without’ people—using static and moving imagery—on psychological restoration and social wellbeing. Our third study explores differences between urban and natural settings both with vs. without people, using video stimuli to understand potential restorative and social wellbeing effects. Outcome measures across all studies included perceived social belonging, loneliness, subjective mood, and perceived restorativeness. Studies 1 and 2 both used a within group, randomized crossover design. Study 1 (n = 45, mean age = 20.7) explored static imagery of environmental conditions without people; findings were consistent with restorative theories showing a positive effect of nature exposure on all outcome measures. Study 2 compared nature scenes with vs. without people (n = 47, mean age = 20.9) and we found no significant differences on our outcome measures between either social scenario, though both scenarios generated positive wellbeing outcomes. Study 3, conducted on Amazon Mechanical Turk, employed an independent group design with subjects randomly assigned to one of four conditions; an urban vs. nature setting, with vs. without people. We explored the effect of moving imagery on psychological restoration (n = 200, mean age = 35.7) and our findings showed no impact on belonging, loneliness, or mood between conditions, but did show that—regardless of the inclusion of people—the nature settings were more restorative than the urban. There were no differences in psychological restoration between nature conditions with vs. without people. We discuss the implications for restorative environment research exploring social-environmental interactions.

Highlights

  • It is well understood that there are benefits of nature on various psychophysiological outcomes including brain activity [1,2,3,4], heart rate variability [5], cognition [6,7], and mood [8,9,10]

  • We explored the effect of moving imagery on psychological restoration (n = 200, mean age = 35.7) and our findings showed no impact on belonging, loneliness, or mood between conditions, but did show that—regardless of the inclusion of people—the nature settings were more restorative than the urban

  • We show that the total score for perceived restoration (PRS) and it’s subcomponent, ‘being away’, is higher when viewing images of nature only compared to nature + people

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It is well understood that there are benefits of nature on various psychophysiological outcomes including brain activity [1,2,3,4], heart rate variability [5], cognition [6,7], and mood [8,9,10]. A large body of literature cites the role of nature in restoring depleted attentional capacities as a mechanism for this [11,12,13]. Social and physical environments do not exist independently of each other, and in many cases, these are experienced concurrently [14,15]. Despite a significant body of research showing beneficial effects of restorative environments ( nature settings) to individual psychological wellbeing, this has largely. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6464 focused on the physical setting minus the social context. Various systematic reviews have explored the role of natural restorative environments; Ohly and colleagues [16] identified

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call