Psychology and the Natural World - Environmental Restoration

Environmental Restoration

Overview of Sessions

The lecture series consists of six sessions:

  1. Introduction + Connectedness to Nature (Mon 24 March):

    • What is Environmental Psychology?

    • What is our emotional, cognitive, and behavioral relationship with the natural world, and why is it important?

  2. Environmental Restoration (Thu 27 March):

    • What are the benefits of spending time in nature to our mental health, well-being, and cognitive performance?

  3. Models of Behavior (Mon 31 March):

    • What is “pro-environmental behavior”?

    • Why is it important, and why do some people behave pro-environmentally and others not?

  4. Social Norms (Thu 3 April):

    • What drives our behavior?

    • How and when do social norms play a pivotal role?

  5. Support Session (Mon 28 April):

    • How to maximize our learning?

    • How to prepare for the exam.

  6. CANCELLED (Thu 1 May):

    • Time to revise.

Contents of Environmental Restoration Session

  • What is environmental restoration? The concept.

  • What do we mean by restorative benefits?

  • How do we measure it?

  • How has this been studied? Examples of classic evidence.

  • What does the evidence say? Current debates.

  • Is all nature equal?

  • Is how we engage with nature important?

  • Is nature always beneficial?

  • Why is this important? The application.

  • Why is nature restorative? The theory.

    • Psycho-evolutionary theory.

    • Attention restoration theory.

Benefits of Nature

Natural Environment Psychological Benefits Model: Hartig et al. (2014)

What do we mean by "psychological benefits"?

  • Physiological:

    • Change in physiological measures (Hartig et al., 2003; Laumann et al., 2003; Ulrich, 1984).

      • Measures include: Heart rate, skin conductance, blood pressure.

  • Emotional:

    • Change in affect (Hartig et al., 2003; Kaplan 2001; van den Berg et al., 2003).

      • Self-reported measures, for example:

        • The Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) (Bradley & Lang, 1994).

        • Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) (Watson et al., 1988).

        • WHO (five) Well-being index (World Health Organisation, 1998).

  • Cognitive:

    • Improvement in performance (Berman et al., 2008; Berto, 2005; Hartig et al., 1991; Ohly et al., 2016).

      • Sustained Attention Response Test

        • reaction times in milliseconds

        • number of correct responses

        • number of incorrect responses

      • Stroop colour-word task

      • Necker Cube Pattern Control Task (NCPCT)

Benefits of Nature – Field Study

  • Ulrich (1984); Replication: Park (2006 – see chapter 5)

  • Sample: 46 patients recovering from gall bladder surgery

  • Method: Hospital records

  • Findings: Shorter stay in hospital, fewer negative notes, less pain relief.

Benefits of Nature – Experimental Study

  • Ulrich et al. (1991); not fully replicated by Tanja-Dijkstra et al. (in prep)
    *Ensuring everyone is in need of restoration

  • Sample: 120 students (50:50 gender split)

  • Method: Experimental lab study

  • Measures:

    • Physiology (skin conductance, heart rate, etc.)

    • Emotion

Benefits of Nature – Experimental Study

  • Hartig et al. (2003)

  • Sample: 112 students

  • Method: Experimental field study

  • Measures:

    • Attention fatigue

    • Emotion (+ive & -ive)

    • Physiology (blood pressure)

Current Debates

Debate 1 – Is all nature equal?

Model: Hartig et al. (2014)

  • Natural Environment Psychological Benefits *What do we mean by “nature”?

    • Type (Felsten, 2008; Laumann et al., 2001; van den Berg et al., 2003; White et al., 2010).

    • Quality (Wheeler et al., 2015; Wyles et al., 2016a; Wyles et al., 2019).

    • Amount (De Vries et al., 2003).

    • Features (Dallimer et al., 2012; Ratcliffe et al., 2016; White et al., 2010).

Type of Nature

*White et al. (2010); contradictory findings = van den Berg (2003)
*Sample: 40 participants
*Method: laboratory experimental design (within-subject)
*Findings:

*Secondary Colour
*Primary Colour
*Aquatic
*Green
*Built

Quality of Nature

Wyles et al. (2016a)

*Sample: 79 students
*Method: Laboratory experimental design (within-subject)
*Findings:

Features of Nature (Biodiversity)

*Cracknell et al. (2015)
*Sample: 84 students
*Method: quasi experimental design (between-subject)
*Measures:
*DV: self-reported impact on mood, restorative capability
*IV: amount of fish in the tank

*Dallimer et al. (2010)
*Sample: 1108 green space users
*Method: Questionnaire (correlational)
*DV: Mood, restorative capability, place attachment
*IV: perceived biodiversity, actual biodiversity
*Findings:

  • Not very accurate in perceiving biodiversity

  • Perceived biodiversity correlated with well-being

  • Actual biodiversity was not significantly correlated

Debate 2: Is how we engage with nature important?

  • Natural Environment Psychological Benefits *How do we engage with nature? *Exposure to Nature Natural Environment Psychological Benefits

    • Mode: Direct vs. indirect (pictures, video, VR) (Alcock et al., 2014; De Vries et al., 2003; Newman et al., 2022; Tanja -Dijkstra et al., 2014)

    • Time: Frequency, duration (Barton & Pretty, 2010; Lee et al., 2015; White et al., 2013; Wyles et al., 2017)

    • Activities: Walking vs. socialising vs. exercise vs. … (White & Dolan, 2009; White et al., 2013; Wyles et al., 2016b)

Alcock et al. (2014)

*Living near Nature
*Sample: 594 who moved to more green space + 470 who moved to less green space
*Method: mental health over time using a longitudinal national survey (BHPS - correlational)
*Findings:

  • Good mental health
    *Which do you think?

  • A – sensitisation

  • B – shifting baseline

  • C – adaption

Comparing Modes

*Newman et al. (2022). Study 1
*Sample: 16 students
*Method: experimental design (within-subjects)

  • Photograph

  • VR *Findings:

    • All modes rated positively for mood

    • Video was rated less positive for Serenity and Overall enjoyment

*Gatersleben & Andrews (2014). Study 2
*Sample:

  • Actual walk (field) = 17 students

  • Simulated walk (lab) = 17 students
    *Method: experimental design (between-subjects)

Comparing Activities

*Wyles et al. (2016)
*Sample: 90 students (30 in each)
*Method: experimental design (between-subjects)
*Findings:

  • Mood remained high for all groups

  • Significance difference for how meaningful the activity was

    • BC

    • RR

    • Walk

Debate 3: Is nature always beneficial?

*Gatersleben & Andrews (2014). Study 1
*Sample: 269 students & alumni
*Method: experimental design
*Findings:

  • Poor field of vision, many hiding places and poor accessible

  • Clear field of vision, few hiding places and highly accessible

Benefits of non-natural environments

  • Urban residential streets can also be seen as restorative (Lindal & Hartig, 2013).

  • Monasteries (Ouelette et al., 2005).

  • Museums (Kaplan et al., 1993; Packer & Bond, 2010).

  • People find a range of places (natural and built) personally restorative (Scopelliti & Giuliani, 2004).

The Application – Empirical Evidence

  • In educational context – can help children/students focus and support learning (Lohr et al., 1996; van den Berg et al., 2016).

  • In the workplace – Can increase creativity and work performance (Shibata, 2002).

  • At home – can reduce stress / elevate positive mental and physical health.

  • During travel – makes it less stressful (Cackowski & Nasar, 2003).

  • In the clinical setting – can reduce anxiety, help improve experiences (Tanja-Dijkstra et al., 2014; 2018).

Nature in an Educational Setting

*Lohr, et al., (1996).
*Sample: 96 students
*Method: experimental design

Nature in a Clinical Setting

*Tanja-Dijkstra, et al., (2014; 2018).
*Sample:

  • 67 students

  • 85 students

  • 70 dental patients
    *Method:

  • 2x laboratory studies randomised controlled trial

Nature on Clinical Populations

  • Gardening and therapeutic horticulture seen to improve mental health (Gonzalez et al., 2009).

  • Access to gardens are seen to help those living with dementia (Whear et al., 2014).

  • Moving from an indoor setting to an outdoor setting for therapies such as CBT seen to have a greater effect (Kim et al., 2009).
    Has the restorative benefits been looked at on specific disabilities or clinical populations?
    *Walking in nature and forest bathing seen to help anxiety and depression (Grassini, 2022; Kortera et al ., 2021; Lee et al., 2017).

Evolutionary Theories

  • Biophilia Hypothesis (Wilson, 1984): Humans have innate emotional affiliation with other living organisms.

  • Savannah Theory (Orians, 1980): We prefer the landscape we evolved in, and that people from a range of environments consistently prefer prototypic savannah scenes.

  • Prospect-Refuge Theory (Appleton, 1975): The ability to see and the ability to hide are both important in calculating a creature's survival prospects.

Psycho-evolutionary Theory (Ulrich et al., 1991)

  • Concept: Humans have a biologically prepared readiness to respond to natural elements.

  • Assumptions:

    • We are unfamiliar with urban settlements.

    • Have (hard-wired) adaptive affective responses to nature over thousands of generations.

    • “biologically prepared readiness to respond”.

    • Have evolved to have feel comfortable when in evolutionary safe settings.

    • Is not a conscious processes the process by which living organisms are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth

  • Evidence:

    • Unable to “prove” evolutionary theory (as cannot test cause and effect).

    • Environment – nature (only).

    • Responses that are seen to support this theory.

    • Key outcome variables: physiological indicators & mood immediate biological.

Competing Theory

Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989)

  • Concept: Settings with the appropriate properties help restore directed attention.

  • Assumptions:

    • There is directed and indirected attention.

    • Directed attention is a finite resource and needs to be restored over time (directed attention fatigue – DAF).

  • Key properties:

    • Being Away

    • Fascination

    • Extent

    • Compatibility

  • Evidence:

    • Environments/experiences rated highly in terms of their restorative properties (e.g. Hartig’s PRS).

    • Environment – any (that meet the 4 properties).

    • Returning to baseline (or better) after a stressful task.

    • Key outcome variables: cognitive abilities (memory, attention, problem solving).

ART vs. Psycho-evolutionary Theory

  • Useful worksheet “Psy&NatureSession2theory debate worksheet”

Task: What are the selling points and critiques for each theory

  • Psycho-evolutionary Theory: Advantages and Disadvantages

  • Attention Restoration Theory: Advantages and Disadvantages

Further Reading & Resources

  • Chapter 6 & 7 (secondary resource)
    *Journal articles (primary resource)

  • http://iaps-association.org/ren/
    *See booking system
    *Chapter 6 & 7 of Steg, L. E., Van Den Berg, A. E., & De Groot, J. I. (2018). Environmental psychology: An introduction. (2nd Ed) BPS Blackwell. [nice overview of broad context]
    *Hartig, T., van den Berg, A. E., Hagerhall, C. M., Tomalak, M., Bauer, N., Hansmann, R., … & Bell, S. (2011). Health benefits of nature experience: Psychological, social and cultural processes. In Forests, trees and human health (pp. 127-168). Springer Netherlands. [note – nice section summarising theories, PDF online]
    *Marselle, M. R., Martens, D., Dallimer, M., & Irvine, K. N. (2019). Review of the mental health and well-being benefits of biodiversity [chapter 9]. In Biodiversity and health in the face of climate change (pp. 175-211). Springer, Cham. [nice summary of studies looking at biodiversity]
    *Natural England (2016). A review of nature-based interventions for mental health care. Available from: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/ 4513819616346112 [nice overview of interventions]
    *Cracknell, D., White, M. P., Pahl, S., & Depledge, M. H. (2017). A preliminary investigation into the restorative potential of public aquaria exhibits: a UK student-based study. Landscape research, 42(1), 18-32. [empirical work looking at the role of biodiversity – done at the local aquarium]
    *Ohly, H., White, M. P., Wheeler, B. W., Bethel, A., Ukoumunne, O. C., Nikolaou, V., & Garside, R. (2016). Attention Restoration Theory: A Systematic Review of the Attention Restoration Potential of Exposure to Natural Environments. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 1-39. [good critique of ART and the supporting evidence]
    *White, M., Smith, A., Humphryes, K., Pahl, S., Cracknell, D., & Depledge, M. (2010). Blue space: The importance of water for preference, affect, and restorativeness ratings of natural and built scenes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 482-493. [nice selection of well controlled studies]
    *Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420-421. [a key (& v. short) paper]
    *BBC Radio 4 – Forest 404, T1: Why should I listen to trees [nice easy listening piece]