replacement of the front yard with perennial gardens, distancing of large plants from ... removal of sod in exchange for a beautiful garden a very enjoyable, and her ..... require minimum dimensions, and are often subdivided without regard to existing ...... Manicured areas represent human engineering of the landscape, and.
SUSTAINABLE RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPES DESIGNED TO IMPROVE HUMAN WELL-BEING: PLANNING FOR QUALITY OF LIFE WITH FRONT YARD GARDENS AND THE BACKYARD OASIS
by Margaret-Rose M. Spyker
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of Geography Advisor: Dr. Dave Lemberg
Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan August 2009
ii
SUSTAINABLE RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPES DESIGNED TO IMPROVE HUMAN WELL-BEING: PLANNING FOR QUALITY OF LIFE WITH FRONT YARD GARDENS AND THE BACKYARD OASIS Margaret-Rose M. Spyker, M.A. Western Michigan University, 2009 There is a growing body of evidence that a person’s individual well-being is benefited by interaction with nature. This study examines the ideal residential setting, and uses different residential scenes to measure impacts on well-being. Participants viewed a slideshow of 55 black and white photographs, and recorded their feelings in response to the residential landscape scenes. The well-being metric was derived from Landscape Psychology, and the related sustainability qualifications for the individual lots were based on Sustainable Landscape Design techniques. Review of the literature showed a confounding of openspace with privacy in regard to motivations for migration to suburban areas, and led to creative solutions for increasing density in future developments while still promoting quality of life. Recommendations for improved landscape design pertain to both new developments and remodeling of existing residential landscapes to balance interactions with community and interactions with nature. Highlights of the conclusions include: replacement of the front yard with perennial gardens, distancing of large plants from structure foundations, the creation of a back yard visual screen, and planting styles to enhance the visual depth of field. iii
Copyright by Margaret-Rose M. Spyker 2009
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My very first thanks goes out to Dr. Dave Lemberg, my wise advisor, who helped me find this research. Without his creative insight I might still be looking for the perfect topic, and I truly enjoy researching for this one. He’s a great listener, can always instigate a smile in times of stress, and I really learned a lot in his specialty planning courses. Thanks for the encouragement and creating an enjoyable academic atmosphere for my MA experience. Dr. Jordan Yin has been a very inspirational person to me for quite a while now. He was my first planning instructor back in ’03, and he really helped me understand the intricacies of a very complex topic like urban systems. Jordan is always very supportive and offers real and optimistic solutions to any problem. I would also like to thank Jordan’s wife Megan, who was my first landscape customer and friend eager for a front yard garden. She made my first experience of a major removal of sod in exchange for a beautiful garden a very enjoyable, and her progressive insight will stay with me always. She, Jordan and their daughter Evan showed me that people are beginning to change their opinion of the home aesthetic. I’ve very much appreciated Dr. Greg Veeck’s character during my time here, and he has really pushed me to be as hard working as I can be. He was always encouraging, and I appreciate his tenacity and passion. Thanks to his guidance, I feel a sense of professionalism and regard for the quality of my education. Greg also really set the bar for me in understanding statistical analyses, and his wife Dr. Ann Veeck’s expertise in principal component analyses was invaluable. Without them I wouldn’t have emerged with as much confidence after tackling my first large dataset. v
Dr Charles Emerson, “Jay,” was my professor for at least one class in each of the five semesters in which I was enrolled during my MA. Jay has been an amazing teacher, and I feel, after taking his courses, as if my brain has just uploaded countless techniques for spatial analysis. I’m so thankful for him sharing his extensive knowledge in the art of geographic science, and his wonderful sense of humor and perspective. The skills I have learned have given me great confidence in my spatial capabilities as a Geographer, and a fuller perspective as a land use planner. I must also thank all of the professors in the department for creating such a wonderful atmosphere. It has truly been a pleasure working with all of you as a colleague and a protégé. Dr. Joe Stoltman, Dr. Kathleen Baker, Dr. Chansheng He, Dr. Li Yang and Dr. Lucius Hallett IV have all individually been instrumental in exposing me to new ideas and challenging me to always be at my best. They offered a greater understanding of the physical and cultural nature of the world, and I feel I know the intricate interplay between humans and their environment from a much richer perspective after taking their classes and working with all of them. Dr. Ben Ofori-Amoah has been an incredibly supportive Chair, and I appreciate all of his hard work in promoting Geography and Planning at WMU. A final department thank you goes out to Mary Lou Brooks and Lori Diehl, who are always willing to lend a hand or an ear. All of my fellow students have also been extremely instrumental in the ideal MA experience that I have had. While the names are too many to list, I can say that without their moral support and shared laughter, my time in “SMURPL” with our good buddies, GIS, ENVI, and Definiens, wouldn’t have been the same. vi
My awesome parents, Ralph and Maggie Spyker and brother, Anthony Spyker, who are also amazing friends to me, in addition to my large and loving group of extended family and friends, have all been very understanding of my recent lunacy and sporadic nature. I’m coming to the beach soon, guys! Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Rachel Kaplan from the University of Michigan for directing me to the Rational Person Model, and offering kind words of encouragement as, at that time, she knew I stood at the beginning of a very daunting task in creating an effective visual scene-element survey. On a grander scale, I am thankful for her work, and Stephen’s, that have been instrumental in bridging the gap between humans and nature. I am hopeful that as my research continues it will someday be half as influential as theirs has been. An enormous thank you to all for making my MA experience so empowering. I am now an incredibly confident Geographer who is eager for my next spatial problem. Margaret-Rose M. Spyker
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…
v
LIST OF TABLES …
xi
LIST OF FIGURES…
xiii
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION…
14
1.1 Outline of Literature Review, Survey and Conclusions… II.
19
LITERATURE REVIEW…
21
2.1 Sustainability…
21
2.1.1 On Balance with Nature …
21
2.1.2 Quality of Life…
25
2.2 Well-Being…
34
2.2.1 Health, Happiness and Prosperity…
35
2.2.2 Cognition, Perception and the Environment…
47
2.2.3 Preference and Attention Restoration…
55
2.2.4 Preference and Aesthetics. ..
63
2.2.5 Specific Elements of a Landscape Perspective… 76
viii
2.2.5.1 Nature…
77
2.2.5.2 Preference Matrix…
82
2.2.5.3 Restoration…
87
2.2.5.4 Urban Areas…
91
CHAPTER 2.2.5.5 Manicured Areas …
94
2.2.5.6 Motivations for Sprawl…
95
2.2.5.7 Scene Parameters…
96
2.2.5.8 Summary…
98
2.3 Nature Deficit…
III.
2.3.1 Confounding of Privacy and Openspace…
109
2.3.2 Pollution from Residential Lawns…
115
2.3.3 Residential Rejuvenation…
120
2.4 Literature Review Summary and Conclusion…
122
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS…
125
3.1 Problem Statement and Hypothesis…
125
3.2 Methodology…
125
3.3 Data Analysis…
130
3.3.1 Data Coding and Compilation…
131
3.3.2 Principal Components Analysis…
133
3.3.3 Bivariate Correlation…
139
3.4 Results…
141
3.4.1 The Nature of the Residential Scene…
141
3.4.2 Reported Well-Being and Nature Enjoyment…
149
3.4.3 Correlation Analysis…
152
3.5 Discussion…
ix
100
155
CHAPTER IV.
CONCLUSIONS… 4.1 New Developments…
158 165
4.1.1 Front Yard Gardens…
170
4.1.2 Backyard Oasis…
172
4.1.3 All-Around Aesthetics…
177
4.2 Renovation and Redevelopment…
184
4.2.1 Front Yard Gardens and Curb Appeal…
188
4.2.2 Back Yard Oasis – Already Halfway There…
192
4.3 Closing Remarks…
194
Photographs from Principle Component Analysis One: The Nature of the Residential Scene…
196
B.
Thumbnails of Survey Slideshow…
204
C.
Instruction Sheet used by Survey Participants…
216
D.
HSIRB Approval Letter…
222
APPENDICES A.
BIBLIOGRAPHY…
x
224
LIST OF TABLES 1. Human Interaction with the External World ..................................................51 2. The Human Experience ..................................................................................51 3. Relationship Between Experience and the Value Added ..............................65 4. Preference, Aesthetics and Relations Between Perception and Cognition ...............................................................................70 5. The Preference Matrix ...................................................................................72 6. Familiarity x Preference Matrix .....................................................................73 7. Preference, Type of Material and Time Dimension .......................................74 8. Examples of Preferred Natural Settings Used in a Variety of Landscape Psychology Studies ......................................................................78 9. “Wilderness Areas” as Different from “Natural Areas” ................................81 10. Scene Elements from Studies Based on Attention Restoration Theory ......................................................................89 11. Urban Elements of a Scene ..........................................................................92 12. Survey Photograph Sections ......................................................................129 13. Total Variance Explained by the Components of Analysis One: The Nature of the Residential Scene .................................................135 14. Total Variance Explained by the Components of Analysis Two: Reported Well-Being and Nature Enjoyment ...................................136 15. Component Matrix for Analysis One .........................................................137 16. Component Matrix for Analysis Two ........................................................138 17. First Principal Components Analysis: The Nature of the Residential Scene ..........................................................142 xi
18. Second Principal Components Analysis: Reported Well-Being and Nature Enjoyment ............................................149 19. Original Questions used for the Second Principal Components Analysis ......................................................................................................151 20. Correlation Matrix Between Components from The Nature of The Residential Scene Analysis .........................................153 21. Correlation Matrix Between Components from both Reported Well-Being And Nature Enjoyment and The Nature of the Residential Scene Analyses .......................................................................154
xii
LIST OF FIGURES 1. Conventional Subdivisions .....................................................................114 2. Initial Instillation of New Design for Well-Being ..................................181 3.
Mature Design for Well-Being ...............................................................182
4.
Mature Design with Neighboring Lot .....................................................183
13
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION The population density of a city or region can easily be determined by dividing the total population by the absolute area, but this form of measurement does little to express the “livability” of an area. People spend the majority of their time at work or at home, and the size, setting and scale of these two environments have a direct impact on how any given society uses most of its land resources. To determine the parameters required of a society to support large numbers of people without compromising certain basic aspects related to quality of life or excessively changing land uses, one must focus on what elements of the built environment will provide the greatest benefits to the inhabitants. This study will focus on the identification of “ideal” parameters of the outdoor home environment, given that outdoor spaces adjacent to the home are where a significant portion of most people’s lives are spent. Land use patterns, especially in the United States, have become more and more dispersed. As a result, the sprawling nature of land use has proven to be beyond the requirements of sustainability (Walter, et al., 1992; Beatley, 2000; Gindroz, 2003; Lindstrom & Bartling, 2003; Farr, 2008; Antrop, 2006; Register, 2006; Beatley & Newman, 2009). This non-sustainability can be measured in terms of resource use and waste, and also by an overall reduction in quality of life. This paradox challenges urban planners balance the efficiency benefits of increased urban density without sacrificing quality of life for the residents. “The desire for cities that are resource 14
efficient, economically sustainable and provide a high quality of life is almost universal,” (van den Berg, et al., 2007). Linked to this conundrum, traditional residential landscape design and conventional subdivisions have removed people from contact with nature to the extent that many are developing physiological and psychological deficiencies. Only in recent centuries have humans become technologically advanced enough to dictate how their relationship with nature should unfold. The individual residential lot provides a fascinating metaphor for how humans can finally come to terms with past fears of wilderness and transition from “taker” to “care-taker.” The residential landscape holds great potential to provide an ideal opportunity to create a connection between humans and nature. The importance of a strong urban core with a healthy urban environment is the predominant feature of a sustainable city, and many studies are finding that incorporation of greenspace and common public areas are very effective in improving urban quality of life (McHarg, 1969; Beatley, 2000; Colding, et al., 2006; Barth, et al., 2008; Farr, 2008; Beatley & Newman, 2009). Many North American cities have lost the resources to maintain, much less improve, the status of downtown areas and quality of life amenities for residents (Jackson, 1985). Those cities looking toward the future see the rebuilding and remodeling process as an opportunity to improve urban core areas to make them more livable places through increased investment in greenspaces, green infrastructure and sustainable technologies. Plans that incorporate nature into the designs for the human environment carry some challenges, and 15
designs that are aesthetically pleasing and functional are of the utmost importance to sustain the user-ship required for safety. Many urban spaces are no longer designed to accommodate pedestrian traffic or public social interactions, and this is problematic for human well-being and preservation of community identity. Similarly, the traditional landscape design of the individual residential lot is lacking most of the restorative properties found in natural settings, and is ineffective in supporting well-being and quality of life for most residents. What has become known as traditional or conventional suburban design includes zoning codes that require minimum dimensions, and are often subdivided without regard to existing natural features. Modern residential development removes the natural ecosystem and replaces it with residential lots characterized by one or only a few plant species. The most notable species is a short mowed turf grass that requires a great amount of maintenance and resources (fuel, labor, fertilizer and water), yet provides little in terms of connecting people with nature. As a result of these traditional practices, it has become a common perception that a major motivation for people to move away from the urban core is a quest for “openspace” (Nassauer, 1993; Arendt, 1994; Nohl, 2001; Kaplan, R., & Austin, 2003; Lindstrom & Bartling, 2003; Welch, 2005). Many of the minimum requirements in current zoning codes are intended to increase the rural “feel” of an area, but these environments have actually had the opposite result because of the way the land is developed (Arendt, 1994). The result has been the creation of increasingly larger lot sizes, because of the common perception of openspace and the inability of the 16
conventional subdivision design to satisfy desires for openspace. However, as this study will show, it is instead a desire for privacy and improved quality of life that motivates migration from the denser urban core. Improvements to the design of the individual residential lot can improve the sustainability of residential developments at all densities and locations, and can also improve people’s access to the restoring benefits of natural environments and the healthy urban environments that are essential to promotion of human well-being. There is a call from a variety of disciplines for a good method to reacquaint people with nature on a daily basis, and all conclusions point to a need to design a land use strategy that will accomplish this goal (Grant, et al., 1996; Nohl, 2001; Kaplan, R., et al., 2004; Louv, 2005; van den Berg, et al., 2007). The best way to get people in touch with nature is to design it into residential landscapes. There has been much work done to show how the residential lot can contribute to a region’s overall resource sustainability from the regional scale of a metropolis, commonly referred to as Ecocities (van der Ryn & Cathorpe, 1986; Walter, et al., 1992; Waste, 1998; Register, 2006), and also referred to as sustainable urbanism (Grant, et al., 1996; Wolch, 2007; Farr, 2008). Many of these techniques have already been established as valid design practices in Europe and Australia (Beatley, 2000; Hopkins, 2008; as noted in Karmanov & Hamel, 2008; Beatley & Newman, 2009). Much work done has also been done to show how to make residential development more sustainable from a resource perspective at the scale of the individual lot (Thompson & Sorvig 2000, Primeau 2003; Kermath, 2007; Tzoulas, et al., 2007), and at the scale of the 17
development or neighborhood (Arendt, 1994; Grant, et al., 1996; Lee, et al., 2008). There has also been considerable work at the scale of the neighborhood for promoting human well-being (Bonner, 2002; Long & Perkins, 2003; Kyle, et al., 2004; Alton, et al., 2006; Mannarini, et al., 2006; Long and Perkins, 2007; Matsuoka & Kaplan, 2008), but very limited research has been done for improving the individual residential lot’s capacities to promote human well-being (Kaplan, R., 1985; Grant, et al., 1996; Kaplan, R. & Austin, 2003; Clayton, 2007; van den Berg, et al., 2007). The focus on the individual residential lot as a location to increase human interaction with nature is based on these premises:
1) Nature interaction in people’s daily lives is essential 2) The residential lot does not currently provide the restorative qualities of nature, and people therefore need to schedule in time to go to nature 3) Instead of scheduling in a visit to nature, it should be designed into the home environment
Thus, there is a need to define specific elements that make residential lots more beneficial to quality of life through improving well-being, and, as such, there is a need to define what specific elements of a residential landscape are most promoting of well-being. The overarching hypothesis of this research is that there are specific parameters of residential landscapes that provide people with the greatest access to restoration and rejuvenation from the tribulations of daily life. From the establishment of nature as essential to human health and well-being, the discussion will flow into 18
how nature has been “designed out” (both physically and metaphorically) of people’s daily lives. The analysis conducted for this study used a slideshow of restorative elements translated into residential scenes as compared to scenes of conventional residential lot designs. The slideshow was viewed by 169 students, and the responses were evaluated using factor analysis. The selection of the residential scenes containing restorative scene elements were guided by those identified in a variety of other studies’ examination of restorative elements. The conclusion will focus on how the design of residential landscapes, as they have become so far removed from spiritually or materially sustainable, could be re-engineered to provide alleviation from nature deficit on a daily basis.
1.1 Outline of Literature Review, Survey and Conclusions The first section of this review will be dedicated to showcasing the literature to date evidencing the variety of positive impacts on the human’s mind and body as a result of direct interaction with nature. This will include an assessment of the variety of types of positive psychological impacts, as well as an assessment of the variety of scenes and interactions that can be characterized as causing this impact. The second section of this literature review will examine the adequacy of the residential environment as being an ideal location to provide people with access to the healing properties of natural environments. The history of the lawn will set the stage to discuss how nature has been “designed out” of spatial form through mass production 19
of residential design, and how the continuation of these techniques has led to a confounding of desires for openspace with desires for privacy. These two research tracks will lead to the creation of a visual survey for this work. The residential landscape focus adds to the psychology literature from the perspective of an urban planner, and the resulting design recommendations contribute to the planning and construction industry as specific design elements. Rachel Kaplan (1985) was first to show that landscape scenes in residential environments behaved differently than purely natural scenes. Some studies (van den Berg, et al., 2007; Karmanov & Hamel 2008) used urban mixed use districts that included residential units, but a study has not yet been done on specific elements of residential scenes from single family home locations (van den Berg, et al., 2007). The survey used in this project incorporated photographs representing specific elements of the residential scene in a slide show. The selected elements were extracted from those highlighted as being most preferred and most restorative in the literature, and were translated into specific residential landscapes to be measured in the survey. Participants were also asked to report their perceptions of personal wellbeing based on a questionnaire borrowed from a study conducted by Rachel Kaplan in 2001. Conclusions are intended as recommendations for specific design styles and parameters that will reintroduce nature to the individual lot and work toward a goal of improving human quality of life and well-being.
20
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Sustainability Human impacts on nature were largely localized until control of nature skyrocketed during the industrial revolution as population growth increased exponentially, and, hence, changed the implications for the aspects of nature people use for survival (Chiras & Reganold, 2005). The accompanying paradigm shift from one that sees only nature’s impacts on humans to one where humans control nature was spawned by the same technological advances that fueled the industrial revolution. People began exceeding their carrying capacity and pushing the limits of growth. Now people must call on their technologies once again to design more suitable methods of land and resource use, and the era of seeking sustainability begins.
2.1.1 On Balance with Nature One of the greatest challenges in developing sustainable technologies is deciding on how to define sustainability. The commonly cited World Commission on Environment and Development (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987) definition highlights the current paradigm in which nature serves human kind. In this definition sustainable development is “development that meets 21
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Opposing this paradigm is a school of thought that highlights the ethics of how it is humans that should serve nature, or rather that sustainability will arise from the maintenance of essential ecological processes, as evidenced by the frequently cited International Union for Conservation of Nature (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 1980) definition, “to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.” Definitions such as these that insinuate servitude or dominance in one way or the other misrepresent the ideal character of the relationship between man and nature, and, as a result, many definitions are biased to one end of the continuum or another. Clearly some analysis is required to determine a synthesis between these paradigms. Even though all of these individual works mention that the balance of man and nature is the path to true sustainability, there are varying foci for the actualization of sustainability. For example, Lewinburg (1993), Banister, Watson and Wood (1997), Duany, Plater-Zyberk and Speck (2000), and Leinberger (2008) maintain that sustainable strategies for major urban centers focus on making best use of urban infrastructure. Orians (1990), Formann (1995), and Bonnes, Uzell, Carrus, and Kelay (2007) see environmental factors as the driving force of sustainability. Toward a more balanced paradigm is the identification of what specifically is to be sustained. “The debate revolves around two topics: what we hope to sustain and what we mean by development,” (Grant, et al., 1996). The hardest aspect of this 22
quantification comes in the ambiguity of the WCED definition: “…to meet their own needs,” and in the ambiguity of the IUCN definition “…equitable and ecologically sustainable.” What are the resource use limits that keep society within the realm of “ecologically sustainable,” and what are the needs of future generations? Do future generations need to increase the number of SUV drivers by 50,000 each year? Will future generations even need gas powered vehicles? The unpredictability of the future has lead to the inaccurate quantification of resources to their respective amount of use, and highlights the need to identify what are the basic parameters of quality of life that society can carry into its future generations. What complicates the means to this end is how separated people have become from the understanding of the processes involved in the acquisition of their resources. Prepackaged meats and processed foods work well to get food into densely urban areas where producing these resources at the scale required to support a large population are not feasible. However, the resulting disconnect is problematic for the psychology of people’s relationship to nature (not to mention the quality reduction of the food). Social cohesion, environmental and social equity, and reduced isolationism are said to be direct benefits of density (Jacobs, 1961; Jackson, 1985; Duaney, et al., 2000; Lindstrom, et al., 2003; van den Berg, et al., 2007). However, there is a paradox that lies within promotion of density for sustainability. Higher densities result in greater environmental degradation via expansion of land and resources to support the increased population, and without proper planning the urban environment can also become degraded. Inhospitable conditions cause migration from the density 23
and extend the distance of natural areas from the urban core that would otherwise help mitigate the degradation, thereby changing the face of development. Most people do not intentionally degrade their environment because in many cases they are unaware that their actions result in loss of environmental quality. As Bonnes, Uzell, Carrus, and Kelay (2007) stated, “the slowness of some environmental changes (e.g. loss of biodiversity or reduction in air quality) sometimes makes [people’s] direct sensory detection [of such changes] very difficult. In these cases, human knowledge and perception of environmental conditions, and thus their behaviors, can become very dependent on social and communicative processes that create socially shared perceptions and views of the environments.” Thus, the more accurate question arises: How does a community define the quality of life that its current generation wants to pass on to its future generations, and what are the implications of these developments for future development? Each individual community has a different site and situation from which it could establish specific elements to be maintained or designed for future generations. Enforcing limitations on community development is justified by what level of quality of life can and should be sustained for future communities. This is the foundation for the institution of urban and regional planning. Successful planning requires examination at a variety of scales. Small area plans, that are often termed “human scale” plans, (such as those done for minor civil divisions and site specific plans) are valuable for incorporating people into design of the community and ensuring their investment in the future of the community. 24
However, too many minor divisions can reduce the effectiveness of the overall region in providing quality of life through sustainable resource use, and therefore can frequently result in redundancies in land uses and provisions that are ultimately to the detriment of a given region. Regional planning further serves to instill a regional identity that supports greater societal cohesion. These analyses bring to question the spatial boundary of what is included in a given community. Therefore it is imperative that assessments and actions for the actualization of sustainability are addressed from a multitude of scales, and quality of life emerges as the method through which this quantification of land valuation can come about.
2.1.2 Quality of Life In order to create accurate and beneficial plans it is necessary to develop a marker or standard by which progress is measured. Building in a monitoring system to ensure that progress toward goals is being made is an essential part of a local or regional plan, and ensures that the plan is an active working document (opposed to a formality that is only worked on every five years as necessary for grant applications). Traditionally, planners have incorporated their own indicators or used census data to interpolate information on the success of the plan because reliable and universal indicators have yet to be developed. Growth of a society has conventionally been seen as the common indicator of success of a society, that is, until the population’s growth depreciates the abilities of 25
the carrying capacity of the supporting environment (Huggett, 2004). The predominance of Walrisian Economic Theory has pushed the modern world economic paradigm to see fiscal growth as the only true measure of societal success. According to Gowdy (2007), “Walrisian economics include the notions of… societal welfare being equated to market consumption and efficiency as a scientific positive goal.” This economic standpoint has lead unlimited societal growth and consumption in the United States through its industrial era into its technological era. “We must lift the laboring masses up from their subsistence wages. This can only be done by massive growth, we are told. But can the environment sustain so much growth? It cannot,” (Daly, 2006). In this way society has viewed its Natural Capital (the natural resources that are the backing for economic growth, also known as ecological wealth) as inexhaustible, and as Daly once said, “many nations are treating the earth as if it were a corporation in liquidation,” (Chiras & Reganold, 2005). The modern indicator of a society’s success is the Gross National Product, which is “the sum of all goods and services produced by a nation’s economy, including all government expenditures and business activities occurring in other countries,” (Chiras & Reganold, 2005). This indicator is based solely on the sum total of sales and services, and does not account for the externalities that accompany a product’s creation – that is, for example, a product that returns high revenues on a short term basis, but does not account for the degradation in the environment does not value the product at actual cost. Environmental externalities are those costs that are not directly calculable into economic theory. Because these factors are not accounted 26
for in the estimate, the GNP is a value free indicator of progress. It does not truly represent the actual success or sustainability of a country. If the economy prospers at the expense of environmental quality, then it is inaccurate to measure the success of the country by its economic growth because greater negative impacts may result for the greater population. Success should be more closely related to quality of life for all members of the community. “We no longer have the luxury of ‘trading-off’ ecological damage for economic benefits if we hope to have a sustainable future,” (Grant, et al., 1996). In nature, growth limiters are the insurance policy against reduction in quality of life for the whole of the population; humans must rely on their technologies to ensure quality of life is sustained for all people and future generations. Success of a society cannot be measured without accounting for sustainability. Daly developed the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare, later termed the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), which subtracts all the negative environmental externalities from the GNP. This is a vast improvement to the GNP, but questions remain about accurate monetary valuation of resources or projection of future values. A similar concept, Gross National Happiness (GNH), was developed in Bhutan (Novacek, et al., 2004; Evans, 2006; Andersen, 2007). GNH is based on the advancement of material and spiritual foundations of a nation and includes promotion of sustainable development, cultural values, natural environment and good governance. Instead of growth, quality of life has arisen as the new factor for modeling and verifying societal success. 27
This is akin to the scales of sustainability as the World Commission on Environment and Development and International Union for Conservation of Nature recommend for actions taken at a global scale through the worldwide recommendation of regional and metropolitan area plans. Effectiveness however usually corresponds to some degree of what is often referred to as grassroots involvements, because actions must be taken by the majority of the masses in order for positive change to come about. Correspondingly, it is important to understand the scale at which people experience their world, and how that relates to the scale at which the world can be measured and most effectively allocated and preserved. Quality of life studies can be either objective or subjective in their assessment, and the congruence between the two analyses may not always be identical. “We must consider both the city on the ground and the city in the mind,” (Pacione, 2003). Objective studies address measurable environmental, social and epidemiological trends across space and time. Things that can be objectively measured include the requirements for clean air, water, and safe, healthy food propagation. In addition, available and reliable energy for modern operations, such as provision of shelter and clothing, have become essential (especially to those living outside of ecologically set limiting factors, like geographic regions with extreme temperatures). These quantifiers cover the frequently cited basics of “food, clothing and shelter,” and expand to include things that were once considered a “given” (clean air and water) and some that are now a necessity (energy). Demographic data can also be measured objectively, and thus there are societal trends that can be included in 28
analyses of resource use rates and life quality. For example, in the United Kingdom, Pacione (1999) observed correlation between high concentrations of unemployed, low skilled and ethnic minorities to high levels of overcrowding, amenity deficient housing and out-migration. Examination of urban cores in most cities of the United States shows degradation as a result of a declining fiscal base and deteriorating physical infrastructure (Jackson, 1985; Waste, 1998; Lindstrom, et al., 2003; Pacione, 2003). Subjective studies measure reported life satisfaction, and can in turn also measure perceptions of the physical properties that objective studies measure. What objective studies cannot capture, however, is how some aspects of well being can be independent from direct influence from the physical world. Anecdotal evidence for these studies comes in the form of highly rated appreciation of life outlooks in impoverished communities, or scenarios where people are unaware of their environment’s degradation (i.e. drinking contaminated groundwater). Cheung (1997) showed how quality of life could be constructed through valuation schemas (hedonism, dialectical perspectives, humanism and formalism), and Jacobs (1961) notes that urban quality of life is based on livability, character, connection, mobility and diversity. Some studies have tried to merge the objective and subjective factors to create a universal model. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) has identified six factors that span the physical and psychological realms of life quality: the physical domain (measures pain, energy and sleep), the psychological domain 29
(measures positive feelings, concentration, self esteem, body image and negative feelings), the independence domain (measures mobility, activities of daily living, medication and work capacity), the social domain (relationships, social support and sexual activity), the environment domain (safety, home, finances, social care, new information, leisure, environment, transport), and finally the spiritual domain which has only one factor, spiritual (Lercher, 2003). Mitchell (2000) devised a cyclical model (security is to the left of health on the wheel) based also around six components: health (mental and physical), physical environment (nuisance, visual perception and scenic quality, climate, pollution), natural resources goods and services (natural resources, goods, social infrastructure and services) community development (community structure, social networks and group relations, political participation) personal development, (individual development through recreation and leisure, through learning) and security (personal economic security and standard of living, housing, administration of justice crime and safety). There are of course, in the nature of intent on universality, many major opportunities for blunders (Pecione, 2003) including: indicator type, indicator specificity, scale of analysis, variations in social grouping, composition of life quality and measurement scales. Problems with choices of indicator type for subjective assessments are influenced by the fact that individuals have different filters that influence their cognitive understanding (age, education, income, experiences, expectations, cultural backgrounds and standards of comparison). Further, these 30
subjective assessments are highly partial to the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (Openshaw, 1984) in that definitions of regions (i.e. neighborhood boundaries) vary based on individual cognitive maps, such that they don’t correspond to other respondents’ areas or with outlines of minor civil divisions (like postal codes or census tracts to which other demographic data is usually ascribed). Further, as Bonnes, Uzell, Carrus and Kelay point out, the objective measurement of many physical phenomena are very difficult to accurately obtain, and data are frequently approximations based on interpolation (Bonnes, et al., 2007). Other errors could also result from determining the method for aggregating indicators into one element, weighting (or not) of indicators and the type of measurement technique employed. In an effort to reduce the impact of potential blunders, many have narrowed the scope of their research in an effort to accurately identify successful measurement parameters that could later be used in the additive models. For example, Bonnes, et al., highlighted that their study was intended to contribute to a quality of life model that views urban areas as part of a greater holistic ecosystem (Bonnes, et al., 2007). The ecosystem based universal model for quality of life has been used in other studies as well (Newman, 1999; Shafer, et al., 2000). This model highlights three subsystems that account for the ecosystem impacts of human interaction with nature: the bioecological subsystem, the technological/architectural subsystem and the human perceptual/ behavioral subsystem. Bonnes, et al., compared the degree of correspondence between experts (objective based on real world measurements) and resident (subjective) perceptions of 31
environmental quality in two different studies: one on air quality in Surrey County, United Kingdom, and the other on access to urban green space in Rome, Italy (Bonnes, et al., 2007). In the UK, the air pollution was very accurately matched between the two analyses, and many subjective respondents even noted diurnal changes that occurred throughout the day with traffic pattern variations. In Rome, higher availability of greenspaces led to higher satisfaction, and in turn furthered more frequent use of the greenspaces. However, there was not a correlation between the expert’s assessments of biodiversity to resident’s satisfaction with their respective green areas. With the Rome study, there was not a significant overlap between the resident and expert valuation of the greenspaces. It seemed residents were more concerned with quantity, whereas experts were more concerned with quality (biodiversity richness). This study was successful in showing that people can perceive of some types of degradation to their environment, but also showed that they are unaware of other factors that may be reducing their overall quality of life. Therefore, a clear distinction between subjective and objective measurements is invaluable for an accurate assessment of quality of life. Understanding the overlap and disconnect between perceptions and reality brings great richness to planning processes and designs. These studies, ultimately, quest for the ideal parameters to ensure that all residents have a common threshold for standard of living. While there may be great variety in the degree to which different classes of people’s wants are met, there needs to be a demarcation of the threshold below which no member of
32
society is subject to reduced or inhospitable environmental quality. This is the concept behind environmental justice. It is often clear when quality of life provided to human inhabitants by the built environment falls below a universal threshold. These scenarios are often referred to as slums, and the quality of life for residents is reduced directly by the density of people in a given area coupled with non-functioning environments. Some cases are less clear as when the causes for reduction in quality of life are not spatially proximal or of direct accessibility by sensory perception. For example, a scenario where a lowincome neighborhood is near a dump site that accepts toxic waste without proper containment measures. Or rural areas that have chemicals leached into their groundwater as a result of less-than-stringent transportation rules and a related a tragic accident, or worse, were polluted in a time when there were no rules on transportation of toxic substances and people are still unaware of or trying to mitigate effects. These worst case scenario factors are examples of what is clearly below the threshold of environmental justice. For these circumstances, it is not expected that people living in these environments have the means, or the energy, to worry about factors beyond the immediate satisfaction of basic needs. In the best case scenarios, people are fortunate enough to live beyond the satisfaction of basic needs have opportunity to find ways to ensure environmental justice for themselves and for others.
33
The quality of the human experience is as much a subject of environmental factors that have specific potential to degrade a person’s health through less than ideal conditions as it is a construct of responses to internal and external factors. In many ways, measurements of reported well being are measurements of a person’s resilience to imperfect environmental conditions and in that way are, instead, are measures of character or personality (Lercher, 2003), especially when well-being is reported against all odds. For this reason, a more thorough understanding of the concept of well-being will abet the efforts to a greater understanding of the relationship between humans, their environment, and what constitutes a quality existence.
2.2 Well-Being Diener (2000) conducted a study with responses from over 7,000 international college students and found that there are cultural trends that can influence subjective well-being. Among them is degree of promoted citizen individuality, valuation of human rights, and provision of basic necessities. To reiterate the differences between objective and subjective measures, citizens of the United States reported highest overall well-being, but also ranked highest in both numbers of suicides and divorces. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment defined well-being as based on materialsecurity, personal freedoms, good social relations and physical health (Millennium Assessment, 2003). The underlying theory behind these studies shows that the concept of well-being enriches the definition of quality of life as a standard of living 34
in human existence by the inclusion of health, happiness and prosperity (or a comfortable existence).
2.2.1 Health, Happiness and Prosperity Happiness and prosperity were once considered to be intricately linked (see section 2.1.2 “Quality of Life” for a discussion on GNP). Clearly if one’s basal needs are met through a certain level of wealth or prosperity, then one is free to experience other aspects of “the good life” like leisure and relaxation. This correlation was based on the congruence between the philosophical theory of Hedonism and the economic theory of Rational Man. Hedonism touts that happiness is equated with promotion of personal pleasure (the avoidance of pain), and the Rational Man Model cites prosperity as being equated with the pleasure associated with maximizing gains. These models involve creation of utility functions out of preferences and generating methods for assessing the value of any given thing. Flaws to these concepts are found in the fact that pleasure alone doesn’t determine value, people have preferences for things that are bad for them (addictions), and that pain and pleasure are relative terms (people have different thresholds for both). Furthermore, humans cannot maximize every interest and all gains are not equally valued. This two part problem evidences the unreliability of these factors in real world modeling, and a failure to represent the true nature of human experience. What people prefer or want is not always what they need nor is it what is best for them. Observance of trends in 35
preference can be a very useful tool, but models based on the concepts of hedonism and the rational man must be used with caution. An alternate view on prosperity revolves around the virtuous nature of working toward a greater good, or the good will of human kind, as an attribute of well-being: knowing that one’s work is valuable to society is an essential element of well being. It is espoused that this is still within the realms of “one’s personal best interest,” because one could include oneself in “human kind” or that “doing good” is only for one’s benefit. However, there is validity to the intention of living a virtuous life and no limit to the benefits of this to well-being because of the interrelated nature of caring for one’s fellow man. Anecdotal evidence to this point comes from cases of philanthropy where people feel their reward in giving is much greater than the reward from receiving. The “greater good” is in itself a subjective value, and the reward of prosperity could be very different from one experience for a variety of people. In this way, prosperity is linked more so to the human need to be in control and have a fair amount of success in one’s predictions of environmental and life occurrences. Having a sense of control is a coping mechanism that helps to account for the unknown of the future and potential unknowns in one’s immediate environment. Stephen Kaplan and Rachel Kaplan (1982) show how the semantics of control can display the degrees to which prosperity can impact well-being through provision of basic psychological needs. Having control involves one’s accurate predictability on an outcome, where prediction is the degree of congruence between one’s environment and expectations. Knowing a situation is “under control” involves 36
knowing that any given experience or environment is predictable to a degree that insinuates a stability in a grander sense. Through this definition, feelings of prosperity can be maximized through participation (the joy from a collective effort from multiple people toward a common goal) and condition setting (manipulation of environments or placing oneself in environments that are conducive to one’s goals). Stephen Kaplan (1995) notes that often times people are aware that they cannot control the future, but find that some things that help them feel as though they are making a positive impact on the future and their environment is “good enough” to avoid feeling weary with the world. At best, including a feeling of control about one’s environment is a necessity for wellbeing, and in this way of great importance to personal prosperity. Personal economic gain, on the other hand, only has limited potential for satisfaction of well-being. Beyond a threshold of personal economic gain, “happiness and income are only weakly correlated” states Gowdy (2007) who further states that, “subjective well-being, not consumption, is the best measure of social welfare.” Also, Herzog and Strevey (2008) reported that studies showed some factors (self-esteem, feeling in control of one’s life, optimism, extraversion, supportive friendships, a satisfying love life, challenging work, and a framework in which one’s life makes sense) were much stronger predictors of well-being than some objective factors (wealth, perfect health, age, gender and ethnicity). One could argue that personal wealth increases opportunity to recover from disease because there is not extra stress from worrying about how to pay for treatments or ensuring help is from the best doctor possible. 37
This line of reasoning supports the case that universal healthcare, in modern societies, should be a right not a privilege. Therefore, it is fair to say that personal economic gain is attributable to wellbeing only to the degree that it serves to facilitate the most basic of human needs. A more comprehensive understanding of human needs explains how health, prosperity and happiness are based on more than just economic gain. These theories stem from a variety of needs assessment models. Some are structural models that have been posited toward a better understanding of needs satisfaction that include a simple model that posits all factors as being weighted to sum overall life satisfaction. Maslow (1954) proffered a more complicated model based on hierarchy of needs satisfaction (physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem, self actualization). Almost all needs models have physiological needs as the foundation, because thoughts on world peace are hard to digest when the stomach is empty. Where the fuzzy classifications of well-being come to fruition is exemplified by Maslow’s higher orders like love, belonging, esteem and self-actualization, because these aspects are not objectively measurable. Many studies use satisfaction as a tangible component through which subjective well-being can be reported. For example, one study found local residential satisfaction was the second (after marital satisfaction) most powerful predictor of life satisfaction (Fried, 1984). Diener (2000) measured separable components of well being as: life satisfaction (global judgments of one’s life), satisfaction with important domains (i.e. work satisfaction), positive affect (satisfaction through experiencing 38
many pleasant emotions and moods) and low levels of negative affect (satisfaction through experiencing few unpleasant emotions and moods). Examples of measurement tools include the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (Watson, et al., 1988) which asks questions related to satisfaction regarding each factor, and also with the Experience-Sampling Method (Sandvik, et al., 1993) which gathers satisfaction reports over a time series (for example, once a week for two months). Some studies also feel there are ways to objectively measure subjective assessments of the environment, and often refer to these patterns as people, “voting with their feet.” This method is akin to models that try to understand the society based on what the members of the society value, and does not directly request subjective responses. Another interesting characteristic of happiness is how it plays into health. Life expectancies shoot through the roof for people that have the ability to meet most of their well-being needs. “Positive emotions may contribute to physical health in several ways (e.g. analgesic immune-enhancing effects), but they also directly affect psychological well-being by making people feel better emotionally,” (Herzog & Strevey, 2008). Much of the modern medical literature and many people of the community are beginning to focus on the WHO definition of health as “more than just the absence of disease.” Lercher (2003) cites how the WHO has shifted its model from focus on the “traditional five D’s (Death, Disease, Disability, Discomfort and Dissatisfaction,” to a more positive view of health that sees the individual as an active participant in stress avoidance that would otherwise lead to the five D’s.
39
“In the model of Newman (1999) health is considered as an indicator of livability, while in other models the environmental quality is treated as determinant of health,” (van Kamp, et al., 2003). Indeed, in some scenarios the environment can cause damage to health that no amount of positive outlook can override. However there are also cases where people overcome seemingly insurmountable odds to establish their personal characterization of health, happiness and prosperity, and these scenarios are often related to how stress reduction plays an integral role in well-being. There are many working theories based on the concept that environments that exercise people cognitively and emotionally are essential to well-being because they mitigate impacts of stress (Diener, 2000; Kaplan, S. & Peterson, 1993; Kaplan, R., 2001; Kaplan R. & Kaplan, S., 2005; Korpela & Ylen, 2007; Herzog & Strevey, 2008). Emotional self regulation was highlighted as one tactic people use to mitigate stressful impacts on their lives. Humor has often been cited as powerful tool to improve mood states, personal outlook (Martin, et al., 2003) and even physiological states (Martin, 2001). Korpela and Ylen (2007) showed how favorite places can be essential in mood regulation. Exposure to emotionally arousing situations in life generates a need to process and recover from such life stressors. Mental strategies involve internal operations (i.e. being alone with ones thoughts or meditation), physical strategies involve exercise as a method to work through emotional states (also included here are sexual relations), social self-regulation strategies involve reliance on others (i.e. to cry on another’s shoulder), and, as the focus of Korpela and 40
Ylen’s research, the use of environmental stimuli to abet the working through of one’s problems. Meditation and spirituality have also proven as beneficial to regulation of emotional well-being (Kaplan, S., 2001). The use of environment as a form of mood regulation has been utilized through many studies focused on active efforts to change one’s negative state. Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R., 1982) posits that attentional fatigue can be recovered through exercise of involuntary attention, (also referred to as fascination). That is, temporarily engaging in fascinating environments (say natural environments for example) will allow for quick recovery of directed attention so that one may return to a task that must be completed. Restorative environments are hallmarked by four properties: fascination, being away, extent and compatibility. That is, the environment should be stimulating enough to effortlessly draw a person (physically or mentally) away from that which is causing stress because it is engaging and compatible to their inclinations. More specifically, compatibility implies a good fit between one’s inclinations and the activities supported by an environment. Extent intends that the setting should be sufficiently rich and coherent that it can engage the mind and promote exploration. Being away allows the person to be physically or mentally transported from daily tasks or stressors. Fascination engages attention effortlessly, allowing fatigued directed attention to rest. Being away has been examined by tourism studies that add dimension to the understanding of the need to be away by comparison to the push and pull theories of travel (Dann, 1977; Crompton, 1979; Yuan & McDonald, 1990). Hammitt’s study 41
showed that what most frequently defined as “getting away from” were “daily routines of home environments.” Motivations to get away to revolve mainly around obtaining some privacy, and reasoning for needing privacy include “reflective thought, distancing/emotional release, creative thought and intimate communication.” Hammitt also cited how the degree to which a person needs restoration is correlated to the scale of environment one needs to seek. That is, daily encounters can help stave off frustrations with daily life experiences, but eventually all people need an occasional grandiose vacation through which they can fully recharge (Hammitt, 2000). Fascination is the process that is associated with “being away,” and in that way can be controlled by cognition and influenced by the environment. Fascination began for Kaplan and Kaplan with James’ seminal 1892 work on fascination as the process behind attention. Involuntary attention is very similar to perceptual attention, and usually in response to things that are easy to attend to. Voluntary attention is therefore a train of thought that is maintained as a direct result of fending off intrusions from involuntary attention to subjects not important to this sequence (or storyline). Excess use of directed attention results in mental fatigue, or “a manifestation of cumulative effects of distractions.” The balance in question with attention is between what is interesting and what is important. Background noise in an environment is a literal and metaphoric example: people have a remarkable ability to block out disturbances (place them into the background of attention), but prolonged “fending” can only result in irritability. Extended bouts with irritability can lead to 42
reduction in positive outlook, and result in reduced likelihood of helping others in a negative cycle working against well-being. Hard and soft fascination types reflect varying degrees of cognitive and perceptual fascination (Kaplan, R., et al., 1998). Hard fascination is very intense, riveting one’s attention and leaving little room for thinking things over, soft fascination is of moderate intensity, enough to hold attention although still leaving room for reflection. Settings with soft fascination usually include an aesthetic component which can help offset any pain that may accompany reflection. Prevention of stressful life scenarios can be combated by resting attention intentionally. This is the reason people recommend that happiness in life is best found in finding a career that allows one the good fortune of “getting paid to do what you love.” Even with a choice career, people are still subject to needs of attentional restoration, and the ultimate definition of the “good life” arises when one’s play times are fascinating enough to sustain one through work times, and work times are rewarding enough for one to be able to truly enjoy play times. Where health, happiness and prosperity converge as well-being indicators is the relationship between humans and their environment. There is an insatiable need of the human experience to interact with the external world. People are social creatures, and socializing can include other people, animals, the environment and with oneself (and the possibility of God). Boredom is mild anecdotal evidence that people need interaction with the external world, and sensory depravation experiments show that without mental function people’s abilities to think coherently, solve simple problems, 43
and function effectively are drastically reduced. Extreme cases result in hallucinatory experiences where sensations are actually imagined in an effort to recreate feelings of connectedness with the external world (Bexton, et al., 1954). Opportunity to exercise cognitive skills and perceptual intake encompass the entirety of the human needs base, and exercise of all human experience types is vital for well-being. “Good health is about feeling effective, being clear-headed and resilient,” (Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S., 2005). There are many factors that play into keeping a person sane throughout their life, and this includes consideration of a variety of needs required by the brain for health as related to their environment, including: - the need for time for the brain to be free and attention undirected - the need for healthy interaction with people on a daily basis - the need for healthy interaction with plants and animals on a daily basis - the need to feel as though one is contributing to a greater good One model (utilized later in the methodology for this study) is based on what Kaplan and Kaplan espoused (Kaplan, S., & Peterson, 1993; Kaplan R. & Kaplan, S., 2005) with the Rational Person Model that the human well-being is a construct of the interplay between humans and their environment. It could be seen that this is in response to the Rational Man, because there is validity to rationality as a desirable goal. People want to be rational because that is seen as how they are most effective. However, total exclusion of emotion from the equation leads to involuntary collapse 44
of effective cognitive functioning (also referred to as directed attention fatigue, but in extreme cases can result in what is referred to as “emotional melt downs”), and further does not embody the entirety of the human experience. “We see people as having far less than perfect knowledge and insufficient capacity to weigh all possible alternatives, [and] having deep concern about a wide range of issues extending far beyond the maximization of gain,” (Kaplan, R. & Kaplan S., 2005). Therefore, emotional regulation (or restoration) must also be incorporated into the landscapes of human experience, because it is an essential intermediary step to regaining cognitive clarity. In the Rational Person Model (RPM), three major tenets of well being for humans revolve around the interrelated nature of a positive outlook, cognitive clarity and societal involvement: Understanding and Exploration, Meaningful Action and Restoration. These facets can be satisfied by environments that promote socializing, cognitive clarity and human effectiveness. Socializing can be seen as public (neighbors or sense of community), private (friends, family and even self) and is not restricted to human interaction with other humans. Socializing can also be with nature and animals which can provide further opportunity for socializing with the self to provide a balancing mechanism, and also cause for promoting feelings of stewardship toward the environment (Pyle, 2003). From the well-being literature, socializing can attend to many of the needs for satisfaction of happiness. Socializing brings a positive outlook and provides opportunity to exercise skills that are rewarding.
45
Clarity relies upon restorative environments to provide stress alleviation, and therefore promotes the health element of well-being. Similar to the focus of ART, as explained in greater detail in sections two and three of this chapter, restoration of both cognitive and emotional abilities create a well-rounded person. Much of the focus of the literature on this subject is to “cognitive clarity,” but it is the understanding of this researcher that “creative clarity” should also be considered of great importance. Effectiveness is based upon contributions to greater good, sense of community on a larger scale and awareness of one’s environmental impact. In this way, effectiveness is akin to prosperity in that people have a need to give back and feel appreciated for full actualization of benefits to their well-being. Nature as restorative is the foundation for evidencing the applicability of the RPM: well-being and quality of life are the keys to planning for and designing environments that provide outlets for the senses (relaxation, creativity) and outlets for logical practice (care for nature, socializing). Good living includes ample opportunity for interaction with nature in daily life because interaction with nature provides stress reduction, improves cognitive clarity that in turn improves the physical quality of life (Kaplan, R., 1973; Ulrich, 1981; Kaplan S., & Kaplan, R., 1989; Ulrich, et al., 1991; Herzog, et al., 1997; Kaplan, S., 2001; Hartig, et al., 2003). These studies focus on establishing the validity of a measurable impact of nature on an individual when compared to exposure to built environments. Understanding the specifics of how nature is restorative begins with the understanding of how humans interact with their environment. 46
2.2.2 Cognition, Perception and the Environment The study of perception began long before the industrial revolution, the advent of the scientific method, and the paradigm shift that allowed man to consciously and physically exert control over nature. Philosophers began discerning the intricacies of the development of mind from as early as history can document, and, from cave drawings and other unwritten historical phenomena, undoubtedly for centuries before. It was Plato (2001) who wrote in The Republic that reality (self and experience of the external) is merely a construct in the mind that has been imparted by the senses. This philosophy spawned the debate over the accuracy of the senses and their reliability for helping humans to obtain true knowledge. Plato felt the senses were fallible and there were therefore no universal truths, only perceptions, while it was his student, Aristotle, who felt the senses were perfectly adept at exposing the true nature of things. In many senses, the debate still rages on to this day in that there is still not definitive distinction between cognition and perception, and that there is no absolute or universal ideal for acquisition of true knowledge. In philosophical terms, induction, deduction, and abduction are the primary methods through which the brain interacts with the surrounding environment, and are basally of the same derivative: sensory perception. Induction is the experience of gathering samples or case studies from sensory perception of the environment. Induction, the most descriptive and emotive of the three processes, is akin to perception, but still involves cognition as conclusions are drawn from experiences. 47
Deduction is the foundation for the Scientific Method and Positivism, and embodies cognition in that it involves quantification of inductive outcomes to comprise rules and inherent natures of the environment. It is important to note what is often forgotten: all deductive operations stem from information that was once imported as sensory perception. It is obvious that likening perception to induction and cognition to deduction is an overly simplified explanation. The gradations of sensory experience combined with alternate techniques in cognition blend to meet in the center of the continuum at abduction. Abduction creates and enforces rules based on new experiences and existing rule sets. Abduction depicts the spontaneity of conscious thought (thoughts based on thoughts opposed to thoughts based on perceptions), and how ideas can be spawned from past and present experiences simultaneously to generate theories. Examples of abduction include thoughts about memories and classification of a recalled sensory experience. Cognition can, in its purest form, be easily conceived as pure thoughts or mental processes exclusive of sensory perception (Lloyd, 1997; Korpela, et al., 2001; Long & Perkins, 2003; Gifford, 2007; Joye, 2007; Long and Perkins, 2007). Cognition can include heuristics, learning, metaphor and analogy, and reasoning (logical deduction). However the acquisition of knowledge about the external cannot arise without perceptual techniques. In some definitions perception is even considered part of cognition (just as induction is a necessary step preceding deduction). For example, Lloyd (1997) states cognition has three components that include acquisition, 48
representation and use. However acquisition in this sense, to remain separate from perception, must be referring to information that is obtained through abduction and not induction: that is, a memory revisited (recollection) or the application of lessons learned to said recollections. It could also be understood that representation belongs with perception, because the eyes (and all senses) filter before the second cognitive representation. Thus, there are two representations: the result of perceptual filters that accept, for example, only light waves between 0.3 and 0.5 micrometers, and cognitive manifestations of images, properties and natures of things that result from filtering. Perception involves direct (in situ) contact with an object or the external for the processing of sensory signals (Lloyd, 1997). However, just as there are reasons for the bleeding of the meaning of perception into cognition, there are reasons for inverse interference. The first is that sensory experiences almost always invite thoughts or memories, which are the precursors to problem solving and logical deduction and are highly subject to cultural differences and past experiences. Second, in metaphysical terms, one cannot draw a distinct boundary between the self and the external world, and as such one should treat the “external” as an extension of self (Hillman, 1995). The primary purpose of this argument was to emphasize the ethical challenges of degrading one’s own environment, but it raises an essential point about how the distinction between self and the external can be fuzzy. Third, perception is a homonym of the language used to discuss this process: it is used as a term to describe how one’s experience evokes thought (like induction, i.e. what it is), and also how experiences evoke feelings and memories (how one feels 49
about it). Therefore, perception can be of landscape phenomena as a collective entity (Serpa & Muhar, 1996; Spash, 2002; Kaplan, R. & Austin, 2003; Long. et al., 2007; Tilt, et al., 2007; Gifford, 2007; Joye, 2007; Kaplan, R., et al., 2008), and also of one’s feelings and experience of the landscape (Talbot & Kaplan, S., 1986; Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S., 1989; Kaplan, S., 1995; Stokols, 1995; Herzog & Miller, 1998; Hartig, et al., 2001; Kaplan, R., 2001; Gifford, 2007). Furthermore, some senses or feelings arise from cognitive processes, as opposed to direct physical encounters (common sense, sense of honor). Fourth, the most direct overlap, the aforementioned real world representation that involves both cognition and perception. Humans do not experience all of reality, as was the conceptual foundation of Plato’s postulation. Presumably, a full sensory experience of all existing phenomena would cause the brain to go into overload. As such there are internal filters that categorize the sensory experience before relaying the sensory experience the mind, and it is these pre-attention filterings that are the specific source of disconnect of the mind from the full reality of the external. Also, like thoughts and memory, these filters are highly influenced by individual experience and cultural differences. The relationship between humans and the external world is shown in Table 1, and the different cognitive and perceptual functions are shown in Table 2. Perception and cognition are continual simultaneous operating systems. The world as one experiences it is a construct of filtering (either cognitive or perceptual to
50
Human Interaction with the External World Experience
Behavior
Perception
Sensation
Sensory Awareness Phenomenal Impression
Continua Physical
Induction
Description
Sensory Intake
Pure sensations
Instincts
Sensory Filtering
Inner workings of sensory tools
Feelings
Sensory Representation Abduction
Image identification (feelings and recognition) Image preprocessing (association, encoding)
Cognitive Interpretation
Thoughts
Cognitive Representation
"Brain Type" Processing
Values
Cognitive Interpretation
Value added cognitive decision
Cognition
Expression
Cognitive Enlightenment
Pure thoughts
Mental
Deduction
Table 1. Human Interaction with the External World. The distance between perception and cognition can be seen as continua with related processes. Note: "Brain-Type" refers to Right or Left (MacLean (1990).
The Human Experience Human Cognitive Functions
Human Sensory Functions
Cognition Learning
Function Add to Knowledge Base
Perception Visual Sense
Description Sight
Repetition
Practice
Auditory Sense
Sound
Metaphor
Likening with Imagery
Tactile Sense
Haptic
Analogy
Likening with Narrative
Sense of Smell
Olfactory
Heuristics
Trial and Error
Sense of Taste
Gustatory
Sense of Balance
Vesibular
Sense of Physical Self
Kinesthesia
Proprioceptors >
Table 2. The Human Experience. Pure cognitive and perceptual processes. Note that Proprioceptors are grouped with sensory functions. 51
arise at a representation). Some experiences are perceptually laden: “I see the bird soaring and it makes me feel proud.” Others are more cognitively based: “I can infer from the presence of these dirt mounds that groundhogs have been digging in my yard and that reminds me of the movie Caddy Shack (Ramis, 1980).” This also can be likened to comparisons of people with tendencies toward right-brained (perceptually weighted) or left-brained (cognitively weighted) type of thinking (Sperry, 1983). Cases of pure and exclusive cognition and perception are extremely rare activities of human engagement because people are perpetually interacting with the world. Thus thoughts, while not always directly in relation to the external world before the senses, are always about one of three concepts; the external world, the internal cognition, or how one perceives either of them. From this analysis one would define the separation between perception and cognition as being the degree to which the environment makes a person feel compared to the degree to which the environment makes a person think. It is from this understanding that cognitive maps were developed (Tolman, 1948; Lynch, 1960; Downs & Stea, 1977; Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R, 1982; Lloyd, 1997), as a concept to represent the dynamic nature of the human experience. Lynch (1960) describes the features of a cognitive map as paths, edges, nodes, districts and landmarks as having real world counterparts that vary with accuracy in relation to the real world as a result of individual experiences composing individual cognitive maps. The internal functioning cognitive map is more akin to what Worboys and Duckham (2004) refer to as geovisualization (highly interactive private discovery process) than 52
cartography (public presentation of discoveries). It is the renditions of people’s cognitive maps that are cartographic (Lynch, 1960). Furthermore, much of the spatial modeling that is done with computers can be analogous to the human experience wherein perceptions are simplified, classified and symbolized for use in recollection, analysis and prediction (Worboys & Duckham, 2004). In a cognitive map, experiences are networked sequences between nodes of interest. Recalling different types and regions of maps for functioning experiences is termed regional inhibition for two reasons. The first is that parts of the full map must be excluded from attention for effective functioning. Second is that neuro-cognitive studies prove a physical regional inhibition wherein regions of the brain are literally isolated based on task need (Kaplan, S., 2001). Pathways in neuro-networks are chemical and do not follow common spatial patterns (like “next to” or “in front of”), but instead involve many or few regions of the brain at any given time. This is furthered by the concept of limited capacity, in which people can only process only a certain amount of information at a time or temporarily retain something in “short term memory” (Mandler, 1975). Focus of attention has therefore been referred to as “regions of interest” for any given point in time. In some experiences it is advantageous to restrict cognitive thinking to express capacities for perceptual intake (cognitive clarity), and for other experiences it is important to restrict perceptual influences in an effort to focus attention (creative clarity). Often attention is favored to cognitive tasks, but the mind requires exercise of both cognition and emotion for proper functioning. This is the process of 53
restoration. Directed attention can be to cognitively influenced (attentional) or perceptually influenced (moods and mental states) processes. The degree to which a cognitive or perceptual process is isolated represents the degree of precision and scope in the examination. People generally call on cognitive processes more than sensory processes, because a key function of the mind is to guide and prepare people for their next action. “The associative richness of mind permits remarkable flexibility and subtlety but also creates a threat to clarity,” (Kaplan, S., 2001). Thus studies addressing psychological stress focus on improvement of cognitive capacities and restoration from a sense of cognitive chaos (Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R., 1982). One of the most notable is Attention Restoration Theory (ART) which seeks to address the state of mental fatigue that results from excessive directed attention to one topic (Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R., 1982). From this understanding, cognitive clarity is seen as something that can be diminished and restored, and experiences in nature are shown to be more beneficial to this end. Nature’s capacity to restore depleted attentional resources has been evidenced by improvement in cognitive tasks performed after exposure to natural environments (as opposed to exposure to urban environments), and has also been measured as reported improvements or satisfaction with mood states. Exploration of the concept of restoration shows the intricate relationship between mind and body as nature holds benefits to improvement in both psychological and physiological states.
54
2.2.3 Preference and Attention Restoration For many, the distinction between “landscapes that make people feel” and “landscapes that make people think” is a dividing paradigm in the school of Landscape Psychology. Cognitive impacts are thoughts about experiences, and are most commonly measured by instigation of cognitive stressors (i.e. to prompt diminished attention), exposure to environment, and then followed by completion of tasks or tests where time for completion and accuracy are measured. Cognitive impacts can also be measured with cognitive inquiry like an interview or question response form regarding reported stress reduction and regained focus or thoughts on feelings about the experience. Quite often tasks and responses are measured post operatively (anywhere from 5 to 45 minutes following participation in the study). Affective impacts are usually physiological or emotional in nature as both are experienced as feelings opposed to thoughts. The experience is most commonly immediate, and is measured by the time interval between the presentation of the prime and target stimuli known as stimulus-onset-asychrony (SOA) (Korpela, et al., 2002; Hietanen & Korpela, 2004). Temporal ranges for responses can be from 200 milliseconds to a few minutes depending on the length and impact of the treatment or experience. Immediate or continuous measurements produce the most reliable and descriptive results in measuring this type of human experience. Delayed affective experiences are the exception to immediacy related to time of experience because, in this scenario, feelings or physical manifestations arise post treatment. Thus, the 55
affective reaction is in response to the thought as opposed to the environment or, alternately, effects take longer to set in or continue over time like stress reduction as measured by lowered Cortisol (more commonly referred to as the “stress hormone”). The distinction is furthered by the methodologies used to measure the impacts of interactions with different landscapes as either a cognitive (Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S., 1989; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995; Hartig, et al., 1997; Hartig, et al., 2001; Hartig, et al., 2003; Clayton, 2007; Korpela & Ylen, 2007) or an affective (Korpela, et al., 2002; van den Berg, et al., 2003; Hietanen & Korpela, 2004; Chang, et al., 2008) type of instrument. In all of these studies, natural and urban areas were posited against one another, and repeatedly the natural environments were shown to be more effective in restoration of body and mind. Possibly the most well known affective studies showed that access to natural scenes increased patient’s recovery time in hospitals when compared to rooms without access to natural scenes by testing physiological indicators like reduced blood pressure and levels of stress hormones (Ulrich, 1986; Verderber, 1986; Verderber, et al., 1987). Physical affective responses have been measured with instruments like electroencephalographs (EEG), electromyography (EMG), cardiovascular blood volume pulse (BVP) and from perceptual inquiry like an interview or question response form regarding reported mood changes or other feelings (Chang, et al., 2008). Studies have also used self-reported health (headaches, pains, dizziness, etc.) as correlated with need for and type of favorite places in the neighborhood as resources for regulating negative feelings and coping with stress (Korpela & Ylen, 56
2007). These findings showed that people who perceived greater need for recovery were correlated with selecting natural areas and places for nature interaction as favorite places. Some affective studies work with people in measuring recovery from existing ailments, and others use stress inducing mechanisms called primer stimuli (usually frightening movie) and follow them with target stimuli (usually a nature or urban scene) in an effort to isolate the impact on recovery. Korpela used frightening films followed by urban or natural settings as their primer and target stimuli, and then measured response time and accuracy of voice inflection (Korpela, et al., 2002) and facial expression (Hietanen & Korpela, 2004) recognition. Aside from the contribution to the literature supporting natural environments as having more restorative potential than urban environments, these studies highlighted that the greater amount of stress the participant experienced from the primer stimuli was positively correlated with greater amounts of positive or negative feelings from the natural and urban environments, respectively. Most commonly the amount of restoration provided on affective tests that were not physiologically measurable are often referred to moods or mental states. These tests request cognitive assessment of feelings or mood states in general, and are then correlated with times of stimuli exposure or temporal relationship to the stimulus (i.e. before or after). Conceptualizations of feelings and states of mind about oneself are measured using the Profile of Mood States (POMS), and has been used in a variety of studies (McNair et al., 1981; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995; van den Berg, 57
et al., 2003; Koole, et al., 2004; Karmanov & Hamel, 2008). Attentional Function Index is an interview style test that delivers a series of descriptive mood states, and requests a self-report response from the participant to determine perceived feelings and personal opinions (Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995; Kaplan, R., 2001). The Zuckerman Inventory of Personal Reactions (ZIPERS) measures positive affect (emotions) like sadness, attentiveness, fear, aggression and others, and has also been used frequently (Zuckerman, 1977; Hartig, et al., 1997; Korpela, et al., 2002; Hartig, et al., 2003; Hietanen, et al., 2007). The Perceived Restorative Scale (PRS) measures cognitive thoughts about feelings about the environment as experienced during interaction with the environment (delayed affective reactions). The PRS (Hartig, et al., 1997; Korpela, et al., 2002; Purcell, et al., 2001; Hartig, et al., 2001; Hartig, et al., 2003; Berto, 2005; Hietanen, et al., 2007; Chang, et al., 2008) is an indexed version of the factors used in Attention Restoration theory, and measures the environment’s ability to provide fascination and opportunity for being away from stressful environments (mentally or physically) through proper compatibility and extent. Some common methods of measuring actual cognitive restoration include tests that monitor speed and accuracy of cognitive functioning: Digit Span Forward, Digit Span Backward, Digit Modalities Test (Lezak, 1983; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995), Necker Cube Pattern Control Test (Parsons, 1995; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995; Hartig, et al., 1997; Hartig, et al., 2003) and Search and Memory Tasks (Hartig, et al., 1997). Digit Span Forward (DSF) measures the number of distinct items that 58
can receive direct attention at a given time, and Digit Span Backward (DSB) involves timing recitation of mentally held elements in reverse order. The Necker Cube Pattern Control Test (NCPCT) is the use of a three-dimensionally drawn image that can be seen from different dimensions. Attentional competence is measured by how long one can sustain a perspective without allowing the pattern to reverse (a direct inhibition). The Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) measures time and accuracy of replacing geometric digits with numeric digits. Search and Memory Tasks (SMT) measure temporal relationships with observations and recalling of scene elements. Built into the understanding of various uses for these tools is the true nature of human benefits from the environment. Tennesen and Cimprich (1995) showed cognitive improvement of directed attention was positively related to having a dorm room with a natural view when compared to views of build environments. Another interesting pattern that emerged from this study was that more highly rated mood states were reported with reported higher attentional capacities. Hartig, et al., used a proofreading task to measure the restorative benefits from three treatments involving vacations (wilderness vacation, non-wilderness vacation and no vacation), and found that the subjects in the wilderness vacation group showed significant improvement in their proofreading scores (Hartig, et al., 1991). They also reported longer lasting benefits following the wilderness vacation. Hartig and Evans (1993) created three treatments (walk through a natural environment, walk through an urban environment, or sit in a building listening to music on the radio and reading magazines) that were to be followed by intensive 59
cognitive tasks. Similar to the first study, proofreading scores improved from the nature treatment and reported greater emotional benefits, however the improvement on cognitive tasks from the nature experience only extended to those reporting high stress levels prior to the walk. Those in the urban treatment group performed better on the SMT regardless of prior feelings of stress, and for those without stress prior to the treatment also performed better on the NCPCT. Interpretation of these findings show the potential of urban environments for having positive impacts on our cognitive abilities, as being in those environments require, in lay terms, to call on one’s “street smarts.” This shows that there are a variety of functions the landscape could serve, and there are specific elements of a scene that can help exercise both cognitive and sensory processes. In 2003 Hartig had subjects take urban and nature walks and measured their physiological and emotional responses (Hartig, et al., 2003). While there was correlation with restorative and physiological improvements, the influences were from separate processes in that cognitive results did not seem to have as strong of a correlation to the nature walks as to the urban walks. The major physiological implications with restoration showed changes in diastolic blood pressure (alphaadrenergic responses - passive coping) for participants recovering in a room with a nature view, and systolic blood pressure changes (beta-adrenergic responses – active coping) resulted in participants engaging in a nature walk. The second major conclusion supported the finding by Korpela and Ylen (2007) that anger and aggression declined in natural environments, and increased in urban environments. 60
Also, an interesting observation is that the magnitude of stress is correlated with the desire for and impact from the restorative environments. This further demonstrates how different types of scenes can have different types of impacts on both cognitive and perceptual restoration. Karmanov and Hamel’s study in 2008, found that when urban scenes were manipulated to be of the most desirable type of urban scenes, they performed much better against the nature scenes (to ensure noticeable differences from the treatments many previous studies used less than desirable urban settings, like industry). In this study, post-cognitive impression of mood was examined along with scene ratings ranging from naturalness to urban and beauty to ugliness. Nature was still more powerful for attention restoration, but further examination of urban showed it to be more interesting. Thus the study indicates that some structural creations can succeed at providing a positive environment for people with fascinating complexity. From these studies a richer distinction to the original concept that nature provides a more positive impact than urban environments has been discovered. Clearly there is correlation between natural environments and mood improvement, and that improvement is either a direct result of the interaction or a result from the restored cognitive clarity that interaction provided (Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995). Greater need for restoration shows a greater receptivity to the environment as providing relief (Korpela, et al., 2002; Hietanen & Korpela, 2004; Hartig et al., 2003). Restoration of cognitive processes can result as a byproduct of exercising emotional and perceptual need in nature by way of stress relief, but direct positive impacts to 61
cognitive clarity can also result from positive urban interactions (Hartig & Evans, 1993; Hartig, et al., 2003; Karmanov & Hamel, 2008). Therefore, cognitive restoration can be provided directly through appropriate urban environments that allow exercising of alternate cognitive patterns, and can also arise as a byproduct of calling on emotional release in nature (thus allowing one to later return to cognitively weighted experiences with greater clarity). Some big questions still remain relative to the results of these studies. One is the possibility that the results posted as benefits to health and well-being from nature are merely artifacts because people are more stimulated by their external environment, and as such they are not as aware of the internal ailments. Therefore people are not actually improving their well-being, rather they are just underreporting their ailments. Another possibility is that people who prefer nature are more likely to also be more active, and report less stress and health troubles as a result. This is furthered by the question of whether merely seeing green helps with restoration or if it is the sight of green that motivates people to action. Regardless of the answers to these questions, it is clear that change in environment exercises both cognitive and perceptive skill sets, and access to both at appropriate times in a person’s life can contribute to their well-being. It is this interrelated nature that is responsible for reducing boredom and fatigue to produce the motivated and balanced life of a healthy well-rounded individual. Nature has a direct impact on cognitive clarity when it is nestled into urban or human engineered settings, and a direct impact on emotional restoration in wilderness and aesthetic 62
settings. This emotional impact is an intermediary step to revive cognitive clarity. The degree of restoration needed determines what type of experience is appropriate. These studies show that there is a significant relationship between scene type and restoration type (cognitive or perceptual restoration). The research with preference is intended to identify what specifically is indicative of a restorative environment (beyond just “urban” and “natural”). Thus a final study that is pivotal for understanding the literature in the field to date comes from van den Berg’s study wherein preference is validated as an indicator of restoration (van den Berg, et al., 2003). This study showed restoration’s authentication as a mediator (statistical correlation tool) for preference based on three premises: that there is a significant relationship between scene type and preference, that there is a significant relationship between scene type and restoration, and that there is a significant relation between restorative potential and preferences when the scene elements are held constant. As the first two premises have been and shown through the literature, this study strengthened the foundation for those studies based on preference as adequate predictors of restoration measurement.
2.2.4 Preference and Aesthetics As part of their cognitive skill set, humans are notorious for value placement and judgment. It is therefore presumed that preference is one indicator of positive impacts from the environment and of aesthetical value (Kaplan, S., 1979; Nohl, 63
2001). Aesthetics can be seen as the perceptual relative of the cognitive preference. That is, preference can be likened to a more cognitive method of appreciating, experiencing or being influenced by a landscape, and aesthetics to the more ephemeral and emotional side of human interaction with the environment. One of the fundamental underpinnings of aesthetics is whether something can be universally beautiful, or if there is a degree to which something can be beautiful without observation. In philosophy, this is known as objective versus subjective aesthetic. However, again, this is overly simplified because, for example, one can hold disgust or contempt for something that is culturally held as universally beautiful. Without diverging too far into the field of epistemology, there is a degree to which knowledge about the external world is unverifiable. Some philosophers see the filter in perceptual information intake as a fundamental flaw to the theory that knowledge about the external world is possible. Conceptually, because everything else is distorted by sensory perceptions, conversation and language interpretation that are the extensions of cognition constitute the only logically verifiable aspect of the external realm. It is the presence of the other that ensures and reinforces one’s collection of knowledge. Thus, something having the constitution of being aesthetic of its own accord (objective aesthetic) is only verified by agreement of many that that something is aesthetically pleasing (subjective aesthetic). Just as with cognition and perception, there is no superfluous distinction between an object providing positively stimulating sensory information and one’s decision of preference for said object. Thus, one could decide that, while many 64
perceive something as beautiful and having objective aesthetic, one could think of reasons why it is not (or should not be) desirable. The cognitive introspection as a result of something that is pleasing to the senses could be likened to the array of diverse interplay between perception and cognition as shown in Table 3. Relationship Between Experience and the Value Added Description Pure sensations
Related continua Perception
Scene Description
Aesthetics
Objective Aesthetic
Inner workings of sensory tools
Instinctual Reaction
Image identification (feelings and recognition)
First Impression Initial Like or Dislike Level of Preference
Image pre-processing (association, encoding) Value added - cognitive decision Pure thoughts
Cognition
Preference
Subjective Aesthetic
Table 3. Relationship Between Experience and the Value Added. Aesthetics and preference have been seen as indicators of positive attributes or a liking based on inklings of good traits being associated with the nature of things. Searching for specific elements of a scene that influence or support different cognitive processes or feelings involves identification of a measurable interpretation of the landscape. Preference is ideal for this process because it is commonly made judgment, is easily reported, and, like most other phenomena, can express congruence and variance regardless of the differences in perceptual influence (Kaplan, S., 1979). Furthermore, it is most often preference that stimulates and motivates interaction with the environment (Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R., 1982). Preference, as with the lessons from hedonism theory and the rational man model, is susceptible to high variability, and causes for trends should be examined from a multitude of angles. 65
Before the seminal study by van den Berg in 2003, many preference and aesthetic surveys and studies were based around two logical premises (van den Berg, et al., 2003). One was that evolution had great impact on how humans filter and perceive the land, and as a direct result their instant reactions to, and thoughts and feelings about, an environment were reflective of that environment’s potential for promoting survival of the species. The opposing theory posited that culture and modern belief structures limit knowledge acquisition, and preferences are therefore determined by one’s own cognitive factions as a result of these influences. This debate is commonly known as “nature vs. nurture.” “Nature” refers to the genetic typologies that have been transformed by generations of interaction with the environment, and manifest, in one way, as from aesthetic value for environments derived through perceptive processes. Physical evidence to support that evolutionary processes occurred on the savannah is undeniable. Straightening of the spine for upright mobility, shifting a specific wrist bone to shift hand strength in grasping for pounding to strength in dexterity for intricate motor skills (Tocheri, et al., 2005), and the development of the brain as building blocks of evolution, with MacLean’s (1990) reptilian (instincts) and mammalian (emotions) brains preceding the cerebral cortex (thoughts). Even cultural evolutions have been traced back through history as in Jared Diamond’s (2003) case for evolution of cultures in Guns, Germs and Steel, and Spencer Wells’ The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (2002). For many, it follows that the psychology of thought must also be rooted in evolution, because moving from forest to savannah 66
would require more elaborate cognitive maps and rapid methods for information recall to avoid being eaten and to follow animals and harvestable nuts and berries across the vast plains. This psychoevolutionary hypothesis posits that certain environmental scenes elicit specific responses based on deeply ingrained patterns of behavior that have evolved as survival mechanisms (Wilson, 1978; Ulrich, 1984; Parsons, 1991; Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Ulrich, 1993; Kellert, 1997). Wilson (1978) labeled this notion biophilia hypothesis. Biophilia helped establish the field of Ecoopsychology (Roszak, et al., 1995) which bases its solutions to mental ailments in healthy interaction with nature. In this model responses toward environmental settings are not mediated by cognition but instead are rooted in human evolutionary history that make reconnection with nature essential to human health and well-being. In all likelihood, aesthetic appreciations stem from this perceptive and emotional side of experience. These emotive responses of preference are results of pre-cognitive filtering and encoding. Thus, for example, scenes that are open and passable are seen as safe and emotionally rewarding (say, for example, an open grassy area with a few scattered trees). Some of the best examples showcasing evolution’s impact on the human experience include scenarios where actions (usually referred to as reactions) precede thoughts. The “fight or flight” function of the reptilian part of the brain (located in the locus coeruleus), shows how, instinctually and by definition rapidly, responses to environment occur. Stephen Kaplan (1979) agrees that evolutionary traits can guide modern day preferences to a degree, wherein “aesthetics, at least to 67
some degree, reflects the functional appropriateness of spaces and things.” However, also notes that there is somewhat of a disconnect in the literature between these theories and specific psychological processes. “People often do what is adaptive because their preferences and inclinations show the impact of evolution, not because the fate of their genes is a conscious priority coloring all of their actions,” (Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R., 1982). The alternative “nurture” posits that culture and morals influence preference for environments through cognitive processes, and in this understanding it is the cognitive paradigm or cultural mores that restrict the filters in the image representation stage of cognition. It could be said that people can “think themselves out” of ingrained situations that are problematic to them, like, for example, not ducking when a fly strikes the windshield while the vehicle is in motion. For the more cognitively weighted experiences there are paradigms of thought that are most influential on preference, and these cultural mores and beliefs that govern the extent of cognitive maps are hidden in the scope of man’s epistemology. These are generally not as instinctual, or rather that they occur later on a temporal scale than “nature” or evolutionary inspired reactions. This is how things grow on people, and advance the likelihood that preference stems from cognition. An example specific to the experience of landscape would be desiring tree lined enclosed areas for backyard privacy that one would expect to otherwise fear based on evolutionary instincts (because of large predator cat tree habitats).
68
It is in this way that culture impacts aesthetic appreciation. What people think about the environment influences what people see when they look at it. For example, Environmental movements have fluctuated in the United States on a 30 year cycle since John Muir and Theodore Roosevelt’s “conservation movement,” and the cultural perception of nature has ebbed and flowed in congruence (Chiras & Reganold, 2005). Many culturally based perceptions of what is considered to have “aesthetic value” in the environment have ebbed and flowed with the respective movements. Thus the “answer” to the “nature vs. nurture” debate is that both heavily influence the human experience, as evidenced from the previous cognitive and affective studies. It is not that one is more influential than the other, but, instead, that there is a degree to which an interaction with an environment is weighted by cognitive or perceptive processes. While there are exceptions to the rule, generally instinctual feelings are perceptually weighted, and thoughts and conclusions are cognitively weighted. The instinctual experiences (feelings or reactions) are more likely to be influenced by evolution, and decisions (preferences) are more likely to be influenced by culture. Thus if one is in the act of perceiving something it is most likely to be a perceptually weighted experience, because there are instincts or feelings at play. If one is reflecting on what was perceived, or commenting on how something was perceived, it is likely to be a cognitively weighted experience or response (“that was gross”). This relationship and others can be extended to other relationships as shown in Table 4. 69
Preference, Aesthetics and Relations Between Perception and Cognition
Perspective
Response Type
Awareness
Aesthetics
Affective
Attitude
Physiological
Preference
Scene Description
Process
Theory of Influence
Objective Aesthetic
Feeling
Evolution
Point of View
Instinctual Reaction
Instinct
Sense Interpretation
Standpoint
First Impression
Image Detection
Cognitive Interpretation
Viewpoint
Initial Like or Dislike
Image Matching
Value Judgment of Experience
Outlook
Level of Preference
Calculation
Cognitive
Perspective
Subjective Aesthetic
Imagination
Culture
Table 4. Preference, Aesthetics and Relations Between Perception and Cognition. How preference and aesthetics are akin to cognition and perception. Cognitively weighted desirable landscapes are preferred, and perceptually weighted experiences are aesthetically pleasing. An interesting commentary on the relationship between cognition and perception, preference and aesthetics is the ease at which cognitively related processes are defined, and the meanings of their words are clearly understood. To the contrary, all language available for describing perceptual processes is ambiguous at best. This supports the bias people have with respect to understanding cognitive processes over perceptual processes – there is a bit more merit given to thought over experience, science over art, knowing over feeling – but this does not necessarily imbue importance or dominance. This section will close with
70
an examination of preference, via the preference matrix, and an analysis based on aesthetics. Cognitive assessments of specific elements of the scene that are responsible for the nature of that scene’s experience have been measured by the Preference Matrix (Kaplan, S., 1979; Kaplan, R., 1985; Kaplan S. & Kaplan, R., 1982; Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S., 1989; Herzog & Miller, 1998; Hammitt, 2000; Korpela, et al., 2001; Lercher, 2003; Herzog & Kropscott, 2004). The scene elements present in the preference matrix are based around the continua between the “need for familiarity” and the “need to explore” against a spatiotemporal distribution. Thus, the Preference Matrix (Table 5) is characterized by four tenets of experience: understanding, exploration, legibility and mystery. The four tenets are used to select photographs that embody a particular type of experience, and then variability of responses is measured to interpret the degree to which the proposed tenet elicits the expected response. Referring to table 5, “complexity” is the degree to which a scene is heterogeneous. Diversity and richness are ecological terms that could be applied figuratively in this scenario, as in reference to the types of objects within the scene, and literally in the interpretation of the landscape as being comprised of typologies of species. Complexity ignites exploration in the rich and intricate nature of the scene (originally postulated as how many different elements there are). “Coherence” is a variable that refers to how one “makes sense” of the landscape. Congruent aspects of a landscape appear as repeated and homogenous (in terms of typology, not necessarily as exactly repeating items) elements, and it is because of the existence of 71
The Preference Matrix
(1979)
(1989a)
Understanding
Exploration
(1989)
Making Sense
Involvement
Coherence
Complexity
Legibility
Mystery
The Visual Array
(1982) Present or Immediate
Immediate
Three Dimensional Space
Future or Promised
Inferred
Table 5. The Preference Matrix. Both the x-axis and y-axis are levels of interpretation. Note alternate versions for y-axis from Kaplan, S., 1979, Kaplan and Kaplan, 1982, and Kaplan, et al. 1989, and alternate versions for the x-axis between Kaplan, et al. 1989 and Kaplan et al., 1989a. scenes that match what is expected from the cognitive map that unforeseen elements are found of interest (for complexity). “Legibility” is the ease at which one can navigate the scene. This is related to the familiarity-exploration continua in that it allows for exploration of the scene without the impending possibility of getting lost. “Mystery” is also a perceptually weighted variable, and it can have both a positive and negative effect on the perception of the scene. A certain level of mystery provides excitement and intrigue, but too much mystery can promote feelings of anxiety and fear. Mystery is defined by the extent to which a scene draws a person in with the promise of offering new information. Legibility and coherence are extensions of the degree to which an environment is familiar to a person, as can be seen in Table 6. The temporal considerations here are different from the temporal distinction between affective and cognitive measures of response. The interactions of the preference matrix are often described as being immediate, however because these 72
Familiarity x Preference Matrix Preference
Familiarity
Low
High
That's weird!
I've never seen anything like that before - Wow!
That old stuff again?
No place like home.
Low High
Table 6. Familiarity x Preference Matrix. Relationship with landscape and familiarity rooted in the cognitive map. Kaplan and Kaplan, 1982. interactions clearly insinuate cognitively weighted responses the immediacy of the reaction is in reference to the relationship between aesthetics and preference. Thus, what is being measured by this matrix is a Delayed Affective Response in which the subject provides their instinctual response peppered with cognitive overtones: the thoughts are in direct reference to how the scene made the person feel. Therefore this distinction can also be projected to future or planning considerations as depicted in Table 7. The validity of these scene element types for predicting preference has been repeated as a complete matrix (Herzog, et al., 1976; Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R., 1982; Hartig, et al., 1991), and through examination of isolated variables (Herzog & Miller, 1998; Hammitt, 2000; Herzog & Kropscott, 2004). The intrigue of mystery was examined to expose that content is a major coupling with this domain by studies showing preference and danger are negatively correlated (Herzog & Miller, 1998; Herzog & Kropscott, 2004). Familiarity with any given scene is directly related with cognitive decisions around a trade-off between the need for excitement and safety. The excitement of mystery as a deterrent to boredom is a frequent cognitive dilemma 73
Preference, Type of Material and Time Dimension
Present
Content
Process
I'm afraid of that elephant.
I don't know what to do and I hate it.
I like this lolipop.
I like doing this puzzle.
I'm afraid we'll meet an elephant.
I'm afraid I'll not know what to do.
I can't wait to eat this lolipop.
I can't wait to work on this puzzle.
+
Future
+
Table 7. Preference, Type of Material and Time Dimension. Kaplan and Kaplan, 1982. for people, because a major goal is avoidance of boredom. Commonly these scenarios motivate people to “listen to their instincts” or try to heighten their access to perceptually weighted feelings in an effort to determine if the benefits of excitement outweigh the risks of safety. This furthers how the human experience is comprised of experiences that are either cognitively (thoughts) or perceptually (instincts) weighted. Understanding the distinction between sensual experience and cognitive thought will help to clarify questions about the ideal human environment and the inherent nature of the human mind. Therefore understanding what is considered aesthetic is just as important as what is preferred. Aesthetics are the perceptually weighted experiences of human existence, and cognition can influence perception just as aesthetics can be influenced by preference. Nohl (2001) found four classifications of how perception and feelings translate into a 74
process of experiencing the landscape. Nohl’s reference to cognition is actually more closely related to perceptual influences: “because an aesthetic object is always characterized by its outward appearance as well as by the meaning it bears, we have to differentiate between several levels of aesthetic cognition,” (2001). Thus, Nohl’s four gradations include the perceptual level, the expressive level, the symptomatic level and the symbolic level. The perceptual level, like induction, is concerned with information obtained through the senses without any associated thoughts (pure feelings). In the expressive level, Nohl intends that one gives emotive qualities to inanimate objects (for example, mountains as “magnificent”). A perceptual representation (feeling) added to cognitive representation (mountain). At the symptomatic level, visible things in the landscape indicate something else. Clearly cognition is present in this realm of perception because a priori knowledge about the landscape is essential as in Nohl’s example of “a seabird in the sky pointing to the nearby ocean or an [exposed] sandbank speaking of the river’s low water power.” The fourth level is the symbolic level, and in this experience it would seem that feelings are not involved (except for the Delayed Affective Response type of feelings) as the feelings are about the thoughts conjured by the landscape and to the extent that one goes beyond cognition and into imagination. From Nohl’s example, experiences “indicate or symbolize things, but they are not landscape realities… as a perceived overgrown natural pond may stir up the picture of a free and easy life, or a small intact village may symbolize a peaceful existence in a better world.” 75
From these analyses one would define the separation between perception and cognition as being the degree to which the environment makes a person feel compared to the degree to which the environment makes a person think. It is important to note that feelings are linked to creativity and emotion and thoughts are likened to reasoning and interpretation (MacLean, 1990). Therefore there are some landscapes or environments that stimulate feelings and some that stimulate cognitive processes. Inversely, there are inherent properties to a landscape, as reflected in their arrangement and context, that provide humans with a multitude of experiences. Just as there are gradations of experience, so too are there gradations in the scene types to be experienced. If there are distinct benefits for stress relief and sensual exploration from exposure to scenes that involve a lot of nature interaction, then it is important to identify what are the elements that construct such scenes. Similarly, if there are environments that foster more effective cognitive processing, then here too could elements of the scene be identified.
2.2.5 Specific Elements of a Landscape Perspective Specific scene elements can be derived to characterize what components of nature have a positive impact on cognitive processes and what components of nature have a positive impact on the less structured and more creative side of perceptual sensory experience. From all the aforementioned studies, the specific elements that represent “nature” and “urban” come in varying degrees, and the preference matrix 76
and restoration provide specific elements that are considered more restorative. People need scenes to draw them in and help them imagine, and equally they need scenes that stimulate them cognitively and socially. The goal of scene elements is to describe what characteristics are most supportive of restoration and are beneficial to wellbeing.
2.2.5.1 Nature The majority of the studies done to assess the positive impact of “nature” as a general concept to compare them with urban environments, especially in earlier studies, have been based on wilderness type scenes (see Table 8). Rachel Kaplan’s (1985) query into the “expert’s assessment” of how people experience a natural setting involved U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s descriptions, and a also a review of 15 preference studies done to that date. It was generally understood at that time that “scene variety” or “presence of rare specimen” were elements that resulted in greater preference. Many of the studies included in Kaplan’s (1985) review were based around nature as wild (like a forest, field, bogmat or a marsh), mostly wild or nature dominant scenes, and in 1989 nature was represented as typologies like naturalness, weedy field, scrubland, forests and woodlawn (Kaplan, R., et al., 1989). Later studies, too, used a broad definition of nature by which urban impacts could be compared. Ryan (2002) referred to fields (both weedy and agricultural) and forest as “what would commonly be held as openspace,” and Herzog and Kropscott’s (2004) 77
Examples of Preferred Natural Settings Used in a Variety of Landscape Psychology Studies Kaplan, R., 1985
Hartig, et al., 2001
Chang, et al., 2008
Vegetation cover
Marsh
Lying on the Beach
Water bodies
Homogenous Plant Types
Lake Views
Wild
Mature Forests
Nohl, 2001
Natural Dominant
Vista Quality
Mountain Wilderness
Farmland
Naturalness
Fishing
Bogmat
Rural Setting
Open Woods
Marsh
Regional Identity
Rushing Streams
Path through sparse or dense forest Semi-open grass area, trees Park like or manicured Kaplan, R., et al., 1989
Ryan, 2002 Commonly Held Openspace Korpela, et al., 2002 Vegetation
Canoeing Wildlife Viewing Sunsets Flowing Water
Naturalness
Water
Agriculture
Open Field
Nearby Forest
Cut grassland
Closed Forest
Seashore
Weedy field
Water
Nature
Scrubland
Hartig, et al., 2003
Forests
Wildlife Preserve
Woodlawn
van den Berg, et al., 2003 Nature path through the woods Nature path...woods along a creek
Heitanen & Korpela, 2004 Natural Scenes, No Cars Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995 Trees Grasses
Herzog & Kropscott, 2004 Dense Forest, Foreground Obscured Dense Forest, Background Illuminated
Bushes
Open Forest, less dense trees
No Evidence of Human Influence
Open Forest, Background Illuminated
Paths - Nature Lined
Korpela & Ylen, 2007 Sport Settings - nature lined paths
Roads - Natures Lined
Korpela, et al., 2008
Botanical Gardens Pedestrian Road – Nature Lined Natural Features trees, flowers, scenery Path in a field Road in the woods Roadside area with no homes in view; pick berries and mushrooms
Table 8. Examples of Preferred Natural Settings Used in a Variety of Landscape Psychology Studies. 78
participants looked at scenes of forest varying by density and visual obscurity. Karmanov & Hamel (2008) took people on a walk through Amstelland, a preserve in Noord-Holland (a province in The Netherlands) which is half large peat area with dense vegetation islands and half agrarian landscape with cows, sheep and grazing. It is interesting how grazing can also be intended as a noun to elicit nostalgic feelings of soft rolling hills and a once simpler time. Korpela requested respondents describe what their personal places for restoration in proximity to their homes (referred to as “favorite”), and received qualitative responses like “nearby forest, seashore and nature” (Korpela & Ylen, 2007). Hartig also used a marsh as a natural location by which to compare an urban experience, but in this scenario they visited a nearby marsh with the intention that it would be perceived as a generally less desirable natural location (Hartig, et al., 2001). This study used a sample of college students majoring in an environmental field, and tested social inclusion or cultural motivators for ecological behavior. These are all wilderness areas with minimal human effects, but those areas still considered natural but with noticeable human effects (see as compared to nature as “wilderness” in Table 9) have also been studied. Agrarian landscapes are excellent examples of landscapes that have noticeable human impact, and yet many people would still refer to them as rural or natural. An interesting point raised by Ryan’s (2002) study of rural resident’s perceptions of their community (large rural area), and the general ascribing of natural, wilderness and agrarian landscapes as “commonly held as openspace.” Scenes representing nature 79
areas with noticeable human impact include agrarian types like cut grassland or large farm expanses (Kaplan, R., 1985; Kaplan, R., et al., 1989), but it is interesting to observe the distinct differences between styles of agricultural techniques that one can visibly see as different in the landscape. The modern mass agriculture agrarian landscapes look dissimilar to those described by the European studies (Karmanov & Hamel, 2008). There is a drastic difference between old enchanted agrarian landscapes, as described by Nohl (2001), and those following the advent of mass agriculture. The patterns across the greater landscape are much more homogenous following Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution due to use of large mono-cropped fields and genetic engineering for super food production systems (Ross, 1998). Nohl’s article is written with the conveyance of a carried emotional or nostalgic tie to the simpler agrarian landscapes of another time that are drastically endangered, and much literature has attributed preference for the “rural agrarian landscape.” Arendt (1994) cites rural landscapes as the motivation for North American urban sprawl, because people want to live within scenery of a simpler time but still retain the conveniences of modern amenities. Other ways that nature has been represented with noticeable impacts from human use include a path through a forest, a grassy field, or relatively open areas with trees (Kaplan, R., 1985; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995; van den Berg, et al., 2003; Korpela & Ylen, 2007). Park like or manicured areas were mentioned (Kaplan, R., 1985; Yang & Kaplan, 1990; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995), as were botanical gardens or areas with natural features such as “trees, flowers and scenery,” (Yang & 80
“Wilderness Areas” as Different from “Natural Areas” Wilderness as Nature with Minimal Human Effects Kaplan, R., 1985
Nature of Land with Noticeable Human Effects Kaplan, R., 1985
Wild
Farmland
Natural Dominant
Path through sparse or dense forest
Bogmat
Relatively open grass area with trees
Marsh
Park like or manicured
Kaplan, R., et al., 1989
Kaplan, R., et al., 1989
Naturalness
Agriculture
Weedy field
Cut grassland
Scrubland Forests
Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995 Paths - Nature Lined
Woodlawn Hartig, et al., 2001
Roads - Natures Lined van den Berg, et al., 2003
Marsh
Nature path through the woods Nature path… woods along a creek
Ryan, 2002 Commonly Held Openspace
Herzog & Kropscott, 2004 Dense Forest, Background Illuminated
Herzog & Kropscott, 2004 Dense Forest
Korpela, et al., 2007
Homogenous Plant Types
Pedestrian Road - Nature Lined Botanical Gardens
Korpela, et al., 2007 Nearby Forest
Natural Features -trees, flowers, scenery
Seashore
Path in a field
Nature
Road in the woods
Karmanov & Hamel, 2008 Large peat area; dense vegetation islands
Roadside; no homes; berries, mushrooms Karmanov & Hamel, 2008 Agrarian landscape, cows, sheep, grazing
Plants, bushes and small trees
Table 9. “Wilderness Areas” as Different from “Natural Areas.”
81
Kaplan, 1990; Korpela & Ylen, 2007). Roadside views were also frequently cited by people as locations for nature interaction (Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995). Korpela and Ylen (2007) received numerous reported encounters for favorite places being similar to a (winding) road through the woods or a spot along a country road with “no homes in view with berries and mushrooms for picking.”
2.2.5.2 Preference Matrix Four concepts, coherence, complexity, legibility and mystery, were used to define nature of each scene, and also to differentiate which scene elements were more active for restoration in a great variety of study designs. Examples of these studies have used select photographs that embody a particular type of experience, and then measured the variability of responses to interpret the degree to which the proposed tenet elicits the expected response (using a factor analysis statistical procedure to extract scenes that showed similar variance in regard to participant’s preference). Both coherence and complexity are to some degree more situational based factors, that is, coherence and complexity are very much based in the context of the experience. Complexity and coherence are relative understandings – they allow for the individuality of each experience. For example, a scene that imbues a great amount of plant species heterogeneity for one could be very homogenous for another (i.e., seeing a pine forest versus a pine dominant stand intermixed with hemlock and fir). For coherence, site and situation is built into the definition: for a landscape to be supportive of a person’s needs is entirely dependent on the status of the person at the 82
time – for example, scenarios that encourage one to sit and meditate are different from those that encourage people to be publicly and privately social, etc. For these reasons, complexity and coherence are often measured by the degree to which elements of the scene are typologically related to one another (behind a fence rolls green grassy hills, and a person would therefore expect to see cows grazing and not trucks racing). The preference matrix was originally developed with the idea that complexity would be a common indicator for preference of a scene (Kaplan, R., 1985), because, at that time, the majority of studies regarding environmental preference were conducted by the US Forest Service in an effort to determine which stands should be designated for which use type (park, harvest, soil conservation, etc.). It was thought that an array of scene elements would be preferred because it was more interesting, but what was not accounted for in this theory was the degree to which an observer could be overloaded by the elements. Complexity “plays at best a limited role in preference… [however] mystery has turned out to be a remarkably reliable and effective predictor, consistently outperforming complexity,” (Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S., 1989). Mystery and legibility emerged as prominent factors in R. Kaplan’s 1985 review of preference studies to that date, and was supported (Kaplan, R., et al., 1989) as the preference matrix was tested against three other domains of predictors that included land cover types, perception based variables and physical attributes. Here too, mystery and legibility emerged as the most reliable predictors of preference.
83
These studies showed that variety was not a key factor for preference, and less diverse scenes were preferred when the scene otherwise supported a congruent ordering of landscape elements. The most preferred scene elements found in these studies were open and incorporated spatial definition, meaning that they appeared traversable with a moderate amount of visual depth (usually grassy field) between the viewer and the forest perimeter. Similarly, Herzog & Miller (2004) found a moderately sized open area lined by a fairly dense forest denoted enclosure. When coupled with an illumination of the background (gaps in the canopy of the trees past a few rows depth into the forest) was of greatest preference because it provided both legibility and mystery. This is an important element for translation into a residential scene, because neighboring lots separated by a visual screen can generate both legibility and mystery. Descriptions of legibility include and are measured by the amount of visual or locomotor access available for way-finding (Kaplan, R., et al., 1989; Herzog & Miller, 1998), and these ideas translate to two dimensional scenes as a degree of openness, if the sky is a considerable portion of the scene, and how traversable (smoothness and degree of slope) the ground appears. Legibility has also been cited as a degree of openness in relation to the depth cues available (Korpela, et al., 2002). Depth cues are deeply ingrained a priori knowledge of a scene, its elements, and the manner in which scene elements are expected to act in relation to one another. Examples of monocular depth cues used for rendering (use of multiple depth cues simultaneously) include a variety of techniques: shading, linear perspective, relative 84
object size, interposition, and motion parallax. Shading is viewed as an object with height casting a shadow, and linear perspective is observed as converging lines at the horizon, (a river or road). Relative object size identifies near objects are larger (regardless of actual relative sizes), interposition is in reference to object positioning (i.e. “in front of,”), and in motion parallax closer objects passing more quickly than far off objects (like fence posts in the foreground of a scenic vista out a train window). Binocular view is influenced by retinal disparity, convergence, and can generate stereoscopic vision. Retinal disparity is unique to every person as the different distances between a given person’s eyeballs produce different effects on their visual capacities and perspectives. Convergence is the fixation and focus on near objects, and stereoscopic vision provides the appearance of dimension from an overhead view (also a technique used in Photogrammetry). Legibility is the ease by which one can navigate the scene. “The landscape is preferred when way-finding is more likely, when there are elements that invite one to go deeper into the scene and when the landscape is legible,” (Kaplan, R., 1985). In this way related to complexity and coherence, a legible scene allows for exploration of the scene without the impending possibility of getting lost. Either the scene is specifically well known to a person, or that the scene type is similar and the person can infer from a related known scene to the general typology of the new scene of experience. Legibility has been described as preferred by Herzog and Kropscott (2004) in forest settings where the forest is more open and an extended viewshed into the depth of the forest is possible. Examples of photographs were provided with the 85
article to show the distinct difference between an open and closed forest from the perspective of human scale within the forest. Open forests are characterized by less dense trees as represented by greater light on the forest floor and light gaps within the canopy, and a dense forest with minimal floor light and canopy gaps was seen as less preferred. However, knowing that an environment makes sense does not always preclude that it will be engaging or even of interest. Some familiar things are interesting and others are not, and some uninteresting things can at other times be fascinating. Mystery is defined by the extent to which a scene draws a person in with the promise of offering new information. Mystery’s connection to coherence is an extension of a scene’s familiarity (“I can know in general what to expect from a city environment”). Coherence refers to how one “makes sense” of the landscape based on the degree to which any given object in a scene is relevant or expected in that scene. It is because of this congruence that unforeseen elements are found of interest (for complexity). Congruence, or existence of scenes that match what is expected from the cognitive map, was also highlighted in other studies as a measure of how well the perceived changes in an area reflected in resident preferences (Ryan, 2002). Mystery can have both a positive and negative effect on the perception of the scene. A certain level of mystery provides excitement and intrigue, but too much mystery can promote feelings of anxiety and fear (Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S., 1989). Mystery was exemplified by Herzog and Miller (1998) in scenes showing curving pathways, partial concealment, and shadows. Pathways offer legibility as a 86
foundation (“I know this path leads to something”), curvature physically enlivens the senses and is anecdotally evidenced by the metaphor “just around the bend.” The degree of openness is related to both the depth of the visual screen (as identified by the proximity of a visual screen), and also the density of the visual screen (Herzog & Miller, 1998; Korpela, et al., 2002).
2.2.5.3 Restoration Attention Restoration Theory posits that attentional fatigue can be reversed through exercise of involuntary attention, (also referred to as fascination). That is, temporarily engaging in fascinating environments will allow for quick recovery of directed attention so that one may return to a task that must be completed. Restorative environments are hallmarked by four properties: fascination, being away, extent and compatibility. Scene elements from restoration studies are summarized in Table 10. “Fascination” can occur in varying degrees of resting fatigued directed attention, and examples can be broken down into categories of hard and soft (Kaplan, S., 1995). Hard fascination is very intense, riveting one’s attention and leaving little room for thinking things over. Soft fascination is of moderate intensity, enough to hold attention although still leaving room for reflection. Soft fascination was represented by sunsets and flowing water. Quiet fascination is another form of soft fascination that can be represented by canoeing and wildlife viewing, and organization fascination is related to observing processes like ecosystem functions or
87
human societal patterns. Organism fascination was represented by fishing (Kaplan, R., et al., 1998). “Being away” allows the person to be physically or mentally transported from daily tasks or stressors. Examples of environments providing opportunity for a person to “get away for a while” provided by Chang include images of lying on the beach, lake views, and mature forests (Chang, et al., 2008). It is presumed that there is enough available in the scenery to allow the person to disconnect from one’s life and daily tasks to become submerged in the setting. It is this reasoning that Hammitt (2000) provides as why people need forested areas for obtaining privacy. Forested areas allow actualization of a motivation for privacy, because they allow one to promote self autonomy, emotional release, and provide opportunity for self evaluation and reflection (Westin, 1967). Forests provide privacy through creating a visual screen, and allowing one to feel enclosed by nature and temporarily apart from society. “Extent” can be represented by wilderness areas or mountain vistas (Kaplan, R., et al., 1998; Chang, et al., 2008). Extent on a smaller scale can be represented by a rock garden (Hartig, et al., 1997), a Japanese garden (Chang, et al., 2008) or even a view from a window, in that the presence and style of the formations are sufficiently rich and coherent such that they can engage the mind and promote exploration. It is the depth of field provided by the overlapping of plant fronds in visual scene of the Japanese Garden, the framed depth of view through a window, or the intertwining of rock and plant that imbues the balance of man and nature that draw people in and 88
Scene Elements from Studies Based on Attention Restoration Theory Extent Chang, et al., 2008 View from a Window
Fascination Fascination Type
Compatibility
Experience/Scene
Kaplan, R., et al., 1998
Being Away
Korpela & Ylen, 2007
Hammitt, 2000
Built Recreation parks, scenery
Forested Areas
Japanese Garden
Organism
Fishing
Residential backyard, home, dwelling
Shared Nature Areas
Mountain Wilderness
Organism
Open Woods
Commercial shops, restaurant, pubs, cafes
Campgrounds
Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995 - Window view
Organism
Rushing Streams
Community Service - library, meeting places
Rustic Camping
Trees
Quiet
Canoeing
Sport Settings paths for jog, bike, etc.
Grasses
Quiet
Wildlife Viewing
Bushes
Soft
No Evidence of Human Influence
Soft
Chang, et al., 2008
Chang, et al., 2008
Lying on the Beach
Sunsets
Shoreline
Lake Views
Flowing Water
Path in forest or field
Mature Forests
Table 10. Scene Elements from Studies Based on Attention Restoration Theory.
promote exploration. It is important to note that exploration can be of the mind and of the senses, and that will be determined by the type of activity and the need for restoration – interaction in these environments can foster personal (spiritual) exploration and also define what is encased in an experience (feelings and perceptions). 89
“Compatibility” is similar to coherence (from the preference matrix) in that people have their own interpretation of what is compatible with their needs at any given time, and this definition of compatibility restricts the ability to describe specific scene examples. However, another meaning for compatibility is between the scene elements themselves. Edge contrast and spatial diversity were used to measure land type compatibilities (Kaplan, R., et al., 1989), and for Ryan (2002) yards and streetscapes were seen as less preferred and incompatible to the surrounding rural areas in question. For Nohl (2001) compatibility depended on the degree of likeness to neighboring land uses, and was actually enhanced by greater heterogeneity. Chang cites “functional opportunities, like shorelines and meadow field trails, as being compatible environments” (Chang, et al., 2008). Compatible environments are ideal opportunities for restoration, as in this example where exercise is coupled with scenery that is promoting of introspective thought because both are used for emotional regulation. By this definition, Korpela’s categories of favorite places are based on compatibility: built recreation areas and scenic overlooks are designed for relaxation and enjoying a viewshed, residential areas like the backyard, home and dwelling areas are for privacy and personal rejuvenation (Korpela & Ylen, 2007). Commercial locations like shops, restaurant, pubs and cafes are similar in function with community service locations like libraries and community meeting places (which has some overlap with parks) provide opportunity for public socializing and opportunities to interact with friends in public places.
90
2.2.5.4 Urban Areas Some recent studies on restoration, and much of the work done to describe well-being, highlight that there are urban locations and environments that can have positive effects on people. It is clear that in the early stages of research establishing that the natural environment held healing powers for people, it was imperative to show those healing powers in opposition to built environments. However, now that the concept is gaining acceptance, it is just as important to understand how some of the elements of the urban environment can also be restorative. Often, in urban areas, land use (opposed to land cover) is referred to the type of environment like commercial, residential, institutional, recreational and agricultural. For example, Korpela identifies sports areas that are mowed and painted fields maintained specifically for organized play, or linearly designed pathways for biking, jogging and other exercise related restorative options (Korpela & Ylen, 2007). Land covers are more akin to barren lands, forested lands and wilderness areas. The preservation of these areas and ownership or responsibility rights are big issues in societies that base economic wealth on natural capital. Briefly, the urban spaces cited as being less preferred than natural environments included parking lots or parking garages, buildings (Kaplan, R., 1985; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995; Hartig, et al., 1997; Hartig, et al., 2003) and building massing, where the positioning and density of built structures inhibits the view of the horizon (Ryan, 2002). These less preferred scenes can be seen in Table 11 as compared to more preferred urban scene elements. 91
Urban Elements of a Scene Examples of Urban Areas Preferred More Than or Equal to Nature Areas
Examples of Urban Areas Preferred Less Than Nature Areas
Hartig, et al., 2003
Hartig, et al., 1997
Judicial Complex
Outdoor Shopping Mall
Office and Retail
Parking Garage
Shopping mall
Hietanen & Korpela, 2004
Restaurants
Mixed Natural, Urban Contents
Hotel
Urban Scenes with Minimum Vegetation
Parking Lot
Tennesen & Cimprich, 1995 Parking Lot
Korpela & Ylen, 2007 Library
Buildings
Built Recreation – parks, scenery
Ryan, 2002
Transportation Settings - airport, harbor
Streetscapes
Residential – backyard, home, dwelling
Yards
Commercial – shops, restaurant, pubs, cafes
Kaplan, R., 1985
Community Service - library, meeting places
Commercial, Residential, Institutional
Geographic areas - around landmark features
Urban Building Dominant
van den Berg, et al., 2003 Shop lined street
Man dominated use
Shop lined street along a canal Karmanov & Hamel, 2008 Designed high density residential with QOL
Table 11. Urban Elements of a Scene.
92
Preferred urban spaces were shown in Hartig’s study as an outdoor shopping mall with associated benches and tables (Hartig, et al., 1997), and responses to a scene improve with the degree to which green and natural elements are incorporated into the built environment (Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995; Heitanen & Korpela, 2004; Karmanov & Hamel, 2008). Many of the preferred areas are what are referred to as third places (Arendt, 1994; Barth, et al., 2008), as they are public locations for socializing with friends and family that hold potential for meeting of new people. Examples include office and retail centers, shopping malls, restaurants, pubs, cafes, hotels, libraries and built recreation areas like parks (Hartig, et al., 2003; Korpela & Ylen, 2007). Other urban settings listed by the Korpela and Ylen’s (2007) participants included what were classified as transportation settings (airports and harbors), residential settings (backyards and home dwellings) and geographic areas (like around the neighborhood or around a public landmark feature). Karmanov & Hamel (2008) and van den Berg (et al., 2003) both used shop lined streets designed as multiple use districts with high density housing. Of special interest was the description of preference for the urban settings in these studies. Natural scenes were preferred as beautiful, but urban scenes were preferred as interesting. This finding is a fundamental point tying together the need for variety in type and degree of interaction with humans and their environment. These are public places through which social interaction is set for discourse. For Ryan (2002) yards and streetscapes were seen as less preferred and incompatible to the surrounding rural areas in question. However, streetscapes for Jacobs (1961) encompass the 93
irreplaceable sense of place that the urban environment affords (livability, character, connection, mobility and diversity).
2.2.5.5 Manicured Areas Manicured areas represent human engineering of the landscape, and encompass the arena through which some of these scene elements could be designed into. Quite often these are the greatest opportunities for reflection and restoration, and this has been evidenced by seeing gardens as sacred spaces capable of improving human spirituality (Kellert & Wilson, 1993; Rozak, et al., 1995; Murray, 1997; Ashmun, 2000). Quite often designing for spirituality is promoted by privacy through quiet space. Some rock gardens of Asian style do contain hard lines that would be considered by standard definitions as formal (hard edges and lines), but because of their context and use they are spiritual gardens that intend to enlighten senses in other ways. These manicured spaces embody the most engineered of landscapes. Understanding of how scene elements fit together in scenes where the elements have purposefully been designed to elicit feelings was explored by Yang and Kaplan (1990) who measured differences between Western (geometry and symmetry) and Eastern (asymmetry and non-geometric formations) style gardens. Western gardens are considered formal because their geometric lay-out of space, use of stones and rocks, selection of landscape plants (many preferred for ease of geometric shape maintenance) is very precise and deliberate, while Eastern gardens are considered to be more informal because of their asymmetric and not deliberate 94
layout of space, round and soft naturally formed shrubs, and intermittent use of stones and rocks. They found that a younger age demographic (college students) favored informal style manicured landscapes.
2.2.5.6 Motivations for Sprawl “Openspace,” or access to it, is often thought to be a top priority for people’s migration from urban areas (Nassauer, 1993; Arendt, 1994; Nohl, 2001; Kaplan, R., & Austin, 2003; Lindstrom & Bartling, 2003; Welch, 2005). However, the concept of openspace is quite ambiguous (Kaplan, R., et al., 2004), and it is likely that this is the cause for misinterpreted residential design parameters that are not built to benefit the well-being of the homeowner. People like openspace as a general concept referring to wilderness areas (Kaplan, R., 1985), and areas with a genuine rural feeling (Ryan, 2002). However, openspace is counterintuitive with the needs for privacy in the backyard. Permanent openspace (meaning wilderness areas) increased near-by residential land values over three times compared to an equivalent amount of developable openspace (Geoghegan, 2002). Lots next to the preserves sell at a 1935% premium over the total lot price, but the markup was extremely localized in that it did not extend even to parcels across the street (Thorsnes, 2002). Households value having more open space (wilderness) in their subdivision, although they are not willing to “trade up” larger lot for open space unless their lot is directly adjacent to it. If people wanted to feel density they’d forego the commute and live in the city 95
(Koptis, et al., 2007). Therefore, the visual screen in the backyard is of utmost importance to emulate the desirable feel of being nearby nature. The lawn has also been cited as a scene element of importance to people because it is tidy and neat, and expresses to the neighborhood one’s care for one’s own property (Nausser, 1993). This has become culturally ingrained as being of optimum aesthetic for front yard spaces, and Primeau (2003) showed that the reflection of tidiness and neatness could be extended to the parameters of a less resource intensive front yard garden. Further, Zmyslony and Gagnon (1998) used GIS (Geographic Information Science using a spatial analysis software) to study the dispersal of lawns and front yard gardens in an urban area in Montreal, and found there was “strong neighbor ‘mimicry’ in the relationship between locations of front yard gardens.” That is, this study evidenced Nausser’s understanding that “tidiness and neatness” were the major motivators for front yard lawns, and where residents chose to replace lawns with gardens many neighbors followed suit.
2.2.5.7 Scene Parameters This section encompasses a more theoretical depiction of how the landscape can be perceived and represented. Many of the parameters of this section are described as the specifics of what is impacting the perceptual or cognitive experience. Some things by definition cannot be directly translated into scene elements, as they are resulting characteristics describing what the scene provides.
96
Land form can play an important role in perception based on slope and aspect (openness, smoothness and locomotor capacity), and additionally based on its vegetation cover (Kaplan, R., 1985; Kaplan, R., et al., 1989). A landscape can also be interpreted similarly to a piece of artwork, including form, line, color, texture, or as compared to an ecosystem (variety, diversity, richness). Also of note are the typological descriptions for land use, and the degree to which a landscape is dominated for human use or constituted by built structures. The intended layout of space in gardens or manicured environments (Yang & Kaplan, 1990) can be very indicative of human desires. Height contrast impacts the feel of one’s environment at the “human scale” (Kaplan, et al., 1989), and early on this concept was explored by Greenbie in the urban environment’s version of the outdoor room. Greenbie (1974, 1975) showed that the ideal height to width ratio of an urban area with a positive sense of place is 3:1. For example, a road and sidewalk width of 75 ft would be most comfortable at the human scale if the buildings lining the street were approximately two stories (25 ft). Some proponents of form-based zoning take this height parameter very literally, and a method to maintain the amenity of vertical real estate has been coupled with the “set back” of higher stories to reduce the enclosed feeling at the ground level. Further, the outdoor room has been mentioned as a concept for creating backyard privacy with a moderately dense visual screen, but the specific 3:1 ratio does not directly transfer to this environment. This is because trees often grow much taller that the prescribed 25 feet, but because of their translucent nature (if one were to consider buildings as 97
opaque in this context) the density of the visual screen is a component of greater consideration for the non-built outdoor room. Similarly, setbacks of buildings from the street can be indicative of the design style and intention of the builder. Ryan (2002) tried to control for the street width included in a scene, and the degree of setback played an important role in the temporal identification of structures built in rural environments. In this example, older homesteads were recognized by their small setbacks intended to optimize land use for agriculture, and, alternately, newer residences built in the country have very long driveways and large mowed setbacks.
2.2.5.8 Summary The best method of classification for these scene parameters is in ascribing them to arenas for which they can be experienced, and this involves a distinction between public and private spaces. Residential areas like the backyard, home and dwelling areas are for privacy and personal rejuvenation (Korepla & Ylen, 2007). For private spaces, visual screens and depth of field are highlighted as most important. Backyard outdoor rooms can be associated with a visual screen that is dense without too much depth with a clearing on the other side for legibility and mystery (Herzog & Kropscott, 2004; Kaplan, R., 1985, Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S., 1989), and greatest preference for an illuminated backdrop would be provided by neighboring open areas with similar visual screen surroundings. Locomotor access available for way-finding (Kaplan, R., et al., 1989; Herzog & Miller, 1998) would be provided in the 98
foreground of the scene as patios and lawn spaces for comfortable amenities in support of relaxation and rejuvenation also associated with privacy. Just as with extent, design and planting arrangements can create atmospheres that provide similar functions that are sufficiently rich and coherent. They can engage the mind, promote exploration, and allow the person to disconnect from one’s life and daily tasks to become submerged in the setting. Forests provide privacy through creating a visual screen, and allowing one to feel enclosed by nature and temporarily apart from society, and this too evidences the need for a visual screen in the backyard setting. It is the depth of field that ignites exploration. Time alone in nature, or in intimate settings with friends and family can provide opportunities for emotional regulation and restoration. It is, however, equally important to understand and design for public spaces that can foster interesting and enjoyable cognitive experiences. As Karmanov and Hamel (2008) found, it is just as important for people to have interesting urban experiences as it is to engage in relaxing and beautiful nature experiences. Public locations for socializing with friends and family that hold potential for meeting of new people include office and retail centers, shopping malls, restaurants, pubs, cafes, hotels, libraries and built recreation areas like parks (Hartig, et al., 2003; Korpela & Ylen, 2007). Korpela and Ylen’s (2007) categories of favorite places are based on compatibility, and show how cognitively exciting scenes can be just as restorative as emotionally regulating places. Built recreation areas and scenic overlooks are designed for relaxation and enjoying a viewshed, but are still considered public 99
spaces. Commercial locations like shops, restaurant, pubs and cafes are similar in function with community service locations like libraries and community meeting places (which have some overlap with parks) provide opportunity for public socializing and opportunities to interact with friends in public places. Parameters of these spaces can be influenced by the urban outdoor room ratio of 3:1, width to height (Greenbie, 1975). Also, responses improved for enjoyment of urban areas with the degree to which green and natural elements are incorporated into the built environment (Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995; Hietanen & Korpela, 2004; Barth, et al., 2008; Karmanov & Hamel, 2008). There are some very distinct elements of the scene that can be identified and then translated into the residential environment. These elements are used to guide the selection of scenes used to measure preferred parameters within a residential environment later in this study. A final examination of how society is currently suffering from a nature deficit will showcase the need for change in design standards of residential environments, and this examination begins with an understanding of how people currently incorporate nature into their lives.
2.3 Nature Deficit There are many scales of landscape settings from which people can find restorative experiences: they range from small patches of nature with which they interact on a daily basis to once-in-a-lifetime grandiose wilderness excursions. 100
Examining the scale of interaction is useful for identifying how people can seek out nature. Perhaps the most interesting commonality between all scales is the emotional attachment people develop to the natural space. A person can feel just as strongly (in some cases, more strongly) about preventing a commonly used vacant space or lot in a neighborhood from being developed, as they do about preventing the development of a national park. Some of the most memorable experiences of a person’s lifetime can result from even a brief visit to the majestic wilderness areas of the world. These great wonders harness a natural power that inspires awe in most all people, and are notorious for their restorative properties. Visits to some of these locations may only occur once in a life time, if ever, yet these experiences are so lasting in their impression on the mind. Similarly, natural conservation areas proximal to one’s home (canyons, cliffs, forests, lakes, rivers, falls and the like) also provide opportunities for restorative experiences. They are often referred to as nature nearby (Kaplan, R., et al., 2003; Kaplan R. & Kaplan, S., 2005), and might get visited a couple times in a month if close enough and with weather permitting. They are susceptible to overuse and degradation if the surrounding communities do not provide enough nature areas to meet the needs of their residents. A simple inventory of a region’s recreation plan should show all the available hiking trails, open space areas, wilderness areas and recreation facilities. All of these places hold the potential for weekly or daily visits in a person’s routine to reduce the need for visits to nearby nature locations for restorative purposes. “More frequent 101
visits to urban open green spaces were significantly related to less self-reported experiences of stress in a study by Grahn and Stigsdotter (2003). An important factor was the distance from home to the nearest green space: closer green spaces were associated with more visits (van Herzele & Wiedermann, 2003; Jim & Chen, 2006),” (Gidlöf-Gunnarsson & Öhrström, 2007). Unfortunately, almost all residents living outside of the urban core require the use of automobiles to get to their recreation facilities, and the traditional landscape design contains few restorative scene elements. In the best case scenario, instead of scheduling in a visit to nature, it would be designed into the home environment and transportation facilities of one’s neighborhood. Most people using the recreation facilities available in their region have to schedule those visits into daily activity plans, and some of the recreation facilities (those that support organized sports) have schedules of their own to dictate usage. Quite often people opt out of their restorative time in nature because visiting them simply is not worth the time away from home. The home itself has restorative properties because it is one’s personal private space, but it can also be a location for daily routines from which people need time away (Hammitt, 2000). The home space can provide nature restoration if designed properly, but if the home space is not restorative it places even greater need and use on the regional greenspace infrastructure and amenities. Problems for access to nature and parks for exercise stems from lack of ease in daily usage, and people’s busy schedules make it hard to get to these places. Louv (2005) has coined the term “nature deficit” to describe this phenomenon, and explains 102
that the problem, in addition to some social factors, stems from the land use patterns of many North American cities and the design of residential developments. Louv proffers that the “designing-out” of nature from residential environments and reduction in ease of access to nature facilities stems from people’s need to control nature and their environment, and is evidenced by the American fascination with the frontier. There have been two significant frontiers in American history that are associated with national identity. The first frontier ended in 1890 when the western border of the country reached the Pacific, and the year the census declared the end of the era of free land to homesteaders for tilling. The second frontier was conquered in 1990 as was demarked by the elimination of the annual survey of farm residents. In 1900 the percentage of population classified as farm households was 40%, and by 1990 it was two percent (Louv, 2005). Society is now almost 20 years into the third frontier which, as Louv states, is characterized by a psychological disconnection with food origins, return of animals to human controlled areas, disappearance of the clear line between humans, animals and machines, and the rise of a new kind of suburban form. “The current model for [design] of new growth is unsatisfactory [in regard to provision of access to nature… including] suburban sprawl at the edges of cities and the buckshot development in rural areas,” (Louv, 2005). These conventional developments assign all available land for sale to the lot owners, and leave no available openspace for public or nature interaction. Also, they are often nestled far 103
away from urban amenities and lack of sidewalks in the developments and on the arterial rural roads can leave all non-motorized citizens virtually stranded. Most residential lots do not provide opportunity to replace the exercise people get from living in walkable environments or in safe proximity to nature trails. The current landscape design is not restorative, nor does it provide access to nature, because the elements of its scene are different from those that promote well-being. Based on the findings of the literature in Section 2.2 of this document, what is now known as the traditional design lacks the restorative qualities found in natural settings. The traditional design (see Figure 1, “Conventional Subdivisions” at the end of Section 2.3.1) is constituted of a few plantings around the foundation, a manicured lawn from foundation to lot perimeter, and old growth indigenous trees replaced by young exotic varieties (Jackson, 1985; Bormann, et al., 2001). The type of outdoor experience afforded to each individual home is often created from obliterating the existing natural landscape and replacing it with man made versions of nature that comply with culturally established designs. This scene is very different from a dense forest or wooded lot perimeters that denote edge habitats, legible and mysterious pathways, and depth of field scene elements that provide restoration. The current form of land use has promoted steady increase of lot sizes to accommodate greater expanses of lawn interspersed with trees. Because the grass is mowed to the lot perimeter, the lots blend as one, and in that way create a park-like setting in which the residential homes are set. “If stitched together, America’s lawns would occupy some 50,000 square miles - an area equal to Maine, Massachusetts, 104
Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Hampshire combined,” (Messia, 2003). Enchantment with the lawn dates back to the 17th century. The French and Italian formal gardens gave rise to formal English gardens, and the lawn was the only thing of English culture that the American’s didn’t reject upon establishment of their new society (Bormann, et al., 2001; Primeau, 2003). Frederik Law Olmstead (1822-1903) is the landscape architect famous for the open space Americanized version of the English Garden as a method for beautification of cities. The sensation of parks as home-scapes followed the City Beautiful Movement and brought European obsession with lawns to America (Bormann, et al., 2001). Olmstead was also one of the first designers of the subdivision with his development, Riverside, in Illinois (Bormann, et al., 2001; Primeau, 2003). These early subdivisions pioneered the minimum setback and the park like structure of the ideal cultivated landscape as being large grassy areas with few scattered and intermittent trees. Fences were forbidden, and ordinances regulated the sculpted visions of park-like vistas. Any shrubs planted away from structures would eventually, in their old age, obstruct the park-like view of all other’s lots and activities, and were therefore also forbidden. Olmstead intended a park-like setting would have positive contributions to the way society interacts, and a legible area, like a park, in the front yard was thought to be a great way to encourage public socializing (Bormann, et al., 2001). This creation of the design for the suburban landscape still dominates new construction developments to this day, and has perpetuated an ideal as an accessory to 105
the built architectural form of the single family home. It embodied the wealth of the upper class, and so when the industrial era created the middle class, suburbia developed in a very noticeable way. The land use and architectural designs that result in sprawl have stood as the physical composition of the American Dream, which has been promoted by several factors since its earliest conception. Among these are the low cost of land (especially compared to other countries), the privatization of land ownership (and personal profit of any land owner), the increase in the size of the middle-class through the growth of the industrialized American economy and through governmental support (subsidy) of housing and automobile ownership. From a modern perspective, it is ironic that in the early 1900s, on the cusp of the industrial era and before the automobile and prior to the popularization of Olmstead’s suburban community style, that suburbs contained most of the slum areas (Jackson, 1985). The major method of transportation for the masses was pedestrian, and the majority of affluent persons resided within the city walls. Cities were seen as safe because they were protected from the wilderness that was seen as evil and unknown. This economic wealth that characterized the city core can be evidenced by the elaborate homes that now constitute the historic districts in central cities. Efforts in transportation technology exceeded the technology to make cities more livable, and marketing slogans from development companies personifying the improved quality of life that private property ownership on the exterior of the central city could provide became very alluring. As the city became more and more unhealthy and congested, retreating to the woods (a mindset that previously spawned accusations of affiliation 106
with evil) became the new goal of all prosperous residents. This was especially true with the development of landscape design, where escaping to the wilderness did not really mean the wilderness. Human control over nature can be literally and metaphorically illustrated by suburban landscapes because they are engineered greenspaces. The residential lawn kept the wilderness at bay, while still providing space to sit and relax while children played outdoors. “The new ideal was no longer to be part of a close community, but to have a self-contained unit, a private wonderland, walled off from the rest of the world,” (Jackson, 1985). The idea that the home could be its own unit of individual sanctuary, individual recreation, and personal leisure were more desirable than any benefits a centralized community offered. The lawn and park-like setting that has been pumped into residential designs for over 100 years is not the ideal setting for promotion of quality of life, well-being, wildlife habitat, or resource use efficiency. Olmstead intended that the park should be the home environment for the promotion of leisure in society: public space surrounding the entire unit because parks were taken as civic centers and the sense of liveliness brought to a community would therefore be brought to the residential landscape. This became problematic as the value for private space became more apparent and the distance to places for positive nature interaction grew exponentially. In this context a park in the backyard is an oxymoron, because people need space for private leisure and nature interaction.
107
Americans have repeatedly expressed their preference for the use of space as dominated by private land ownership. The American ideal is built strongly on the preference for and the need for a demarcation between private and public space. “Although we have a strong tradition of private property rights in this country, we also have long recognized that there must be limits to the use of individual pieces of property,” (Kelly, et al., 2000). A system based on personal private outdoor space for the many must be coupled with the same care and consideration for available public spaces to promote overall quality of life for all residents. Large distances between the homes and the road as a result of park-like residential design have not created the same sense of community in the public spaces of suburban design. The famous poet Robert Frost is frequently quoted for his observation that “good fences make good neighbors,” and the nature and design of landscapes directly influences social experiences in this context. Thus, in an effort to accommodate the need for privacy and the need to perpetuate the traditional landscape design, the sprawling subdivisions of new development pushed further and further the dimensions of the residential lots. From these practices, many people inferred that the motivation to sprawl was for openspace (Nassauer, 1993; Arendt, 1994; Nohl, 2001; Kaplan, R., & Austin, 2003; Lindstrom & Bartling, 2003; Welch, 2005). Lawns are intended to create open viewsheds and beautiful vistas, but this can only be created by large distances between homes: other homes in view from the backyard can hardly be described as a vista. These traditional practices have become the conventional suburban design. Conventional subdivisions 108
include zoning codes based on minimum dimensions, and are often subdivided without regard to existing natural features. Many of the minimum requirements in current zoning codes are intended to increase the rural “feel” of an area, but these environments have actually had the opposite result because of the way the land is developed. This is a direct result of the confounding of openspace and privacy. People moved seeking a nostalgic rural feeling of a simple life high in quality, “… only to find that [the subdivisions] they’ve built do not provide the same rural feeling that was originally sought after” (Arendt, 1994). This is because, as nice as a park setting is, people are not moving into single family homes because they like the lawns, it is because they want private space. Residential environments that are not built in accordance with the restorative properties of nature are seriously overlooking their potential. Further, how can people equally value open space (open and sparse) and lots that directly border natural areas (enclosed), and the sense of community required to feel at home in one’s neighborhood (dense): it is because people don’t want “open space” they want privacy and quality of life assurance.
2.3.1 Confounding of Privacy and Openspace The greater numbers of people moving to suburban locations motivated the need to find an effective (without undue pressures on public funds) way for preserving the rural character of an area. Based on the concept that quality public space in the vicinity can mitigate problems associated by lack of private space at 109
individual residential sites, cluster development, also known as a conservation subdivisions (Arendt, 1994), were devised. The basic concept is to increase the accessibility to nature by creating subdivisions wherein smaller individual lots are traded in for an adjacent easement on a natural area. Well planned conservation subdivisions also provide space for exercise and social interaction. This is of great contrast to conventional subdivision development where plats are traditionally subdivided by equally dividing the entire piece of land regardless of natural gradation and existing habitats, and leave no room for public space and socializing. Conservation subdivisions work with the existing structure of the land to identify the ecologically sensitive and culturally important sites and preserve them. Homes are built on soils most suitable for construction and least viable for habitat. Cluster development is density neutral because contractors provide the same number of lots as if they’d developed it as a conventional subdivision by making the lots smaller. This “trade-off” reduces impacts of sprawl through incorporation of holistic ecological management practices, and especially when coupled with considerations of smart growth and infill with regional plans (alternating built and green areas). These regional plans are intended to examine land uses on a regional scale in an effort to optimize land development. As such they are called “greenprints” (Louv, 2005). A major problem with subdivisions, of all types, is the increased distance between residences and the available amenities offered in a community. Privatization of lands at the edge of the city decreases the level of access for urban citizens, and suburban residents suffer increased automobile commutes back to the city and to 110
nearby nature. This is further exacerbated by the degradation in urban areas: lack of natural space increases the need for such spaces. Therefore it is of great importance when building conservation subdivisions to consider the overall region for into which it is fit. Nestling new residences in between other built areas increases proximity to the urban environment, and with an associated easement, also ensures that some wilderness is preserved for the region. Some argue that conservation subdivisions push the limits of sprawl by definition, but intelligent placement of built structures and incorporation of home units for multiple income types can promote recentralization through improved quality of life in areas more proximal to the urban core. People do not enjoy long commutes in their cars, but if the residential opportunities near their place of employment are not available, then there is no alternative. Designing urban and semiurban areas with mixed use built areas and accompanied by natural areas creates walkable communities through proximal origins and destinations. Coupled with a change to the design standards at the scale of the individual lot, incorporation of nature back into people’s lives is not an insurmountable challenge. Unfortunately, conservation subdivisions alone have not proved to be a panacea for the man and nature relationship. Problems with sale of conservation subdivisions also revolve around a fundamental confounding of privacy and open space. A revealed preference study (via examination of real estate trends) showed that permanent open space increased near-by residential land values over three times as compared to an equivalent amount of developable open space (Geoghegan, 2002). 111
People will pay a premium for the neighborhood itself if they are guaranteed a quality of life assurance or if the developer does well in selling the prestige of the subdivision. However, within conservation subdivision plats, another revealed preference study showed that it was lots next to the preserves that sold at a 19-35% premium over the total lot price. This showed that the greatest markups are localized to those in direct proximity to the preserved area. This distinction was so great that in some cases the markup did not extend even to parcels across the street (Thorsnes, 2002). Households value having more open space in their subdivision, but they are not willing to “trade up” larger lot for open space unless their lot is directly adjacent to the natural area (and therefore not subject to backyard public space resulting from increased densities and bad landscape designs). While a common openspace in a subdivision is essential, and can work well with providing ways to infill nature into future land use designs for regions, there is still an associated fundamental misconception: the major oversight in the development of these subdivisions is that the provision of openspace was for a smaller lot in higher density, but still surrounded by a traditional landscape style. If people wanted to feel an atmosphere of density, they’d forego the commute and live in the city (Koptis, et al., 2007). Large lots and low densities can be combated by alternative residential design for plantings. North Americans equally despise sprawl and density, but this paradox could be mitigated with the use of functional landscape design and provision of private outdoor space. Density could be much more preferred if the built environment 112
and its surroundings were better designed. Further, a better understanding of openspace could also smooth some of the discrepancies about preservation of “openspace” at the expense of economic development. Quite often, conservation subdivisions are referred to as “openspace subdivisions,” because natural wilderness areas are referred to as both greenspaces and openspaces. However, not all greenspaces are open, and, quite often, these natural spaces are mostly forested wilderness areas that are the opposite of “open.” Further, there are some land types that are extremely open in regard to their vista views, and are more accurately referred to as “openspaces.” It is of the utmost importance that further use of the term “openspace” is restricted to areas that are truly open, and forested or natural areas be referred to as wilderness, natural or limited human influence (Kaplan, R., et al., 2004), because the confusion of “openspace” as a desire for migration from the urban core has led to improper design of residential and commercial development. The concept that privacy is the motivator for suburbia, opposed to openspace, shows a desire for more (and more useful) plantings on residential lots. This desire can also be evidenced by the practice of “overplanting” young plants in new landscape designs (see Figure 1, “Conventional Subdivisions”). The barren lots seen around most new home constructions leave homeowners yearning for the look of the home framed by mature vegetation. Following custom selection of cupboards, tiles, carpets and wood finishes, it is understandable that the homeowner would want the same instant gratification with the installation of their landscaping: the opportunity to custom select a beautiful mature garden, and superimpose it to the outside of their 113
Figure 1. Conventional Subdivisions
The initial design on the left shows how an “overplanted” design can give a newly constructed home the appearance that the lot had not been entirely cleared for construction. The negative results from this technique are the crowded plants in the rendering of a mature design, on the right. Also note that the larger plants (denoted as deciduous by their star shaped canopy, or coniferous by their circular shape) do not seem to follow the shape or patterns of plantings done to benefit well-being or promote site sustainability (as will be shown in the conclusion figures). Figure drafted by Margaret-Rose M. Spyker, using Cosmi Software’s 3D Virtual Reality Landscaper. brand new custom construction. If the designer/installer plants enough plants together the illusion of this mature lush garden can be obtained in first installation. However, within ten years the landscape is a mess and needs to be dug up so the plants can be 114
separated. This is because a proper garden (or even better, native restoration) occurs with appropriate plant spacing and considerate weeding in the first few years until the plants are well established (after which time they are virtually maintenance-free). This can also be evidenced from an exorbitant amount of plant material in most all mature subdivisions planted in the traditional paradigm. People want full landscapes, and many are not aware that gardening is a process not a product. Nonetheless, there is something inherently unnatural about the traditional suburban landscape and its feeling of “emptiness.” New residential design standards can come none too soon, and can have applications in all types of residential lot sizes, types and ages (through renovations). Lawns and openspace are not only problematic for promoting a cultural understanding of the difference between privacy and openspace for the imperative future reduction in residential lot sizes, but they are also problematic in terms of the sustainable use of resources. These problems fully support the concept of changing the standards in residential landscape design.
2.3.2 Pollution from Residential Lawns Not only do modern residential designs remove all restorative qualities from the landscape (social isolation from large front yards, reduced habitat potential limits nature interaction, and open space begets more open space for attempt at backyard privacy), but it is also very resource inefficient. Modern residential style developments commonly remove the natural ecosystem and replace it with multiply 115
segmented lots characterized by one or only a few plant species. Aside from a few shrubs near structures and mid-lawn trees, the largest species in quantity is Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis L., native to Scotland), which is a short mowed grass that requires a great amount of maintenance and resources like fuel, labor, fertilizer and water (Bormann, et al., 2001; Primeau, 2003). Yet it provides little in terms of connecting people with nature or assistance in provision of food or other energies. Conventional subdivisions use resources inefficiently with excessive paving, extensive infrastructure, and bad landscape design. Lawns are very resource inefficient, and constant maintenance and chemicals are required to prevent lawns from returning to meadows they once were. William H. Whyte noted, ironically, how conventional subdivisions are frequently named for the beautiful scenery they have replaced, for example: Old Oak Grove, Cherry Tree Orchard or Whispering Willows (Arendt, 1994). There is no debate that a garden is less work than a lawn because the lawn is based on standards more akin to a built environment than a natural environment. For the lawn, it is the perfectly trimmed, uniformly colored, dandelion and weed free expanse that wins the “king-lawn” award in the neighborhood. A three inch root base, lush, green spread through an entire summer cannot be accomplished without water, fertilizer and pest control (pests include both insects, animals and plant diseases), and requires extensive, continual work to keep up a pristine standard. A perennial garden on the other hand requires far less work to maintain its tidy and healthy appearance. Depending on one’s maintenance style, a garden requires only a spring (weeds) and 116
fall (brush and dead removal) overhaul with occasional mid-summer weed pulls and watering of less-than-drought-tolerant plants (which can be remedied with rain gardening techniques). Even the installation of lawns is problematic, because the creation of openspace involves large scale earth moving machines. For the wrongful creation of said openspace, many developments, in all types of land use designations, choose to clear the land of its existing vegetation and topsoil to create a blank slate upon which to work. This tactic allows for ease of installation and economic efficiency (machine price and insurance costs are still less than the labor costs for large earth moving projects) because the large machines brought in for construction do not have to work around existing features of the landscape. This process, however, ensures from stage one of development that future “nature” in these areas will not be without human influence. ”Despite what developers tell you about restoration, once a piece of land is graded, the biologic organisms and understructure of the soil are destroyed. Much of the destruction is out of expediency and ignorance… no one knows how to truly recreate it, short of years of hand weeding, because leaving it alone doesn’t work – the natives are overwhelmed by invaders (invasives),” observed Elaine Brooks, educator, (Louv, 2005). Further, subdivisions will have the greatest biodiversity but the lowest species richness due to the high number of exotic plantings that have traditionally been employed by landscape design architects. For this reason, native areas proximal to these regions often suffer from high number of invasive plants. This landscape is so well maintained that its excessive engineering in design and 117
maintenance could classify it as a built environment. “Walking around the corner of the house from he busy back garden to the barren front was like entering Rachel Carlson’s Silent Spring,” (Primeau, 2003). Lawns are monocultures, and individually they are microcosmic examples of the mass agriculture that is well known for its regulation with chemicals and water pressure. Collective application to the multitude of acreage dedicated to lawns accumulates into something of concern for watersheds. These monocultures are impoverished ecosystems that are breeding grounds for disease and infestation. Therefore, it is the same use of chemicals and water pressure to regulate the interworkings of the plants on this small patch of ecosystem that are used in the acres of corn, potato and soy across the Midwest. “Still, one wonders how we could have accepted the idea that chemicals developed to kill great stands of jungle foliage or disease-bearing insects, or to support germ warfare, might not damage children, pets and wildlife, even if the directions on the label were followed directly,” (Primeau, 2003). Even with the acceptance that these chemicals do not have the same effects on humans as they do on the insects and other pests of the chemical’s direct intention. It cannot be denied that these chemicals will have impacts on unintended members of the ecosystem, and most likely it will also impact those sensitive indicator species within the eventual watersheds that the neighborhood storm drains empty into. The excessive use of lawn chemicals led to the development of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as a way to ensure that chemicals are spread only out of absolute necessity. IPM also applies to garden scenarios as well, but the plant communities of 118
gardens almost never need strict regulations as do monoculture grass plantings. One of the tenets of IPM is preventative and proactive measures, like reduction of monocultures, and integration of crop rotation where appropriate. Again, this extends to the choice of a garden over a lawn. From the resource waste perspective, lawns in places like Las Vegas should either be artificial or replaced with Xeriscaping (use of plants that are congruent with the geographic biome). Even in humid climates and with use of organic fertilizers a lawn will take a mid-summer “nap,” and require wasted water for only semi-satisfactory rejuvenation. A perennial garden requires no chemicals or fertilizers, and those garden plants that can’t survive the drought are shaded by neighbors that can, or at the very least require far less mid-summer subsistence watering than an entire expanse of lawn. A final case for front yard gardens returns to the aesthetic and social nature of the experience of maintaining a garden. Lawns require a weekly pass-over with a gas guzzling machine and commonly associated weed-whackers and backpack blowers. These items add noise pollution and air pollution to an otherwise quiet community, and are most commonly done on days when the majority of neighborhood residents are home and outside. Gardening and weeding requires no air or noise pollution. What is and has been attractive about the lawn is the navigable space for recreation, and some health benefits to lawn include allergen and fire retardant properties (Bormann, et al., 2001). A major motivation for lawns is that they are seen as tidy and classy, and they are associated with deep ingrained feelings that lawn represents care for personal space and status (Nausser, 1993). So even the true 119
underlying infatuation with lawn is not with the grass itself, or at least not in the front yard space (swaths of backyard grass amidst private outdoor plantings is a delightful summer treat for toes of all ages). People respond positively to front yard gardens, and Zmyslony and Gagnon (1998) showed that front yard gardens induce a “strong mimicry effect.”
2.3.3 Residential Rejuvenation People spend a good deal of their time at home, as evidenced by the classification of “home, work and third places” (Barth, et al., 2008). It is therefore most logical to design into the landscape of these places the restorative elements of a scene to replace the non-restorative and resource intensive lawns. Creating designs for social interaction also creates benefits for psychological health and well-being. Ample locations for all people to have access to these scenes is the best way to bring better quality of life into the places people most frequently interact. The backyard is a place for private social interaction and nature interaction (sounds of the urban jungle: birds, bugs and inevitably, lawn mowers): both provide opportunity to find peace of mind (sometime’s it’s possible to block out lawn mowers). The backyard is also a great location for public social interaction with people to whom invitations are extended, like friends and family. The front yard is the location for public social interaction with people of the neighborhood and community. This space is separate from the private world of the backyard, as the front 120
door of the home is the entryway to the realm of neighborhood and community. This dimension is fairly complex because it embodies both pleasantries and potential problems. The motivation for sprawl is privacy, but sense of community is also of great importance. For the neighborhood or community in which one lives, the walkability and mixed use nature of urban environments are essential to studies that show these areas as being most interesting (van den Berg, et al., 2003; Karmanov & Hamel, 2008), and should therefore important elements of a neighborhood. Rebirth of the urban core is projected by many (Jacobs, 1961; Karmanov & Hamel, 2008; Duany, et al., 2000). This potential for rebirth is the perfect opportunity to reinvest in existing infrastructure, to move back into first ring suburbs, and to install green infrastructure like greenways and front yard gardens. Inciting a sense of place into dense urban environments is a direct result of how the environment fosters public and private nature interaction. Most subdivisions are constructed with reference to how the flow of traffic would be channeled through (or around) the neighborhood. Intentions of traffic calming are quite frequently are the logic behind winding, looping and unconnected roads. Many subdivision street patterns are designed for the efficient use of the automobile, but they are also unnecessarily not designed for pedestrians as they lack sidewalks. Sidewalks are most commonly not designed into the subdivision because subdivisions intend to show a rural stature to which sidewalks are considered an urban amenity. 121
It seems that the work of an urban planner and or landscape architect is required to bridge this gap between humans and their environment by removing the perception of landscape design from “afterthought” to “first step in site assessment.” The call for planners to ensure that quality of life and well-being are designed for in the residential home environment has been made by many (Grant, et al., 1996; Kaplan, R., 2001; Kaplan, R. & Austin, 2003; Pacione, 2003; van den Berg, et al., 2007; Tzoulas, et al., 2007; Korpela & Ylen, 2007; Leinberger, 2008). A distinction between the need for a small private outdoor space must be separated from the concept that people generally desire “openspace.” Only lots directly adjacent to natural areas sell with markup, and forest and nature scenes rate highest on preference. People have equal needs for private and public space to fully exercise their cognitive and perceptual capabilities. Each individual lot should be designed to incorporate the access to nature and community that is most desirable and most restorative to human health.
2.4 Literature Review Summary and Conclusion What this research, and the literature it contributes to, shows is how current practices of suburban development are not the ideal for either resource sustainability or for human quality of life and well-being. The residential environment is the best place for rejuvenation from and balance to high stress lives, and this can be amplified
122
and optimized through incorporation of restorative designs, improved design for social interaction, and the inclusion of small scale resource production. The built environment can dictate quality of life, and its measurement is balanced between human perception and objective scales (defining parameters of what is to be sustained and what is to be developed). Quality of life is linked to sustainability through well-being. Health, happiness and prosperity are best found in environments that support private and public social interaction, emotional restoration, cognitive clarity, and contributions to a greater good. The human experience involves thoughts, feelings and interactions with personalized cognitive maps. These interactions dictate values placed on experiences, and impacts on mental and physical well-being. Cognitive restoration occurs from natural environments through emotional regulation, and also directly through engaging urban environments. Preference is what people think they like, and aesthetics are defined by what they feel they like. People generally show preference for environments that support their cognitive maps, and allow them to have success in the predicting of future events. In this way people like to feel in control, but they also like to seek risk and explore. Aesthetic “value” is often experienced as a perceptual feeling, and also by feelings attached to cognitive interpretations. The variety of studies examined showed that the residential home environment would benefit well-being if it included “depth of field,” some degree of openness separating one at a short distance from a forested area, and places for healthy social interaction. Examination of the literature showcasing the existing form 123
of residential development showed that homes have not been built with restorative properties in over a century. People currently do not have adequate access to nature, because it is designed out of their environments and many have schedules that cannot accommodate free and unstructured time in nature. Urban areas and regional linkages are designed for the automobile, and are no longer considered walk-able. Much of the disconnect between man and nature can be attributed to the inadequacies of the traditional residential landscape design. Lawns do not match restorative scene elements, and also do not provide for a healthy separation of public and private space. Because these design elements do not provide privacy or a “rural feel” as initially intended, the lot sizes have gradually increased in an effort to attain this feeling. This has led many to the misunderstanding that “openspace” drives rural migration from the urban core, and the paradox that American’s equally hate density and sprawl. Better design provisions include a residential landscape that provides privacy outdoors, as well as spaces for that are more resource efficient and promoting of sense of place. These environments are best provided by increasing population densities through homes set on smaller lot sizes enhanced by better landscape design.
124
CHAPTER III
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
3.1 Problem Statement and Hypothesis
There is a need to define specific elements of a residential landscape that will make individual lots more beneficial to well-being, and, in turn, improve quality of life for residents. Improvements to well-being, for the purposes of this study, revolve around improving the residential landscape’s capacities for private outdoor space, increased exposure to flora and fauna, possible improvements to resource use, and improved design of public spaces, starting at the front path, to enhance the sense of place and community in a neighborhood. Hypothesis: There are specific parameters of residential landscapes that provide people with the greatest access to mental restoration and rejuvenation from the tribulations of daily life.
3.2 Methodology Landscape psychologists have shown that access to nature can have direct and beneficial impacts on people’s mental (and in turn physical) health. Natural environments are more conducive to meditation and relaxation, stress relief and 125
reduction of mental fatigue (Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R., 1978, 2005; Herzog, et al., 1976; Ulrich, 1981, 1993; Verderber, 1986; Hartig, et al., 1991; Parsons, 1991; Rozak, et al., 1995; Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995; Hammitt, 2000; Korpela, et al., 2001, 2002; van den Berg, et al., 2003, 2007; Wells & Evans, 2003; Hietanen & Korpela, 2004; Cairney, 2005; Tzoulas, et al., 2007; Korpela & Ylen, 2007; Herzog & Strevey, 2008; Karmanov & Hamel, 2008). Based on this literature, specific elements of a landscape scene have been identified as providing these restorative qualities for a residential environment. This study will examine qualitative responses to a variety of residential scenes: some containing these specific restorative elements and some containing conventional residential development styles. Similar to other studies, this is an effort to isolate the specific elements that are most desirable and most restorative. What is slightly different from other studies is how these elements exist in a residential landscape setting (therefore including front, back and side yard scenes), and also that it is looking to identify which elements are more restorative in terms of overall well-being (with specific applications aimed at improvement of residential quality of life). The conclusion of this thesis will focus on how these features can be translated into creating a more positive residential environment based on the results of a principal components analysis (See Appendix A). This survey was designed around a three pronged definition of well-being developed by University of Michigan Landscape Psychologists Stephen and Rachel Kaplan (1993, 2005) entitled the Rational Person Model (RPM). The RPM posits that 126
well-being is fostered through environments that promote “understanding and exploration, meaningful action and restoration.” From this perspective, the three major tenets of well-being for humans revolve around the interrelated nature of a positive outlook, cognitive clarity and societal involvement. This study will assess how changes in nature-home environments, as depicted through a series of photographs, may be related to perceptions of human health, feelings of responsibility and “connectedness” with one’s environment, as well as identifying which home space provides ideal setting for these beneficial interactions on a daily basis. The photographs in the survey use a view similar to the view “from inside the home” because the use of this perspective will make it much easier to distinguish between lots developed in the conventional style (grid overlay of lot development that removes all existing natural elements to replace them with new) and those scenes reflecting restorative properties (see Tables 8-11 for examples of scene elements used in other studies). Scenes used to represent more restorative residential landscapes were taken at nearby conservation and/or mature subdivision sites. The overarching goal to be answered by the survey was to determine what constitutes an ideal residential landscape for personal well-being. The sets of photographs were placed in sections for viewing with differing attributes contributing to well-being. Environments that provide comfortable opportunities for interactions with neighbors, private social interaction, and connectedness with nature are hypothesized to create outlets that improve one’s overall well-being (environments that promote a positive outlook). Comfortable environments for meditation, exploration and thinking 127
are conducive to creating a positive mental state and are therefore important to wellbeing (environments that promote cognitive clarity). This also furthers the concept that people may have a more positive outlook from interaction with or through spending time in natural environments. The third tenet from the Kaplan model is less directly measurable, although it is presumed that these other attributes related to wellbeing can also be augmented throughout the home environment. Higher densities of home spacing can be obtained through proper plantings. The amount of maintenance the home lot requires can be balanced by the quality of plantings, and proper design could help make each individual lot more energy and food independent. Thus, redesigning the home space to reduce the amount of maintenance, reduce excess space and provide a reduction in the reliance on national scale food and energy systems collectively can provide an outlet in people’s lives through which they feel they are contributing to a greater good. The residential landscape could be an opportunity to help people feel they are making a positive impact on their society and further their own personal well-being and quality of life. A well designed residential space can support places for all of these interactions. Because many of these functions overlap different uses, the photograph evaluation portion of the survey was divided into seven sections that provided insight to these original three categories (see Table 12). Participating students viewed a slideshow of 55 black and white photographs, and recorded their feelings in response to the residential landscape scenes on a scantron sheet that was provided by the author (see Appendix B for thumbnails of 128
Survey Photograph Sections Sections
Descriptions of Residential Landscape Uses
1
Neighbor interaction (best amount of space for)
2
Time outside with friends and family (best amount of space for)
3
Maintenance (different types)
4
Density (different types)
5
Nature interaction (quantity and variety)
6
Peace of mind (best place for)
7
Meditation (best place for)
Table 12. Survey Photograph Sections. Survey instrument was divided into seven sections related to well-being. Note that these numbers to not correspond to the numbering used later in this analysis. entire slideshow, and Appendix C for the survey instruction sheet). The 55 pictures and six instruction slides were each shown for five seconds (totaling approximately five minutes). The reasoning for this was two-fold. Firstly, it was hoped that the short time allocated to each scene would elicit participants’ “feelings” as opposed to their cognitive “thoughts.” Secondly, the short time for each scene helped to keep the overall survey time to a minimum. There were 36 remaining questions on the survey not associated with the slide show, and participants were given an additional five minutes to answer these questions. The non-slideshow questions have been borrowed from a study by Rachel Kaplan conducted in 2005 (Kaplan, R., 2005). These questions were related to participants’ existing opinions of nature, reported amount of outdoor activity and their general thoughts regarding personal stress levels. The total survey time was ten minutes, and, with administration of instructions and paper distribution and collection, twenty minutes was the maximum amount of 129
class time required for the survey. The survey was given to students in three classrooms in Wood Hall, one in the adjacent Chemistry Building and one in Rood Hall (all buildings on Western Michigan University’s main campus science complex). It was administered over the course of three days (Tuesday through Thursday) from November 18-20, 2008. There were 235 participants. No advertisements, posters or other type of recruitment were used. Instead, the instructors were individually contacted, and each granted permission to conduct the survey in their classes following HSIRB approval (see Appendix D for approval letter). All of the classes selected for participation were Geography courses that satisfy an elective or a general requirement for undergraduate students, and the intent of this selection was to get a variety of participants with a variety of interests and backgrounds.
3.3 Data Analysis The primary method of analysis was a data reduction technique called Principal Component Analysis (PCA) used to generate categories based on congruence in variance of responses that represent preference for specific elements of the residential landscape. In this process, the data set (comprised of participant responses to all slideshow scenes) is rotated in n-dimensional space (the popular Varimax Rotation was used in this study) to obtain the congruent categories (components). For this portion, the data reduction helped identify groups (components) of specific scenes that represented meaningful themes related to quality 130
of residential life. This same technique was used to reduce the non-slideshow questions to their respective representative components. The magnitude of the covariance for each resulting component was be measured using Cronbach’s alpha which ranges between negative one and one. Numbers closer to one denote increased reliability of the factor belonging to its component, and overall alphas can be reported for individual components to show the strength of similarity between the factors of a given component. Components can have different means and different variances, but their covariances should all be equal (therefore resulting in the distinct factors). The seven components resulting from the slideshow portion of the survey will be referred to as the “The Nature of the Residential Scene” components and the four components resulting from the non-slideshow portion of the survey will be referred to as the “Reported Well-Being and Nature Enjoyment” components. The components of the “The Nature of the Residential Scene” and “Reported Well-Being and Nature Enjoyment” were then tested using correlation analysis to determine the relationships between each other, as well as other factors including gender and type of employment.
3.3.1 Data Coding and Compilation Comparison of the results of the PCA required that the surveys included in the analysis contained no more than one or two missing responses within the entire 95 questions. The first stages of the data analysis then involved reducing the total 131
number of surveys used from 235 to 169. The first 13 were removed because the participant had written along the sideline of the survey that she or he did not have any interest in completing the survey or felt the survey was not conducted to his or her standards and therefore did not wish to participate. The next twelve that were removed had unfinished sections within the slideshow portion of the survey. The five second timing of the slides was intended to be short because people’s first reactions to the images were considered to be closer to “feelings” than “thoughts,” and this was cause for some problems with the twelve participants that could not “keep up” with the five second timer. From this new subset of 210, a closer examination of the remaining surveys revealed that twelve participants did not complete the “end sections” regarding their assessment of their feelings on nature, outdoor activity and perceived stress levels. It is presumed that these participants “ran out of steam” at the end of the long survey, and unfortunately had to be removed because there were too many missing responses to run the second PCA and correlate it with the first PCA. The remaining 198 had potential to be the established data set, but within the 198 were 29 surveys that had one missing response somewhere in the dataset. After much deliberation it was decided that the 29 should be removed in lieu of interpolating the missing responses, because it was felt that the differences across individual scenes did not lend to accurate averaging of responses. This deserves some explanation, because of the large number of surveys removed at this point. The variety of scenes were intended to depict different elements of a landscape scene, and the elements of the scene do not 132
directly translate into common values that can be easily averaged: for example, rating an open space scene with “2” and an enclosed scene with a “4” does not preclude that a scene with a sidewalk would be a “3.” Therefore, removal of the additional 29 surveys was preferred to interpolation of missing responses, and the final dataset was included a total of 169 surveys.
3.3.2 Principal Components Analysis The first PCA was run on the respondents’ reactions to the 55 variables in the slideshow portion of the survey using SPSS statistical analysis software (version 16.0) with the solution set to Varimax Rotation and maximum iterations set to 25. The initial solution produced 16 components that explained 72% of the variance, but analysis of the Scree Plot (a plot, in descending order of magnitude, of the Eigen Values of the component results) showed a “leveling-off” after twelve components that explained 62% of the variance. From this initial solution, individual factors that did not load highly on any component were removed and the PCA was run again; this iterative process was repeated until all remaining factors loaded on a component. The final solution for the sections converged in six iterations, and resulted in seven components that explained 65% of the variance (see Table 14). These seven components, each measuring a common construct, had resulting Cronbach’s alphas ranging between .66 and .91 (see Tables 14 and 15). The number of variables was thus reduced from 55 to 27, and the resulting seven component solution will be 133
referred to as the “The Nature of the Residential Scene” PCA. In the results and discussion sections this PCA will be analyzed based on thematic value. The second PCA was run on the responses to the 36 survey variables that were not related to the slideshow. Again, SPSS (version 16.0) statistical analysis software was used, and again Varimax Rotation was selected with a maximum of 25 iterations. The initial solution for this second PCA produced nine components that explained 62% of the variance (see Table 13). From this initial solution, individual factors that did not load highly on any component were removed and the PCA was run again; this iterative process was repeated until all remaining variables loaded on a component. The final solution for the sections converged in five iterations, and resulted in four components that explained 63% of the variance (see Tables 13 and 17). In this way, the number of variables was reduced from 36 to eleven, and the resulting three components will be referred to as the “Reported Well-Being and Nature Enjoyment” PCA throughout the results and discussion sections.
134
Total Variance Explained by the Components of Analysis One: The Nature of the Residential Scene Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Total 4.538 3.225 2.699 2.27 1.756 1.589 1.483 0.932 0.863 0.784 0.676 0.62 0.595 0.534 0.511 0.486 0.432 0.419 0.4 0.368 0.355 0.326 0.293 0.26 0.221 0.182 0.153
Initial Eigen Values % of Variance Cumulative % 16.807 16.807 12.057 28.863 9.995 38.858 8.408 47.267 6.503 53.769 5.886 59.655 5.493 65.148 3.454 68.602 3.195 71.797 2.905 74.701 2.504 77.206 2.295 79.5 2.205 81.705 1.978 83.684 1.894 85.578 1.799 87.377 1.601 88.978 1.55 90.529 1.48 92.008 1.361 93.37 1.315 94.685 1.207 95.892 1.085 96.978 0.964 97.942 0.817 98.759 0.673 99.432 0.568 100
Table 13. Total Variance Explained by the Components of Analysis One: The Nature of the Residential Scene. This result is from the final solution, and shows the seven extracted components.
135
Total Variance Explained by the Components of Analysis Two: Reported Well-Being and Nature Enjoyment Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Total 2.987 2.623 2.122 1.772 1.371 1.254 0.922 0.788 0.65 0.599 0.362
Initial Eigen Values % of Cumulative Variance % 19.335 19.335 16.976 36.312 13.734 50.045 11.469 61.514 8.873 70.387 8.115 78.501 5.97 84.471 5.099 89.57 4.21 93.78 3.875 97.655 2.345 100
Table 14. Total Variance Explained by the Components of Analysis Two: Reported WellBeing and Nature Enjoyment. This result is from the final solution, and shows the four extracted components.
136
Rotated Component Matrix for Principle Component Analysis One: The Nature of the Residential Scene Variable
Component 1 Habitat Vistas
4 5 8 9 10 12 15 16 21 23 25 29 31 32 34 35 36 37 41 43 45 46 52 53 54 55 56
-0.558 -0.001 0.054 0.007 0.124 0.092 -0.081 -0.095 0.062 0.193 0.088 -0.07 -0.061 0.013 -0.054 0.895 0.874 0.884 0.809 0.116 0.234 0.092 0.131 -0.119 -0.043 0.057 0.049
2 Public Space and Winding Roads
0.745 0.79 0.774 0.807 0.671 0.09 -0.125 -0.099 0.023 -0.017 0.018 0.116 0.037 0.119 -0.1 0.015 0.085 0.021 0.018 0.058 0.066 0.049 0.013 0.09 0.033 0.017 0.009
3
4
Peace of Mind
Privacy, Comfort and Meditation
0.143 0.088 -0.004 0.059 -0.11 -0.145 -0.024 -0.025 0.02 -0.059 0.063 -0.129 -0.166 -0.126 0.111 0.056 0.122 0.182 0.24 0.777 0.732 0.833 0.717 -0.088 -0.01 -0.069 -0.12
-0.021 0.01 -0.023 0.115 0.082 -0.062 0.058 0.086 0.122 -0.11 -0.059 0.08 0.075 0.048 -0.005 0.003 -0.042 -0.022 0.004 -0.131 -0.133 -0.228 0.136 0.775 0.665 0.851 0.782
5 Density is Great with a Visual Screen
-0.006 0.147 0.015 0.062 0.017 0.062 0.147 0.015 0.062 0.017 -0.062 0.767 0.72 0.798 0.708 -0.059 0.072 -0.054 -0.151 -0.097 -0.171 -0.038 -0.017 0.12 0.059 -0.029 0.035
6 High Maint. Lawns
-0.054 0.076 -0.019 0.725 0.748 0.82 0.076 -0.19 0.725 0.748 0.82 0.016 -0.119 -0.042 0.171 0.109 0.146 0.087 0.064 0.085 -0.024 -0.034 0.001 0.146 -0.076 -0.073 -0.005
7 Outdoors with Friends and Family
-0.026 -0.024 -0.038 -0.154 0.078 0.726 0.736 0.8 0.106 0.063 -0.073 0.179 0.15 -0.102 0.105 -0.02 -0.028 0.02 -0.087 -0.043 0.034 -0.089 -0.117 0.073 0.044 -0.075 0.042
Table 15. Component Matrix for Analysis One. Rotation converged in 6 iterations. Qualitative descriptors for the components have been shortened. Full titles can be seen in table 17. Factors of related components highlighted, resp. 137
Rotated Component Matrix for Principle Component Analysis Two: Reported Well-Being and Nature Enjoyment Variable
Component 1
2
3
Enjoyment of Outdoors
Positive Outlook
Feeling Effective
68 69 70 73 76 84 85 86 87
0.789 0.833 0.892 0.054 0.179 -0.081 0.101 -0.102 0.109
89
0.057
90
0.088
-0.004 -0.005 0.105 -0.057 0.191 0.753 -0.005 -0.005 0.725 0.826 0.223
4 Enjoyment of Outdoor Activities
0.128 -0.026 -0.016 0.084 0.024 0.058 0.769 0.665 -0.014
0.206 0.021 0.068 0.839 0.619 -0.036 0.106 0.19 0.079
0.118
0.096
0.744
-0.239
Table 16. Component Matrix for Analysis Two. Rotation converged in 5 iterations. Also note that qualitative descriptors for the components have been shortened, and the full titles can be seen in Table 16. Factors of related components are highlighted in their respective columns.
138
3.3.3 Bivariate Correlation Pearson’s product moment correlation analyses were then run on the “The Nature of the Residential Scene” and the “Reported Well-Being and Nature Enjoyment” to see if there were any correlations between these components and gender, occupation, and each other. Pearson’s product moment correlation can best be described as the strength (magnitude of association) of the relationship between two interval or ratio type variables. This relationship can, of course, also have direction identifying it as a positive, negative or neutral relationship. Both the strength and direction of the relationship are assessed numerically with the use of “Pearson’s r” (between 1 and -1), and are also tested for significance using a two tailed format for acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis. Also, a point to keep in mind throughout any correlation analysis is that measures of strength of association do not prove causation, but instead highlight a relationship between variables based on a measure of covariation between the components. To ascertain whether the magnitude of “Pearson’s r” is large enough to be significant, the alternative and null hypotheses must be established. The null hypothesis for the bivariate correlation analyses posited that there was no difference between the genders or whether or not the participant was employed. It is expected that there will be minimal differences with type of employment because the sample was selected from a student population out of convenience. It is expected that the most interesting results will be between responses to the scenes and the nature of 139
responses to the self assessment questionnaire, and perhaps between genders. The greatest bias and complication of this study that resources and time did not allow a more random sample. However, if the results are analyzed with caution and consideration for the biases introduced from the type of convenience sample selected for this study, then perhaps there can still be some warrant in their recommendations. It is hoped that the design of the study will mitigate common biases because the large number of photographs shown provides an opportunity to distinguish specific scene elements being measured. “Without further analysis, [studies that use few scenes to represent phenomena generically] do not make it obvious which features of the scenes are responsible for high or low ratings,” said Ewing in his critical analysis of most visual preference surveys to date (Ewing, et al., 2005). The use of large numbers and types of scenes is intended to elicit responses that transcend common biases, because greater reliance is on scene elements showing their congruence. This then introduces the bias of the analyst into the way the commonalities between scenes are later interpreted, and, as done in Ewing’s study, it is expected that a variety of interpreters will help to extract the most effective and accurate scene elements (Ewing, et al., 2005).
140
3.4 Results
3.4.1 The Nature of the Residential Scene
Most of the components were in keeping with their original groupings which corroborate the distinction between the components for representing different human needs from different residential scene types and spaces. Descriptive characteristics desirable of suburban landscapes include the outdoor room, sacred space, home gardening, individual lot resource production and efficiency from lot design. From this study, the progressive landscape design incorporates a small mowed greenspace close to the house. The gardening styles and plant cultivations should evoke a desirable natural experience. The components have been named for the ways they appear to have similar variances (see Table 17 for qualitative descriptors, Appendix A for scenes within components, and Appendix B for all scenes from the slideshow). The components are comprised of scenes from their respective groupings in the survey. Therefore the scene element commonalties and the parameters extracted from the components are based on which scenes are either excluded or included in the component from the respective survey groupings. This analysis will also include consideration of the means of all scenes in regard to preference. In this way preference is compared to the dynamic scene opportunities within the residential environment.
141
First Principal Components Analysis: The Nature of the Residential Scene Component
Alpha
Qualitative Descriptor
1
0.914
Habitat vistas
2
0.821
Public space and winding roads
3
0.811
Peace of mind and the wilderness
4
0.787
Privacy and comfort are conducive to meditation
5
0.76
Higher density with a visual screen
6
0.68
Lawns involve more maintenance than gardens
7
0.661
A small private space for outdoor fun with friends and family
Table 17. First Principle Components Analysis: The Nature of the Residential Scene. Parameters of the scene related to human well-being. Alpha refers to Chronbach's Alpha, representing the magnitude of the relationship between the factors of the components. The component number corresponds to Tables 14 and 15. Principal component one was named, “Habitat Vistas.” This set of photographs incorporated the wilderness element, and shows peoples’ expectations for wildlife interaction occur at “edge” locations in nature. This component highlights the recognition of the outdoor room as an edge that also provides many habitat opportunities. Scenes included in this component were highly preferred tree lined natural settings surrounding a natural field, a narrow long grass field, a marshy wetland and a vineyard (scenes 35, 36, 37 and 41, respectively). Scenes not selected included two scenes including an edge border, but situated between a large scale corn 142
field and an expanse of cut grass (one tree lined, scene 42, and one without, scene 40), perhaps reflecting that people understand the difference in habitat for wildlife between a forest and a cornfield. Also absent from the component were a savannah scene (scene 38) and a vegetable garden (scene 39). It is very interesting that the savannah scene was excluded from this component, because it shows that evolutionary instincts to landscapes are not always the dominant motivator. There is a possibility that some landscapes are preferred based on new knowledge about ecosystems and structures (i.e. edges as prime habitat real estate), over the evolutionary linkage to the savannah (which would once have been expected to be more indicative of preference). Such as is the case where people benefit from a more functional design that includes a visual screen around private residential spaces, even though this pattern also the habitat for predatory felines (one of the main motivators of evolutionary preference for savannah landscapes). Principal component two was named “Public Space and Winding Roads.” All the scenes in this component displayed expectations for neighbor interaction are comfortable along a suburban roadside. This is possibly a result of the effective “traffic calming” function that winding roads are designed to provide, and could be furthered by the scenes not selected showing straight roads and perpendicular intersections. However, the more likely possibility is that the instrument design was flawed for measuring social residential spaces because it did not include samples of all possible residential front yard scenes. There were no scenes from an urban environment nor were there any front yard gardens (opposed to lawns). A great 143
opportunity for future research would be to look into preferences for different types of “front yard” and other “residential social space” environments. Principal component three was named “Peace of Mind and the Wilderness” Scenes promising opportunity for residential environments adjacent to large wilderness areas were preferred for peace of mind. These scenes were similar to those selected for their edges in “Habitat Vistas.” All four of the scenes of the component were also the highest preferred scenes of the section (scenes 43, 45, 46 and 52). Also, included in this component was the savannah scene (scene 52), as the one scene in the component including human influence (scene 43). The other two scenes of this component showed minimal human impact. The excluded scenes all had some form of obvious human impact present. Scenes 44, 48 and 49 were lawns with perimeter plantings. Scene 50 was a Japanese rock garden, and scene 47 was a formal English Garden with some mowed areas. It is interesting to note that the English Garden scene was the highest preferred scene out of the section. Also of fairly high preference but excluded from the component were two scenes reflecting “legibility” and “mystery” (scenes 48 and 51) as defined by the Preference Matrix (Kaplan S. and Kaplan, R., 1982). People truly associate peace of mind with large wilderness preserves or a small yard with a dense visual screen. The outdoor room was nicely presented in the most preferred English Garden. The recurrence of the edge in the scenes associated with preference for an enclosed outdoor room enforces the desire for the presence of a visual screen surrounding the backyard.
144
Principal component four was named “Privacy and Comfort are Conducive to Meditation.” Scenes of this component had enclosed areas with grass or patio centers. Scenes 54, 55 and 56 were enclosed completely with outdoor room screens, and scene 53 was enclosed on three sides. Scene 54 was lined by a short fence and vegetable garden. The two most preferred scenes (scenes 57 and 58) for enlightenment (scene 57 had a winding path in an informal garden) incorporated artificial depth from overhanging limbs and a back light for legibility and mystery. The presence of a flat space or a central functional area in their outdoor room was the common theme of this component. People liked comfort and privacy for meditation, and they aesthetically prefer and are spiritually comforted by backlit visual screens (denoting openspace on the other side). The enclosed patio space adjacent to the structure translates directly into an essential element of the residential lot design for promotion of well-being, and coupled with the semi-high density required to “backlight” the visual screens. Principal component five was named “Higher Density with a Visual Screen.” This was the only component that included different scene angles within the scene component candidates. This may have been problematic because the bias introduced was intended to enhance density perception, but it is unclear how it was specifically perceived by the participants: thus a possibility for future research could arise from examining the interplay of depth cues and the ideal density for residential home environments. Scenes included in this component appeared to have the highest densities as compared to the perspective or appearance of the densities in the 145
excluded scenes. Two scenes of the component were slightly preferred included scene 31, which had 80 feet between homes and a modest visual screen, and scene 32, which displayed large expansive lawns with young modest visual screens visible in the vast mowed space between structures. The two less preferred scenes of the component were higher density home spacing, but the depth cues in the scene gave the appearance of density in the distance (29 and 34, respectively). Photographs excluded from this component represented extremely low density settings with no visual screens, and extremely high visual densities with minimal visual screens (scenes 27, 28, 30, 33). As expected, the concept of density brings an interesting shade to the proximity of neighboring residential spaces. People seem to think that they should prefer density, but it doesn’t fit with traditional landscape styles and absence of visual screens: people are aware that density is good for society, but they still want their private space. Principal component six was named “Lawns involve more Maintenance than Gardens.” Scenes selected as being considered a lot of work to maintain were those that included large expanses of lawns (10, 20 and 60,000 square feet; scenes 25, 21 and 23, respectively). There was one mowing scene (10,000 sqft of yard) not included in the component (scene 20), and it is presumed that the presence of a visual screen at the perimeter of the lawn reduced the daunting nature than its counterparts included in the component. Also not included in this component were three gardening scenes of varying styles (vegetable, formal, and informal; scenes 22, 24 and 26,
146
respectively), that rated lower in expectancy for work involved. It is presumed people selected these as compared to the maintenance involved in lawn care. Principal component seven was named “A Small Private Space for Outdoor Fun with Friends and Family.” Visual screens were the most predominant commonality between the scenes selected for this component (scenes 12, 15 and 16), as compared to those scenes not selected (scenes 11, 13, 14 and 17). All scenes of the component had a moderate to highly dense visual screen, and had lawns with approximately 50 ft from the perspective of the viewer to the grass perimeter while ranging from 3-5,000 square feet. Commonalities between scenes not selected included large expanses of lawn and views of other houses without any visual screens made by vegetation. The large expanses of lawns were considered too much space even with a visual screen perimeter, and also where it could be inferred that other homes would be in view even though they were not included in the scene. The scene rated highest as “too much space” was scene 17, which revealed over 300 ft between the other homes in view from across a large grassy area. This component shows that people want privacy in their backyard, and prefer smaller, intimate lawn spaces surrounded by a visual screen (outdoor room) to large open areas. People prefer not to be seen by others in their backyard, and find these locations ideal for private social interaction with friends and family. Specific design recommendations from this component denote that small grassy space (approximately 50 x 50 ft) surrounded by a vegetative visual screen are features preferred for an outdoor room. In some cases, there are other backyard amenities that may further separate the visual screen further 147
past the patio area perimeter, but this is dependant on the functions and density of the landscape in any given site and situation. The major design recommendations identified from these scene elements provide a clear, yet general, parameter for the residential environment ideal for enhancing human well-being: well-designed public space, outdoor room, sacred space, home gardening, individual lot resource production and efficiency from lot design. Future research could produce specific alternatives based on common variables of different geographic types. One example could be the variation of residential elements of a Midwest lot as compared to a Pacific Northwest lot, and obviously more drastic comparisons would arise from more drastically differing climates. Onsite locations for these specific elements incorporate the entire lot, and it is important that future architects and engineers incorporate the entire site in designs for sustainability and environmental quality. The front yard space can provide a new concept to the aesthetics and demarcations of public space, and also provide space for home gardening through gardening styles and plant cultivations that evoke a desirable natural experience. Further, these spaces can set a precedent within communities that encourages the creation of other public spaces for healthy social interaction. The establishment of privacy is the key element for designing backyard spaces, and outdoor rooms contribute greatly to the effective functioning of a residential landscape. People associate peace of mind with large wilderness preserves or a small yard with a dense visual screen. People want privacy in their backyard, and 148
prefer smaller, intimate lawn spaces (approximately 50 x 50 ft) surrounded by a vegetative visual screen are features preferred for an outdoor room. The enclosed patio space adjacent to the structure translates directly into an essential element of the residential lot design for promotion of well-being.
3.4.2 Reported Well-Being and Nature Enjoyment Here too, the PCA factor loadings included items with the same theme, but just reduced them to representative questions. The categories that emerged characterize a certain set of self defined characteristics are reported in Table 18. The questions for used for measuring reported well-being are adopted from a survey used Second Principle Components Analysis: Reported Well-Being and Nature Enjoyment Alpha Qualitative Descriptor Component 0.838 Enjoyment of the Outdoors 1 0.679 Positive Outlook 2 0.726 Feeling Effective 3 0.768 Enjoyment of Outdoor Activities 4
Table 18. Second Principle Components Analysis: Reported Well-Being and Nature Enjoyment. Alpha refers to Chronbach's Alpha, representing the magnitude of the relationship between factors in the components. The component number relates to Tables 13, 16 and 19. by Rachel Kaplan in her study measuring the relationship between the view from home and reported well-being (2001). While Kaplan’s participants can be said to have
149
a corollary relationship with well-being and the scenes they view on a daily basis, the foundation for the use of this scale in this study is based on the assumption that reported well-being and scene preference are positively correlated. This group selfassigned themselves as feeling balanced, not stressed, and also as liking natural environments for relaxation and play. If these people like nature and are reporting low stress, then the scenes they select should be under good recommendation for new residential design standards. “Affinity for Nature” was selected as the title for principal component one (PC1 - variables 68, 69, 70), because people responded with great similarity that they liked nature. People felt that out of the variables in this group, those responses that suggested an affinity for nature best described them over the other variables. There are three variables in this component: I like to be active when outdoors, I like to sit and relax outdoors, and I like to be outdoors. These responses were preferred to: “I enjoy working in the soil,” “I enjoy lawn mowing,” “I like to see wildlife and I like to see wildlife in my yard.” This was compounded by the high preference for viewing wildlife, and the extremely low score for enjoyment of mowing represents how people of this group prefer to experience the outdoors. The other component related to outdoor experiences was principal component four (PC4 - variables 73 and 76) and was therefore titled “Enjoyment of Outdoor Activities.” While some outdoor activities were not selected by this group can be attributed to age trends (gardening and walks or hikes were lowest in preference) outdoor activities were preferred overall (enjoying nature was the highest preferred variable). Therefore it is presumed 150
Original Questions used for the Second Principal Components Analysis: Reported Well-Being and Nature Enjoyment Mean 2.657 3.544 3.988 3.716 3.964 4.089 4.503 3.604 1.680 2.947 3.136 2.704 2.893 3.728 3.574 1.929 3.343 2.408 2.118 2.249 2.787 2.982 2.604 2.680 2.680 3.260 2.479 2.923 2.680 2.663 2.846 2.615
Variable 64 65* 66 67 68 69 70* 71 72 73 74 75* 76 77 78 79* 80* 81 82* 83 84 85* 86* 87 88* 89 90 91 92* 93* 94 95*
PC
1 1 1
4
4
2 3 3 2 2 3
Statement I enjoy working in the soil I don't enjoy lawn mowing I like to see wildlife I like to see wildlife in my yard I like to be active when outdoors I like to sit and relax outdoors I do not like to be outdoors I most frequently spend time outdoors I most frequently garden I most frequently bike or jog in the neighborhood I most frequently take walks or hikes I most frequently watch TV I most frequently watch squirrels, birds or other animals I most frequently enjoy nature in general I most frequently Spend time with pets I most frequently do hobbies In the last few days I felt everything was an effort In the last few days I felt I have a good sense of where I'm going In the last few days I felt unsure of what's important In the last few days I felt that life is interesting and challenging In the last few days I felt satisfied with how things have been going lately In the last few days I felt it's hard to make up my mind In the last few days I felt I was losing or misplacing things In the last few days I've felt energetic and excited about what I am doing In the last few days I felt like I'm not getting much accomplished In the last few days I felt like I'm on top of the world In the last few days I felt it’s difficult to finish things I've started In the last few days I felt able to get really absorbed in a task In the last few days I felt I was making mistakes In the last few days I felt making decisions was difficult In the last few days I felt I can keep my mind on what I'm doing In the last few days I felt like I was jumping to conclusions
Table 19. Original Questions used for the Second Principal Components Analysis. Questions from survey borrowed from Rachel Kaplan in "The View From Home" (2001). * Denotes variable was inverted for analysis. PC is the related Principal Component if relevant.
151
that the common variance observed between the two variables of this component reflect the greatest commonalities within enjoyment of nature (“I frequently bike or jog in the neighborhood,” “I frequently watch squirrels, birds or other animals”). The overall satisfaction with nature and natural environments further supports the literature as compared to people’s reporting of their general well-being. Principal component two was labeled “Positive Outlook” as it was comprised of variables 84, 87 and 89 (PC2 – “I’m satisfied with how things have been going lately,” “I’m energetic and excited about what I’m doing,” “I’m on top of the world”). Principal component three was labeled “Feeling Effective” as it was comprised of variables 85, 86 and 90 (PC3 – “It’s easy to make up my mind,” “I’m not losing or misplacing things,” “It’s easy to finish things I have started”). For a comparison of the selected descriptor statements please see Table 19.
3.4.3 Correlation Analysis As expected, there was no relationship within any of the components in the two component analyses, because the PCA process separated these components based on their tendency toward an orthogonal relationship in n-dimensional space. See table 20 for correlation matrix between components from the first principal component analysis. However, there were some significant relationships between components of “The Nature of the Residential Scene” and “Reported Well-Being and Nature Enjoyment” analyses (see Table 21). 152
Correlation Matrix Between Components from The Nature of the Residential Scene Analysis Public Space and Winding Roads
Habitat Vistas Pearson Habitat Vistas Sig. N Public Space Pearson and Winding Sig.
Privacy, Comfort and Meditation
Peace of Mind
Higher Density with a Visual Screen
High Outdoors Maintenwith Friends ance and Family Lawns
1 167 0.004 0.961
1
N Pearson Sig. N Pearson Sig N Pearson Sig. N Pearson Sig. N
167 -0.007 0.929 167 -0.002 0.983 167 0 0.997 167 0.002 0.975 167
167 0.008 0.921 167 0.002 0.982 167 -0.003 0.969 167 -0.004 0.963 167
167 -0.003 0.965 167 -0.002 0.984 167 0.004 0.96 167
167 0 0.998 167 0.001 0.99 167
167 -0.002 0.982 167
167
Outdoors with Pearson Friends and Sig. Family N
0.001 0.986 167
-0.006 0.94 167
0.002 0.983 167
0.001 0.994 167
-0.005 0.946 167
-0.003 0.97 167
Roads Peace of Mind Privacy, Comfort and Meditation Density is Great with a Visual Screen High Maintenance Lawns
1
1
1
1
1 167
Table 20. Correlation Matrix Between Components from The Nature of the Residential Scene Analysis. ** Correlation is significant ("Sig.") at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). "Pearson" means Pearson Correlation. Also note that names for qualitative descriptors of the seven scene element components have been shortened, and the full titles can be seen in Table 17.
Responses to “Habitat Vistas” had a correlation with “Feeling Effective” at a magnitude of -.205 (denoting a negative direction), and at a 0.001 significance level. This supports the Rational Person Model in that nature view positively impact wellbeing through improvement of cognitive clarity.
153
Correlation Matrix Between Components from both Reported Well-Being And Nature Enjoyment and The Nature of the Residential Scene Analyses
Pearson Habitat Vistas Sig. N Public Space Pearson and Winding Sig. N Roads Pearson Peace of Mind Sig. N Pearson Privacy, Comfort and Sig. Meditation N
0.109 0.161 167 -0.006 0.939 167 .280** 0 167 0.142
0.01 0.903 167 -0.104 0.182 167 0.022 0.78 167 -0.046
-.205** 0.008 167 0.073 0.349 167 0.051 0.511 167 0.114
Enjoyment of Outdoor Activities -0.113 0.146 167 -0.122 0.118 167 .258** 0.001 167 -0.085
0.068 167
0.558 167
0.141 167
0.277 167
Pearson Density is Great with a Sig. Visual Screen N Pearson High MaintenSig. ance Lawns N
-0.088 0.256
-0.017 0.827
-0.023 0.772
-0.024 0.756
167 0.04 0.61 167
167 0.038 0.628 167
167 0.085 0.276 167
167 0.03 0.702 167
Outdoors with Pearson Friends and Sig. Family N
-0.145 0.062 167
0.072 0.354 167
-0.037 0.639 167
0.065 0.401 167
Enjoyment of Outdoors
Positive Outlook
Feeling Effective
Table 21. Correlation Matrix Between Components from both Reported Well-Being And Nature Enjoyment and The Nature of the Residential Scene Analyses. ** Correlation is significant ("Sig.") at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). "Pearson" means Pearson Correlation. Also note that names for qualitative descriptors of the seven scene element components have been shortened, and the full titles can be seen in Table 17. “Peace of Mind” had a positive correlation with two other components related to reported feelings: “Enjoyment of the Outdoors” correlated at a magnitude of .280
154
and “Enjoyment of Outdoor Activities” had a magnitude of .258, and both were at a 0.001 significance level. This supports the landscape psychology literature that people who enjoy and spend time with nature are positively affected by it. There were two other correlations in the between components analysis, but the significance level was slightly lower. “Privacy and Comfort are Conducive to Meditation” was positively correlated with “Enjoyment of the Outdoors” at a magnitude of .142 and a significance level of 0.68. This supports the research that outdoor privacy is valued in the residential arena. For correlation tests with gender and employment variables these groups failed to reject the null hypothesis. This is quite interesting because it shows students are people and that there is no difference in gender and whether or not a person is employed when it comes to experiencing nature.
3.5 Discussion Of the two main survey flaws, the first flaw was that there were no urban residential scenes or front yard garden scenes included in the residential slideshow. Small front yards are no longer commonplace in new construction of residential environments (in Michigan), but this doesn’t preclude that they shouldn’t be. It is anticipated that inclusion of smaller front yards would be well received, especially because of the age group being studied. As Leinberger (2008) suggests, demographic analyses show many people of younger generations are expected to prefer residences more proximal to urban centers when they come of home-owning age. One of the 155
major draws is the atmosphere created by well designed public spaces, and this concept must be considered in the future of residential planning. The exclusion of this scene type from the survey will not preclude its lack of presence in the conclusions. The second flaw was the bias created from the convenience sample. The dominant age group of this study’s participants does not represent a population sector that is currently in the market for purchasing a home. That is to say, the convenience sample used to gather the data for this survey elicited the participation of college students, and it is possible they are likely to have different views now than in the coming years when they will transform into homebuyers. Therefore the ideal age range for a study of this type would probably have a minimum age of 25. However, the lack of difference in gender as related to preferences for varying scene types may be indicative that what is being measured is not subject to typical demographic divisions. Especially as the literature supports, appreciation for and benefit from nature interaction spans generations. When it comes to nature appreciation, students can be compared with people of other age groups, and perhaps in this way it is proactive to request the preferences of this age sector as they will be in the market for homes when radical changes to large scale plans would finally come to fruition. For this study, the photographs were split into seven distinct sections that represented properties of which scene elements were being measured. That is, the request for preference was imbedded in a cue to what was going to vary between the scenes (see Table 12). With density for example, it was assumed that people would expect to see variances in yard dimensions and their ratings would therefore be 156
geared to measurement or comparison on the right internal scale. It could be debated that the use of a greater number of scenes to questions ratio measures people’s reactions to the photos, as opposed to responses to direct questions as was suggested by Ewing and others in 2005 (Ewing, et al., 2005). An example of the alternative would be to show people only one example of each scene parameter being measured and requesting specific responses. Question examples could include: “Does this scene make you feel claustrophobic?” or “Does this scene bring back memories or feelings of nostalgia?” The results of the correlation analysis were very interesting and supportive of the literature. Time spent in natural environments is related to having a positive outlook and feeling effective. Privacy is the missing element of most residential landscapes, and it is an essential component to the residential landscape’s capacity to enhance human well-being. “A Small Private Space for Outdoor Fun with Friends and Family” include scene parameters that support human effectiveness as is intended by the Rational Person Model (see sections 2.2 and 3.2 for a discussion). “Lawns involve more Maintenance” and “Higher Density” components show how a scene can be supportive of one feeling that a type of lifestyle can contribute to a greater good. “Habitat Vistas” and “Peace of Mind and the Wilderness” scenes show the recognition of edge habitats and visual screens as important components of nature interaction that benefits human well-being. Finally, that “Privacy and Comfort are Conducive to Meditation” shows how distinct differences between public and private space are very supportive scene elements for well-being. 157
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSIONS
It is the nature of the basic human need for a variety of experiences that is responsible for reducing boredom and fatigue to produce the motivated and balanced life of a healthy well-rounded individual. The elements of the outdoor scene can be related to the rational person model and to the results from the first principal components analysis of this study to prescribe designs for residential developments. Recall that well-being can be based around three fundamental concepts: understanding and exploration, meaningful action and restoration. As the interrelated nature of the human experience involves a need for restoration of both emotional and cognitive functions, both the backyard and front yard spaces can be supportive of all three tenets of well-being. The best method of classification for these scene parameters is in ascribing them to arenas for which they can be experienced, and this involves a distinction between public and private spaces. Residential areas like the backyard, home and dwelling areas are for privacy and personal rejuvenation (Korepla & Ylen, 2007), and “A Small Private Space for Outdoor Fun with Friends and Family” supports human effectiveness. Locomotor access available for way-finding (Kaplan, R., et al., 1989; Herzog & Miller, 1998) can be provided as patios and lawn spaces for comfortable amenities to provide space for relaxation and rejuvenation. Also, as they are associated with privacy and for 158
functionality, they should be in closest proximity to the home structure. These environments promote exploration and understanding because they are comfortable space where the physical world is controlled and predictable, and therefore promote of adventure within the mind. “Privacy and Comfort are Conducive to Meditation” also strongly supports the design of an outdoor room surrounded by a dense visual screen. This visual screen as the “backdrop” removes the horizon from view, but more importantly it provides the depth of field required for extent and mystery. It is the depth of field that ignites exploration. “Habitat Vistas” and “Peace of Mind and the Wilderness” scenes show the recognition of edge habitats and visual screens as important components of nature interaction. For private spaces, visual screens and depth of field are highlighted as most important. This can be accomplished with a visual screen, and an illuminated backdrop would be provided by neighboring open area lawns with similar visual screen surroundings. This design can also support variety in residential densities and typologies in future developments with minimized impacts to environmental quality. Just as with extent, design and planting arrangements can create atmospheres that provide similar functions that are sufficiently rich and coherent such that they can engage the mind and promote exploration, and allow the person to disconnect from one’s life and daily tasks to become submerged in the setting. Forests provide privacy through creating a visual screen, and allow one to feel enclosed by nature and temporarily apart from society, and this directly translates into a visual screen in the 159
backyard setting. Nature has a direct impact on cognitive clarity when it is nestled into urban or human engineered settings, and a direct impact on emotional restoration in wilderness and aesthetic settings. This emotional impact is an intermediary step to revive cognitive clarity (Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R., 1982). The understanding that “Lawns involve more Maintenance than Gardens” and that “Higher Density with a Visual Screen” are ways that a scene can be supportive of one’s feelings that a type of lifestyle can contribute to a greater good. Positive outlook and human effectiveness are integrally linked to an understanding that the residential home space can play a large impact on one’s contribution to sustainability. Property ownership is one of the only ways people can ensure that some part of the world is subject to their own values. The sustainability contributions from responsible home ownership come from planting of native plants and provision of habitat for neighborhood creatures, and from provision of green infrastructure by reduction of non-porous surfaces and collection of rainwater. For the ambitious, propagation of energy, when the site and situation are suitable, are an effort to reduce the overall need for transportation and mass production of food and electrical energy. Time alone in nature or in intimate settings with friends and family cover the need for attending to emotional regulation and restoration, and efforts toward sustainability highlight how one can use private property ownership to contribute to a greater good. It is also important to understand and design for public spaces that can foster interesting and enjoyable cognitive experiences. The public world outside the realm of the private lot begins at the front door, and large expanses of front lawn pave 160
the “road to hell with good intentions.” Olmstead intended that the park-like setting would have positive contributions to the way society interacts, and at first instinct a park in the front yard is a great way to encourage public socializing. However the large distances between the homes and the road have done just the opposite. People are further removed from their neighbors, and treating the front yard as included in the private space realm of public property is very problematic for neighbor relations. Furthermore, maintenance of lawns reduces the possibility of friendly neighbor chat, and produces air and noise pollution on days that people most need quiet in their neighborhood (the weekend). The front yard is a very important realm with great potentialities for contributing to well being. “Public Space and Winding Roads” and “A Small Private Space for Outdoor Fun with Friends and Family” are scene parameters related to feelings of effectiveness because they have potential to provide compatible environments for social interactions. Good neighbor interactions can contribute greatly to feelings of human effectiveness and positive outlook toward society. Furthermore, these spaces hold great potential to offer cognitively stimulating and restorative scenarios that offer balance to the emotionally restorative nature in the backyard. Therefore, the public realm provides opportunity for improving all three facets of well-being. The concept of a neighbor is symbolic to one’s relationship with society in a broader sense. Neighbors are not known on an intimate social level, and most often this separation is healthy. Having people that one doesn’t care for as intimately as 161
friends and family in proximity is a daily reminder of the responsibility of every individual to other people in the greater community (and in some senses, the global community). The symbolic concept of neighbor has been of importance to the health of a society since biblical times. In this way, large front yard and their encouragement of isolationistic views have shown to be very detrimental to society as a whole. A return to smaller front yards in the design of “planned communities” is essential for developers that truly feel their planned use developments are planned communities and not just objects of profit. The smaller front yards are great opportunities to design with legibility (Kaplan, R., et al., 1989; Herzog & Miller, 1998), through the use of Greenbie’s (1975) ratio of 3:1, width to height (or an approximation of, depending on the home height) and short plantings between homes and streets to create a view-shed for people and automobiles. Front yards should be ground covers of one to two foot tall perennial beds instead of mowed lawns. These smaller spaces wouldn’t warrant bringing the mower from the backyard to the front yard. Smaller front yards are not the only methods through which developers can improve the sense of place in their “planned use developments.” As Karmanov & Hamel (2008) found, urban environments are interesting and important for exercise of cognitive functions, and natural settings are beautiful and provide opportunity for positive perceptual experiences. Public locations for socializing with friends and family that hold potential for meeting of new people include office and retail centers, shopping malls, restaurants, pubs, cafes, hotels, libraries and built recreation areas 162
like parks (Hartig, et al., 2003; Korpela & Ylen, 2007). Parameters of these spaces too can be influenced by the urban outdoor room ratio of 3:1 (Greenbie, 1975), and enlivened with the intermixing of nature’s beauty. For many people, it is equally enjoyable to socialize with friends and family in public spaces because of the increased opportunity for potential interaction with new friends. People will only use these spaces for socializing if the environment is equal to their home space in quality, and perhaps this is the greatest need for the designing of public spaces with well-being in mind. Poorly designed public spaces just aren’t used, and, as Jane Jacob’s famous mantra spans the understanding of space through time, that sense of place can only be ignited of its own creation. "Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody… Intricate minglings of different uses in cities are not a form of chaos. On the contrary, they represent a complex and highly developed form of order.” Korpela and Ylen’s (2007) categories of favorite places are based on compatibility (between use needs and design), and show how cognitively exciting scenes can be just as restorative as emotionally regulating places. Built recreation areas and scenic overlooks are designed for relaxation and enjoying a viewshed, but are still considered public spaces. Commercial locations like shops, restaurant, pubs and cafes are similar in function with community service locations like libraries and community meeting places (which has some overlap with parks) provide opportunity for public socializing and opportunities to interact with friends in public places. 163
Responses improved for enjoyment of urban areas with the degree to which green and natural elements are incorporated into the built environment (Tennessen & Cimprich, 1995; Hietanen & Korpela, 2004; Barth, et al., 2008; Karmanov & Hamel, 2008). “Public Space and Winding Roads” and “A Small Private Space for Outdoor Fun with Friends and Family” are scene parameters that support human effectiveness. Good design of public spaces is founded upon legibility and the intertwinement of nature and built components of the scene. Residential landscape general parameters therefore include maximum lot size requirements and minimum plant requirements (quality, quantity and location). More specifically, new design standards for property boundaries include minimum density of visual screen and maximum setback distances for reduced size of front yard. Public spaces should be designed with legibility and compatibility. Private spaces with legibility near the structure and a privacy-generating visual screen surrounding the perimeter encourage nature interaction and introspection. Site suitability is perhaps the greatest need for all developments, new and remodeled, because the process includes consideration of soil quality and contamination of groundwater. Lots should be designed for optimum use before plans are made for the home’s location on the lot, and this includes solar assessment (in regard to lot shape and positioning), soil assessment, and ecological assessment. Furthermore, green infrastructure is referred to as twice green because it provides opportunity to reduce needs for waste disposal, runoff control, and centralized energy propagation. Development of new lots should
164
preserve mature plantings whenever possible, and should include mostly native plantings for wildlife habitats. Having identified the aspects of the residential scenes that provide the greatest benefit to well-being, translating these elements into design standards intended to improve the future homes and residential developments is the goal of the remainder of this conclusion. Initial analysis will examine how new developments can incorporate the recommended scene elements to improve the quality of residential developments. However, there are also applications in making recommendations for improvements to existing home environments. It is hoped that these recommendations will contribute to societal sustainability through improved land use practices.
4.1 New Developments With regard to new developments, drastic design changes would improve future land use practices. New subdivision of land should be done with great care and planning at both the regional and local level. Communities should be prepared for potential investors with desirable locations mapped out as to where the community would benefit the most from a new development (or any other land use type for that matter). Sustainability of new development is rooted in appropriate site selection. Site suitability is a heuristic process that must include multiple factors – everything from property ownership and economic feasibility to habitat use, soil composition, landscape relief and neighboring land uses (McHarg, 1969). The most important step 165
in smart redevelopment in urban or semi–urban areas is to test the soil and ground water and establish documentation procedures along with lot survey notes that provide information to future generations. A major first step toward sustainability planning in any given community is a valid and clear assessment of the land uses within the area, and, just as society needs Environmental Impact Assessments for measuring environmental impact, so too do communities need an equivalent measure for the quality of life or cultural impacts of developments (Arendt, 1994). Society needs to create a sense of place within existing infrastructures to ensure that they maintain as places that people want to care for and reinvest in. “Planning a neighborhood is a participatory act of the community membership and expression of belief about the future of one’s community… an experience in which participants discover new dimensions of being a good neighbor and a good citizen in which ‘to stay’ becomes an adverb of planning,” (Morrish & Brown, 2000). What are the land use needs of the community and the people? What is the character of the land that the people want to preserve? The region can be designed to reflect its intended character because there are wide enough gradations of existing land uses through which people can exercise their desires. For example, if one region prefers to have more parkland and more openspace, then the residents should correspondingly be people that prefer a less dense living style. The sister community would be a proximal counterpart, most likely closer to the urban core in which people prefer more social interaction and had more small scale parks to accommodate the 166
greater need for third places. Also reflected in these neighborhoods are geographic attributes that make each community unique, and in that way the community supports its natural features through its character. This is intended as a metaphoric description, but literal applications or co-incidents do exist. For example, the shores, the woods, the farms, and can extend to the goods produced by the region as in the example of (i.e. wine country). In this way, a major element for consideration in the site selection process is land use as compared to proximal land uses and community provisions. Knowledge of existing uses and missing uses prepares a community to proactively work with potential developers. Regional identity can arise from active participation of the community with the design of the community. One of the most powerful things about redesigning and infilling growth is not working with a blank slate. Communities and developers alike can benefit from proper site selection, because the lots are more desirable to buyers close to amenities and higher densities within walking distance of local amenities improves the success of these amenities. This is the basic concept behind self-sustaining communities (Orians, 1990; Brinkhorst, 1991; Berg & Nycander, 1997; Mitchell, 2000), also referred to as eco-cities (Walter, et al., 1992; Register, 2006). Provision of most necessities locally is the fundamental concept, and one example involves frequent small scale production of food in collaboration with community gardens and proximal neighborhood market. The market is simply space at a neighborhood park or community space accompanied by scheduled times for local people to meet and purchase locally grown foods. In this model, it is hoped that 167
quality will be improved because production scale is small, and fruits and vegetables can ripen on the vine (without the concern of over-ripening during shipping). Furthermore, appropriately related land uses within proximity of one another promote a return to walkable communities. Movement between other communities and the larger metropolitan area will forever necessitate the automobile (or perhaps a light rail substitute when appropriate). This the result of land use decisions past. The benefits of interconnectedness with the automobile will exist with society far into the future, but the degree to which it is necessary can be moderated with smart land use decisions. Some families may only have a heavy duty truck for projects, and others a durable, safe and fuel efficient auto for highway travel, but a small lightweight cruiser, called Zip Cars, for inner city jaunts. City designated areas with automobile weight and size (maximum) restrictions could do wonders to improve the walkability and air quality of central business areas in addition to reducing the amount of necessary non-porous pavement (and related repairs). It is the future planning of walkable areas nestled within larger metropolitan areas that will reduce the need for the automobile. Safe designing of trails and arterial connections so people can choose not to use an automobile when staying within their community for activities will also ensure the safety of those residents who are not automobile capable (the young and old). A community where children can safely walk to school and other activities with playmates that removes the need for “cab driver moms” would be of great desire to most all parents. And for the elderly, a more
168
walkable community removes the “loss of independence” that is currently associated with the loss of a drivers license. Connection of third places could be created through key arterial paths between existing land uses, but future developments should concentrate on effective ways of infilling to ensure future proximity of these land uses. In this way, incorporation of third places into new developments is an essential element of new designs. Within subdivisions, linkages could be run either through the backyard greenways created by back lot perimeter plantings, preservation of mature plantings, or with the return of the traffic calming sidewalk within the new smaller front yards. In all of these scenarios, the use of conservation type natural areas is ideal for providing safe locations for exercise, and these areas should be considered in addition to areas for community gardens, open lawn park-like spaces, and central meeting or commercial areas. Another great way to provide positive third places would be to design into the subdivision a central mixed use area. Community areas, common preserves, and community gardens are examples of non-commercial locations that should be incorporated into designs. The survival of common areas would depend on incorporating multiple styles and densities of residential opportunities or development within proximity to other existing higher density areas as is done in many new European developments (Beatley, 2000; Karmanov & Hamel, 2008). Plats, planned use developments, and subdivisions should include a variety of lot sizes and dwelling
169
types. Increased densities can support effective elements for creating a “sense of place” or “feeling of community.” This design concept is an opportunity to provide quality affordable housing to low income residents, which may even help to bridge the “spatial mismatch” (a problem associated with job locations, poor land use design, low-income people, and lack of transportation). Gradations of varying densities can range from apartments and condos, ¼ acre lots, ½ acre lots, and so-on. Those larger lots, when oriented properly, could bear the “burden” of producing energy (food or electric) for the community, and those people preferring a private lot could still accommodate density as smaller lots with backyard privacy screen plantings. The site suitability concept also applies to all types of residential structures. The house should be built most efficiently into the land and take into account all of the possible ways to create food and energy on site. The home should be built into the landscape to provide an existence characterized by respect and appreciation of the environment, and provide the greatest efficiency for the structure from the landscape.
4.1.1 Front Yard Gardens Just as there are sustainability measures that can be taken for the design of a community at a regional level, so too are there sustainability measures that can be taken at the scale of the individual lot. These sustainability measures will be measured as they overlap with design recommendations for improvement of human 170
well-being.
A primary goal is keeping private outdoor space private, and public
outdoor spaces appropriate for neighbor interaction. In the ideal scenario, new developments can reduce the “minimum” setback requirements or change them to maximum requirements of 25 feet (Greenbie, 1975). Reduction of front yard size allows for greater back yard space without increasing the overall lot size (see Figure 1). This design technique would provide for more intimate front yard and public space interaction, reduce the length of driveway for snow plowing, and increase the sense of community in front yard spaces of residential developments. The way that smaller front yards encourage healthy neighbor interaction is twofold. First, the more intimate setting allows for respectful interaction, and provides a reminder of the benefits of making contributions to a greater good. Front yard socializing creates a sense of community. Residents with more private space were more likely to know and interact with people in the neighborhood (Kearney, 2006). Second, tending a front yard garden is a much more conducive activity to pleasant neighbor interaction than running a lawn mower because the occasional weed pulling in the yard is far less offensive. People mowing lawns are just as lost in their own thoughts as people pulling weeds, but someone is more likely to offer or receive a random neighbor hello when quietly pulling weeds as opposed to operating a lawn mower. Front yard gardens offer ample opportunity for people to display their care for their property, and the aesthetic difference from a lawn encompassing the entirety of the space between the foundation and the sidewalk is quite noteworthy. Furthermore, 171
this design is more conducive to the inclusion of a sidewalk, and the presence of the garden deters people from cutting across areas otherwise not intended for pedestrian traffic. Design to encourage socializing includes smaller front yards to create a more intimate setting and to increase legibility. With two story homes, the smaller front yard can make new developments closer to Greenbie’s ratio (1975), and ranch homes can still offer a comfortable setting in approximation of the ratio. Tall perimeter shrubs and plantings do not extend into the front yard because a view shed for people and automobiles is very important. The shortest plants in the front yard are most proximal to the street, but front yards should be planted with ground covers or one to two foot height perennial beds rather than mowed lawns. Privacy, in lieu of open space, is the most essential component that allows for both small lot sizes and high residential satisfaction. Design for privacy includes backyards with dense visual screens to promote private outdoor space, and the “extra space” comes from shrinking the front yard to enhance public outdoor space.
4.1.2 Backyard Oasis These smaller front yards allow for larger backyard that can properly support private space and nature interaction at home. Larger back yards should be built with perimeter plantings along the lot line (or preservation of mature plants at the time of construction) to provide a visual screen, retard noise, and also to increase the presence of nature in the backyard. The smaller front yards (and shorter plants) set the 172
stage for taller plants in the side and back yards. Plants in the front yard that are the closest to the foundation of the house have small roots compared to the plantings in the design that are further away from the house. Allowing for proper drainage is an essential task of any homeowner as the standards for backfilling (replacement of dirt around a newly poured foundation after the concrete forms are removed) in new home construction is fairly lax, and subject to the knowledge and consideration of the developer. Even a poured wall foundation backfilled with clay, especially when exacerbated by deep, strong roots of large shrubs planted along the structure perimeter, can transfer moisture or even buckle under the wrong hydrostatic pressure conditions (hydrostatic pressure results from ground water and poor drainage near a foundation). Similarly, the plantings along the sides of the house should be large to medium height shrubs planted at a minimum of six feet away from the foundation. Another benefit of properly spacing large plants away from the foundation is a greater exterior sense of space and depth from the inside view from the window. Taller and denser plantings are best used in the backyard to create a visual screen. Large plantings should not be located close to the home perimeter. An ideal scenario for the foundation would be a two to three foot swath of drainage rock along the footing, but this is quite unconventional in regard to traditional landscape styles. Nonetheless, small rooted plants are much easier to salvage that a lawn, large shrub, or tree in the event that the front yard needs to be torn up for infrastructure changes, and in some
173
ways also reduces the possibility of common infrastructure problems that result from large plantings in too close proximity to the structure. The most important result of plant height gradation is the creation of backyard privacy. Benefits of a visual screen include allow for private interaction with friends and nature, provision of privacy, density and a noise barrier, and the fact that different plant types and sizes work best to create the screen also provide habitat for some animals. The visual screen also promotes healthy neighbor relationships (Kearney, 2006). A private backyard space creates an opportunity for stress relief and nature interaction on a daily basis. People report highest satisfaction for lots that directly border nature areas (Kearney, 2006). The perimeter planting should include coniferous trees and other evergreens as they offer the greatest amount of girth for “hedging” together a visual screen, but it is also important to include deciduous trees and shorter deciduous shrubs. Not only are these types of plants in great variety to provide shelter and food for wildlife, but the deciduous shrubs add to the “infill” during summer months when people are most active in their outdoor rooms and in the years when the landscape is young. These shrubs are also essential for creating the depth of field and aesthetic value needed to enhance the visual appreciation. Further, the depth of one’s visual screen can be doubled by the “backyard neighbor’s” visual screen, and communities of visual screens result in ecologically valuable greenways (see Figure 4). Back yards are the best place for mowed lawns primarily because they are away from street storm drains. Use of chemical treatments for lawns should probably 174
be outlawed, but the unlikelihood of such action requires the instigation of a grassroots movement to make people aware of the problems with spreading chemicals on the same lawn people like to roll around and walk barefoot in. This will probably be a more likely challenge than uprooting front lawns for gardens, nonetheless a switch to organic based products should be the very least of steps taken toward change. A nice patch of lawn will maintain itself, even through the summer drought, if properly surrounded by taller species to offer optimum morning sun and early after noon sun to late afternoon shade. This patch of grass should be situated away from the back foundation wall, because a transition zone near the home is essential for functionality. This area provides great opportunity to take advantage of the pleasantries offered by the outdoor room. A sun patio with comfortable seating, an outdoor kitchen and grill station and even an outdoor shower are just some of the amenities that outdoor privacy can provide. These features are best built from porous materials, like porous pavers, and can be surrounded by mid sized plantings in mulched beds for aesthetics and transition into the nature afforded by perimeter plantings. The “intermediary” zone between the patio and outdoor amenities nearest the structure include the lawn and the location for energy propagation, if desired, and is therefore optional. It is for this reason that original survey and demarcation of lot shape should be designed in regard to the azimuth and angle of the sun. If the perimeter plantings at the “back” of the lot are positioned to run in a north south direction, then intensity of the sun’s rays will be maximized in the “intermediary” 175
zone between lots. An easy way to afford all lots this luxury is with the backyard visual screen perimeter planting. Vegetables and energy production require maximization of sunlight, and small animal rearing (chickens or goats for example) requires both sun and shade spaces. Changing the positioning of the house on the lot (or even the shape of the structure) to increase the distance between neighboring homes is a design consideration that could use the landscape to reduce the heating and cooling needs of the home, as greater distance could allow for safe planting of deciduous trees along the south lot line. The leaves in the summer will provide late afternoon shade, and the lack of leaves in the winter let in much needed rays for the full duration of the day. Proper planting distance to prevent root or branch intrusion on the structure can still allow for the proximity of the planting required to provide shading (Thompson & Sorvig, 2000). For wind energy propagation there are some sites that are more suitable than others as some geographies have very distinct wind patterns during certain times of the year. Properties with enough space or perfect site and situation can be planted to create wind tunnels, that harness the movement of wind at needed times for cooling effects (Thompson & Sorvig, 2000). This effect could be exaggerated where appropriate to enhance the productivity of wind turbines for electricity generation on the individual lot. These possibilities are not for every lot, mostly because not all people have an interest in subsistence farming or energy propagation. These functions however warrant slightly larger lots if for no other reason than to accommodate food and 176
energy production, but reduction of negative impacts on neighboring lots is also beneficial (especially if small numbers of livestock are involved). This is the foundation for designing varying densities into new developments, and most likely increasing density as one approaches the central mixed use areas. The energy and fresh produce produced on the “back 40” of the subdivision could collectively sustain the higher densities and community centers. The producers in the community would be repaid their time and effort with the fruits of their own labor, trade with other vegetable producing homeowners, and possible monies from the market. Also, perhaps a system of community dues could afford the labor costs of a resident or two to champion the community garden that kept Saturday’s market plentiful. There are some people that would be just as happy to pay a little more for a nice little lot with a private back yard that contributes to sustainability with energy propagation provided by their neighbors.
4.1.3 All-Around Aesthetics Addressing the aesthetic value of the front yard gardens and the back yard oases may be a bit redundant, as their value is based on their contributions to wellbeing so tightly associated with their aesthetic value. Nonetheless, a brief reiteration of this point should excite any landscape architects put off by the removal of the traditional “foundation plantings with grass to the lot perimeter.” The aesthetic value of mowed lawns that comes from the appearance of being well cared for is easily 177
transferred to a perennial garden in front yard. This is especially true if the front yard is smaller and the garden entirely replaces the front lawn. Larger perimeter plants extend the dense visual screen into the scene, thereby eliminating grass between homes. Framing and depth of field translates well into a dense visual screen by creating scenes that “draw people in” and allow their minds to be adventurous. Design for aesthetics means the whole lot should be treated in the design, not just the beds around the foundation. The height gradation of “tall plants in the back” should be considered in reference to the entire lot, and not just the design of one intricate and small micro-community within the parameters of a foundation planting bed. Overcoming the love of exotics and continuous color from annual plantings may be just as tough of a change as eliminating the use of chemicals for pest control and fertilization. However, there are truly just as many native plants that can behave in nice inter-garden communities so as to reflect tidiness and intention of design. As preferable as natives are to garden creation, it is likely that exotics (perennials, shrubs and ground covers alike) will still hold a presence in these smaller gardens “on display.” Perimeter plantings in the backyard and side yard however should be exclusively constituted as locations to plant natives for improved habitat, as these areas are already geared toward such promotion. A final design consideration worth mentioning is that of growth and maintenance. Proper plant spacing is perhaps the most vital design consideration that can remedy the need for future pest problems. All too often plants are planted too close together because people want to see “lush, full” scenes right away. 178
Unfortunately, landscapes are different than structure construction. Selecting cupboards and countertop colors is a one-time instant gratification type project. Shopping for and designing interior settings is easier than designing the outdoor space because one can see what it will look like once installed and know it will look like that for years to come. Landscapes are inherently opposite from interior features in that their appearance in mature form must be envisioned: they must be designed specifically for what they will look like in 40 years (when they will be fully grown, and filled in). While it will only take five to seven years for a properly planted garden to fill in, there are many different scenes that will exist in the interim years to full maturity. The most imperative aspect of a design is that the larger plantings’ space is properly planned for. Allowing a little space between plants when they’re young is the best way to treat the garden as a staging area for future growth and plant propagation. Many perennials and smaller plants can be moved like furniture to create new garden themes or particular whims of the designer. Also, insects and pests thrive in monoculture plantings that are extremely tight, so this can also be an IPM (integrated pest management) proactive strategy. This is not to say that large groupings of plants should be discouraged, because this is a valuable design technique for aesthetic appeal, but instead an emphasis on the importance of allowing room to grow means designing a young landscape to look “sparse” at first is essential (see Figure 1 in section 2.3.1). Patience is perhaps the strongest virtue a gardener must learn, and this is the most frequently cited value of the garden as a metaphor for life: there will be 179
ups and downs, deaths and births, but if you have the right perspective it will all be beautiful (Murray, 1997). The reward in waiting for the sparse young garden to fill in is the observance of the garden’s evolution as it grows into a community, and the human role of influence in that process. The three figures containing design templates for the concepts intended to include well-being elements into residential lot design are placed at this point for three reasons. One being that many remodeling projects, as the next section shows quite viable for transformation into landscapes providing restorative amenities. The possibility for transformation of existing structures to be more sustainable and supportive of well-being should be at the core of progressive city plans. Second, it is also of note that the recommendations are intended to be general at this point to show how these concepts can fit into any site or situation. The scene elements prescribed by these conclusions can be retrofitted to any landscape, community, and neighborhood. Finally, it is important to note at this point that many of the recommendations to improve the restorative qualities of landscapes have an overlap with the sustainability. Many projects designed to improve well-being will have related benefits toward making the home space more resource efficient. The following three figures exemplify potential ideal installation schema, and resulting mature outdoor spaces.
180
Figure 2. Initial Instillation of New Design for Well-Being
This is a generic design intended to display the separation of plantings d intentionally large to from the foundation. The home size is accommodate outdoor amenities (for example, an additional patio or an atrium). Also, it is important to note that plant height ranges from six inches to 60+ feet from the front of the lot to the back of the lot. The important thing to consider here is that plants are properly spaced upon installation. The spacing is also engineered to maximize resource sustainability of the lot as well. Figure drafted by Margaret-Rose M. Spyker, using Cosmi Software’s 3D Virtual Reality Landscaper.
181
Figure 3. Mature Design for Well-Being
This is a generic design intended to display the separation of plantings from the foundation. The home size is intentionally large to accommodate outdoor amenities (for example, another patio or an atrium). Also, it is important to note that plant height ranges from six inches to 60+ feet from the front of the lot to the back of the lot. The structure is nestled within its setting to promote resource sustainability and positive impacts to the residents’ well-being. The surrounding plant community has filled in and all plants are thriving and the perennials are multiplying healthily as a result of the proper installation. Figure drafted by Margaret-Rose M. Spyker, using Cosmi Software’s 3D Virtual Reality Landscaper.
182
Figure 4. Mature Design with Neighboring Lot
This is a generic design intended to display the greater implications of this progressive design style. In this scenario, the greenway created by the merging of neighboring lot visual screens is shown. Also, how designing for resource sustainability could be optimized at a community level (as one residence is producing electrical energy, and another is producing food energy). It is imperative to note these designs are intended as general in terms of sustainability recommendations, as they are only focused on their overlap with designs for well-being. Figure drafted by Margaret-Rose M. Temkow, using Cosmi Software’s 3D Virtual Reality Landscaper.
183
4.2 Renovation and Redevelopment These features are not exclusive in their application to new developments. What this research, and the literature it contributes to, shows is how current practices of suburban development are not the ideal. More so, that it hasn’t been ideal for quite some time. Retrofitting existing residential environments is much easier than creating future projects in terms of changing methods and standards of practice. In this way, ironically, remodeling is less work than new construction (in other ways, it is much more work). The motto of most residential construction projects has not been “build to last” for almost a century, and developers that spend the extra time and money for quality assurances have, unfortunately, been the exception not the rule. For some homeowners, there is a desire for century old homes that likely stems from the convenient central location, an attraction to the charm of older architectural styles, and potentiality from remodeling subsidies in historic and renaissance districts. Many of the older homes available for renovation and habitation have maintenance and wiring issues that have not yet been brought up to modern codes. A good example of a code established as a benefit to the industry is the “16 on center” rule for interior wall stud locations (which ensures the distance between studs within walls). Codes aren’t the only way that home developments have been standardized over the years, and landscaping trends have standardized out of lack of interest as opposed to increased investigation of the “right” way. Landscape architects, when 184
they are even contacted for new development construction, frequently adhere to designing styles for homes that are trapped in the current “foundation planting, grass to the lot perimeter, our neighborhood is a park” paradigm. Perhaps it is because landscape architects haven’t found a way to sell developers on investing more into the landscaping, that many developers sell homes without landscaping, or, at the bare minimum, wrongfully perpetuate the foundation planting problem and toss some grass seed around and call it a day. Some sites, after backfill, aren’t even raked for preparation of proper lawn installation. Landscapes, outdoor rooms or other options are often not included on the “custom options” list provided by builders to homeowners, and in this way they are clearly an afterthought (if they are thought of by the builder at all). A good example of how landscapes as an after-thought come from “foundation plantings” (shrubs planted adjacent to the structure perimeter). This has become less of an issue since the advent of poured concrete foundations, but even those who have had to dig up their yard because tree roots have migrated into their city water pipes can attest to the power of plant roots (and a major reason to keep tall trees and large plantings in the side back yard locations). Traditional species for foundation plantings include the most common Yews (also spelled Ewe; Taxus canadensis), Junipers (numerous varieties are used from genus Juniperus of the Cupressaceae family), Arborvitaes (Thuja canadensis, also of the Cupressaceae family) and Boxwoods (Buxus sempervirens and Buxus microphylla) although numerous other coniferous shrubs and small trees have been planted along 185
foundations over the years. The reason for the almost exclusive use of these species is their ability to allow frequent trimmings of their green exterior, without exposing the interior branches to create hedges (gaps in hedges expose interior brown twig appearance), and maintenance of strict geometric formations. The ease at which they were controlled and manipulated into a hedge that ever so neatly assisted the visual transition from the hard lines of the structure to the soft rolling expanse of the lawn made them irresistible to landscape architects nation-wide. What was not foreseen was the incredible force and strength of coniferous roots which attack and invade foundations and plumbing systems. Furthermore, because of the need for instant gratification, young plants were placed far too close to each other and to the foundation causing a greater risk to soil displacement and increased gaps for water to collect, expand, and retain moisture. These functions are integral to the survival of the plant, but are fatal to cinder block footings. This is just one example of how infrastructure repairs will become and may be already necessary for many of the structures built between 1940 and 1980, and even some homes younger than that. Also, many homes were once country suburbs are now within the jurisdiction of city utilities (like water, sewer and gas) as a result of the city sprawling beyond or infilling around these communities. This may be a good thing because septic tanks converted to sewer in high density areas, utility upgrades and replacements of degraded infrastructure all provide prime opportunities to change the character of the existing residential environment. The examination of how existing residential landscapes can be transformed will include four different scales of 186
analysis: urban, first ring suburban, second ring suburban and exurban. Because of the nature of the spread of sprawl and the resulting uneven spatial form, suburban “rings” will be differentiated by their general lot size and not by their proximity to other metropolitan features. There are great challenges in working with what has already been built. One of the predominant mottos of sustainable landscape construction is to “keep healthy sites healthy, and heal injured sites” (Thompson & Sorvig, 2000). An interesting and important note about remodeling projects is that many of them require the use of lowimpact tools and creativity to access them and make, in some cases, drastic changes. New site construction workers would barely use shovels or wheelbarrows, because the area is open enough for the use of large dirt moving equipment. However, even in new construction situations, these machines create an unnecessary packing of the dirt that later proves problematic for the new residents of the plant community (grass especially has trouble growing on compacted soil). For remodel jobs, avoiding destruction of desirable landscape features already in place (patios, fences and even existing hedgerows that are desirable can all be features obstructing the use of large machinery) is something to be avoided (Thompson & Sorvig, 2000). This forces the use of ingenuity, low impact methods, and the importance of a thorough planning process. The fundamental start of a reconstruction project is site analysis. As with new constructions, the lot’s shape should be examined with regard to the lot’s declination to the sun, and the presence of wind channels or opportunities to create them. 187
Furthermore, an ideal situation for used-home buyers would be a full home inspection of facilities and services (does the house have a well, and if so what is the quality of the water, and is city water is available if well water is questionable, etc). Renovations on the house are inevitable: it’s best to fix the major problems before the cosmetic problems but sometimes those opportunities arise together. Tearing up the front yard is a great opportunity to reduce the amount of mowing needed, collect more rainwater and create a cozier home entrance. Front yard gardens fit very well into remodel projects, and especially when infrastructure repairs are needed.
4.2.1 Front Yard Gardens and Curb Appeal Large plantings should not be located close to the home perimeter. An ideal scenario for the foundation would be a two to three foot swath of drainage rock along the footing, but this is quite unconventional in regard to traditional landscape styles. Some first and second ring suburban developments sport this new style with garden “islands” in the front yard grass that separate the rock strip along the foundation from the street out of necessity. These homes often have undergone restorative work to the street facing facades of their footings, and replanting shrubs above a problem is illogical. Other residents have voluntarily opted for the front yard garden out of a desire for a new aesthetic. Aged perimeter plantings are not only undesirable for the foundation, they are also indicative of another time and other ideals. Young people 188
moving into older (first and second ring suburbs) see much of the existing design as dated and are ready for a creative change. Unfortunately, all too often, the solution is to replace old perimeter plantings with new exotic varieties. Essentially they replicate the same design layout that has been used since the previous designer: perimeter plantings and mowed grass to the street. For some, this seems sufficient as it is different, and some even find nature enjoyment if their new plantings in some way attract wildlife. The best renovation style for urban, first and second ring subdivisions is the installation of the front yard garden. Sod removal is easily accomplished with the use of a sod removal machine, and the best location for displaced sod is turned over (buried) beneath the new garden to serve as future in-ground compost. Not only is tending to a front yard garden more conducive to positive neighbor interactions, but installing a front yard garden is a great way to instigate curiosity and sensation through the community. Sod removal can make for an entertaining event. It is likely that every neighbor will stop over during the construction of a front yard garden to inquire on the nature of the changes. The first step in any remodeling job is the location of underground wires, lines and pipes. Not only is a shovel through a cable wire an unnecessary inconvenience, but avoiding the planting of large shrubs or trees over infrastructure prevents future heartache from unnecessary plant removal if future problems occur (and even prevents some by keeping big roots away from water lines). Extending the garden away from the perimeter of the house serves to remedy the replication of the large 189
root/foundation problem. Considerations for inclusion of hardscapes (path to street, larger patio, etc.) should also be of consideration early in the process. The decision to include or keep large shrubs in the front yard landscape is entirely determined by the spatial parameters of the front lawn size. Urban and some first ring front yards are usually 10 – 40 feet between the structure and street, usually from 50 to 150 foot width lots, and most often have a sidewalk that cuts through the space nearer to the street. Ownership and maintenance of that little strip of space varies upon area ordinances. Subdivision gardens of only one to two foot height are a necessity for their desirable root size in these tight locations. A taller tree to create a frame around the house front is tempting for optimizing aesthetics, and in many cases is a desirable feature, but plants of this size should be given, at minimum, the girth of their limbs (for deciduous use the expected girth of the crown at maturity) at mature growth size plus two feet. Again, consideration of underground utilities is an important factor in deciding whether or not to use a large plant(s) as a central feature in the front yard garden. Backyard perimeters are the ideal location for satisfaction of a desire for large shrub plantings. Some of the most beautiful front yard gardens create a similar “framing” effect using shorter ground cover type short plants with two to four foot height soft root perennials closer to the foundation to offset six to twelve inch height plants closer to the street. Second and third ring suburbs are likely to have front yard lots between 200300 feet in width with a 50-100 foot setback from the road, and exurban subdivisions can have front yards with a setback of more than 200 feet from the road. This larger 190
lot size is more receptive to the inclusion of larger shrub features in the front yard garden, because there is space to ensure they are not planted too close to the foundation or above any underground infrastructure. Properly sited tall shrubs can create good “curb appeal” by framing the structure and as a taller backdrop to create a height gradation to enhance depth of field within the garden shapes. Some progressive styles use center (to ensure drainage is not unnecessarily directed toward the footings) yard berms (dirt mounds) to raise the base of larger shrubs to enhance their appearance, and also to cut noise from the road. This height gradation also serves to keep the shortest plants along the roadside (not to mention the most salt tolerant) to maintain a proper line of sight for viewing pedestrians and traffic when driving out of one’s driveway. The lots with front yards of this size also have enough room to add in sidewalks, but it is likely that most would not appreciate the added maintenance and liability to their property, much less the cost of installation. To the contrary, perhaps one idea could be to widen the roads with porous surfaces (ideally, crushed rock to maximize drainage off of the adjacent impervious road surface), that could serve as parking spaces along subdivision roadsides and traffic calming technique if necessary. If continuous enough, the parking/drainage swaths could serve to provide pedestrian passage. Many existing subdivisions are in dire need of neighborhood parks, or places to walk “to” in the neighborhood, and an empty lot could serve to improve resident’s life quality and support community.
191
4.2.2 Backyard Oasis – Already Halfway There The beauty of remodeling an existing backyard landscape is the presence of mature shrubs and trees. While the presence of mature shrubs was a hindrance for the front yard (and related infrastructure) they are now a blessing for providing some instant gratification in the backyard. Much of the aforementioned designs (new construction and front yard remodels suggest installation of new young shrubs) involve new installations and “baby” plants. The homeowner of those landscapes must be extremely patient, but earns the joy of watching young gardens grow into beautiful plant communities. With the backyard scenes however, there is instant gratification from designing with mature shrubs, because mature plants can be moved! Even the existing Yews and Junipers (regardless of height, as there are boulder carts and low impact tools that can help people tackle interesting remodels in unique locations with limited access) can be moved from the foundation to begin the formation of the backyard visual screen. Once old Yews and Junipers are no longer near the rigid shapes of the structure and foundation they will no longer need to be trimmed so tightly, and the quirky natural state of the plants will fit nicely into informal areas. This idea works against the provision of all native plantings to create a visual screen, but, as with most remodel jobs, the majority of onsite materials that can be re-used has benefits. The major reason for trying to salvage these plants as they are removed from their front yard location is that plants are expensive, and mature plantings (for example hiring a 192
tree mover to plant a perimeter of 15 ft tall conifers along a back hedgerow, may be impossible for the truck to access) provide instant gratification of a moderate visual screen. The backyard hedge is a great location for placing salvaged plants. In these areas, plants can be nursed before planting them in their long term locations in more conspicuous locations in the garden. Gaps in hedgerows could lead to paths within greenways of substantial girth. The design possibilities for remodeling existing subdivisions are virtually limitless. And many involve the creation of a patio or some other structure as a base for the outdoor room. This extension would reduce the amount of lawn space to mow, and can also be surrounded by shrubs, hedges or perennial gardens to enhance the feeling of privacy and improve the aesthetics of the view from the patio. For some lots the location of a patio, garden or other amenity may be directed by the sun and shade spots resulting from existing mature plantings. In this way, the site and situation of every potential backyard oasis remodeling project is unique. Existing sun spots in backyard areas, following a simple soil test, can determine the type and location of vegetable gardens and fruit trees. For some lots, when appropriate, generation of alternative energy can be done on existing lots, but these scenarios require the examination or modification of existing zoning and land use codes. Soil tests are commonly overlooked by homeowners, but can prove to be essential when propagation of food is involved. Sites with contaminated soils should be investigation for their potential in producing wind or solar energy.
193
4.3 Closing Remarks
The greatest contribution of this study is the focus on incorporating the restorative benefits of nature into human environments, and specifically the residential environment. The establishment that restorative qualities measured in nature can be translated into the residential environment is of great importance for reconnecting people with nature and promoting sustainability. Current practices of residential landscape development are not the ideal for either resource sustainability or for human quality of life and well-being. The residential environment is the best place for rejuvenation from and balance to high stress lives, and this can be amplified and optimized through incorporation of restorative designs, improved design for social interaction, and the inclusion of small scale resource production. Another positive contribution is the many possibilities for future research that have arisen from this study. The first future outcome would be the creation of site specific suggestions for different designs and plant lists for installation of restorative elements into a variety of new construction and remodel sites. Further analysis could lead to a closer examination of the overlap between restorative the layout and the sustainability elements that have been recommended in the resource sustainability literature. Alternatives could include variations in the lots’ solar orientation, climate, common wind patterns, soil and hydrologic composition, and neighboring land uses.
194
A slight twist on the site specific modeling project would be creation of a hypothetical regional footprint resulting from designing multiple contiguous lots with the well-being techniques. This analysis could be conducted at multiple scales from the neighborhood to the greater metropolitan region in search of the greater implications for spatial form. The goal here would be to find ways of effectively coupling land uses for greater regional quality of life, and in addition to visualize the greater incorporation of plant varieties in built areas. Another angle for departure from this research would be to further the effectiveness of the visual preference tools for more specific studies on scene element variations. One example could be to look into preferences for different types of “front yard” and other “residential social space” environments under the new “well-being lens.” This would involve examining the specific elements that are attractive in front yard gardens, as well as successful and unsuccessful cases to help further more transitions from lawns. Another line could pursue the psychology of depth cues and feelings of density in search of specific structure spacing in residential environments. Here too an analysis of successful and unsuccessful tactics used in other cases to incorporate multiple residential typologies in close proximity. The importance of nature in the human environment has been clearly established by a variety of sources in the literature. The next challenge is establishing viable methods for transforming these elements into new constructions and remodeling projects.
195
Appendix A Photographs from Principle Component Analysis One: The Nature of the Residential Scene Note that all photographs used in this survey and analysis were collected and assembled by Margaret-Rose M. Spyker.
196
HABITAT VISTAS
Principle Component 1: Habitat Vistas
Variable
N
Mean
Std. Dev.
Alpha
35
169
4.12
1.29
0.895
36
169
4.06
1.184
0.874
37
168
3.88
1.252
0.884
41
169
3.99
1.205
0.809
197
PUBLIC SPACE AND WINDING ROADS
Principle Component 2: Public Space and Winding Roads
198
Mean
Std. Dev.
Alpha
169
3.2
1.021
0.745
5
169
3.62
1.17
0.79
8
169
2.98
1.049
0.774
9
169
3.21
1.076
0.807
10
168
3.24
1.024
0.671
Variable
N
4
PEACE OF MIND AND THE WILDERNESS
Principle Component 3: Peace of Mind and the Wilderness
Mean
Std. Dev.
Variable
N
Alpha
43
169
3.7
1.243
0.777
45
169
3.9
1.233
0.732
46
169
3.63
1.252
0.833
52
169
3.72
1.059
0.717 199
PRIVACY AND COMFORT ARE CONDUCIVE TO MEDITATION
Principle Component 4: Privacy and Comfort are Conducive to Meditation
Mean
Std. Dev.
Variable
N
Alpha
53
169
2.44
1.238
0.775
54
169
2.07
1.053
0.665
55
169
3.02
1.16
0.851
56
169
2.83
1.268
0.782 200
HIGHER DENSITY WITH A VISUAL SCREEN
Principle Component 5: Higher Density with a Visual Screen 29
31
32
34
N
169
169
169
169
Mean
2.69
3.05
3.17
2.72
Std. Dev.
1.306
1.197
1.148
1.235
Alpha
0.767
0.72
0.798
0.708
Variable
201
LAWNS INVOLVE MORE MAINTENANCE THAN GARDENS
Principle Component 6: Lawns Involve more Maintenance than Gardens
Variable
N
Mean Std. Dev. Alpha
21
169
3.51
1.323
0.725
23
169
3.37
1.34
0.748
25
169
3.31
1.282
0.82 202
A SMALL PRIVATE SPACE FOR OUTDOOR FUN WITH FRIENDS AND FAMILY
Principle Component 7: A Small Private Space for Outdoor Fun with Friends and Family
Mean
Std. Dev.
Variable
N
Alpha
12
169
2.76
1.157
0.726
15
169
2.69
1.007
0.736
16
169
2.83
1.155
0.8 203
Appendix B Thumbnails of Survey Slideshow
204
A
C
B
A
D
C
B
D
Neighbor Interaction (Questions 3 - 10) Please rate the following slides on how much interaction with your neighbors you would expect if you lived on these properties 1= No interaction 3= Moderate interaction 5= Excessive interaction ** Use 2 and 4 for “in between” feelings ** Make sure you start this section on question 3
3
4
205
5
6
7
9
8
Time outside with friends and family (Questions 11 – 17) If this were your backyard, how you would feel with people playing and relaxing at the same time 1= I would need more space 3= Exact amount of space 5= Too much space ** Use 2 and 4 for “in between” feelings **Make sure you start this section on question 11
10
206
11
12
13
14
15
16
207
Maintenance (Questions 18-26) Examples are lawn mowing, vegetable propagation, and shrub pruning. Rate each scene as how much maintenance you think would be required to keep the scene looking nicely if you lived here. 1= Minimal 3= Moderate 5= Excessive ** Use 2 and 4 for “in between” feelings ** Make sure you start this section on question 18
17
18
19
20
21
208
22
23
24
25 25
Density (Questions 27-34) How comfortable would you feel with the distance between the houses if you lived here 1= Not at all 3= Somewhat 5= Very ** Use 2 and 4 for “in between” feelings ** Make sure you start this section on question 27
2626
209
2727
2929
3131
210
2828
3030
3232
3333
3434
Nature Interaction (Questions 35-42) I would expect to view a variety of plants and animals if these scenes were my view from home 1= Strongly disagree 3= Neutral 5= Strongly agree ** Use 2 and 4 for “in between” feelings ** Make sure you start this section on question 35
3535
3636
211
37
3838
3939
4040
4141
Peace of Mind (Questions 43-52) Spending time in this place would help me to relax my mind 1= Strongly disagree 3= Neutral 5= Strongly agree ** Use 2 and 4 for “in between” feelings ** Make sure you start this section on question 43
4242
212
4343
4444
4545
4646
4747
4848
213
4949
5151
5050
5252
Meditation (Questions 53-58 ) Spending time in this place would help me to feel more enlightened 1= Strongly disagree 3= Neutral 5= Strongly agree ** Use 2 and 4 for “in between” feelings ** Make sure you start this section on question 53
53
214
5454
5555
5656
5757
5858
215
Appendix C Instruction Sheet used by Survey Participants
216
217
The Nature Experience at Home For the first two slides, select which scene best represents how you prefer to spend time outside 1. 2.
A A
B B
C C
D D
Instructions: The slides will automatically advance after 5 seconds, so the survey will move along quickly. Just answer on your gut reaction, and you should be able to keep up. *Each section of slides will be separated by an instruction slide that corresponds with the sections on this sheet. I will not advance the instruction slide until everyone is ready for the upcoming section. *Use this sheet to remind you of the values of 1-5 for each section. *Be sure to keep track of what number slide you begin each section with so that if your answers somehow become mismatched you can just proceed from the next corresponding number. *Think about every picture as if it were your backyard. Section 1 – Neighbor Interaction (Questions 3 – 10) Please rate the following slides on how much interaction with your neighbors you would expect if you lived on these properties 1= No interaction 3= Moderate interaction 5= Excessive interaction ** Use 2 and 4 if you for “in between” feelings ** Make sure you start this section on question 3 Section 2 - Time outside with friends and family (Questions 11 – 17) If this were your backyard, how you would feel with people playing and relaxing at the same time 1= I would need more space 3= Exact amount of space 5= Too much space ** Use 2 and 4 for “in between” feelings **Make sure you start this section on question 11
218
Section 3 - Maintenance (Questions 18-26) Examples are lawn mowing, vegetable propagation, and shrub pruning. Rate each scene as how much maintenance you think would be required to keep the scene looking nicely if you lived here. 1= Minimal 3= Moderate 5= Excessive ** Use 2 and 4 for “in between” feelings ** Make sure you start this section on question 18 Section 4 - Density (Questions 27-34) How comfortable would you feel with the distance between the houses if you lived here 1= Not at all 3= Somewhat 5= Very ** Use 2 and 4 for “in between” feelings ** Make sure you start this section on question 27 Section 5 - Nature Interaction (Questions 35-42) I would expect to view a variety of plants and animals if these scenes were my view from home 1= Strongly disagree 3= Neutral 5= Strongly agree ** Use 2 and 4 for “in between” feelings ** Make sure you start this section on question 35 Section 6 - Peace of Mind (Questions 43-52) Spending time in this place would help me to relax my mind 1= Strongly disagree 3= Neutral 5= Strongly agree ** Use 2 and 4 for “in between” feelings ** Make sure you start this section on question 43 Section 7 - Meditation (Questions 53-58 ) Spending time in this place would help me to feel more enlightened 1= Strongly disagree 3= Neutral 5= Strongly agree 219
** Use 2 and 4 for “in between” feelings ** Make sure you start this section on question 53 The last few questions are related to background information about the participants First: at the bottom of the scantron where it says “Instructor” please write in the Zip Code of your residence when you were growing up. 59. What is your age? A. 18-20 B. 21-23 C. 23-25 D. 25 or older 60. Do you work outside of being a student? A. Yes B. No (if No, skip to question 63) 61. Do you work on or off campus? A. On campus (if you work on campus, skip to question 63) B. Off campus C. Both 62. In what category would you place your occupation? A. Service industry (waitress, bartender, retail shop, etc.) B. Trade industry (construction, landscaping, etc.) C. Finance industry (banking, insurance, etc.) D. Other 63. What is your gender? A. Female B. Male Nature For the following questions, please answer 1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree 64. I enjoy working in the soil 65. I enjoy lawn mowing 66. I like to see wildlife 67. I like to see wildlife in my yard 68. I like to be active when outdoors 69. I like to sit and relax outdoors 70. I do not like to be outdoors For the following questions, please indicate how frequently you do each of the following 1 for most frequent and 5 for least frequent 71. Spend time outdoors 72. Garden
220
73. Bike or jog in the neighborhood 74. Take walks or hikes 75. Watch TV 76. Watch squirrels, birds, or other animals 77. Enjoy nature 78. Spend time with pets 79. Reading, music, hobbies, etc. Feelings Considering the last few days, how often have you felt: (1-not at all ; 5-very much) 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87.
everything was an effort you have a good sense of where you're going not sure what's important any more that life is interesting and challenging satisfied with how things have been going lately it's hard to make up your mind you were losing or misplacing things energetic and excited about what you are doing
88. 89. 90. 91.
like you are not getting much accomplished on top of the world it's difficult to finish things you have started able to get really absorbed in a task
92. 93. 94. 95.
you were making mistakes making decisions is difficult you can keep your mind on what you are doing you were jumping to conclusions
221
Appendix D HSIRB Approval Letter
222
223
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alton, D., Adab, P., Roberts, L. & Barrett, T. (2006). Relationship Between Walking Levels and Perceptions of the Local Neighborhood Environment. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 92, 29-33. doi: 10.1136/adc.2006.100826. Andersen, R. (2007). On Responsibility in the Private Sector. Rethinking Development - Proceedings of Second International Conference on Gross National Happiness Antrop, M. (2006). Sustainable Landscapes: Contradiction, Fiction or Utopia? Landscape and Urban Planning, 75, 187-197. Arendt, R. (1994). Rural By Design. Chicago: American Planning Association. Ashmun, B. B. (2000). Garden Retreats: Creating an Outdoor Sanctuary. Vancouver: Raincoast Books. Banister, D., Watson, S. & Wood, C. (1997). Sustainable Cities: Transport, Energy and Urban Form. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 23(1), 125-143. Barth, D., Eysenbach, M., Harnik, P., Lewis, M. & Springate, L. (2008). From Recreation to Re-Creation: New Directions in Parks and Open Space System Planning. Chicago: American Planning Association. Beatley, T. (2000). Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Beatley, T. & Newman, P. (2009). Green Urbanism Down Under: Learning from Sustainable Communities in Australia. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Berg, P. G. & Nycander, G. (1997). Sustainable Neighborhoods – A Qualitative Model for Resource Management in Communities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 39, 117-135. Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to Environments Helps Restore Attentional Capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249–259. Bexton, W.H., Heron, W & Scott, T.H. (1954). Effects of Decreased Variation in the Sensory Environment. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 8, 70-76. 224
Bonner, K. (2002). Understanding Placemaking: Economics, Politics and Everyday Life in the Culture of Cities. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, Institute of Urban Studies, 11, 1-16. Bonnes, M., Uzell, D. Carrus, G. & Kelay, T. (2007). Inhabitants’ and Experts’ Assessments of Environmental Quality for Urban Sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63 (1), 59-78. Bormann, H. F., Balmori, D. & Geballe, G.T. (2001). Redesigning the American Lawn. New York: Yale University Press. Brinkhorst, L. (1991). Planning for Sustainable Development. Town and Country, 60 (1), 8-16. Cairney, J. (2005). Housing Tenure and Psychological Well-Being During Adolescence. Environment and Behavior, 37, 552-564. Chang, C., Hammitt, W. E., Chen, P. Machnik L. & Su, W. (2008). Psycho physiological Responses and Restorative Values of Natural Environments in Taiwan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85, 79-84. Cheung, C. (1997). Toward a Theoretically Based Measurement Model of the Good Life. Journal of General Psychology, 158 (2), 200-215. Chiras, D. D. & Reganold, J. P. (2005). Natural Resource Conservation. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Clayton, S. (2007). Domesticated Nature: Motivations for Gardening and Perceptions of Environmental Impact. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 215-224. Colding, J., Lundberg J. & Folke, C. (2006). Incorporating Green-area User Groups in Urban Ecosystem Management. Ambio, 35 (5), 237-244. Crompton, J. L. (1979). Motivations of Pleasure Vacation. Annals of Tourism Research, 6, 408-424. Daly, H. E. (2006). Population, Migration and Globalization. Ecological Economics, 59, 187-190. Dann, G. (1977). Anomie, Ego-enhancement and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 4, 184-194. Diamond, J. (2003). Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W.W. Norton. 225
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective Well-Being: The Science of Happiness and a Proposal for a National Index. American Psychologist, 55 (1), 34-43. Downs, R.M., & Stea, D. (1977). Maps in Minds. New York: Harper and Row. Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E. & Speck, J. (2000). Suburban Nation. New York: North Point Press. Evans, A. S. (2006, Winter). Promoting Gross National Happiness in Bhutan Through Her Rich Oral Traditions. Journal of Bhutan Studies, 15. Ewing, R., King, M. R., Raudenbush, S. & Clemente, O. J. (2005, summer). “Turning Highways into Main Streets: Two Innovations in Planning Methodology.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 71 (3), 269-282. Farr, D. (2008). Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design With Nature. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons. Formann, R. T. T. (1995). Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscape and Regions. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Fried, M. (1984). The Structure and Significance of Community Satisfaction. Population and Environment, 7, 61-86. Geogheagan, J. (2002). The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use. Land Use Policy, 19, 91-98. Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental Psychology and Sustainable Development: Expansion, Maturation, and Challenges. Journal of Social Issues, 63 (1), 199212. Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, A. & Öhrström, E. (2007). Noise and Well-Being in Urban Residential Environments: The Potential Role of Perceived Availability to Nearby Green Areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83, 115-126. Gindroz, R. (2003). The Urban Design Handbook: Techniques and Working Methods. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Gowdy, J. (2007, February). Avoiding Self-Organized Extinction: Toward a CoEvolutionary Economics of Sustainability. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14 (1), 27-36. Grahn, P. & Stigdotter, U.A. (2003). Landscape Planning and Stress. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 2, 1-18. 226
Grant, J., Manuel P. & Joudrey, D. (1996). “A Framework for Planning Sustainable Residential Landscapes.” Journal of American Planning Association, Summer, 62 (3), 331-344. Greenbie, B. B. (1974). Social Territory, Community Health and Urban Planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 40, 74-87. Greenbie, B. B. (1975). Problems of Scale and Context in Assessing a Generalized Landscape for Particular Persons. In E.H. Zube, R.O. Brush and J. G. Fabos (eds.) Landscape Assessment. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross. Hammitt, W. E. (2000). The Relation Between Being Away and Privacy in Urban Forest Recreation Environments. Environment and Behavior, 32, 521-540. Hartig, T. & Evans, G.W. (1993). “Psychological Foundations of Nature Experience” in T. Gärling and R.G. Golledge (Editors), Behavior and Environment: Psychological and Geographical Approaches New York, North-Holland. Hartig, T., Evans, G.W., Jamner, L.D., Davis, D. S. & Gärling, T. (2003). Tracking Restoration in Natural and Urban Field Settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109-123. Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G. & Bowler, P. A. (2001). Psychological Restoration in Nature as a Positive Motivation for Ecological Behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33, 590-667. Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G. W. & Gärling, T. (1997). A Measure of Restorative Quality in Environments. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 14, 175-194. Hartig, T., Mang M. & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative Effects of Natural Environment Experiences. Environment and Behavior, 23, 3-26. Hietanen, J. K., Klemettilä, T., Kettunen J. E. & Korpela, K. M. (2007). What is a Nice Smile Like That Doing in a Place Like This? Automatic Affective Responses to Environments Influence the Recognition of Facial Expressions. Psychological Research, 71, 539–552. Hietanen, J. K. & Korpela, K. M. (2004). Do Both Negative and Positive Environmental Scenes Elicit Rapid Affective Processing? Environment and Behavior. 36, 558 -577. Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M., Fountaine, K. A., & Knotts, D. J. (1997). Reflection and Attentional Recovery as Distinctive Benefits of Restorative Environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 67-82. 227
Herzog, T. R., Kaplan S. & Kaplan, R. (1976). The Prediction of Preference for Familiar Urban Places. Environment and Behavior, 8, 627 – 650. Herzog, T. R. & Kropscott, L. 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. Herzog, T. R. & Miller, E. J. (1998). The Role of Mystery in Perceived Danger and Environmental Preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 429 – 449. Herzog, T. R. & Strevey, S. J. (2008). Contact with Nature, Sense of Humor and Psychological Well-Being. Environment and Behavior, 1-30. Hillman, J. (1995). A Psyche the Size of the Earth: A Psychological Foreword. In Ecopsychology T. Rozak, M. Gomes and A. Kanner (eds.). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Hopkins, R. (2008). The Transition Handbook: From Oil Dependency to Local Resilience. United Kingdom: Green Books. Huggett, R. J. (2004). Fundamentals of Biogeography. London: Routledge. International Union for Conservation of Nature (1980). World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, with United Nations Environmental Programme, and World Wildlife Fund. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books. Jacobs, P. (1986). Sustaining Landscapes: Sustaining Societies. Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 349-358. Jackson, K. T. (1985). Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press. James, W. (1892). Psychology: The Briefer Course. New York: Collier Books (reprinted 1962, 1985, 2001). Jim, C.Y. & Chen, W. Y. (2006). Recreation-Amenity and Contingent Valuation of Urban Greenspaces in Guangzhou, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75, 81-96.
228
Joye, Y. (2007). Architectural Lessons From Environmental Psychology: The Case of Biophilic Architecture. Review of General Psychology, 11 (4), 305-328. Kaplan, R. (1973). Some Psychological Benefits of Gardening. Environment and Behavior, 5, 145-152. Kaplan, R. (1985). The Analysis of Perception via Preference: A Strategy for Studying How the Environment is Experienced. Landscape Planning, 12, 161176. Kaplan, R. (2001). The Nature of the View from Home: Psychological Benefits. Environment and Behavior, 33, 507-542. Kaplan, R. & Austin, M. E. (2003). Out in the Country: Sprawl and the Quest for Nature Nearby. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 235-243. Kaplan, R. Austin, M. E. & Kaplan, S. (2004). Open Space Communities. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70 (3), 300-312. Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York. Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (2005). Preference, Restoration and Meaningful Action in the Context of Nearby Nature. In Barlett, P. F. (Ed), Urban Place: Reconnecting With the Natural World. Cambridge: MIT Press. Kaplan, R., Kaplan S. & Austin, M. E. (2008). Factors Shaping Local Land Use Decisions: Citizen Planners’ Perceptions and Challenges. Environment and Behavior, 40, 40-71. Kaplan, R., Kaplan S. & Brown, T. (1989). “Environmental Preference: A Comparison of Four Domains of Predictors.” Environment and Behavior, vol. 21, pp 509 – 530. Kaplan, R., Kaplan S. & Ryan, R. L. (1998). With People in Mind. Washington D. C.: Island Press. Kaplan, S. (1979). Perceptions and Landscape: Conceptions and Misconceptions. Submitted to the National Conference on Applied Techniques for Analysis and Management of the Visual Resource, Incline Village, NV; April 23-25. Kaplan, S. (1995). The Restorative Effects of Nature: Toward an Integrated Framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.
229
Kaplan, S. (2001). Meditation, Restoration, and the Management of Mental Fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33, 480-506. Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (Eds.). (1978). Humanscape: Environments for people. Belmont, CA: Duxbury (Republished by Ann Arbor, MI: Ulrich's, 1982). Kaplan, S. & Kaplan, R. (1982). Cognition and environment: Functioning in an Uncertain World. New York: Praeger (Republished by Ann Arbor, MI: Ulrich's, 1989). Kaplan, S. & Peterson, C. (1993). Health and Environment: A Psychological Analysis. Landscape and Urban Planning, 26, 17-23. Karmanov, D. & Hamel, R. (2008). Assessing the Restorative Potential of Contemporary Urban Environment(s): Beyond the Nature Versus Urban Dichotomy. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86, 115–125. Kearney, A. R. (2006). “Residential Development Patterns and Neighborhood Satisfaction: Impacts of Density and Nearby Nature.” Environment and Behavior, 38, 112-139. Kellert, S. R. (1997). Kinship to Mastery. Washington D. C.: Island Press. Kellert, S. R. & Wilson E. O. (Eds.). (1993). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington D. C.: Island Press. Kelly, E. D. & Becker, B. (2000). Community Planning: An Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Kermath, B. (2007). Why Go Native? Landscaping for Biodiversity and Sustainability Education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8 (2), 210-223. Koole, S. L. & Jostman, N. B. (2004). Getting a Grip on Your Feelings: Effects of Action Orientation and External Demands on Intuitive Affect Regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 974–990. Koptis, E., McConnell V. & Walls, M. (2007). The tradeoff between private lots and public open space in subdivisions at the urban-rural fringe. Korpela, K. M., Kaiser F. G. & Fuhrer, U. (2001). Restorative Experience and SelfRegulation in Favorite Places. Environment and Behavior, 33, 572-589.
230
Korpela, K. M., Klemattila, T. & Hietanen, J. K. (2002). Evidence for Rapid Affective Evaluation of Environmental Scenes. Environment and Behavior, 34, 634-648. Korpela, K. M. & Ylen, M. (2007). Perceived Health is Associated with Visiting Natural Favourite Places in the Vicinity. Health and Place, 13, 138-151. Kyle, G. T., Mowen, A. J. & Tarrant, M. (2004). Linking Place Preferences with Place Meaning: An Examination of the Relationship Between Place Motivation and Place Attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24, 439-454. Lee, S. W., Ellis, C. D., Kweonb, B.S. & Hong, S. K. (2008). Relationship Between Landscape Structure and Neighborhood Satisfaction in Urbanized Areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85, 60–70. Leinberger, C. B. (2008). The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Lercher, P. (2003). Which health outcomes should be measured in health related environmental quality of life studies? Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 63– 72. Lewinburg, F. (1993, May). Reurbinization: The Context for Planning Growth. Plan Canada 10-14. Lezak, M.D. (1983). Neropsychological Assessment. New York: Oxford University Press. Lindstrom, M. J. & Bartling, H. (Eds.). (2003). Suburban Sprawl: Culture, Theory and Politics. Oxford: Roman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Lloyd, R. (1997). Spatial Cognition. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Long, A. D., & Perkins, D. D. (2003). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Sense of Community Index and Development of a Brief SCI. Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 279–296. Long, A. D., & Perkins, D. D. (2007). Community Social and Place Predictors of Sense of Community: A Multilevel and Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (5), 563–581. Louv, R. (2005). Last Child in the Woods. North Carolina: Algonquin Books. Lynch, K. (1960). Image of the City. Cambridge: Technology Press. 231
MacLean, P. (1990). The Triune Brain in Evolution: Role in Paleocerebral Functions. New York: Springer. Mandler, G. (1975). Mind and Emotion. New York: Wiley. Mannarini, T., Tartaglia, S. Fedi, A. & Greganti, K. (2006). Image of Neighborhood, Self-Image and Sense of Community. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 202-214. Martin, R. A. (2001). Humor, Laughter and Physical Health: Methodological Issues and Research Findings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 504-519. Martin, R. A., Puhlik-Doris, P., Larsen, G., Gray J. & Weir, K. (2003). Individual Differences in Uses of Humor and Their Relation to Psychological Well-Being: Development of the Humor Styles Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 48-75. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper. Matsuoka, R. H. & Kaplan, R. (2008). People Needs in the Urban Landscape: Analysis of Landscape and Urban Planning Contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 84, 7-19. McHarg, I. L. (1969). Design with Nature. Garden City, NY: Published for the American Museum of Natural History by the Natural History Press. McNair, D. M., Lorr, M. & Droppleman, L. F. (1981). EITS Manual for the Profile of Mood States. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing Service. Messia, R. (2003). Lawns as Artifacts: The Evolution of Social and Environmental Implications of Suburban Residential Land Use. In Lindstrom, M. J. & Bartling, H. (Eds.), Suburban Sprawl: Culture Theory and Politics. Boulder: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers. Millennium Assessment (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Washington D. C.: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series, Island press. Mitchell, G. (2000). Indicators as Tools to Guide Progress on the Sustainable Development Pathway. In Lawrence, R.J. (Ed.), Sustaining Human Settlement: A Challenge for the New Millennium. United Kingdom: Urban International Press. Morrish, W. & Brown, C. (2000). Planning to Stay. Minneapolis: Published for the Design Center for American Urban Landscapes by Milkweed Editions. 232
Murray, E. (1997). Cultivating Sacred Space: Gardening for the Soul. Essex: Pomegranate Europe Ltd. Nassauer, J.I. (1988, December). The Aesthetics of Horticulture: Neatness as a Form of Care. Hortscience, 23 (6) pp. 973-977. Nassauer, J.I. (1993). Ecological Function and the Perception of Suburban Residential Landscapes. In Gobster, P.H. (ed.) Managing Urban and High-Use Recreational Settings. St. Paul: USDA Forest Service. Newman, P.W.G. (1999). Sustainability and Cities: Extending the Metabolism Model. Landscape and Urban Planning, 33, 219-226. Nohl, W. (2001). Sustainable Landscape Use and Aesthetic Perception – Preliminary Reflections on Future Landscape Aesthetics. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54, 223-237. Novacek, P., Mederly, P. & Topercer, J. (2004). Quality and Sustainability of Life Indicators at International, National and Regional Levels. Gross National Happiness and Development - Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Operationalization of Gross National Happiness. Openshaw, S. (1984). The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. Norwich: Geo Books. Orians, G. H. (1990). Ecological Concepts of Sustainability. Environment, 32 (9), 1039. Pacione, M. (1999). Applied Geography: Principles and Practice. London: Routledge. Pacione, M. (2003). Urban Environmental Quality and Human Well-Being – A Social Geographical Perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 19-30. Parsons, R. (1991). The Potential Influence of Environmental perception on Human Health. Environmental Psychology, 11, 1-23. Plato (2001). Plato’s Republic. (A. A. Anderson, Ed., & B. Jowett, Trans.) Massachusetts: Agora Publications Inc. Primeau, L. (2003). Front Yard Gardens: Growing More than Grass. Buffalo: Firefly Books. Purcell, T., Peron, E. & Berto, R. (2001). Why do Preferences Differ between Scene Types? Environment and Behavior, 33, 93-106. 233
Pyle, R. M. (2003). Nature Matrix: Reconnecting People and Nature. Oryx, 37 (2) 206-214. Ramis, H. (Director), Peters, J. (Producer). (1980). Caddy Shack. [Motion picture]. United States: Orion. Register, R. (2006). Ecocities: Rebuilding Cities in Balance with Nature. Canada: New Society Publishers. Ross, Eric (1998). The Malthus Factor: Poverty, Politics and Population in Capitalist Development. London: Zed Books. Rozak, T., Gomes, M. & Kanner, A. D. (Eds.). (1995). Ecopsychology. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Ryan, R. L. (2002). Preserving Rural Character in New England: Local Residents’ Perceptions of Alternative Residential Development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 61, 19-25. Sandvik, E., Diener, E.& Seidlitz, L. (1993). Subjective well-being: The convergence and stability of self-report and non-self-report measures. Journal of Personality, 61, 317-342. Serpa, A. & Muhar, A. (1996). Effects of Plant Size, Texture and Colour on spatial perception in Public Green Areas - A Cross-Cultural Study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 36, 19-25. Shafer, C.S., Lee B. K. & Turner, S. (2000). A Tale of Three Greenway Trails: User Perceptions Related to Quality of Life. Landscape and Urban Planning, 49, 163-178. Southworth, M. & Owens, P. M. (1993). The Evolving Metropolis: Studies of Community, Neighborhood and the Street Form at the Urban Edge. Journal of American Planning Association, 59 (3), 271–287. Spash, C. L. (2002). Informing and Forming Preferences in Environmental Valuation: Coral Reef Biodiversity. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 665–687 Sperry, R. W. (1983). Science and Moral Priority: Merging Mind, Brain and Human Values. New York: Columbia University Press. Stokols, D. (1995). The Paradox of Environmental Psychology. American Psychologist, 50, 821-837.
234
Talbot, J. F. & Kaplan, S. (1986). Perspectives on Wilderness: Re-Examining the Value of Extended Wilderness Experiences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6, 177-188. Tennessen, C.M. & Cimprich, B. (1995). Views to Nature: Effects on Attention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 77-85. Thompson, J. W. & Sorvig, K. (2000). Sustainable Landscape Construction. Washington D. C.: Island Press. Thorsnes, P. (2002). The Value of a Suburban Forest Preserve: Estimates from the Sales of Vacant Residential Building Lots. Land Economics, 78, 426-321. Tilt, J. H., Kearney, A. R. & Bradley, G. (2007). Understanding Rural Character: Cognitive and Visual Perceptions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 14–26. Tocheri, M. W. Razdan, A., Williams R. C. & Marzke, M. W. (2005). A 3D Quantitative Comparison of Trapezium And Trapezoid Relative Articular and Nonarticular Surface Areas In Modern Humans And Great Apes. Journal of Human Evolution, 49, 570-586. Tolman, E.C. (1948). Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychological Review, 55, 189-208. Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K. M., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemela J. & James, P. (2007). Promoting Ecosystem and Human Health in Urban Areas using Green Infrastructure: a Literature Review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 167-178. Ulrich, R.S. (1981). Natural Versus Urban Scenes: Some Psycho-physiological Effects. Environment and Behavior, 13, 523-556. Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View Through a Window may Influence Recovery from Surgery. Science, 224, 420-421. Ulrich, R.S. (1986). Effects of Hospital Environments on Patient Well-Being. Research Report 9 (55), Trodenheim, Norway: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine. Ulrich, R.S., Simmons, R.F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress Recovery During Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments. Environmental Psychology, 11, 201-230. Ulrich, R.S. (1993). Biophilia, Biophobia and Natural Landscapes. In S.R. Kellert & E.O. Wilson (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington D.C.: Island Press. 235
van den Berg, A., Koole, S.L. & van der Wulp, N. Y. (2003). Environmental Preference and Restoration: (How) Are They Related? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 135-146. van den Berg, A., Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2007). Preference for Nature in Urbanized Societies: Stress, Restoration, and the Pursuit of Sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63 (1), 79-96. van der Ryn, S. & Calthorpe, P. (1986). Sustainable Communities: A New Design Synthesis for Cities, Suburbs and Towns. San Francisco: Sierra Club. van Herzele, A. and T. Wiedemann, 2003. “A Monitoring Tool for the Provision of Accessible and Attractive Urban Greenspaces.” Landscape and Urban Planning, volts 63, pp 109-126. van Kamp, I., Leidelmeijer, K., Marsman G. & de Hollander, A. (2003). Urban Environmental Quality and Human Well-Being Towards a Conceptual Framework and Demarcation of Concepts; A Literature Study. Verderber, S. (1986). Dimensions of Person-Window Transactions in the Hospital Environment. Environment & Behavior, 18, 450-466. Verderber, S., & Reuman, (1987). Windows, Views, and Health Status in Hospital Therapeutic Environments. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 4, 120-133. Walter, B., Arkin, L. & Crenshaw, R. (Eds.). (1992). Sustainable Cities: Concepts and Strategies for Eco-City Development. Los Angeles: Eco-Home Media. Waste, R. (1998). Independent Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Watson, D., Clark L. A. & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. Wells, N. M. & Evans, G. W. (2003). Nearby Nature: A Buffer of Life Stress Among Rural Children. Environment and Behavior, 35, 311-330. Wells, S. (2002). The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum. Wilson, E. O. (1978). On Human Nature. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 236
Wolch, J. (2007). Green Urban Worlds. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 9 (2), 373-384. Worboys, M. & Duckham, M. (2004). GIS: A Computing Perspective. New York: CRC Press. World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. “Report of the WCED: Our Common Future.” http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm, Accessed February, 2008. Yang, B. & Kaplan, R. (1990). “The Perception of Landscape Style: A Cross-Cultural Comparison.” Landscape and Urban Planning, 19, 251–262. Yuan, S. & McDonald, C. D. (1990). “Motivational Determinants of International Pleasure Time.” Journal of Travel Research, 29, 42-44. Zmyslony, J. & Gagnon, D. (1998). Residential Management of Urban Front-yard Landscape: A Random Process? Landscape and Urban Planning, 40, 295-307. Zuckerman, M. (1977). Development of a Situation-Specific Trait-State Test for the Prediction and Measurement of Affective Responses. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 45, 513-523.
237
