mystery had negative correlations with environmental safety. In additional, the
legibility .... “There is natural scene could be explored in this setting.” Crime was.
Exploring the relationship between situational concerns and preference in different natural settings Yen-Cheng Chiang1, Sheng-Jung Ou1, Chun-Yen Chang2, Pei-Yi Weng2, and Terry Purcell3 1
Department of Horticulture, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan. 2
3
Department of Horticulture, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Faculty of Architecture, Design & Planning, The University of Sydney, Australia.
ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship of situational concern and preference. There were 356 participants rated each of six natural settings using a 19 measured items questionnaire that assessed situational concern (environmental safety, self-safety, and direction), preference (coherence, legibility, complexity, and mystery), and overall preference. The study of results shown differ gender have significant different of environmental safety. In correlation of variables, the coherence and legibility had strongly positive correlations with environmental safety. On the contrary, the complexity and mystery had negative correlations with environmental safety. In additional, the legibility had positive correlations with self-safety and direction. Finally, the correlation of situational concern, preference, and overall preference had positive correlation. Key words: situational concerns, environmental safety, preference matrix.
1. INTRODUCTION Natural environments contain many dangers, such as predators, venomous animals, and lightning that can strike quickly and without warning (Van den Berg & Ter Heijne, 2005). The present of study assumes people they might evoke their negative response in specific environments. As previous study results, Bixler and Floyd (1997) have distinguished nine typical fear-evoking situations in natural settings: getting lost, stepping on a snake, being caught in a windstorm, seeing a snake, getting separated from friends, not getting back before dark, being caught in thunder and lightning, getting a spider bite and being chased by a swarm of bees. The purpose of this study was to explore people their situational concerns and preference in different natural settings, meanwhile to examine relationships of both. 1.1 Threats of nature setting Numerous reports on fears expressed by students taken to wildlands as part of school or recreation center programs suggest that some people actively dislike such environments (Wohlwill, 1983). For example, in a study by Wendling and Wuench (1985) one out of five students reported that they did not like a compulsory wilderness trip and would have rather stayed in the classroom. These results suggest that there exist important individual differences in emotional responses to natural threats. Despite the many benefits identified as products of experiences in natural environments (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989), some people living near parks do not use them (Spotts and Stynes, 1985) and 86% of the U.S. population is not involved in outdoor recreation (Miles et al., 1993). Studies of people’s fearful experiences during actual visits to natural settings revealed that a stay in the wilderness may evoke strong fears and other negative emotions. For example Kaplan and Talbot (1983; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989) reported that 92% of a total number of 176 participants of American Outward Challenge Programs expressed fearful emotions (afraid, worried, want to go home) in their journals. These fears dealt with social concerns and physical challenges, but also with aspects of the natural environment itself, such as animals, bugs, the weather, and getting lost. Bixler and Floyd (1997) have distinguished nine typical fear-evoking situations: getting lost, stepping on a snake, being caught in a windstorm, seeing a snake, getting separated from friends, not getting back before dark, being caught in thunder and lightning, getting a spider bite and being chased by a swarm of bees. Based on the review of literature, five fear-evoking situations were selected: getting lost, natural disaster (storm, debris flow, and mist), injury by animals or plants (poisonous plants, snakes and bees), management concerns (facilities maintenance) and crime (hidden aggressor).
1.2 Positive responses of the natural settings According to Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) confrontations with physical challenges and natural threats constitute a critical factor in these positive changes. By conquering their fear of the potential dangers that ‘lurk in the woods’ (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989, p. 146), participants of wilderness programs may discover a new sense of competence and fresh energy. Despite their fears and worries, participants felt refreshed and invigorated, “feeling better than I have in a long time”, “laughing all the time”, “having a blast” (Kaplan and Talbot, 1983). 1.3 The effect on preference of natural settings The preference matrix of the Kaplans’ informational model motivated the research reported here (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). The preference matrix is composed of two binary dimensions. One deals with the basic human needs of understanding and exploration (known in earlier writings as making sense and involvement). The other deals with whether one is processing the two-dimensional picture plane, where the information is immediately available, or the larger three-dimensional world, which requires greater inference on the part of the perceiver. Together, these two dimensions define four cells, each of which contains a conceptually distinct predictor of environmental preference. Coherence refers to features of the picture plane that aid in organizing or understanding the scene. Legibility refers to features of the larger environment that foster understanding by aiding way finding and the building of a useful cognitive map. Complexity refers to how much is going on in the two-dimensional scene, how intricate or visually rich it is. Mystery refers to any features that encourage one to enter more deeply into the larger environment with the promise that one could gain interesting new information. Both complexity and mystery provide opportunities for exploration. In summary, we investigated environmental experience, preference, and overall preference to a sample of within natural settings. Our primary interest was situational concerns of five factors: getting lost, natural disaster, injury by animals or plants, management, and crime. The second interest was preference, according to Kaplan and Kaplan’s (1989) proposed preference matrix: coherence, legibility, complexity and mystery. The final interest was overall preference.
2. METHODS 2.1 Participants The sample consisted of 356 students (236 males, 120 females; mean age = 21 years) at National Chung Hsing University.
2.2 Stimuli The six color slides used in the study were sampled to cover the variation in the natural recreation setting types, which included a leisure farm, forest trail, hiking trail and river (Fig. 1). 2.3 Measures Situational concerns. Situational concerns of five situations were measured: getting lost, natural disaster, injury by animals or plants, management, and crime. Getting lost were represented two items: “It’s easy to get lost in this setting.” “It’s easy to find my way.” Natural disaster was represented two items: “This setting is not danger if there is avalanche or dense fog happened.” “There is easy to have natural disasters such as cloudburst and avalanche.” Injure of animal or plant was represented two items: “The most of animals and plants in this setting are harmless.” “There are some wildlife, which can bite people, such as snakes, bees, and stinging nettle.” Management was represented two items: “This setting is unsafe if there is no one to manage.” “There is natural scene could be explored in this setting.” Crime was represented two items: “There are some bad guys hiding in this setting. “There is not any crime in this setting.” For each situation, participants responded to two items. Each factor had one reverse item. Preference. Kaplan and Kaplan’s (1989) proposed preference matrix included coherence, complexity, mystery, and legibility. Coherence was represented two items: “How well does the scene hang together?” “How easy is it to organize and structure the scene?” Complexity was represented two items: “How much is going on in the scene?” “How much is there to look at?” Mystery was represented two items: “How much does the setting promise more to be seen if you could walk deeper into it?” “Does the setting seem to invite you to enter more deeply into it and thereby learn more?” Legibility was represented two items: “How easy would it be to find your way around in the setting?” “How easy would it be to figure out where you are at any given moment or to find your way back to any given point in the setting?” For each factor, participants responded to two items by indicating preference. Overall preference was measured using one reaction statement “How much do you like the setting?” 2.4 Procedure All of color slides showed in classroom by projector. Viewing time is two minutes for each slide. Participants rated on 19 items for every color slide. All items of the questionnaire using a Likert-type scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).
3. RESULTS 3.1 The reliability of situational concerns Unless noted otherwise, all analyses were based on participants rated score as the units of analysis and as raw scores. All rating score is for each setting based on all participants who completed one of the rating tasks. Internal-consistency reliability was assessed for each rating variable by computing Cronbach’s alpha, based on participants as units. We thus have a form of inter-rater reliability, measuring the tendency of the raters to agree on their ranking of the item. The reliability coefficients of situational concerns for ten of the variables were 0.70. In factor analysis, the meaning of the tenth item was different from the others, and it couldn’t combine with the others, so the item was deleted. After that the reliability coefficients increased to 0.77. The reliability coefficients of preference for eight of the variables were 0.86. 3.2 The factor analysis of situational concerns Furthermore, a principal components analysis (PCA) was used to determine the number of factors. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.75 and Bartlett's test of sphericity had significant (p
