Evaluating the Restorative Potential of Different Green Strategies in Streets

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 2, 145 - 153, 31.12.2024

Saba Ahmadınazhad Vosough , Melih Bozkurt

https://doi.org/10.25308/aduziraat.1447614

Öz

The contemporary urban lifestyle, marked by heightened stress levels, contributes to a global surge in mental health issues. Urban sidewalks, where daily interactions occur, offer potential respite, making the design of restorative urban streets crucial for enhancing mental well-being. While previous research acknowledges the restorative value of urban green spaces, there is a pressing need for new studies to identify effective green strategies for mental health promotion. This study focuses on identifying urban green spaces positively affecting mental health and assessing various green strategies from the pedestrian perspective. Using virtual reality (VR), participants evaluated 3D model urban scenes on mobile screens within VR glasses, featuring different sidewalk vegetation and building facades, resulting in 16 experimental conditions. Participants, including individuals from architectural and non-architectural backgrounds and undergraduate students and professionals, expressed unanimous preference for green areas on sidewalks and building facades. The most restorative model featured trees on sidewalks and open front yards on building facades. Additionally, a positive correlation emerged between "Restorative Potential" and Attention Restoration Theory (ART) components, shedding light on factors influencing urban green space preferences. In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into designing urban green spaces for promoting mental well-being. Policymakers and planners can leverage this evidence to craft urban environments offering restorative benefits, enhancing residents' overall quality of life in cities worldwide.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Urban Green Spaces, Attention Restoration Theory (ART), Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS), Urban Streets, Virtual Reality (VR)

Sokaklarda Mekânı Oluşturan Farklı Yeşil Stratejilerin Onarıcı Potansiyelinin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Çağdaş kentsel yaşam tarzı, artan stres seviyeleri ile belirlenmiş olup, küresel ölçekte mental sağlık sorunlarında bir artışa katkıda bulunmaktadır. Günlük etkileşimlerin gerçekleştiği kentsel kaldırımlar, potansiyel bir dinlenme alanı sunarak, ruhsal iyi olma durumunu artırmak için restoratif kentsel sokakların tasarımını önemli kılar. Önceki araştırmalar, kentsel yeşil alanların restoratif değerini kabul etse de mental sağlık teşviğine yönelik etkili yeşil stratejileri belirlemek için yeni çalışmalara acil bir ihtiyaç bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışma, mental sağlığı olumlu etkileyen kentsel yeşil alanları belirleme ve yaya bakış açısından çeşitli yeşil stratejileri değerlendirme odaklıdır. Katılımcılar, sanal gerçeklik (VR) kullanarak, farklı kaldırım bitkilerini ve bina cephelerini içeren 3D model kentsel sahneleri mobil ekranlarda VR gözlükleri içinde değerlendirmiş ve 16 deneme koşulu oluşturmuştur. Mimarlık ve mimarlık dışı alanlardan ve lisans öğrencilerinden ve profesyonellerden oluşan katılımcılar, kaldırımlar ve bina cephelerindeki yeşil alanlara eğilim göstermiştir. En restoratif model, kaldırımlarda ağaçlar ve bina cephelerinde açık avlular içermektedir. Ayrıca, "Restoratif Potansiyel" ile Dikkat Restorasyon Teorisi (ART) bileşenleri arasında pozitif bir korelasyon ortaya çıktı, bu da kentsel yeşil alan tercihlerini etkileyen faktörlere ışık tutmuştur. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma, mental sağlığı teşvik etmek amacıyla kentsel yeşil alanların tasarımı konusunda değerli içgörüler sunmaktadır. Karar alıcılar ve planlamacılar, bu kanıtları kullanarak dünya genelinde şehir sakinlerinin genel yaşam kalitesini artıran restoratif faydalar sunan kentsel ortamlar oluşturabilirler.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kentsel Yeşil Alanlar, Dikkat Restorasyon Teorisi (ART), Algılanan Restoratiflik Ölçeği (PRS), Kentsel Sokaklar, Sanal Gerçeklik (VR)

Kaynakça

• Ambrey C L, Fleming C M, Manning M (2014) Greenspace and life satisfaction: The moderating role of fear of crime in the neighbourhood. In Anzee Conference. Opportunities for the Critical Decade: Enhancing well-being within Planetary Boundaries. Canberra, Australia, University of Canberra (pp. 89-108).
• Blascovich J, Loomis J, Beall A C, Swinth K R, Hoyt, C L, Bailenson, J N (2002) Immersive virtual environment technology as a methodological tool inquiry. 13(2), 103-124.
• Bishop I D, Wherrett J R, Miller D R (2001) Assessment of path choices on a country walk using a virtual environment. Landscape and urban planning, 52(4), 225-237.
• Bodin M, Hartig T (2003) Does the outdoor environment matter for psychological restoration gained through running?. Psychology of sport and exercise, 4(2), 141-153.
• De Vries S, Verheij R A, Groenewegen, P P, Spreeuwenberg P (2003) Natural environments—healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between greenspace and health. Environment and planning A, 35(10), 1717-1731.
• Ewing R, Cervero R (2010) Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American planning association, 76(3), 265-294.
• Getz D A, Karow A, Kielbaso J J (1982) Inner city preferences for trees and urban forestry programs [Detroit, Michigan]. Journal of Arboriculture.
• Hartig T (2007) Three steps to understanding restorative environments as health resources. In Open space: People space (pp. 183-200). Taylor & Francis.
• Hartig T, Staats H (2006) The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of environmental psychology, 26(3), 215-226.
• Hartig T, Berg A E, Hagerhall C M, Tomalak M, Bauer N, Hansmann R, Waaseth G (2011) Health benefits of nature experience: Psychological, social and cultural processes. In Forests, trees and human health (pp. 127-168). Springer, Dordrecht.
• 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(2), 109-123.
• Hartig T, Korpela K M, Evans G W, Gärling T (1996) Validation of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness (Göteborg Psychological Reports, 26: 7). Göteborg, Sweden: Department of Psychology, Göteborg University.
• Hartig T, Korpela K, Evans G W, Gärling T (1997) A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian housing and planning research, 14(4), 175-194.
• Hartig T, Mitchell R, De Vries S, Frumkin H (2014) Nature and health. Annual review of public health, 35, 207-228.
• Herzog T R, Maguire P, Nebel M B (2003) Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of environmental psychology, 23(2), 159-170.
• James P, Tzoulas K, Adams M D, Barber A, Box J, Breuste J, Thompson C W (2009) Towards an integrated understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(2), 65-75.
• Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge university press.
• Kaplan S (1995) The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of environmental psychology, 15(3), 169-182.
• Keniger L E, Gaston K J, Irvine K N, Fuller R A (2013) What are the benefits of interacting with nature?. International journal of environmental research and public health, 10(3), 913-935.
• Korpela K, Hartig T (1996) Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of environmental psychology, 16(3), 221-233.
• Lohr V I, Pearson-Mims C H, Tarnai J, Dillman D A (2004) How urban residents rate and rank the benefits and problems associated with trees in cities. Journal of Arboriculture, 30(1), 28-35.
• MacKerron G, Mourato S (2013) Happiness is greater in natural environments. Global environmental change, 23(5), 992-1000.
• Mineev G (2017) The impact of immersive virtual reality on effectiveness of educational games (Master’s thesis).
• Mitchell R, Popham F (2008) Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The lancet, 372(9650), 1655-1660.
• Nielsen T S, Hansen K B (2007) Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health & place, 13(4), 839-850.
• Pazhouhanfar M, Kamal M (2014) Effect of predictors of visual preference as characteristics of urban natural landscapes in increasing perceived restorative potential. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 13(1), 145-151.
• Purcell T, Peron E, Berto R (2001) Why do preferences differ between scene types?. Environment and behavior, 33(1), 93-106.
• Rohrmann B, Bishop I (2002) Subjective responses to computer simulations of urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(4), 319-331.
• Schroeder H, Flannigan J, Coles R (2006) Residents' attitudes toward street trees in the UK and US communities. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, 32(5), 236.
• Shaftoe H (2012) Convivial urban spaces: Creating effective public places. Routledge.
• Signoretta P, Moughtin K M, Moughtin J C (2009) Urban design: health and the therapeutic environment. Routledge.
• Smith J W (2015) Immersive virtual environment technology to supplement environmental perception, preference and behavior research: a review with applications. International journal of environmental research and public health, 12(9), 11486-11505.
• Sommer R, Guenther H, Barker P A (1990) Surveying householder response to street trees. Landscape Journal, 9(2), 79-85.
• Song C, Ikei H, Igarashi M, Miwa M, Takagaki M, Miyazaki Y (2014) Physiological and psychological responses of young males during spring-time walks in urban parks. Journal of physiological anthropology, 33(1), 1-7.
• Souter-Brown G (2014) Landscape and urban design for health and well-being: using healing, sensory and therapeutic gardens. Routledge.
• Staats H, Kieviet A, Hartig T (2003) Where to recover from attentional fatigue: An expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of environmental psychology, 23(2), 147-157.
• Stamps III A E (2010) Use of static and dynamic media to simulate environments: A meta-analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 111(2), 355-364.
• Tennessen C M, Cimprich B (1995) Views to nature: Effects on attention. Journal of environmental psychology, 15(1), 77-85.
• Thwaites K, Helleur E, Simkins I M (2005) Restorative urban open space: Exploring the spatial configuration of human emotional fulfilment in urban open space. Landscape research, 30(4), 525-547.
• Todorova A, Asakawa S, Aikoh T (2004) Preferences for and attitudes towards street flowers and trees in Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and urban planning, 69(4), 403-416.
• United Nations (2018) Urban and rural population growth and world urbanization prospects. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision.
• Ulrich R S, Simons R F, Losito B D, Fiorito E, Miles M A, Zelson M (1991) Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of environmental psychology, 11(3), 201-230.
• Van den Bosch M, Ward Thompson C, Grahn P (2018) Preventing stress and promoting mental health. Nature and Public Health. The Role of Nature in Improving the Health of a Population, 108-115.
• Wang X, Rodiek S, Wu C, Chen Y, Li Y (2016) Stress recovery and restorative effects of viewing different urban park scenes in Shanghai, China. Urban forestry & urban greening, 15, 112-122.
• Welch R B, Blackmon T T, Liu A, Mellers, B A, Stark L W (1996) The effects of pictorial realism, delay of visual feedback, and observer interactivity on the subjective sense of presence. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments. 5(3), 263-273.
• WHO T (2017) Urban green spaces: a brief for action. World Health Organization.
• Wolf K L (2004) Nature in the retail environment: Comparing consumer and business response to urban forest conditions. Landscape Journal, 23(1), 40-51.
• Wolf K L (2009) Strip malls, city trees, and community values. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry. 35 (1): 33-40., 35(1), 33-40.