Diagnóstico

Two strands of response to natural places are woven through human history and through the human psyche. These are apparent in the work of writers, artists and philosophers who have celebrated ‘nature’ as nourishing to mind and soul or have depicted her as a threatening “unknown” and source of disorder. The forest is a source of terror in many central European folk tales and modern Europeans share these mixed responses to woodland

Studies of responses to photographed scenes have established that many (but not all) North American and European people prefer landscapes that

contain trees and/or water (Kaplan et al., 1972; Ulrich, 1981). ‘Natural’

landscapes are preferred to urban ones and responses are more positive to urban landscapes that contain trees than to those that do not. The term ‘natural’ is interpreted rather broadly.

In general, American groups tend to categorize views as ‘natural’ if the landscape content is predominantly vegetation and/or water, and if man-made features such as buildings or cars are absent or inconspicuous. (Ulrich, 1986, p.36).

Many people prefer an ordered ‘natural’ landscape to a wild one, because it is

easier to make sense of (Kaplan et al. 1998) and may appear less threatening

(Burgess et al., 1988; Jorgensen et al., 2002; O’Brien, 2006; Özgüner and Kendle,

2006). Kaplan et al. (1989, 1998) suggest that the most preferred environments

meet the human need to understand our surroundings and the urge to explore. Preferred scenes have ‘coherence’ or organisation and ‘legibility’, that is, recognisable features that enable navigation. They also have ‘mystery’ (the promise of new, interesting information further on) and are therefore enticing. They also found that people prefer scenes with a smooth ground. A smooth ground is easy to walk on and mystery draws one onward. This suggests that people imagine themselves in the landscape when viewing photographs of scenes, which supports the use of photographs as proxy for actual landscapes.

Mystery is also strongly related to the perception of danger depending on the context (Herzog and Miller, 1998). An urban alley with a bend in it is more

likely to be associated with danger than preference. ‘Openess’ the amount of space perceivable to the viewer, is a negative predictor of preference. People tend to feel exposed in wide spaces and prefer the edges of spaces where there is some cover (Cooper-Marcus and Francis, 1998). The presence of agricultural crops, scrubland and weedy fields also reduces preference.

Ulrich (1986) agrees with this analysis and adds ‘complexity’ (number of independently perceived elements), a focal point, ‘depth’ in the scene and absence of perceived threat as important elements. Humans respond positively to natural environments as long as they feel safe. Feeling safe is related to having good visibility and what Hertzog and Kutzli (2002) call ‘locomotor access’, which is akin to the preference for smooth ground. More recent studies do not agree on the importance of complexity and depth. Ulrich (1986) sums up the above attributes as preference for a savannah like landscape.

Experimental studies show that natural scenes induce different responses in the human body and brain than urban scenes do. For example, students reported an enhancement of positive emotions after seeing sets of slides of natural scenes with trees or water, but no such enhancement was reported by those who saw a set of slides of urban scenes with no vegetation nor water (Ulrich,

1979, 1986; Hartig et al., 1996). The slides of natural scenes also maintained

the attention and interest of the participants better than the urban set and higher amplitude alpha waves (associated with wakeful relaxation) were recorded from the viewers’ brains while they viewed the natural slides (Ulrich, 1986). This suggests that natural scenes trigger different brain activity to urban scenes.

Studies of individuals in real landscapes, support the preference for water and trees, but also the avoidance of dark, thick woodland such as spruce forest and a preference for more open woodland with glades or forest rides

(Sonntag-Öströma et al. 2011). People experienced improvements in mood

and in cognitive function after walking in a forest or a country park, compared

to those who took an urban walk (Hartig et al, 2003; Mayer et al., 2005; Roe

and Aspinall, 2010; Shin et al. 2011). Those with poor mental health showed

similar improvements on a smaller scale after an urban walk, though it is not clear if this was due to historic and green elements in the urban environment, or due to the social context of the walk (Roe and Aspinall, 2010).

The diastolic blood pressure of students in a room with window views of a

natural scene reduced after a period of stressful activity during a ten-minute wait before the next phase of an experiment. The diastolic blood pressure of those

waiting in a windowless room increased slightly (Hartig et al., 2003). There was

no group waiting in a room with views of a built up scene, so it is not clear if simply having any outside view causes the effect. Those subsequently walking in a forest maintained lower blood pressure than those taking an urban walk, though this effect started to converge after about 20 – 30 minutes. This was at about the point where the participants turned back, possibly reminding those in the natural setting that they would soon return to their everyday life and causing

those in the urban setting to feel relieved (Hartig et al., 2003).

Young people returning from a wilderness trip of a few days showed an increase in proof-reading performance, an indicator of enhanced levels of directed

attention, whereas those who returned from a holiday in a non-wilderness

1991). Those who had been on the wilderness trip were slightly depressed on their return, but 21 days later they scored higher on the Overall Happiness Scale

(OHS) than the others (Campbell et al., 1976, cited by Hartig et al., 1991). This

suggests that despite a flat feeling on their return, their trip may have set them up better to cope with everyday stresses over time. Students who went for a 40 minute walk in a park after an exercise which induced mental fatigue reported higher levels of Overall Happiness and positive affect than those who had taken a walk along city streets or those who had relaxed indoors in a comfortable chair

with magazines and a radio (Hartig, et al., 1991). They also showed reduced

levels of anxiety and aggression and performed better in a proof reading test.

Having a natural view may speed healing. Patients recovering from gall bladder surgery in a room with a view of trees through a window needed fewer analgesics and were ready to leave hospital sooner than similar patients with a view of a brick wall (Ulrich, 1984). Though, as Parsons (1991) points out, the fact that the former view was more complex (and hence interesting) than the latter may have been as important as the presence of trees. Looking out on a brick wall may make patients feel trapped and therefore slow healing. What is clear is that the view from the window influences patients’ progress. Having access to nearby nature has been shown to reduce the impact of stressful life events on children (Wells and Evans, 2003). There is a large body of research on the beneficial effect of therapeutic gardens on those recovering from surgery and mental distress (Cooper Marcus

2.2.3.2.2 Theoretical basis for positive responses to natural