Inventario de recursos históricos – culturales

Based on their experimental work, Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) ascribe the positive effect of natural scenes on people, to recovery from mental fatigue and the restoration of attention. They point out that in our everyday lives we have to consciously direct our attention to a myriad of tasks and other people. This involves making an effort to screen out distractions and is fatiguing. In a natural space, or viewing a natural scene, our attention need not be directed; we can just pay attention to whatever comes to our notice. This allows us to relax and rest our attention. They suggest that restoration from mental fatigue relies on involuntary attention being engaged with no effort. They call this property ‘fascination’, which is enabled by the properties of ‘complexity’ and ‘mystery’ in the environment. ‘Fascination’ is enhanced by ‘being away’ from everyday demands in a psychological sense, if not a geographical one; by ‘extent’, feeling immersed in a different world with no boundaries, and by ‘compatibility’ between what the environment offers and what the person wants to do (Kaplan and

Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan et al., 1998). As already discussed, experiments have

shown increases in directed attention after such exposure (Hartig, et al., 1991;

Hartig et al, 2003; Mayer et al., 2005; Berto, 2005; Shin et al., 2011).

There is nothing, however, in this early form of Attention Restoration Theory that explains the particular effectiveness of natural environments and it is clear that some urban environments have the same qualities (Parsons, 1991), hence the popularity of the “City Break”. As the theory developed, it was suggested that there is an evolutionary aspect, something innate, in people’s preferences for natural landscape (Kaplan, S., 1987).

Ulrich and others also add the evolutionary dimension (Orians, 1986; Ulrich

and Simons, 1986; Ulrich et al., 1991) and question that the key to the benefit

of exposure to natural scenes is the restoration of attention. They point out that stressful situations also give rise to involuntary attention and suggest that it is the recovery from stress that allows restoration. Non-threatening natural landscapes enable stress relaxation, by appealing to something innate in us.

This effect has been demonstrated experimentally, by monitoring the recovery of slightly stressed students (Ulrich, 1979; Ulrich and Simons, 1986). Those looking at slides of unspectacular natural scenes showed a significantly bigger increase in positive affect, that is feelings of affection, friendliness, playfulness and elation and a decrease in fear arousal and anxiety than those viewing urban views with no natural elements. The scenes had been chosen to have similar levels of complexity, so the natural scenes tended to be scruffy and not

particularly attractive and the urban scenes were unblighted and tidy. Those viewing the urban slides reported significant rises in feelings of sadness. These effects were independent of gender or whether the students had previously lived in rural, suburban, small town or city environments. Physiological

measurements also indicate a more rapid and effective recovery from stress in

those viewing natural scenes (Ulrich and Simons, 1986, Ulrich et al., 1991).

Wadeson et al. (1963, cited by Parsons, 1991) accidentally discovered, when

using viewers of Disney nature films as a control group, that watching nature films lowers the levels of the stress hormone, cortisol, in the blood. Mayer et al (2005) conclude that it is a feeling of greater connectedness to nature, rather than the improvement of attentional capacity, that underlies the improvements in positive affect and cognitive performance after exposure to natural scenes, and that the effect is stronger in real rather than virtual situations.

Ulrich (1983) suggests that there are two independent response pathways to sensory stimulation: a fast, innate, affective route and a slower learned

cognitive one. This view is supported by some experimental studies (Korpela

et al., 2002) though there is some evidence that the affective pathway operates much more powerfully in assessing negative elements of scenes than positive ones (Hietanen and Korpela, 2004). Bourassa (1990) builds on the work of the Soviet psychologist, Vygotsky (1978; 1981; cited by Bourassa, 1990) and the psychiatrist May (1958; cited by Bourassa, 1990), to suggest that the human response to landscape (or to any environment or object) occurs through ‘three modes of aesthetic experience’; the biological, the cultural and the personal. He goes on to examine the evidence for separate pathways from our senses to our limbic brain, which handles our biological, emotional responses (the need for self-preservation and the preservation of the species), and our neo-cortex, where language, and cognitive function resides. This suggests that biological and cultural responses are independent and both influence our personal response.

Further support for this view is provided by Balling and Falk (1982), who found that children prefer a savannah like landscape, but older children and adults add environments that they are familiar with to this preference. They suggest that this is because the appreciation of savannah-like landscapes is innate and rooted in our origins on the African plains and influenced by ancient biological imperatives such as the search for water and wariness of possible predators. Preference for other landscapes, including urban ones, is learned and influenced by culture.

2.2.3.2.3 Restoration in urban outdoor spaces

Many of the studies of preference discussed so far used photographic slides of landscape on the scenic scale in contrast to built up scenes. Similar preference studies using photographs of urban outdoor scenes give similar results: well-maintained, natural scenes including trees and or water are preferred by most people (Anderson and Schroeder, 2002). Preferred urban natural scenes, like wilderness scenes, have coherence and mystery (Kaplan 1984). Studies of people who visit parks suggest that the majority of users of green spaces prefer a ‘natural’ rather than an ‘ornamental’ style of space as

long as it is cared for (no litter, for example) (Caula et al., 2009; Crow et al.,

2006; Özgüner and Kendle 2006). What people mean by the terms ‘natural’ and ‘nature’ can cover a wide range of landscapes, however, from mown

lawns and a few trees, to wilderness (Chiesura, 2004; Caula et al., 2009;

Crow et al., 2006; Gobster, 2001; Ulrich, 1986).

Grahn and Stigsdotter investigated the connections between stress and use of urban green space in 9 Swedish towns and cities. They found that children visited green spaces and spent more time in them than adults and pensioners, but in those over seventeen there was no relationship between use of green spaces and age, sex and socioeconomic status. The average number of visits to urban open space in a year was 196 for the 20% of their sample (n=953) who reported the lowest levels of stress, irritability and fatigue and 133 for the 20% reporting highest levels of stress. The number of hours spent in such places was 311 and 186 respectively. 70% of those living in town or city centres and 66% of those living in suburbs wished that they could visit urban green spaces more often. These people were more likely to be stressed and lack of time was the most frequent reason given for not visiting

outdoor spaces. Those who did not have access to a garden or green space adjacent to their dwelling, reported higher levels of stress and were less likely to visit public green spaces. They did not compensate for their lack of green space at their home by visiting other spaces more frequently.

Many studies of specific parks have found that users report improvements in

mood, relaxation, fatigue and levels of stress (Francis, 1987; Burgess et al.

1988; Kaplan et al., 1989; Cooper Marcus and Francis, 1998; Chiesura,

2004). One of the main reasons given by visitors to parks and outdoor spaces for being there is for relaxation. ‘To relax’ was the reason given by 73% of respondents to a written survey distributed to people visiting a large park in Amsterdam. ‘To listen and observe nature’ was the second most frequent choice of over half the respondents (Chiesura, 2004).

Gidlof-Gunnarsson and Ohrstrom (2007 and 2010) found that residents of apartments exposed to substantial traffic noise reported less noise

annoyance both at home and in the neighbourhood if they had access to quieter green spaces nearby. They were also less likely to feel ‘very tired’, ‘stressed’ or ‘irritated/angry’ than those with poor access to such spaces.

Kuo (2001) conducted a series of studies investigating the impact of nearby nature on people living in a large, inner city, public housing estate with high levels of deprivation in Chicago. The estate consists of a 3 mile long, single row of identical blocks of flats with major roads on either side. Residents of these blocks have many sources of stress in their lives. Those living in blocks with no nearby trees or grass reported difficulties more long standing, less soluble and more severe than residents of blocks with greener

surroundings and were also more likely to procrastinate when faced with major issues. They also reported higher levels of mental fatigue, aggression and violence (Kuo and Sullivan, 2001a). It appears that exposure to a greener environment enables residents to manage their lives better and to feel calmer. In another large public housing estate levels of both property and violent crime reported to police were lower in buildings with greener surroundings (Kuo and Sullivan, 2001b). In both these estates residents were assigned randomly to a particular block.

Explorations of restorative environments in the city show that people turn to a range of activities in different environments from the home to the city centre when mentally fatigued (Hartig and Staats, 2006). They are more likely, however, to seek out a park or greenspace when fatigued than they do when not fatigued. A key finding shows that people prefer to be alone when

fatigued, which means that the daily commute, as part of an anonymous crowd, is, for some people, a time of restoration between the demands of

work and home life (Staats et al., 2010). An urban park also provides a

destination for a person who needs some time alone. People who have higher levels of negative mood seem to be more likely to seek solitude and natural places (Korpela, 2003) and those who are feeling stressed appreciate the natural aspects of urban green spaces rather than the social ones (Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2010). Young people who were allowed as children to play freely in woodland see woodlands as good places to go to escape from everyday life