7.8 OBRAS DE CANALIZACIONES.

Although significant work has been undertaken in other disciplines, perhaps the most intensive research into the healing or restorative properties of the natural environment has been in the field of environmental psychology. These ‘restoration perspectives’ have been dominated by Kaplan and Kaplan’s (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989) attention restoration theory and Ulrich’s (1984) psychological stress reduction framework. According to Kaplan’s and Kaplan’s (1989) Attention Restoration Theory (ART), directed attention is the cognitive mechanism that is restored by interactions with nature. First proposed by William James (1982) the attentional capacities of individuals are separated into two components: involuntary attention where attention is captured by inherently intriguing or important stimuli; and voluntary or directed attention, where attention is directed by cognitive control processes. According to ART, interacting with environments rich with inherently fascinating stimuli, such as natural environments, invoke involuntary attention modestly allowing

39 directed attention mechanisms a chance to replenish (Van de Berg et al, 2003). In a similar vein, Ulrich’s psycho-evolutionary model argues that natural environments can enable recovery from any form of stress and not just from attentional fatigue in virtue of their ability to trigger positive emotional responses as the result of an innate adaptive mechanism (Ulrich, 1979).

In explorations of the therapeutic potential of ‘natural’ landscapes, environmental psychologists draw empirical support from a range of studies that purport to show how natural environments elicit stronger restorative effects than urban environments. The most common methodological approach adopted in these studies involves taking measurements of self-reported mood states and physiological indicators such as blood pressure and stress hormone levels, whilst presenting participants with photographs of rural and urban scenes in a laboratory setting (Herzog & Boseley, 2002; Korpella, Klemettila, & Hietanen, 2002; Laumann, Garling, & Stomark, 2003; Pretty et al., 2007; Pretty, Peacock, Sellens, & Griffin, 2005; Van de Berg et al., 2003).

However, this approach to understanding the therapeutic potential of certain environments has been criticised for being in the grip of what John Dewey described as the ‘Kodak fixation’ (Heft, 2010). According to Dewey, environmental psychologists typically assume that experiencing landscape involves the individual adopting the passive and detached stance of spectator, in much the same way as when viewing a photograph (Dewey, 1908; Heft, 2010). Indeed, the extensive research literature on environmental perception adopts (with rare exceptions) a ‘spectator’ mode of experiencing landscape (Heft, 2010). On this view, our experiences of nature and our experiences of photographs of nature are considered qualitatively one and the same, as evidenced by the use of photographs to ascertain the nature of environmental preference and its impact on wellbeing (Herzog and Bosley, 1992; Herzog, Chen and Primeau, 2002; van den Berg, Koole and van der Wulp, 2003; Pretty et al., 2005).

Yet experiencing landscape as a two-dimensional image, and experiencing landscape first- hand and dynamically, are very different. Sontag (1977) explores this difference in some detail in her work ‘On Photography’, observing that the feelings invoked when viewing photographs are qualitatively dissimilar from those that accompany first-hand or unmediated experiences

40 of the subjects of those representations. What is more, the properties of landscape that have been examined most often in the environmental perception literature typically include concepts such as complexity, coherence and legibility as well as the presence of natural as opposed to man-made features (Heft, 1996). Yet such properties are not properties of landscape, properly conceived. Rather, these are socially constructed concepts that we abstract from landscape in order to give meaning to our perceptual experiences. In this way, such properties are in fact ‘once removed’ from actual experience, since in order to assess a landscape with respect to these properties, it is necessary to stand back from the activity of perceiving and adopt what may be described as a ‘detached viewpoint’. Accordingly, much of the environmental perception research since the 1950’s has devoted considerable attention to trying to unravel the causal chain that exists between occurrences in the physical environment and corresponding optical stimulation and neurological processes that constitute our experiences of the world (Heft, 1996; 2010).

Much of the research within the field of environmental psychology may therefore be said to adhere to a positivist worldview. A common assumption that revolves around these kinds of approaches is the notion that there is an inner psychological realm, an objective domain of the material environment, that may be accessed through asking questions and observing behaviour and then measuring or interpreting the outcomes (Bechtel, 2002). Research within environmental psychology has, therefore often sought to investigate the relationship between environmental perception and wellbeing through the use of quantitative methods, and focus on the environmental preferences of individuals to determine universal characteristics of potentially therapeutic environments.

Whilst there are some notable exceptions (e.g. Gorman, 2017) theoretical frameworks for understanding the health and wellbeing benefits of green care activities, like care farming, are dominated by theories drawn from environmental psychology. For example, researchers at the University of Essex have used Kaplan and Kaplan’s Attention Restoration Theory to hypothesise that there may be synergistic psychological benefits in adopting physical activities whilst at the same time being exposed to nature (Pretty et al, 2005). This has been termed ‘green exercise’ by Pretty et al (2005) and refers to physical activities undertaken whilst exposed to natural environments (Pretty et al, 2005). Similarly, Bragg (2014) a leading

41 author on care farming activities in the UK argues that the therapeutic application of green exercise may be effective at promoting the psychological wellbeing of vulnerable or socially excluded groups. Doctoral research on the impact of care farming in the UK also utilised various theories within environmental psychology (i.e. Attention Restoration Theory, Biophilia Hypothesis and Psycho-Evolutionary Stress Reduction Theory) to devise a theoretical framework through which to explore the health and wellbeing benefits of care farming (Leck, 2013).

Adherence to the positivist paradigm implicit within these approaches may, therefore, explain the prevalence of quantitative and survey design methods in research on the health and wellbeing benefits of care farming (see chapter 2). As I argued in chapter two, the methods deployed in these studies do not always meet the needs of people with intellectual disabilities. What is more, in focusing on only those aspects of experience that can be converted to quantifiable terms, I argue that this approach misses something important concerning people’s landscape experiences. Specifically, the embodied, relational and contextual nature of the relationship that exists between people and place. To this end, I advocate an alternative theoretical approach for understanding the wellbeing benefits of care farming activities, which I outline in more detail in the sections below.