Health Benefits of Urban Built and Mixed Spaces: Evidence of Restorative Potential: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 3 by Rita Xu and Version 2 by Agnès Patuano.

Natural areas are now broadly recognised as important resources to restore the cognitive and emotional resources of urban dwellers, but everyday urban environments are rarely studied for their salutogenic properties. This review collects emerging evidence of instances in which built and mixed urban environments were found to be more restorative than natural ones for the urban population. Generally, historical, recreational and panoramic places have been found to have the most restorative potential of all mixed and built urban environments. This particularly applies to teenagers and older people who value social interactions for their well-being. Vegetation and natural elements were still found to play an important role in the assessment of this restorative potential.

  • restorative potential
  • urban environment
  • attention restoration theory
  • environmental psychology
  • built and mixed environments
Please wait, diff process is still running!

References

  1. Catharine Ward Thompson; Linking landscape and health: The recurring theme. Landscape and Urban Planning 2011, 99, 187-195, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.10.006.
  2. César San Juan; Mikel Subiza-Pérez; Laura Vozmediano; Restoration and the City: The Role of Public Urban Squares. Frontiers in Psychology 2017, 8, 1–13, 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02093.
  3. Staats, H.; Jahncke, H.; Herzog, T.R.; Hartig, T; Urban options for psychological restoration: Common strategies in everyday situations. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0146213.
  4. Eder, M.; Cortes, F.; Teixeira de Siqueira Filha, N.; Araújo de França, G.V.; Degroote, S.; Braga, C.; Ridde, V.; Turchi Martelli, C.M; Scoping review on vector-borne diseases in urban areas: Transmission dynamics, vectorial capacity and co-infection. Infect. Dis. Poverty 2018, 7, 1–24.
  5. Neale, C.; Aspinall, P.; Roe, J.; Tilley, S.; Mavros, P.; Cinderby, S.; Coyne, R.; Thin, N.; Bennett, G.; Thompson, C.W; et al. The Aging Urban Brain: Analyzing Outdoor Physical Activity Using the Emotiv Affectiv Suite in Older People. J. Urban Health 2017, 94, 869–880.
  6. Ulrich, R.S. Biophilia, Biophobia, and Natural Landscapes. In The Biophilia Hypothesis; Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1993; pp. 31–42.
  7. Ulrich, R.S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In Human Behavior and Environment; Altman, I., Wohlwill, J., Eds.; Plenum: New York, NY, USA, 1983; Volume 6, pp. 85–125.
  8. Scopelliti, M.; Carrus, G.; Bonaiuto, M; Is it Really Nature That Restores People? A Comparison with Historical Sites with High Restorative Potential. Front. Psychol. 2019, 9, 1-12.
  9. Karmanov, D.; Hamel, R; Assessing the restorative potential of contemporary urban environment(s): Beyond the nature versus urban dichotomy. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2008, 86, 115–125.
  10. Troffa, R.; Fornara, F. The relationship between restorative components and environmental preference in natural and built leisure environments. In Espacios Urbanos y Sostenibilidad: Claves Para la Ciencia y la Gestión Ambiental. Libro de Actas del XI Congreso de Psicología Ambiental; Fernández-Ramírez, B., Hidalgo, M.D.C., Salvador, C.M., Martos, M.C., Eds.; Universidad de Almeria: Almeria, Spain, 2011; pp. 231–237.
  11. Massimiliano Scopelliti; M. Vittoria Giuliani; Choosing restorative environments across the lifespan: A matter of place experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2004, 24, 423-437, 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.11.002.
  12. Stigsdotter, U.K.; Corazon, S.S.; Sidenius, U.; Kristiansen, J.; Grahn, P; It is not all bad for the grey city—A crossover study on physiological and psychological restoration in a forest and an urban environment. Health Place 2017, 46, 145–154.
  13. Lindal, P.J.; Hartig, T; Effects of urban street vegetation on judgments of restoration likelihood. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 200–209.
  14. Mikel Subiza-Pérez; Laura Vozmediano; César San Juan; Welcome to your plaza: Assessing the restorative potential of urban squares through survey and objective evaluation methods. Cities 2020, 100, 102461, 10.1016/j.cities.2019.102461.
  15. Hartig, T.; Van Den Berg, A.A.E.; Hagerhall, C.M.; Tomalak, M.; Bauer, N.; Hansmann, R.; Ojala, A.; Syngollitou, E.; Carrus, G.; Herzele, A.V.; et al. Health benefits of nature experience: Psychological, social and cultural processes. In Forest, Trees and Human Health; Nilsson, K., Sangster, M., Gallis, C., Hartig, T., De Vries, S., Seeland, K., Schipperijn, J., Eds.; Springer Science + Business Media B.V.: Berlin, Germany, 2011; Chapter 5; pp. 127–168.
  16. Ulrika K. Stigsdotter; Sus Sola Corazon; Ulrik Sidenius; Jesper Kristiansen; Patrik Grahn; It is not all bad for the grey city – A crossover study on physiological and psychological restoration in a forest and an urban environment. Health & Place 2017, 46, 145-154, 10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.05.007.
  17. Rita Berto; Assessing the restorative value of the environment: A study on the elderly in comparison with young adults and adolescents. International Journal of Psychology 2007, 42, 331-341, 10.1080/00207590601000590.
  18. Robert D. Bixler; Myron F. Floyd; Nature is Scary, Disgusting, and Uncomfortable. Environment and Behavior 1997, 29, 443-467, 10.1177/001391659702900401.
  19. Paula J. Gardner; Natural neighborhood networks — Important social networks in the lives of older adults aging in place. Journal of Aging Studies 2011, 25, 263-271, 10.1016/j.jaging.2011.03.007.
  20. Orr, D. Love It or Lose It: The Coming Biophilia Revolution. In The Biophilia Hypothesis; Kellert, S.R., Wilson, E.O., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1993; pp. 414–440.
  21. Hartig, T.; Staats, H. Linking preference for environments with their restorative quality. In From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration, Education and Application; Tress, B., Tres, G., Fry, G., Opdam, P., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2005; pp. 279–292.
  22. Thomas R. Herzog; Ashley E. Rector; Perceived Danger and Judged Likelihood of Restoration. Environment and Behavior 2008, 41, 387-401, 10.1177/0013916508315351.
  23. Hidalgo, M.C.; Berto, R.; Paz Galindo, M.; Getrevi, A.; Galindo Galindo, M.; Getrevi, A; Identifying attractive and unattractive urban places: Categories, restorativeness and aesthetic attributes. Medio Ambiente Comport. Hum. 2006, 7, 115–133.
  24. Subiza-Pérez, M.; Vozmediano, L.; San Juan, C. Welcome to your plaza: Assessing the restorative potential of urban squares through survey and objective evaluation methods. Cities 2019.
  25. Roger S. Ulrich; Robert F. Simons; Barbara D. Losito; Evelyn Fiorito; Mark A. Miles; Michael Zelson; Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1991, 11, 201-230, 10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80184-7.
  26. Diana Dushkova; Dagmar Haase; Annegret Haase; Urban Green Space in Transition: Historical parks and Soviet heritage in Arkhangelsk, Russia. Critical Housing Analysis 2016, 3, 1, 10.13060/23362839.2016.3.2.300.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback