Designed Natural Spaces: Informal Gardens Are Perceived to Be More Restorative than Formal Gardens

Abstract

Experimental research shows that there are perceived and actual benefits to spending time in natural spaces compared to urban spaces, such as reduced cognitive fatigue, improved mood, and reduced stress. Whereas past research has focused primarily on distinguishing between distinct categories of spaces (i.e., nature vs. urban), less is known about variability in perceived restorative potential of environments within a particular category of outdoor spaces, such as gardens. Conceptually, gardens are often considered to be restorative spaces and to contain an abundance of natural elements, though there is great variability in how gardens are designed that might impact their restorative potential. One common practice for classifying gardens is along a spectrum ranging from “formal or geometric” to “informal or naturalistic,” which often corresponds to the degree to which built or natural elements are present, respectively. In the current study, we tested whether participants use design informality as a cue to predict perceived restorative potential of different gardens. Participants viewed a set of gardens and rated each on design informality, perceived restorative potential, naturalness, and visual appeal. Participants perceived informal gardens to have greater restorative potential than formal gardens. In addition, gardens that were more visually appealing and more natural-looking were perceived to have greater restorative potential than less visually appealing and less natural gardens. These perceptions and precedents are highly relevant for the design of gardens and other similar green spaces intended to provide relief from stress and to foster cognitive restoration.

Impact of Frequency of Visits and Time Spent in Urban Green Space on Subjective Well-Being

“…Studies have shown that various variables modify the relationship between natural environments and SWB, such as the quality of green space [118,119], biodiversity/variation in vegetation types [120][121][122], untended or poorly managed green space conditions [32,123,124], types of activities available [7], the degree of crowding [122], the degree of naturalness [124,125], proximity to green space [126], accessibility [125], and perceived sense of safety [127].…”

Is it Really Nature That Restores People? A Comparison With Historical Sites With High Restorative Potential

“…Several studies, indeed, have investigated the restorative potential of nature through a comparison between pleasant natural environments and unpleasant built environments (Purcell et al, 2001; Berto, 2005). In this regard, some authors have shown the role of perceived attractiveness, or similar concepts, in the restoration process (Dijkstra et al, 2008; Nasar and Terzano, 2010; Twedt et al, 2016). On the other hand, the study of the restorative potential of built environments is still scant, and referred to examples with historical and/or artistic value, such as museums, monasteries, renewed and attractive neighborhoods, and plazas (Kaplan et al, 1993; Scopelliti and Giuliani, 2004, 2005; Ouellette et al, 2005; Karmanov and Hamel, 2008; Abdulkarim and Nasar, 2014).…”

Symmetry preference in shapes, faces, flowers and landscapes

“…This is clearly the case for landscaped gardens in particular starting with the Italian Renaissance style (Leon Battista Alberti, 1404–1472, wrote a book about architecture that talks extensively about gardens). A recent study, however, has found that the restorative power of gardens was higher for informal rather than formal gardens (Twedt, Rainey & Proffitt, 2016).…”