My garden – my mate? Perceived restorativeness of private gardens and its predictors

Cervinka, Renate; Schwab, Markus J.; Schönbauer, Regina; Hämmerle, Isabella; Pirgie, Laura; Sudkamp, Jennifer

doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2016.01.013

Cited by 52 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This problem will be solved in subsequent experiments in which the level of additional variables will be measured and analyzed. Also, it would be interesting to check whether patients who show some kind of preferences for the forest environment will also achieve greater benefits from forest therapy (according to the logic: the better they like the forest, the better the forest works on them, according to the results of work, in which factors responsible for the prediction of the positive impact of garden therapy on the subjects were described [38]). Unfortunately, this study did not test this, which is another limitation, but it suggests direction of future activities for other scientists in this area.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of a Forest Therapy Programme on Mental Hospital Patients with Affective and Psychotic Disorders

Bielinis

Jaroszewska

Łukowski

et al. 2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The positive effect of forest bathing on the mental health and wellbeing of those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or experiencing stress has been proven. It is not known, however, how 'forest therapy' affects the mental health of people who are treated in a psychiatric hospital for affective or psychotic disorders. Potentially, forest therapy could bring many benefits to these people. To test the potential effectiveness of this therapy, a quasi-experiment was carried out in a psychiatric hospital in Olsztyn (north Poland). In the summer and autumn of 2018, the patients of the psychiatric hospital in Olsztyn participated in forest therapy interventions. The proposed forest therapy consisted of participating in one hour and forty-five minutes walks under the supervision of a therapist. Subjects filled out the Profile of Mood States Questionnaire (POMS) and the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-S) before and after the study. In the case of a group of patients with affective disorders, forest therapy had a positive effect on nearly all POMS scale subscales, with the exception of the 'anger-hostility' subscale, which did not change its values significantly after the intervention. In these patients, the greatest impacts were noted in the subscales 'confusion' and 'depression-dejection'; the level of anxiety measured with the STAI-S scale also significantly decreased. In the case of patients with psychotic disorders, the values of the 'confusion' and 'vigour' subscales and the STAI-S scale exhibited the greatest changes. These changes were positive for the health of patients. Regarding the 'fatigue' subscale, no significant changes were observed in patients with psychotic disorders. The observed changes in psychological indicators in psychiatric hospital patients with both kinds of disorders indicate that the intervention of forest therapy can positively affect their mental health. The changes observed in psychological indicators were related to the characteristics of the given disorder.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of a Forest Therapy Programme on Mental Hospital Patients with Affective and Psychotic Disorders

Bielinis

Jaroszewska

Łukowski

et al. 2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The size of the garden and diversity of features (e.g. a lawn, water, and so forth) were associated with increases in perceived restorativeness (recovery in ability to concentrate) [ 31 ]. People with larger gardens were more likely to have increased tree cover and spend more time in the garden [ 32 ], which might contribute to enhanced health benefits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Domestic gardens and self-reported health: a national population study

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere is a growing recognition of the health benefits of the natural environment. Whilst domestic gardens account for a significant proportion of greenspace in urban areas, few studies, and no population level studies, have investigated their potential health benefits. With gardens offering immediate interaction with nature on our doorsteps, we hypothesise that garden size will affect general health—with smaller domestic gardens associated with poorer health.MethodsA small area ecological design was undertaken using two separate analyses based on data from the 2001 and 2011 UK census. The urban population of England was classified into ‘quintiles’ based on deprivation (Index of Multiple Deprivation) and average garden size (Generalised Land Use Database). Self-reported general health was obtained from the UK population census. We controlled for greenspace exposure, population density, air pollution, house prices, smoking, and geographic location. Models were stratified to explore the associations.ResultsSmaller domestic gardens were associated with a higher prevalence of self-reported poor health. The adjusted prevalence ratio of poor self-reported general health for the quintile with smallest average garden size was 1.13 (95% CI 1.12–1.14) relative to the quintile with the largest gardens. Additionally, the analysis suggested that income-related inequalities in health were greater in areas with smaller gardens. The adjusted prevalence ratio for poor self-reported general health for the most income deprived quintile compared against the least deprived was 1.72 (95% CI 1.64–1.79) in the areas with the smallest gardens, compared to 1.31 (95% CI 1.21–1.42) in areas with the largest gardens.ConclusionsResidents of areas with small domestic gardens have the highest levels of poor health/health inequality related to income deprivation. Although causality needs to be confirmed, the implications for new housing are that adequate garden sizes may be an important means of reducing socioeconomic health inequalities. These findings suggest that the trend for continued urban densification and new housing with minimal gardens could have adverse impacts on health.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12942-018-0148-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…According to previous research, local greenspaces and private gardens provide similar benefits (see Figure 1). These include opportunities for social interactions and enhancing social cohesion (Cheng & Pegg, 2016;Peters et al, 2010;, improving mental health and well-being (Cervinka et al, 2016;Cheng & Pegg, 2016;Lee & Maheswaran, 2011;, and positively contributing to biodiversity (Cameron et al, 2012;Kong et al, 2010;Qiu et al, 2013;Vickery, 1995). Physical health benefits arise from getting to public greenspaces where residents may use active travel modes (walking, cycling) to access such spaces and they may then engage in further physical activity (Veitch et al, 2015).…”

Section: Private Gardens Versus Non-private Greenspacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Private Gardens social cohesion (Cheng & Pegg, 2016) mental health and well (Cheng & Pegg, 2016) (Cervinka et al, 2016) Physical health (Armstrong, 2000) contributing to biodiversity (Vickery, 1995) (Cameron et al, 2012) cooling and air quality (Cameron et al, 2012) socioeconomic benefits (Clayton, 2007) xx (2013), DOI 10.3097/LO.2013xx may use active travel modes (walking, cycling) to access such spaces and they may then engage in (Veitch et al, 2015). Gardening also has physical health benefits and is rigorous form of physical activity but is typically limited to private .…”

Section: Private Gardens Versus Non-private Greenspacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Private Gardens social cohesion (Cheng & Pegg, 2016) mental health and well-being (Cheng & Pegg, 2016) (Cervinka et al, 2016) Physical health (Armstrong, 2000) contributing to biodiversity (Vickery, 1995) (Cameron et al, 2012) cooling and air quality (Cameron et al, 2012) socioeconomic benefits (Clayton, 2007) Public Greenspace social cohesion mental health and well (Lee & Maheswaran, 2011) Physical health (Veitch et al, 2015) (Haskell et al, 2007) contributing to biodiversity (Kong et al, 2010) (Qiu et al, 2013 cooling and air quality (Tzoulas et al, 2007) socioeconomic benefits (Tyrvainen, 1997) Page 6 may use active travel modes (walking, cycling) to access such spaces and they may then engage in s physical health benefits and is rigorous form of physical activity but is typically limited to private ublic greenspaces rather than private gardens in relation to decreasing obesity, diabetes, blood pressure and other illnesses triggered by , as well as cooling and air quality benefits (Cameron et s also bring socioeconomic (Clayton, 2007;Tyrvainen, 1997).…”

Section: Private Gardens Versus Non-private Greenspacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Private Gardens as Urban Greenspaces: Can They Compensate for Poor Greenspace Access in Lower Socioeconomic Neighbourhoods?

Farahani

Phelan

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing process of urbanisation has major implications for the environment, biodiversity, and health and well-being of urban residents. Empirical evidence for urban greening benefits suggests that it is an appropriate planning and policy approach for tackling some of the problems associated with urbanisation, including biodiversity loss and heat island effects. Gardens on private residential lots represent a substantial proportion of greenspaces in low density cities with extensive suburban areas. Drawing on a qualitative study of residents in Sunshine North, Melbourne, Australia, this paper discusses three questions about the relationship of private gardens to public greenspaces:1) how does residents’ use of private gardens impact their use of other neighbourhood greenspaces;2) can private gardens address inequality of access to greenspaces in lower income neighbourhoods; and,3) what does this imply for planning and neighbourhood design?Contrary to previous research, the findings did not show a meaningful relationship between residents’ use of their gardens and local greenspaces, and further, that large yards and gardens do not substitute for poor access to local greenspaces. The paper concludes that policy makers and planners cannot assume private gardens and public greenspaces are interchangeable. While private gardens and local greenspaces can both provide positive benefits to residents, private gardens do not act as a substitute for local greenspaces in neighbourhoods of varying socio-economic status.

show abstract

My garden – my mate? Perceived restorativeness of private gardens and its predictors

Cited by 52 publications

References 39 publications

The Effects of a Forest Therapy Programme on Mental Hospital Patients with Affective and Psychotic Disorders

The Effects of a Forest Therapy Programme on Mental Hospital Patients with Affective and Psychotic Disorders

Domestic gardens and self-reported health: a national population study

Private Gardens as Urban Greenspaces: Can They Compensate for Poor Greenspace Access in Lower Socioeconomic Neighbourhoods?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About