EETH 4010
Fall 2018
Nature’s Worth: Investigating the Benefits of Implementing of Nature for Humans’ Social, Cognitive, and Bodily Health
“Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and cheer and give strength to body and soul alike. This natural beauty-hunger is made manifest in the little windowsill gardens of the poor, though perhaps only a geranium slip in a broken cup, as well as in the carefully tended rose and lily gardens of the rich, the thousands of spacious city parks and botanical gardens, and in our magnificent National Parks ”
John MuirWhile “The Man Who Planted Trees” is a fictional short story, it has a subtle, yet effective way of encompassing the relationship that exists between humans and nature. Written by Jean Giono, the plot follows a weary traveler, who, searching for water, comes across a quiet shepherd that invites him into his home to take shelter In spending time with the shepherd, the unnamed traveler observes the desolate town, which operates on cutting down their white oak forests for charcoal production. The people are bitter and unhappy, living in a harsh climate and fighting among themselves, with “epidemics of suicides and numerous cases of insanity, almost always murderous.” Simultaneously, the narrator witnesses the shepherd, Elzéard Bouffier,
count out and plant one hundred perfect acorns every day. The narrator discovers that Elzéard has been practicing his unique habit for years, planting a total of one hundred thousand acorns without credit. He continues planting for the rest of his life, some thirty five years later, and by the time he passes, has replanted dense forests the townspeople believe to be naturally occuring, restoring ecological health to his home, as well as the health and happiness of his neighbors. In the beginning of the story, the village was barren and violent, completely transformed through the plantings into fertile land with happy, healthy residents being equally transformed. While the tale may seem far-fetched, it depicts a scene that forces the reader to evaluate how valuable individual plantings are in terms of the health and happiness of people near them. Nurseryman and writer Jeffrey Meyer reminisces on planting five hundred acorns with his uncle Buddy along the Iowa River, fondly explaining, “We didn’t own the land, we were simply being neighborly, doing a good deed – planting a shadier future for whoever wanted to enjoy it” (Meyer 2001), describing the joy he felt planting the trees and seeing them mature years later, as well as the despair he felt when he observed them being destroyed to make room for pavement. Meyer later began sponsoring a tree hoe that would allow builders and developers to move a tree, without killing it, allowing for urbanization while still preserving the trees at stake. He also continued to plant trees with his family, and traveled across the United States educating people about the importance of trees in the landscape, claiming that he has now grown trees planted in every state in America. His recollection has an uncanny resemblance to “The Man Who Planted Trees,” bearing the suggestion that one man can
radically change the situation of his environment for the better, causing a ripple effect in the people and places around him.
While Giono’s short story is whimsical fiction, and Meyer’s a personal recollection, the idea is all the same; people can greatly benefit from bringing the environment home. While a large amount of extensive research reaffirms the idea that nature drastically improves humans’ quality of life, it is difficult to get the public to motivate itself to do something as drastic as collecting, sorting, and planting thousands of acorns each day, or traveling across North America to sell environmentally-friendly tree hoes, as if everyone had the time or incentive to do so.
Enhancing health and wellness can be achieved through prioritizing exposure to nature before completely resorting to chemical and technological treatment. Importance must be placed on the contribution of nature for aiding treatment physically, mentally, and socially because of the correlation between the three; rarely is one healthy if the other two are not. It is imperative to understand the depth of the benefits of nature in order to advocate (especially to those who may not share the same love and understanding of planted spaces) the importance of ensuring its presence in design to benefit the human population.
In 1984, Mr. Edward O. Wilson coined the term “biophilia” to describe the attribute of human enchantment with naturally occurring things (Wilson, 1984). People have always had an obvious and continuous love of nature throughout history, whether it is consciously recognized or not. The biophilia hypothesis supports the theory that human thoughts, behavior, and actions toward nature are deeply rooted in evolution, where these were perhaps adaptive, and with time, became a biological function written in our genetic material. Throughout the
evolutionary timeline, humans have connected the existence of plants to their own survival, such as evidence of “food, shelter, and the presence of water,” (Grinde & Patil). Even subconsciously, the presence of the outdoor environment can have an involuntary and impulsive effect on people; for example, a stick on the ground may trigger a fear-driven response, because it resembles a snake at first glance when seen out of the corner of one’s eye. Upon examination, it poses no real danger, yet first instinct is fear as a survival tactic (Grinde & Patil, 2009). In a similar fashion, “elements of nature” does not necessarily narrow the range of elements to full-scale trees, but rather the presence of any characteristic of a natural element that stimulates the human senses, for example, flower fragrance. The absence of plants may suggest an “unnatural”, and thus potentially unsafe, environment,”(Grinde & Patil, 2009), which further strengthens the logic that the range in which an element is considered ‘biophilic’ is broad, and that the presence or absence of the components certainly has an effect on people. This association, passed down through generations, has had a lasting effect, all the way to the modern day, grooming people to crave environments with natural components. Biophilia is now much more widely recognized than it was previously in 1984, solidified by the theory of humans’ coevolution with nature being the reason we have this “innate love of nature” (Wilson, 1984). This brings attention to the idea that human affiliation with nature may be neither intended nor controlled, and the adaptive efforts of humans throughout history can still affect the cognitive reactions of humans in modern times.
Wilson proposed that humans need consistent contact with nature to develop properly due to the subconscious desire for natural elements. In one analysis, doctor of philosophy at the
Charles University in Prague’s Jana Krčmářová comments, “With the loss of direct contact with other species or life in general, psychic degradation of the human mind can occur. He [Wilson] not only calls for recognizing the necessity for human contact with other species, but also for acknowledging they psychological and ethical heritage, which humans have acquired in the course of co-evolution with other parts of the biosphere” (Krčmářová, 2009).
Scientists Virginia Lohr and Caroline Pearson-Mims performed a study to examine the human value of biophilic qualities; in this evaluation, they questioned whether plants in a setting actually had advantages other than their basic biological functions. Subjects were instructed to keep their hand in icy water for as long as they could stand. The participants were given either a piece of art, furniture, or some aesthetically-pleasing piece unrelated to nature, or a room where plants, the biophilic components, were present. The results revealed that the participants who were in the room with plants could hold attention longer, tolerate discomfort longer, and described their surroundings as more “cheerful, pleasant, and inviting” (Lohr & Pearson-Mims, 2000). A few years later, the women conducted another, similar, follow-up study to support their earlier research. In this case, images were shown to volunteers, rather than real-life settings. The photographs were either a natural scene, or some inanimate, yet aesthetically-pleasing piece that is not related to nature. Their findings displayed that the pictures of the natural scene drew more positive responses than the image of an inanimate object, and the natural images were more often described by participants as relaxing and attractive (Lohr & Pearson-Mims, 2006; Montgomery, 2015). In one article, the theory infers that nature is thought to be “peaceful” because of our biophilic tendencies, backed by other
research examining how naturally occurring colors, such as blue, green, and yellow, have a more positive effect on the human brain (Velarde, Fry, & Tveit, 2007; Cooper, 2015).
With the world population increasing every day, urban sprawling has led to the increased construction of built environments, and built environment areas void of biophilic elements have been shown to have potential to cause a negative effect on the brain (Velarde, Fry, & Tveit, 2007; Cooper, 2015). If biophilia is rooted in the genetic makeup of humans, a lack of connection from natural elements can create a psychological need to be reconnected to the outside world. So, adversely, if degradation of the mind can occur through loss of contact with nature (Krčmářová, 2009), a deteriorated mind may be reinvigorated through exposure to nature, resulting in positive change in physical and emotional wellness.
A growing practice in healthcare settings is the incorporation of nature into a patient’s environment for the purpose of speeding up recovery. A “healing garden” is designed mindfully for a the benefit of humans in stressful settings. An effective healing garden can be used in all seasons to ensure that, whatever the time of year and whatever the ailment, patients can fully take advantage of the garden to the best of their ability. Through design and plantings picked to reflect beauty in all seasons, the garden can affect the afflicted person in the most positive way possible. In the article published on Therapeutic Landscapes Network, Naomi Sachs’s research claims that Wilson’s definition of biophilia, “the innately emotional affiliation of human beings to other living organisms” (Kellert and Wilson, 2013) is the root of these benefits; “nature in hospital and elsewhere play a role in both disease prevention and health promotion” (Sachs, 2016). To clarify the use of biophilia’s role in assistance to patients in need of healing, it is also
imperative that patients have the ability, if they wish, to be immersed in what the garden has to offer them. Sachs goes on to explain:
“According to Roger Ulrich’s Theory of Supportive Garden Design (1999), healing gardens should provide 1) nature engagement (plants, animals, water, fresh air), 2) a sense of control (for example, doorways that are easily navigable, and areas where people can find privacy), 3) opportunities for social support, and 4) opportunities for movement and exercise. While it may seem obvious that nature should be present in a healing garden, examples of nature-poor healthcare “gardens” abound. Stakeholders must work together to maximize the natural, biophilic elements that facilitate the best possible outcomes for all users” (Sachs, 2016).
The idea behind the theory of healing gardens is that the patient’s attention has the ability to shift from his or her stressor, whether it exists mentally or physically, to whatever element of nature is present and stimulating to the senses. The shift can reduce mental fatigue, saving that energy and improving recovery time after being under stress. This is similar to how nature responds to “deadheading” a plant, or removing a part which causes it distress to preserve the plant as a whole (Merriam-Webster). The energy that was being consumed by the patient’s stress can now be diverted and used to assist in healing the patient. Healing gardens uphold the ideas of biophilia as an adaptation, which is why the push for nature’s existence in stressful settings for the enrichment of healing has become even more popular. While many healing gardens may be outside, such as those seen near hospitals, office buildings, schools, and various job sites, the effects are not confined to those spaces; all people can reap the benefits of being close to nature in some form, due to the collective evolution as a species resulting in the urge to be near elements of the outdoor environment.
Therapeutic Landscapes Network describes a “restorative garden” as “any landscape—wild or designed, large or small—that facilitates human health,” alluding to the idea
that even something as small as a potted daisy in a windowsill can provide some sort of healing to a person. Stephen Kaplan’s 1995 study used the term “restorative,” explaining that redirecting attention in stressful situations is crucial to the “executive functioning” of humans. Executive functioning is described, in this case, as “the capability necessary to lead a purposeful and organized life” (Kaplan, 1995). Directed attention is voluntary and requires conscious effort, resulting in ‘active’ focus and providing a deterrent for distraction. Because directed attention requires intuition, it also can be easily worn out, exhausting one’s mind and resulting in mental fatigue. To put it into perspective, a student working on a large project for school would have to direct their attention, for extended periods of time, to their project until it is finished. There comes a sense of relief at the time of the project’s submission; however, with it also comes a feeling of mental collapse caused by the intense mental emphasis on the workload. The state of mind experienced by the student can cause a poor state of mental health until their attention is redirected, giving the student time to mentally “heal.”
To explain why the need for restorative healing through nature is so important, the aspects of directed attention must first be understood. Directed attention is needed for the active selection, inhibition, perception, feeling, thought, and action in one’s everyday life. These six mental abilities are crucial for normal mental daily function in humans. A mind that has not been depleted by intense focus is assumed able to be more productive, because it is not spending excess energy repairing itself (Cooper, 2015). People who cannot draw on directed attention can feel irritable, which can lead to stress, characterized by anxiety (Kaplan, 1995), which both can degrade cognitive ability. According to Collins Dictionary of Medicine, irritability
is “the state of being abnormal excitability featuring an exaggerated response to a small stimulus,” while anxiety is defined in the medical field as “an abnormal and overwhelming sense of apprehension and fear also marked by physical signs (such as tension, sweating, and increased pulse rate), by doubt concerning the reality and nature of the threat, and by self-doubt, about one’s ability to cope with it” (Merriam-Webster). Additionally, the American Psychological Association states that people with anxiety typically have recurring intrusive thoughts or concerns, avoiding certain situations out of worry, hindering mental health and life experiences. The difference in human character is that people who have anxiety tend to cling to others in their declined mental state, while people who feel irritable tend to avoid interaction with others. Directed attention is also needed for various forms of conscious action, which is required multiple times throughout the daily life of an individual, such as safely operating a car, making decisions, or staying alert in a dangerous situation. Conscious action requires inhibition, defined by Merriam Webster as “an inner impediment to free activity, expression, or functioning: such as a mental process imposing restraint upon behavior or another mental process (such as a desire).”
The lack of inhibition in a person can lead to lashing out or acting on a whim due to lack of both patience and restraint, resulting in action intended for short-term, rather than long-term, which, in turn, can wreak havoc on one’s social life and relationships. Lack of inhibition leads to acting on impulse and inappropriate behavior in private and public situations, including altering the ability to act on short notice, such as fleeing a dangerous circumstance, carrying out uncomfortable but necessary actions, or avoiding physical violence in the heat of
an angry moment (Kaplan, 1995). In terms of perception, directed attention is necessary to fully grasp whatever situation is presented, diminishing the chance of distraction when weighing the pros and cons of the situation, and therefore refraining from impaired perception. With the absence of directed attention, it becomes much more difficult to deal with instances where the proper response is not immediately clear and apparent, and becomes harder to create and follow a plan of action. When decision-making is unclear to that extent, the person at stake may become caught up in the short-term, choosing to meet the needs of the immediate decision, rather than choosing what is right for the bigger picture. Selection is a difficult process to those who do not struggle with directed attention to begin with; however, when directed attention becomes an issue, problem-solving and decision-making become increasingly difficult. This may challenge one’s mental health due to the inability to select the best option in problems in everyday life. Kaplan argues that decision-making is the largest role of directed attention, because it calls for voluntary attention without distractions to properly select the best choice.
After thorough explanation and analysis of directed attention and its benefits, it is important to reiterate how necessary voluntary, controlled attention is, while also understanding how fragile it is. Because it is easily fatigued, it can quickly throw off mental health when tired out, which can then lead to decline in social and physical health (Kaplan, 1994; Hartig, Bringslimark, & Patil, 2008). Integrating nature into restorative healing can help to reduce one’s mental fatigue after extended periods of concentration. To have a ‘restorative’ experience, the brain must shift to involuntary attention, which does not require effort, kind of like the brain’s version of autopilot: the total opposite of directed, voluntary attention.
Involuntary attention is likely to resist exhaustion, and when involuntary attention is in action, directed attention can rest and recuperate before the next big mental task (Kaplan, 1995).
Kaplan substitutes “fascination” for “involuntary attention” to explain the role it plays in restorative healing. In this way, Kaplan’s “soft fascination” refers to the ability to be mesmerized by something, while still being able to focus on other thoughts and obligations (like listening to water fountain or watching leaves blow away) where a “hard fascination” refers to something that takes excessive directed thought (such as a research paper or a Calculus test). Restorative healing is a type of soft-fascination, which is described as a characteristic of natural setting, providing a peaceful setting in which one can reflect, which can further enhance the benefit of recovering from directed attention. While fascination plays a vital role in restoration, it does mean that every setting in which there is fascination is a basis for healing. Rather, it is part of the whole for an environmental restoration area. For an area to be classified as restorative, it must be complete in four areas: being “away,” fascinating, extensive, and compatible. Nature tends to fill all four, being the ideal setting for restorative healing (Kaplan, 1995). “Being away” can conceptually shift struggles by reflection in a new environment, which is why people often “get away” on vacations that unsurprisingly are usually natural settings, such as a lake, beach, forest, or the mountains. Extent requires the environment to be different enough to feel like a new place, not just the same environment with tiny, microscopic differences. Kaplan says the new environment must be different enough to feel like a “new world,” providing “enough to see, experience, and think about, so that it takes up a substantial portion of the available room in one’s head” (Kaplan, 1995). Compatibility is necessary because the environment must meet
the intended purpose of the restorative healer. One must be present in an environment that will allow their intentions to be met by providing enough information, while the subject also must meet the needs of the setting.
Nature is ideal for healing, restorative settings. It is filled with innumerable fascinating objects: plants, animals, clouds, sunsets, streams, and breezes that are under the category of soft fascination. It may capture a viewer’s attention but does not require directed attention, and therefore allows room for reflection on other areas in one’s life. Watching these elements is unproblematic, yet it is still beautiful and otherworldly enough to provide an environment to de-stress after mental fatigue. In terms of extent, areas both large (such as a forest or lake), and small (such as a trail), can provide the ethereal experience that is needed to be classified as a restorative area. Miniaturization, such as that seen in Japanese gardens, can create a feeling of being part of a different world, as can a garden from a different culture. Landscape design can easily result in something that feels so separate it becomes like a different experience, leading to soft fascination and providing a perfect setting for restorative mental healing. Compatibility in humans in reference to the environment can be seen in many of our activities in nature, such as biking, hiking, fishing, and swimming. Kaplan breaks it down to explain the different roles humans play in nature, such as predator, locomotion, domestication, observation, and survival, bringing attention to the fact that many people function in nature more effortlessly than they do in man-made, built environments- ironic due to the large sum of time usually spent in the constructed settings (Kaplan, 1995).
In relation to mental health, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) found that 18.3% of American adults live with a mental illness, equaling up to about 44.7 million people in 2016. The NIMH also released data displaying around 16.2 million people over the age of 18 in the United States had a major depressive episode in 2016, defined as: “a period of two weeks or longer during which there is either depressed mood or loss of interest or pleasure, and at least four other symptoms that reflect a change in functioning, such as problems with sleep, eating, energy, concentration, self-image or recurrent thoughts of death or suicide,” representing 6.7% of the adult population in America. The NIMH Additionally, 19.6% of US adults had anxiety, 3.6% had post-traumatic stress disorder, 2.8% had bipolar disorder, 1.2% had obsessive compulsive disorder, and 2.7% had an eating disorder in 2016. While several mental illnesses are typically diagnosed simultaneously with other mental illnesses, the percentage of the American population with some form of mental illness is, at nearly 20%, a significant portion of our population.
Economically, mental illness can lead to substantial fiscal loss. In 2010, total loss in productivity in the United States were an estimated $2.5 trillion (Trautmann, Rehm, Wittchen, 2016). Direct costs include, but are not limited to, costs associated with medication, medical visits, and hospitalization, while indirect costs are the ones not necessarily taken immediately into account: death, disability, need for outside care, and production loss due to sick days. Keeping workers on their job sites is the most effective way to reduce lost productivity, and with stress having such a strong influence on mental health, the desirable route is to reduce stress to prevent the decline of emotional health. Experiments have shown that people who have some
form of access to the outside world, such as natural light, plants, or water describe higher levels of fulfillment and productivity, and lower levels of stress within their jobs than workers who only have access to man-made surroundings; yet, worker reports display that 47% have no natural light and 58% have no natural greenery (Cooper, 2015). The evidence is so strong that some environmental scientists claim that the lack of natural elements in stressful areas results in the yearning of biophilic components, which, in turn, can result in the disorders that are plaguing society (Grinde, 2009; Grinde & Patil, 2009).
It has been proven that daily exposure to nature can lead to long-term satisfaction with the details in one’s life, regardless of daily stressors (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Planted spaces are used for stress reduction and relief, but can also be associated with lessened Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), depression, improved cognitive function, emotional resilience, mood, and satisfaction ( Marcus & Sachs, 2014; Kuo, 2015). The importance of nature is in fact, so prevalent, that environmental writer Richard Louv coined the term “nature-deficit” to explain the lasting, prevalent effects of children receiving sub-optimal exposure to nature, resulting in these mental disorders (Louv, 2008). Removing green elements has such a lasting effect on mental health that people who do not receive sufficient exposure to nature can even be described as having a lower quality of life, with the inference that the inverse, a closer association with nature can improve both psychological health, as well as quality of life (Ulrich,et al, 1991; Ulrich, 1999; Pretty, Peacock, & Hine, 2006). Famed architect Frederick Law Olmsted once described natural space as vital to mental and physical health, and, on the subject of nature in restoration, wrote, “the mind without fatigue and yet exercises it;
tranquilizes it and yet enlivens it; and thus, through the influence of the mind over the body, gives the effect of refreshing rest and reinvigoration to the whole system” (Olmstead, 1865; Kaplan, 1995). Olmsted’s description creates a connection between mental and physical health, enforcing that by being mentally healthy, the entire body itself is “reinvigorated.”
Exposure to nature can help recover people physically because of the restorative properties that lead to increased mental health, and because a healthy mind is usually paired with a healthy body. Roger Ulrich has several works published on the matter, such as how healing gardens can benefit nurses, doctors, and patients, allowing for restorative healing in stressful settings (Ulrich, 1984, 1999; Ulrich and Perkins, 2017; Cordoza, et. al, 2018), to the extent that even pictures of nature, in some cases, could lessen hospital stays in patients recovering from open heart surgery (Ulrich, Linden, and Etinge, 1993; Diette, et. al., 2002). In one study, Roger Ulrich gathered hospital records regarding patients who had undergone gallbladder removal surgery in a suburban hospital in Pennsylvania. In this experiment, the purpose was to justify decreased healing time, due to the availability of nature to a healing surgery patient. To minimize outliers in the evidence, he kept the patients’ age range between 20 and 69 years old, and disregarded patients with weakened immune systems or a history of psychological illness. Additionally, all patients were assigned to double rooms on the second and third floors of the hospital, with the interiors of the rooms being nearly identical. The variable was the patient’s view from the hospital bed; the two options being either an open view to nature, in this case, a small cluster of trees, or a plain, brown, brick wall. A total of 46 patients were paired based on factors, “including sex, age, smoking status, obese or normal weight,
general nature of previous hospitalization, year of surgery and floor level and on the second floor, the color of their room” (Ulrich, 1984). In each pairing, one patient had the view of the brick wall, and the other had the view of the cluster of trees. In his findings, Ulrich describes:
“Statistically significant differences were found between the tree-view patients and brick wall-view patients on patient length of stay, pain medication use, and nurse notes. Patients with a view of trees were hospitalized shorter (7.96 days) than patients who had a view of the brick wall (8.7 days). Brick wall-view patients had more negative nurses’ notes (3.96 per patient, examples of negative notes--“upset and crying” or “needs much encouragement”; examples of good notes-- “in good spirits” and “moving well” than tree-view patients (1.13 per patient). Patients with nature window views received fewer analgesic doses 2-5 days after surgery” (Ulrich, 1984).
Ulrich also describes the need for medications as vastly different, recounting that while both groups of patients received pain medications post-surgery, the patients with the natural view required less powerful medication, such as over the counter prescriptions like aspirin and acetaminophen. On the contrary, the group with the brick view more frequently needed heavier pain medication, typically narcotics (Ulrich, 1984). Additionally, patients who had the more natural view typically had lower reports of minor complications after their cholecystectomies.
Ulrich’s evidence can be used to gather that in stressful settings, like the hospital, exposure to nature can improve patients’ reactions to pain caused by surgeries. The correlation between shortened patient length of stay and positive notes by the nurses is significant in describing how good emotional health can assist in physical healing. Multiple studies have stressed the significance of nature in a patient’s recovery, with the consensus being that exposure to a
natural setting versus an urban setting, or even lack of exposure to anything other than hospital walls, tend to decrease healing time in a patient’s hospital stay. Physically, nature has been linked to reduction in pain, fatigue, and myopia, while it can be linked to an increase in “immune function, bone strength, and wound healing” (Kuo, 2015). Additionally, the correlation of patients with a view of a nature and reduced complications post-surgery is evidence enough to believe that just in giving a patient in recovery the opportunity to be exposed to natural surroundings, there is less money spent on future doctor appointments, medicine, and lost productivity due to time taken off work. Just one small change can lead to benefits trickling down, right from the patient’s hospital bed, all the way to their employers and finances.
In offices and schools, when fragrant plants are added to the settings, reports of tiredness, coughing, and general discomfort decrease in the workers and school children (Fjeld, et al, 1998; Fjeld, 2000), which may be caused by the visual element of the plants or the reaction to the fragrances (Kim & Mattson, 2002; Liu, Kim, & Mattson, 2003). Employees who were exposed to nature in their professional workplace reported fewer sick calls and headaches than those who were not (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989), and workers in France who had views of scenes such as greenery, wildlife, and ocean views reported higher feeling of well-being than their peers exposed to only urban scenes (Velarde, Fry, & Tveit, 2007; Cooper, 2015). Health benefits by exposure to nature can be caused by a variety of things:
“Ulrich points to four possible advantages: One, being in nature tends to correlate with physical activity, which obviously promotes health. Two, nature activities often implies socializing, e.g., in the form of walking together or sitting in a park with friends. Building social networks has a well documented potential for improving health. Three, nature offers temporary escape from everyday routines and demands. The fourth option is the question of to what extent the interaction with nature itself has an appreciable impact on the mind; in other words,
is there an extra benefit of performing these tasks in a natural environment, or can the physical and social advantages alone explain the observed benefits?” (Ulrich, 1999; Grinde & Patil, 2009)
In one study, created to determine if there is extra benefit in performing a physical activity in the vicinity of nature, volunteers were asked to run through several settings: a rural pleasant scene, a rural unpleasant scene, an urban pleasant scene, or an urban unpleasant scene. Evidence showed that of those who ran in the rural pleasant scene, not a single participant experienced an increase in blood pressure, compared to 35-40% of participants in the other three scenes experiencing a raise in blood pressure. Additionally, 80% of participants that ran through the rural pleasant scene reported improved self esteem, compared to the 45-65% in the other three groups (Pretty, Peacock, Sellens, & Griffin, 2005). While exercise is obviously already beneficial to bodily health, this evidence supports the idea that exercise can be enhanced in spaces where there is presence if nature, resulting in lower blood pressure and further enhancing cardiovascular health, and also improving self esteem, which benefits mental health.
Another study at the University of Michigan was designed to question this idea of “green exercise” by having students walk around two settings: a busy downtown street or an arboretum. After the walk, a series of tests concluded that people who walked through the arboretum, rather than the urban area, had higher memory and attention function and reported being in a better mood than the other volunteers (Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan, 2008; Montgomery, 2015). Once again, areas that are aesthetically pleasing do to natural elements can tap into humans’ biophilic tendencies, strengthening the body and mind alike.
Two experiments led by Terry Hartig, Marlis Mang, and Gary W. Evans aimed to expand on to the theories of the Kaplans in their research on the psychological and physical benefits of being exposed to nature. Both studies required participants who volunteered to go hiking (if people were randomly selected, most would not participate to the extent of those who actively wanted to hike). The group was then narrowed down into control groups based on physical fitness and experience, with each participant having been on at least three intense backpacking trips prior to be considered eligible (Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991). Each participant had to undergo several tests and data reports, including: personal background, age, gender, physical fitness and attitudes towards wilderness, occupation, education, experience, membership in conservation groups pertaining to the environment, and anticipation of the study Reports included the Wildernism-Urbanism scale, Overall Happiness scale (OHS), and the Zuckerman Inventory of Personal Reactions (ZIPERS) (Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991). These were created to describe attitudes towards specific wilderness activities, measure overall happiness, and measure emotional states, respectively; an additional test was given, having each group proofread and locate errors in the material, utilizing each participant’s use of directed attention. Three groups were pre-tested, showing no significant difference, and were used for an experimental period between four and seven days, with twenty-five on a wilderness hike and twenty-five who stayed at home performing normal routines. The third group of eighteen went on a non-intensive vacation, and participated in activities such as paying visits to loved ones, tours by a car around the vacation area, and sightseeing. After the duration of each experience, the subjects were tested again. In the post-test, the group of backpackers tested as overall happier, while also improving in their proofreading skills, which can increase the claim that time
spent in wilderness can serve as a means of restorative healing. In a second study by the scientists to support the research collected, seventeen men and seventeen women were randomly selected and assigned to one of three experiences: an urban environment, a natural environment, or passive relaxation. The students underwent the same prior mental and physical testing as the initial groups in experiment one, as well as the same proofreading material. Additionally, in this group, skin conduction, blood pressure, and pulse were taken before the experiment started. The natural experience participants were taken to Santiago Oaks Park area with a stream, decorative vegetation, and rock ledges; the urban environment participants to a large city with areas containing mixed-use as well as residential-use land; and the passive relaxation participants stayed in the lab where the research was conducted on the campus of the University of California. All of the participants underwent forty minutes of intense mental exercise that was designed to induce mental fatigue, incentivized by a prize of fifty dollars for the most accurate editing presentation. Immediately following the tests, the participants were taken on a forty-minute walk in the assigned natural or urban environment; in the assignment of passive relaxation, participants quietly sat and read magazines for the same duration of time. In post-testing, the group who was exposed to the natural environment had higher ratings of overall happiness and positive affect, as well as lower ratings of anger, aggression, and sadness than the other two groups (Hartig, Mang, & Evans, 1991). Both experiments by the trio of scientists can supplement to the argument that, after fatigue due to extended use of directed attention, green exercise can help in restorative healing, benefiting people both mentally and
physically. The data provided can be used to support the implementation of green space for humans to utilize near their homes.
In the modern world, people live in densely-populated cities, meaning that some of the smallest geographical areas can contribute the most to environmental destruction, leading to health hazards from pollution from smog, vehicle exhaust, water contamination, and more. The close proximity of urban areas can lead to spread of disease and obesity due to reduced physical activity. Built environments have a tendency to unintentionally alienate humans through nature, that are often environmentally degrading and can lead to a downward spiral in terms of physical and mental health and productivity (Hartig, Bringslimark, & Patil, 2008). However, in one essay, the idea of compact cities is raised as a platform of energy efficiency:
“Some well-known efforts to achieve urban sustainability have focused on compactness as a key factor to maintaining environmental, social, and economic resources (Banister, Watson, & Wood, 1997; Duany, Plater-Zyberk, & Speck 2000; Krier 1998). Compact cities are characterized by the close juxtaposition of buildings and roads with limited interstitial space to insert greenery; mixed land use; and a union of form and function (Jenks et al., 1996). Proponents argue that compact cities are more energy efficient and less polluting because residents can live closer to shops and work and can walk, bike, or use public transport instead of their car. In social terms, compactness is also believed to increase social cohesion, equity, and accessibility” (Hartig, Terry, Van Den Berg, 2007).”
In areas like these, where their biophilic needs are not met, people historically have responded by taking action to alter their surroundings into one with more natural elements, whether it was intentional or not (Kellert, 2005; Grinde & Patil, 2009), constructing the vision of biophilic design. “Biophilic design” is intentional design with special emphasis on inclusion of natural elements for benefiting an expansive range of people (Heerwagen, 2009; Montgomery,
2015). Environmental writer Stephen R. Kellert and producer Bill Finnegan describe the goals of biophilic design as:
“buildings that connect people and nature - hospitals where patients heal faster, schools where children’s test scores are higher, offices where workers are more productive, and communities where people know more of their neighbors and families thrive. Biophilic Design points the way toward creating healthy and productive habitats for modern humans” (Finnegan & Kellert, 2016).
Kellert, in previous research, described biophilic design as divided into two main groups: organic and place-shaped. Organic design elements are those seen in nature, such as botanical and animal motifs, simulation of natural processes, such as biomimicry, and forms seem frequently in nature, like shells, spirals, and others lacking rigid lines. Place-shaped design uses elements that heighten awareness of self and place, based on human-nature relationships that have evolved through biophilia and adaptations over time. Kellert gives examples such as cultural, historic, or ecological relationships to a place, or human-nature correlations such as refuge, spirituality, and curiosity (Kellert, 2008). Kellert specifically listing curiosity as a human-nature correlation is significant because that is exactly what Augustin intended when she brought attention the need for stimulation and enticement for a space to be considered an effectively functioning biophilic design (Augustin, 2014).
The avocation for this new movement for biophilic design is so strong that some firms have even been founded on the principles of biophilic design alone, such as Terrapin Bright Green, LLC in New York City Terrapin Bright Green claims that by evaluating the biophilic preferences of the human mind, they design spaces that result in “ health and well-being
benefits that result in financial savings through higher worker productivity and retention rates, improved student test scores, increased real estate values, and faster patient recovery rates,” while also employing environmental strategies to combat climate change in an urban area that lacks sustainable practices. This idea of “transformational ecology,” or how human thought and behavior transforms or affects their surrounding area (Montgomery, 2015), is relatively new, and weaves itself into the promotion of modern biophilic design when humans place natural elements in an area previously deficient of them, which benefits people mentally, physically, and emotionally, as well as the surrounding ecosystem biologically.
Biophilic design can be reinforced in urban planning, with special focus on mixed land use areas. Mixed land use refers to the use of land for a variety of purposes, including commercial, industrial, cultural, or residential. Green space, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, is defined as ‘an area of grass, trees, or other vegetation set apart for recreational or aesthetic purposes in an otherwise urban environment.’ In many of these urban areas, there is a growing push for green space in highly populated spaces, in part due to the positive effect on human health. Green space has always been sought after by humans due to our biophilic adaptations, which is a stark contrast to the concrete jungles we have surrounding us today, which is why people alter their surroundings to be more natural. It can be assumed that the positive correlation between health and exposure to the outdoors is an effect of the biophilic yearning for nature, as well as the biological functions of plants themselves, including “cleansing” the air by removal of pollutants, benefiting respiratory health.
A 1996 mixed use urban land study was performed by William C. Sullivan and F. E. Kuo to promote the idea that a person’s living environment is heavily reflected in his or her psychological, social, and physical wellbeing. While some argued that worsened health in cities may come from too many people in too small of a space, the scientists tried to prove that the presence of nature in a city environment can add to a person’s mental and social health. Sullivan and Kuo described those who reside in a city as less social than those who lived in more rural areas with more open space. To do this, the experts looked at government-funded housing in a Chicago, narrowing their citizens down to 75 African-American women to avoid crossing socioeconomic boundaries, which could tamper with the data outcome. The women were housed in one of eighteen buildings; ten buildings had trees present, and eight did not. To further ensure data was not affected by other variables, Sullivan and Kuo confirmed there were no “systematic differences” in the groups of people in each building, meaning that housing was most likely assigned, rather than groups of people collecting by choice. Additionally, because the architecture is identical, there are about the same number of people per building, erasing the chance of different noise levels or crowding due to population differences. In questioning these women, they found that the sample living in areas lacking trees reported having fewer visitors and knowing fewer of their neighbors than the women who had trees around them. Additionally, women in buildings with trees claim to have better relationships with their neighbors, describing a feeling of ‘unity and cohesion,’ while also reporting that they felt safer and less threatened than the groups lacking trees in the area surrounding their homes (Sullivan & Kuo, 1996).
To explain their findings, another mini-experiment was conducted, where outdoor spaces were observed in public housing. Areas that contained trees were used much more frequently than spaces that are architecturally and climatically the same. Their research found that people with strong connections to their neighborhood are more mentally and physically healthy and are less likely to have reported instances of child abuse and reliance on social services, thereby lessening the burden on their respective cities. Citizens in the presence of urban forestry are more likely to use reasoning with their children over physical violence, which may be correlated to the strengthened neighborhood ties. By knowing their neighbors and peers, the people living in public housing have developed an emotional support system, leading to stronger mental health and less violent actions towards loved ones. Sullivan and Kuo explain that these findings happen between people and their natural environment because “trees create outdoor spaces that attract people. When people are drawn to spaces with trees, they are more likely to see and interact with their neighbors, more likely to get to know each other and become friends” (Sullivan & Kuo, 1996). Sullivan and Kuo’s research further displays how humans are drawn to nature, and if given green space, can enhance their social life, which boosts mental well being.
This explanation for the increase in social interactions between the women supports of Roger Ulrich’s previously-mentioned theories: that green space provides areas for socialization, which builds social networks that can lead to better mental and physical health, and that green space can provide an “escape” for troubles of everyday life, providing mental relief from stressors (Ulrich, 1999). The attraction of people to green space itself exists in people of all
areas, races, and genders, and can be argued again that it is due to our natural love of nature, biophilia. Biophilia’s effect on humans comes full circle in this way to promote healthy relationships, as well as greater mental, physical, and emotional health where there is nature.
The evidence for positive effects of natural elements in populated areas is strong enough to create the new wave of support for biophilic design with prioritization of green space. In one 2004 real life situation, the Genzyme Corporation in the United States designed new corporate headquarters, resulting in one of the first Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum certified buildings. The building was designed with the intent of bringing in natural elements, including natural light brought in by a glass exterior and lots of windows, indoor gardens and water features, and a chandelier designed to reflect sunlight. A year and a half after its opening, staff surveys revealed that a whopping 88% said the exposure to natural elements improved their sense of well-being, and 75% claimed to feel more connected to co-workers (Cooper, 2015). The conscious design of the Genzyme building with focus on natural elements was so effective that the staff were self-aware of their physical and social improvements, which boosts mental wellness by reducing bodily exhaustion and strengthening social bonds. Once again, the effects of biophilia, deep rooted in human nature, prevail as beneficial to human health and well-being.
The importance of nature’s presence simply cannot be stressed enough. Of course, it is required for basic biological functions, but in this day and age, is desperately needed in everyday human settings: work places, hospitals, homes, cities, and so forth. The benefits are incredible, from a simple mood boost, restoring mental fatigue, reducing time spent in hospital
stay, to reduced infections post surgery (Ulrich, 1984), all the way to avoiding money spent on days off of work for illness (Trautmann, Rehm, Wittchen, 2016; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). There is enough evidence in these settings to both suggest and encourage a push for plantings to be incorporated into aspects of daily life, which are so often ignored in design. It should be the responsibility of everyone to ensure communities are environmentally healthy enough to benefit their citizens. Prioritizing green space in design should be achieved by placing emphasis on the benefits that can be reaped for people mentally, physically, and socially. Mr. Jeffrey Meyer and fictional Mr. Elzéard Bouffier were far ahead on their understanding and love of nature, creating role models in environmental responsibility all people should strive to model themselves after, in hopes to create better environments for the people's’ overall health and well being.
WORKS CITED:
Augustin, Sally. “Designing for Mood . ” Design with Science. Designing for Mood, 2 Apr. 2014, Manhattan, Kansas. United States.
“Anxiety” American Psychological Association, American Psychological Association, www apa org/topics/anxiety/
Banister, David, S Watson, and C Wood “Sustainable Cities: Transport, Energy, and Urban
Form” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol 24, 1997, pp 125–143 ,
doi:http://citeseerx ist psu edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10 1 1 474 8662&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Berman, Marc, John Jonides, and Stephen Kaplan “The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting with Nature” Psychological Science, vol 19, no 12, Dec 2008, pp 1207–1212 ,
doi:10 1111/j 1467-9280 2008 02225 x
Cooper, Cary “The Global Impact of Biophilic Design in the Workplace” Human Spaces, Interface, 2015, blog interface com/
Cordoza, Makayla, Roger Ulrich, Bette Manulik, Stuart Gardiner, Paul Fitzpatrick, Teresia Hazen, Alar
Mirka, and Richard Perkins. “Impact of Nurses Taking Daily Work Breaks in a Hospital Garden on Burnout” American Journal of Critical Care, Nov 2018
Diette, Gregory B , Noah Lechtzin, Edward Haponik, Aline Devrotes, and Haya Rubin “Distraction Therapy with Nature Sights and Sounds Reduces Pain during Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Complementary Approach to Routine Analgesia.” Bronchoscopy, vol. 123, no. 3, 2002, pp.
941–948 , doi: https://doi org/10 1378/chest 123 3 941
Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press, 2000 (294 pp.)
Finnegan, Bill and Stephen R Kellert Biophilic Design: The Architecture of Life Biophilic Design, Tamarack Media, 12 Apr 2016, www biophilicdesign net/
Fjeld, Tove, Bo Veiersted, Leiv Sandvik, Geir Riise, and Finn Levy. “The Effect of Indoor Foliage Plants on Health and Discomfort Symptoms among Office Workers” Indoor and Built Environment, vol 7, 1998, pp 204–209
Fjeld, Tove. “The Effect of Interior Planting on Health and Discomfort among Workers and School Children.” HortTechnology , vol. 10, no. 1, Jan. 2000, pp. 46–52.
Giono, Jean “The Man Who Planted Trees” Taxon, vol 51, no 3, 2002, p 612 doi:10 2307/1554909
Grinde, Bjørn “Can the Concept of Discords Help Us Find the Causes of Mental Diseases?” Medical Hypothesis, no 73, Mar 2009, pp 106–109
Grinde, Bjørn and Grete Patil. “Biophilia: Does Visual Contact with Nature Impact on Health and Well-Being?” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 6, 2009, pp 2332–2343
Hartig, Terry and Agnes E Van Den Berg “Preference for Nature in Urbanized Societies: Stress, Restoration, and the Pursuit of Sustainability.” Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, Wiley/Blackwell (10.1111), 16 Feb. 2007, spssi onlinelibrary wiley com/doi/full/10 1111/j 1540-4560 200700497 x
Hartig, Terry, Marlis Mang, and Gary Evans “Restorative Effects of Natural Environment Experiences.” Environment and Behavior, vol. 23, no. 1, 1991, pp. 3–26., doi: 10.1177/0013916591231001.
Hartig, Terry, Tina Bringslimark, and Grete Patil “Chapter 9: Restorative Environmental Design: What, When, Where, and for Whom?” Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, by Stephen R. Kellert, Judith H. Heerwagen, and Martin L. Mador. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 2013, pp. 133–151.
Heerwagen, Judith H “Biophilia, Health, and Well-Being” Restorative Commons: Creating Health and Well-Being Through Urban Landscapes, by Lindsay Campbell and Anne Wiesen, General Technical Report Proceedings, 2009, pp. 38–58.
Jenks, Mike, Elizabeth Burton, and Katie Williams The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? London: E , & F N Spon 1996
Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen Kaplan. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, 1989
Kaplan, Stephen “The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 1995, pp.169-182., http://willsull.net/resources/KaplanS1995.pdf.
Kellert, Stephen R Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection Island Press, 2005
Kellert, Stephen R and Edward O Wilson The Biophilia Hypothesis Island Press, 2013
Kellert, Stephen R “Chapter 1: Dimensions, Elements, and Attributes of Biophilic Design” Biophilic
Design: The Theory, Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life, edited by Stephen R. Kellert. by Judith H. Heerwagen and Martin L Mador, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 2013, pp 3–19
Kim, Eunhee and Richard H Mattson “Stress Recovery Effects of Viewing Red-Flowering
Geraniums.” Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture, vol. 13, 2002.
Krier, Leon Architecture: Choice or Fate Vol 1, Papadakis, 2008
Krčmářová, Jana. “E. O. Wilson's Concept of Biophilia and the Environmental Movement in the USA” Klaudyan: Internet Journal of Historical Geography and Environmental History, vol 6, no 1-2, 2009, pp 4–17
Kuo, Ming. “How Might Contact with Nature Promote Human Health? Promising Mechanisms and a Possible Central Pathway.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 6, 25 Aug. 2015, p. 1093. doi:
10 3389/fpsyg 2015 01093
Liu, M “Influences of Lavender Fragrance and Cut Flower Arrangements on Cognitive Performance.” International Journal of Aromatherapy, vol. 14, no. 4, 2004, pp. 169–174.
Lohr, Virginia L and Caroline Pearson-Mims “Physical Discomfort May Be Reduced in the Presence of Interior Plants” HortTechnology, vol 10, no 1, Jan 2000, pp 53–58
Lohr, Virginia L. and Caroline Pearson-Mims. Human Well-being Promoted by Trees, Especially Those with Preferred Forms Human issues in Horticulture Research 2006
Louv, Richard Last Child in The Woods Algonquin Books; New York, NY 2008
Marcus, Clare Cooper and Naomi A Sachs “An Evidence-Based Approach to Designing Healing
Landscapes: The Business Case and Funding for Therapeutic Gardens” CITYGREEN: Nature & Health in Cities, vol 01, no 09, 2014, p 78 doi:10 3850/s2010098114000097
Montgomery, Melissa “Benefits of Biophilic Design Explored Through Human Ecology”
Undergraduate Research Center for the Human Sciences, vol 14, 2015
Meyer, Jeffrey G. and Sharon Linnea. “My Magnificent Obsession.” America's Famous and Historic Trees: from George Washington's Tulip Poplar to Elvis Presley's Pin Oak, Houghton Mifflin, 2001, pp 1–6
Muir, John The Yosemite Dover Publications, Inc , 2018
Health Council of the Netherlands Nature and Health: The Influence of Nature on Social, Psychological and Physical Well-Being Health Council of the Netherlands and Dutch Advisory Council for Research on Spatial Planning, Hague, 2004;
Olmsted, Frederick Law (1865) The value and care of parks Reprinted in Nash, R (Ed ) (1968), The American Environment: Readings in the history of conservation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 18-24.
Pretty, Jules, Jo Peacock, Martin Sellens, and Murray Griffin “The Mental and Physical Health Outcomes of Green Exercise” International Journal of Environmental Health Research, vol 15, no. 5, Oct. 2005, pp. 319–337.
Pretty, Jules, Jo Barton, and Rachel E Bragg “Green Exercise: The Benefits of Activities in Green Places” Biologist, vol 53, 2006, pp 143–148
Sachs, Naomi A. “Exploring the Connection between Nature and Health.” Therapeutic Landscapes Network, 11 Sept 2016, 6:49PM, www healinglandscapes org/blog/2016/09/what-is-a-healing-garden/
“Statistics.” National Institute of Mental Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Nov. 2017, www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/index.shtml.
Sullivan, William C and Frances E Kuo “Do Trees Strengthen Urban Communities, Reduce Domestic Violence?” Forestry Report, Urban Forestry Center for the Midwestern United States. US Forest Service. US National Agricultural Library, vol. 56, Jan. 1996.
“Terrapin” Terrapin Home - Terrapin Bright Green LLC, Terrapin Bright Green, LLC, Founded by Bill Browning and Bob Fox. 2018, www.terrapinbrightgreen.com/.
Trautmann, Sebastian, Jürgen Rehm, and Hans-Ulrich Wittchen “The Economic Costs of Mental Disorders” The Economic Costs of Mental Disorders, vol 17, no 9, 2016, pp 1245–1249
doi:10 15252/embr 201642951
Ulrich, Roger Simons “View through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery,” Science, Issue 4647, 1984, 224, 420–421
https://www healthdesign org/chd/knowledge-repository/view-through-window-may-inf
luence-recovery-surgery
Ulrich, R , Robert Simons, Barbara Losito, Evelyn Fiorito, Mark Miles, and Michael Zelson “Stress Recovery during Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol 11, no 3, Sept 1991, pp 201–230
Ulrich, Roger Simons, O. Lunden, J.L. Etinge. “Effects of Exposure to Nature and Abstract Pictures on Patients Recovery from Heart Surgery” Psychophysiology 1993
Ulrich, Roger Simons “Effects of Gardens on Health Outcomes: Theory and Research”, pp 27-86, in Cooper Marcus C & Barnes M (eds), Healing Gardens. Therapeutic Benefits and Design Recommendations, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1999.
Ulrich, Roger Simons and S Perkins “The Impact of a Hospital Garden on Pregnant Women and Their Partners” The Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing, vol 31, no 2, 2017, pp 186–187., doi:10.1097/JPN.0000000000000247.
Velarde, Maria, Gary Fry, and Mari Tveit “Health Effects of Viewing Landscapes – Landscape Types in Environmental Psychology.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, vol. 6, no. 4, 2007, pp. 199–212., doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2007.07.001.
Webster, Noah “Anxiety” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www merriam-webster com/dictionary/anxiety
Webster, Noah “Deadhead” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www merriam-webster com/dictionary/deadhead
Webster, Noah. “Inhibition.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inhibition.
Wilson, Edward O Biophilia Harvard University Press, 1984
Youngson, Robert M Collins Dictionary of Medicine 4th ed , Collins, 2005