To live a healthy lifestyle, urban residents need contact with nature and restoration in a natural environment. Environmental psychology has investigated the types and features of natural environments that could be optimal for restoration. Using a sample of undergraduates from the Czech Republic, the present study explored whether attractive and open natural environments are liked more and perceived as more restorative than unattractive and closed environments. Furthermore, this study explored which spatio-cognitive dimensions and emotional qualities of the environments are associated with the liking and perceived restoration of the environments. It was found that attractive and open environments were liked significantly more and had a significantly higher level of perceived restoration than attractive closed environments, but in the nonattractive environments, the openness of the environments had no significant effects on liking and perceived restoration. Although we only found a significant contribution of the spatio-cognitive dimension of mystery to liking and perceived restoration, emotional qualities of the environment were a good predictor for the liking and perceived restoration of natural environments. The effects of the aesthetic qualities of images and the photographic techniques used should also be considered. The results are discussed in connection with the fact that preference for attractive landscapes may lead to an underestimation of the value of ordinary nature in neighborhoods.

Faculty of Informatics and Management University of Hradec Králové Rokitanského 62 500 03 Hradec Králové Czech Republic

See more in PubMed

World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision-Population; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA. 2018. [(accessed on 29 May 2023)]. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/desa/2018-revision-world-urbanization-prospects.

de Groot W.T., van den Born R.J.G. Visions of Nature and Landscape Type Preferences: An Exploration in The Netherlands. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003;63:127–138. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00184-6. DOI

Kaplan R., Kaplan S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: 1989.

Knopf R.C. Recreational Needs and Behavior in Natural Settings. In: Altman I., Wohlwill J.F., editors. Behavior and the Natural Environment. Plenum; New York, NY, USA: 1983. pp. 205–240.

Ulrich R.S. Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment. In: Altman I., Wohlwill J.F., editors. Behavior and the Natural Environment. Plenum; New York, NY, USA: 1983. pp. 85–125.

Hartig T., Evans G.W., Jamner L.D., Davis D.S., Gärling T. Tracking Restoration in Natural and Urban Field Settings. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003;23:109–123. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00109-3. DOI

van den Berg A.E., Hartig T., Staats H. Preference for Nature in Urbanized Societies: Stress, Restoration, and the Pursuit of Sustainability. J. Soc. Issues. 2007;63:79–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2007.00497.x. DOI

Zube E.H., Sell J.L., Taylor J.G. Landscape Perception: Research, Application and Theory. Landsc. Plan. 1982;9:1–33. doi: 10.1016/0304-3924(82)90009-0. DOI

Hull R.B., Reveli G.R.B. Cross-Cultural Comparison of Landscape Scenic Beauty Evaluations: A Case Study in Bali. J. Environ. Psychol. 1989;9:177–191. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(89)80033-7. DOI

Ulrich R.S., Simons R.F., Losito B.D., Fiorito E., Miles M.A., Zelson M. Stress Recovery during Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1991;11:201–230. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7. DOI

Purcell A.T. Landscape Perception, Preference, and Schema Discrepancy. Environ. Plan. B. 1987;14:67–92. doi: 10.1068/b140067. DOI

Kent R.L., Elliott C.L. Scenic Routes Linking and Protecting Natural and Cultural Landscape Features: A Greenway Skeleton. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1995;33:341–355. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(94)02027-D. DOI

Real E., Arce C., Manuel Sabucedo J. Classification of Landscapes Using Quantitative and Categorical Data, and Prediction of Their Scenic Beauty in North-Western Spain. J. Environ. Psychol. 2000;20:355–373. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2000.0184. DOI

Appleton J. The Experience of Landscape. Wiley; Chichester, UK: New York, NY, USA: 1996. Rev. ed.

Korpela K., Hartig T. Restorative Qualities of Favorite Places. J. Environ. Psychol. 1996;16:221–233. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1996.0018. DOI

van den Berg A.E., Koole S.L., van der Wulp N.Y. Environmental Preference and Restoration: (How) Are They Related? J. Environ. Psychol. 2003;23:135–146. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00111-1. DOI

Herzog T.R., Colleen Maguire P., Nebel M.B. Assessing the Restorative Components of Environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003;23:159–170. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00113-5. DOI

Jiang B., Chang C.-Y., Sullivan W.C. A Dose of Nature: Tree Cover, Stress Reduction, and Gender Differences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014;132:26–36. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.005. DOI

Graves R.A., Pearson S.M., Turner M.G. Species Richness Alone Does Not Predict Cultural Ecosystem Service Value. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2017;114:3774–3779. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1701370114. PubMed DOI PMC

Wang R., Zhao J., Meitner M.J. Urban Woodland Understory Characteristics in Relation to Aesthetic and Recreational Preference. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017;24:55–61. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.03.019. DOI

Hoyle H., Hitchmough J., Jorgensen A. All about the ‘Wow Factor’? The Relationships between Aesthetics, Restorative Effect and Perceived Biodiversity in Designed Urban Planting. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017;164:109–123. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.011. DOI

Haviland-Jones J.D., Hale H.R., Wilson P., McGuire T.R. An Environmental Approach to Positive Emotion: Flowers. Evol. Psychol. 2005;3:104–132. doi: 10.1177/147470490500300109. DOI

White M., Smith A., Humphryes K., Pahl S., Snelling D., Depledge M. Blue Space: The Importance of Water for Preference, Affect, and Restorativeness Ratings of Natural and Built Scenes. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010;30:482–493. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.004. DOI

Völker S., Kistemann T. Developing the Urban Blue: Comparative Health Responses to Blue and Green Urban Open Spaces in Germany. Health Place. 2015;35:196–205. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.10.015. PubMed DOI

Wang R., Zhao J., Meitner M.J., Hu Y., Xu X. Characteristics of Urban Green Spaces in Relation to Aesthetic Preference and Stress Recovery. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019;41:6–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.03.005. DOI

Kaltenborn B.P., Bjerke T. Associations between Environmental Value Orientations and Landscape Preferences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2002;59:1–11. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00243-2. DOI

Mangone G., Dopko R.L., Zelenski J.M. Deciphering Landscape Preferences: Investigating the Roles of Familiarity and Biome Types. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021;214:104189. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104189. DOI

Yuan S., Browning M.H.E.M., McAnirlin O., Sindelar K., Shin S., Drong G., Hoptman D., Heller W. A Virtual Reality Investigation of Factors Influencing Landscape Preferences: Natural Elements, Emotions, and Media Creation. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2023;230:104616. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2022.104616. DOI

Herzog T.R. A Cognitive Analysis of Preference for Waterscapes. J. Environ. Psychol. 1985;5:225–241. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(85)80024-4. DOI

Herzog T.R., Bosley P.J. Tranquility and Preference as Affective Qualities of Natural Environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1992;2:115–127. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80064-7. DOI

Lückmann K., Lagemann V., Menzel S. Landscape Assessment and Evaluation of Young People: Comparing Nature-Orientated Habitat and Engineered Habitat Preferences. Environ. Behav. 2013;45:86–112. doi: 10.1177/0013916511411478. DOI

Ode Å., Fry G., Tveit M.S., Messager P., Miller D. Indicators of Perceived Naturalness as Drivers of Landscape Preference. J. Environ. Manag. 2009;90:375–383. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.013. PubMed DOI

Liu X., Tvinnereim E., Grimsrud K.M., Lindhjem H., Velle L.G., Saure H.I., Lee H. Explaining Landscape Preference Heterogeneity Using Machine Learning-Based Survey Analysis. Landsc. Res. 2021;46:417–434. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2020.1867713. DOI

Schirpke U., Tasser E., Tappeiner U. Predicting Scenic Beauty of Mountain Regions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013;111:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.11.010. DOI

Fiallo E.A., Jacobson S.K. Local Communities and Protected Areas: Attitudes of Rural Residents Towards Conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environ. Conserv. 1995;22:241–249. doi: 10.1017/S037689290001064X. DOI

Durrant J.O., Shumway J.M. Attitudes Toward Wilderness Study Areas: A Survey of Six Southeastern Utah Counties. Environ. Manag. 2004;33:271–283. doi: 10.1007/s00267-003-3019-1. PubMed DOI

Strumse E. Demographic Differences in the Visual Preferences for Agrarian Landscapes in Western Norway. J. Environ. Psychol. 1996;16:17–31. doi: 10.1006/jevp.1996.0002. DOI

Van den Berg A.E., Koole S.L. New Wilderness in the Netherlands: An Investigation of Visual Preferences for Nature Development Landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006;78:362–372. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006. DOI

Balling J.D., Falk J.H. Development of Visual Preference for Natural Environments. Environ. Behav. 1982;14:5–28. doi: 10.1177/0013916582141001. DOI

Lyons E. Demographic Correlates of Landscape Preference. Environ. Behav. 1983;15:487–511. doi: 10.1177/0013916583154005. DOI

Roggenbuck J.W., Lucas R.C. Wilderness Use and User Characteristics: A State-of-Knowledge Review. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT. 1987;220:204–246.

Virden R.J. A Comparison Study of Wilderness Users and Nonusers: Implications for Managers and Policymakers. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 1990;8:3–24.

Yang G., Yu Z., Zhang J., Søderkvist Kristensen L. From Preference to Landscape Sustainability: A Bibliometric Review of Landscape Preference Research from 1968 to 2019. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2021;7:1948355. doi: 10.1080/20964129.2021.1948355. DOI

Herzog T.R. A Cognitive Analysis of Preference for Urban Nature. J. Environ. Psychol. 1989;9:27–43. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(89)80024-6. DOI

Fisher B.S., Nasar J.L. Fear of Crime in Relation to Three Exterior Site Features: Prospect, Refuge, and Escape. Environ. Behav. 1992;24:35–65. doi: 10.1177/0013916592241002. DOI

Andrews M., Gatersleben B. Variations in Perceptions of Danger, Fear and Preference in a Simulated Natural Environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010;30:473–481. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.001. DOI

Chiang Y.-C., Nasar J.L., Ko C.-C. Influence of Visibility and Situational Threats on Forest Trail Evaluations. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014;125:166–173. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.02.004. DOI

Gatersleben B., Andrews M. When Walking in Nature Is Not Restorative—The Role of Prospect and Refuge. Health Place. 2013;20:91–101. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.01.001. PubMed DOI

Nasar J.L., Jones K.M. Landscapes of Fear and Stress. Environ. Behav. 1997;29:291–323. doi: 10.1177/001391659702900301. DOI

Wartmann F.M., Frick J., Kienast F., Hunziker M. Factors Influencing Visual Landscape Quality Perceived by the Public. Results from a National Survey. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021;208:104024. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.104024. DOI

Sahraoui Y., Clauzel C., Foltête J.-C. Spatial Modelling of Landscape Aesthetic Potential in Urban-Rural Fringes. J. Environ. Manag. 2016;181:623–636. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.06.031. PubMed DOI

Liu Q., Zhu Z., Zeng X., Zhuo Z., Ye B., Fang L., Huang Q., Lai P. The Impact of Landscape Complexity on Preference Ratings and Eye Fixation of Various Urban Green Space Settings. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021;66:127411. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127411. DOI

Kravitz D.J., Peng C.S., Baker C.I. Real-World Scene Representations in High-Level Visual Cortex: It’s the Spaces More Than the Places. J. Neurosci. 2011;31:7322–7333. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4588-10.2011. PubMed DOI PMC

Zhang H., Houpt J.W., Harel A. Establishing Reference Scales for Scene Naturalness and Openness: Naturalness and Openness Scales. Behaviral Res. 2019;51:1179–1186. doi: 10.3758/s13428-018-1053-4. PubMed DOI

Russell J.A., Snodgrass K. Emotion and the Environment. In: Stokols D., Altman I., editors. Handbook of Environmental Psychology. Wiley; New York, NY, USA: 1987. pp. 245–281.

Hull R.B., Harvey A. Explaining the Emotion People Experience in Suburban Parks. Environ. Behav. 1989;21:323–345. doi: 10.1177/0013916589213005. DOI

Hartig T., Korpela K., Evans G.W., Gärling T. A Measure of Restorative Quality in Environments. Scand. Hous. Plan. Res. 1997;14:175–194. doi: 10.1080/02815739708730435. DOI

Berman M.G., Jonides J., Kaplan S. The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting with Nature. Psychol. Sci. 2008;19:1207–1212. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x. PubMed DOI

Kjellgren A., Buhrkall H. A Comparison of the Restorative Effect of a Natural Environment with That of a Simulated Natural Environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010;30:464–472. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.011. DOI

Martínez-Soto J., Gonzales-Santos L., Barrios F.A., Lena M.E.M.-L. Affective and Restorative Valences for Three Environmental Categories. Percept. Mot. Skills. 2014;119:901–923. doi: 10.2466/24.50.PMS.119c29z4. PubMed DOI

McMahan E.A., Estes D. The Effect of Contact with Natural Environments on Positive and Negative Affect: A Meta-Analysis. J. Posit. Psychol. 2015;10:507–519. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2014.994224. DOI

Russell J.A., Pratt G. A Description of the Affective Quality Attributed to Environments. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1980;38:311–322. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.311. DOI

Franěk M., Petružálek J., Šefara D. Facial Expressions and Self-Reported Emotions When Viewing Nature Images. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2022;19:10588. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191710588. PubMed DOI PMC

Hägerhäll C.M., Ode Sang Å., Englund J.-E., Ahlner F., Rybka K., Huber J., Burenhult N. Do Humans Really Prefer Semi-open Natural Landscapes? A Cross-Cultural Reappraisal. Front. Psychol. 2018;9:822. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00822. PubMed DOI PMC

Li K., Zhai Y., Dou L., Liu J. A Preliminary Exploration of Landscape Preferences Based on Naturalness and Visual Openness for College Students with Different Moods. Front. Psychol. 2021;12:629650. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.629650. PubMed DOI PMC

Joye Y., Dewitte S. Nature’s Broken Path to Restoration. A Critical Look at Attention Restoration Theory. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018;59:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.08.006. DOI

Bratman G.N., Daily G.C., Levy B.J., Gross J.J. The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015;138:41–50. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.005. DOI

Lee H.J., Son Y.H., Kim S., Lee D.K. Healing experiences of middle-aged women through an urban forest therapy program. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019;38:383–391. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.01.017. DOI

Yu C.P., Lin C.M., Tsai M.J., Tsai Y.C., Chen C.Y. Effects of Short Forest Bathing Program on Autonomic Nervous System Activity and Mood States in Middle-aged and Elderly Individuals. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2017;14:897. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14080897. PubMed DOI PMC

Stamps A.E., III Simulation Effects on Environmental Preference. J. Environ. Manag. 1993;38:115–132. doi: 10.1006/jema.1993.1033. DOI

Browning M.H., Saeidi-Rizi F., McAnirlin O., Yoon H., Pei Y. The Role of Methodological Choices in the Effects of Experimental Exposure to Simulated Natural Landscapes on Human Health and Cognitive Performance: A Systematic Review. Environ. Behav. 2021;53:687–731. doi: 10.1177/0013916520906481. DOI

Tinio P.P., Leder H. Natural Scenes Are Indeed preferred, but Image Quality Might Have the Last Word. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts. 2009;3:52–56. doi: 10.1037/a0014835. DOI

Knighton J. Eco-Porn and the Manipulation of Desire. Harper’s. 1993;287:14–15.

Levi D., Kocher S. Virtual Nature: The Future Effects of Information Technology on Our Relationship to Nature. Environ. Behav. 1999;31:203–226. doi: 10.1177/00139169921972065. DOI

Bebbington A. The Ability of A-level Students to Name Plants. J. Biol. Educ. 2005;39:63–67. doi: 10.1080/00219266.2005.9655963. DOI

Genovart M., Tavecchia G., Enseñat J.J., Laiolo P. Holding up a Mirror to the Society: Children Recognize Exotic Species Much More than Local Ones. Biol. Conserv. 2013;159:484–489. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.10.028. DOI