The regenerative compatibility: A synergy between healthy ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences


Autoři: Matteo Giusti aff001;  Karl Samuelsson aff002
Působiště autorů: Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden aff001;  Department of Geospatial and Computer Sciences, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227311

Souhrn

Urban nature is and will be the most common provider of nature interactions for humankind. The restorative benefits of nature exposure are renown and creating human habitats that simultaneously support people’s wellbeing and ecological sustainability is an urgent priority. In this study, we investigate how the relationship between environmental attitudes and healthy ecosystems influences restorative experiences combining a place-based online survey with geographical data on ecosystem health in Stockholm (Sweden). Using spatial regression, we predict the 544 restorative experiences (from 325 respondents), with people’s environmental attitudes, natural land covers, ecosystem health, and the statistical interactions among these variables as predictors. Our results show that restorative experiences can happen anywhere in the urban landscape, but when they occur in natural environments, the combined levels of biodiversity and ecological connectivity are better predicting factor than the mere presence of nature. That is, healthy ecosystems seem to be more important than just any nature for restorative experiences. Moreover, the statistical interaction between one’s environmental attitudes and natural environments predict almost all restorative experiences better than when these variables are independent predictors. This suggests that there is synergistic compatibility between environmental attitudes and healthy ecosystems that triggers restorative processes. We call this synergy regenerative compatibility. Regenerative compatibility is an unexploited potential that emerges when people’s attitudes and ecosystems are aligned in sustainability. We consider regenerative compatibility a valuable leverage point to transform towards ecologically sustainable and healthy urban systems. To this end, we encourage multifaceted policy interventions that regenerate human-nature relationships holistically rather than implement atomistic solutions.

Klíčová slova:

Ecosystems – Environmental health – Forecasting – Habitats – Relaxation (psychology) – Urban ecology – Urban ecosystems – Urban environments


Zdroje

1. UN-Habitat. Urbanization and development: emerging futures. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-Habitat; 2016.

2. Hartig T, Mitchell R, de Vries S, Frumkin H. Nature and health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35: 207–28. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443 24387090

3. Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, 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

4. Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol. 1995;15: 169–182.

5. Hartig T, Kahn PHJ. Living in Cities, Naturally. Science. 2016;352.

6. Edwards AR. The sustainability revolution: portrait of a paradigm shift. 2005. Available: http://www.deslibris.ca/ID/404478

7. Folke C, Jansson Å, Rockström J, Olsson P, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, et al. Reconnecting to the Biosphere. Ambio. 2011;40: 719–738. doi: 10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y 22338712

8. Rockstrom J, Klum M. Big World, Small Planet: Abundance Within Planetary Boundaries. Stockholm: Bokforlaget Max Strom; 2015.

9. Reed B. Shifting our Mental Model–”Sustainability” to Regeneration. Rethink Sustain Constr 2006 Gener Green Build. 2006; 1–18.

10. Cole RJ. Regenerative design and development: current theory and practice. Build Res Inf. 2012;40: 1–6. doi: 10.1080/09613218.2012.617516

11. Du Plessis C, Brandon P. An ecological worldview as basis for a regenerative sustainability paradigm for the built environment. J Clean Prod. 2014;109: 53–61. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.098

12. Bennett EM, Cramer W, Begossi A, Cundill G, Díaz S, Egoh BN, et al. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2015;14: 76–85. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007

13. Bennett EM. Research Frontiers in Ecosystem Service Science. Ecosystems. 2017;20: 31–37. doi: 10.1007/s10021-016-0049-0

14. Andersson E, Langemeyer J, Borgström S, McPhearson T, Haase D, Kronenberg J, et al. Enabling Green and Blue Infrastructure to Improve Contributions to Human Well-Being and Equity in Urban Systems. BioScience. 2019 [cited 2 Jul 2019]. doi: doi:10.1093/biosci/biz058

15. Raymond CM, Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N, Berry P, Breil M, Nita MR, et al. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ Sci Policy. 2017;77: 15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008

16. Soga M, Gaston KJ. Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature interactions. Front Ecol Environ. 2016;14: 94–101. doi: 10.1002/fee.1225

17. Giusti M, Barthel S, Marcus L. Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Preschool Children in Stockholm. Child Youth Environ. 2014;24: 16. doi: 10.7721/chilyoutenvi.24.3.0016

18. Bar M. The proactive brain: memory for predictions. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2009;364: 1235–1243. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0310 19528004

19. Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali LM, Knight TM, Pullin AS. A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health. 2010;10: 456–456. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-456 20684754

20. Bratman GN, Hamilton JP, Daily GC. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012;1249: 118–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06400.x 22320203

21. Keniger LE, Gaston KJ, Irvine KN, Fuller R a. What are the Benefits of Interacting with Nature? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10: 913–935. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10030913 23466828

22. Ulrich RS. View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from surgery. Science. 1984;224: 420–421. doi: 10.1126/science.6143402 6143402

23. Berman M, Jonides J, Kaplan S. The Cognitive Benifits of Interacting With Nature. Psychol Scinece. 2008;19: 1207–1212.

24. Roe J, Aspinall P. The Emotional Affordances of Forest Settings: An Investigation in Boys with Extreme Behavioural Problems. Landsc Res. 2011;36: 535–552. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2010.543670

25. Korpela K, De Bloom J, Sianoja M, Pasanen T, Kinnunen U. Nature at home and at work: Naturally good? Links between window views, indoor plants, outdoor activities and employee well-being over one year. Landsc Urban Plan. 2017;160: 38–47. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.005

26. Lee KE, Williams K, Sargent L, Williams N, Johnson K. 40-second green roof views sustain attention: The role of micro-breaks in attention restoration. 2015; 182–189. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.005

27. Kahn PH, Severson RL, Ruckert JH. The Human Relation With Nature and Technological Nature. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2009;18: 37–42. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01602.x

28. Haga A, Halin N, Holmgren M, Sörqvist P. Psychological Restoration Can Depend on Stimulus-Source Attribution: A Challenge for the Evolutionary Account? Front Psychol. 2016;7. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01831 27933011

29. Alvarsson JJ, Wiens S, Nilsson ME. Stress Recovery during Exposure to Nature Sound and Environmental Noise. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010;7: 1036–1046. doi: 10.3390/ijerph7031036 20617017

30. Berto R. Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. J Environ Psychol. 2005;25: 249–259. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001

31. Engemann K, Pedersen CB, Arge L, Tsirogiannis C, Mortensen PB, Svenning J-C. Residential green space in childhood is associated with lower risk of psychiatric disorders from adolescence into adulthood. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116: 5188–5193. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1807504116 30804178

32. Cox DTC, Shanahan DF, Hudson HL, Fuller RA, Gaston KJ. The impact of urbanisation on nature dose and the implications for human health. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018;179: 72–80. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.07.013

33. Collado S, Staats H, Sorrel MA. A relational model of perceived restorativeness: Intertwined effects of obligations, familiarity, security and parental supervision. J Environ Psychol. 2016;48: 24–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.08.004

34. Staats H, Hartig T. Alone or with a friend: A social context for psychological restoration and environmental preferences. J Environ Psychol. 2004;24: 199–211. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.005

35. von Lindern E. Setting-dependent constraints on human restoration while visiting a wilderness park. J Outdoor Recreat Tour. 2015;10: 29–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2015.06.001

36. von Lindern E, Bauer N, Frick J, Hunziker M, Hartig T. Occupational engagement as a constraint on restoration during leisure time in forest settings. Landsc Urban Plan. 2013;118: 90–97. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.03.001

37. Grahn P, Stigsdotter UK. The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space and stress restoration. Landsc Urban Plan. 2010;94: 264–275. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.10.012

38. Scopelliti M, Giuliani VM. Choosing restorative environments across the lifespan: A matter of place experience. J Environ Psychol. 2004;24: 423–437. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.11.002

39. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature. 2012;486: 59–67. doi: 10.1038/nature11148 22678280

40. Rockstrom J, Steffen W, Noone K, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, et al. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecol Soc. 2009.

41. Biggs R, Schlüter M, Schoon ML, editors. Principles for building resilience: sustaining ecosystem services in social-ecological systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.

42. Costanza R, Mageau M. What is a healthy ecosystem? Aquat Ecol. 1999;33: 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009930313242

43. Costanza R. Ecosystem health and ecological engineering. Ecol Eng. 2012;45: 24–29. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.03.023

44. Ives CD, Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Dorninger C, Klaniecki K, Fischer J. Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. Sustain Sci. 2018;13: 1389–1397. doi: 10.1007/s11625-018-0542-9 30220917

45. Ives CD, Kendal D. The role of social values in the management of ecological systems. J Environ Manage. 2014;144: 67–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.013 24921963

46. Barbaro N, Pickett SM, Parkhill MR. Environmental attitudes mediate the link between need for cognition and pro-environmental goal choice. Personal Individ Differ. 2015;75: 220–223. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.032

47. Kaiser FG, Brügger A, Hartig T, Bogner FX, Gutscher H. Appreciation of nature and appreciation of environmental protection: How stable are these attitudes and which comes first? Rev Eur Psychol AppliquéeEuropean Rev Appl Psychol. 2014;64: 269–277. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2014.09.001

48. Altman I, Rogoff B. World Views in Psychology: Trait, Interactional, Organismic, and Transactional Perspectives. In: Stokols D, Altman I, editors. Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Volume 1). New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1987. pp. 7–40.

49. Chemero A. Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2009.

50. Raymond CM, Giusti M, Barthel S. An embodied perspective on the co-production of cultural ecosystem services: toward embodied ecosystems. J Environ Plan Manag. 2017; 1–22. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2017.1312300

51. Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M, et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2017;26–27: 7–16. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006

52. Ohly H, White MP, Wheeler BW, Bethel A, Ukoumunne OC, Nikolaou V, et al. Attention Restoration Theory: A systematic review of the attention restoration potential of exposure to natural environments. J Toxicol Environ Health Part B. 2016;19: 305–343. doi: 10.1080/10937404.2016.1196155 27668460

53. Gibson JJ. The ecological approach to visual perception. New York, N.Y: Psychology Press; 1979.

54. Giusti M, Barthel S, Samuelsson K. Where is your Stockholm—geographical points. Swedish National Data Service; 2017. doi: 10.5878/002917

55. Samuelsson K, Giusti M, Peterson GD, Legeby A, Brandt SA, Barthel S. Impact of environment on people’ s everyday experiences in Stockholm. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018;171: 7–17. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.11.009

56. Hartig T, Korpela K, Evans GW, Gärling T. A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scand Hous Plan Res. 1997;14: 175–194. doi: 10.1080/02815739708730435

57. Tabrizian P, Baran PK, Smith WR, Meentemeyer RK. Exploring perceived restoration potential of urban green enclosure through immersive virtual environments. J Environ Psychol. 2018;55: 99–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.01.001

58. White MP, Pahl S, Ashbullby K, Herbert S, Depledge MH. Feelings of restoration from recent nature visits. J Environ Psychol. 2013;35: 40–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.04.002

59. Tam KP. Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. J Environ Psychol. 2013;34: 64–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004

60. Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy S a The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking Individuals’ Connection With Nature to Environmental Concern and Behavior. Environ Behav. 2008;41: 715–740. doi: 10.1177/0013916508318748

61. Cheng JC-H, Monroe MC. Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environ Behav. 2012;44: 31–49. doi: 10.1177/0013916510385082

62. Dunlap RE, Van Liere K. The new environmental paradigm. J Environ Educ. 1978;9: 10–19.

63. Clayton S. Environmental Identity: A Conceptual and Operational Definition. In: Clayton S, Opotow S, editors. Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2003. pp. 45–66.

64. Perkins HE. Measuring love and care for nature. J Environ Psychol. 2010;30: 455–463. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.004

65. Ellis RJ, Thompson F. Culture and the environment in the Pacific Northwest. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1997;91: 885–897.

66. Naturvårdsverket. Svenska Marktäckedata. 2017.

67. Barthel S, Koffman A, Bovin M, Lundqvist E, Campbell E, Tuvendal M. Kartläggning och analys av ekosystemtjänster i Stockholms stad. Stockholm: Calluna AB; 2015.

68. Bivand R. Spatial Dependence: Weighting Schemes, Statistics and Models. 2017.

69. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria; 2016. p. 3503. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-74686-7

70. QGIS Development Team. QGIS. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project; 2019. Available: http://qgis.osgeo.org

71. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L. Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern. Environ Behav. 1993;25: 322–348. doi: 10.1177/0013916593255002

72. Gifford R, Nilsson A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behaviour: A review. Int J Psychol. 2014 [cited 19 Dec 2017]. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12034 24821503

73. Gutteling JM, Wiegman O. Gender-specific reactions to environmental hazards in the Netherlands. Sex Roles. 1993;28: 433–447. doi: 10.1007/BF00289606

74. Luchs MG, Mooradian TA. Sex, Personality, and Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: Elucidating the Gender Effect. J Consum Policy. 2012;35: 127–144. doi: 10.1007/s10603-011-9179-0

75. Scannell L, Gifford R. Personally Relevant Climate Change: The Role of Place Attachment and Local Versus Global Message Framing in Engagement. Environ Behav. 2013;45: 60–85. doi: 10.1177/0013916511421196

76. Shanahan DF, Fuller RA, Bush R, Lin BB, Gaston KJ. The health benefits of urban nature: How much do we need? BioScience. 2015;65: 476–485. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv032

77. Franco LS, Shanahan DF, Fuller RA. A Review of the Benefits of Nature Experiences: More Than Meets the Eye. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14: 864. doi: 10.3390/ijerph14080864 28763021

78. Charles C, Keenleyside K, Chapple R, Kilburn B, van der Leest PS, Allen D, et al. Home to Us All: How Connecting with Nature Helps Us Care for Ourselves and the Earth. Children and Nature Network; 2018. Available: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/597b547aebbd1a681f3883f2/t/5bf561f12b6a2890e1a04b37/1542808051665/HometoUsAll.pdf

79. Chawla L. Life paths into effective environmental action. J Environ Educ. 1999;31: 15–26.

80. Zylstra MJ, Knight AT, Esler KJ, Le Grange LLL. Connectedness as a Core Conservation Concern: An Interdisciplinary Review of Theory and a Call for Practice. Springer Sci Rev. 2014; 119–143. doi: 10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3

81. Gifford R. Environmental psychology matters. Annu Rev Psychol. 2014;65: 541–79. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048 24050189

82. Lin BB, Fuller R a., Bush R, Gaston KJ, Shanahan DF. Opportunity or orientation? Who uses urban parks and why. PLoS ONE. 2014;9: 1–7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087422 24489913

83. Bjerke T, And CT, Kleiven J. Outdoor recreation interests and environmental attitudes in Norway. Manag Leis. 2006;11: 116–128. doi: 10.1080/13606710500520197

84. Lin BB, Gaston KJ, Fuller RA, Wu D, Bush R, Shanahan DF. How green is your garden?: Urban form and socio-demographic factors influence yard vegetation, visitation, and ecosystem service benefits. Landsc Urban Plan. 2017;157: 239–246. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.07.007

85. Pyle RM. The Thunder Tree: Lessons from an Urban Wildland. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1993.

86. Miller JR. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol Evol. 2005;20: 430–4. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013 16701413

87. Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, Vilsmaier U, et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio. 2017;46: 30–39. doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y 27344324

88. 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 23399852

89. Giusti M, Svane U, Raymond CM, Beery T. A Framework to Assess Where and How Children Connect to Nature. Front Psychol. 2018;8. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02283 29354088

90. van Heezik Y, Brymer E. Nature as a Commodity: What’s Good for Human Health Might Not Be Good for Ecosystem Health. Front Psychol. 2018;9. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01673 30250443

91. Hanski I, von Hertzen L, Fyhrquist N, Koskinen K, Torppa K, Laatikainen T, et al. Environmental biodiversity, human microbiota, and allergy are interrelated. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109: 8334–8339. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1205624109 22566627

92. Hertzen L von, Hanski I, Haahtela T. Natural immunity. EMBO Rep. 2011;12: 1089–1093. doi: 10.1038/embor.2011.195 21979814

93. Khan A, Plana-Ripoll O, Antonsen S, Brandt J, Geels C, Landecker H, et al. Environmental pollution is associated with increased risk of psychiatric disorders in the US and Denmark. Ioannidis JPA, editor. PLOS Biol. 2019;17: e3000353. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000353 31430271

94. Andersson E, Barthel S, Borgström S, Colding J, Elmqvist T, Folke C, et al. Reconnecting cities to the biosphere: Stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services. Ambio. 2014;43: 445–453. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0506-y 24740616

95. Stanley MC, Beggs JR, Bassett IE, Burns BR, Dirks KN, Jones DN, et al. Emerging threats in urban ecosystems: a horizon scanning exercise. Front Ecol Environ. 2015;13: 553–560. doi: 10.1890/150229

96. Davis N, Gatersleben B. Transcendent Experiences in Wild and Manicured Settings: The Influence of the Trait “Connectedness to Nature.” Ecopsychology. 2013;5: 92–102. doi: 10.1089/eco.2013.0016

97. Güneralp B, Zhou Y, Ürge-Vorsatz D, Gupta M, Yu S, Patel PL, et al. Global scenarios of urban density and its impacts on building energy use through 2050. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017;114: 8945–8950. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1606035114 28069957

98. Resch E, Bohne RA, Kvamsdal T, Lohne J. Impact of Urban Density and Building Height on Energy Use in Cities. Energy Procedia. 2016;96: 800–814. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.142

99. Soga M, Yamaura Y, Koike S, Gaston KJ. Land sharing vs. land sparing: does the compact city reconcile urban development and biodiversity conservation? J Appl Ecol. 2014;51: 1378–1386. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12280

100. Neuman M. The Compact City Fallacy. J Plan Educ Res. 2005;25: 11–26. doi: 10.1177/0739456X04270466

101. Kennedy CA, Stewart I, Facchini A, Cersosimo I, Mele R, Chen B, et al. Energy and material flows of megacities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112: 5985–5990. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1504315112 25918371

102. Foord J. Mixed-Use Trade-Offs: How to Live and Work in a Compact City Neighbourhood. Built Environ. 2010;36: 47–62. doi: 10.2148/benv.36.1.47

103. Van Der Waals J. The compact city and the environment: a review. Tijdschr Voor Econ En Soc Geogr. 2000;91: 111–121. doi: 10.1111/1467-9663.00099

104. Wentz EA, York AM, Alberti M, Conrow L, Fischer H, Inostroza L, et al. Six fundamental aspects for conceptualizing multidimensional urban form: A spatial mapping perspective. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018;179: 55–62. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.07.007

105. Samuelsson K, Colding J, Barthel S. Urban resilience at eye level: Spatial analysis of empirically defined experiential landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan. 2019;187: 70–80. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.03.015

106. Pyle RM. Nature matrix: reconnecting people and nature. Oryx. 2003;37: 206–214. doi: 10.1017/S0030605303000383

107. Giusti M. Home for future earth lovers: foundations of nature-connecting habitats for children. 2018.

108. Beatley T. Biophilic Cities. 2010.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2020 Číslo 1