ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 423–437

www.elsevier.com/locate/yjevp

Choosing restorative environments across the lifespan: A matter of

place experience
Massimiliano Scopellitia,b,, M. Vittoria Giuliania
a
National Research Council (CNR), Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technology, Via Nomentana, 56, 00161 Rome, Italy
b
Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Psychology 2, University ‘‘La Sapienza’’, Via dei Marsi, 78, 00185 Rome, Italy

Abstract

Past research on restorativeness has emphasized mainly the potential of natural environments. In our hypothesis, built
environments are also likely to be recognized as restorative places. In this study, focusing on restorative experiences more than on
environments alone, attention is drawn on the relative importance of the four restorative components proposed by ‘‘attention
restoration theory’’—being-away, extent, fascination, compatibility—in leisure experiences of people at different stages of the
lifespan, and on the characterization of these experiences in terms of relaxation and excitement. We also take account of the time
available for restoration and the context in which the need for restoration may emerge, according to three models of the
relationships between work and leisure: spill-over, compensation and segmentation. Results show that natural and built
environments can have different restorative potentials in relation to the stage of the lifespan and to the time available for restoration;
moreover, in people’s perception, the four restorative components differ from each other in their relative importance. The social and
affective dimensions came out as important features of restorative experiences. Finally, relaxation and excitement in leisure patterns
were shown to be differentially related to work characteristics. Briefly, restorativeness emerged as the result of a global ‘‘place
experience’’.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 1.1. Environmental restorativeness and attention

This article describes a study that aimed to broaden
the construct of restorativeness. Taking as a starting
point the model developed by Kaplan and Kaplan
(1989), the theoretical background proposed here
emphasizes the idea of the restorative potential of
environments as a perceived quality, in which physical
properties of places have to be considered together with
people’s needs and inclinations. Along with this
perspective, different research areas in social sciences
(ranging from environmental psychology to lifespan
psychology and to leisure behavior) have been jointly
considered within an integrative framework.
Corresponding author. Tel.:+39 06 44161529;
fax: +39 06 44161513.
E-mail address: m.scopelliti@istc.cnr.it (M. Scopelliti).
restoration theory
Research on restorative environments has grown out
of studies on the experience of natural environments,
which commonly found that they can contribute to
reducing stress and to promoting positive moods and
feelings (Ulrich, 1979, 1981; Ulrich et al., 1991; Hartig,
Mang, & Evans, 1991). Ulrich (1984) showed that they
can also facilitate recovery from illness. The concepts of
‘‘restorative experiences’’ and ‘‘restorative environ-
ments’’ (Kaplan & Talbot, 1983) emphasize the recover-
ing aspects of places, which allow people to distract, to
relax, to free their minds and to distance themselves
from ordinary aspects of life.
According to the attention restoration theory (ART)
(Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989), four components of environ-
ments account for their restorative value: being-away,
fascination, extent and compatibility.

0272-4944/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.11.002
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
424 M. Scopelliti, M. Vittoria Giuliani / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 423–437
Being-away refers to a change of scenery and
experience from everyday life. But what seems to be
necessary for an environment to be restorative is to
afford a conceptual rather than a physical distance from
the ordinary. A new environment is not restorative in
itself. It becomes restorative if it promotes a change in
one’s thoughts from the pressures and obligations of
everyday life.
Extent refers to the properties of connectedness and
scope in environments. First, a restorative environment
is perceived as a whole in which all elements are
coherently related. Second, it is perceived extended
enough to engage one’s mind, because it promises much
more to explore than what is immediately perceived.
Fascination refers to the capability of environments to
involuntarily catch one’s attention, not demanding
mental effort. A key point is the distinction between
soft and hard fascination. Soft fascination has a
moderate intensity and is allowed by aesthetically
pleasant stimuli which do not preclude the possibility
for reflection. Hard fascination refers to a very intense
involvement, leaving little room for thinking, and thus
supporting restoration to a lesser extent.
Compatibility refers to the degree of fit between the
characteristics of the environment and the individual’s
purposes and inclinations, that is to say, ‘‘the setting
must fit what one is trying to do and what one would
like to do’’ (Kaplan, 1995, p. 173).
The key concept of ART, whose source stems from
the work of Williams James (1892), is directed attention.
Directed attention is a mechanism which allows people
to focus on particular stimuli which may be uninterest-
ing, but nonetheless important to attend. This mechan-
ism requires some effort, because it has to deflect all
potential distractions, and thus is susceptible to fatigue.
Recovery of fatigued directed attention can be provided
by exposition to stimuli which are interesting ‘‘per se’’
and do not require using directed attention. Being
involved in interesting stimuli makes directed attention
temporarily unnecessary and allows it to recover.
Kaplan (1995) emphasizes that ‘‘only in the modern
world the split between the important and the interest-
ing has become extreme’’, because ‘‘what was important
to evolving human was innately fascinating and thus
does not require directed attention’’ (p. 170). Nature is
the environment in which man evolved, is innately
fascinating and thus does not require the use of directed
attention. Natural environments are assumed to be
highly characterized by the four restorative components
postulated by ART. Evidence pointing to the different
restorative values of natural and built environments has
often been provided (Hartig, Korpela, Evans, &
Gärling, 1996, 1997; Laumann, Gärling, & Stormark,
2001; Purcell, Peron, & Berto, 2001). These studies also
contributed to develop rating scale measures of being-
away, extent, fascination and compatibility perceived in
environments (Hartig et al., 1997; Laumann et al.,
2001). Moreover, Herzog, Maguire, and Nebel (2003)
provided empirical data showing that the four compo-
nents have different relative effectiveness as predictors
of the restorative potential of environments, with
compatibility and being-away being far more powerful
than extent and fascination.
1.2. Restorativeness and place experience
The restorative quality of environments has also been
posed as a possible frame of reference for preference
judgements on different scene types (Purcell et al., 2001).
Empirical evidence showing the relationships between
preference and restorativeness was provided. In several
studies, natural environments, represented on slides and
photos, are preferred by respondents, and they also
score higher than built ones on the four components
rating scales (Hernandez, Hidalgo, Berto, & Peron,
2001; Laumann et al., 2001; Purcell et al., 2001). Staats,
Kievet, and Hartig (2003) deepen the analysis of this
relationship, showing through an experimental study
that expectations for recovery and reflection to occur
provide a basis for environmental preference. These
expectations were found to be greater for a natural than
for an urban environment.
Most of these studies emphasize the physical char-
acteristics of restorative and preferred environments. A
different view would be to consider their function, for
instance, as places to live or to visit on vacation, as
suggested by some authors (Purcell, Lamb, Peron, &
Falchero, 1994; Peron, Purcell, Staats, Falchero, &
Lamb, 1998). More generally, the meaning of experi-
ences in any kind of environment can be better
understood by taking into account a wider range of
dimensions. The theory of place (Canter, 1977) under-
lines that the meaning of a place is the result of the
relationships between physical attributes, conceptions
and actions.
In keeping with Canter’s theory of place, the mean-
ings of places in general—and, in our hypothesis,
restorative meaning in particular—stem from the values
that different groups of people attribute to the
experiences they have usually had there; what people
do and with whom they are enjoying their time are
probably key aspects of these experiences. In this
perspective, an important line of research turned its
attention to the experiences people have in favorite
places, showing strong relationships between restorative
experiences, favorite places and the development of
personal identity. In a series of studies on children,
adolescents and young people, Korpela and colleagues
(Korpela, 1992; Korpela & Hartig, 1996; Korpela,
Hartig, Kaiser, & Fuhrer, 2001; Korpela, Kytta, &
Hartig, 2002) found that favorite places are chosen
according to the experiences people had there, which are
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Scopelliti, M. Vittoria Giuliani / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 423–437
important for self-regulation and identity development,
and include both natural and built environments,
both scoring high on the four restorative components
rating scales. These studies also show that restorative
experiences are not only associated with feelings of
relaxation, such as the ones described in past research
on natural environments, but also to enjoyment
and excitement as well. In this perspective, it is possible
to hypothesize alternative forms of restorative experi-
ence. Laumann et al. (2001) distinguish the role of the
four ART components in predicting recovery: the being-
away factor would predict relaxation, while compat-
ibility and fascination would predict a more cognitive
restoration, which promotes the recovery of directed
attention and which is correlated to preference to a
greater extent.
More generally, the molar place experience is
intrinsically embedded in a wide array of affective
reactions, which are as important as cognitive evalua-
tions and activities in shaping the meanings of the
human–environment interaction. According to Russell
and colleagues (Russell & Pratt, 1980; Russell, Ward, &
Pratt, 1981; Ward & Russell, 1981), affective qualities
attributed to places can be described by a circumplex
model, in which the space is defined by two orthogonal
and bipolar dimensions: pleasant/unpleasant and arous-
ing/sleepy. All the affective qualities, described by an
adjective, are based on a combination of the two main
dimensions. ‘‘Exciting’’, for instance, ‘‘should not be
viewed as meaning either pleasant or arousing alone, but
must be seen as meaning the combination of pleasant
and arousing’’ (Russell & Pratt, 1980, p. 312). So,
positive affective qualities associated with places—as
assumed in restorative experiences—can be character-
ized by either low or high levels of the arousing
dimension, resulting in both relaxing and exciting
experiences. Traditionally, the literature on restorative-
ness has stressed the importance of relaxation, while the
role of excitement has remained largely unexplored. An
exception is provided by Herzog, Black, Fountaine, and
Knotts (1997), who analyse the difference in the
restorative potential of natural environments and
settings for sports/entertainment with reference to the
distinction between soft and hard fascination, and found
that the latter promote directed attention recovery but
little opportunity for reflection.
1.3. Restorativeness, leisure behavior and lifespan
An issue we still have to deal with is the relationship
between restorative experiences and stage of the life-
span. Several studies have provided some interesting
insights on restorative experiences of children, adoles-
cents and university students (Korpela, 1992; Korpela &
Hartig, 1996; Wells, 2000; Korpela et al., 2001, 2002;
Wells & Evans, 2003). Conversely, there is a lack of
425
research clearly addressing this issue with respect to
development in adult life. Psychological models of the
human development across the lifespan draw their
attention to the different ‘‘developmental tasks’’ people
have to face at each stage (Erikson, 1968, 1982;
Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKee, 1978).
Because of changing tasks and changing needs, it is
possible to hypothesize also a change in what people
consider a restorative experience to be.
Development is seen as a dynamic of change and
continuity (Atchley, 1989). At any stage of the lifespan
people are involved in personal and social demands for
identity redefinition. An important research field in
social psychology underlines the role of leisure behavior
for human development and definition of identity
(Mannell & Kleiber, 1997; Kleiber, 1999). Leisure is
defined as ‘‘the combination of free time and the
expectation of preferred experience’’, and implies ‘‘free-
dom, lack of obligation’’, ‘‘absence of worry’’, ‘‘change
of perspective’’, ‘‘relaxation and enjoyment’’, ‘‘intense
involvement’’, ‘‘personal expressiveness’’ and ‘‘the im-
pression that this is what one meant to do and the
feeling that this is who one really is’’ (Kleiber, 1999, p.
24). In other words, leisure is likely to have a restorative
value, at least to some extent. Even though it is evident
that not all leisure situations are restorative, and not all
restorative experiences can be categorized as ‘‘leisure’’,
some kind of overlap between the two is expected to
exist.
People are likely to choose specific leisure behaviors
according to their needs, and their needs may change
according to their stage of the lifespan (Iso–Ahola,
1980). Patterns of leisure behaviors, however, show the
same tendency toward both novelty and stability as
development itself (Iso–Ahola, Jackson, & Dunn, 1994;
Raymore, Barber, Eccles, & Godbey, 1999; Raymore,
Barber, & Eccles, 2001).
In the analysis of the potential relationships between
leisure and restorative experiences, attention is focused
on adult development, which has been mostly neglected
in previous research.
In the stage following adolescence, and called emer-
ging adulthood by Arnett (2000), the aspects of relative
independence from social roles and expectations are
emphasized (Arnett, 2000). As a result, people at this
stage are involved in exploring life opportunities, both in
work and in social relationships, and in role experi-
mentation. Their leisure patterns are thus highly
characterized by a tendency to seek new experiences
(Iso-Ahola et al., 1994) and to share them with peers.
But we should note, in a developmental perspective, that
to be alone may also have an important role. It offers a
potential refuge for reflection and self-exploration, and
these also seem to be relevant issues for identity
definition (Larson, 1990; Korpela, 1992; Korpela
et al., 2001, 2002).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
426 M. Scopelliti, M. Vittoria Giuliani / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 423–437
Adulthood is considered the period of full realization
of instrumental and expressive dimensions of self
(Smelser, 1980). Family is the context that often
dominates this stage of the lifespan, and family roles
appear to be the key components that affect both leisure
behavior and what people consider a restorative
experience to be. Women, even when employed, are
also involved in housework and care for family members
(Perry-Jenkins & Crouter, 1990; Skolnick, 1991). As a
result, family is a restorative context much more for men
than for women (Repetti, 1989; Shaw, 1992; Freysinger,
1995; Larson, Gillman, & Richards, 1997). With respect
to this issue, Hartig, Johansson, and Kylin (2003)
propose a social ecological model of stress and restora-
tion with reference to the residential environment, in
which the relationships between social and environ-
mental demands, personal strategies of coping and
restoration possibilities are analysed. Emphasis is given
to the potential role of residential choices in regulating
the pattern of everyday activities, including leisure
and restorative activities, and to the influence of social
roles on the possibility of achieving a high-quality
restoration. Taken together, all these contributions shed
light on the possible existence of gender differences in
the characterization of restorative experiences. What-
ever the level of recovery provided and/or the differences
with respect to gender, a common meaning attributed to
leisure is change, often described as separation from
ordinary aspects of everyday life (Freysinger, 1995).
However, people at this stage of the lifespan show less
desire to seek novelty and exciting situations in their
leisure behavior (Iso-Ahola et al., 1994), probably also
as a consequence of a stronger definition of their
identities.
In later adulthood, in advance of change associated
with aging (retirement, empty nest, etc.), people try to
preserve their integrity by using adaptive strategies
inspired by past experiences (Atchley, 1989): briefly,
they search for familiar situations and relationships.
Longitudinal studies suggest continuity in patterns of
leisure behavior as well (Scott & Willits, 1998): stability
in leisure patterns progressively increases with life
stages, while the tendency to seek novelty declines. It
does not mean that elderly people do not have any need
for novelty and stimulation. They simply show a
narrower repertoire of leisure behaviors, within which
they are able to satisfy their need for novelty (Iso-Ahola
et al., 1994).
Literature on leisure behavior helps draw the atten-
tion on a mainly neglected aspect of restorative
experiences and their characterization in terms of social
interaction. With respect to this issue, Staats et al. (2003)
show that attentionally fatigued people evaluate less
favorably the presence of others during a walk in a
urban and in a natural environment than not fatigued
people. Staats and Hartig (2004) provide empirical
evidence of the role of the social context in enhancing
preference for natural and urban environment.
In an urban environment, social interaction in-
creases perceived restorativeness. Conversely, nature
is more restorative when people are alone, unless
the environment is perceived as unsafe. In this
situation, social interaction enhances the restorative
quality of natural environments by influencing perceived
safety.
1.4. Affective dimensions of leisure behavior and working
activities
Another research field in social psychology has
focused on the relationships between working activities
and leisure behavior. Three different models of interac-
tion between job characteristics and patterns of
leisure behavior have been proposed: (1) the general-
ization hypothesis, which implies that work attitudes
spill over to the realm of leisure activities, predicting
positive correlation between the two; (2) the com-
pensation hypothesis, which proposes that leisure is a
reaction to unsatisfying aspects of working activities;
(3) the segmentation hypothesis, which considers work
and leisure to be unrelated. Several studies have
addressed this issue, partly supporting the different
models (Kabanoff, 1980, 1982; Kabanoff & O’Brien,
1980, 1986; Kirkcaldy & Cooper, 1993). These studies
mainly assume that a need for restoration is likely to
emerge as a function of a specific occupation. As a
consequence, they often compare patterns of leisure
behavior of different occupational groups. What still
needs to be explored is whether or not particular
characteristics of working activities, regardless of the
specific job, such as monotony or stimulation, may be
contextual variables which bring about particular
restoration needs. Do these in turn direct people
towards leisure—and restorative—situations with a
peculiar affective connotation?
2. The study1
The present research describes the results of a study
which is part of a broader line of investigation on
restorativeness, whose aim is to take into account the
molar experience which allow people to recover. By
using the term ‘‘molar’’, our intention is to emphasize
the concept of restorativeness as the result of a complex
place experience, in which cognitive, affective, social and
behavioral components are considered together with the
physical aspects of the environment.
1
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 17th
Conference of the International Association for People–Environment
Studies, which was held in A Coruna (July 23–27, 2002).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Scopelliti, M. Vittoria Giuliani / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 423–437
By interviewing people on what they usually do to feel
restored during their free time and on the aspects of
their leisure experiences they consider to have the
greatest influence on restorative outcomes, this study
aimed at finding out which places/situations are
accounted to have a restorative potential from a
different perspective compared to previous research.
The difference stems from asking people about their
own experiences instead of focusing on a predefined set
of environments which are assumed to vary in their
restorative potential. In such a way, it can also be
possible to evaluate the actual importance of the four
restorative properties of place experience postulated by
ART in people’s representations.
Lifespan literature proposes a general framework
which leads us to expect some kind of difference in the
characterization of restorative experiences for people at
different stages of life; the influence of gender roles has
also been highlighted. We also expected the time
available for restoration to play a key role in shaping
those experiences, in that it can be a hard constraint that
makes some choices more likely than others.
2.1. Objectives and hypotheses
A general aim of this study was to explore the
characterization of restorative experiences for people at
different stages of the lifespan. Attention was focused
also on gender differences.
Stage of the lifespan and time available for restoration
were considered the main variables influencing different
aspects of restorative experiences: choice of physical
setting (natural vs. built); social interaction; affective
components of experiences (relaxation and excitement);
and the relative weight of restorative components
postulated by ART. The need for restoration was
supposed to emerge from everyday activities; moreover,
what is affectively needed to feel restored is likely to
vary in relation to the types of activities (monotonous
vs. stimulating).
As a consequence, attention was focused on the
following elements of restorative experiences:

the physical characteristics (natural vs. built) of
situations/places indicated as restorative;

the role of the time-budget available for restoration;

the social relationships associated with restorative
experiences;

the affective characterization of restorative experi-
ences in terms of both relaxation and excitement;

the general context (monotonous vs. stimulating
everyday activities) in relation to which the need for
restoration can emerge; and

the relative importance of the four restorative
components: being-away, extent, fascination and
compatibility.
427
As for social interaction, according to the theoretical
framework proposed, relationships with friends in
restorative experiences were hypothesized to be
more important for young people than for both adults
and elderly people. It was also hypothesized that
relationships with family members play a stronger role
for both adults and elderly people than for young
people.
As for the affective dimension of restorative experi-
ences, it was hypothesized that a stronger role is played
by excitement for young people as compared to adults
and elderly people and, by contrast, that relaxation is
more relevant for elderly people and adults than for
young people. It was also hypothesized that the time
available for restoration and the context in relation to
which the need for restoration emerges may influence
the characterization of experiences in terms of both
relaxation and excitement.
Among restorative components, being-away was
hypothesized to be more important for both young
people and adults than for elderly people.
2.2. Method
2.2.1. Participants and procedure
Participants were contacted in different places (e.g.
urban parks, supermarkets, etc.) of a large Italian town.
People were asked for an interview about their leisure
time to be administered in their own houses. Attention
was paid to get a well-balanced sample with respect to
gender and stage of the lifespan. We contacted 175
people, but many refused to be interviewed. The final
sample consisted of 67 subjects. Participants were people
at three different stages of the lifespan: young people
(N ¼ 23; mean age ¼ 27.5 years), adults (N ¼ 22; mean
age ¼ 41.6 years) and elderly retired people (N ¼ 22;
mean age ¼ 68.4 years); 33 were men and 34 were
women.
Subjects were asked to list restorative experiences
they would have in free time during the day,
the weekend and a longer vacation, respectively,
coming after a working day, a working week and a
longer working period characterized by monotonous
activities. The same was asked in relation to stimulating
working activities, making a total amount of
six situations. We asked the respondents to think
about their on experiences and to list familiar situations.
A definition of restorative experiences, referring to
those experiences allowing them to regain a condi-
tion of psychophysical well-being, and effectiveness
in everyday activities, was provided. Each respondent
could describe more than one experience for each
given situation. Subjects were also asked to check
each restorative experience on a 7-point rating
scale (0–6) according to the degree they were judged
as relaxing and exciting. We varied the order of
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
428 M. Scopelliti, M. Vittoria Giuliani / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 423–437
presentation of both the typology of working
activities (monotonous and stimulating) and the mea-
sures of affective qualities of experiences (relaxing and
exciting).
For all the situations indicated, a semi-structured
interview was then administered, in which subjects
were asked to explain the reasons why they
would feel restored in each situation, and to
describe in their own words the details of each
scenario.
2.2.2. Classification of restorative experiences and
preliminary analyses
Restorative experiences indicated by respondents
were firstly classified according to the physical settings
in which they occurred: at home, outside in a built
environment and outside in a natural environment.
Listening to music, reading a book, playing with
children, meeting people at home, etc. are some
examples of home-based experiences; spending the
evening in a restaurant, watching a movie at the cinema,
going shopping, playing sports (football, tennis, swim-
ming, etc.), visiting a museum, visiting an historical
town, etc. are some indications of experiences in a built
environment; and having a walk in a urban park, having
a trip in the countryside, spending the day at the seaside,
etc. are examples of experiences in a natural environ-
ment.
The descriptions given by respondents to explain the
reasons why they would feel restored were coded in
terms of presence/absence of social relationships and
restorative components. More specifically, each restora-
tive experience was characterized by the presence/
absence of three different typologies of social relation-
ships—with the partner (PAR), with the family members
(FAM), with friends (FRI)—as well as by being-away
(B-A), extent (EXT), fascination (FASC) and compat-
ibility (COMP).
Coding was performed independently by two coders.
They were instructed to classify as ‘‘1’’ the presence of
each variable and as ‘‘0’’ the absence of the same
variable for each experience. As to social interaction
with the partner, the instructions were to be marked as
‘‘1’’, the experience in which the description given by the
respondent clearly included the presence of that social
actor, otherwise it was to be marked as ‘‘0’’.
The procedure was the same for the other two
potential actors involved in social interaction
(family members and friends). As to restorative com-
ponents, the instructions were to be marked as ‘‘1’’,
the experience in which the description given by
the respondent included a statement in accordance
with the construct definition, for instance, being-away,
otherwise it was to be marked as ‘‘0’’. The procedure
was the same for the four components. A list with
the definitions of the four restorative components was
given to the coders,2 both trained in ART. This
procedure clearly requires some degree of interpretation,
but on the whole inter-raters reliability was high
(Cohen’s kappa: partner ¼ .83; family ¼ .82; friends ¼
.83; being-away ¼ .78; extent ¼ .72; compatibility ¼
.71; fascination ¼ .73).
For each subject, mean indices of the relevance of
both the three different typologies of social relation-
ships and the four restorative components in their
restorative experiences were calculated. These indices
are the ratio between the frequency of each typology of
social relationship and each restorative component,
and the total number of situations indicated. To
give an example, a subject indicating three different
situations, all of them being coded as characterized by
the presence of relationships with friends, only one
by compatibility and none by other dimensions, will
have the following indices: FRI ¼ 1 (three indications in
three situations), COMP ¼ .33 (one indication in
three situations) and 0 with reference to all the
other dimensions (no indication in three situations).
The rationale for such operations lies in considering
that the more the importance of social interaction
with a specific person, the more likely the inclusion
of that actor in describing a restorative experience;
in the same way, the more the importance of a
restorative dimension, the more likely the inclusion
of that dimension in the description of the reasons
why the situation allows for restoration. In fact,
if a particular aspect of an experience, both regarding
social interaction and restorative components,
plays a key role in promoting positive outcomes,
we can arguably suppose that it will be mentioned in
all the situations described by respondents, or at least in
the largest part of them. At the same time, this
procedure makes it possible to balance the effect of
the different number of situations indicated by each
subject.
Indices of relevance of each dimension were cal-
culated separately for restorative experiences in-
dicated during a single day, a weekend and a longer
vacation.
2
We report here the working definitions of restorative components
used by coders. We referred to Kaplan and Kaplan’s (1989) definitions
of the four components: ‘‘Classify as Being-Away any description
referring to a change of scenery and/or experience from everyday life,
routine, obligations’’; ‘‘Classify as Fascination any description
referring to the fascinating/pleasing features and/or aesthetic value of
the environment/experience’’; ‘‘Classify as Extent any description
referring to perceived coherence/relatedness among the elements of the
environment/experience and any description referring to the possible
extension of the environment/experience beyond what is immediately
perceived’’; ‘‘Classify as Compatibility any description referring to a
perceived fit between what the environment/experience offers and what
people need, like, ask for’’.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Scopelliti, M. Vittoria Giuliani / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 423–437 429

2.3. Results to time available for restoration (DLikelihood Ratio

Results showed a different characterization of
restorative experiences for people at different stages
of the lifespan and with different time-budgets for
restoration.
2.3.1. Typology of setting
The relationships between stage of the lifespan,
gender, time available for restoration and the ty-
pology of setting in which restorative experiences may
occur (at home, in a built environment, in a natural
environment) were investigated through a hierarchical
log-linear analysis (see frequencies of indications in
Table 1).
The final model which emerged (Likelihood Ratio
w2 ¼ 40  00; df: ¼ 39; p ¼ :426) revealed two significant
interactions. The typology of the setting was found to be
significantly associated with the stage of the lifespan
(DLikelihood Ratio w2 ¼ 62  02; df: ¼ 4; po:001) and
w2 ¼ 186  78; df: ¼ 4; po:001). Gender was not found
to be a significant factor.
With reference to the stage of the lifespan, residual
analysis showed that young people indicated home less
frequently than expected; by contrast, outdoor settings,
and natural environments particularly, were mentioned
significantly more often. Nature was more frequently
indicated than expected by adults. Finally, elderly
people indicated domestic environment more frequently
than expected and natural environments less frequently
than expected (see Table 2).
With reference to time available for resto-
ration, residuals analysis showed that the less the time
available, the more the indications of home. Outdoor
settings were significantly more indicated than expected
with increasing time: built environments on weekends
and natural environments on vacation; in both situa-
tions, home was significantly less mentioned than
expected (see Table 3).

Table 1
Setting of restorative experiences—frequencies of indications

Stage of the lifespan Gender Day Weekend Vacation

Home Built Nature Home Built Nature Home Built Nature

Young people Males 19 27 4 13 38 20 10 51 49

Females 32 19 3 11 35 16 18 51 42
Adults Males 21 15 4 18 26 23 7 34 36
Females 26 11 3 9 28 17 10 29 26

Elderly people Males 29 14 5 20 22 9 16 27 7

Females 45 17 2 16 25 4 16 29 16

Total 172 103 21 87 174 89 77 221 176

Table 2
Residuals analysis—stage of the lifespan by restorative setting

Stage of the lifespan Restorative setting

Home Built Nature

Young people
Observed 103 221 134
Expected 137.4 203.6 117
Std. residualsa 4.6 2.1 2.4
Adults
Observed 91 143 109
Expected 102.9 152.5 87.6
Std. residualsa 1.7 1.2 3.2

Elderly people
Observed 142 134 43
Expected 95.7 141.8 81.5
Std. residualsa 6.7 1.0 5.8
a
Std. residuals higher than 2.0 and lower than 2.0 are significant.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
430 M. Scopelliti, M. Vittoria Giuliani / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 423–437

Table 3
Residuals analysis—time available by restorative setting

Time Restorative setting

Home Built Nature

Day
Observed 172 103 21
Expected 88.8 131.6 75.6
Std. residualsa 12.3 3.9 8.5
Weekend
Observed 87 174 89
Expected 105 155.6 89.4
Std. residualsa 2.5 2.4 .1
Vacation
Observed 77 221 176
Expected 142.2 210.8 121
Std. residualsa 8.6 1.2 7.6
a
Std. residuals higher than 2.0 and lower than 2.0 are significant.

2.3.2. Social interaction Table 4

The relationships between stage of the lifespan, Social interaction—social interaction by stage of the lifespan
gender, time available for restoration and social Social actor Stage of the lifespan N M* S .D .
interaction in restorative experiences were explored
by a mixed design analysis of variance. In the Partner Young people 23 .43b .20
Adults 22 .56a .23
model, stage of the lifespan and gender were
Elderly people 22 .48a,b .24
between-groups factors; time available for restoration
and social interaction were within-groups factors. The Family Young people 23 .04c .09
Adults 22 .50a .22
dependent variables used for the analysis were the three
Elderly people 22 .30b .26
indices of relevance of social interaction (partner,
family, friends). Friends Young people 23 .58a .20
Adults 22 .35b .20
A significant main effect of stage of the lifespan
Elderly people 22 .29b .22
(F ð2;61Þ ¼ 13:13; po:001) and time available for resto-
*
ration (F ð2;122Þ ¼ 62:74; po:001) was found; gender The letters a,b,c show the significant differences, for each social
did not show a significant effect on social interaction. actor, between groups.
Post hoc comparisons (Duncan test, po:05) showed
that restorative experiences were more characterized Table 5
in terms of social interaction for adults than for Social interaction—social interaction by time available for restoration
both young and elderly people; in addition, they Social actor Time N M* S .D .
were more characterized by social interaction
during weekends and vacations than during a Partner Day 67 .34b .30
Weekend 67 .60a .23
single day. The analysis also showed a significant
Vacation 67 .53a .18
interaction between stage of the lifespan and social
interaction (F ð4;122Þ ¼ 39:65; po:001). Post hoc compar- Family Day 67 .18b .25
Weekend 67 .33a .27
isons (Duncan test, po:05) showed that close relation-
Vacation 67 .32a .28
ships with the partner were significantly more important
for adults than for young people; social relationships Friends Day 67 .24b .24
Weekend 67 .49a .23
with the family members were significantly more
Vacation 67 .49a .22
important for adults than for both elderly and young
*
people, and for elderly people compared to young The letters a,b show the significant differences, for each social actor,
people; social relationships with friends were signifi- between different time budgets.
cantly more important for young people than the two
other groups (see Table 4). (Duncan test, po:05) showed that all kinds of social
A significant interaction between time available relationships were significantly more important on
for restoration and social interaction (F ð4;244Þ ¼ 3:40; weekends and vacations than during a single day
po:01) was also found. Post hoc comparisons (see Table 5).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Scopelliti, M. Vittoria Giuliani / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 423–437 431

Table 6 Table 7
Relaxation vs. excitement Relaxation–stage of the lifespan

Time Stage of the Gender Relaxation Excitement Affective dimension Stage of the lifespan N M* S .D .
lifespan
b
M S .D . M S.D. Relaxation Young people 23 5.03 .58
Adults 22 5.37a .47
Day Young Males 4.94 .33 3.42 1.20 Elderly people 22 5.32a .39
people
* a,b
Females 4.93 .48 3.07 .74 The letters show the significant differences between groups.
Adults Males 5.19 .26 3.47 1.62
Females 5.17 .24 3.61 1.16
Elderly Males 4.90 .35 2.70 .60
Table 8
people
Relaxation–time available for restoration
Females 5.05 .33 2.57 .48
Weekend Young Males 4.90 .88 3.94 .55 Affective dimension Time N M* S .D .

people
Relaxation Day 67 5.03b .35
Females 4.91 .59 3.82 .60
Weekend 67 5.23a .58
Adults Males 5.42 .33 3.23 1.12
Vacation 67 5.47a .67
Females 5.48 .40 3.47 .84
Elderly Males 5.38 .48 2.50 .91 *
The letters a,b
show the significant differences between different
people time budgets.
Females 5.28 .45 2.44 1.11
Vacation Young Males 5.15 .70 5.17 .63
people Table 9
Females 5.35 .52 4.09 .74 Excitement—stage of the lifespan
Adults Males 5.61 .47 3.68 1.24
Females 5.36 1.19 3.81 1.45 Affective dimension Stage of the lifespan N M* S.D.
Elderly Males 5.76 .33 2.92 1.15
people Excitement Young people 23 3.92a .80
Females 5.56 .42 2.94 1.23 Adults 22 3.55a 1.22
Elderly people 22 2.68b .89
Italics show an insignificant difference between relaxation and
* a,b
excitement. The letters show the significant differences between groups.

2.3.3. Affective dimension of restorative experiences:

relaxation and excitement
The situations described by respondents were depicted
as being more relaxing than exciting independently of
stage the lifespan, gender and time available for
restoration (F ð1;61Þ ¼ 341:15; po:001). The only excep-
tion is provided by young men on vacation, who
evaluate their restorative experiences as being as much
relaxing as exciting (see Table 6).
The characterization of restorative experiences in
terms of relaxation and excitement was explored more
in detail by two mixed design analyses of variance. In
the model, stage of the lifespan and gender were
between-groups factors; time available for restoration
was a within-groups factor. Scores of relaxation and
excitement were used as dependent variables, respec-
tively, in the first and in the second analysis.
About relaxation, the main effect of the stage of the
lifespan (F ð2;61Þ ¼ 7:86; po:01) and time available for
restoration (F ð2;122Þ ¼ 11:21; po:001) was significant.
Post hoc comparisons (Duncan test, po:05) showed that
restorative experiences of adults and elderly people were
significantly more relaxing than the ones of young
people (see Table 7); besides, relaxation scores during a
single day were lower than during weekends and on
vacation (see Table 8).
As for excitement in restorative experiences, the
analysis of variance showed a significant main effect of
the stage of the lifespan (F ð2;61Þ ¼ 16:69; po:001) and
the interaction between stage of the lifespan and time
available for restoration (F ð4;122Þ ¼ 3:58; po:05). Post
hoc comparisons (Duncan test, po:05) showed that
restorative experiences of young people and adults were
significantly more exciting than the ones of elderly
people (see Table 9); moreover, excitement for young
people increased significantly from a single day to
weekends and from weekends to a longer vacation (see
Table 10).
The effect of the context in relation to which the need
for restoration can emerge (monotonous vs. stimulating
activities) was explored by two mixed design analyses of
variance, with stage of the lifespan and gender as
between-groups factors, time available for restoration
and typology of activity performed (monotonous vs.
stimulating) as within-groups factors. Scores of relaxa-
tion and excitement were used as dependent variables,
respectively, in the first and in the second analysis.
As for relaxation, scores were not significantly
different after stimulating and monotonous activities
(F ð1;61Þ ¼ 1:11; N.S.). Moreover, no significant interac-
tion effect was found. The analysis showed a significant
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
432 M. Scopelliti, M. Vittoria Giuliani / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 423–437

Table 10 Table 12
Excitement—stage of the lifespan by time available for restoration Restorative components—univariate effects of the stage of the lifespan

Stage of the lifespan Time N M* S .D . Component Stage of the lifespan N M* S .D .

c a
Young people Day 23 3.25 .80 Being-away Young people 23 .60 .17
Weekend 23 3.88b 1.22 Adults 22 .57a .21
Vacation 23 4.63a .89 Elderly people 22 .08b .13
Adults Day 22 3.54a .80 Extent Young people 23 .22a .16
Weekend 22 3.35a 1.22 Adults 22 .21a .13
Vacation 22 3.75a .89 Elderly people 22 .20a .21
Elderly people Day 22 2.64a .80 Fascination Young people 23 .21a .13
Weekend 22 2.47a 1.22 Adults 22 .17a .13
Vacation 22 2.93a .89 Elderly people 22 .18a .16
*
The letters a,b,c show the significant differences, for each group, Compatibility Young people 23 .84a .12
between different time budgets. Adults 22 .85a .12
Elderly people 22 .82a .14
*
The letters a,b show the significant differences between groups for
Table 11 each component.
Typology of working activities—excitement

Typology of activities N M S .D .
Table 13
Monotonous 67 3.49 1.24 Restorative components—univariate effects of time available for
Stimulating 67 3.29 1.20 restoration

Component Time N M* S .D .

Being-away Day 67 .40a .32

main effect of the situation which brings about the need
Weekend 67 .45a .32
for restoration only on the excitement score Vacation 67 .40a .26
(F ð1;61Þ ¼ 7:83; po:01). The effect was in accordance
Extent Day 67 .18a .22
with the compensation model: the score of excitement
Weekend 67 .23a .17
was significantly lower after stimulating rather than Vacation 67 .22a .15
monotonous activities (see Table 11).
Fascination Day 67 .06b .10
Weekend 67 .25a .19
2.3.4. Restorative components Vacation 67 .24a .15
The relationships between stage of the lifespan,
Compatibility Day 67 .84a .14
gender, time available for restoration and perceived Weekend 67 .86a .13
restorativeness were explored by a multivariate analysis Vacation 67 .81a .11
of variance (general linear model). In the model, stage of
*
the lifespan and gender were between-groups factors; The letters a,b show the significant differences between the different
time budgets for each component.
time available for restoration was a within-groups
factor. The dependent variables used for the multi-
variate analysis were the indices of relevance of the four
restorative components. The effect of time available for restoration was
The multivariate main effect of the stage of the significant on fascination (F ð2;122Þ ¼ 45:17; po:001): post
lifespan (Wilks’ Lambdað8;116Þ ¼ :16; po:001) and time hoc comparisons (Duncan test, po:05) showed that
available for restoration (Wilks’ Lambdað8;54Þ ¼ :33; restorative experiences during the day were significantly
po:001) was significant; gender did not show a less fascinating than on weekends and on longer
significant effect on perceived restorativeness. No vacations. No significant effect was found on being-
significant interaction effect was found. A significant away (F ð2;122Þ ¼ 2:54; N.S.), extent (F ð2;122Þ ¼ 3:24; N.S.)
effect of age group was found on being-away and compatibility (F ð2;122Þ ¼ 3:16; N.S.) (see Table 13).
(F ð2;61Þ ¼ 126:57; po:001): post hoc comparisons (Dun- Finally, the relative importance of restorative compo-
can test, po:05) showed that the relevance of this nents was investigated by a mixed design analysis
component was significantly lower for elderly people of variance, with stage of the lifespan and gender
than for the other two age groups. No significant effect as between-groups factors and components as within-
was found on extent (F ð2;61Þ ¼ 0:24; N.S.), fascination groups factors. The four components showed a
(F ð2;61Þ ¼ 1:19; N.S.) and compatibility (F ð2;61Þ ¼ 0:80; significantly different relative importance (F ð3;183Þ ¼
N.S.) (see Table 12). 701:87; po:001): post hoc analysis (Duncan test,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Scopelliti, M. Vittoria Giuliani / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 423–437 433

Table 14 by a narrower variety of typologies (urban parks,

(a and b) Restorative components: relative importance
countryside, seaside, lakes, mountains and few other
(a) Main effect examples) if compared to built ones; finally, they are less
accessible for people living in a urban context. Probably
Component N M* S .D .
nature is less accessible, especially with increasing age,
Being-away 67 .42b .27 even if elderly people in this study were relatively active
Extent 67 .21c .11 and not affected by any kind of impairment: this result
Fascination 67 .18c .10 can be better accounted for by internal (habits, seeking
Compatibility 67 .84a .09 familiar situations, etc.) rather than external factors
(Iso-Ahola, 1980). Future research will have to address
(b) Stage of the lifespan by component this issue, trying to disentangle the reasons for such an
outcome. It is also worth noting that the indications of
Stage of the lifespan Component N M** S .D .
which places are restorative do not imply how much they
Young people Being-away 23 .60e .25 are restorative.
Extent 23 .22f .17 Another constraint to the choice of restorative
Fascination 23 .21f .14 situations is represented by time-budget. The more the
Compatibility 23 .84d .09 time-budget, the less the constraints, the more people
Adults Being-away 22 .57e .29 leave home and turn to nature, showing that they are
Extent 22 .21f .17 aware of the benefits it can promote. The large decrease
Fascination 22 .17f .13 in the indication of domestic settings, even though
Compatibility 22 .85d .10
expected, might depend partly on demand character-
Elderly people Being-away 22 .08f .14 istics, in that people may imagine that an outdoor
Extent 22 .20e .28 setting would appear more appropriate when more time
Fascination 22 .18e .15
is available. Probably a between-subjects design would
Compatibility 22 .82d .12
add further information on this issue. However, even on
*
The letters a,b,c show the significant differences between compo- vacation, the choice of outdoor built environments as
nents. restorative settings remains unquestionable. On the one
**
The letters d,e,f show the significant differences, for each group, hand, it can be due again, at least to some extent, to the
between components. characteristics of the respondents, who live in an urban
context: this can simply make people more used to
po:05) indicated that compatibility is the most im- interact with urban environments. On the other hand,
portant restorative component, and being-away is the choice of built environments can hardly be
more important than both extent and fascination (see considered a matter of accessibility alone, raising the
Table 14a). A significant interaction between stage of question of the restorative potential of nonnatural
the lifespan and restorative components was also found environments. Several studies showed that built envir-
(F ð6;183Þ ¼ 49:96; po:001): post hoc analysis (Duncan onments are frequently indicated as restorative when
test, po:05) confirmed the main effect for young people people are asked to perform a free-report task (Korpela,
and adults; for elderly people, compatibility represented 1992; Korpela & Hartig, 1996; Korpela et al., 2001,
the most relevant component, but extent and fascination 2002). This evidence raises theoretical and methodolo-
were significantly more important than being-away (see gical issues on the restorativeness of natural and built
Table 14b). environments.
First, is the difference in restorative potential of the
2.4. Discussion two types of setting always so large? Hartig et al. (1997)
clearly hypothesize ranges of restorativeness for natural
This study provided interesting insights about the and built environments overlapping for the most part.
characterization of restorative experiences. Nature was Moreover, the main aim of some studies reporting a
not more frequently indicated than built environments higher restorative value of natural vs. built environ-
as the setting for restorative experiences. However, it ments was to develop rating scales of perceived
must be noted that, even though people may consider restorativeness, not to compare exemplars from both
some places as being more restorative than others, they categories; as a consequence, the selection of environ-
indicated what they actually do. As a consequence, the ments presumably reflected the willingness to detect the
choice of a built environment may depend, at least properties of the instrument with respect to environ-
partially, on social obligations or desires, which makes it ments showing a strong differentiation, and natural
preferable, and easier, to meet friends and relatives scenes were taken together with some unattractive built
during leisure time, usually in a built setting; moreover, scenes (Hartig et al., 1997; Laumann et al., 2001). In
in everyday lexicon natural environments are described other studies with no instrument development purpose,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
434 M. Scopelliti, M. Vittoria Giuliani / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 423–437
however, beautiful natural environments are shown
together with built ones often having nothing restorative
(an industrial zone, for instance) and inferences about
the restorative potential of both categories are advanced
(Purcell et al., 2001; Hernandez et al., 2001). Staats et al.
(2003) clearly raise the issue of the restorative quality of
different types of natural and built environments.
Comparing monotonous natural environments and
historical towns with a great aesthetic quality might
show some unexpected results.
Second, can self-report and evaluation tasks be
considered as interchangeable methods to evaluate the
restorativeness of places? A key point is to clarify the
distinctive features of what is being investigated (Scott &
Canter, 1997): a different framework is probably
assumed when respondents have to evaluate structured
stimuli provided by researchers or freely reported
situations. Studies which used structured stimuli, such
as slides and photos of different scene types, and
reported a stronger restorative value of natural environ-
ments compared to built ones (Hernandez et al., 2001;
Laumann et al., 2001; Purcell et al., 2001) may have
been affected by the salience of physical attributes,
which was likely to overcome the focus on the place
experience. A possible solution would be to give an
explicit instruction to respondents so that they can go
beyond what is immediately perceived in the scene. An
example in this direction is given by Laumann et al.
(2001), even though their instructions seems quite
concise, especially if compared to Scott and Canter’s
study (1997). Restorative environments seem to be the
main focus in some of past studies. Restorative
experiences are the main focus in other studies (Korpela
& Hartig, 1996; Korpela et al., 2001, 2002) and in the
present research: the claim is that if we take as a starting
point freely reported experiences which have a restora-
tive value, also built environments which do not have
the scenic appearance of nature are likely to be identified
as restorative. On the other hand, it is evident that the
focus on the experience counterpointed to the environ-
ment is not the only way allowing the restorative
potential of built environments to emerge. With respect
to this issue, the analysis of perceived restorativeness of
built environments with artistic features, showing a
different—but probably not less—beauty compared to
nature, seems to be a fruitful challenge to undertake. To
date, only a few studies addressed this topic (see Kaplan,
Bardwell, & Slakter, 1993), but it emerged as an
interesting one also in the present research.
On the whole, restorative experiences are to be viewed
as the result of complex human–environment transac-
tions, in which different components have to be jointly
considered: not simply the physical aspect of the
environment (e.g. its natural or built features) in which
they occur, but the global experience lying behind the
construct of place (Canter, 1977).
First, restorative experiences are commonly charac-
terized in terms of social interaction. Relationships with
family members are particularly important for adults
and elderly people; relationships with friends and
partner are mainly important for young people and
adults, respectively, confirming our hypotheses. Briefly,
sociality is a fundamental aspect of restorative experi-
ences, and its importance also increases when more time
is available for restoration. The role of social interaction
in shaping the restorative potential of experiences in
different environments is a largely neglected issue, thus
needing further investigation. An interesting issue to be
addressed has to do with the influence of other people’s
company on perceived restorativeness in different
environments (i.e. natural vs. built settings), as sug-
gested by Staats and Hartig (2004).
Second, restorative experiences have strong affective
implications: relaxation has been shown to be always the
most important component, confirming previous re-
search on leisure behavior (Shaw, 1985; Kleiber, 2000),
but excitement is also relevant (Haworth, 1997). In
addition, the time-budget is an important variable in
making restorative experiences both more relaxing and
more exciting: on vacations, restorative experiences have
the highest value on both components. Interestingly, this
evidence shows that they do not exclude each other, at
least when more time is available. The growing
importance of excitement with increasing time available
for restoration is particularly evident for young people.
Young men on vacation seem to represent the extreme
situation, in that their restorative experiences are as
much relaxing as exciting; however, this result needs
further exploration, because a three-way interaction can
have problems of low statistical power when emerging
from a small sample. Furthermore, we have to admit
that the evaluation of affective connotations of restora-
tive experiences might have been slightly biased by the
recall task, which asks people for a reconstruction of
their affective states. This may lead to some kind of
distortion, in that what people reconstruct may be
slightly different from what they actually felt in the
environment. Nonetheless, we think that the affective
characterization of restorative experiences is an impor-
tant although largely neglected issue, and our study
claims for a deeper understanding of this research topic.
By comparing the mean scores of relaxation and
excitement in restorative experiences after different
types of working activities (i.e. monotonous vs. stimu-
lating), work and leisure patterns seem to be related only
to some extent. Only partial support can be given to the
compensation model (Kabanoff, 1982; Kabanoff &
O’Brien, 1986), stemming from scores of excitement
alone. Scores of relaxation show no significant change in
relation to different typologies of working activities, that
is to say that restorative experiences must always have a
relaxing dimension to a high degree.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Scopelliti, M. Vittoria Giuliani / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 423–437
Third, what about meanings of restorativeness? Even
though ART holds that the restorative potential of
environments is accounted for by the four components,
our data show that they can be at least unequally
important, confirming previous findings (Herzog et al.,
2003). Moreover, the relative weight of the four
restorative components proposed by ART was shown
to be related to the stage of the lifespan and to time
available for restoration. The being-away component is
much more important in restorative experiences of
young people and adults than elderly people. This can
be in accordance with our hypothesis and with previous
findings which stressed the relevance for young people
and adults of distancing themselves from ordinary
aspects of life (Iso-Ahola, 1980; Iso-Ahola et al., 1994;
Freysinger, 1995; Arnett, 2000). Freysinger (1995) also
claims that the perception of leisure as change can be
less intense for those whose lives are strongly character-
ized by sameness; this can be the case for elderly retired
people. The weight of extent and fascination raises with
increasing time available for restoration. The most
important component of restorativeness has shown to
be compatibility (Korpela & Hartig, 1996; Herzog et al.,
2003), regardless of stage of the lifespan, gender and
time available for restoration; experiences are restora-
tive especially when the environments fit the individual’s
purposes and inclinations and people can do just what
they want to do. To be away from the pressures of
everyday life is an important component, but as already
mentioned, this is true especially for young people and
adults. Extent and fascination represent further aspects
to add or seek in restorative experiences, but only if
more time is available.
The different weights of the four restorative compo-
nents which emerged as a general result may be due, at
least partially, to the methodological approach we used.
This is based on respondents’ descriptions of what
makes their experiences restorative. It might be argued
that people can be somewhat unaware of the reasons
why they feel restored, and may underestimate the
potential benefits of some components. This can be true
especially for those components which imply a higher
level of abstraction (e.g. extent) than others (e.g.
compatibility, being-away). In the same way, it is worth
noting that perceived restoration itself, and not only its
components, can be somewhat different from actual
restoration; as a consequence, people may not be
completely aware of the outcomes of their experiences;
and again, their descriptions are reported through a
recall task, which clearly imply a reconstruction and, as
a consequence, some kind of defect and/or distortion. So
we have to say that an alternative explanation, referring
to a matter of accessibility rather than actual relative
importance of the four components, is possible. How-
ever, our results hint that the idea of a relative
importance of components is likely to have some degree
435
of effectiveness. If the explanations of the reasons why
people feel restored only depend on accessibility of
components, we should expect the more accessible ones
to have always a higher level of indications than the less
accessible ones. Contrary to this expectation, we found
for elderly people a lower level of indications for being-
away than for extent. Nevertheless, the idea of a relative
importance is in accordance with Herzog et al. (2003),
who found that the restorative components may differ in
their predictive power not only with respect to restora-
tiveness but also to a different criterion variables,
namely preference. Taken together, these results suggest
that further investigation is undoubtedly needed in order
to shed light on this intriguing issue.
Finally, we did not find any discrepancy with respect
to gender in the characterization of restorative experi-
ences, even though literature on leisure behavior
suggested that the use of free time may be very different
for men and women, chiefly in the context of family
(Repetti, 1989; Shaw, 1992; Freysinger, 1995; Larson et
al., 1997). Again, the methodological approach we used
may have led to such a result, and gender differences
could probably emerge by focusing on specific experi-
ence to be evaluated in an experimental study.
3. Conclusion
Taken as a whole, this study has showed the multi-
plicity of aspects to be taken into account when referring
to the restorative potential of experiences. Far from
being a matter of typology of environments alone, the
restorative meaning of experiences stems from the
interaction of physical and social components, and can
be characterized by different affective dimensions.
Along this comprehensive line of research, this explora-
tive study provided a wide array of intriguing sugges-
tions on what can contribute to make people feel
restored during their leisure time. The theoretical
connection between the two spheres of leisure and
restorativeness was suggested by the indication of
typical leisure situations when people are asked to point
out restorative experiences. Nonetheless, that is not to
say that there is a complete overlap between the two
domains. As a consequence, further developments on
this research line should go beyond the similarities to
focus on the theoretical distinctions between the two.
Qualitative analyses of the interviews showed the
richness of issues related to restorative experiences.
Taken together with the preliminary results of this
study, they can be used as helpful guidelines to develop
hypotheses regarding the role of different components of
restorative settings (i.e. social interaction, activities
practiced) in enhancing the overall restorative potential
of place experiences.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
436 M. Scopelliti, M. Vittoria Giuliani / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 423–437
Given its explorative purpose, a shortcoming of the
present research is that the sample is not very large.
Moreover, participants are people living in a large town,
and other results might be outlined from a different
sample. As a consequence, the results that emerged must
be taken with caution and should be considered as a
starting point for further research on the relationships
between the variables we investigated. Nonetheless, they
can suggest new directions in the research field on
restorativeness.
References
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: a theory of development
from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55,
469–480.
Atchley, R. C. (1989). A continuity theory of normal aging. The
Gerontologist, 29, 183–190.
Canter, D. (1977). The psychology of places. London: Architectural
Press.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York: Norton.
Freysinger, V. J. (1995). The dialectics of leisure and development for
women and men in mid-life: an interpretive study. Journal of
Leisure Research, 27, 61–80.
Hartig, T., Johansson, G., & Kylin, C. (2003). Residence in the social
ecology of stress and restoration. Journal of Social Issues, 59,
611–636.
Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G. W., & Gärling, T. (1996).
Validation of a measure of perceived environmental restorativeness
(Göteborg Psychological Reports 26:7). Göteborg: Department of
Psychology, Göteborg University.
Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G. W., & Gärling, T. (1997). A
measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian
Housing & Planning Research, 14, 175–194.
Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of
natural environment experiences. Environment and Behaviour, 23,
3–26.
Haworth, J. T. (1997). Enjoyment and well-being. In J. T. Haworth
(Ed.), Work, leisure and well-being (pp. 83–102). London:
Routledge.
Hernandez, B., Hidalgo, M. C., Berto, R., & Peron, E. (2001). The role
of familiarity on the restorative value of a place: research on a
Spanish sample. IAPS Bulletin of People– Environment Studies, 18,
22–24.
Herzog, T. R., Black, A. M., Fountaine, K. A., & Knotts, D. J. (1997).
Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of
restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
17, 165–170.
Herzog, T. R., Maguire, C. P., & Nebel, M. B. (2003). Assessing the
restorative components of environment. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 23, 159–170.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1980). The social psychology of leisure and recreation.
Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Publishers.
Iso-Ahola, S. E., Jackson, E., & Dunn, E. (1994). Starting, ceasing and
replacing leisure activities over the lifespan. Journal of Leisure
Research, 26, 227–242.
James, W. (1892). Psychology: the briefer course. New York: Holt.
Kabanoff, B. (1980). Work and nonwork: a review of models, methods
and findings. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 60–77.
Kabanoff, B. (1982). Occupational and sex differences in leisure needs
and leisure satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 3,
233–245.
Kabanoff, B., & O’Brien, G. E. (1980). Work and leisure: a task
attribute analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 596–609.
Kabanoff, B., & O’Brien, G. E. (1986). Stress and leisure needs and
activities of different occupations. Human Relations, 39, 903–916.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefit of nature: toward an
integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15,
169–182.
Kaplan, S., Bardwell, L. V., & Slakter, D. B. (1993). The museum as a
restorative environment. Environment and Behaviour, 25, 725–742.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: a
psychological perspective. New York, Cambridge: University Press.
Kaplan, S., & Talbot, J. F. (1983). Psychological benefits of a
wilderness experience. In I. Altman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.),
Behaviour and the natural environment (pp. 163–203). New York:
Plenum Press.
Kirkcaldy, B. D., & Cooper, C. L. (1993). The relationship between
work stress and leisure style: British and German managers.
Human Relations, 46, 669–680.
Kleiber, D. (1999). Leisure experience and human development: a
dialectical interpretation. New York: Basic Books.
Kleiber, D. A. (2000). The neglect of relaxation. Journal of Leisure
Research, 32, 82–86.
Korpela, K., Kytta, M., & Hartig, T. (2002). Restorative experiences,
self-regulation and children’s place preferences. Journal of Envir-
onmental Psychology, 22, 387–398.
Korpela, K. M. (1992). Adolescents’ favourite places and environ-
mental self-regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12,
249–258.
Korpela, K. M., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite
places. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221–233.
Korpela, K. M., Hartig, T., Kaiser, F. G., & Fuhrer, U. (2001).
Restorative experience and self-regulation in favorite places.
Environment and Behavior, 33, 572–589.
Larson, R. W. (1990). The solitary side of life: an examination of the
time people spend alone from childhood to old age. Developmental
Review, 10, 155–183.
Larson, R. W., Gillman, S. A., & Richards, M. H. (1997). Divergent
experiences of family leisure: fathers, mothers, and young
adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 29, 78–97.
Laumann, K., Gärling, T., & Stormark, K. M. (2001). Rating scale
measures of restorative components of environments. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 21, 31–44.
Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., &
McKee, B. (1978). The season of a man’s life. New York:
Ballantine.
Mannell, R. C., & Kleiber, D. A. (1997). A social psychology of leisure.
State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Peron, E., Purcell, T., Staats, H., Falchero, S., & Lamb, R. J. (1998).
Models of preference for outdoor scenes: some experimental
evidence. Environment and Behavior, 30, 282–305.
Perry-Jenkins, M., & Crouter, A. C. (1990). Men’s provider—role
attitudes: implications for household work and marital satisfaction.
Journal of Family Issues, 11, 136–156.
Purcell, T., Lamb, R. J., Peron, E., & Falchero, S. (1994). Preference or
preferences for landscape? Journal of Environmental Psychology,
14, 195–209.
Purcell, T., Peron, E., & Berto, R. (2001). Why do preferences differ
between scene types? Environment and Behavior, 33, 93–106.
Raymore, L. A., Barber, B. L., & Eccles, J. S. (2001). Leaving home,
attending college, partnership and parenthood: the role of life
transition events in leisure pattern stability from adolescence to
young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 197–223.
Raymore, L. A., Barber, B. L., Eccles, J. S., & Godbey, G. C. (1999).
Leisure behavior pattern stability during the transition from
adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
28, 79–103.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Scopelliti, M. Vittoria Giuliani / Journal of Environmental Psychology 24 (2004) 423–437
Repetti, R. L. (1989). Effects of daily workload on subsequent
behavior during marital interactions: the roles of social withdrawal
and spouse support. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
57, 651–659.
Russell, J. A., & Pratt, G. (1980). A description of the affective quality
attributed to environment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 313–322.
Russell, J. A., Ward, L. M., & Pratt, G. (1981). Affective quality
attributed to environment: a factor analysis study. Environment and
Behaviour, 13, 259–288.
Scott, M. J., & Canter, D. V. (1997). Picture or place? A multiple
sorting study of landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
17, 263–281.
Scott, D., & Willits, F. K. (1998). Adolescent and adult leisure
patterns: a reassessment. Journal of Leisure Research, 30, 319–330.
Shaw, S. M. (1985). The meaning of leisure in everyday life. Leisure
Sciences, 7, 1–24.
Shaw, S. M. (1992). Dereifying family leisure: an examination of
women’s and men’s everyday experiences and perceptions of family
time. Leisure Sciences, 14, 271–286.
Skolnick, A. (1991). Embattled paradise: the American family in an age
of uncertainty. New York: Basic Books.
Smelser, N. J. (1980). Vicissitudes of work and love in Anglo-American
society. In N. S. Smelser, & E. H. Erikson (Eds.), Themes of work
and love in adulthood (pp. 105–119). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
437
Staats, H., & Hartig, T. (2004). Alone or with a friend: a social context
for psychological restoration and environmental preferences.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 199–211.
Staats, H., Kievet, A., & Hartig, T. (2003). Where to recover from
attentional fatigue: an expectancy-value analysis of environmental
preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 147–157.
Ulrich, R. S. (1979). Visual landscapes and psychological well-being.
Landscape Research, 4, 17–23.
Ulrich, R. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: some psychophy-
siological effects. Environment and Behavior, 13, 523–556.
Ulrich, R. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery
from surgery. Science, 244, 420–421.
Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., &
Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and
urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11,
201–230.
Ward, L. M., & Russell, J. A. (1981). The psychological representation
of molar physical environment. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: General, 110, 121–152.
Wells, N. M. (2000). At home with nature. Effects of ‘‘greenness’’ on
children’s cognitive functioning. Environment and Behavior, 32,
775–795.
Wells, N. M., & Evans, G. W. (2003). Nearby nature. A buffer of life
stress among rural children. Environment and Behavior, 35,
311–330.