This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0013916506292016v1 39/4/529    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Han, K.-T. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Responses to Six Major Terrestrial Biomes in Terms of Scenic Beauty, Preference, and Restorativeness

National Chin-Yi Institute of Technology, Taiwan, k0h5757{at}hotmail.com or kthan{at}ncit.edu.tw.

This study examined 274 college students' psycho-physiological responses to the six major terrestrial biomes (desert, tundra, grassland, coniferous forest, deciduous forest, and tropical forest), while taking into account the influences of three perceived physical variables (complexity, openness, and water features) presented in the biomes. The purpose of the study was to examine which specific natural setting can evoke the most positive reactions from people. ANCOVA tests and post hoc comparisons using the setting scores across the participants' data on the responses to 48 biome slides regarding scenic beauty, preference, the Short-version Revised Perceived Restorativeness Scale and the Short-version Revised Restoration Scale were performed. The results indicated that tundra and coniferous forest were the most favored biomes, whereas desert and grassland were the least favored. These findings appeared to support the forest hypothesis rather than the long-held savanna hypothesis. In addition, the results of multiple regression analyses indicated that the three perceived physical factors explained 9% more variance of the respondents' reactions than the biome classification. This finding suggested that a nonhabitat-specific approach to environmental responses holds more promise than a habitat-specific approach.

Key Words: human evolution • savanna hypothesis • forest hypothesis • habitat-specific approach • nonhabitat-specific approach

This version was published on July 1, 2007

Environment and Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 4, 529-556 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0013916506292016


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?