598200
research-article2015
EABXXX10.1177/0013916515598200Environment and BehaviorHipp et al.
Article
The Relationship
Between Perceived
Greenness and Perceived
Restorativeness of
University Campuses
and Student-Reported
Quality of Life
Environment and Behavior
2016, Vol. 48(10) 1292­–1308
© 2015 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0013916515598200
eab.sagepub.com
J. Aaron Hipp1, Gowri Betrabet Gulwadi2,
Susana Alves3, and Sonia Sequeira4
Abstract
University students are exposed to many stressors, necessitating
opportunities for restoration. Research has indicated that actual experiences
in nearby green spaces are associated with restorative psychological and
physiological health benefits. However, the perception of greenness and
restorativeness of environments might also impact health outcomes. Can
green campus spaces provide restorative potential to university students?
Do students perceive the greenness and restorative benefits? To explore
these questions, students at three universities (convenience sample)
were surveyed with items on perceived greenness of campus, perceived
restorativeness of campus, and the World Health Organization Qualityof-Life Scale. Results indicate that those with higher perceived campus
greenness report greater quality of life, a pathway significantly and partially
1North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, USA
3Okan University, İstanbul, Turkey
4Washington University in St. Louis, MO, USA
2University
Corresponding Author:
J. Aaron Hipp, Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management, North Carolina
State University, 5124 Jordan Hall, Campus Box 8004, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
Email: jahipp@ncsu.edu
Hipp et al.
1293
mediated by perceived campus restorativeness. Future research should help
identify effective ways in which university green spaces can be developed as
health resources for students.
Keywords
university, campus, green space, quality of life, perceived restorativeness,
students
Introduction
Proximity and access to green spaces are associated with perceived psychological restoration and enhanced health outcomes (Korpela, Ylen, Tyrväinen,
& Silvennoinen, 2010; Stigsdotter & Grahn, 2011; van den Berg, Maas,
Verheij, & Groenewegen, 2010). Restoration, or restorativeness, refers to the
personal psychological restoration following demands to one’s attention and
faculties. An environment is restorative if it enables psychological or physiological restoration from depleted attention and faculties. The perception of
green space has a positive effect on perceived stress and psychological restoration. For example, Sugiyama, Leslie, Giles-Corti, and Owen (2008) have
shown that perceived neighborhood greenness is associated with perceived
physical and mental health.
Young adults who attend universities for the first prolonged period of time
away from home have high potential for stress and negative health impacts
and hence high need for restoration (Atri, Sharma, & Cottrell, 2006; Dyson
& Renk, 2006; Rawson, Bloomer, & Kendall, 1994). Many university campuses have green spaces integrated into their grounds, including grassy fields
and turf, manicured flower beds, trees and wooded areas, and other landscaped spaces available to the student body. The present study explores
whether there are associations between students’ perceptions of campus
greenness, campus restorativeness, and quality of life (QOL). We hypothesize that perceived campus greenness is related to student perceived QOL and
that this relationship is mediated by perceived campus restorativeness.
College enrollment in the United States was 21 million in Fall 2010 and
projected to increase by 15% through Fall 2020 (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2015). Many university students (on average 18 years of
age as first-year students) leave their home environment for the first time and
do so for a prolonged period to pursue their higher education degree. This
change in environment, combined with academic, social, and financial pressures, can be stress-producing for “emerging adults” (Arnett, 2000; Dyson &
Renk, 2006) and impact the physical health and wellness of students (Rawson
1294
Environment and Behavior 48(10)
Perceived
Greenness
Direct pathway:
β = .21, p<.001
Mediated pathway:
β = .13, p = .03
Student
Quality of Life
β = .21, p<.001
β = .50, p<.001
Perceived
Restoraveness
Figure 1. Tested pathways.
et al., 1994). Specifically, loneliness, loss of social status, and unfamiliarity
with customs of new places/land can cause stress (Atri et al., 2006). Higher
levels of change-related stress can cause increased depressive symptoms
(Dyson & Renk, 2006). As student success is heavily dependent on academic
performance (e.g., grade point average), the university years are a vulnerable
time for these emerging adults who are facing many new experiences while
trying to maintain their health.
There are many dimensions of wellness; not all are behavior-based
(Adams, Bezner, Drabbs, Zambarano, & Steinhardt, 2000). The built environment of a university campus, which the student interacts with daily, may
serve as a health-promoting resource but as such has been understudied. The
everyday physical environment that surrounds the students may provide
health-supporting interactions that if identified and maintained could enhance
student campus experiences.
Research on stress-reducing experiences in natural settings has shown that
access to green spaces helps facilitate psychological restoration and reduces
perceived stress (Korpela & Hartig, 1996). Physical attributes such as greenness and natural content in these settings are associated with perceived and
actual restoration (Hipp & Ogunseitan, 2011; Jorgensen & Gobster, 2010;
Kaplan, 2001; Ulrich et al., 1991). Exposure and access to green spaces and
neighborhood vegetation have positive relationships with physical activity
(Coombes, Jones, & Hillsdon, 2010; Giles-Corti et al., 2005), social support
(Felsten, 2009; Kuo, Bacaicoa, & Sullivan, 1998; Kuo, Sullivan, Coley, &
Brunson, 1998; Maas, van Dillen, Verheij, & Groenewegen, 2009), attention
span and ability to focus (Arbogast, Kane, Kirwan, & Hertel, 2009), and
stress mitigation (Fan, Das, & Chen, 2011). Specifically, and of relevance to
Hipp et al.
1295
this study, is the association between natural green settings and greater perceived restorativeness (Kaplan, 2001).
Most universities offer some kind of green space to their often multicultural and diverse students. As of 2014, more than 225 campuses were listed
as a “Tree Campus USA” by the U.S. Arbor Day Foundation indicating that
universities invest time and money, and place much pride in maintaining a
green campus (http://www.arborday.org/programs/treecampususa/campuses.
cfm). Demanding and heavy-class schedules, coursework, and extracurricular jobs of university students may result in time mostly spent indoors without convenient and frequent access to green space on campus, even if such
spaces exist. However, the perception of greenness may be associated with
the perception that the surroundings offer restorative experiences. For example, having a tree-lined walking trail on campus might enhance a student’s
perception of greenness and the perceived restorativeness of the campus.
Although many studies on restorative environments use student participants,
few have addressed university-specific green spaces (McFarland, Waliczek,
& Zajicek, 2008; Ogunseitan, 2005).
On a campus, green spaces form a part of a student’s holistic experience
(Kuh, 2011). The impact of campus green space has been studied with a few
undergraduate populations. McFarland and colleagues (2008) showed a link
between frequency of using campus green space (e.g., walking to class) and
self-reported affective and cognitive QOL. The content and greenness of the
view from indoors on campus can influence the perceived restorativeness of
indoor settings (Felsten, 2009). At a U.K. university, researchers found that
perception and use of campus green spaces were associated with perceived
quality and design of the green space (Speake, Edmondson, & Nawaz, 2013).
Also, a recent U.S. photovoice study found that undergraduate students preferred natural areas or natural areas with some built aspects around their campus over other types of campus spaces (Seitz, Reese, Strack, Frantz, & West,
2013).
In a nonstudent population, green space serves as a buffer against the negative effects of stressful life events (van den Berg et al., 2010). Research
suggests that vulnerable populations are more likely to seek out green restorative environments for resilience (Tidball, 2012); thus, a restorative environment could be considered a health resource (Hartig, 2007) for college students
experiencing stress. There is a clear need for restorative and quality green
spaces for students (Banning, Clemons, McKelfresh, & Gibbs, 2010).
Provided this background, we hypothesized a significant relationship between
perceived greenness of campus environments and self-reported QOL, but that
this relationship is mediated by perceived restorativeness of the campus
environment.
1296
Environment and Behavior 48(10)
Method
Location
Three universities (convenience sample) with green campus spaces were
selected for the present study to provide some degree of generalizability and
because each provided sufficient green space for exploring perceived greenness. Two universities are located in separate states in the Midwestern United
States, approximately 350 miles apart on a north–south plane. University A,
established in 1900, hosted the online survey and data collection for all three
university data collection procedures. University A (14,067 full- and parttime undergraduate and graduate students) is a Tree Campus USA with a
large urban campus located in a major U.S. city. To be designated a Tree
Campus, universities must meet five criteria including maintaining a tree
advisory committee, care plan, dedicated budget, and service learning projects (http://www.arborday.org/programs/treecampususa/). The green spaces
are a mix of tree-lined alleys, large campus quadrangles (quads) with maintained lawns, and manicured and maintained perennial plantings along building edges.
University B, established in 1876 (13,200 students), features a large campus in a medium-sized city. The green spaces include a prairie preserve,
walking and hiking trails, clusters of trees close to campus buildings, treelined streets, and open green space. The third University (C) established in
1907 (1,685 students) is located in a metropolitan city in Scotland. This was
the smallest university and most urban campus of the three. Green spaces
here included tree-lined lawn quads, abutting a large city park.
Measures
Following rigorous pilot testing and cognitive interviewing with students at
University A, an online questionnaire and its paper version were created. The
questionnaire covered demographic characteristics (gender and age), current
ZIP and postal codes, whether the student lived on or off campus, current student academic status (perceived grade point average and year of study), and
number of enrolled credits. The questionnaire included the World Health
Organization’s Quality of Life Brief survey (Skevington, Lotfy, & O’Connell,
2004) with 26 items pertaining to physical (e.g., How well are you able to get
around?), environmental (e.g., To what extent do you have the opportunity for
leisure activities; How healthy is your physical environment?), psychological
(e.g., How well are you able to concentrate?), and social (e.g., How satisfied
are you with the support you get from your friends?) domains of QOL. Also
included was Sugiyama et al.’s (2008) 11-item Perceived Greenness Scale.
Hipp et al.
1297
Students completed this scale for their campus environment. Example items
from the scale include the following: “My campus environment includes: (1)
Many street trees; (2) Sports fields; and (3) Grassed areas.” Answers were on
a 5-point Likert-type scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Finally,
respondents were asked to complete the 26-item Perceived Restorativeness
Scale (PRS; Hartig, Korpela, Evans, & Garling, 1997) for their university
environment with items pertaining to being away, fascination, extent, and
compatibility. An example item from the scale was “Spending time here gives
me a break from my day-to-day routine.” Answers were on a 7-point Likerttype scale from 0 = not at all to 6 = very much.
Procedure
The online questionnaire was administered in two academic semesters (at
the end of Spring 2011 and Fall 2011) after approval by the Institutional
Review Board at each university. The sample procedure was a modified
snowball sample. Specific student groups and student Listservs were targeted and asked to send the survey link via email to their members. To
ensure that only students answered the survey, an email address with the
suffix .edu specific to the three universities had to be entered to gain access
to the survey. Survey respondents at each university were entered in a drawing for a US$50 iTunes gift card. Due to a low response rate, University B
also provided hard copies of the survey during Fall 2011. Respondent
demographics did not statistically differ between the two semesters and
survey procedures at University B.
Data Analysis
The following methods of data analyses were conducted to answer the
research questions. A bivariate correlation analysis was run for the following
variables: PRS, perceived greenness, and each of the QOL domains (physical, psychological, social, and environmental).
The second step was to test mediation models. We adjusted all regression
models for gender (male/female), age (continuous), university (A/B/C), undergraduate versus graduate student status, and living on or off campus. A linear
regression analysis between perceived greenness and QOL and each of its constructs (physical, social, and psychological well-being) was tested. A regression
between perceived greenness and perceived restorativeness and its constructs
(being away, fascination, coherence, and compatibility) was completed to find
the relationship between perceived greenness and perceived restorativeness.
Then a regression was tested between perceived restorativeness and
1298
Environment and Behavior 48(10)
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Perceived Greenness, Quality of Life,
and Perceived Restorativeness by University and With Aggregate Data.
University A
(n = 305-308)
Perceived Greenness
WHOQOL-BREF
Total
Physical
Psychological
Social
Environmental
PRS
Total
Being away
Fascination
Coherence
Compatibility
University B University C
Aggregate
(n = 84-85) (n = 45-46) (N = 437-441)
2.94 (0.51)
2.98 (0.60)
1.87 (0.53)
2.84 (0.62)
3.70 (0.46)
16.0 (2.12)
14.8 (2.37)
18.2 (5.52)
17.3 (3.70)
3.98 (0.47)
16.4 (2.37)
15.7 (2.21)
19.3 (5.28)
18.9 (3.76)
3.40 (0.40)
15.0 (3.06)
13.4 (2.45)
13.9 (5.62)
13.9 (3.23)
3.72 (0.48)
16.0 (2.30)
14.8 (2.41)
17.9 (5.64)
17.2 (3.87)
3.64 (0.94)
2.83 (1.53)
3.57 (1.19)
4.49 (1.16)
3.78 (1.18)
3.76 (0.90)
2.93 (1.32)
3.53 (1.24)
4.46 (1.02)
4.12 (1.09)
2.95 (0.96)
2.42 (1.61)
2.29 (1.33)
4.69 (1.15)
3.08 (1.00)
3.59 (0.96)
2.80 (1.50)
3.43 (1.27)
4.50 (1.13)
3.77 (1.17)
Note. PRS = Perceived Restorativeness Scale; WHOQOL-BREF = World Health Organization
Quality of Life-Brief.
its constructs and QOL and its constructs. Finally, Sobel tests for statistically
significant indirect effects, or mediation, were completed with perceived greenness as the independent variable and QOL and constructs as dependent variables
(Sobel, 1982). The Sobel test (t statistic and p value) statistically compares the
indirect effect of the mediator (perceived restorativeness and its constructs)
against the null hypothesis of no effect.
Results
Across the two semesters, there were 439 respondents (308, 69.8% from
University A; 85, 19.3% from University B; and 46, 10.4% from University
C). Online Appendix Table 1 provides basic demographics and residential
information regarding the respondents. Undergraduates represented 55.6% of
the sample, the average age was 23.6 years, and 78.2% of respondents were
female.
The respondents differed across the three university campuses as did their
environments (see Table 1); thus, the home university was controlled in
regression and mediation analyses. For instance, University C had the oldest
average respondents and University A had the respondents with highest perceived academic standing and provided a sample with more graduate
1299
Hipp et al.
Table 2. Regression Results.
QOL
Female
−0.05
Age
−0.10
University B (University
0.19**
A comparison)
University C
−0.07
Undergraduate
0.06
Live on campus
0.01
Perceived green
0.21***
n
427
.15
Adjusted R2
Physical Psychological Social Environmental
QOL
QOL
QOL
QOL
−0.04
−0.13*
0.08
−0.07
−0.02
0.14*
0.07
−0.14*
−0.02
−0.07
−0.11
0.02
−0.04
−0.05
−0.10
0.13*
425
.04
−0.08
−0.01
−0.01
0.18**
425
.07
−0.12
0.13
0.02
0.18*
287
.12
−0.17*
0.18*
0.01
0.24***
332
.20
Note. The effect of perceived greenness on student quality of life (standardized beta
coefficients). QOL = quality of life.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
students. University C respondents were more likely to have children in the
home, compared with both universities located in the United States, and
University C respondents had significantly more roommates than University
A, but not University B.
Overall students at Universities A and B perceived that their universities
offered relatively restorative environments (Table 1). The average PRS score
for University B was 3.76 (SD = 0.90; range between 0, “Not at all Restorative”
and 6, “Completely Restorative”; 3 equates to “Neither little nor much”
restorativeness and 4, “Rather much” restorativeness), and 3.64 (0.94) for
University A. University C’s PRS score was 2.95 (0.96).
Without adjustment, the key variables of interest were significantly correlated. Perceived greenness was correlated with QOL (r = .30, p < .001) and
perceived restorativeness (r = .53, p < .001). QOL was significantly correlated with perceived restorativeness (r = .30, p < .001).
Regression results between perceived greenness of campus and student
QOL can be found in Table 2. After adjusting for demographics found to be
significantly associated with perceived greenness and/or QOL (gender, age,
university, undergraduate/graduate student, and living on or off campus),
perceived greenness was significantly associated with student QOL. The
beta coefficient and full model (adjusted R2) were highest for environmental QOL (e.g., “How healthy is your physical environment?”) and lowest
for physical QOL (e.g., “How satisfied are you with your capacity for
work?”). Table 3 provides the regression results between perceived campus
1300
Environment and Behavior 48(10)
Table 3. Regression Results.
QOL
Female
−0.05
Age
−0.09
University B (University 0.20***
A comparison)
University C
−0.14**
Undergraduate
0.04
Live on campus
0.01
PRS
0.21***
n
427
.16
Adjusted R2
Physical Psychological
QOL
QOL
Social
QOL
−0.04
−0.13*
0.08
−0.06
−0.01
0.15**
0.09*
0.02
−0.04
−0.09
−0.06
−0.11
0.10
425
.03
−0.13*
−0.11*
−0.02
0.06
−0.03
0.01
0.18***
0.70***
425
287
.08
.54
Environmental
QOL
−0.07
−0.11*
−0.09
−0.22***
0.04
−0.01
0.66***
332
.55
Note. The effect of perceived restorativeness (PRS) on student quality of life (standardized
beta coefficients). QOL = quality of life; PRS = Perceived Restorativeness Scale.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
environment restorativeness and student QOL. Perceived campus environment restorativeness was significantly associated with student QOL with
social and environmental QOL most associated with perceived restorativeness (ΔR2 = .44 and .39, respectively). The third regression tested (Table 4),
for purposes of mediation analysis, was the association of perceived campus greenness with perceived campus restorativeness. Perceived campus
greenness was significantly associated with perceived campus restorativeness. Perceived campus greenness was highly associated with three of the
four restorativeness constructs—being away, fascination, and compatibility
(ΔR2 > .11), but not with coherence.
Sobel test results (Table 5) indicate that the relationship between perceived campus environment greenness and student QOL is significantly
mediated by perceived campus restorativeness. Within perceived restorativeness constructs, being away, fascination, and compatibility significantly
mediated the relationship between perceived greenness and social and environmental QOL.
Discussion
Students with higher perceived campus greenness were more likely to selfreport a higher QOL; however, this relationship was significantly mediated
by perceived restorativeness. This mediation suggests that perceiving the
campus environment as restorative is a significant step in the relationship
1301
Hipp et al.
Table 4. Regression Results.
Being
away
PRS
Fascination Coherence Compatibility
Female
0.01
−0.05
Age
−0.04
0.07
University B (University −0.06
−0.04
A comparison)
University C
0.02
0.12
Undergraduate
0.22*** 0.14*
Live on campus
0.05
0.12
Perceived greenness
0.50*** 0.42***
n
427
427
.33
.20
Adjusted R2
0.02
−0.07
−0.09
0.07
−0.06
−0.05
−0.01
−0.07
−0.02
−0.09
0.13
0.02
0.43***
426
.28
0.13
0.08
−0.09
0.18**
425
.03
−0.01
0.27***
0.05
0.39***
425
.30
Note. The effect of perceived green on perceived restorativeness (PRS; standardized beta
coefficients). PRS = Perceived Restorativeness Scale.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 5. Sobel Mediation Analyses (t Statistic).
Dependent variable
QOL
Mediating variable
PRS
Being away
Fascination
Coherence
Compatibility
3.46***
1.36
0.90
1.48
4.96***
Physical
QOL
Psychological
QOL
Social
QOL
Environmental
QOL
0.74
0.57
0.28
1.80
1.76
2.23*
0.80
0.54
1.31
3.46***
10.13***
6.05***
6.83***
0.23
9.36***
10.01***
5.95***
8.57***
1.67
8.63***
Note. Summary of 25 separate mediation analyses with significant indirect effects noted.
Perceived greenness is the independent variable (see Figure 1). For example, perceived
restorativeness mediated the relationship between perceived greenness and student
quality of life. Analyses adjusted for the following variables: gender, age, university,
undergraduate/graduate student, living on campus/not. QOL = quality of life; PRS = Perceived
Restorativeness Scale.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
between perceiving the campus as green and rating a higher QOL. That is, it
is perhaps not perceived greenness that leads to greater QOL, but that perceived greenness offers opportunities for restoration that lead directly to
improved QOL.
1302
Environment and Behavior 48(10)
Multiple studies have shown that green environments are associated with
QOL (Chiesura, 2004; Stigsdotter et al., 2010), green environments are more
restorative than urban or less green environments (Carrus et al., 2015;
Honold, Lakes, Beyer, & van der Meer, 2016; Tyrväinen et al., 2014), and
restorative environments have health benefits including QOL (HansenKetchum & Halpenny, 2010; Hartig & Evans, 1993). Here, we hypothesized
that, and our data support, the pathway between perceived greenness and
QOL is significantly mediated, or in part explained, by perceived restorativeness. This is an important finding, especially with a student population on a
campus environment as students are highly vulnerable to attention fatigue
and stress (Atri et al., 2006; Dyson & Renk, 2006; Rawson et al., 1994).
Although with middle school students and not university students, a quasiexperimental study by Kelz, Evans, and Röderer (2015) showed that an
improved schoolyard (more greenery, hedges, and potted plants) increased
both perceived restorativeness and self-reported psychological well-being.
Our correlational study did not examine an increase in greenness, rather
examined how students perceive existing greenness. Our findings indicate
that existing and available green campus areas, when perceived as green by
students, have the potential to promote perceived psychological restorativeness that in turn has the potential to increase the QOL.
The physical health domain of the World Health Organization Quality of
Life Scale was not significantly associated with perceived restorativeness
and was not significantly mediated by perceived restorativeness along the
pathway between perceived greenness to QOL. This domain includes questions such as “To what extent do you feel that physical pain prevents you
from doing what you need to do?”; “How much do you need any medical
treatment to function in your daily life?”; and “How well are you able to get
around?” Given we were interested in psychological restoration, it is unsurprising that a physical health scale with questions on physical function and
ability was found unrelated to perceived restorativeness of the environment.
The remaining three domains—psychological, social, and environmental
QOL—were each significantly associated with perceived restorativeness.
Items from these three domains inquire about positive feelings, negative feelings, self-esteem, social support, feelings of safety, information, leisure
opportunities, and health of the physical environment (Skevington et al.,
2004). Stress-reducing environments (green, restorative campus) signal
opportunities for leisure activities and social contact and thus contribute to
QOL. Perceiving a green and restorative environment should be associated
with the specific subdomains tested here, including positive feelings, negative feelings, perceived social support, opportunities and participation in recreation and leisure activities, and environmental quality.
Hipp et al.
1303
The mean perceived restorativeness scores of campuses in this study are
similar to the mean perceived restorativeness scores of natural environments
(e.g., lakes, mountains, and so on; Tenngart-Ivarsson & Hagerhall, 2008).
There are positive outcomes of attending green campuses. Perceived greenness is significantly associated with perceived restorativeness and social and
environmental well-being.
University campuses spend a lot of money on greening and maintaining
the campus to recruit new students. Although many universities provide
and maintain green and natural campus environments that students, staff,
and faculty have direct and easy access to, where is the green located? Is it
mainly in the “frontyard” where newly recruited students arrive, or along
campus tour routes, or are they integrated into the overall campus design
where they can be seen and experienced from students’ study, work, and
rest spaces?
The campus becomes a home for at least 2 to 4 years for students who are
in the midst of making a stressful life transition. Understanding student perceptions of greenness and their varied responses to available campus green
space will assist future researchers and designers in understanding, managing, and highlighting green spaces on university campuses as a health resource
for a diverse student body. For instance, Lau and Yang (2009) showed how
concepts from the design of healing gardens could be successfully applied to
a compact campus design in Hong Kong.
The findings in this study indicate that availability of green campus space
enhances the QOL by enhancing the perception of greenness and impacting
opportunities for restoration. Hence, this study makes a specific conceptual
contribution by considering the university campus environment as a health
resource for its students. The results will be useful to environmental psychologists who study the processes of stress and restoration, to architects and
designers who prioritize and apply design features in green campus spaces,
and to the campus community who can find ways to educate students regarding their green health resource.
Limitations
In this study, students from three campuses in three different places (with differences in campus greenness and vegetation) were surveyed. The sample sizes
and response rate varied across the campuses. Although the results are encouraging and point to future branches of this research, they cannot be generalized.
With larger sample sizes, and more control on variables, future studies can
adopt a sharper lens to examine associations between greenness and health
outcomes. For example, in this study, students self-reported their QOL and
1304
Environment and Behavior 48(10)
restoration; additional studies could explore other health measures such as
number of times they visited the student health center. There are also limitations associated with three self-reported scales: perceived greenness, perceived
restorativeness, and self-reported QOL. It is possible that those students with
greater affect self-reported higher scores on each of the three scales and those
with lower affect self-reported lower scores. Beyond the 11-item perceived
greenness scale, students did not have to identify or specify green areas on
campus. We are unable to nominally separate the undergraduate student whose
dormitory room looks over a grassy field and whose commute to the majority
of classes crosses a quad from an undergraduate student whose dormitory faces
another building and commutes along a trafficked road. We believe such
lifespaces result in the range of perceived greenness, perceived restorativeness,
and QOL scores across campuses, but beyond controlling for university and
living on/off campus, we cannot assume the potential exposures beyond what
is self-reported. Finally, as with all cross-sectional studies, correlations and significant regression models do not make for causal pathways.
Conclusion
This study examined links between student perception of campus greenness, campus restorativeness, and QOL indicators. Future studies can build
on these findings and explore the impact of specific design attributes and
affordances on campus for groups of students with different restorative
needs. For example, design students work longer hours in studio spaces
using a variety of media (e.g., drawings, computer graphics, models) when
compared with nondesign students working on a study paper. Are their
restorative needs the same or different? Would outdoor classrooms and
instructional spaces work to preserve health of students in either case?
Would creating more orchestrated and spontaneous opportunities for actually experiencing green spaces (e.g., walking the trails or spending some
time on campus green) within a typical college day encourage more healthy
behaviors among students? With this study, we open rich possibilities for
future research and its application.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to think Kenneth Chiang, MPH, for his assistance with survey
development and implementation.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Hipp et al.
1305
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Adams, T. B., Bezner, J. R., Drabbs, M. E., Zambarano, R. J., & Steinhardt, M. A.
(2000). Conceptualization and measurement of the spiritual and psychological
dimensions of wellness in a college population. Journal of American College
Health, 48(4), 165-173. doi:10.1080/07448480009595692
Arbogast, K., Kane, B., Kirwan, J., & Hertel, B. (2009). Vegetation and outdoor recess
time at elementary schools: What are the connections? Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 29, 450-456.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. The American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.
Atri, A., Sharma, M., & Cottrell, R. (2006). Role of social support, hardiness, and
acculturation as predictors of mental health among international students of
Asian Indian origin. International Quarterly of Community Health Education,
27, 59-73. doi:10.2190/IQ.27.1.e
Banning, J. H., Clemons, S., McKelfresh, D., & Gibbs, R. W. (2010). Special places
for students: Third place and restorative place. College Student Journal, 44(4),
906-912.
Carrus, G., Scopelliti, M., Lafortezza, R., Colangelo, G., Ferrini, F., Salbitano, F.,
. . .Sanesi, G. (2015). Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 134, 221-228. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.022
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 68, 129-138. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
Coombes, E., Jones, A. P., & Hillsdon, M. (2010). The relationship of physical activity and overweight to objectively measured green space accessibility and use.
Social Science & Medicine, 70, 816-822. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.020
Dyson, R., & Renk, K. (2006). Freshmen adaptation to university life: Depressive
symptoms, stress, and coping. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 1231-1244.
doi:10.1002/jclp.20295
Fan, Y., Das, K. V., & Chen, Q. (2011). Neighborhood green, social support, physical activity, and stress: Assessing the cumulative impact. Health & Place, 17,
1202-1211.
Felsten, G. (2009). Where to take a study break on the college campus: An attention restoration theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29,
160-167.
Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng, K.,
. . .Donovan, R. J. (2005). Increasing walking: How important is distance to,
attractiveness, and size of public open space? American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 28(2 Suppl. 2), 169-176.
1306
Environment and Behavior 48(10)
Hansen-Ketchum, P. A., & Halpenny, E. A. (2010). Engaging with nature to promote health: Bridging research silos to examine the evidence. Health Promotion
International, 26, 100-108. doi:10.1093/heapro/daq053
Hartig, T. (2007). Three steps to understanding restorative environments as health
resources. In C. W. Thompson & P. Travlou (Eds.), Open space: People space
(pp.163-180). London, England: Taylor & Francis.
Hartig, T., & Evans, G. W. (1993). Psychological foundations of nature experience. In
T. Garling & R. G. Golledge (Eds.), Behavior and Environment: Psychological
and Geographical Approaches (pp. 427-457). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hartig, T., Korpela, K. M., Evans, G. W., & Garling, T. (1997). A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research, 14,
175-194.
Hipp, J. A., & Ogunseitan, O. A. (2011). Effect of environmental conditions on perceived psychological restorativeness of coastal parks. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 31, 421-429.
Honold, J., Lakes, T., Beyer, R., & van der Meer, E. (2016). Restoration in urban
spaces: Nature views from home, greenways, and public parks. Environment and
Behavior, 48, 796-825.
Jorgensen, A., & Gobster, P. H. (2010). Shades of green: Measuring the ecology of
urban green space in the context of human health and well-being. Nature and
Culture, 5, 338-363.
Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits.
Environment and Behavior, 33, 507-542.
Kelz, C., Evans, G. W., & Röderer, K. (2015). The restorative effects of redesigning the schoolyard: A multi-methodological, quasi-experimental study
in rural Austrian middle schools. Environment and Behavior, 47, 119-139.
doi:10.1177/0013916513510528
Korpela, K. M., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 16, 221-233.
Korpela, K. M., Ylen, M., Tyrväinen, L., & Silvennoinen, H. (2010). Favorite green,
waterside and urban environments, restorative experiences and perceived health
in Finland. Health Promotion International, 25, 200-209. doi:10.1093/heapro/
daq007
Kuh, G. D. (2009). Understanding campus environments. In G. S. McClellan & J.
Stringer (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 59-80) San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes: Trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30,
28-59.
Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for
community: Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 26, 823-851.
Lau, S. S. Y., & Yang, F. (2009). Introducing healing gardens into a compact university campus: Design natural space to create healthy and sustainable campuses.
Landscape Research, 34, 55-81. doi:10.1080/01426390801981720
Hipp et al.
1307
Maas, J., van Dillen, S. M., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2009). Social
contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and
health. Health Place, 15, 586-595. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.09.006
McFarland, A. L., Waliczek, T. M., & Zajicek, J. M. (2008). The relationship
between student use of campus green spaces and perceptions of quality of life.
HortTechnology, 18, 232-238.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Fast Facts. Washington, DC:
Institute for Education Sciences. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/
display.asp?id=98
Ogunseitan, O. A. (2005). Topophilia and the quality of life. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 113(2), 143-148.
Rawson, H. E., Bloomer, K., & Kendall, A. (1994). Stress, anxiety, depression, and
physical illness in college students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 155,
321-330. doi:10.1080/00221325.1994.9914782
Seitz, C. M., Reese, R. F., Strack, R. W., Frantz, S., & West, B. (2013). Identifying
and improving green spaces on a college campus: A photovoice study.
Ecopsychology, 6, 98-108. doi:10.1089/eco.2013.0103
Skevington, S. M., Lotfy, M., & O’Connell, K. A. (2004). The World Health
Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric
properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL
Group. Quality of Life Research, 13, 299-310.
Sobel, M. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-312.
Speake, J., Edmondson, S., & Nawaz, H. (2013). Everyday encounters with nature:
Students’ perceptions and use of university campus green spaces. Human
Geographies: Journal of Studies and Research in Human Geography, 7(1), 21-31.
Stigsdotter, U. K., Ekholm, O., Schipperijn, J., Toftager, M., Kamper-Jørgensen, F.,
& Randrup, T. B. (2010). Health promoting outdoor environments—Associations
between green space, and health, health-related quality of life and stress based on
a Danish national representative survey. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health,
38, 411-417. doi:10.1177/1403494810367468
Stigsdotter, U. K., & Grahn, P. (2011). Stressed individuals’ preferences for activities and environmental characteristics in green spaces. Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening, 10, 295-304.
Sugiyama, T., Leslie, E., Giles-Corti, B., & Owen, N. (2008). Association of neighbourhood greenness with physical and mental health: Do walking, social coherence and local social interaction explain relationships? Journal of Epidemiology
& Community Health, 62, e9.
Tenngart-Ivarsson, C., & Hagerhall, C. M. (2008). The perceived restorativeness of
gardens—Assessing the restorativeness of a mixed built and natural scene type.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7, 107-118.
Tidball, K. G. (2012). Urgent biophilia: Human-nature interactions and biological
attractions in disaster resilience. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 5.
1308
Environment and Behavior 48(10)
Tyrväinen, L., Ojala, A., Korpela, K., Lanki, T., Tsunetsugu, Y., & Kagawa, T.
(2014). The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A
field experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38(1), 1-9. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.005
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.
van den Berg, A. E., Maas, J., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2010). Green
space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Social Science &
Medicine, 70, 1203-1210. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.002
Author Biographies
J. Aaron Hipp is an associate professor of Community Health and Sustainability in
the Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management at North Carolina
State University. His research examines the role the built environment plays in community health.
Gowri Betrabet Gulwadi is an associate professor of Interior Design in the School
of Applied Human Sciences at the University of Northern Iowa. She has research and
teaching interests in designs for health including the effect of lighting and green space
on well-being.
Susana Alves is an environmental psychologist and assistant professor at Okan
University in Turkey, formerly at Edinburgh College of Arts and the OPENspace
Research Centre. Her research examines how landscapes can be used to promote people’s health and psychological well-being.
Sonia Sequeira is a graduate of the Brown School, Washington University, with a
dual degree in public health and social work. Her primary interests are in addressing
health disparities through environmental and policy interventions.