Observing natural scenes contributes to reduce stress, promotes positive mood states and feelings, and may facilitate recovery from different type of diseases. To our knowledge, little is known about the difference in the perceived restorative power resulting from being surrounded by nature or from working with plants.

1. Healing garden or gardening?
Data from the Perceived Restorativeness Scale
Costantina Righetto, Francesca Meneghello and Giorgio Prosdocimi Gianquinto
AgrUrb Roma 2015

2. The environmental context

3. Restorative potential of the garden
A restorative
environment can
provide cognitive
restoration,
recovery from
stress, shift to
more positive
mood states or
recovery from
directed
attentional fatigue
Garden to Relive

4. Theoretical bases
• Attention Restauration Theory (Kaplan
and Kaplan, 1995)
• Stress reduction Theory (Ulrich, 1983;
Ulrich et al., 1991)
• Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS)
(Hartig et al., 1997)
• Higher scores in the PRS mean higher
regenerative potential (Hartig et al.,
1997)
• Pasini et al. (2009) demonstrated that
an Italian version of PRS is reliable

5. The PRS scale is based on the four regenerative factors :
being away, fascination, extent, and compatibility
Fascination
Compatibility
Being away
Extent
Restorativeness

6. Fascination is the
property of an
environment that
holds one’s effortless
attention
Fascination

7. Being away means
a physically or
conceptually
distance in one’s
mind from usual
routines
Being away

8. Extent of the
environment
allows one to
remain
engaged
Extent

9. Compatibility is
the property of
an environment
that supports
what one wants
to do
Compatibility

10. The question
Is there any difference in the regenerative potential
of the garden between people
walking in the garden
people engaged in
horticultural and
gardening activities
People who know the
existence of the garden, that
work nearby it and that
sometimes look at it but don’t
regularly attend the garden

11. Activity
Total
number
Relatives
Hospital
employees
Patients
Working 34 4 1 29
Walking 27 12 2 13
Not regularly
attending the
garden
37 15 14 8
The sample

12. PRS Scale: the items (Hartig et al.1997)
List of variables determining the regenerative capacity
BAWAY_1 Spending time here give me a good break from my day to
day routine
BAWAY_2 It is an escape experience
EXT_1 There is much to explore and discover here
EXT_2 It is a orderly place
FASC_1 The setting has fascinating qualities
FASC_2 I would like to get to know this place better
COMP_1 Being here suits my personality
COMP_2 I can do things I like here
It includes
eight
questions
with two
items for
each
regenerative
factor.

13. Italian version of PRS (Dentamaro et al., 2011)
List of variables determining the regenerative capacity and related questions in Italian
language
BAWAY_1 Trascorrere il tempo qui mi permette di staccare dal mio tran tran
quotidiano
BAWAY_2 In questo luogo posso scappare dalle cose che di solito richiedono la mia
attenzione
EXT_1 E’come se questo luogo non avesse confini
EXT_2 C’è un ordine chiaro nella disposizione fisica di questo luogo
FASC_1 Questo luogo è affascinante
FASC_2 C’è molto da esplorare e da scoprire in questo luogo
COMP_1 Essere in questo luogo è in accordo con i miei interessi personali
COMP_2 In questo luogo è facile fare ciò che voglio

14. Statistical analisys
The restorative
potential was
obtained from the
average of the eight
answers related to
the four regenerative
factors (Berto, 2005;
Ivarsson &
Hagerhall, 2008).
Collected data were
analysed using
ANOVA and Chi-
square Test.

15. Results: analysis of the components of the
restorative effect

16. Results : analysis of the components of the restorative effect
being away
Average of being away for the different
activities (Anova)
P-value 0,0021
Average of being away for the different activities
(Chi-square Test)
2,76*
2,10 2,09
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
Working in the garden Not regularly attending
the garden
Walking in the garden
BEING AWAY

17. Results
extent
Average of extent for the different
activities (Anova)
P-value 0,0000
Average of extent for the different activities (Chi-
square Test))
2,97*
2,14
2,42
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
Working in the garden Not regularly attending
the garden
Walking in the garden
EXTENT

18. Results
fascination
Average of fascination for the
different activities (Anova)
P-value 0,0003
Average of fascination for the different activities
(Chi-square Test))
3,23*
2,89
2,44
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
Working in the garden Not regularly attending
the garden
Walking in the garden
FASCINATION

19. Results
compatibility
Average of compatibility for the different
activities (Anova)
P-value 0,0002
Average of compatibility for the different
activities (Chi-square Test))
2,77*
1,98 2,01
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
Working in the
garden
Not regularly
attending the garden
Walking in the
garden
COMPATIBILITY

20. Results
restorativeness capability of the garden
Level of restorativeness for the different
activities (Chi square Test)
P-value 0,0000
Average of restorativeness for the
different activities (Anova)
2,93*
2,28 2,24
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
Working in the
garden
Looking at the
garden
Walking in the
garden

21. CONCLUSION 1
Results suggest that between the acts of walking
in a garden or working in a garden or just
looking at it, there is a consequence in the
regenerative capacity that the garden can
provide.
Despite some methodological limitations the
assumption that the direct contact with the
plants offers the possibility of a greater
regeneration was confirmed.

22. CONCLUSION 2
It could be assumed that working with
plants would open a kind of deep
connection with nature that is so
essential to receive psychological and
physiological benefits
(Kaplan & Kaplan, 1990; Lee, 2010; Palsdottir et al., 2014).

23. Thank you for your attention
costantinarighetto2@unibo.it
giardino.terapeutico@ospedalesancamillo.net