The positive psychological and physical health effects associated with exposure to natural environments are well recognized. However, previous research in this field has focused almost exclusively upon the visual aspects of the environment, largely ignoring the role of the other senses. This paper reassesses these findings by examining the role senses other than sight play in blind people’s experiences of natural environments. Six people with visual impairments were interviewed regarding their experience of natural environments; interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. The analysis revealed that if the participants felt safe, they reported experiencing restorative effects in the majority of natural environments. Three main themes that contribute to an understanding of the processes involved in psychological restoration emerged: restoration, challenges, sources of experiences. Environmental restoration was reported by participants as being mostly experienced through sound and to a lesser extent through touch and smell.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenC. (2004). Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology and the body-in-space encounters of visually impaired children. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22, 719–735. doi:10.1068/d303t
2.
AndersonL.MulliganB.GoodmanL.RegenH. (1983). Effects of sounds on preferences for outdoor settings. Environment and Behavior, 15, 539–566. doi:10.1177/0013916583155001
3.
BermanM. G.JonidesJ.KaplanS. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207–1212. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x
4.
BertoR. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 249–259. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001
5.
BjorkE. A. (1995). Psychophysiological responses to some natural sounds. Acta Acustica, 3, 83–88.
6.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
7.
CarlesJ.BarrioI.LucioJ. (1999). Sound influence on landscape values. Landscape and Urban Planning, 43, 191–200. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(98)00112-1
8.
CoyleA. (2012). Discourse analysis. In BreakwellG. M.SmithJ. A.WrightD. B. (Eds.), Research methods in psychology (4th ed., pp. 485–509). London: Sage.
9.
EdwardsR.UngarS.BladesM. (1998). Route descriptions by visually impaired and sighted children from memory and from maps. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 92, 512–521.
10.
FredricksonL. M.AndersonD. H. (1999). A qualitative exploration of the wilderness experience as a source of spiritual inspiration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 21–39.
11.
FrumkinH. (2001). Beyond toxicity: Human health and the natural environment. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 20, 234–240.
12.
HanK.-T. (2003). A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64, 209–232. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00241-4
13.
HartigT.EvansG. W.JamnerL. D.DavisD. S.GärlingT. (2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 109–123. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00109-3
14.
HenwoodK. L.PidgeonN. F. (1992). Qualitative research and psychological theorizing. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 97–111. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1992.tb02426.x
15.
HerzogT. R.BlackA. M.FountaineK. A.KnottsD. J. (1997). Reflection and attentional recovery as distinctive benefits of restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 165–170.
16.
HerzogT. R.MaguireC. P.NebelM. B. (2003). Assessing the restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 159–170. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00113-5
17.
HillM. H. (1985). Bound to the environment: Towards a phenomenology of sightlessness. In SeamonD.MugerauerR. (Eds.), Dwelling, place, and environment (pp. 99–111). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
18.
JohanssonM.HartigT.StaatsH. (2011). Psychological benefits of walking: Moderation by company and outdoor environment. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3, 261–280. doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2011.01051.x
19.
KaplanR. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior, 33, 507–542. doi:10.1177/00139160121973115
20.
KaplanR.KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21.
KaplanR.KaplanS. (2011). Wellbeing, reasonableness and the natural environment. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3, 304–321. doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2011.01055.x
22.
KaplanS. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182. doi:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
23.
KimH.-H.LeeJ.-H. (1999). A study on the effect of aroma of plants on physio-psychology of human-being. In BurchettM. D.TarranJ.WoodR. A. (Eds), Proceedings of the international people-plant symposium, 1998: Towards a new millennium in people-plant relations. Sydney: University of Technology.
24.
KorpelaK. M.KlemettilaT.HietanenJ. K. (2002). Evidence for rapid affective evaluation of environmental scenes. Environment and Behavior, 34, 634–650. doi:10.1177/0013916502034005004
25.
KrippendorffK. (2003). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
LaumannK.GärlingT.StormarkK. M. (2001). Rating scale measures of restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 31–44. doi:10.1006/jevp.2000.0179
27.
LessardN.PareM.LeporeF.LassondeM. (1998). Early-blind human subjects localize sound sources better than sighted subjects. Nature, 395, 278–280. doi:10.1038/26228
28.
PassiniR.DelisleJ.LangoisC.ProulxG. (1988). Wayfinding information for congenitally blind individuals. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 82, 425–429.
29.
PowC. P. (2000). ‘Sense and sensibility’: Social-spatial experiences of the visually-impaired in Singapore. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 21, 166–182. doi:10.1111/1467-9493.00073
30.
SmithJ. A.EatoughV. (2007). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In LyonsE.CoyleA. (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data in psychology (pp. 35–50). London: Sage.
31.
StaatsH.HartigT. (2004). Alone or with a friend: A social context for psychological restoration and environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 199–211. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.005
32.
StaatsH.KievietA.HartigT. (2003). Where to recover from attentional fatigue: An expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 147–157. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00112-3
33.
TennessenC. M.CimprichB. (1995). Views to nature: Effects on attention. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 77–85. doi:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90016-0
34.
UlrichR. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to the natural environment. In AltmanI.WohlwillJ. F. (Eds.), Human behaviour and environment: Advances in theory and research Vol. 6 – Behaviour and the natural environment (pp. 85–125). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
35.
UlrichR. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420–421. doi:10.1126/science.6143402
36.
UlrichR. S.SimonsR. F.LositoB. D.FioritoE.MilesM. A.ZelsonM. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201–230. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7
37.
van den BergA. E.KooleS. L.van der WulpN. Y. (2003). Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related?Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 135–146. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00111-1
38.
VossP.LassondeM.GougouxF.FortinM.GuillemotJ.-P.LeporeF. (2004). Early- and late-onset blind individuals show supra-normal auditory abilities in far-space. Current Biology, 14, 1734–1738. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2004.09.051
39.
WhiteP. (2004). Blind world. England. How a blind man sees. The Independent, April06.
