J Light & Vis. Env. Vol.33, N0.

1, 2009 37

Research Note
Restorative Lighting Environments
-Does the Focus of Light Have an Effect on Restorative
Ex periences?
Hen Johanna NIKUNEN* and Kalevl Mlkael KORPE L

tLighting Labom:tory, Department ofElectronjis, HelsiokiUhjve ty ofTedlnohy

Departznent ofPtydio , Uhiversity ofTampere

ReceivedApril 1, 2008, Accepted January 27, 2009

A B STRACT
This study investigated how focusing light on difflerent elements of a scene affects the stress-alleviating,
restorative experience. Three night time scenes were created with the Lightscape computer program.
Each scene was illuminated in two different ways, one focusing light on roads and parking lots and the
other on vegetation, resulting altogether in six views. It was expected that focusing light on vegetation
would result in higher ratings of restorative experience. The simulated views were rated by 35 participants
using the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS) and the Restoration Outcome Scale (ROS). In accor-
dance with our hypothesls, focusing light towards greenery vs. parking lots and roads resulted in higher
PRS and ROS ratings. The results suggest that lighting offers considerable potential for enhancing the
restorativeness of urban night time environments.

KEYWORDS: restoraton, Iighting, healthy environments, urloan nightscape

l. Introduction beyond ergonomics and visual performance. Besides its

In this study, we examined the role of lighting in re-
storative experience. Restoration is a counterpoise to
stress and attentional fatiguel)-4). The attention restora-
tion theory (ART) sees restoration from attentional or
mental fatigue unfolding when a person encounters
environments where experiences of fascination, being
away, coherence and compatibillty become possible. In
the psycho-physiological theory, Ulrich3) (see also Refer-
ences (5)-(7)) has proposed that an immediate and un-
conscious response to nature scenes and contents is
enough to start the restoration process from stress.
Outcomes of that process include positive psychophysi-
ological changes like lowered heart rate and blood pres-
sure, better mood, and better cognitive capabilities. En-
vironments which enable and promote these positive
changes can be called restorative and are according to
both theories natural rather than built environments.
A well-articulated body of findings indicates that vis-
ual exposure to enviromnents with restorative charac-
teristics enhances the renewal of psychic resour sl)2)8)-14).
It is therefore crucial to discover whether differen-
tially illuminated environments support restoration
differentially. This would also help in the creation of
restorative environments. Examining the possibihties
lighting may offer in producing positive emotional and
attentional states extends the significance of lighting
physiological effects, lighting is a health and well-being
issue that takes effect through person-environment
transactions; people shape and are shaped by their en-
viromnents4).
It has been suggested that restorative changes are
stronger with stressed individuals who have a greater
need for restoration2)13)14). However, also non-stressed
people experience positive changes. In addition to
physiological, emotional and cognitive changes restora-
tion is also an experience in which being away, fascina-
tion, coherence and compatibility are considered to be
central according to ARTl).
Being away refers to escape and drstraction from eve-
ryday routines. It can mean physical escape from the
stressful environment, putting aside ordinary work or
mental escape. In general it means withdrawal from
the worrles and demands.
Fascination represents things like interest and stimu-
lation. Fascination is caused by a stimulus that draws
involuntary attention. It attracts people and alloWS
them to function without directed attention and is
therefore important in restorative experience. There
haven't really been studies on what kixids of contents
have this restcration property, but the possibilities
might include for example sunsets, waterfalls and firel).
Nature seems to be a good source of fascination.

37 The llluminating Engineering Institute of Japan

38
Coherence refers tc an environment that is under-
standable and has extent. The environment gives a feel-
ing of being in a "whole other world". It is possible to
enter this world and be surrounded by it. The extent
can be either directly perceived or imagined feeling of
the world continuing beyond what is perceived.
Compatibihty refers to components like belongingness
to the environment and being able to do things that one
likes. Many people seem to experience nature as being
high in compatibility. It communicates a sense of reality
and offers various meaningful patterns to act. Compati-
bility can lead to a sense counectedness. This sense can
have religious and meditative featuresD9).
What is important is that a restorative experience is
possible when all these four interrelated aspects char-
acterize the experience of a scene or setting. Perceived
restcrativeness of a scene can thus be representcd with
a measure that provides a summary score of these as-
pects of experiencel5).
The research on restorative environments has focused
on dayiime environments. It is important to augment
the research field with urban nightscapes to get a wider
understanding of the restorative environments. This
would also be in accord with the increasing use of urban
night time environments. During the dark hours, peo-
ple may also feel more vulnerable and stressed, which
emphasizes the importance of restorative environ-
mentsl6)17). While trees, greenery and deflected vistas'l
have restorative characteristics in dayiime environ-
ments, during night time they provide concealment,
limited prospect and blocked escape, which may in-
crease fearl8)-21).
Lighting working together with the surfaces, shapes
and spaces of urban structure creates the visual image
of urban nightscape. It may therefore have considerable
effect on the experienced restcration. Lighting can focus
our attention to the positive or negative restorative fea-
tures of the space and, in this way; it may enhance or
weaken the restorative effect. Very often, the perceived
nightscape image consists of roads, parking lots and
signs, which are usually the most disliked elements of
daytime imagesl7). Besides likeability, this may also
have an effect on the restorativeness of urban night
time environment. The fact that preference and restora-
tion are correlated to each other has both theoretical
and empirical support in the restoration research
fieldl)3)22). This conuection leads to the suggestion that
focusing light on the disliked enviromnental features
may have a considerable effect on restoration. On the
other hand, it also reveals the possibility of enhancing
the restorative experience by focusing light on preferred
elements like prominent trees. Lighting may therefore
*1 Deflected vista means a view that is partly covered by e.g. foliage or curviug
pathway.
The lllum in ating Engineering Institute of Jap an
J. Light & Vis. Env. Vol.33, No. 1, 2009
be regarded as a tool to enhance or weaken the restora-
tiveness of urban nightscape.
In the study reported here, we wanted to find out how
the focus of lighting affects the restorative experience.
According to our hypothesis, focusing light towards
greenery vs. parking lots and roads has an effect on ex-
perienced restoration. The hypothesis was tcsted ex-
perimentally by computer simulations. The computer-
modelled scenes were illuminated in two different ways
creating six views. These views were rated by subjects
using both the Perceived Restorativeness Scale
(PRS)15)23)24) and, as a converging measure, the Restora-
tion Outcome Scale (ROS), which further testing was
also one of the aims of this studyi3)25)-27). Thus, we used
selfreport scales to measure the restorative potential
(PRS), and the actual restorative outcomes (ROS). It
was expected that the views where the lighting was
focused on the greenery would receive higher ratings on
both PRS and ROS scales and the scenes where the
lighting was focused on roads and parkurg lots would
have lower ratings on both scales. Because restoration
may, although not necessarily, be counected to antece-
dent stress experience according to ART, also preceding
condition of stress or mental fatigue was measured by
two questions.
2. Method
2.1 Stimuh
Three scenes were modelled with the Lightscape
computer program. The general structures of the scenes
were based on real-life environments. One of the scenes
is from the Pitkaniemi Psychiatric Hospital area (pic-
tures 3 and 5; Figure 1). The main contents of the scene
are trees, grassland and parking lots with cars. The
other two scenes are from the Tapiola district in Espoo,
which is a more urban area. The first scene (pictures 1
and 4; Figure 1) contains a pedestrian area, vegetation
and different kinds of man-made constructions. The
other scene (pictures 2 and 6; Figure 1) contains a large
parking lot with cars in front of a mall and trees sur-
rounding the parking lot. None of the settings contains
people. The study was connected to these real environ-
ments because we wanted tc examine typical lighting
situations in common environmental settings. It was
also expected that these areas would directly benefit
from this research as they had some environmental im-
provement projects going on. Totally hypothetical situa-
tions would, however, have given more freedom in set-
ting configurations.
Computer modelled images were used because they
offer the possibility of illuminating one scene in two
different ways, which would be hard to achieve in real
environments. It also enabled the subjects to assess all
the scenes at the same time in controlled conditions.
38
40
Tab]e I Setting categories
Setting category scene pair I scene pair 2
Focus on vegetation:
higher experienced restoration picture 5
Focus on roads & parking lots:
lower experienced restoration picture 3
the ROS. AIL the subjects evaluated all the scenes. Pro-
jection was from the front of the screen. The counter-
balancing was done so that 15 subjects saw the slides in
original order and 20 subjects saw them in reversed
order. The slide order was generated so that the picture
pairs would not follow each other.
2.1.1 Lighting
Metal halide spotlights (BEGA 8393, wide, 70 W,
23300 cd) from the Lightscape library were used to il-
luminate the scenes. All the luminaries in the scene
pairs were at the same height. They were moved hori-
zontally to illuminate different elements of the scene.
The luminaries themselves were erased from the final
views so that the technical equipment would not attract
attention. It also made the device positioning easier and
freer. Photometric data (1uminance and lunuhous flux)
was derived from the Lightscape images.
Besides the different elements on the scene, the per-
ceived brightness of the scene, vertical depth and the
field of view may also have some effect on restorative
experience. When moving the luminaries, these factors
also change. Even though the same type of luminaries
at the same height illunlinate the scene in all views,
different surface materials have different reflectances
and colours. Different objects also have different forms
and sizes that will affect the distance and angle be-
tween the luminary and object. These factors will have
an effect on the surface luminance and shadow casting
and, further, on the perceived brightness.
It is also possible that restorative environments ap
pear brighter due to preferences and positive attitudes
towards the scenes containing restorative features. Yet
another factor that may enhance the perceived bright-
ness is the better colour contrast greenery tends to have
compared to roads and parking lots. Also, the category
division in itself affects the spatial configuration of il-
luminated surfaces; vegetation is more vertical,
whereas roads and parking lots lie on a horizontal
plane. For this reason, the visible illuminated area from
the pedestrian viewpoint tends to be larger when vege-
tation is illuminated than when parking lots are illumi-
nated. To balance this, a bit more light was used to il-
luminate the parking 10ts-and-roads category.
Objects immediately around the picture will also have
The llluminating Engineering Institute of Japan
J. Light & Vis. Env. Vol.33, No. 1, 2009
scene pair 3
picture 4 plcture 2
picture I picture 6
an effect on the perceived brightness. The black frames
create simultaneous contrast with the images. When
the frontal area of the view is lighter, the dark frames
enhance the brightness of the scene. When the frontal
area is darker, the frames enhance the darkness.
Although roughly same amourrt of light was used to
illuminate the scene pairs, it was also checked that
their perceived brightnesses and visible ilhuninated
areas were close to each other. Besides the brightness
differences between the picture pairs, we also checked
whether there was significant brightness differences
between pictures in the order they were presented (Fig-
ure 1). It is possible that the brightness of previous pic-
ture may have an effect on the perceived brightness of
the subsequent picture. There was no indication that
the presentation order and brightness changes would
have had an effect on the results.
There is research evidence that vertical depth is a
positive predictor of preference and may therefore have
an effect on restoration30). The vertical depth (distance
from the view point to the furthest visible point) of the
picture pairs is roughly equal, although the spatial con-
figuration changes.
Test 1
Location: Atrium-shaped lecture hall at Helsinki Uni-
versity of Technology
Subjects: 15 students
Slide size: roughly 170 X 120cm
Subject distance from the screen: 3.5 - 12m
Test 2
Location: Atriunrshaped lecture hall at Helsinki Uni-
versity of Te chnology
Subjects: 7 students
Slide size: roughly 170 X 120cm
Subject distance from the screen: 3.5 - 10m
Pictures were presented in reversed order.
Test 3
Location: Meeting room at the University of Vaasa
Subjects: 13 persons, staLf at the University of Vaasa
Slide size: roughly 164 x 130cm
Subject distance from the screen: 2 - 6 m
Pictures were presented in reversed order.
The subjects were free to choose their preferred view-
40
 J. Light & Vis. Env. Vol.33, No. I, 2009
ing position within the two test spaces.
2.2 Subjects
There were 35 subjects, 19 men and 16 women, who
evaluated all the scenes. Their age varied from 20 to 58
years. The mean age was 29 years (20-29 years, 26 sub-
jects; 30-39 years, 3 subjects; 40-49 years, 2 subjects;
50-59 years, 4 subjects). The subjects were unaware of
the purpose of the study and participated in the ex-
periment voluntarily without course credit.
2.3 Measures
Experienced restoration measures were obtained by
the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS) and the Res-
toration Outcome Scale (ROS) instruments based on
attention restoration theory. PRS scores for Being Away,
Fascination, Coherence, and Compatibility that reflect
the potential to be restored according to attention resto-
ration theory. There were 16 statements concerning
PRS. All of these were used to compute a mean sum-
mary score of perceived restorativeness. In the PRS sec-
tion, the subjects were asked to imagine themselves in
the environment each view presented and respond to
the statements based on that assumptionl5)23)24). PRS
has been used with stressed9)3D and with non-stressed
individualsl5).
ROS measures positive affect and reflection, which
are the possible restoration outcomes according to at-
tention restoration theory. However, restoration out-
comes might also include increase in subjective vital-
ity32)33). Thus, for purposes of further theoretical devel-
opment of the restorative experience scale, items such
as "I would be ready to meet difficult challenges" of sub-
jective vitality were added. A positive state was scored
with statements like "I feel peaceful and relaxed".
Statements like "It feels easy to make plans for the fu-
ture" referred to reflection. A mean summary score of
the 15 items in ROS was used in subsequent statistical
analysis. In the ROS section, the subjects were asked to
imagine that they had spent some time in the environ-
ment presented by each slide and respond to the state-
ments based on that assunrption. The ROS section fol-
lowed the PRS section in order to give the subjects more
time to experience the environment. There were 15
statements concerning ROS13)26)27).
ROS is a newer tool than PRS, which has mainly been
used in the previous studies on restorative experience.
ROS measures were used in this study as a converging
measure to give more weight to the results and to assist
in the scale's further development. Because we wanted
to examine how PRS and ROS scores converge with
each other, a mean suJnmary score, instead of separate
factor scores, was used on both scales. The use of a
mean smnmary score is also supported by previous
41
41
studies suggesting that 2-factor solution is preferable
than 4-factor one in PRS measures24).
Preceding condition of stress or mental fatigue was
measured by two questions. One question scored tired-
ness and the other stress level. Thirteen reported being
stressed (score 4-6 on 0-6 scale) before the test and 15
reported being tired (score 4-6 on 0-6 scale) before the
test. If the total score of these two questions was 6 or
more, the subject was considered to be in a state of
mental fatigue. Eighteen subjects formed the fatigued
group and 17 the non-fatigued group. The purpose was
to see if the antecedent condition affected the PRS and
ROS scores. There was no special antecedent stress
manipulation. The subjects participated in the test dur-
ing their normal day.
Respondents indicated on a 7-point scale (0=Not at all,
6=Completely) the extent to which the given statement
fitted their experience of the given scene. All subjects
flLled both forms, PRS being administered first and
ROS second.
2.4 Statistical analysis and validr'ty checks
Repeated measures and one-way ANOVAs, together
with linear correlation (SPSS program), were used in
the validity checks and tests for experimental effects. In
repeated measures ANOVA, the scene pairs were speci-
fied as a priori contrasts. There were five missing val-
ues in the data matrix; Multivariate-Normal Missing-
Value Imputation (NCSS-program) was used to fill in
the missing values.
3. Results
Calculations of internal consistency (Cronbach's a)
showed that the coefficients were high across all pic-
tures (a>0.88; Table 2). The focus"oflight-on-greenery
category got the hlghest mean ratings in both PRS and
ROS ratings. Tests were conducted using repeated
measures ANOVA with contrast tests (SPSS). The
states of mental fatigue and gender were set as be-
tween-subjects factors. The setting category effect was
significant for both PRS (F(5,155)=17.061, p<0.001,
power=1.0) and ROS (F(3.955,122.597)=20.058, p<0.001,
power=1.0) (Greenhouse-Geisser corrected) scores in all
picture pairs, and was in the expected direction, with
the focus-on-greenery category having a higher mean in
both PRS and ROS ratings. The PRS scores corre-
sponded strongly with ROS scores (r=0.636, p<0.001).
The ROS ratings were higher than PRS ratings in all
pictures.
The main effect of mental fatigue as a between-
subjects factor was insigni icant in both overall PRS
(F(1,33)=0.140, p=0.710, power=0.065) and ROS
(F(1,33)=0.283, p=0.598, power=0.081) ratings (re-
peated measures ANOVA with picture pairs as con-
The lllum in ating Engineering Institute of Jap an
42 J Light & Vis. Env. Vol.33, No. 1, 2009

Table 2 Mean ratings (M), standard deviations (SD), Cronbach's Alphas (a) and the significance levels of contrast tests (p) (ANOVA) of
PRS and ROS scales between piciure pairs 4-1 , 5-3, and 2-6
PRS ROS

n
M SD p power
35 35 35
M SD p power
35 35 35
picture 4 3.4 0.9 O.94 3.6 0.9 0.95
picture 1 2.4 0.8 O.88 <0.001 o.998 2.9 0.9 O.91 O.OOI O.914
pieture 5 2.9 O.8 0.89 3 .4 O. 8 0.92
picture 3 2.2 0.8 O.91 O.OO1 0.877 2.9 0.9 0.93 0.008 O.816
picture 2 2.6 0.9 o.93 3.2 O.8 0.90
pieture 6 2.1 o.8 0.88 o.003 0.941 2.7 O.8 0.90 <0.001 0.791
Contrasts: 4- l

5-3
2-6

Tabie 3 The significan of mental fatigue (p) as a between-subjects factor (one-way ANOVA) in PRS and ROS ratings of different pic-
tures, mean ratings (M) and standard deviations (SD) of PRS and ROS scales by fatigued and non-fatigued
Fatigued Non- Fatigued
PRS ROS PRS PRS
n=3 5 n=3 5 n=18
ROS
n= 1 8 n=1 7 n= i 7
ROS

picture l
p power p power
O.225 O.224 O.i63 0.283
M SD
2.2 O.7
M SD
2.70.9
M2.6 SD
0.9
M3.2 SD 0.8
picture 2 0.180 O.265 O.127 O.331 2.3 l .O 2,9 0.8 2.8 o.7 3.3 0.7
picture 3 O.637 O.075 0.838 O.055 2.1 0.9 2.9 l .O 2.3 0.8 3.0 0.6
pieture 4 O.045 0.524 0.458 0.113 3.7 l.O 3.8 l .O 3.1 0.7 3.5 0.9
picture 5 O.913 0.051 O.949 0.050 2.9 0.9 3 *4 O.8 2.9 o.7 3 *4 o.6
picture 6 O.524 O.096 O.949 0.050 2.0 O.6 2.7 O.8 2. l o.9 2.7 o.9

Table 4 The significance of gender as a between-subjects factor (p) (one way ANOVA), mean ratings (M) and siandard deviations (SD) of
PRS and ROS scales by women and men
Men Women
PRS ROS PRS
n=35 n=35 n= 1 9
ROS
n=19
PRS ROS
n= { 6 n= 1 6
p power p power M SD M S.D M SDO.9 M2.8SD
picture 1 0.031 O.5902.7O.53
o.6 O.094
3.0 0.8 2. i .O

picture 2 O.758 O.060 0.938 0.05i 2.5 o.7 2.5 O.9 2.6 l .1 3.5 0.7
picture 3 0.014 O.717 O.144 O.307 2.6 0.7 3.l 0.9 l .9 0.8 2.7 O.g
picture 4 O.159 0.288 0.136 0.318 3 .2 0.9 3 *4 1.i 3.7 l .O 3.9 O.7
picture 5 O.346 O.153 0.368 O.144 3.0 0.7 3,5 0.9 2.8 O.9 3 ,2 O.8
pieture 6 O.447 0.116 0.679 O.069 2.l 0.8 2.7 0.8 l .9 O.7 2.8 0.8

a]1 pictures (mean values) 2.7 o.4 3 0.4 2.5 o.7 3.2 O.5

trasts). It was, however, significant in picture pair 4- 1
(p=0.025, power=0.629) in PRS ratings. To see if the
fatigue had any special response pattern to either of the
setting categories, we tested the significance of mental
fatigue as a between-subjects factor in all pictures.
Mental fatigue was a significant factor only in picture 4
in PRS ratings (p=0.045, one-way ANOVA with mental
fatigue as a between-subjects factor; Table 3) so that
those who were fatigued evaluated it as more restora
tive than non-fatigued. The category effect was insig
nificant in all other pictures.
The main effect of gender as a between-subjects factor
was insignificant in both overall PRS (F(1,33)=1.424,
p=0.241, power=0.212) and ROS ratings (F(1,33)=0.047,
p=0.831, power=0.055) (repeated measures ANOVA
with picture pairs as contrasts and gender as a be-
tween-subjects factor). It was, however, significant in
picture pair 4-1 in PRS ratings (p=0.017, power=0.688).
To look at the gender-specific responses a bit closer, we
tested the significance of gender as a between-subjects
factor in all pictures. Gender was significant in the rat-
ings of pictures I and 3 in PRS ratings (p=0.031;
p=0.014, one-way ANOVA with gender as a between-
subjects factor; Table 4) so that men evaluated them as
more restorative. Both pictures belonged to the focus-
on-parking lots category. In ROS ratings, gender was an
insignificant factor in all pictures. Table 4 presents the
mean values and standard deviations by gender. The

The llluminating Engineering Institute of Japan 42

 J. Light & Vis. Env. Vol.33, No.1, 2009
category difference is higher in women's responses, es-
pecially on the PRS scale, where women's mean score in
the focus-on-parking-lots category is 2 and, in the focus-
on-vegetation category, 3. The corresponding figures
with men are 2.5 and 2.9. In ROS ratings, the parking
lots category got a mean score of 2.8 and vegetation
category 3.5 in the womenjs responses, whereas the cor-
responding figures were 2.9 and 3.1 in the men:s re-
s ponses.
4. Discussion
The results support the hypothesis that focusing light
on the different elements of the scene affects the experi-
enced restoration. As expected, focusing light on vegeta-
tion resulted in higher ratings of restorative experience
than when the light was focused on parking lots and
roads. The ratings on the Perceived Restoration Scale,
i.e., the qualities related to the potential of restorative
experience, were lower than on the Restoration Out-
come Scale, i.e., the present positive feelixrgs and ease of
reflection, in all pictures. This may have been due to the
subjects in general having a relatively positive mental
state and there being no antecedent stress condition,
both of which were reflected in the ROS scores. The dif-
ferences between the two category ratings were also
greater on the PRS than on the ROS. There may be two
reasons for this. One possibility is that it was easier to
assess perceived restoration potential than restoration
outcomes. Another possibility is that, because the resto-
ration outcornes are more connected with the subjecfs
present mental state, the preceding positive mood left
less space for variation, whereas the perceived potential
(relating more to the perception of surroundings) en-
ables more variation. PRS scores corresponded tc ROS
scores strongly, following them at a slightly lower level.
Both scales showed good sensitivity in detecting the
setting category effect. This study thus encourages their
fufther use and development.
The present study used as a setting category division
greenery contra parking lots and roads. Therefore, the
results cannot be generalised tc all scene contents.
These contents are, however, very common in urban
nightscapes, and thus allow further application in de-
sign efforts. Because the research was simulation based
and there were no objective measures concerning the
renewal of directed attention capacity, it is not possible
to make definitive conclusions. Further research using
converging operations is thus needed. The results are,
however, highly suggestive and in line with previous
findings .
This study can also be criticized for the lack of cali-
bration of the subjective scale since it is not possible to
determine what the subjects were actually looking at.
Thus the calibration needs further attention in the fol-
43
43
lowing studies. However in this study the viewing angle
was so small for most of the subjects, i.e., the picture
covered so small area in the field of view, that it was
possible to see the whole image with one glance. To our
knowledge calibration of the view angle or the use of a
fixed point on a scene where the participants should
focus has not been used in any of the previous studies of
landscape preference or restoration.
The subjects attended the experiment durixrg their
normal day and did not undergo any antecedent stress
manipolation. Therefore, the setting category efflect
might have been stronger after a more stressfLll situa-
tion, but the results suggest that lighting manipulation
is a strong enough effect to enhance restorative experi-
ence, even in everyday conditions in our world of cogni-
tive overload. The results, however, do not support the
view that mental fatigue is a significant factor in ex-
perienced restoration evaluations. Mental fatigue as a
between-subjects factor was signiflcant in only one pic-
ture pair in PRS ratings and none in ROS ratings.
When looking at the picture-specific PRS and ROS tat-
ings, it was significant only in picture 4 in PRS ratings,
which was also assessed as the most restorative picture.
In general, the results of different category pictures do
not indicate that the mentaJly fatigued would differen-
tiate between categories in their responses. This may be
due to the small number of subjects. It is, however, also
possible that the environnrent has to be very restcrative,
like in picture 4, in order for the difference to occur be-
tween the fatigued and non-fatigued. The presentation
medium might also have an effect on the results. In real
environments, the restorative experience might be
stronger.
Gender as a between-subjects factor was also signifi-
cant in only one picture pair in PRS ratings and insig-
nificant in all ROS ratings. When looking at the pic-
ture-specific ratings, gender was a significant factor in
two pictures in the parking lots category. This may be
due to women:s more negative attitude tcwards the
parking lots category compared to melQis. The subjects
on this research were predominantly fairly young, with
a mean age of 29. It is possible that young men may
have a more positive attitude towards parking lots and
cars than other age groups and women. The degree to
which the results can be generalized to other age
groups needs further research. It is possible that young
people appreciate more urban scene contents that indi-
cate possibilities for social encounters, than older people
do. Women also tended to give more differentiated rat-
ings to different categories so that the more restorative
scenes scored lrlgher and less restorative scenes lower
than the corresponding ratings in men's responses. Men
tended to have more moderate differences between the
ratings of these two categories. The results indicate
The llluminating Engineering Institute of Japan
44
that women may show greater response to the envi-
romnent in psychological measures, which is in line
with previous findings2). There is, however, not enough
gender-specific data to make any definitive conclusions.
Whether these differences are also consistent in physio-
10gical measures needs further research as well.
In our experiment changes in the focus of light did
also change the visible scene coniiguration from a more
horizontal (parking lots) to a more vertical one (green-
ery) which may also have affected on the results. There
is however research evidence that in daytime environ-
ments people prefer greener surroundings also when
the spatial configuration is the same (urban alleys vs.
natural pathways)34). In urban alleys fear tends to be a
more common reaction than a sense of mystery whereas
the reverse is true in natural surroundings. The au-
thors also have prelnninary research evidence, that
when the spatial configuration and lighting setting are
the same, natural scenes are considered as more re-
storative, preferred and less frightening than urban
ones also during night time. Scenes containing both
elements were assessed close to natural ones. However
in this study we wanted to concentrate on the possibili-
ties of lighting manipulation, not the actual changes in
scene contents, might offer in enhancing the restora-
tiveness of urban nightscapes.
The relationship between fear and restoration needs
fufther exploration, bearing in mind that fear is often a
prominent factor in night time environmental experi-
encel7). While trees, greenery and deflected vistas have
restorative characteristics in daytime environments,
during night time they provide conceallnent, Iinilted
prospect and blocked escape, which may increase fear20).
An interesting extension would also be to examine the
whole restoration-fear preference pattern in urban
nightscapes. The importance of these environmental
factors is also visible in modern migration, where peo-
ple are increasingly moving from urban centres to sub-
urban or rural areas as they seek better housing envi-
ronments and an escape from urban stressors.
In this study a bit less light was actually used to illu-
minate the more restorative scene pairs, which shows
that energy issues do not necessarily contradict the
creation of restorative lighting enviromnents. At the
time of growing health care expenditures and energy
concerns, the results are highly encouraging. The re-
sults indicate that the focus of light- and scene-contcnt
issues need further attention in the creation of healthy
and energy-conscious urban environments.
In conclusion, the present study offers insights into
how lighting can be used to enhance the experienced
restoration of night time environments. The possibili-
ties of gaining positive experiences in nightscapes have
received very little attention when the focus has been
The llluminating Engineering Institute of Japan
J. Light & Vis. Env. Vol.33, No. 1, 2009,
on the experience of fear and insecurity. This study thus
regarded lighting as a potential way to increase the re-
storative quality of nightscapes. It also expanded the
time span of restorative environments into nightscapes
and provided a new context in which restoration might
occur. The llnexplored role of lighting may be an impor-
tant factor in restorative experience and thus needs
fufther investigation.
Acknowledgement
Research reported in thls paper was supported by a
grant from the Kone foundation.
References
(1) Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S.: The Experience of Na-
ture: A Psychological Perspective, New York: Cam-
bridge (1989).
(2) Ulrich, R.S.: Natural versus urban scenes; Some
psychophysiological effects, Environment and Be-
havior, 13, pp.523 556(1981).
(3) Ulrich, R.S.: Human response to vegetation and
landscapes, Landscape and Urban Plauning, 13,
p p.29-44(1986).
(4) Hartig, T.: Nature experience in transactional per-
spective, Landscape and Urban Planning, 25, pp.17-
36(1993).
(5) Hietanen, J.K. and Korpela, K.M.: Do both negative
and positive environmental scenes elicit rapid affec-
tive processing?, Environment and Behavior, 36,
p p.558 577(2004).
(6) Hietanen, J.K., Klemettil , T., Kettunen, J.E. and
Korpela, K.M.: What is a nice smile like that doing
in a place like this? Automatic affective r6sponses to
environments irrfluence the recognition of facial ex-
pressions, Psychological Research; doi: 10.1007/
s00426-006-0064-4(2006).
(7) Korpela, K., Klemettil , T. and Hietanen, J.: Evi-
dence for rapid affective evaluation of environ-
mental scenes, Environment and Behavior, 34-5,
p p.478 494(2002).
(8) Berto, R.: Exposure to restorative enviromnents
helps restore attentional capacity, Journal of Envi-
rornnental Psychology, 25, pp.249-259(2005).
(9) Hartig, T., Mang, M. and Evans, G.W. : Restorative
effects of natural environment experience, Envi-
ronment and Behavior, 23, pp.3 26(1991).
(10)Kaplan, R.: Some Psychological benefits of Gar-
dening, Environment and Behavior, 5 2, pp.145-
162(1973).
(11)Kaplan, R.: Some psychological benefits of an Out-
door Challenge Program, Environment and Behav-
ior 6, pp.101-116(1974).
44
 J Light & Vis. Env. Vol.33, No. 1, 2009
(12)Kaplan, S.: The restorative benefits of nature: To-
ward an integrative framework, Journal of Envi-
ronmental Psychology, 15, pp.169- 182(1995).
(13)Staats, H., Kieviet, A. and Hartig, T.: Where to re-
cover from attentional fatigue: An expectancy value
analysis of environmental preference, Journal of
environmental Psychology, 23, pp.147- 157(2003).
(14)Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D.. Fiorito, E.,
Miles, M.A. and Zelson, M.: Stress recovery during
exposure to natural and urban environments, Jour-
nal of Environmental Psychology, 11, pp.201-
230(1991).
(15)Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G.W. and G rling, T.:
A measure of restcrative quality in environments,
Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 14,
pp.175-194(1997).
(16)Fisher, B.S. and Nasar, J.L.: Fear of crime in rela-
tion to three exterior site features: Prospect, refuge
and escape. Environment and Behavior, 24, pp.35
65(1992).
(17)Nasar, J.L.: The Evaluative image of the city, Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, (1998) .
(18)Herzog, T. and Kropscott, L.S.: Legibility, Mystery,
and Vlsual Access as Predictors of Preference and
Perceived Danger in Forest settings without path-
ways, Environment and Behavior, 36-5, pp.659-
677(2004).
(19)Herzog, T. and Kutzli, G.: Preference and perceived
danger in field/forest settings, Environment and
Behavior, 34-6, pp.819-835(2002).
(20)Nasar, J.L., Fisher, B. and Grannis, M.: Proximate
physical cues to fear of crime, Landscape and urban
plauning, 26, pp. 161-178(1993).
(21)Van den Berg, A.E. and Ter Heijne, M.: Fear versus
fascination: An exploration of emotional responses
to natural threats, Journal of Environmental Psy
chology, 25, pp.261-272(2005).
(22)Van den Berg, A.E., Koole, S.L, and Van der Wulp,
N.Y. : Environmental preference and restoration:
(How) are they related?. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 23 pp.135- 146(2003).
(23)Lamnann, K.. Garling, T. and Stcrmark, K.M.: Rat-
ing scale measures of restorative components of en-
viromnents, Journal of Environmental Psychology,
21, pp.3 1-44(2001).
45
45
(24)Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G.W. and G rlixrg, T.:
Validation of a measure of perceived environmental
restorativeness, G6teborg Psychological Reports, 26-
7, G6teborg University(1996).
URL: http ://www.psy.gu.se/download/gpr967.pdf
(25)Hartig, T., Lindblom, K. and Ovefelt, K.: The Home
and Near-Home Area Offer Restoration Opportuni-
ties Differentiated by Gender. Scandinavian Hous-
ing and Planning Research, 15, pp.283-296(1998).
(26)Kaplan, S., Bradwell, L.V. and Slakter, D.B.: The
Musemn as restorative environment Environment
and Behavior, 25-6, pp.725 742(1993).
(27)Korpela, K., Yl6n, M., ｦbrrvainen, L. and Silvenno-
inen, H.: Determinants of restorative experiences in
everyday favourite places, Health & Place 2007.
doi: 10. 10 16/ j .healthplace.2007. 10.008 .
(28)Trent, R.B., Neumann, E. and Kvashny, A.: Presen-
tation mode and question format artifacts in visual
assessment research. Landscape and Urban Plan-
ning, 14, pp.225 235(1987).
(29)Newsham, G.R., Seetzen, H., Veitch, J.A. and
Chaudhuri, A.: Whitehead LA. Lighting quality
evaluations using images on a high dynamic range
display, Paper presented at ARCCfEAAE 2002 In-
ternational Conference on Architectural Research,
Montreal, QC(2002).
(30)Herzog, T. and Smith, G.A.: Danger, mystery and
environnrental preference, Environment and Be-
haviol 20-3, pp.320-344(1988).
(31)Bodin, M. and Hartig, T.: Does the outdoor envi-
ronment matter for psychological restoration gained
through running?, Psychology of Sports and Exer-
cise, 4, pp.141-153(2003).
(32)Nix, G.A., Ryan, R.M., Manly, J.B. and Deci, E.L.:
Revitalization through self-regulation: The effects of
autonomous and controlled motivation on happiness
and vitality, Journal of Experimental Social Psy
chology, 35, pp.266 284(1999).
(33)Ryan, R.M. and Frederick, C.: On energy, personal-
ity and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic re-
flection of well-being, Journal of Personali:ty, 65,
p p.529-565(1997).
(34)Herzog, T. and Miller, E.: The role of mystery in
perceived danger and environmental preference,
Environment and Behavior, 30-4, pp.429-449(1998).
The llluminating Engineering Institute of Japan