The increasing number of people living in cities raises questions about how to reconcile the factors of urban stress and well-being. Studies show psychological, physiological and social benefits of nature for the quality of life in cities, which raises questions about the place of nature in cities.

This thesis is about the quality of life in cities and the influence of nature on the various factors bearing on well-being. This paper focuses more particularly on the links between previous experiences, nature connectedness and the restorative effect of nature.

Mayer and Frantz(Mayer & Frantz, 2004), talk about nature connectedness, which means how a person feels connected with nature, and close to it. Kaplan (Kaplan, 1995), explains that directed attention, used every day during mental effort, has a cost : attentional fatigue. To recover, people need to have involuntary attention (attention with no effort, also called fascination). This is why nature is so important, since it provides occasions of soft fascination. Therefore, being surrounded by nature is a restorative experience.

To clarify these links, a qualitative method, with exploratory interviews, was used. The participants were city-dwellers, living in a French big city for at least 1 year and a half.  They were asked several questions about their cities, nature in the city, quality of life and previous experiences. Four pictures were shown : a city (unsightly),a  historic city (aesthetic),a  city with nature and a park in town. They were asked what pictures they prefer and why and where they prefer to spend time after a long day.

The results show that Nature in cities is considered as breathing spaces (necessary for well-being and which have a restorative effect) and emphasizes the importance of aesthetic criteria. In fact, nobody showed interest in the picture of the city, considered to be unsightly. They prefer to spend time in an aesthetic city, a city with nature and a park in town. So this study questions the place of subjectivity in one’s relation to Nature and in the perception of a restorative environment. People seems to have different ways to recover : spending time in nature (which has less noise, and fewer people) or spending time in an aesthetic place (watching people, shopping or drinking).

Previous living places seem to be link to the current evaluation of environment. For example, people who have grown up near the sea (or water such as a river or a lake) appear to place value on the proximity of water. Moreover, it seems there are different ways to understand the notion of well-being. First, well-being can be understood as hedonistic : a reduction of unpleasant thoughts and feelings (anger, sadness, stress) or an increase of positive thoughts and feeling (happiness, joy). Secondly, it can be understood as unhedonistic. That is, well-being is also linked to spirituality. In fact, nature connectedness can be understood as self-expansion, a way to go beyond oneself. People say for example « feel connected with something bigger than themselves ».

This thesis shows that nature is important in cities, as it offers occasions of restorative experience and contributes to citizens’ well-being. However, links between the main concepts need to be explored  in the future. How do  previous experiences affect nature connectedness and restorative effect ? Which factors of well-being are essential ? Why and how does nature contribute to well-being ? Many questions remained and need to be explored further in order to design the city of tomorrow.

Keywords : well being, nature connectedness, quality of life, green space, natural environment, restorative experiences, psychological restoration, environmental preferences.

 

Bibliography :

Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169‑182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2

Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503‑515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001