Ambient Odor’s Effects: Environmental Restoration and Emotional State
Empirical studies have shown a significant influence of odors on humans’ memory, emotional state, and physical well-being. The aim of the study was to investigate the impact of the orange odor on environmental restoration, mood, alertness and calmness, in the field. Seventy two subjects between the ages of 18 and 42 years (50 females, 22 males) were assigned to two groups. In the experiment group, 40 subjects were stimulated with odor of orange. This condition was compared to a control group, which 32 persons involved a similar outdoor environment without the tested odor. Statistical analyses revealed that the subjects in the presence of orange odor rated the study site as a higher restorative environment compared to control condition. Structured evaluations of 5 restorative qualities indicated that the orange odor stimulated a different experience in novelty, escape, fascination, and compatibility but extent. On the other hand, no effects of the orange odor on mood and calmness were observed in this experiment while there was a significant influence on alertness.
【Keywords】Effects of Odors, Environmental Restoration, Mood, Olfactory
Showing posts with label ~~wanyuchou. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ~~wanyuchou. Show all posts
11/27/2008
11/14/2008
green spaces can reduce health inequality between social classes
A Britain’s study was published in special issue of The Lancet, which focuses on social and environmental factors of public health. Dr. Richard Mitchell, of the University of Glasgow, and his colleagues made an argument that health inequalities between rich and poor groups are much lower in areas that have lots of green spaces, such as parks, forests and playing fields.
Mitchell and his team noted that previous studies have shown that present to the natural environment, or so-called green space, has an independent effect on health and health-related behaviors. They examined whether income-related health disparities would be less pronounced in populations with greater access to green space.
They looked at the almost 41 million people in England below retirement age and obtained individual death records for 366,348 people to determine the association between exposure to green space, income, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific death (circulatory disease, lung cancer and suicide) from 2001 to 2005.
The study result revealed that health inequalities related to income deprivation in all-cause mortality and mortality from circulatory diseases were lower in populations living in the greener areas. In areas with the least green space, the health gap between the richest and poorest people was about half as large as that in the greenest areas -- an incident rate ratio (IRR) of 1.93 in the least green and 1.43 in the most green. IRR is a measure of how much higher the rate of death is among the poorest, when compared with that among the richest. The difference in IRR for circulatory disease was even larger - 2.19 in the least green areas and 1.54 in the most green. However, the amount of green space had no effect on deaths caused by lung cancer or suicide.
Evidence suggests that green environments which also promote or enhance beneficial physical activities may reduce risk of death from circulatory disease. Populations that are exposed to the greenest environments have lowest levels of health inequality related to income deprivation. ”Physical environments that promote good health might be crucial to reduce socioeconomic health inequalities,” Mitchell and colleagues concluded.
The study offers an idea in depth, which social welfare departments, health authorities and city planning decision-makers should consider green spaces in a serious way. The physical environment of residential areas could be important for risk of circulatory disease. The effect of green environments is not only based on aesthetic or leisure, but also on improvement of citizen’s health and diminution of social inequality. When we try to establish a completed social welfare system for deprived group, the restorative values of natural spaces should be included in our consideration. The network of greenway or green space system which increases opportunities to access nature could be viewed as another approach to improve the well-being of lower income group and to eliminate the basic disparity of different social classes.
Mitchell, R. and F. Popham (2008). Effect of Exposure to Natural Environment on Health Inequalities: An Observational Population. Lancet, 372, 1655–1660.
Mitchell and his team noted that previous studies have shown that present to the natural environment, or so-called green space, has an independent effect on health and health-related behaviors. They examined whether income-related health disparities would be less pronounced in populations with greater access to green space.
They looked at the almost 41 million people in England below retirement age and obtained individual death records for 366,348 people to determine the association between exposure to green space, income, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific death (circulatory disease, lung cancer and suicide) from 2001 to 2005.
The study result revealed that health inequalities related to income deprivation in all-cause mortality and mortality from circulatory diseases were lower in populations living in the greener areas. In areas with the least green space, the health gap between the richest and poorest people was about half as large as that in the greenest areas -- an incident rate ratio (IRR) of 1.93 in the least green and 1.43 in the most green. IRR is a measure of how much higher the rate of death is among the poorest, when compared with that among the richest. The difference in IRR for circulatory disease was even larger - 2.19 in the least green areas and 1.54 in the most green. However, the amount of green space had no effect on deaths caused by lung cancer or suicide.
Evidence suggests that green environments which also promote or enhance beneficial physical activities may reduce risk of death from circulatory disease. Populations that are exposed to the greenest environments have lowest levels of health inequality related to income deprivation. ”Physical environments that promote good health might be crucial to reduce socioeconomic health inequalities,” Mitchell and colleagues concluded.
The study offers an idea in depth, which social welfare departments, health authorities and city planning decision-makers should consider green spaces in a serious way. The physical environment of residential areas could be important for risk of circulatory disease. The effect of green environments is not only based on aesthetic or leisure, but also on improvement of citizen’s health and diminution of social inequality. When we try to establish a completed social welfare system for deprived group, the restorative values of natural spaces should be included in our consideration. The network of greenway or green space system which increases opportunities to access nature could be viewed as another approach to improve the well-being of lower income group and to eliminate the basic disparity of different social classes.
Mitchell, R. and F. Popham (2008). Effect of Exposure to Natural Environment on Health Inequalities: An Observational Population. Lancet, 372, 1655–1660.
11/06/2008
人的景觀偏好是天生的還是學習來的？
人們的景觀偏好，似乎受到個人的學習背景與生活環境所影響。例如Williams and Cary(2002)測試南澳不同景觀結構與景觀偏好的關係，用含有桉樹及橡樹等不同生態性的景觀照片去測試南澳居民的景觀偏好；桉樹（Eucalyptus）即為尤加利樹，同屬的桉樹植物由於適應澳洲大陸各種不同的地理氣候，其覆蓋率遍及整個澳洲大陸，為獨冠澳洲的代表性植物，而結果顯示受測者明顯對於生活環境中的代表性植物產生較高之偏好。其因或許是人們本來就較喜愛桉樹之外表特徵，但另一方面，也有可能是因為受測者於成長背景、教育過程中，對桉樹產生特殊情感，而造成其對有桉樹的景觀結構有更強烈的偏好。因此，人們對於自然生態型或是開闊流暢型的景觀，其偏好關鍵或許不是景觀結構特徵，而在於成長過程中對於所學習得來的美感價值或環境觀念。未來或許可設計一個長期追蹤的研究，檢測當生態環境觀念越被提倡、越普及時（或是生態環境法規制訂、執行一段時間，人們已經習慣後），人們對於自然生態環境的偏好是否也就跟著提高。
同樣的，不同族群對於環境的使用習慣（包括：文化風俗、土地利用、審美觀等），也會影響其評價景觀品質的眼光，台灣的原住民、閩南人、客家人、外島居民等不同文化或生活背景之族群，可能因成長環境不同、環境使用觀念不同，而產生不同的景觀偏好，應可做進一步之探討。
同樣的，不同族群對於環境的使用習慣（包括：文化風俗、土地利用、審美觀等），也會影響其評價景觀品質的眼光，台灣的原住民、閩南人、客家人、外島居民等不同文化或生活背景之族群，可能因成長環境不同、環境使用觀念不同，而產生不同的景觀偏好，應可做進一步之探討。
10/23/2008
Restorative Component Measures
After Kaplan & Kaplan (1983) proposed restorative environment theory, the researchers have developed varies measures for the four components of restorative environments. In 1991, Hartig and colleagues published the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS). The PRS used coherence to replace extent item. Later, Hartig continually conducted a series of studies in order to develop the PRS. Overall, these studies yielded a two-factors model result: a General Restorativeness Factor（includes being away, fascination, and compatibility）and a Coherence Factor. Korpela et al. (1996、2001) after found a similar factor structure with favorite and unpleasant places. Korpela suggested that further improvements using alternative item combinations and analytic strategies should be needed to refine the PRS.
Laumann et al. subsequently developed of a measure of the five restorative components with 22 items in 2001. Laumann split Being Away items into two factors: a physical being away, novelty (e.g., I am in a different place than usual) and a psychological being away, escape (e.g., I am away from my daily obligations). This empirical finding is in keeping with Kaplan and Kaplan’s original definitions of Being Away referring to either physical or psychological aspects.
However, it is interesting that since Laumann’s RCS provide a reliable measure of the 4 restorative components of nature and city environments, why the scale is not popularly used? There are so many measure tools to measure the restorative environments, how do we choose the scale to apply in our studies?
Additionally, about the translation problems, I think that Lanumann made a good example. The RCS questionnaires were first translated from Norwegian into English by one individual, then translated back by another individual. Maybe we can employ this approach to modify our Chinese questionnaires. Thus, we can diminish a misunderstanding between the English and Chinese translations.
Laumann et al. subsequently developed of a measure of the five restorative components with 22 items in 2001. Laumann split Being Away items into two factors: a physical being away, novelty (e.g., I am in a different place than usual) and a psychological being away, escape (e.g., I am away from my daily obligations). This empirical finding is in keeping with Kaplan and Kaplan’s original definitions of Being Away referring to either physical or psychological aspects.
However, it is interesting that since Laumann’s RCS provide a reliable measure of the 4 restorative components of nature and city environments, why the scale is not popularly used? There are so many measure tools to measure the restorative environments, how do we choose the scale to apply in our studies?
Additionally, about the translation problems, I think that Lanumann made a good example. The RCS questionnaires were first translated from Norwegian into English by one individual, then translated back by another individual. Maybe we can employ this approach to modify our Chinese questionnaires. Thus, we can diminish a misunderstanding between the English and Chinese translations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
