| Literature DB >> 27196917 |
Eli Paddle1, Jason Gilliland2.
Abstract
Urban schoolyard environments are increasingly characterized by a proliferation of hard surfaces with little if any greenery. Schoolyard "greening" initiatives are becoming increasingly popular; however, schoolyard designs often fail to realize their restorative potential. In this quasi-experimental study, a proposed schoolyard greening project was used to visualize alternative planting designs and seasonal tree foliage; these design alternatives were subsequently used as visual stimuli in a survey administered to children who will use the schoolyard to assess the perceived restorative capacity of different design features. The findings indicate that seasonal changes in tree foliage enhance the perceived restorative quality of schoolyard environments. Specifically, fall foliage colour, when compared to green foliage, is rated as being perceived to be equally restorative for children. Additionally, seasonal planting, including evergreen conifers, may enhance the restorative quality of the schoolyard especially when deciduous trees are leafless. Landscape design professionals, community-based organizations, and other decision-makers in schoolyard greening efforts should strategically consider their tree choices to maximize year-round support for healthy attention functioning in children through restoration.Entities:
Keywords: child; greening; healthy; restoration; school; trees; visualization
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27196917 PMCID: PMC4881122 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13050497
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Photograph of a typical asphalt schoolyard.
Figure 2Photograph of typical schoolyard greening intervention in mid-summer.
Figure 3Three-dimensional model of proposed schoolyard greening intervention for visual communication and research stimuli images.
Figure 4Survey questionnaire.
Figure 5Stimulus images.
Means and standard deviation (in parenthesis) for subscale scores and overall SRRS score.
| Scene | Emotional | Physiological | Cognitive | Behavioural | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perspective 1 | 6.05(2.46) | 5.41(2.46) | 7.59(2.49) | 5.03(2.52) | 5.97(1.71) |
| Perspective 2 | 6.05(2.65) | 5.47(2.60) | 7.33(2.65) | 5.68(2.73) | 6.08(1.83) |
| Perspective 1 with Evergreens | 6.58(2.45) | 6.93(2.55) | 7.71(2.08) | 5.82(2.72) | 6.33(1.69) |
| Perspective 2 with Evergreens | 6.52(2.34) | 5.68(2.46) | 7.70(2.10) | 5.42(2.67) | 6.39(1.81) |
| Perspective 1 | 6.80(2.35) | 5.98(2.68) | 7.38(2.50) | 5.98(2.69) | 6.54(1.92) |
| Perspective 2 | 6.56(2.68) | 5.67(2.88) | 7.20(2.80) | 5.53(3.00) | 6.24(1.97) |
| Perspective 1 with Evergreens | 6.51(2.31) | 5.87(2.60) | 8.03(1.95) | 5.61(2.61) | 6.41(1.64) |
| Perspective 2 with Evergreens | 6.34(2.45) | 5.73(2.62) | 7.40(2.62) | 5.47(2.84) | 6.20(1.88) |
| Perspective 1 | 3.72(2.59) | 3.02(2.42) | 7.39(2.34) | 2.78(2.32) | 4.28(1.81) |
| Perspective 2 | 3.74(2.51) | 3.33(2.33) | 7.21(2.68) | 2.97(2.31) | 4.34(1.66) |
| Perspective 1 with Evergreens | 5.77(2.44) | 4.83(2.62) | 7.45(2.16) | 4.97(2.77) | 5.68(1.76) |
| Perspective 2 with Evergreens | 4.71(2.32) | 3.71(2.23) | 7.30(2.31) | 3.58(2.28) | 4.84(1.55) |
Figure 6Most restorative scene in sample.
Figure 7Least restorative scene in sample.
Figure 8Comparison of Leafless condition images without (a) and with evergreen conifers (b).
Figure 9Subject schoolyard “greened” with seasonal planting strategy implemented.