Examining affordances of outdoor natural versus built environments

Abstract

Whereas previous psychological research has examined the benefits of nature from a stress-reduction and attention-restoration perspective, the current studies focus on what possibilities for action are evoked by natural versus built environments. After a study pilot-testing a novel self-administration procedure for soliciting what individuals feel they “could do” in a built or natural outdoor site after walking in it, two studies were conducted to test quantitative differences in the action possibilities (i.e., affordances) that walkers detected when moving through a built or a natural site. A naturalistic study involved community participants who were recruited on-site at one of 12 built or natural sites within the same region of a community. A field experiment involved college students randomly assigned to walk one of four sites (forest or meadow, or one of two areas within the downtown of a small town). No reliable differences were detected in number of responses to the prompt “I could …” completed by participants as a function of natural versus built sites. However, in the field experiment, participants in built rather than natural sites generated more verb and social content, and more total words. In the experiment, participants who walked natural sites had more improvement in positive affect than those who walked built sites.