The Development of Tool for Assessing Landscape Capabilities to Promote Perceived Restoration from Mental Fatigue

Main Article Content

พีรพรรณ ธีรบุษยเวศย์
จามรี จุลกะรัตน์
อรัญญา ตุ้ยคัมภีร์
วิลาสินี วิลาสินี


          The benefits of the natural environment to the mental restoration and individual well-being has long been studied both in Thailand and other countries. The Attention Restoration Theory (ART) describes four qualities of the natural environment which can promote restoration and recovery from mental fatigue. These include 1) being away (giving a sense of distance from unwanted distraction), 2) fascinating (providing interesting environmental contents which can effortlessly be distracted), 3) extent (allowing easily perception of structure, order, and physical boundary of the environment), and 4) compatibility (matching with the demand of the individuals). Due to the lack of a tool for assessing the restorative capabilities of the natural environment in Thailand, this research aims to develop a tool for assessing perceived restoration from mental fatigue of different landscapes. Based on extensive study of theories in landscape perception, three landscape types (forest, grassland, and waterfront) mentioned as possessing restorative potential were used in the development of the questionnaire—the tool. To test the quality of this developed tool, seventy university students from various fields were asked to voluntarily fill out the questionnaire. The results from statistical analysis showed that this tool holds good reliability; from the measure of internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha coefficients of forest, grassland, and waterfront are .88, .89 and .87, respectively. Therefore, this would be a reliable tool for collecting data useful to the development of understanding about landscapes with potential for reducing mental health problems in Thai society. Finally, as this study used photographs as representatives of each landscape type, research focusing on the comparison of differences between the use of photographs and videos, along with actual environments, as such representatives would provide useful information.

Article Details



สุพิชฌาย์ เมืองศรี. “แนวทางการปรับปรุงคุณภาพเชิงทัศน์บริเวณมุมมองสำคัญของสถานที่ท่องเที่ยวทางประวัติศาสตร์ในเขตเมืองเชียงใหม่.” วิทยานิพนธ์ปริญญามหาบัณฑิต จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย, 2553.

สุวิมล ติรกานันท์. ระเบียบวิธีการวิจัยทางสังคมศาสตร์: แนวทางสู่การปฎิบัติ. กรุงเทพฯ: จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย, 2555.

อรัญญา ตุ้ยคำภีร์, จีระสุข สุขสวัสดิ์, จันทนา ยิ้มน้อย, ณัฐนสิน คำสำเภา, ไหมไทย ไชยพันธุ์, ตะวัน วาทะกิจและบุญโรม สุวรรณพาหุ. “การทำสวนและธรรมชาติบำบัด.” วารสารศึกษาศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาทักษิณ (2557): 14, 1-7.

Appleton, J. The Experience of Landscape. New York: John Wiley & Son, 1996.

Berga, A. E. V. D., A., Jorgensenc and E. R., Wilsond. “Evaluating Restoration in Urban Green Spaces: Does Setting Type Make a Difference?” Landscape and Urban Planning 127 (2014): 173–181.

Berga, A. E. V. D., Y., Joyeb and S. L., Koolec. “Why Viewing Nature Is More Fascinating and Restorative than Viewing Buildings: A Closer Look at Perceived Complexity.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 20 (2017): 397–401.

Gullone, E. “The Biophilia Hypothesis and Life in the 21st Century: Increasing Mental Health or Increasing Pathology?” Journal of Happiness Studies 1 (2000): 293–321.

Hartig, T., F.G., Kaiser and P.A., Bowler. Further Development of a Measure of Perceived Environmental Restorativeness. Uppsala: Institute for Housing Research, Uppsala Universitet, 1997.

Hartig, T., K., Korpela, G. W., Evans and Tommy, Gärling. “Validation of a Measure of Perceived Environmental Restorativeness.” Göteborg Psychological Reports 26, 7 (1996): 26:1-26:64.

Herzog, T.R., P.M. Colleen and M.B. Nebel. “Assessing the Restorative Components of Environments.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23, 2 (June 2003): 159-170.

Kaplan, R. and S, Kaplan. The Experience of Nature. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1989.

Kaplan, S. “The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 15 (1995): 169-182.

Kaplan, S. The Restorative Environment: Nature and Human Experience. Portland, OR.: Timber Press, 1992.

Kjellgren, A. and H., Buhrkall. “A Comparison of the Restorative Effect of a Natural Environment with That of a Simulated Natural Environment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010): 464–472.

Muhamad S. F. R., R. A. R., Syumi and H, Lamit. “Biophilia Theory Revisited: Experts and Non-Experts Perception on Aesthetic Quality of Ecological.” Landscape Social and Behavioral Sciences 153 (2014): 349 – 362.

Rosley, M.S.F., R.A.R. Syumi and H., Lamit. “Biophilia Theory Revisited: Experts and Non-Experts Perception on Aesthetic Quality of Ecological Landscape.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 153 (16 October 2014): 349-362.

Simonic, T. “Urban Landscape as a Restorative Environment: Preferences and Design Considerations.” Acta Agriculturae Slovenica 87 (2006): 325-332.

Smardon, R. C., J. F., Palmer and J. P., Felleman. Foundations for Visual Project Analysis. Hoboken, NJ.: John Wiley Sons, 1986.

Staatsa, H., A., Kievieta and T., Hartig. “Where to Recover from Attentional Fatigue: An Expectancy-Value Analysis of Environmental Preference.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003): 147–157.

Thomas R. H., P. M., Colleen and M. B., Nebel. “Assessing the Restorative Components of Environments.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 (2003): 159–170.

Twedt, E., R. M., Rainey and D. R., Proffitt. “Beyond Nature: The Roles of Visual Appeal and Individual Differences in Perceived Restorative Potential.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 65, 33 (October 2019): 101322.