Introduction

In the past fifty years, numerous researches have shown evidence that natural elements and

settings have a positive influence on human health (Ulrich, 1983; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989).

However, most of these works tend to investigate environments as a whole, a space where

people are active characters capable of hiding, exploring or seeking food. There are only a few

references to the influence of isolated natural elements like vegetation, trees or rivers, and even

so, they are often viewed as elements of the space structure, and not in terms of “what we see”.

To sum it up there are only few works that have studied natural environment as an ensemble of

organic features, with their own shapes, colors and visual impact. In general, the language of

visual art has only been applied to natural elements to define them as part of a landscape

“scenery”, as the “picturesque” movement in environmental aesthetics, where nature could only

be evaluated according to art’s standards.

Yet, some theories, such as the psycho-evolutionary theory developed by Ulrich, Simons and

Losito(1991- Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of

Environment psychology. In Hartig & Staats, 2001), associates the stress-reduction and well-

being experienced in contact with nature with a prolonged aesthetic response to the

environment. Such theory suggests that this positive physiological response is induced by the

presence of various organic visual features, such as the colors of the vegetation and its shapes,

the dispersion of light, etc. These elements could then be perceived as aesthetically satisfactory,

and thus be judged as “beautiful”.

By isolating these elements, we can then decipher the visual language of nature in

quantitative terms: fractal dimensions, color wavelength, luminous intensity. This new alphabet

of the organic and its supposed positive effect on human health could be created, applied and

tested in the context of both horticultural therapy and art therapy. Indeed these two therapies

are linked by the same concept that, aside from the benefit of being engaged in a meaningful and

creative activity, a positive visual stimulation can carry a therapeutic value. It would then be

interesting to investigate the role of organic visual features in both these treatments.

The overall aim of this study would then be to develop a better understanding of

mechanisms of aesthetic appreciation, as well as define which organic features would be

susceptible of provoking stress reduction and psychological well-being.

To reach this aim, this study should be carried out by an interdisciplinary team combining

landscape architects, horticultural and art therapists, psychologist and cognitive scientists.

As a landscape architect, there has always been a strong concern for beauty and aesthetic

quality to be recognized of same value as practical and economic qualities. I have always been

Beauty as Therapy: The positive

effect of Nature’s aesthetics

interested in the social and affective relationship between humans and nature. With a Master

Degree in Landscape Architecture from the National Institute of Horticulture in Angers, I have

followed high-level courses in several diverse disciplines, in both natural and social sciences.

This polyvalent education gave me the first tools to communicate with researchers from other

disciplines. Furthermore, I have written my MA thesis on the inter-disciplinarity between social

sciences and landscape architecture on topics related to landscape perception. Through the

achievement of this work, I became familiar with the bases of the construction of inter-

disciplinary projects.

1. Literature and Precedent Research

As stated in the introduction, numerous studies, within the fields of environmental

psychology, philosophical aesthetics and environment-behavior research, have shown how

natural environment has an impact on human affective states, and physiology.

The first to be mentioned should probably be the work of Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) who

first studied the natural environment and its different modalities as a source of psychological

well-being. They showed that certain types of natural settings had restorative properties,

depending on several factors, such as their complexity and their ability to evoke fascination.

However they only quickly linked these properties with the organic character and visual

parameters of the space.

Concerning the aesthetic appreciation of nature by humans, there are several theories.

According to Bourassa (1988), this appreciation takes roots in two main objectives: There is first

a biological interest in natural environments, as they provide shelter, food and elements globally

favorable to survival. This biological approach has been investigated by a large number of

studies and will be the basis for the present project. Indeed, the second objective of natural

environments’ appreciation is a cultural one, linked to history, identity and knowledge. This

second aspect, although perfectly accurate, is thought to be somehow irrelevant to this study,

mostly because nature therapeutic value seems to apply regardless of age, culture and

knowledge.

Concerning the investigation of organic features as geometric patterns, fractal geometry is

the type of geometry characteristic of natural elements (Joye, 2006). However, “surprisingly

little research has been devoted to the question whether fractals can cause the emotional

responses that are ascribed to naturalness (e.g stress-reduction, preference).” (ibid.) Yet, a

survey by Richard Taylor (1998, ibid.) shows that fractals patterns are aesthetically preferred

over non-fractals. Similarly, Purcell et al. (2001, ibid.) formulated the hypothesis that the

variations in preferences and the restorative value of scenes might depend on their underlying

geometry, confronting the fractal patterns, representative of the organic patterns, with the

Euclidian geometry typical of built environments.

2. Aims and Objectives

The objective of this study would be to quantify, isolate and present the visual parameters

present in natural settings and how they correlate with the experience of a psychological and

physiological well-being. Trough this new approach of natural aesthetic, this study aims to get a

better understanding of landscape perception and the mechanisms of physiologic responses to

natural environments.

A sub-objective of this study would also be the investigation of nature as a sum of organic

visual elements, physically and mathematically quantifiable. As it focuses on the physical and

visual aspects of nature, this new approach could be a step forward to cross the bridge between

the artistic and the biologic approach.

3. Research Questions

The study would approach the following questions:

• Which visual features are correlated with well-being experienced in contact with nature?

• What man-made forms, textures, and materials evoke positive responses similar to those

to natural elements?

• Are there any common visual elements that are active in the processes of art therapy and

horticultural therapy?

• Can these elements provoke similar psychological and physiological responses if used

separately?

4. Possible Research Methods

The study would be articulated in three main phases: At first, an investigation of the

literature and theories concerning environmental aesthetics and their psychological

implications. Secondly, a phase of fieldwork in therapeutic contexts where measurements would

be done and tested. The final phase would then be the analysis of these measurements which

will lead to the final isolation of the visual elements provoking positive responses.

The first phase and the early second phase of the studies would include interviews of

professionals (therapists and researchers). However the rest of the second phase will be focused

on measurements such as a combination of:

Qualitative appreciation of elements, where a sample of subjects is placed in contact with

one of the isolated parameter (color, shape or light) and should evaluate its aesthetical quality

(through ranking, or from a pre-conceived list of adjectives)

Quantitative appreciation of elements, where some physiological parameters such as

heartbeat or alpha waves are measured when the subject is in contact with the isolated

parameter.

Considering the sensitive population involved in art and horticultural therapy, the first

measurements could be done on a random sample of the “sane” population. The results would

be then tested in therapeutic context through observations of the patients’ reactions when

confronted to the chosen parameters.

It seems obvious that, when the whole study should be interdisciplinary and include

psychologists, this fieldwork phase will be the most sensitive one and will require a perfect

collaboration between the researchers and the therapists.

5. Anticipated Outcome and Research Significance

By bringing a new insight on the topic of environmental aesthetics and well-being, this

project would help developing a better understanding of mechanisms of aesthetic sensibility, as

they appear in daily life, in our relationship to environment.

The main objective of this study is to determine organic visual elements, presented as

practical tools that landscape and urban designer could use and maximize in future projects.

This could facilitate the building of new settings focused on people’s well-being.

The isolation of these elements could also help the development of art and horticultural

therapy by clarifying some of the processes involved. For example, the use of organic shapes in

art therapy could then become valuable, as could be a new insight on the use of colors and light

in horticultural therapy.

6. Selected Bibliography

To prepare this proposal, several works have been consulted, including:

BOURASSA S., 1988 – Toward a Theory of Landscape Aesthetics, Landscape and Urban Planning

(15), pp 241-252.

CARLSON A., 2008 (Dec. 4) – Environmental Aesthetics. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

[online: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/environmental-aesthetics/]

GALINDO GALIND P. & CORRALIZA RODRIGUEZ J., 2000 – Environmental Aesthetics and

Psychological Wellbeing: Relationships between Preference Judgement for Urban

Landscapes and Other Relevant Affective Responses, Psychology in Spain (4), pp 13-27.

HARTIG T. & STAATS H. (2006). Linking preference for environments with their restorative

quality. In: B. Tress, G. Tress, G. Fry & P. Opdam (Eds.), From Landscape Research to

Landscape Planning (pp. 279-293).Dordrecht, Pays-Bas : Springer.

JOYCE Y., 2006 – Some reflections on the relevance of fractals for art therapy, The Arts in

Psychotherapy (33), pp 143-147.

PATUANO A., 2008 - La recherche en paysage: Approches des sciences sociales et

interdisciplinarité pour l´étude de la perception. Mémoire de fin d´étude, Agrocampus Ouest,

Angers, 52p

SMARDON R., 1988 – Perception and Aesthetics of the Urban Environment: Review of the Role of

Vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning (15), pp 85-106.

ULRICH S., 1979 - Visual landscapes and psychological well-being, Landscape Research (4), pp 17

– 23.

Further material will include :

AKS D. & SPROTT J., 1996 - Quantifying aesthetic preference for chaotic patterns. Empirical

studies of the arts (14) pp 1–16.

APPLETON J., 1975 - The Experience of Landscape, London: John Wiley and Sons.

BELL S., 1999 - Landscape: Pattern, Perception and Process, London: Routledge.

BERLEANT A., 1991 - Art and Engagement, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

–––, 1992 - The Aesthetics of Environment, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

–––, 1997 - Living in the Landscape: Toward an Aesthetics of Environment, Lawrence: University

Press of Kansas.

–––, 2005 - Aesthetics and Environment: Variations on a Theme, Aldershot: Ashgate.

––– & CARLSON A., (ed.), 2007 - The Aesthetics of Human Environments, Peterborough:

Broadview Press.

BOURASSA S., 1991 - The Aesthetics of Landscape, London: Belhaven.

LAZARUS-LEFF B., 1998 - Art Therapy and the Aesthetic Environment as Agents for Change: A

Phenomenological Investigation. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy

Association, pp120-26.

LEDDY T., 2005 - A Defense of Arts-Based Appreciation of Nature, Environmental Ethics (27), pp

299-315.

–––, 2005 - The Nature of Everyday Aesthetics, In : A. Light and J. M. Smith (Ed.), The Aesthetics

of Everyday Life, New York: Columbia University Press.

KAPLAN F., 2000 - Art, Science and Art Therapy: Repainting the Picture. Jessica Kingsley

Publishers.

KAPLAN R. & KAPLAN S., 1989 - The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

KAPLAN S., 1987 - Aesthetics, affect and cognition. Environment and Behavior (19) pp 3–32.

–––, 1988 - Perception and landscape: conceptions and misconceptions. In J. Nasar (Ed.),

Environmental aesthetics: theory, research, and applications (pp. 45–55). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

KELLERT S. & WILSON E. (Eds.), 1993 - The Biophilia hypothesis. Washington: Island Press.

LIGHT A. & SMITH J. M., (Ed.), 2005 - The Aesthetics of Everyday Life, New York: Columbia

University Press.

MANDELBROT B., 1977 - The fractal geometry of nature. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.

MOORE R., 1999 - “Appreciating Natural Beauty as Natural”, Journal of Aesthetic Education (33),

pp 42-59.

SIMSON S & STRAUSS M., 1998 - Horticulture as Therapy: Principles and Practice. Haworth

Press.

TAYLOR R., SPEHAR B., WISE J., CLIFFORD C., NEWELL B., HAGERALL C., et al., 2005 - Perceptual

and physiological responses to the visual complexity of Pollock’s fractal dripped patterns.

Journal of Non-linear Dynamics, Psychology and Life Sciences (9), pp 89–114.

THAYER R., & ATWOOD B., 1978 - Plants, complexity, and pleasure in urban and suburban

environments. Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behavior (3) pp 67–76.

ULRICH R., 1983 - Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In I. Altman & J.

Wohlwill (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Vol. 6 (pp. 85–125). New York: Plenum

Press.

–––, 1986 - Effects of hospital environments on patient well-being. Research report 9 (55).

Trondheim, Norway: Department of psychiatry and behavioural medicine, University of

Trondheim.

–––, 1986 - Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning (13),

p p29–44.

–––, 1993 - Biophilia, Biophobia, and natural landscapes. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The

Biophilia hypothesis. Washington:Island Press.