ASSESSING THE PERCEPTION OF CAMPUS GREEN SPACE AND STRESS LEVELS
AMONG STUDENTS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By
Cresha Wee

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Environmental Design – Master of Arts
2017

ABSTRACT
ASSESSING THE PERCEPTION OF CAMPUS GREEN SPACE AND STRESS LEVELS
AMONG STUDENTS AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By
Cresha Wee
Previous studies found the use of natural green spaces to have positive effects on human
health and wellbeing. Although a large number of studies have evaluated the perceived
restorativeness of public urban green spaces, not many have investigated the effects in the
university setting. This study assesses the perception of campus green space in relation to the
stress levels of students. Quantitative and qualitative data was collected through a 2-part survey
using questionnaires and a visual quality assessment on 20 images of Michigan State
University’s campus. For the visual quality assessment, students ranked 20 images from least
stressful to most stressful. Results indicate that students prefer images with more green features
when compared with less green images. Images with water features were also found to be
perceived as less stressful. The findings of this study will assist designers in designing campus
spaces for diverse populations as well as providing features that will promote health and wellness.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to thank many individuals for their contribution to this study, particularly Dr.
Patricia Machemer for her sincere support, advice, and guidance. I would also like to thank Dr.
Jon B. Burley for his advice on developing the survey instrument used in this research. I want to
thank the members of my committee, Dr. Patricia Crawford and Dr. Eunsil Lee, for their help
and support through my journey at Michigan State University as well as the faculty and staff of
the School of Planning, Design and Construction for the wonderful experience that made all this
possible.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... vi
Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2. Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Factors that Influence Preference and Use ................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Demographic .......................................................................................................... 2
2.1.2 Spatial (Design) Elements ..................................................................................... 3
2.2 Green Space Benefits ....................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Health Benefits ....................................................................................................... 5
2.2.2 Mental Health Benefits.......................................................................................... 6
2.3 The Role of Green Space in Stress ................................................................................. 7
2.3.1 Green space in communities ................................................................................. 8
2.3.2 Green space in the work setting ........................................................................... 9
2.3.3 Green space in the healthcare setting ................................................................ 10
2.3.4 Green space in a campus setting ........................................................................ 11
2.3.5 Campus Planning................................................................................................. 12
2.4 Study Intent .................................................................................................................... 13
Chapter 3. Methodology ............................................................................................................. 14
3.1 Location .......................................................................................................................... 14
3.2 Procedure........................................................................................................................ 14
3.2.1 Selection of Images and Image Editing ............................................................. 15
3.2.2 Data analysis ........................................................................................................ 17
Chapter 4. Results ....................................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 5. Discussion ................................................................................................................. 25
5.1 Evaluations ..................................................................................................................... 25
5.2 Limitations...................................................................................................................... 28
5.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 30
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................. 31
BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 34

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Organization of original and photo edited images. ........................................................ 16
Table 2. Sum of ranks for each image in each block. .................................................................. 19
Table 3. Pairwise comparisons of images with significant differences. Calculations based on the
non-parametric statistics (Daniel, 1978) using an alpha level of 0.005. ............................... 20
Table 4. Demographic data showing uses of green space. ........................................................... 24

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The ten sites chosen for the visual quality assessment photo ranking analysis. ........... 15
Figure 2. Image b (left) and image p (right). ............................................................................... 16
Figure 3. Image d: Formal garden space on campus.................................................................... 21
Figure 4. Image a: Red Cedar River. ........................................................................................... 22
Figure 5. Image l: photo altered main library. ............................................................................. 22
Figure 6. Image r: photo altered open green space next to the biomedical and physical sciences
building. ................................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 7. Image t: photo altered Red Cedar River. ...................................................................... 23

vi

Chapter 1. Introduction
According to the World Health Organization (WHO, n.d.), 54% of the total population
lived in urban areas in 2014 and the number is expected to grow 1.84% between 2015 and 2020.
Population increases in urban areas significantly impacts environmental and human health
(WHO, n.d.). Specific issues such as air pollution, flooding, and the spread of toxic substances
have become prominent, but they can be combated through the implementation of urban green
spaces such as parks, trails, open fields, streams, or even plaza spaces (WHO, n.d.). These urban
green environments have the potential to become highly valued spaces because of their ability to
provide unique experiences not readily available in urban cities (Ulrich, 1979). Although the
need for urban green environments is a growing trend in many developed countries, the
implementation and planning of green spaces are often the last part of the design phase.
Researchers continue to support the significance of green spaces and future data will help to link
professionals such as policy makers, planners, engineers, and landscape architects together to
implement urban green spaces in the early stages of design.

1

Chapter 2. Literature Review
There is overwhelming literature on the role of green space in numerous disciplinary
fields, including psychology, planning and design, economics, ecology, sociology, criminology,
and public health (Burley, Deyoung, Partin, & Rokos, 2011; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Nassauer,
Wang, & Dayrell, 2009; Van den Berg, Maas, Verheij, & Groenewegen, 2010). For this research,
the literature reviewed is structured around i) factors that influence green space preference and
green space use, and ii) the benefits of green space with a particular focus on stress reduction.
The literature focuses on demographic considerations and the physical spatial elements with
regard to the factors that influence green space preference and use. In reviewing the benefits of
green space, this study narrows in on stress reduction as a benefit.
2.1 Factors that Influence Preference and Use
2.1.1 Demographic
It is fundamental to identify how a space is used in order to produce a well-designed
space. Although there may be a general consensus on the types of activities or reasons people use
a space, there are many background factors that may affect why people choose to use a space.
Researchers have found that urban green space can have an effect on the users’ behavior (Lo &
Jim, 2012). Qualitative and quantitative surveys are effective methods to gather data on the
socioeconomic factors that influence the use of green spaces. Socioeconomic factors like income,
age, and location are significant in determining the different uses according to the needs of the
users (Lo & Jim, 2012). Researchers have found that lower income and lower education levels
had significant impacts on green spaces (Lo & Jim, 2012; Maas et al., 2006). However, this may
be because wealthier people tend to live in areas of private housing with high security. Since

2

lower income neighborhoods may not have as many security measures, the lower income
populations tend to base use off of their concern for safety (Lo & Jim, 2012).
Variations of preference will also occur based on how familiar the user is of the
environment (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). For example, if a suburban area was designed to
drastically re-develop in order to attract tourists, the local residents may have a lower preference
for the new environment. A visitor, on the other hand, may have a higher preference for the new
environment if viewing it is aesthetically pleasing. People who live in urban environments are
generally more concerned with levels of safety within community parks. Previous studies have
found the perception of naturalistic green spaces while others have looked at the perception of
urban green spaces. Through the study findings, factors such as type of vegetation and park
location were found to vary between people of different geographical backgrounds. Wild looking
vegetation may not be as aesthetically pleasing to residents who were used to seeing more
manicured landscape designs (Yang, Li, Elder, & Wang, 2013).
Another factor that can strongly influence an individual’s preference for green space use
is culture. Culture differs throughout the world but it is a factor that brings people within a
similar geographic region together through shared similar experiences (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989).
People who share the same culture will likely have lived in the same location, which means the
vegetation they have seen will be familiar. The landscape style that may exist in one culture
shapes the mindset of the groups and unconsciously develops what is right and wrong in the
design.
2.1.2 Spatial (Design) Elements
Finding preferred design elements can help urban planners and landscape architects to
produce better, efficient designs by determining the value of each element or characteristics of

3

green spaces. Characteristics of urban green spaces are defined through factors such as facilities,
accessibility, hygiene, attractiveness, perceived safety, and distance (Lee & Maheswaran, 2010;
Yang, Li, Elder, & Wang, 2013). While characteristics differ for each urban green space, green
spaces in general can help to show the psychological and social functionality of a space (Kaplan
& Kaplan, 1989; Lee, Jordan, & Horsley, 2015; Wan & Shen, 2015). One specific factor that is
associated with urban green space is the functionality and management of the upkeep (Wan &
Shen, 2015). Previous studies suggest that the intention of use is highly influenced by
accessibility and provided facilities. More positive attitudes and behavior can be a direct result of
the perceived accessibility (Wan & Shen, 2015).
An important factor that communicates how people behave in natural settings is human
preference. The elements of function and aesthetics can be generalized to all human preference
(Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Function is the first factor that helps to determine human preferences
by examining whether the space meets the needs of the user. Humans and even animals base the
use of a natural setting through the functional use of the site (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). Kaplan
and Kaplan (1989) found that visual and functional appeal differed according to individuals and
these differences were defined further into the variances that appear through groups. The main
factors that were found to cause variances in preferences were location, culture, and formal
knowledge of the subject (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). These generalizations conclude that
preferences can be difficult to predict as there are factors that can offset the usual pattern.
2.2 Green Space Benefits
Previous literature has found that there are social, physical, and economic benefits from
the use of green spaces (Hartig & Evans, 1991; Kaplan, 1993; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Lee,
Jordan, & Horsely, 2015; Maas et al., 2006; Ulrich, 1979). Social benefits have been found to

4

affect environments such as the workplace, residential neighborhoods, and even city-wide
communities (Kaplan, 1993; Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Lo & Jim, 2012; Lottrup,
Grahn, & Stigsdotter, 2013; Stigsdotter, 2004; Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2002; Ulrich, 1979).
Extensive research has supported and influenced greenways in public health on a national level.
The National Park Service found that enhancing urban greenways could significantly reduce
health care spending by creating more active spaces (National Park Service, 1995). As the
importance of implementing urban green spaces became an essential issue, more studies had
been conducted to analyze the relationship between humans and nature.
2.2.1 Health Benefits
Studies have found vegetation and natural features are factors that determine a positive
relationship of health and urban green spaces (Chiesura, 2004; Lee & Maheswaran, 2010).
Quality of life was shown to improve through the use of landscape features such as trees, water,
and green belts (Chiesura, 2004). Results from previous studies have proven that the landscape
encourages the use of outdoor spaces through social interaction (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Taylor,
Kuo, & Sullivan, 2002; Ward Thompson, 2002). The application of nature in a city environment
has shown to provide not only relaxation but also air purification and sustainability (Chiesura,
2004). Development of sustainability is an important issue and only continues to become more
imminent.
Urban green spaces have been found to provide not only social and environmental
benefits but have also been found to positively affect physical health (Lee, Jordan, & Horsley,
2015). Evidence indicates the availability of green space provides significant opportunities of
physical activities (Hannsman, Hug, & Seeland, 2007; Lee, Jordan, & Horsley, 2015; Maas et al.,
2006). Regular physical activity, typically 30 minutes of exercise daily, has been shown to

5

improve health (Chiesura, 2004). Although evidence supports the health benefits of exercise, a
lack of clean, safe, and open green spaces has created a decline in physical activity. The
deficiency of policies and standards within cities only further limit the availability of green space
(Lee & Maheswaran, 2010).
2.2.2 Mental Health Benefits
Green areas are often times used as therapeutic spaces for rehabilitation and healing
(Ulrich, 1984; Ulrich et al., 1991). Contact with urban green space improves mental health by
providing spaces for more social interaction (Lee, Jordan, & Horsley, 2015); specifically,
participation in social events has been shown to improve mood. Opposite of using green spaces
for social gatherings, people also use green areas for quiet restoration. Restorative environments
are defined as a setting in which mental health is improved through factors of human preference
and satisfactions (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989). The key features of the restorative environment were
identified through four aspects: experiencing escape from mental fatigue, sense of place through
physical and mental properties, attention towards fascination, and the compatibility of the
environment to the user are important in the restorative environment (Kaplan, 1995).
The four experiences that develop from the restorative environment reoccur in themes of
the natural environment. The psychological effects of the four experiences supports a theoretical
basis of natural settings. Being away, or escaping in psychological terms, means the experience
of getting away from thoughts (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Through the escape of mind, a
restorative environment can create a sense of place in the experiences that result. For example, a
park design can create an immediate sense of being in a different world. Elements of the
experience of nature like clouds, textures, sunsets, and winds can attract one’s attention (Kaplan
and Kaplan, 1989). An individual may take the fascination and create a distraction or even take

6

pleasure through the reflection and engagement of the surroundings. One of the most important
factors of the experience of nature is the compatibility of the environment to the individual. The
use of natural settings takes less exertion compared to an urban environment. Natural settings are
therefore more compatible towards different uses of the site. People perceive natural settings as
fulfilling a wide arrange of needs through activities.
2.3 The Role of Green Space in Stress
Visits to green spaces have been found to provide a buffering effect on stressful life
events (Van den Berg et al., 2010). Self rated mental health and stress is less pronounced than for
physical health and general health indicators because self ratings for mental health are more
strongly related to stressful life events. The availability, areas such as forests that are rich in
vegetation, in one’s living environment can provide opportunities for reflection and restoration
on a deeper level (Grahn, & Stigsdotter, 2010; Van den Berg, et al., 2010). People can be
affected by the amount of green space in their living environment depending on their personal
needs and circumstances. This can be especially significant in high stress environments.
Major sources of stress can range from work, school, or even healthcare facilities
(Hansmann, Hug, & Seeland, 2007; Lau & Yang, 2009; Lottrup, Grahn, Stigsdotter, 2013;
Stigsdotter, 2004). As previous literature has stated, visiting green spaces can effectively reduce
stress through activities such as walking, relaxing and observing (Hansmann, Hug, & Seeland,
2007). Furthermore, an increase in well-being was shown to be positively correlated with the
duration of time spent in parks or forest settings (Rupprecht et al., 2015; Yang, Li, Elder, &
Wang; 2013). Water has been found to have a particularly positive influence in well-being
(Ulrich, 1984; Ulrich et al., 1991). People who report low levels of well-being before visiting the
green space experienced large increases in personal wellbeing, especially in the presence of

7

water (Ulrich et al., 1991). There are many differences in the restorative effects experienced by
people in different settings like forests and parks. These differences lead researchers to
understand that green space settings have diverse roles in the development of restorative
environments.
2.3.1 Green space in communities
The proximity of green spaces to neighborhoods and communities plays an important role
for families with growing children. Studies have found mental health in children can improve
through access to views of nature from their home. Researchers have found that when family
homes are in close proximity to nature, it can lead to a more effective and self-disciplined
lifestyle (Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2002). Green spaces can be used for physical activity or
social gathering spaces which are associated with stress relieving factors. Social well-being has
specifically been found to be a strong variable in relieving stress in communities. The
accessibility of gardens can enhance people’s sense of identity or belonging which in turn
reduces the notion of social isolation (Ward Thompson et al., 2016).
Access to local green space can also decrease stress for communities (Taylor, Kuo, &
Sullivan, 2002; Ward Thompson et al., 2016). The greater the accessibility to green spaces can
have a significant impact in general health and perceived stress levels. This is due to the greater
potential for personal or private use of green spaces in communities (Ward Thompson et al.,
2016). While access is one factor that can effect the use of local green spaces, the quality of the
green space is another important factor that determines the amount of use. For example, private
gardens in neighborhoods are managed more efficiently leading to greater quality of that space
(Ward Thompson et al., 2016). The difference in quality results in a stronger effect on the
increase of perceived general health (Ward Thompson et al., 2016).

8

2.3.2 Green space in the work setting
The importance of greenery in the workplace environment has been studied to define the
effects of varying amounts of access to green space between men and women (Lottrup, Grahn,
Stigsdotter, 2013). According to the World Health Organization, work related stress is becoming
a concerning topic among companies as it can have large psychological and economic effects
(WHO, n.d.). Stress can have a significant effect on a worker’s performance and may even lead
to mental and physical health issues. By providing an area of vegetation that is accessible during
the workday, positive work place attitudes can increase and the levels of stress can decrease
(Kaplan, 1993; Lottrup et al., 2013).
Another factor that can impact employers in the work environments is the access to
windows in the workplace. Windows are a source of light and sunshine and they also inform
workers of the time, space, and weather of the environment outside (Kaplan, 1993; Stigsdotter,
2004). The features of the environment that are visible through windows can also have different
effects on people. Built elements seen from windows will not provide any psychological benefits
while views of natural elements such as the trees, landscape and vegetation can provide
restorative qualities (Kaplan, 1993). Although, views of built elements such as buildings and
parking lots can still be restorative as long as there are some views of natural elements. The
natural elements provide rest from directed attention and therefore views of nature can be very
beneficial (Kaplan, 1993). Visiting outdoor green space is also, if not more, restorative when
features such as picnic benches and shady spots are accessible during lunch breaks (Kaplan,
1993). Studies have shown that nature that is accessible through walkways provide opportunities
to observe wildlife for restorative benefits, stress management, and may even contribute to job

9

satisfaction and improved employee outlook (Kaplan, 1993; Lottrup et al., 2013; Stigsdotter,
2004).
2.3.3 Green space in the healthcare setting
Nature has first been used for healing about 3,000 years ago (Spriggs, Kaufman, &
Warner, 1998) and many recent studies support the many benefits from human contact with
nature (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Whitehouse et al., 2001) Healthcare facilities are an especially
stressful environment due to their unfamiliarity, negatively portrayed image, and connection to
events that cause exhaustion (Kaplan, 1993). Therefore, it is important for landscape architects to
understand how to more efficiently design healthcare environments to focus on comfort and
familiarity. Previous studies have found benefits from direct contact or views of nature; Ulrich
(1984) found reductions in stress levels and health-related complaints, Kaplan (1993).
Gardens in the hospital settings must provide restorative elements in order for patients
and families to benefit from the healing effects of green spaces. Specific elements that have
known to bring healing include: sunlight, location, views, access, safety, wayfinding, planting
design, and maintenance (Davis, 2011). However, each hospital space must be diverse in order to
provide for each targeted population. For example, children’s hospitals should be designed with
many colors and safe places for children to explore while elderly populations with Alzheimer’s
must have specific measures of safety precautions for every detail of design.
A large percentage of users of green spaces in hospital settings are staff and adult family
members with hospitalized children (Whitehouse et al., 2001). A recent study by Whitehouse et
al. (2001) found that adult family members and staff used green space to relax and talk with
children in the garden. The sounds of water and colors of plants provide an escape from stress
and designated areas provide an environment away from the hospital for socializing. Results

10

from the study found a 90 percent positive change in mood after visiting garden spaces. While
adults use the gardens as a place to relax, children are often found to use garden spaces to
explore and play.
2.3.4 Green space in a campus setting
Universities can be one of the most highly sensitive environments due to their stressful
nature (Felsten, 2009; Hipp et al., 2016; Speake, Edmondson, & Nawaz, 2013). This results in
immense pressure on the mind and body and planners and landscape architects strive to design
green spaces that offer healing through campus design (Felsten, 2009). Students and university
staff are often fatigued from academics and there are numerous opportunities that are not
maximized to connect the indoor and outdoor campus settings.
Research has found that students who viewed real or simulated nature had the most
potential to receive restorative effects (Felsten, 2009; Hipp et al., 2016). A previous study
(Felsten, 2009) evaluated the perceived restorative potential of campus settings through
measuring the restorativeness of nature murals on college students. The study found settings of
nature with water had the highest restorative potential and identified other influences on the
perception of restorativeness of campus settings. Researchers concluded that window views of
nature should be provided whenever the opportunity arises (Felsten, 2009).
Spaces such as healing gardens or natural forest areas have been shown to provide
healthy environments that promote outdoor study areas and recreational activity space (Van den
Berg, Koole, & Wulp, 2003). By providing green spaces close to campus residences, nature is
able to provide psychological benefits such as stress attenuation and attention restoration (Grahn
& Stigsdotter, 2010). Healing gardens in particular are able to provide and enhance healing
through the surroundings (Ulrich, 1984; Lau & Yang, 2009).

11

The importance of campus green space shows that campuses need to supply multiple
forms in order to satisfy the requirements of diverse student users (Speake, Edmondson, &
Nawaz, 2013). The perception of greenness can impact the opportunities for restoration and thus
the university campus environment has greater potential using green space as a health resource
for students when the perception and knowledge of green space is greater (Speake, Edmondson,
& Nawaz, 2013). As stated earlier, green environments signal opportunities for leisurely
activities and social contact which are associated with positive social participation, important
experiences for college students. Familiarity plays an important role in influencing the
perception of green space and therefore as awareness increases, the use of green space increases
(Speake, Edmondson, & Nawaz, 2013). Green spaces have the potential to serve as a strong
symbol for universities and positively contributes to student life experiences on campuses
leading to greater sense of identity (Speake, Edmondson, & Nawaz, 2013).
2.3.5 Campus Planning
An important part of the history of how today’s university campuses are designed is the
study of campus planning. Campuses are carefully designed and maintained by campus planners
and can include several disciplines such as architecture, planning, engineering, landscape
architecture, urban design, and environmental practices (Smithgroup JJR, n.d.). The design of
master plans for universities goes through a thorough process of planning and guidelines that
include factors such as cost, performance, maintenance, construction, creativity, as well as
considering the public health (Smithgroup JJR, n.d.). Campus planning plays a critical role in
promoting the health, safety, and welfare of students and many times designers also must find
solutions to existing problems within the site (DeClercq, 2016). These solutions include creating
a bridge between students and the campus environment. Emphasis should be placed on campus

12

planning due to the social, physical, and metal benefit these environments can provide
(DeClercq, 2016).
2.4 Study Intent
This study tests to see whether students prefer using a space with more green elements in
relieving stress over a space with less green elements. The hypothesis is that the spaces with
more greenness are perceived as providing more stress relieving effects to most students. In the
present study, data was collected from a diverse sample of Michigan State University students to
investigate the existing and potential possibility of campus green space in reducing stress. In
contrast to the previous studies, perceived stress of students was measured on two varying
degrees of greenness of ten different places on campus. Five highly used green spaces on campus
and five highly visited built environments of campus to gain more insight on the impacts of
urban development versus natural landscapes on reducing stress. Since Michigan State
University enrolls both students from all around the nation and international students, the data
can show the results of a diverse population. In 2016, 71% of students at Michigan State reported
that they had experienced stress, which could lead to a decrease in academic performance,
sleeping patterns, anxiety, and a weakened immune system (Michigan State University, 2017).
Because students have high concentrations of stress, the university has many programs to support
student health and the data from this study may help to address these problems.

13

Chapter 3. Methodology
3.1 Location
The present study is located at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan. The
institution was established in 1855 and is one of the nation’s first land-grant universities. Land
grant universities are institutions that the Federal Government has designated to receive benefits
from the Morrill Act of 1862, 1890, 1994 (Miller, 2016). The goal of the Morrill Acts was to
provide working class citizens the opportunity to gain practical education through grants
designated to the fields of agriculture, military, and mechanic arts (Miller 2016). Michigan State
University is a nationally ranked research university with a diverse community of students from
all over the world. The campus is comprised of a total of 5,200 acres with 2,100 acres of existing
or planned development. There are approximately 50,000 students enrolled with about 39,000
undergraduate students and over 11,000 graduate and professional students (Michigan State
University, n.d.).
3.2 Procedure
A sample of both undergraduate and graduate students at Michigan State University were
asked to participate in a survey. Before conducting the survey, the researchers submitted the
survey to the Michigan State University institutional review board (IRB) and was granted
approval [x17-134e]. The survey was conducted in three locations on campus: Owen Hall, the
Human Ecology Building, and the MSU Union. The locations were chosen to ensure diversity
and generalizability of the study. The sample was a convenience sampling (Nejati, Rodiek,
Shepley, 2016) and students were asked to participate in the survey at the three locations during
the spring semester of 2017. The survey consisted of two parts: (1) demographics and open
ended questions and (2) a visual quality assessment. In order to understand respondent

14

perceptions, the demographics asked for four variables on the background of student’s gender,
residence (on or off campus), the approximate amount of time the respondent visits a green space,
and reasons why one would use a campus green space. The questions were then followed by a
visual quality assessment ranking for images of campus.
3.2.1 Selection of Images and Image Editing
During the visual quality assessment, respondents were shown five sets of four photos,
for a total of 20 images, and were asked to rank each set from 1- 4, where 1 signifies the least
stressful image to 4 signifies the most stressful image. To generate the overall 20 images, ten
sites were selected by finding frequently visited and centrally located places on Michigan State
University’s campus, shown in Figure 1. Each of these existing ten site images were modified
through photo editing software (Photoshop CS6 Software) to produce another ten images, shown
in Figure 2. For five of the existing sites, the photos were altered by adding additional green
features, while the remaining five existing sites were altered by adding more hardscape (Table 1).
Figure 1.
The ten sites chosen for the visual quality assessment photo ranking analysis.

15

Figure 2.
Image b (left) and image p (right).

Table 1.
Organization of original and photo edited images.
Maximum Green

Minimal Green

b

f

g

c

d

h

i

Existing

a

e

j

16

Photo Edited

Table 1. (cont’d)

k

l

p

q

m

n

r

s

t

o

3.2.2 Data analysis
The data from the visual assessment were analyzed using the Friedman two-way analysis
of variance by ranks, which is a non-parametric statistical test using ranks to measure the
distribution between three or more related samples (Daniel, 1978). In Freidman’s two-way
analysis of variance by ranks, there is no minimum number of blocks (other than 2), and the
power of the test is best at five or six blocks. Each respondents’ perception on effects of the 20
images in reducing stress was ranked from 1-20 and added into a table where the respondents
were divided in to groups. In order to find whether the data provides sufficient evidence
indicating the green value in reducing stress, the computational formula was used to test for the
differences in the rank sums by:
=

12
( + 1)

− 3 ( + 1)

17

The formula is explained through the following (Daniel, 1978):
•

b represents the number of blocks;

•

k represents the number of treatments;

•

represents the sum of the ranks for each treatment;
o In the case of rank ties, we adjust to take the ties into account using the formula:
=1−

∑

(

(

)

)

followed by

/

•

C is the tie correction factor

•

Where T is the total number of tie series and

!

is the number of tied scores.

The data was tested for two hypotheses as follows:
•

The null hypothesis of H0: the treatments yield identical results.

•

The alternate hypothesis of H1: at least one treatment tends to yield larger values than at
least one other treatment.

In the case that the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate hypothesis is accepted, the
following formula will be used to find the significant differences between the treatments (Daniel,
1978):
"

−

#"

≥ %&

18

( + 1)
6

Chapter 4. Results
There were 72 respondents grouped into 6 groups of 12 respondents. Table 2 shows the
results of the sum of ranks for each image for each block. Using the computational formula, the
ranking of each image was calculated and used to find the significance between the 20 images.
The sum of ranks for the each of the 20 images and were divided in to 12 groups which can be
seen in Table 2. Using the Friedman two-way analysis of variance formula above, the variables
from Table 2 were used to find the computational chi-square:
=

12
(92.5 + 89 + 113 + 115.5 + 46.5 + 22.5 + 66.5 + 9 + 52
6 ∗ 20(20 + 1)
+ 110.5 ) − 3 ∗ 12(20 + 1) = 127.6011905

The computational chi-square was then computed for the adjustment of ties:
26(20 − 2) + 2(30 − 3)
= 1−
= 128.066
6 ∗ 20(20 − 1)
Table 2.
Sum of ranks for each image in each block.

In order to accept or reject the null hypothesis, the computational chi-square must be
greater than or equal to the tabulated chi-square. According to the table found in Applied
nonparametric statistics, by Daniel (1978), the tabulated chi-square is found through the degrees
of freedom. The degrees of freedom is calculated by the formula k-1, which in this case was 19;
therefore, the tabulated chi-square is 38.582. Because the computed chi-square was found to be

19

larger than the tabulated chi-square, the resulting data was found to reject the null hypothesis
and the alternate hypothesis was accepted.
Given the alternate hypothesis was accepted, the data was further analyzed to find the
image comparisons with an alpha level of significance. The formula by Daniel (1978) was used
to compare the multiple treatments with an alpha (α) of 0.005, which means the there is a 0.5
percent chance of making an error of rejecting a null hypothesis that is true. Using the multiple
comparison formula, it was found that if the difference in the sum of ranks was larger than 74.8
the images are considered significantly different for an alpha of 0.005. The images comparisons
with significant differences were recorded in Table 3. This table shows that respondents
repeatedly preferred the same five images over other images. From the table, it shows that the
images perceived as least stressful were images d, a, l, r, and t. The images are described as
follows: image d is of a garden plaza space behind the chemistry building on campus (see figure
3), image a is the Red Cedar River behind the Hannah Administration building (see figure 4),
image l is the altered photo of the plaza in front of the main library (see figure 5), image r is the
photo altered green space in front of the biomedical and physical sciences building (see figure 6),
and image t is the photo altered image of the Red Cedar River (see figure 7).

Table 3.
Pairwise comparisons of images with significant differences. Calculations based on the nonparametric statistics (Daniel, 1978) using an alpha level of 0.005.
Pairwise Comparison Scores
Images
d&i
d&f
d&g
a&s
a&j

value 1
22.5
22.5
22.5
9
9

value 2
113
115.5
110.5
92.5
89
20

p-value
difference
90.5
93
88
83.5
80

Table 3. (cont’d)
a&i
a&f
a&g
a&m
l&s
l&i
l&f
l&g
r&f
r&g
t&i
t&f
t&g

9
9
9
9
17
17
17
17
32.5
32.5
22
22
22

113
115.5
110.5
87.5
92.5
113
115.5
110.5
115.5
110.5
113
115.5
110.5

Figure 3.
Image d: Formal garden space on campus.

21

104
107
102
78.5
75.5
96
98.5
93.5
83
78
91
93.5
88.5

Figure 4.
Image a: Red Cedar River.

Figure 5.
Image l: photo altered main library.

22

Figure 6.
Image r: photo altered open green space next to the biomedical and physical sciences building.

Figure 7.
Image t: photo altered Red Cedar River.

23

Regarding the demographic questions in the survey, out of the 72 respondents 33 were
male (46%) and 39 were female (54%) (see table 4). The data included the number of
respondents who live on campus, 53%, and the number of respondents who live off campus, 47%.
During the open-ended questions in the survey, respondents were asked to provide a reason or
activity they would use a campus green space for and table 3 below shows the results categorized
into six themes. The themes include: sports, relaxing, exercise, studying, socializing, and other
recreation for activities that could not be put in to one of the other five categories. Sports and
relaxing were the top two reasons for males (61%) on the use of green space followed by
studying (33%), other recreation (33%), exercise (27%), and socializing (21%). Studying (56%)
and other recreation (49%), such as reading, were the top two reasons for females followed by
socializing (41%), sports (36%), relaxing (36%), and exercise (33%).

Table 4.
Demographic data showing uses of green space.
Green space use
Sports
Relaxing
Exercise
Studying
Socializing
Other Recreation
Residence
On Campus
Off Campus
Time spent in green space (per
week)
1-3
3 or more
0 or rarely

Male (n=33)
61% (n=20)
61% (n=20)
27% (n=9)
33% (n=11)
21% (n=7)
33% (n=11)

Female (n=39)
36% (n=14)
36% (n=14)
33% (n=13)
56% (n=22)
41% (n=16)
49% (n=19)

Total (n=72)
47% (n=34)
47% (n=34)
31% (n=22)
46% (n=33)
32% (n=23)
42% (n=30)

52% (n=17)
48% (n=16)

54% (n=21)
46% (n=18)

53% (n=38)
47% (n=34)

27% (n=9)
61% (n=20)
12% (n=4)

41% (n=16)
51% (n=20)
8% (n=3)

35% (n=25)
56% (n=40)
10% (n=7)

24

Chapter 5. Discussion
5.1 Evaluations
This study compared the potential of ten campus spaces with varying degrees of green
features in reducing stress. An important element of the study was being able to show the
potential of campus spaces through the photo alteration technique using the Photoshop CS6
software. This factor allows the researchers to take a space and directly compare the results of
the possibility of the same space to have different design. The analysis shows an overall
perception of naturalistic campus settings preferred as a less stressful setting when compared to
settings with minimal green. Within the photo categories, the results reveal that the original
photos with maximum green spaces were perceived as more stress reliving, especially natural
settings with a water feature. The data supports this theory because the only pair of original and
photo altered images that ranked significantly less stressful than other images were images a and
t, which viewed the Red Cedar River (See Figure 4 and Figure 7). This was an expected outcome
as previous literature had found that people prefer environments that utilize water features
(Ulrich, 1984; Ulrich et al, 1991).
People may prefer spaces that include a water feature due to many reasons. One reason
could be that people associate water with different outdoor activities, such as canoeing or
kayaking. Another reason may be that the water features give people something to easily get
their mind off of stressful thoughts, which previous research shows is one psychological benefits
from viewing nature (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich, 1984). Although images with water
features were the preferred setting, the images with the river was favored over the image with the
fountains. This can be explained due to the difference between visual access and physical access
of rivers and fountains. While the physical access in terms of touching water is equal in both the

25

case of a river and water fountain, people are able to immerse themselves in rivers in turn
creating more activities and social interactions. In addition to the preferences for the images of
natural settings, there were multiple photo altered images with added built elements that were
still preferred over the photos of natural settings. These statistics may conclude that there are
certain hardscape elements that people desire in a natural environment.
Photo altered images that were preferred stress relieving settings included images l, r, and
t (see figures 5, 6, and 7). Images r and t were photo altered images that added built elements
such as concrete plaza space and pathways (see figures 6 and 7). The factor these two images
have in common is water features. Although the water feature in image t is the existing Red
Cedar River, image r was photo altered to include a fountain. Students may prefer these images
due to the quiet restoration or natural water sounds. This may infer that noise may be a large
factor in producing a more restorative setting for relaxing and studying. The factor of what
triggers relaxation could be further explored in another study where people could be asked what
features of the photo could make them feel less stressed. Another unexpected outcome that may
explain the importance of accessibility and aesthetics was the outcome of image d, which ranked
the second most least stressful. This area of green space can be considered a formal garden space
due to the existing concrete and brick paths and sitting areas that are designed with a
symmetrical purpose. According to previous research, accessibility is a large factor that controls
whether a person would use a space (Lee & Maheswaran, 2010; Wan & Shen, 2015; Ward
Thompson et al., 2016). The pathways and benches are inviting features and encourage people to
stay within the space. For this reason, more students may have chosen the formal garden space as
a stress relieving environment.

26

The survey’s open ended questions of the survey aimed to gather information on how the
campus student population uses campus green spaces. The results showed the majority of males
and females used green spaces for different uses. These results were also parallel to another
study that found differences between men and women (Lottrup, Grahn, Stigsdotter, 2013). While
a high percentage of males (61%) indicated they used green spaces for physical activities like
sports or for relaxing, most of the female respondents (56%) indicated they used green space for
studying. A further study could test for this factor by observing people using green spaces and
recording the different activities students participate in green spaces. This difference in uses may
dictate the type of built elements that should be implemented into green spaces. For example, if
more benches are designed into green spaces it may provide more opportunities for students to
relax and study. To also accommodate uses for males, there should be ample open space for
activities such as football or soccer.
Through the qualitative survey questions, it was often found that students had little
awareness of what constituted a campus green space was. In addition, Table 4 shows ten percent
of students rarely used green spaces. It could be inferred that students the use of green space was
limited by lack of knowledge on the existence and location of available green space. One main
reason students may not have known about the existence of campus green spaces could be the
lack of wayfinding and signage. For many students, college is often the first experience without
family and students must acclimate to a new surrounding. Many students rely on signage to find
areas on campus and so without signs or maps pointing out areas of interest, students are often
unaware of the services provided on campus. In future studies, a method to find the issues of
knowledge of green space may be to have a question asking if respondents know what a green
space is and where they may be located on campus. Implementing more green spaces and

27

wayfinding may help to educate students on the knowledge and awareness of campus green
spaces.
University campuses are spaces that harbor stress and mental fatigue, yet they hold
abundant opportunities to repurpose spaces to reduce stress. The findings from this study
supports previous literature that has found green spaces to be more stress relieving compared to
built environments. Campus planners and designers can use the data to find which built spaces
can be reimagined with green elements in order to serve multiple purposes for diverse student
populations. Given that natural green spaces with water were preferred, design guidelines could
be recommended for the future of Michigan State University’s campus. Planners could focus on
three main elements found through this study: visual accessibility, physical accessibility, and the
utilization of water features.
5.2 Limitations
This study has many limitations that should be addressed for the needs of further research.
A large limitation factor that could have restricted the rankings of the images is the methodology.
The methodology of the present study combined methods from many different studies (Burley,
1996; Burley, DeYoung, Partin, & Rokos, 2011; Nejati, Rodiek, Shepley, 2016). One limitation
of the data collected is that the study was determining rankings based upon perceived, rather than
actual, stress levels. Therefore, all resulting data was based upon the correlation of perceived
stress versus measured stress levels whereas previous studies have analyzed stress levels through
evidence based measures, such as heart rate, blood pressure, attention tests, brain activity, and
behavior observation (Taylor et al., 2002; Ulrich et al., 1991; Ulrich, 1984; Van den Berg et al.,
2003).

28

Although many previous studies included self-perceived health levels (Kaplan, 1993;
Maas et al., 2006; Ulrich, 1979), the present study had analyzed the perception of stress from
viewing landscape images. While direct contact with nature could affect the results, it is not
possible to determine if there would be a large difference in the perceived stress levels.
Researchers that have conducted landscape visual quality assessments had randomized the order
and groupings of the landscape images; however, the present study did not fully randomize the
groupings of photos. Since the photos were altered through the use of editing software, the
images were slightly seeded so that in each set there were 2 photo edited images and 2 non photo
edited images of each type of greenness level. The seeding of the images could have caused a
difference in the rankings. A similar study that might have been useful in finding the effects of
nature is through recording students stress levels after physically experiencing a space. Due to
time and weather constraints, the visual assessment through photos was the preferred method.
Another limitation may be the sampling technique and sample size. The sample size is
small compared to the number of students that attend Michigan State University and the results
could have differed with a larger sample size. The data was collected from only three different
buildings on campus: Michigan State University Union, Owen Hall dormitory, and Human
Ecology building. Students were asked inside of these buildings during the afternoon during the
middle of spring semester. This could have potentially influenced the results due to the different
student population located in each area. The Owen Hall dormitory is a graduate and
undergraduate hall with a high population of international students which gave the range of
sample populations a wide range of backgrounds while the Human Ecology building is generally
occupied with students in the School of Planning, Construction. The school includes landscape
architecture, urban planning, and construction management students who have a background

29

knowledge and are educated on the benefits of nature. Therefore, respondents from the Human
Ecology building may have chosen image settings that were more likely to be chosen for people
who prefer outdoor settings.
5.3 Conclusion
This study aimed to find stress relieving variables in the design of university campus
green spaces. The findings of this study supported the idea that students can benefit more from a
naturalistic green space, however factors such as site amenities, water features, and accessibility
are factors that may determine the amount of use of a specific green space. Spaces with natural
and man made water features were found to be the most stress relieving space, suggesting more
utilization of existing water features and opportunities for built water features. The parks must
also have a balance of activities in order to allow the potential for a space to accommodate
diverse student populations.
The results of this study will aid future landscape architects and planners in providing
recommendations for urban and open green space to incorporate the needs and wants of student
population to decrease stress levels. By educating and providing green spaces on campus, it may
encourage students to use green spaces to relax and encounter nature. The benefits are especially
important in areas of high stress environments and thus a recommendation of amount of green
features should be developed to design the most efficient spaces. However, there is still further
research that could be done to understand the psychological benefits of urban green space.

30

APPENDIX

31

You are being asked to take part in a study to assess perceptions on your levels of stress on
campus and how this correlates with open and green spaces on campus. You will be given a
scenario and asked to respond what your perceived level of stress would be at three different
spaces on campus.
Your participation in this survey is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw at any time.
Your survey responses will be strictly confidential and data from this research will be reported
only in the aggregate. Your information will be coded and will remain confidential. If you have
questions at any time about the survey or the procedures, you may contact the lead investigator
Dr. Trish Machemer at machemer@msu.edu.
If you agree to take part in this research, please confirm below and continue on to the
questionnaire. Thank you for considering to participate in this research project.

Would you be willing to participate in this survey?
Yes, I would like to participate in this survey.
No, I would not like to participate in this survey.

To help assess the needs of Michigan State University’s student community, we need to first
understand who you are as a person. Please take the time to answer every question on the survey.
Your responses will stay anonymous as required by the Institution Review Board (IRB).
1. Gender:
Female

Male

2. Residence:
On Campus
Off Campus

You will be shown four sets of images with four images in each set. Please view each set and
rate from 1 to 4 on what you perceive is the least stressful environment (1) to the most
stressful environment (4).

32

Set 1:
1. Least stressful image #:
2. Image #:
3. Image #:
4. Most stressful image #:
Set 2:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Least stressful image #:
Image #:
Image #:
Most stressful image #:

Set 3:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Least stressful image #:
Image #:
Image #:
Most stressful image #:

Set 4:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Least stressful image #:
Image #:
Image #:
Most stressful image #:

Set 5:
1. Least stressful image #:
2. Image #:
3. Image #:
4. Most stressful image #:

Please read and answer the following questions about Michigan State University’s green
space.
3. How often do you spend outdoors on campus:
3 or more times per week
1-3 times per week
0 or rarely
4. What are some reasons/activities you would use campus green spaces for:

33

BIBLIOGRAPHY

34

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burley, J. (1996). Visual and ecological environmental quality model for transportation planning
and design. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, (1549), 54-60.
Burley, J., Deyoung, G., Partin, S., & Rokos, J. (2011). Reinventing Detroit: Reclaiming
grayfields—New metrics in evaluating urban environments. Challenges, 2(4), 45-54.
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 68(1), 129-138. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
Daniel, W. W. (1978). Applied nonparametric statistics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Davis, B. (2011). Rooftop hospital gardens for physical therapy: A post-occupancy evaluation.
Herd-Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 4(3), 14-43.
doi:10.1177/193758671100400303
DeClercq, C. (2016). Toward the healthy campus: Methods for evidence-based planning and
design. Planning for Higher Education, 44(3), 86.
Felsten, G. (2009). Where to take a study break on the college campus: An attention restoration
theory perspective. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), 160-167.
Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U. K. (2010). The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of
urban green space and stress restoration. Landscape and urban planning, 94(3), 264-275.
Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W. (1991). Restorative effects of natural environment
experiences. Environment and behavior, 23(1), 3-26.
Hansmann, R., Hug, S. M., & Seeland, K. (2007). Restoration and stress relief through physical
activities in forests and parks. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), 213-225.
Hipp, J. A., Gulwadi, G. B., Alves, S., & Sequeira, S. (2016). The relationship between
perceived greenness and perceived restorativeness of university campuses and studentreported quality of life. Environment and Behavior, 48(10), 1292-1308.
doi:10.1177/0013916515598200
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R. (1993). The role of nature in the context of the workplace, Landscape Urban
Planning, 26, pp. 193 – 201.

35

Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework, Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 15, pp. 169 – 182.
Lau, S. S. Y., & Yang, F. (2009). Introducing healing gardens into a compact university campus:
Design natural space to create healthy and sustainable campuses. Landscape Research,
34(1), 55-81.
Lee, A.C.K., & Maheswaran, R. (2010). The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of
the evidence. Journal of Public Health 33(2), 212-222. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdq068
Lee, A. C. K., Jordan, H. C., & Horsley, J. (2015). Value of urban green spaces in promoting
healthy living and wellbeing: prospects for planning. Risk Management and Healthcare
Policy, 8, 131-137. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S61654
Lo, A.Y.H., & Jim, C. Y. (2012). Citizen attitude and expectation towards greenspace provision
in compact urban milieu. Land Use Policy, 29(3), 577-586. doi:
10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.09.011
Lottrup, L., Grahn, P., & Stigsdotter, U.K. (2013). Workplace greenery and perceived level of
stress: Benefits of access to a green outdoor environment at the workplace. Landscape
and Urban Planning 110(1), 5-11. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.002
Maas, J., Verheiji, R. A., Groenewegen, P. P., Vries, S. D., & Spreeuwenberg, P. (2006). Green
space, urbanity, and health: how strong is the relation? J Epidemial Community Health,
60, 587-592. doi: 10.1136/jech.2005.043125
Miller, D. (2016, April 22). Land-Grant University FAQ. Retrieved April 07, 2017, from
http://www.aplu.org/about-us/history-of-aplu/what-is-a-land-grant-university/
Michigan State University. (n.d.). About MSU. Retrieved April 07, 2017, from
https://msu.edu/about/
Michigan State University, Student Health Services. (2017). Health Promotion and Primary
Prevention. Retreieved April 16, 2017, from http://olin.msu.edu/healthpromo/
National Park Service. (1995). Economic Impacts of Protecting Rivers, Trails and Greenway
Corridors. Retrieved April 16, 2017, from
https://www.nps.gov/pwro/rtca/econ_index.htm
Nassauer, J. I., Wang, Z., & Dayrell, E. (2009). What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms
and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92(3), 282-292.
Nejati, A., Rodiek, S., & Shepley, M. (2016). Using visual simulation to evaluate restorative
qualities of access to nature in hospital staff break areas. Landscape and Urban Planning,
148, 132-138. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.012

36

Rupprecht, C.D.D., Byrne, J.A., Ueda, H., & Lo, A. Y. (2015). ‘It’s real, not fake like a park’:
Residents’ perception and use of informal urban green-space in Brisbane, Australia and
Sapporo, Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 143, 205-218. doi:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.07.003
Smithgroup JJR. (n.d.). Retrieved May 07, 2017, from http://www.smithgroupjjr.com/
Stigsdotter, U.A. (2004). A garden at your workplace may reduce stress. Design & Health, 147157.
Speake, J., Edmondson, S., & Nawaz, H. (2013). Everyday encounters with nature: Students'
perceptions and use of university campus green spaces. Human Geographies, 7(1), 21.
Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2002). Views of nature and self-discipline:
Evidence from inner city children. Journal of environmental psychology, 22(1), 49-63.
Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemela, J., & James, P.
(2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure:
A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3), 167-178. doi:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001
Ulrich, R.S. (1979). Visual landscapes and psychological wellbeing, Landscape Research, 4, pp.
17 – 23.
Ulrich, R.S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science,
224(4647), 224-225.
Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress
recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 11, 201-230.
Van den Berg, A. E., Koole, S.L., Van der Wulp, N.Y., (2003). Environmental preference and
restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology 23, 135-146.
Van den Berg, A.E., Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2010). Green space as a
buffer between stressful life events and health. Social science & medicine, 70(8), 12031210.
Wan, C., & Shen, G. Q. (2015). Encouraging the use of urban green space: The mediating role of
attitude, perceived usefulness and perceived behavioral control. Habitat International 50,
130-139. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.08.010
Ward Thompson, C., Aspinall, P., Roe, J., Robertson, L., & Miller, D. (2016). Mitigating stress
and supporting health in deprived urban communities: The importance of green space and
the social environment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 13(4), 440. doi:10.3390/ijerph13040440

37

Whitehouse, S., Varni, J. W., Seid, M., Cooper-Marcus, C., Ensburg, M. J., Jacobs, J. R., &
Mehlenbeck, R. S. (2001). evaluating a children's hospital garden environment:
Utilization and consumer satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 301314. doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0224
WHO. (n.d.). Global Health Observatory data. Retrieved April 07, 2017, from
http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/
Yang, B., Li, S., Elder, B. R., & Wang, Z. (2013). community-planning approaches and
residents' perceived safety: A landscape analysis of park design in the woodlands, texas.
Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 30(4), 311-327.

38