Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 16 (2016) 1–8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ufug

How is high school greenness related to students’ restoration and

health?
Abdullah Akpinar
Adnan Menderes University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Landscape Architecture, 09100 Aydin, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study investigates the association between perceived restorativeness of high school greenness and
Received 7 July 2015 students’ perceived restoration and health. A total of 223 high school students’ aged 12–20 participated
Received in revised form 20 January 2016 in the study. Measures included Attention Restoration Theory components (i.e. being away, fascina-
Accepted 24 January 2016
tion, coherence, and compatibility), naturalness of school greenness, and health indicators (i.e. stress,
Available online 27 January 2016
mental health, physical health, and quality of life). Bivariate correlations and multivariate regression
analysis controlling for sex, age, accommodation, and income showed that perceived restorativeness
Keywords:
(i.e. being away (b = .29, p ≤ .001), fascination (b = .35, p ≤ .001), coherence (b = .09, p ≤ .041), and compat-
Attention restoration theory
Restorative environment
ibility (b = .35, p ≤ .001)) is predicted by the green space present in the high school campus. For health,
High school green space none of the health indicators was correlated with high school greenness. Stratified analyses showed that
High school students boys reported better perceived restorativeness (i.e. being away, fascination, and compatibility) and less
Perceived restorativeness stress (b = .19, p ≤ .037) compared to girls. Younger students reported better health (i.e. physical health
Health (b = .27, p ≤ .034) and quality of life (b = .45, p ≤ .027)), whereas older students reported stronger perceived
restorativeness than younger students. Commuter students reported positive perceived restorativeness
(i.e. being away, fascination, and compatibility), while boarder students reported negative perceived
restorativeness. Findings indicate that high school greenness could be an effective resource in contribut-
ing to students’ perceived restoration. However, for health benefits students’ perception and preferences
for certain qualities and features of green space in schools should be provided.
© 2016 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Today, high school students face unprecedented levels of school-
related stress and mental health issues (Marin and Brown, 2008).
The competition that students have to deal with in university
entrance exams, for example, has increased to significant levels in
recent years in Turkey (Student Selection and Placement Center,
2014). According to the Student Selection and Placement Center,
known as ÖSYM, more than 1.9 million students took the university
entrance exam in 2014 and only 38% of those students could attain
universities and two year colleges in Turkey (Student Selection and
Placement Center, 2014). Researchers have demonstrated that the
university entrance exam is the leading source of stress and men-
tal health issues among high school students (Özbaş et al., 2012;
Sonay, 2012). In addition, many researches have shown that in this
age group school-related issues are the main reasons for stress and
mental health problems (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005; Stuart,
E-mail address: abdullah.akpinar@wsu.edu
2006; Marin and Brown, 2008). Furthermore, while stress and anx-
iety levels are increasing among young people (Twenge et al., 2010;
Collishaw et al., 2010; Murphy and Fonagy, 2012), young people are
at high risk for mental disorders and other health co-morbidities
due to high levels of stress and anxiety (McNamara, 2000; Murphy
and Fonagy, 2012).
A growing body of research has investigated the restorative
effects of green space on human health (Kaplan and Kaplan,
1989; Hartig et al., 1991; Laumann et al., 2003; Hartig and Staats,
2006; Berman et al., 2008; Roe and Aspinall, 2011a; Wells and
Rollings, 2012). A restorative environment is a place that “pro-
motes, and not merely permits, restoration” (Hartig, 2004, p. 273).
Two main theories explain the restorative effects of green space:
The Psycho-evolutionary Theory (Ulrich, 1983) and the Attention
Restoration Theory (ART; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). According to
the Psycho-evolutionary Theory, humans are biologically linked to
safe, natural settings possessing trees, water, and other vegetation
for immediate positive responses. The Psycho-evolutionary Theory
posits that natural settings possess a calming and stress-reducing
effect on humans. Therefore, in natural settings not only a sense
of restoration is experienced on purpose with the emotions, but

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.01.007
1618-8667/© 2016 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
2 A. Akpinar / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 16 (2016) 1–8

involuntary physiological reactions are triggered that provide rapid

short-term recovery from stress (Ulrich, 1983; Ulrich et al., 1991).
According to the ART, many activities require effortful attention
and when the capacity to focus or concentrate is decreased by
overuse, people experience mental fatigue. The ART posits that
contact with nature has the potential to restore an individual’s
directed attention capabilities. Therefore, an individual’s capacity
for attention is recovered in natural environments, which provide
qualities of “fascination,” “being away,” “extent,” and “compati-
bility” (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1995). These constructs
are self-reported measures and have been described as measures
of perceived restorativeness (Hartig, 2011).
Numerous studies have demonstrated that green space is asso-
ciated with providing restorative effects (Laumann et al., 2001;
Herzog et al., 2003; Korpela et al., 2008; Berman et al., 2008). Stud-
ies reported that green space is related to positive physiological
effects (Herzog and Strevey, 2008; Park et al., 2010), reductions in
the risk of psychosocial and psychological stress-related diseases
(Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2003; Morita et al., 2007; Francis et al.,
2012) and quicker recovery from stress (Nielsen and Hansen, 2007;
Lafortezza et al., 2009; van den Berg et al., 2010; Ward Thompson
et al., 2012). In addition, researchers found green space positively
related to health, quality of life, and well-being (van Dillen et al., Fig. 1. The campus boundary of Aydın Social Sciences High School.
2011; McFarland et al., 2008; de Vries et al., 2003; Mitchell and
Popham, 2008; Ward Thompson et al., 2012).
(Bagot, 2004; Corraliza et al., 2012; Kelz et al., 2015; Bagot et al.,
Studies demonstrated that green space in a schoolyard has a
2015), the following hypotheses are proposed:
higher positive effect on children’s perceived restoration (Bagot,
2004; Corraliza et al., 2012; Bagot et al., 2015) and that green-
• Perceived restorativeness of high school greenness is positively
ing of the schoolyard significantly improves students’ physiological
well-being and reduces physiological stress (Kelz et al., 2015). In associated with students’ perceived restoration (H1),
• There are positive associations between high school greenness
addition, studies show that adolescent students who spent a day
in a forest school versus a day inside a classroom reported less and students’ stress, mental health, physical health, and quality
anger and stress, and a greater sense of happiness and energy (Roe of life (H2).
and Aspinall, 2011b). Likewise, research indicates that contact with
nature could improve academic achievement (Williams and Dixon, 2. Methods
2013; Smith and Sobel, 2010) reported that higher test scores are
associated with nature based restoration (Heschong, 2003). For 2.1. The study site and participants
instance, Matsuoka (2010) found that high school students who
have views of trees and shrubbery versus built features or large The data used in this study were collected in Aydın Social Sci-
empty lawns from windows have more merit awards, higher gradu- ences High School (Aydın Sosyal Bilimler Lisesi) located in the city
ation rates, more plans to attend college, and less criminal behavior. of Aydın, Turkey. Aydın Social Sciences High School was selected
Similarly, Tennessen and Cimprich (1995) revealed that univer- for this study it has dormitory and green space on campus (Fig. 1).
sity students with more natural views from their windows score Of its 9400 m2 campus, 28.4% (1670 m2 ) consists of trees, shrubs,
higher than those with less natural views on tests of directed and other vegetation (Fig. 2). The school has 265 students. 198
attention. students reside in the dormitory. Participants in this study pro-
Although many studies addressed students and green space, vided their demographic information such as details of gender, age,
few considered the school context. High school students spend grade, accommodation (dormitory or home), and monthly house-
at least 8000 h during their adolescence in schools (Rutter et al., hold income level.
1979). Therefore, the education community could benefit from To carry out this study, first the ethics approval from the Ethics
more studies of perceived restorativeness of school greenness Committee of Adnan Menderes University was acquired (Protocol
and the relationship between high school greenness and students’ Number: 2015/654). Then, the school principal granted permission.
stress, mental and physical health, and quality of life (Matsuoka, Students were informed about the study and requested they talk
2010; Chawla et al., 2014). In addition, although the ART is well to their parents for permission to participate in the study. Only
examined with adults, the application of ART to young people’s those students who were willing to participate in the study and got
environments remains understudied (Bagot et al., 2015). Hence, we permission from parents were surveyed. After parental permission,
know very little about how the presence of high school greenness 223 (84% of total students) students completed the questionnaire.
is associated with students’ perceived restoration. Students are an The questionnaire was read aloud twice and students had enough
extremely important population, at a time in their improvement time to answer. The mentor teacher of each class collected data in
when their academic performance will set them on a life-course. the school during normal school hours.
In this respect, the main purpose of this study was to determine
the association between perceived restorativeness of high school 2.2. The perceived restorativeness, naturalness, and health
greenness and students’ perceived restoration. The secondary aim indicators
of this study was to explore the relationship between high school
greenness and students’ stress, mental and physical health, and The perceived restorativeness of school greenness was mea-
quality of life. Based on the ART (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989), the sured with the ‘Perceived Restorative Scale’ (PRS) developed by
Psycho-evolutionary Theory (Ulrich, 1983), and previous studies Hartig et al. (1997). This measure consists of 26 items which form
 A. Akpinar / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 16 (2016) 1–8
Fig. 2. Examples of Aydın Social Sciences High School greenness.
four proposed factors of a restorative environment: five items were
evaluated for “being away” (e.g., “Being here is an escape experi-
ence”), eight items were evaluated for “fascination” (e.g., “This place
has fascinating qualities”), four items were evaluated for “coher-
ence” (e.g., “There is too much going on”), and nine items were
evaluated for “compatibility” (e.g., “Being here suits my personal-
ity”). Students were asked to think about how true each statement
was for them and to circle the answer that suited them best. The
respondents evaluated the PRS on an 11 point Likert scale with
0 = not at all and 10 = completely.
The values for items that were negatively worded were reversed
in coding. A factor analysis was conducted to reduce the PRS items
to the four ART components (being away, fascination, coherence,
and compatibility). Items for each ART component were summed
and then mean score was calculated. The mean perceived restora-
tiveness of school greenness could range from 0 to 10. Reliability
was good.
The level of naturalness was evaluated and rated by two profes-
sional landscape architects. A qualitative approach was adopted for
this evaluation where the rating of naturalness of school greenness
is based on knowledge and experience of two professional land-
scape architects. A scale from 0 to 5 where the possibility was 11
different grades (0, 0.5, 1, etc.) in which 0 represents ‘barely’ and
3
5 represents ‘predominantly’. In addition, since restoration differs
based on how students perceive the green space in school play-
ground (Collado and Corraliza, 2012), students were asked to rate
how they perceive naturalness of the school greenness. Then, nat-
uralness of school greenness scores were adjusted (the average of
the landscape architects’ and students’ scores) based on students’
score.
The students were also asked to evaluate their own health
considering the last two weeks (on a 0–10 scale, with 0 = low and
10 = high). The questions were: “How would you evaluate your own
health considering the last two weeks according to your: ‘level
of stress’, ‘mental health’, ‘physical health’, and ‘quality of life’
(Peschardt and Stigsdotter, 2013).
2.3. Analytic strategy
Preliminary analyses examined the normality of the variables.
The responses to the quality of life and compatibility questions
were normally distributed. Because the distributions of being away,
fascination, coherence, stress, mental, and physical health were
skewed, a log-transformation y = loge (x + 1) was applied to these
outcomes on which all test statistics are based. However, untrans-
formed results were similar to those of the transformed data, and
4 A. Akpinar / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 16 (2016) 1–8

Table 1
Correlations between naturalness of school greenness, perceived restorativeness, and health indicators.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 M SD

1. Naturalness of school green space – 3.63 3.49

2. Being away .42*** – 3.33 2.72
3. Fascination .55*** .72*** – 2.70 2.26
4. Coherence .07 −.05 −.05 – 7.99 2.28
5. Compatibility .53*** .53*** .62*** −.07 – 3.83 2.22
6. Stress −.03 .01 .01 .14* .03 – 4.55 3.19
7. Mental health .02 .07 .04 .17** .03 .51*** – 7.27 3.53
8. Physical health .01 .10 .09 .06 .10 .42*** .45*** – 6.95 2.95
9. Quality of life .18** .17** .23** .09 .19** .26*** .26*** .16* – 5.11 2.99

Note: M: Mean, SD: Standard Deviation, Range: 0–10.

*
p ≤ .05.
**
p ≤ .01
***
p ≤ .001.

therefore untransformed results were reported. Next, the bivari-
ate relationships between the perceived restorativeness (being
away, fascination, coherence, and compatibility), levels of stress,
mental health, physical health, and quality of life and naturalness
of school greenness were assessed using correlational analyses
(Spearman’s rho). After that prior to performing multivariate lin-
ear regression analyses, the presence of multicollinearity issues
between independent variables was checked. In this analysis, mul-
ticollinearity issues between age and grade was found. Hence, grade
was excluded from the regression model due to the multicollinear-
ity issue. Then, the associations between naturalness of school
greenness and perceived restorativeness, levels of stress, mental
health, physical health, and quality of life were examined with the
multivariate linear regression analyses while controlling for age,
sex, accommodation, and income level as confounding factors. The
results are presented as unstandardized coefficients (b) with 95%
confidence intervals (CI). A p-value of .05 was used to indicate sta-
tistical significance of all the analyses. SPSS version 18 was used
for all statistical analyses (SPSS Inc., 2009). In addition, stratified
analyses were carried out to explore differences in sex, age, accom-
modation in regression coefficients.
3. Results
3.1. Characteristics of participants
The sample consisted of 223 students (84% of total students)
aged between 12 and 20 years (Mage = 16.06 years, SD = 1.37). 36.8%
of the participants were boys. Students’ grades were 9–12 in addi-
tion to the prep class. Monthly household income of students varied
from less than $500–$2500 or more (Mdnincome = $1000 to less
than $1500). 72.6% of the participants (162) were boarder students
(reside in the dormitory) while 27.4% of the participants (61) were
commuter students.
3.2. The relationship between naturalness of school greenness,
perceived restorativeness, and health indicators
Descriptive statistics for naturalness of school greenness,
perceived restorativeness, and health indicators are presented
in Table 1. Bivariate correlations showed a positive, significant
relationship between naturalness of school greenness and three
components of ART, being away (r = .42, p ≤ .001), fascination
(r = .55, p ≤ .001), and compatibility (r = .53, p ≤ .001). However,
coherence did not show a significant association with naturalness
of school greenness. Among the health indicators, only quality of life
showed a significant, albeit weak, correlation with naturalness of
school greenness (r = .18, p ≤ .01). No other variable was correlated
with naturalness of school greenness.
3.3. Naturalness of school greenness and perceived
restorativeness
As seen in Table 2, after controlling for covariates, the multivari-
ate regression analysis revealed naturalness of school greenness
was related to being away (b = .291, 95% CI .203–.379). In regard
to covariates, regression results showed that boys (b = .732, 95% CI
.092–.973) and older students (b = .548, 95% CI .015–1.081) posi-
tively predict being away while boarder students (b = −.707, 95% CI
−1.406 to −.007) predict negatively.
The results showed that naturalness of school greenness was
related to fascination (b = .353, 95% CI .286 to .419). In regard to
covariates, regression results showed that boys (b = .737, 95% CI
.255–1.219) positively predict fascination while boarder students
(b = −.870, 95% CI −1.397 to −.344) predict negatively. The regres-
sion model also revealed that naturalness of school greenness was
related to coherence (b = .090, 95% CI .004–.177). The results also
showed that naturalness of school greenness was related to com-
patibility (b = .350, 95% CI .281–.419).

Table 2
Unstandardized regression coefficients for naturalness of school greenness and perceived restorativeness.

Being away Fascination Coherence Compatibility

b 95% CI b 95% CI b 95% CI b 95% CI

Sex (boys) .73* .11 to 1.43 .74** .27 to 1.24 .51 −1.14 to .11 .14 −.35 to .66
Age .55* .20 to .68 .05 .17 to .68 −.24 −.30 to .14 .21 .01 to .34
Accommodation (boarders) −.71* −1.33 to .12 −.87*** −1.36 to .30 −.20 −.90 to .46 −.45 −.96 to .14
Income level −.17 −.33 to .08 −.12 −.25 to .05 .13 −.07 to .32 −.08 −.22 to .09
Naturalness of school greenness .29*** .20 to .40 .35*** .29 to .43 09* .00 to .17 .35*** .29 to .42
R2 .30*** .43*** .05 .35***

Note: b: Unstandardized Coefficients, CI: Confidence Interval.

*
p ≤ .05.
**
p ≤ .01
***
p ≤ .001.
 A. Akpinar / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 16 (2016) 1–8 5

Table 3
Associations between naturalness of school greenness and perceived restorativeness, stratified by sex, age, and accommodation.

Boys (n = 82) Being away Fascination Coherence Compatibility

b 95% CI b 95% CI b 95% CI b 95% CI

Age .58** .22 to .94 .48*** .22 to .75 −.02 −.46 to .42 −.29 −.59 to .02
Accommodation −.97 −2.17 to .24 −.39 −1.26 to .48 −.20 −1.71 to 1.15 −.05 −1.08 to .97
Income level −.29 −.62 to .04 −.06 −.30 to .18 −.07 −.48 to .33 −.06 −.34 to .22
Naturalness of school greenness .37*** .23 to .51 .46*** .36 to .56 .09 −.08 to .26 .37*** .25 to .49
R2 .41*** .59*** .02 .37***

Girls (n = 141)
Age .32** .02 to .64 .29* .06 to .52 −.11 −.36 to .15 −.10 −.34 to .13
Accommodation −.35 −1.27 to .58 −1.04** −1.71 to .36 −.17 −.91 to .58 −.54 −1.21 to .13
Income level −.35 −.28 to .24 −.10 −.29 to .09 .22 .01 to .43 −.06 −.25 to .13
Naturalness of school greenness −.02 .14 to .38 −.29*** −.38 to .20 .08 −.01 to .18 −.35*** −.43 to −.25
R2 .26*** .32*** .06 .33***

Younger (≤15) (n = 85)

Sex .86 −.19 to 1.91 .83 −.03 to 1.69 −.91* −1.71 to .01 .39 −.46 to 1.26
Accommodation .07 −.94 to 1.07 .55 −1.37 to .28 −.67 −1.43 to .10 −.08 −.91 to .75
Income level −.03 −.29 to .24 −.08 −.30 to .13 .13 −.08 to .33 .08 −.14 to .30
Naturalness of school greenness .32*** .17 to .46 .27*** .15 to .39 .19 .09 to .30 .30*** .22 to .46
R2 .21*** .26*** .12 .30***

Older (≥16) (n = 138)

Sex .73 −.15 to 1.62 .71* .11 to 1.31 −.37 −1.25 to .51 −.09 −.54 to .73
Accommodation −1.38* −2.43 to .33 −1.18** −1.89 to .47 .07 −.97 to 1.11 −.78 −1.53 to .03
Income level −.25 −.57 to .06 −1.27 −.34 to .09 .11 −.21 to .42 −.22 −.44 to .01
Naturalness of school greenness .31*** .19 to .43 .41*** .32 to .49 .03 −.09 to .15 .36*** .27 to .45
R2 .27*** .45*** .01 .37***

Boarder (n = 162)
Sex .60 −.16 to 1.36 .93** −.35 to 1.51 −.54 −1.71 to .01 .29 −.28 to .86
Age −.43** −.69 to .17 −.35*** −.55 to .15 −.04 −1.43 to .10 −.21* −.41 to −.01
Income level −.02 −.25 to .21 −.16 −.33 to .02 .20 −.08 to .33 −.09 −.26 to .09
Naturalness of school greenness −.30** −.40 to .10 −.31** −.39 to .09 .07 −.03 to .18 −.31*** −.39 to −.24
R2 .23*** .37*** .04 .32***

Commuter (n = 61)
Sex 1.19 −.26 to 2.64 .39 −.56 to 1.34 −.58 −1.80 to .62 .00 −1.14 to .95
Age −.30 −.90 to −.30 −.39* −.79 to .00 −.18 −.67 to .32 .01 −.47 to .48
Income level −.44 −.89 to .02 −.04 −.26 to .34 −.09 −.47 to .29 −.06 −.42 to .30
Naturalness of school greenness .35*** .15 to .55 .41*** .32 to .49 .14 −.03 to .30 .47*** .31 to .62
R2 .29*** .53*** .09 .41***

Note: b: Unstandardized Coefficients, CI: Confidence Interval.

*
p ≤ .05.
**
p ≤ .01
***
p ≤ .001.

In the stratified analyses (Table 3), positive significant asso-
ciations between naturalness of school greenness and being
away, fascination, and compatibility were found for boys. For
girls, negative significant relationships between naturalness of
school greenness and fascination and compatibility were found.
By age, positive significant associations were found between nat-
uralness of school greenness and being away, fascination, and
compatibility for both younger and older students, however the
relationships were stronger for older students. In regard to accom-
modation, positive significant relationships were found between
naturalness of school greenness and being away, fascination, and
compatibility for commuter students. In contrast, negative signif-
icant associations between naturalness of school greenness and
being away, fascination, and compatibility were found for boarder
students.
3.4. Naturalness of school greenness and health indicators
As seen in Table 4, the multivariate regression analysis revealed
naturalness of school greenness was not associated with any health
indicators. In regard to perceived restorativeness, only coher-
ence was correlated with the levels of stress (b = .262, 95% CI
.082–.461), mental health (b = .370, 95% CI .170–.581), and qual-
ity of life (b = .182, 95% CI .012–.363). In regard to covariates, the
results showed that boys were associated with level of stress
(b = 1.346, 95% CI .478–2.215), mental health (b = 1.124, 95% CI
.148–2.100), and physical health (b = .927, 95% CI .121–1.732). In
addition, younger students were correlated with physical health
(b = −.761, 95% CI −1.432 to −.091). No other significant result was
found.
In the stratified analyses (data not shown), a negative signifi-
cant relationship between naturalness of school greenness and the
level of stress and a significant negative association between being
away and the quality of life were found for girls. In contrast, posi-
tive significant relationships between coherence and compatibility
and the level of mental health for girls. For boys, a positive sig-
nificant association between naturalness of school greenness and
the level of stress was found. A negative significant relationship
between fascination and the level of stress and positive significant
associations between coherence and the levels of stress and mental
health were found for boys. By age, positive significant associations
between fascination and the levels of physical health and quality of
life were found for younger students. On the other hand, positive
significant relationship between coherence and the level of stress
was found for older students. In terms of accommodation, positive
significant relationship between coherence and the levels of stress,
mental health, and quality of life were found for both boarder and
commuter students.
6 A. Akpinar / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 16 (2016) 1–8

Table 4
Unstandardized regression coefficients for naturalness of school greenness and health indicators.

Stress Mental health Physical health Quality of life

b 95% CI b 95% CI b 95% CI b 95% CI

Sex (boys) 1.57*** .69 to 2.49 1.43** .46 to 2.42 1.10** .26 to 1.92 .34 −.49 to 1.17
Age −.39* −.71 to −.07 −.31 −.66 to .05 −.38* −.68 to −.08 −.20 −.50 to .10
Accommodation (boarders) .42 −.54 to 1.38 .12 −.94 to 1.18 −.56 −1.50 to .34 −.60 −1.50 to .30
Income level −.01 −.28 to .26 −.16 −.45 to .14 −.17 −.42 to .08 .02 −.23 to .27
Being away −.06 −.27 to .15 .05 −.19 to .28 .01 −.19 to .21 −.01 −.21 to .20
Fascination −.08 −.40 to .23 −.25 −.60 to .09 −.25 −.54 to .05 .14 −.16 to .43
Coherence .26** .08 to .46 .37*** .17 to .58 .09 −.09 to .26 .18* .01 to .36
Compatibility .12 −.15 to .39 .18 −.12 to .47 .24 −.01 to .49 .07 −.18 to .32
Naturalness of school greenness −.09 −.24 to .06 −.05 −.22 to .12 −.04 −.18 to .10 .07 −.08 to .21
R2 .10** .10** .08* .10**

Note: b: Unstandardized Coefficients, CI: Confidence Interval.

*
p ≤ .05.
**
p ≤ .01
***
p ≤ .001.

4. Discussion nature perceived in the school playground. Therefore, one of the

This study examined the associations between the perceived
restorativeness of high school greenness and students’ perceived
restoration and health. Findings show that the perceived restora-
tiveness (being away, fascination, coherence, and compatibility) is
predicted by the green space present in the high school campus
(H1 is accepted), which is consistent with prior research with chil-
dren (Bagot, 2004; Corraliza et al., 2012; Bagot et al., 2015). On the
other hand, students’ level of stress, mental health, physical health,
and quality of life were not correlated with naturalness of school
greenness (H2 is rejected), which is unexpected when considering
the previous studies with children (Wells and Evans, 2003; Chawla
et al., 2014; Kelz et al., 2015).
In terms of covariates, stratified analyses show that boys’
perceived restoration was positively associated with perceived
restorativeness (i.e. being away, fascination, and compatibility) of
school greenness. Boys also reported better levels of stress, than
girls, which is consistent with previous studies of Bagot (2004) and
Bagot et al. (2015), but different than the other prior studies of Faber
Taylor et al. (2002). In addition, younger students reported better
physical health and quality of life than older students, which is par-
allel with prior studies (Bagot, 2004; Collado and Corraliza, 2012;
Bagot et al., 2015), while older students reported stronger perceived
being away, fascination, and compatibility than younger students,
which is not parallel with previous studies (Bagot, 2004; Collado
and Corraliza, 2012; Bagot et al., 2015). Regarding the boarder stu-
dents, results reveal that being away, fascination, and compatibility
of school greenness are negatively perceived by boarder students,
whereas commuter students perceive more being away, fascina-
tion, and compatibility from school greenness. In terms of health,
findings showed there is no differences between boarder and com-
muter students. Some of the results are expected and parallel with
the previous studies, whereas some are unexpected and different.
Several points that explain the differences between this study and
the previous studies are highlighted.
First of all, although previous studies of children indicated that
view of and access to green space is associated with health (i.e.
physical and psychological) benefits (Grahn, 1996; Wells and Evans,
2003; Chawla et al., 2014; Kelz et al., 2015), some philosophical
approaches have argued the need for engagement with beauty of
green space (Wei Zhang et al., 2014). Studies showed that per-
ceiving the beauty of green space is associated with well-being
(DeNeve and Cooper, 1998; Zhang and Howell, 2011), and those
who perceive the beauty of green space well, reported better
life satisfaction and gratitude (Diessner et al., 2008). In addi-
tion, Collado and Corraliza (2012) points out that the potential
restoration of the school playground depends on the amount of
reasons why high school students’ health was not associated with
school greenness may be due to students’ preferences and per-
ceptions as seen in Table 4 that only one of students’ perceived
restorations (i.e. coherence) correlated with health indicators. It
seems students did not perceive the school greenness positively
for their health. That is why students’ health indicators may not
have correlated with high school greenness. Additionally, Matsuoka
(2010) indicated that not all types of green space are associated
with benefits for students. It seems students’ perception and pre-
ferences for certain type and quality of green space in school could
be related to the likelihood that it provides health benefits for stu-
dents. In future studies, it is worth investigating what features and
characteristics of green space are correlated with student health
most.
Findings also showed that being away, fascination, and com-
patibility, components of ART, of school greenness are negatively
perceived by boarder students. One of the possibilities why boarder
students perceived school greenness negatively could be green
space qualities and features that do not fit their psychological and
physical needs. Studies show that homesickness is common among
students who are away from home, and it causes psychological dis-
tress such as stress, depression, anxiety among them (Van Tilburg
et al., 1996; Stroebe et al., 2002). Therefore, when commuter stu-
dents explored the school greenness to restore their physchological
state, they may have felt the lack of the potential in terms of qual-
ities and features of green space. Alternatively, it may be their
familiarity with the school greenness that makes it less fascinat-
ing than what was reported in previous studies (Corraliza et al.,
2012; Collado and Corraliza, 2012). Another possible explanation
is that due to the size of the school campus, boarder students may
not have felt being away or fascinated when exposed to the school
greenness. Future studies could investigate these speculations.
The findings also suggest high school greenness may be more
restorative (i.e. being away, fascination, and compatibility) and
healthful (i.e. less stress) for boys than girls. This is in line with
Bagot (2004) and Bagot et al. (2015) but different than Faber Taylor
et al. (2002). One of the reasons why this difference was found could
be because boys may have found the school greenness more inter-
esting and restorative than girls. Alternatively, the girls perceived
restoration from school greenness could be related to the features of
the green space other than the landscape. Another possible expla-
nation is that school greenness may fit boys’ psychological and
health needs better than girls. The results also show that older stu-
dents predict stronger being away, fascination, and compatibility,
which is not parallel with previous studies (Bagot, 2004; Collado
and Corraliza, 2012; Bagot et al., 2015). In addition, their perceived
coherence of school greenness was correlated with the level of
 A. Akpinar / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 16 (2016) 1–8
stress, whereas younger students report better physical health and
quality of life than older students. One of the possible explanations
is that school greenness perhaps provides more cognitive elements
for older students who may have sought refuge to being away from
the exam stress since they feel more pressure than younger for the
university entrance exam. It is also possible that older students may
have developed a better preference or capacity for more cognitive
stimuli than the younger student (Bagot, 2004). In line with pre-
vious studies, younger students show better physical health and
quality of life than older students, which may be because younger
students may feel freer, more physically active, and less constrained
than older students when on the school greenness (Bagot, 2004;
Bagot et al., 2015).
To the author’s knowledge, this study is one of the first exam-
inations of perceived restorativeness of high school greenness in
Turkey. Despite contributions made, this research has limitations.
The measure is the questionnaire as well as its components for
perceived restorativeness was derived from adult work. Therefore,
perception of the children/adolescents could be different so that it
may have affected the students score. It might also be reported as
the absence or weakness not to have the extent factor in the mea-
sure since extent was used previous studies (Bagot, 2004; Corraliza
et al., 2012; Collado and Corraliza, 2012). Another limitation is that
students’ spending time was not measured, however previous stud-
ies showed exposure time affects children restoration and health
(Grahn, 1996; Faber Taylor et al., 2002; Wells and Evans, 2003;
Roe and Aspinall, 2011b). Therefore, this needs to be considered
in future research. Another limitation is that although measure-
ment of health indicators were used in previous studies (Peschardt
and Stigsdotter, 2013), the construct validity of health variables is
threatened by mono operation bias (because they are measured
by just one item.) Therefore, more objective measurement could
be considered in future studies. Lastly, and most importantly, this
study examines perceived rather than actual restoration. What stu-
dents reported to be restorative and what actually is restorative
needs to be explored. As this research was cross-sectional, it can-
not be concluded that green space leads to better mental, physical
health and quality of life, only that there is a cross-sectional, asso-
ciative relationship.
5. Conclusion
High school greenness could be an effective resource in con-
tributing to students’ health and perceived restoration. However,
students’ perception and preferences for certain qualities and fea-
tures of green space in schools should be examined and provided.
In this respect, landscape in the school campuses should not be
considered ‘just green’ or an ‘esthetic amenity’, rather it should
be regarded as important as the school buildings themselves for
students’ health and perceived restoration. Collaboration between
education and health professionals with landscape architects is also
important to contribute to healthy living conditions for students in
schools campuses.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the principal, Selma Ural,
and teachers of Aydın Social Sciences High School for giving the
permission and helping to collect the data. I would particularly
like to thank all of the students who participated in the study.
References
Bagot, K.L., 2004. Perceived restorative components: a scale for children. Children
Youth Environ. 14 (1), 120–140.
7
Bagot, K.L., Louise Allen, F.C., Toukhsati, S., 2015. Perceived restorativeness of
children’s school playground environments: nature, playground features and
play period experiences. J. Environ. Psychol. 41, 1–9.
Berman, M.G., Jonides, J., Kaplan, S., 2008. The cognitive benefits of interacting
with nature. Psychol. Sci. 19 (12), 1207–1212.
Chawla, L., Keena, K., Pevec, I., Stanley, E., 2014. Green schoolyards as havens from
stress and resources for resilience in childhood and adolescence. Health Place
28, 1–13.
Collado, S., Corraliza, J.A., 2012. Perceived restoration and environmental
orientation in a sample of Spanish children. Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci. 38,
264–274.
Collishaw, S., Maughan, B., Natarajan, L., Pickles, A., 2010. Trends in adolescent
mental problems in England. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 51 (8), 885–894.
Corraliza, J.A., Collado, S., Bethelmy, L., 2012. Children’s perceived restoration:
adaptation of the PRCS for children to a Spanish sample. Psyecology 3 (2),
195–204.
de Vries, S., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., Preeuwenberg, P.S., 2003. Natural
environments – healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the
relationship between greenspace and health. Environ. Plan. A 35 (10),
1717–1731.
DeNeve, K.M., Cooper, H., 1998. The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137
personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychol. Bull. 124, 197.
Diessner, R., et al., 2008. Engagement with beauty: appreciating natural, artistic,
and moral beauty. J. Psychol. 142, 303–332.
Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2002. Views of nature and self-discipline:
evidence from inner city children. J. Environ. Psychol. 22, 49–63.
Francis, J., Wood, L.J., Knuiman, M., Giles-Corti, B., 2012. Quality or quantity?
Exploring the relationship between Public Open Space attributes and mental
health in Perth, Western Australia. Soc. Sci. Med. 74, 1570–1577.
Grahn, P., 1996. Wild nature makes children healthy. Swed. Build. Res. 4, 16–18.
Grahn, P., Stigsdotter, U.A., 2003. Landscape planning and stress. Urban For. Urban
Green. 2, 1–18.
Hartig, T., 2004. Restorative environments. In: Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology.
Academia, Oxford, pp. 273–279.
Hartig, T., 2011. Issues in restorative environments research: matters of
measurement. In: Psicologia ambiental 2011: Entre los estudios urbanos y el
analisis de la sostenibilidad. Universidad De Almeria, Almeria, pp. 41–66.
Hartig, T., Kaiser, F.G., Bowler, P.A., 1997. Further Development of a Measure of
Perceived Environmental Restorativeness. Arbetsrapport/Working Paper., pp.
1–19.
Hartig, T., Mang, M., Evans, G.W., 1991. Restorative effects of natural environment
experiences. Environ. Behav. 23 (1), 03–26.
Hartig, T., Staats, H., 2006. The need for psychological restoration as a determinant
of environmental preferences. J. Environ. Psychol. 26, 215–226.
Herzog, T.R., Colleen, M.C.P., Nebel, M.B., 2003. Assessing the restorative
components of environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 23 (2), 159–170.
Herzog, T.R., Strevey, S.J., 2008. Contact with nature, sense of humor, and
psychological well-being. Environ. Behav. 40 (6), 747–776.
Heschong, L., 2003. Windows and Classrooms: A Study of Student Performance and
the Indoor Environment. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA.
Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005. Survey of Teens in the Greater Washington, DC
Area. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Menlo Park, CA.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective.
Cambridge University Press, New York.
Kaplan, S., 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative
framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 15, 169–182.
Kelz, C., Evans, G.W., Röderer, K., 2015. The restorative effects of redesigning the
schoolyard: a multi-methodological, quasi-experimental study in rural
Austrian middle schools. Environ. Behav. 47 (2), 119–139.
Korpela, K.M., Ylen, M., Tyrvainen, L., Silvennoinen, H., 2008. Determinants of
restorative experiences in everyday favorite places. Health Place 14,
636–652.
Lafortezza, R., Carrus, G., Sanesi, G., Davies, C., 2009. Benefits and well-being
perceived by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress. Urban For.
Urban Green. 8, 97–108.
Laumann, K., Garling, T., Stormark, K.M., 2001. Rating scale measures of restorative
components of environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 21, 31–44.
Laumann, K., Garling, T., Stormark, K.M., 2003. Selective attention and heart rate
responses to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol.,
125–134.
Marin, P., Brown, B., 2008. The school environment and adolescent well-being:
beyond academics. JAMA 295 (13), 1549–1555.
Matsuoka, R.H., 2010. Student performance and high school landscapes:
examining the links. Landsc. Urban Plan. 97, 273–282.
McFarland, A.L., Waliczek, T.M., Zajicek, J.M., 2008. The relationship between
student use of campus green spaces and perceptions of quality of life.
HortTechnology 18 (2), 232–238.
McNamara, S., 2000. Stress in Young People. Continuum, London.
Mitchell, R., Popham, F., 2008. Effect of exposure to natural environment on health
inequalities: an observational population study. Lancet 372, 1655–1660.
Morita, E., et al., 2007. Psychological effects of forest environments on healthy
adults: Shinrin-yoku (forest-air bathing, walking) as a possible method of
stress reduction. J. R. Inst. Public Health 121, 54–63.
Murphy, M., Fonagy, P., 2012. Mental health problems in children and young
people. In: Lemer, C. (Ed.), Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2012, Our
Children Deserve Better: Prevention Pays. Department of Health, pp. 1–13.
8 A. Akpinar / Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 16 (2016) 1–8
Nielsen, T.S., Hansen, K.B., 2007. Do green areas affect health? Results from a
Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health Place 13,
839–850.
Özbaş, A.A., Sayın, A., Coşar, B., 2012. Investigation of the relationship between
examination anxiety and early maladaptive schemas of students who are
areparing for university examination. Bilişsel Davranışçı Psikoterapi ve
Araştırmalar Dergisi 1, 81–89.
Park, B.-J., et al., 2010. The physiological effects of Shinrin-yoku (taking in the
forest atmosphere or forest bathing): evidence from field experiments in 24
forests across Japan. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 15, 18–26.
Peschardt, K.K., Stigsdotter, U.K., 2013. Associations between park characteristics
and perceived restorativeness of small public urban green spaces. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 112, 26–39.
Roe, J., Aspinall, P., 2011a. The restorative benefits of walking in urban and rural
settings in adults with good and poor mental health. Health Place 17, 103–113.
Roe, J., Aspinall, P., 2011b. The restorative outcomes of forest school and
conventional school in young people with good and poor behaviour. Urban For.
Urban Green. 10, 205–212.
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., 1979. Fifteen Thousand Hours:
Secondary Schools and Their Effects on Children. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Smith, G., Sobel, D., 2010. Place and Community-based Education in Schools.
Routledge, New York.
Sonay, N., 2012. Üniversite sınavları gençlerin kabusu (University Exams are Youth
Nightmare), Available at: http://egitim.bugun.com.tr/gencin-kabusu-
universite-sinavlari-192222-haberi.aspx.
SPSS Inc. (Released 2009). PASW Statistics for Windows, Version 18.0. SPSS Inc.,
Chicago.
Stroebe, M., van Vliet, T., Hewstone, M., Willis, H., 2002. Homesickness among
students in two cultures: Antecedents and consequences. Br. J. Psychol. 93,
147–168.
Stuart, H., 2006. Psychosocial risk clustering in high school students. Soc.
Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 41, 498–507.
Student Selection and Placement Center, 2014. 2014-ÖSYS Yerleştirme Sonuçlarına
İlişkin Sayısal Bilgiler. Student Selection and Placement Center, Ankara.
Tennessen, C.M., Cimprich, B., 1995. Views to nature: effects on attention. J.
Environ. Psychol. 15, 77–85.
Twenge, J.M., et al., 2010. Birth cohort increases in psychopathology among young
Americans, 1938–2007: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of the MMPI. Clin.
Psychol. Rev. 30, 145–154.
Ulrich, R.S., 1983. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In:
Altman, I., Wohlwill, J. (Eds.), Human Behavior and Environment, Vol. 6:
Behavior and Natural Environment. Plenum, New York, pp. 85–125.
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. J. Environ.
Psychol. 11, 201–230.
van den Berg, A.E.J., Maas, J., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., 2010. Green space as
a buffer between stressful life events and health. Soc. Sci. Med. 70, 1203–1210.
van Dillen, S.M.E., de Vries, S., Groenewegen, P.P., Spreeuwenberg, P., 2011.
Greenspace in urban neighbourhoods and residents’ health: adding quality to
quantity. J. Epidemiol. Community Health, 1–5.
Van Tilburg, M.A.L., Vingerhoets, A.J.J.M., Van Heck, G.L., 1996. Homesickness: a
review of the literature. Psychol. Med. 26, 899–912.
Ward Thompson, C., et al., 2012. More green space is linked to less stress in
deprived communities: evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 105, 221–229.
Wei Zhang, J., Howell, R.T., Iyer, R., 2014. Engagement with natural beauty
moderates the positive relation between connectedness with nature and
psychological well-being. J. Environ. Psychol. 38, 55–63.
Wells, N.M., Evans, G.W., 2003. Nearby nature: a buffer of life stress among rural
children. Environ. Behav. 35 (3), 311–330.
Wells, N.M., Rollings, K., 2012. The natural environment in residential settings:
influences on human health and function. In: The Oxford Handbook of
Environmental and Conservation Psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 509–523.
Williams, D., Dixon, P., 2013. Impact of garden-based learning on academic
outcomes in schools: synthesis of research between 1990 and 2010. Rev. Educ.
Res. 83 (2), 211–235.
Zhang, J.W., Howell, R.T., 2011. Do time perspectives predict unique variance in life
satisfaction beyond personality traits? Pers. Individ. Differ. 50, 1261–1266.