Environment and Behavior http://eab.sagepub.

com/

Some Psycholog Ical Benefits of Gardening

Rachel Kaplan Environment and Behavior 1973 5: 145 DOI: 10.1177/001391657300500202 The online version of this article can be found at: /content/5/2/145

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Environmental Design Research Association

Additional services and information for Environment and Behavior can be found at: Email Alerts: /cgi/alerts Subscriptions: /subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: /content/5/2/145.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jun 1, 1973 What is This?

Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

SOME PSYCHOLOG ICAL BENEFITS OF GARDENING

RACHEL KAPLAN received her Ph.D. from the University of Michigan and has remained there as a Lecturer in Psychology. She teaches courses on research methods in environmental psychology. Together with her husband who is Professor of Psychology in the same department, she is studying environmental cognition, especially with respect to natural environments, dimensions of environmental preference, the role of visual and cognitive factors in effective substitute experiences, and individual differences in environmental satisfaction.

The natural environment plays a central role in the increased participation in leisure activities. While nature provides the context for certain of these activities, it is an essential component of many others. From art, poetry, and folklore, it would appear that the nature experience is a source of important psychological benefits. Though often considered a retreat, an important component in rest and recovery, there is surprisingly little in the empirical literature to support the psychological importance of the experience of nature. The purpose of this study was to examine the benefits people experience in one particular activity where nature is an essential

component-namely, gardening. Gardening has several advantages as a starting point in studying the psychological benefits associated with nature experiences. First, nature is clearly an essential component and not a background which might be ignored by the participants.
AUTHORS NOTE: This work was supported in part by the Institute for Environmental Quality, University of Michigan, and in part by the Forest Service, USDA. I wish to thank Dr. Stanley Cain for suggesting that such a study should be carried out and for his encouragement. John Merrill and Ann Devlin were the interviewers and made important contributions to the development of the questionnaim. Hillorie Applebaum greatly aided in the data collection and analyses.
Environment and

Behavior, vol.

No. 2,

June

1973, @1973 Sage Publications,

Inc.

Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

[145]

[146]

Second, it requires

contact and thus represents a chance or casual experience with the outdoor environment. Finally, it is a close-at-hand form of leisure activity. This tends both to decrease its &dquo;image&dquo; value and to increase its potential role in an individuals psychological economy by its very accessibility and frequency of contact. While casual observation indicates that gardening is an activity appealing to a wide variety of people, there are many unanswered questions as to the character of this appeal. A central issue here is the extent to which the rewards of gardening are unitary. Is there a core, an essence to the gardening experience that touches all who participate? Or is there a variety of different benefits to be obtained within the same context? If the latter is the case, then it would be reasonable to expect to find different people involved for different reasons, and even the same person might benefit differently at different times in his life. There are intuitive grounds for expecting at least two distinct benefits from the gardening experience. One theme running through the anecdotal reports of the value of gardening and of the value of nature experiences in general is that of fascination. People describe themselves as fascinated by growing things, fascinated by wild animals, and so on. Such feelings evoke memories of William James (1892) descriptions of &dquo;involuntary attention.&dquo; While voluntary attention requires effort and is difficult to sustain, involuntary attention is effortless. If nature in general and gardening in particular can lead to involuntary attention, this has several obvious benefits. First, it provides a rest from the effort otherwise required for attention. Second, since attention by definition excludes competing thoughts, a rest is provided from whatever worries or cares of the day might otherwise be uppermost in a persons mind. This hypothesized benefit, centering on facination, is clearly distinct from the more prosaic but still powerful benefit of harvesting ones own food, of participating in a basic survival process. In addition to studying the pattern of psychological benefits associated with a garden experience, this study was concerned
a

continuing
a

commitment rather than

Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

[147]

with the variables that predict these benefits. It was anticipated that demographic and attitudinal variables might interact with the kind of gardening (e.g., organic versus chemical; flower versus vegetable; group versus individual) in this prediction. The attitudinal variables studied all concerned patterns of preference for different sorts of environmental circumstances.

THE SAMPLES

The data reported here are based on two major groups of subjects: community gardeners and home gardeners. In addition, a third group, the plot gardeners, is included in some of the comparisons, but because they constitute a small sample, their data cannot be analyzed as extensively.
COMMUNITY GARDENERS

The present study capitalized on an unusual opportunity presented in the spring of 1971 when the University of
the Institute for Environmental Quality, donated land for use as a community, nonchemical garden. The intention was to grow a variety of plants, to demonstrate gardening methods, and to have the project involve the community. It was a shoestring operation with a great deal of contributed time, tools, and materials. As it developed, it became clear that the steady comers were very much a community. Anyone was welcome to participate, and jobs that needed to be done were posted. During August, two interviewers went to the community garden on an almost daily basis, at different times of day. They asked each person they encountered working at the garden to fill out the questionnaire. They found that a nucleus of people were there quite often, but that the total number of participants was not many. It should be mentioned that in the three months before the interviewing began, the garden required a wide range of skills and interests and the director of the project

Michigan, through
some

Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

[148]

informed us that some of the people most involved in the early phases did not return later to see the fruits of their efforts. In all, then, 29 community garden participants completed the questionnaire; of these, 16 were women and 13 were men. The sample was young, with about one-fourth under 20 years of age. The rest were in their 20s. Of the women, one-fourth were married; of the men, 38%. These married respondents comprised half the 20-30 age group. About one-third of the respondents were primarily students
and another third considered the student role as a secondary one (in the summer, anyway). One-third of the community gardeners held jobs. Only two of the women and nine of the men indicated that they worked at least 40 hours per week. Almost half the women and the three men who were full-time students held no jobs at all. The men were generally further along in their education; most were college graduates, and six were currently in graduate school. The womens educational background was far more mixed: four were still in high school; five had not completed college (some were still students); seven finished college, and, of these, three were in graduate school. As a whole then, the community garden sample consisted of young people, with the men more likely to hold a job. The women were somewhat younger, and many more did not depend on work to support themselves. The group as a whole is a student generation; their student or job role in the summer may not be indicative of their major role the rest of the year.
HOME GARDENERS

It was clear that the attraction of the community garden was both social and gardening-related. To obtain a sample of gardeners for whom the gardening activity was less social, we solicited gardeners through an article in the local newspaper. It began: &dquo;Wanted: home gardeners whod like to participate in a survey&dquo; and indicated the kinds of questions that would be asked. The article appeared in mid-August, and everyone who responded to it was interviewed. Clearly, soliciting for a group

Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

[149]

in this way does not assure a random sample. The self-selection process at the community garden also cannot assure randomness. In both instances, however, all who were interested were interviewed, thus avoiding any systematic selection bias beyond that inherent in working with volunteers. Of the 50 home gardeners, 16 were men. All held full-time jobs; all but 3 were married. Their ages ranged from the 20s to the 60s, with some in each of these five decades. Nine of the men had completed college and all but 1 of these completed a graduate degree. Of the remaining group, all but 2 had some

college education.
Of the 34 women, about 80% indicated that they were houswives, with 65% considering themselves as primarily in that role. Of the 29 married respondents, 25 had one or more children (with a range of 1-6, and mean of 2.5). Only 4 of the women held a job as their primary role; 2 of these had no children. Five of the women were primarily students, either in college or in graduate school. Three of the women were widows, 5 were single (all but 1 of these were students), and the rest were married. The modal age was 20-30 (n 12), but all other decades from teens to 70s were represented with 2 or more respondents. As with the men, almost all the women had education beyond high school, with 10 going beyond a college
=

degree, 10 completing college,

education. On the whole, the home

and

11

had

some

college

gardeners included a much wider age spectrum, although over a third of them overlapped with the community group in age. Very few of the home gardeners were students; the men without exception were full-time wage earners. The vast majority of the women were housewives and
mothers.
PLOT GARDENERS

community gardeners, the plot gardeners grew their plants at one specific location, away from their homes. However, rather than having the land used as whole with everyone
Like the

Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

[150]

participating in the total project, the plot gardeners each had a separate parcel of land to use as they wished. In that sense, the gardening was more similar to the home garden situation. The piece of land the plot gardeners shared was relatively near a lower-income area. The intention of the originators of the project was to bring together these people as well as a group of university faculty families, with the hope that the social contact
would benefit both groups. (As it turned out, the sense of working with others was not nearly as strong for the plot gardeners as it was for the community gardeners. It was not a situation that required a great deal of cooperation or mutual

dependence.) The project was informally handled and loosely organized. Because of this, it was difficult to obtain names of participants and only 17 people were contacted. These included 6 men who, like the home gardeners, were married, full-time wage earners. The 11 women included 8 who were primarily housewives and 3 who indicated a job as their primary role. All but 1 of the women (a divorcee) were married, and all but 2 had children, averaging 2.3 per family. The majority of the women (74%) were in their 20s with the remaining in their 30s. All but 1 of
the men were in their 30s. The group was thus less varied in age than the home gardeners and somewhat older than the community group. It was also a distinctly more urban group. About 80% were from urban/suburban backgrounds, as opposed to about 55% and 60% among the community and home groups. In educational background, the group was highly comparable to the home gardeners; two-thirds of the men held postgraduate degrees and half the women had finished college or gone beyond a college degree. As was already mentioned, most of the analyses presented here do not include the plot gardeners. This is primarily due to the size of the group, but also to some extraneous conditions that made their gardening experience less satisfying. The time of the interviews, August, was during a serious drought that made gardening anywhere less than optimal. Unlike the community and home gardeners, however, the plot gardeners had no ready

Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

[151]

supply. This, of course, meant a poor yield of vegetables-a primary interest of the group-and not much by
access

to a water

way of flowers either.

METHOD

The interviews/questionnaires were completed either at the community garden, in the respondents home, or in an office at the university, depending on what was most convenient for the respondent. Generally speaking, the respondent completed the material himself, but was free to stop and discuss questions with
the interviewer. The questionnaire indicated our interest in learning &dquo;about the benefits that people get from gardening, farming, and other outdoor activities.&dquo; While the questions asked the community and home gardeners were partly different, the common portions included the following:

Garden benefits: Using a 5-point scale, S was to indicate &dquo;How satisfying do you find your gardening.&dquo; In addition, 14 other aspects of gardening were listed, and S was to indicate, on a 5-point scale, how much he liked each of these. All but one item, &dquo;enjoy physical labor,&dquo; appear in Table 1. Environmental Preference Questionnaire (EPQ): This is a 2-page (60-item) inventory dealing with preferences, sources of satisfaction, and style issues pertaining to various environmental settings that we have been developing in the last few years. Its focus is not so much on past experience as on current outlook. The EPQ has 6 questions, each involving a relatively short stem or question followed by a series of very brief items (e.g., &dquo;Things I like&dquo; includes such items as &dquo;setting sun&dquo; and &dquo;lakes, rivers&dquo;; &dquo;How important do you consider each of the following major issues&dquo; includes &dquo;environmental decline&dquo; and &dquo;law and order&dquo;). In all cases, S indicates his response on a 6-point scale.

Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

[152]

Background variables: The Ss were asked to indicate their experience living in different places (farming, rural, village, suburban, urban areas); their gardening background; their current role as student, mother, job or volunteer activities (indicating all that are pertinent and the one that is primary); age (in decades); sex; marital status; and education. The home gardeners were also asked &dquo;What kind of garden do you have-vegetables, flower, rock; organic, organic whenever possible, chemically fertilized.&dquo; They also indicated how many years they had gardened.
directly pertinent
DATA ANALYSIS

The interviews also included other areas which were not to this study and are thus not described here.

Based on the responses of all 96 completed interviews, scales constructed using both the Guttman-Lingoes Smallest Space Analysis IIII program (Lingoes, 1967, 1966) and the ICLUST hierarchical cluster analysis program developed by Kulik et al. (1970). The advantages of these programs and the logic of nonmetric factor analytic procedures are discussed by R. Kaplan (1972). By this procedure, 3 garden benefit and a garden background scale were identified and each Ss scale scores were computed. In addition, the EPQ is scored for 7
were
2 scales.2

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

GARDEN BENEFITS

simple question, &dquo;How satisfying do you find your gardening,&dquo; was quite effective in distinguishing the gardening experience of the three groups. The home gardeners, with a mean of 4.65, were higher than the community gardeners, with a mean of 4.21 (t 2.24, df 56, p < .05), and the overall difference among the three groups (F 4.60, df 2.69, p <
= = = =

The

Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

[153]

strongly affected by the low 3.86 mean of the plot gardeners. These results do not come as a major surprise; they support ones intuition that gardening ones own place, conveniently located, and when it is ones own responsibility, leads to greatest satisfaction. The large difference between the community and plot gardeners may well be due to the extenuating circumstances-such as lack of water-of the plot garden project. The results of the nonmetric factor analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis led to the three scales dealing with garden benefits (see Table 1). The Primary Garden Experiences and the
.025)
was

Sustained Interest Scale are not as different from each other as they are from the Tangible Outcomes scale. (Based on the entire sample of 96, these two benefits correlate .53, while their correlation with the Tangible Outcomes scale is .20 and .17, respectively.) Table 1 also includes the mean intercorrelation for the items within a scale and the alpha internal consistency
coefficient.
TABLE 1

GARDEN BENEFIT SCALES

Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

[154]
TABLE 2

GARDEN BENEFITS FOR EACH GROUP

On both the Primary Garden Experiences and the Tangible Outcomes scales, the home and community gardeners showed no difference (see Table 2). With respect to the Sustained Interest benefits, however, the home gardeners felt they derived more satisfaction from their gardening experience (t 2.33, df < The had the mean score .02). 77, p plot gardeners highest on the Tangible Outcomes scale of any of the three groups, and lowest on the other two scales. These results are certainly in agreement with the findings based on the single &dquo;satisfaction&dquo; item. While one cannot know what qualities enter into the general and vague &dquo;satisfaction&dquo; rating, it would seem likely that the so-called Sustained Interest benefits are important
= =

components.
BACKGROUND VARIABLES

To determine whether gardening benefits are a function of various demographic and role variables, a series of analyses was undertaken separately for the community and home gardeners. For both groups, sex, age, educational level, and prior gardening experiences were immaterial in predicting the answers to the benefits questions. Among the community gardeners, those who indicated some rural experience in their background (n 11 ), scored higher on Sustained Interest than did the rest of that 2.44, df 27, p < .02). Among the women home group (t gardeners, those indicating that they were primarily housewives (n 22) derived vastly more Primary Garden Benefits from their gardening than did the other women in the group (t
= =

3.14, df = 32, p <

.004).
Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

[155]
GARDENING EXPERIENCE AND KIND OF GARDEN

The majority of the home gardeners (58%) had gardened for many years (9 or more). This was of course characteristic of the older members of the group, but even among those under 40 about one-third had gardened for that long. The gardening patterns of the 3 subgroups formed by looking at age and years of gardening show some interesting trends. The group composed of home gardeners under 40 who have gardened no longer than 4 years (n = 12)-the younger, less-experienced group-indicated a strong preference for organic gardening. All but 2 of these respondents (83%) checked that their garden was organic, and those 2 indicated &dquo;organic whenever possible.&dquo; By contrast, those in the 40s or older who have gardened 9 or more years (n 20)-the older, more3 members (15%) who experienced group-included only preferred organic gardening, with a majority checking &dquo;organic whenever possible.&dquo; The group of 8 younger, more-experienced gardeners fell in between, with 38% organic gardeners. Onefourth of the respondents with the longest gardening experience, regardless of age, indicated their gardens were chemically fertilized. Although there is ambiguity in what constitutes a &dquo;chemical&dquo; or an &dquo;organic&dquo; garden and what people who check &dquo;organic whenever possible&dquo; in fact do, these findings are nonetheless both reasonable and enlightening. Organic gardening is not new on the scene, but the popular awareness of it is. That the younger people who are only beginning to garden would opt for this alternative is not surprising. In fact, many probably were moved to start gardening because of the increased awareness of nonchemical gardening. Nor is it surprising that people who have extensive gardening experience would be more likely to stay with the methods they grew up with. The fact that so many of the older group checked &dquo;organic whenever possible&dquo; may reflect a gradual shift in their gardening style. It should be noted that, while the style of gardening was different for these groups, whether a gardener prefers chemical or organic methods did not relate to his satisfaction with the experience or the benefits he derived.
=

Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

[156]

The interest in growing flowers and vegetables also characterized the 3 groups differing in age and length of gardening experience. While the majority (64%) of the home gardeners
grew both flowers and vegetables, flowers were grown by all but 1 of the older, more-experienced group, and vegetables were grown by all the younger, less-experienced gardeners. By contrast, only 58% of the older, more-experienced group were vegetable growers and 65% of the younger, less-experienced group had flower gardens. The younger, more-experienced gardeners again fell in between the other two groups with 75% growing vegetables and 88% growing flowers. Neither age nor gardening experience per se were important in predicting the benefits derived from gardening. However, the interest in vegetables and flowers did have a bearing on the satisfaction derived. As a group, the home gardeners who grew vegetables scored much higher on Tangible Outcomes than did the remaining 20% of the group (t 5.19, df 48, p < .001). That vegetable growers should care about such practical consequences is certainly expected. The flower growers, by contrast, derived significantly greater Sustained Interest benefits than did the gardeners who grew no flowers (t 3.84, df 48, p < .001). This would suggest that the psychological benefits that can accrue from gardening are closely related to the kinds of plants one grows. While flowers and vegetables both require care and patience, both provide an opportunity for accomplishment and for diversion, the net effect on the gardener is quite different in the two instances.
= = =
=

ENVIRONMENTAL PREFERENCE AND GARDENING BENEFITS

The EPQ &dquo;Nature&dquo; scale deals with the preference of woodland areas, wilderness, campfires, lakes, and waterfalls. People with a high score on this scale would also enjoy strolling through the woods, beachcombing, and collecting acorns. These would thus be people who derive a great deal of satisfaction from the enjoyment of nature and seek natural settings whenever possible. Many of the encounters with nature in-

Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

[157]
are less immediately available than the but one would nonetheless expect that garden backyard, for whom is an Nature people important dimension, would-if they are gardeners-derive greater satisfaction from that encounter with nature as well. This was, in fact, the case. For both the community gardeners and the home gardeners, those scoring above the mean on the EPQ Nature scale derived greater Sustained Interest benefits from gardening (t 2.35, df 27, p < .03; t 2.17, df 48, p < .04, respectively). For the home the gardeners, relationship between the EPQ Nature scale and the Primary Gardening Experiences was even more striking (t 3.94, df 48, p < .0003). Clearly the enjoyment of nature predicts gardening benefits. While the experience with the woods, rivers, and campfires might seem to produce a different sort of satisfaction, the contact with nature in the garden is not unrelated. Among the community gardeners, two other EPQ scales were important in differentiating Sustained Interest benefits. The community gardeners scoring higher (above the mean) on the Social scale expressed greater satisfaction with these gardening benefits (t 3.53, df 27, p < .002). These are people who enjoy conversation, being with people, parties, and such social occasions. One would, of course, not expect this finding for the home gardeners, where the gardening experience is far less social. That the community gardening experience is more satisfying (in the sense of the Sustained Interest, at least) for those who find more satisfaction in contact with people is certainly reasonable. (The Social scale did not show this relationship for the plot gardeners. It is not clear from any of the findings obtained that the responsibility felt by the plot garden participants was a strongly social one.) The other EPQ scale relating to Sustained Interest benefits deals with both a preference for modern housing development and industrial areas and the feeling that population and environmental decline are relatively unimportant issues. It is, as one would predict, those who are more concerned about these issues and have less affinity for modern housing who derive

cluded in this dimension

in the

Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

[158]

greater Sustained Interest benefits from gardening (t

=

2.95, df

.006). To a lesser degree, the same was true for the 27, home gardeners. The Tangible Outcomes benefits related to two other of the EPQ scales. Among the com mun ity gardeners, those who tend to spend their time in such passive activities as eating, sleeping, and going to the movies when they feel harried and under pressure also care more about the practical side of gardening (t= 1.97, df 27, p < .06). For the home gardeners, those less interested in the urban life were more likely to express an interest in the Tangible Outcomes (t 2.01, df 48, p < .05). One would hardly choose to spend ones life in the city if growing ones own vegetables was of paramount importance.
p <
= = =

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Three categories of psychological benefits that arise from the gardening experience were identified in this study. The separate status of the Tangible Outcomes benefit is intuitively obvious and hardly requires further discussion. The Primary Gardening

Experiences appear to be most salient among the women home gardeners and among home gardeners who find the greatest satisfaction from Nature settings. It would require further research in this area to explain these findings, but in both instances it could be argued that the gardening experience itself serves as an important activity in the absence of complementary
of satisfaction. For these women, the home is the and gardening may provide a rewarding change from the other demands placed on the housewife. In the absence of waterfalls and beaches nearby, the garden may be particularly satisfying to those most content in the natural environment. The Sustained Interest scale reflects the idea of gardening as a source of fascination. It is interesting to note, however, that among the items that comprise this scale there is only a single reference to gardening. This scale may in fact be tapping the
sources

primary focus,

Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

[159]

aspect of fascination that

seems so essential to any activity found restful and diverting. The relatively high (r = .53) correlation with Primary Garden Experiences in this study may simply reflect the fact that gardening was the focus of the study and the subjects were gardeners; to some degree, they all found fascination in gardening. The fascination interpretation for the Sustained Interest scale is supported by the finding that flower growers score so much higher on this scale. Flowers are, after all, necessarily grown for their fascination as opposed to their practical value. The fact that the home gardeners as a group scored higher on Sustained I nterest and that the flower growers, who were generally the older and more experienced gardeners, scored higher on this scale than did the other home gardeners suggests the possibility of a developmental variable. It would seem that people tend to begin gardening by growing vegetables and the Tangible benefits are essential to that phase of gardening. The more experienced gardeners tend more to flowers. Thus, fascination may have to be discovered; a novice gardener may not yet realize how he will react to the gardening process. Further, fascination may require a certain level of competence which, like self-knowledge, takes time to acquire. Quite apart from the pattern of relationships supporting the separation of the three benefits, there were two variables that predicted the Sustained I nterest benefit for both groups of gardeners. This result suggests a degree of universality in the gardening experience despite widely differing backgrounds and gardening patterns. Both of these predictors are Environmental Preference Questionnaire scales, and both reflect attitudes that are central to the current upsurge of environmental concern. That the Nature scale predicts the Sustained I nterest so strongly, supports the idea that gardening plays a role in peoples lives not unlike that played by more dramatic, more distant, and less frequent encounters with nature. The negative relationship between this benefit and the &dquo;Modern Housing Develoment&dquo; scale, while not as strong for the home group, suggests that people no longer enamored by progress and technological growth find gardening particularly satisfying.
Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

[160]

It is in retrospect hardly surprising that gardening emerges as powerful source of fascination. It appears to possess a great many properties that would tend to enhance fascination. First, it calls on the basic informational processes that humans do so well and presumably care so deeply about. It not only permits, but actually invites recognition, prediction, control, and evaluation (S. Kaplan, 1972). It does this by both providing knowledge and requiring it. It is a setting that allows of order, but that order is deeply embedded in uncertainty and change. Thus, it challenges the human information-processing capability, and to the extent that the challenge is met, both reward and more challenge are forthcoming. Second, it is a naturebased activity, and nature per se has been shown to be the object of preference to a striking degree (Kaplan et al., 1972). What the factor or factors are in nature that have this effect is not yet understood, but that it has such an effect seems clear. Finally, both of these virtues, the informational and the natural, are in the garden setting concentrated and intensified. The garden is a miniature, a slice of nature compressed in space and a pattern of information compressed in time. Rarely is so broad a spectrum of nature and natural processes found in so little area. Rarely are so much nature-based action and so full a view of the life cycle so vividly visible and so rapidly completed. There are many signs of an increased interest in the benefits offered by gardening. Window boxes appear on apartment complex balconies, communities explore ways of providing garden opportunities for the citizen, and a &dquo;return to the land&dquo; movement gathers momentum. The strength of this interest was clearly evident in the participants in this study. In striking contrast to the typical college sophomore participating in research, they were notably positive, and vocally so, about their participation in this study. They were delighted and surpised that someone cared about their experiences and that they could be helpful in some way. Clearly, here is one of the many untapped resources in the community. Given an eager population to draw from and inumerable unanswered questions yet to explore, it would seem that further studies in this area would be both feasible and enlightening.
a
Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

[161]

NOTES
1. The empirical literature on the psychological benefits of nature experiences has focused primarily on wilderness settings (e.g., Hendee et al., 1968; Catton, 1969). As such, the samples studied have represented the "wildernist" end of the outdoor recreation continuum. Driver and Tocher (1970) consider the general class of outdoor recreation experiences in terms of traditional concepts of motivation concepts. The literature on user characteristics and perceptions is far more extensive and deals with a greater variety of outdoor settings, but with little emphasis on the benefits received. 2. We have been developing the Environmental Preference Questionnaire out of a concern for a scale that would take substantially less subject time and cover a wider range of environments than McKechnies (1970) Environmental Response Inventory. In its present form, the EPQ subscales deal with the following areas of preference: Nature, Suburbs, City, Modern Housing Development, Social Settings, Passive Stress Release, and Romantic Escape from the Urban/Suburban Scene. Thus far, extensive validation procedures have not been undertaken; the instrument has been completed by several hundred people, and the multivariate procedures already cited have been used in scale development.

REFERENCES CATTON, W. R., Jr. (1969) "Motivations of wilderness users." Pulp and Paper Magazine of Canada. (December 19): 121-126. DRIVER, B. L. and S. R. TOCHER (1970) "Toward a behavioral interpretation of recreational engagements, with implications for planning," in B. L. Driver (ed.) Elements of Outdoor Recreation Planning. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University
Microfilms.
W. R. CATTON, Jr., L. D. MARLOW, and C. F. BROCKMAN (1968) "Wilderness users in the Pacific Northwest&mdash;their characteristics, values, and management preferences." USDA Forest Service Research Paper PNW-61. JAMES, W. (1892) Psychology: The Briefer Course. KAPLAN, R. (1972) "The dimensions of the visual environment: methodological considerations," in W. J. Mitchell (ed.) Environmental Design: Research and

HENDEE, J. C.,

Proceedings of the Environmental Design Research Association ConferThree, Los Angeles. KAPLAN, S. (1972) "The challenge of environmental psychology: a proposal for a new functionalism." Amer. Psychologist 27: 140-143. &mdash;&mdash;&mdash; R. KAPLAN and J. S. WENDT (1972) Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics 12: 354-356. KULIK, J. L., W. R. REVELLE and C-L.C. KULIK (1970) "Scale construction by hierarchical cluster analysis." University of Michigan (unpublished) LINGOES, J. L. (1967) "Non-metric factor analysis: a rank-reducing alternative to linear factor analysis." Multivariate Behavioral Research 2: 485-505.
ence
Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013

Practice.

[162]
(1966) "An IBM-7090 program for Guttman-Lingoes Smallest Space AnalysisIII." Behavioral Sci. 11: 75-76. McKECHNIE, G. (1970) "Measuring environmental disposition with the Environmental Response Inventory," in J. Archea and C. Eastman (eds.) Proceedings of the Second Annual Environmental Design Research Association Conference.
&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;

Downloaded from pdf.highwire.org by guest on July 26, 2013