IJERPH, Vol. 16, Pages 1456: Relation between Psychological Restorativeness and Lifestyle, Quality of Life, Resilience, and Stress-Coping in Forest Settings (International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health)

Previous research has mainly dealt with the physiological and psychological restorative effects of the forest environment. However, comparatively few studies have focused on how the traits and attributes of individuals (individual traits) affect the restorative effects of the forest environment. In this study, we examined the relationships between the psychological restorative effects offered by perceived restorativeness of outdoor settings and the individual traits. Then, we investigated the relationships between the restorative indicators that are useful in examining the restorative properties (i.e., the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS); seven indicators in total), the psychological restorative effect (Profile of Mood States (POMS), Restorative Outcome Scale (ROS), positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS), and Subjective Vitality Scale (SVS); 10 indicators in total), and the individual trait indicators that could be used to investigate individual traits (Development of Health and Life Habit Inventory for lifestyle, Lazarus-type Stress Coping Inventory for stress coping, World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment 26 for quality of life (QOL), and Sukemune-Hiew Resilience test for resilience; 28 indicators in total) in forest and urban settings. Respondents consisted of 46 male students in their twenties. A short-term experiment was conducted using the same method in both environmental settings. We then analyzed the intrinsic restorative properties and the restorative effects of the settings and referred to prior research to determine the restorative effects. Furthermore, we analyzed the relationship between the restorative indicators and the individual trait indicators by correlation analysis and multiple regression (step-wise) analysis. These new findings were obtained: (1) the forest setting was a restorative environment with a higher restorative effect than the urban setting; (2) although the forest setting had a higher restorative effect than the urban setting, and the influence of individual traits was small; (3) in the forest setting, the relationship between the restorative indicators and individual traits indicators were arranged; (4) distancing (Stress coping), psychological health (QOL), and satisfaction with living environment (QOL) were likely important indicators that are related to the restorative effects in the forest setting.