1. Is Restorativeness the same for all? A lifespan perspective on restorative experiences Massimiliano Scopelliti *° E-mail: m.scopelliti@istc.cnr.it * Institute of Cognitive Sciences and Technologies (ISTC – CNR), Rome ° Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, University "La Sapienza", Rome

2. Restorative properties (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989)  Being-Away  Being-Away: a change of scenery and/or experience from ordinary life  Extent  Extent: Coherence Coherence : the elements of the environment are connected to constitute a larger whole Scope Scope : extension in time/space so that it is possible to spend time in the environment  Fascination  Fascination: effortless attractiveness of the environment  Compatibility  Compatibility: fit between the environment and the individual’s inclinations/purposes

3. Research on Restorativeness  Empirical evidence on the relevance of the four restorative properties; Development of Perceived Restorativeness Scale – PRS (Hartig et al., 1997)  Greater restorative potential of natural environments compared to built ones (Purcell et al., 2001; Laumann et al., 2001) Main Results

4. The study  Focus on experience in the environment (Scott & Canter, 1997)  Lifespan perspective  New methodology Selection of Restorative Environments (pilot study) Analysis of the “Experience Dimensions” Scenarios (verbal stimuli instead of photos) Theoretical framework Theoretical framework:

5. Restorative Environments  Urban park  Mountain  Seaside  Countryside  Urban centre  Museum  Historical town  Feast in town square Natural EnvironmentsBuilt Environments

6. Sample  Gender (288 males – 288 females)  Stage of the lifespan (192 young people - 192 adults - 192 elderly people) 576 respondents stratified by:

7. Design  Stage of the lifespan (3 levels)  Gender(2 levels)  Social interaction (2 levels)  Typology of activities (2 levels) Design variables Tool: PRS (Italian version)

8. Results Principal Component Analysis Cronbach’s  : MIN.83 - MAX.93

9. Elderly Mean  Countryside 4.50  Mountain 4.33  H. town 4.07  Seaside 3.83  Urban park 3.79  Museum 3.39  Urban c. 2.88  Feast in t.s. 2.75 Adults Mean  Mountain 4.83  Seaside 4.75  Countryside 4.44  H. town 4.38  Urban park 4.35  Urban c. 3.52  Museum 3.19  Feast in t.s. 2.92 Young Mean  Seaside 4.96  Mountain 4.82  Countryside 4.75  Urban park 4.42  H. town 4.34  Urban c. 3.49  Museum 3.34  Feast in t.s. 2.97 Restorative environments

10. ANOVA: Stage of the Lifespan

11. MOUNTAIN – Manova: Social Interaction Multivariate effect: Wilk’s Lambda (4, 265) =.961, p<.05

12. SEASIDE – Manova: Stage of the Lifespan X Social Interaction. Multivariate effect: Wilk’s Lambda (8, 530) =.856, p<.001

13. MUSEUM – Manova: Social Interaction Multivariate effect: Wilk’s Lambda (2, 265) =.947, p<.01

14. FEAST IN TOWN SQUARE – Manova: Social Interaction Multivariate effect: Wilk’s Lambda (4, 264) =.940, p<.01

15. Multiple Regression Analysis Predictors of Restorativeness: Young People

16. Multiple Regression Analysis Predictors of Restorativeness: Adults

17. Multiple Regression Analysis Predictors of Restorativeness: Elderly People

18. Conclusions #1  Stage of the Lifespan Effect: Perceived restorativeness lower for the elderly  Social Interaction Effect: Place-specific; associated with lifespan  Predictors of Restorativeness Compatibility the best; Extent/Coherence the least  Natural and Built Environment Also built environments can be Restorative

19. Qualitative difference in Restorative Experiences Conclusions #2 Typology of Activities: Not significant effect