Access to this full-text is provided by PLOS.
Content available from PLOS ONE
This content is subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The regenerative compatibility: A synergy
between healthy ecosystems, environmental
attitudes, and restorative experiences
Matteo GiustiID
1
*, Karl SamuelssonID
2
1Department of Building Engineering, Energy Systems and Sustainability Science, University of Ga
¨vle,
Ga
¨vle, Sweden, 2Department of Geospatial and Computer Sciences, University of Ga
¨vle, Ga
¨vle, Sweden
*matteo.giusti@hig.se
Abstract
Urban nature is and will be the most common provider of nature interactions for humankind.
The restorative benefits of nature exposure are renown and creating human habitats that
simultaneously support people’s wellbeing and ecological sustainability is an urgent priority.
In this study, we investigate how the relationship between environmental attitudes and
healthy ecosystems influences restorative experiences combining a place-based online sur-
vey with geographical data on ecosystem health in Stockholm (Sweden). Using spatial
regression, we predict the 544 restorative experiences (from 325 respondents), with peo-
ple’s environmental attitudes, natural land covers, ecosystem health, and the statistical
interactions among these variables as predictors. Our results show that restorative experi-
ences can happen anywhere in the urban landscape, but when they occur in natural environ-
ments, the combined levels of biodiversity and ecological connectivity are better predicting
factor than the mere presence of nature. That is, healthy ecosystems seem to be more
important than just any nature for restorative experiences. Moreover, the statistical interac-
tion between one’s environmental attitudes and natural environments predict almost all
restorative experiences better than when these variables are independent predictors. This
suggests that there is synergistic compatibility between environmental attitudes and healthy
ecosystems that triggers restorative processes. We call this synergy regenerative compati-
bility. Regenerative compatibility is an unexploited potential that emerges when people’s
attitudes and ecosystems are aligned in sustainability. We consider regenerative compatibil-
ity a valuable leverage point to transform towards ecologically sustainable and healthy
urban systems. To this end, we encourage multifaceted policy interventions that regenerate
human-nature relationships holistically rather than implement atomistic solutions.
Introduction
Urban landscapes are and will be the most common human habitat [1]. As a consequence, the
benefits to human’s health and wellbeing that nature experiences provide will predominantly
occur via human-designed green infrastructure [2]. The restorative effects of nature
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 1 / 20
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Giusti M, Samuelsson K (2020) The
regenerative compatibility: A synergy between
healthy ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and
restorative experiences. PLoS ONE 15(1):
e0227311. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0227311
Editor: Bing Xue, Institute for Advanced
Sustainability Studies, GERMANY
Received: July 11, 2019
Accepted: December 16, 2019
Published: January 7, 2020
Copyright: ©2020 Giusti, Samuelsson. This is an
open access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All csv files are
available from the Swedish National Data Service.
URL: https://snd.gu.se/sv/catalogue/study/
snd1030/001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5878/002916
Reference: Giusti, M., Barthel, S., Samuelsson, K.,
Stockholm University, & Stockholm Resilience
Centre (2017). Where is your Stockholm? A Public
Participatory GIS study to unfold positive and
negative experiences in the landscape of
Stockholm. Swedish National Data Service
experiences for human’s wellbeing are well-known [3,4]. Thus, nature in cities has intrinsic
ecological and restorative value [5]. However, if cities are to be designed to support both peo-
ple and the biosphere, it is critical to expose barriers and synergies that exist between healthy
urban ecosystems and healthy people. Unveiling such interactions could help to understand,
and eventually restore, a relationship between human and ecological functioning that is of
great value to promote sustainable futures. The sustainability arena has long discussed the
need for a paradigmatic shift to re-align social values and personal preferences with the eco-
logical functioning of the biosphere [6–8]. This shift is required to approach sustainability as a
process that supports all forms of life under ever-changing conditions, rather than a static goal
that translates into an exercise of efficiency and impact minimisation [9]. Analysing the poten-
tial synergy between human and ecological health means exploring an underlying social-eco-
logical system dynamic that might manifest as a self-reinforcing process of sustainable human-
nature co-evolution. System dynamics with self-promoting properties are called regenerative
and they are of central interest for strategies that aim to holistically address the ever-changing
target of sustainability [9–11].
Despite substantial scholarly progress, the interplay between urban ecology and human
wellbeing is still an open research frontier [12,13]. This is especially true when the benefits
provided by urban ecosystems are cultural, subjective, or intangible [14]. However, positive
attitudes towards the environment could be key to understand which relations could simulta-
neously promote healthy ecosystems and healthy people [15]. Evidence shows that accumu-
lated nature experiences have the possibility to shape environmental attitudes [16,17].
However, the human brain also has a proactive role in constructing the experience happening
in the moment [18]. Restorative processes are engaged not only when one’s mind is freed from
the daily routine, but also when the environment fits one’s purposes and inclinations [4]. The
compatibility between one’s attitude towards nature and the kind of ecosystem experienced
might therefore be central to restorative and regenerative processes that promote sustainable
co-evolution between social and human systems. Thus, the scope of this paper is to explore the
compatibility between nature attitudes, ecosystem health and restorative experiences.
In the sections below, we introduce the aim and background of the paper, present our con-
ceptual approach, and then describe the methods used. Lastly, we present the results and dis-
cuss how environmental attitudes and healthy ecosystems create useful synergy for public
health.
Aim and background
The aim of this paper is to investigate how the relationship between environmental attitudes
and healthy ecosystems influences restorative experiences. We hypothesise that restorative
experiences in nature exist when there is compatibility between people’s attitude for nature
and the kind of natural environments experienced.
Experiencing nature is proven to provide a variety of positive effects on human bodies and
minds (for reviews see [19–21]). These benefits are not limited to interactions with pristine or
wild environments. Evidence on restorative experiences has shown that urban natural areas
have greater restorative effects on people than in built settings [4,22–24]. This is true even
when nature interactions happen at home and workspaces [25], just as 40-second views of
green roofs [26], or through technological mediums [27], sounds [28,29] or printed photo-
graphs [30]. The urban green infrastructure has undoubtedly shown the potential to restore
human health and wellbeing [2] and it is now considered a risk-decreasing solution for psy-
chological and physiological disorders [31,32]
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 2 / 20
Funding: We thank the Formas supported project
ZEUS (ref no.: 2016- 01193) granted to S.B. for
supporting this work. formas.se The funders had
no role in study design, data collection and
analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the
manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
Most of this research relies on the sole presence of natural features to explain the restorative
effects of an environment. However, there is growing evidence that suggests that restorative
benefits might be depending on the relationships between people and environments. For
instance, familiarity with the spatial environment and social context are found to be restorative
factors in both children [33] and adults [34]. Von Lindern reports that constraints to restor-
ative experiences are both setting-dependent [35] and dependent on one’s professional occu-
pation [36]. Grahn and Stigsdotter [37] show that emotional and social perceptions of urban
green spaces relate to restoration from stress. Moreover, Scopelliti and Giuliani [38] suggest
that social and affective factors are important features of restorative experiences. Research in
environmental psychology further promotes this reasoning. Haga et al. [28] suggest that “it is
not the stimulus features per se that underpins restoration but instead the meaning that is
attributed to the stimulus.” In this latter study, white-noise is restorative for mental fatigue
only when participants are either told or believe that they are listening to a waterfall, rather
than to the sounds of an industrial environment.
The evidence above suggests that restorative processes associated with nature exposure
might not be explained solely by environmental features, but they might also involve the posi-
tive expectations and associations that one holds with the environment. If we are to create cit-
ies that support both the biosphere and human health, it is thus crucial that these expectations
and associations align with ecological functioning. Healthy ecosystems provide the ecological
services that underpin human existence [12] and their degradation is an impending threat for
humanity [39,40]. Healthy ecosystems are connected, biodiverse, and resilient [41,42]. A
healthy ecosystem is a sustainable ecosystem [43]. This is the desired endpoint of any environ-
mental management and the ambition of any sustainable civilization. At the same time, posi-
tive attitudes towards nature and social values constitute the psychological foundation to
promote environmental conservation and sustainable practices [44–47]. Unveiling the rela-
tionship between these two drivers of sustainable living can aid strategic interventions to pro-
mote healthy populations living in healthy ecosystems.
Conceptual framework
The conceptual approach behind this paper is relational (i.e. transactional) rather than interac-
tional [48]. That means that the focus of this research is not to analyse how psychological attri-
butes or environmental features separately contribute to restorative experiences, but it is to
understand the restorative value emerging from their relationships. This conceptual approach
expects the restorative value of nature experiences to emerge from the simultaneous interplay
of psychological attributes, people’s actions, and physical environments. Hence, we explore the
patterns of the restorative phenomena in relational terms rather than through cause-effect
mechanisms.
This approach is at the basis of the theory of affordances and embodied ecosystems. Affor-
dances are defined as ‘relations between abilities to perceive and act and features of the envi-
ronment’ [49]. By combining the theory of affordances and embodied cognition, Raymond
et al. [50] describe ecosystem services as emerging from multilevel relationships between ele-
ments of mind, body, culture, and environment. This is different from the concept of ecosys-
tem services in itself. The directionality of the concept of ecosystem services is problematic
because it disentangles the role and implications that people have in many ecosystems [51].
Differently, embodied ecosystems suggest that the benefits that nature provides to humans
emerge from the ever-changing patterns of relationships between humans’ mind, body, cul-
ture, and environment [50]. In this paper, we hypothesise that the restorative value emerging
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 3 / 20
from nature experiences could be similarly understood by relationships between one’s mind
and the environment.
In restorative literature relational approaches seem to be increasingly prominent. As von
Lindern [35] notes “the idea that restorative processes depend only on environmental charac-
teristics is too simplistic.” According to attention restoration theory, a restorative environment
is one that not only allows escaping one’s routine (i.e. being away), being fascinated by many
things (i.e. fascination), being immersed and engaged with it (i.e. extent), but also one that is
compatible with people’s purpose [4,52]. The latter characteristic is the one of most interest to
this study. As Kaplan [4] notes: “there should be compatibility between the environment and
one’s purposes and inclinations. In other words, the setting must fit what one is trying to do
and what one would like to do. Compatibility is a two-way street.” Compatibility is truly a rela-
tional property of restorative environments. Similarly, the relational theory of affordances sug-
gests that an area is suitable for a person if it affords exactly what the person wants to find and
do [53]. What a person brings in the interaction with the environment, whether an ability to
act or an expectation, might be a core contributing factor for the restorative process to occur
and be actualised. The language in some papers about restorative environments reflects this
relational position by avoiding the term “restorative environments” in favour of “environ-
ments typically relied on for restoration” [35]. However, in the literature on restorative experi-
ences, compatibility has been often overlooked in favour of studying recovering from mental
fatigue, stress, or other psychological conditions [52]. A relational approach to restorative pro-
cesses is therefore not necessarily novel, but so far under-developed and yet crucial to align
healthy ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative benefits. In this study, we adopt a
relational approach to cover this ground and explore how the compatibility between healthy
ecosystems and environmental attitudes associates with restorative processes.
Methods
Participants and procedure
All participants of the study (N = 325) are voluntary respondents of an online Public Participa-
tory GIS survey called “Var a¨r ditt Stockholm?”, which in English translates to “Where is your
Stockholm?”. The survey is designed to capture people’s positive or negative experiences that
consistently occur to them in the Stockholm county. The focus of the survey is not on nature
or restorative experiences alone, but on positive and negative experiences in the city of Stock-
holm more broadly.
To promote awareness about the survey among the inhabitants of Stockholm, the authors
participated in an architectural art exhibition (“Experiment Stockholm”), spread the informa-
tion through a Facebook page and a Twitter account, and contacted several municipalities
within the Stockholm county to advertise the study on local newspapers and notice boards.
The survey is published online after several pilot-runs among researchers living in Stockholm.
The survey is provided in both Swedish and English and takes about 8 minutes to complete.
Data is collected for about eight months: from September 2015 to May 2016.
Participants begin answering the survey by marking on a digital map the location where
they have reoccurring positive or negative experiences. Afterwards, they qualify their experi-
ences by selecting one or more qualities among a list of 19 attributes (for full details see [54]).
Only after the attributes of the experience have been recorded, respondents are asked to
respond to eight items about their attitude towards nature (see section below) and provide
basic demographic information (i.e. age group and gender).
The online data collection does not ensure a representative sample of the Stockholm popu-
lation, but it ensures a large dataset of geocoded information that can be used to explore city
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 4 / 20
life from many different angles. The relations between urban features and all positive or nega-
tive experiences reported is the subject of a previous study [55]. Since in this study we are spe-
cifically interested in restorative nature experiences, only positive experiences are analysed.
Within this subgroup, seven attributes are indicators of restorative experiences. Thus, only
experiences with these indicators are analysed in this study (see section below).
Indicators of restorative experiences
In the survey, seven indicators are used to qualify restorative experiences: escaping one’s rou-
tine,being relaxed,being mindful,feeling safe,feeling immersed in the place,being fascinated,
being oneself. These indicators represent different aspects of restorative experiences. Escaping
one’s routines, feeling immersed in the place, being fascinated, and being oneself are indicators
of the classic attributes of restorative experiences: being away, fascination, coherence, and
compatibility [4]. These indicators are also part of the ‘perceived restorativeness scale’ [56].
Feeling safe is an attribute used in this survey because it is considered in the literature to be a
potential constraint for restorative experiences [33,57]. Lastly, being relaxed and being mindful
are included because they indicate recognised feelings of restoration [58] and because they are
indications of stress recovery [3]. In this study, experiences are considered restorative when at
least one of these indicators is present.
Indicators of environmental attitudes
The survey uses eight statements that measures different aspects of one’s attitude towards
nature (see Appendix A for details on each statement). These statements are indicators of:
enjoyment of nature,empathy for animals,domination over nature (reversed item), identifica-
tion with nature (two indicators), environmental awareness,sense of responsibility for nature,
and environmental concern. Environmental attitude is not an easy construct to evaluate, but
existing literature and validated psychometric scales have achieved great levels of reliability
[59]. Enjoyment of nature is a recognised indicator of Nature Relatedness Scale [60] and empa-
thy for animals and environmental awareness are essential components of Connection to
Nature Index [61]. The desire to dominate over nature is a reverse attribute of the widely used
New Environmental Paradigm [62] and identification with nature is a central component of
the Environmental Identity scale [63]. Lastly, sense of responsibility is a measure of Love and
Care for Nature [64] and environmental concern is used in the Environmental Concern scale
[65]. Respectively, each of these indicators is shown to contribute to pro-environmental inten-
tions or actions, and they can collectively be considered a representation of positive environ-
mental attitudes. Thus, we term this collection of indicators environmental attitudes (EA).
Respondents are asked to answer each statement of EA using a Likert scale from 1 (disagree
completely) to 10 (agree completely). Participants’ EA is calculated as the average of these
answers.
Natural land cover, presence of nature, and ecosystem health
In this study, we use public geographic data to create three maps of nature in Stockholm: natu-
ral land covers (NLC),nature presence (NP), and ecosystem health (EH).
First, the NLC map is produced by using the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency’s
land cover data [66] provided at a 10 m resolution. This GIS map is created by aggregating 16
natural land covers into six complementary categories: open wetland, arable land, open vege-
tated land, deciduous forest, coniferous forest and mixed forest. Remaining non-natural land
covers are merged into a single category: non-natural. This data manipulation results in a map
with seven dichotomous variables: six for natural land covers and one for non-natural.
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 5 / 20
Second, the NP map has a dichotomous classification in which all natural land covers of the
NLC map are merged, to distinguish any kind of natural land cover in the landscape from
non-natural land covers.
Lastly, the EH map is an ecological network map produced by Stockholm municipality in
2015, provided at a 2 m resolution. For this map, multi-criteria analysis is used to combine the
ecological networks of coniferous forest, broadleaf forest, and wetlands according to biotope
quality, patch size, and degree of connectivity in the ecological network (for details see [67]).
Biodiversity estimations for wetlands based on on-the-ground reports are also included as a
criteria. The resulting variable is a score from 0 to 5 that reflect ecological connectivity and bio-
diversity. EH values are added to attributes of experiences by calculating the average score
within a 50 meter buffer from each experience.
Data analysis
All experiences from the survey that contain details about the respondents’ age, gender, and
EA, are analysed. On this dataset we first perform some descriptive analysis. We explore
through histograms the demographic composition of our sample with respect to age groups
and genders, and how EA differs between the genders. We also explore what proportions of
restorative experiences occur in natural environments and at which levels of EH. Secondly, we
analyse the hypothesis that restorative experiences in nature are a function of the health of an
ecosystem and one’s attitude towards nature. Through stepwise model selection of logistic
regressions, we identify the model that best describe each restorative attribute. That means
that the choice of variables to predict each kind of restorative experience is carried out system-
atically by comparing a sequence of statistical regression models. Akaike Information Crite-
rion (AIC) scores are used to compare model fit and at each step of the process the model with
lowest AIC is recognised as better fitting for the data. The end result of this process is the iden-
tification of the most-fitting model for each kind of restorative experiences. Gender and age
groups are included in the models as control variables, and robustness of results is assessed by
the range of odds ratios when adjusting or not adjusting for these terms.
In this study, we choose to investigate how the relation between EA and EH predict
restorative experiences rather than exploring how restorative experiences can be formative
to EA or contribute to EH. This is because the structure of our dataset does not fit the pur-
pose of evaluating only restorative experiences in nature since the online survey do not
force restorative experiences to occur only in natural environments. Additionally, although
the survey asked about reoccurring experiences, our data is not longitudinal. Each data
point represent only one experience and so cannot be assumed to be sufficiently powerful to
represent one’s EA.
We include spatial error terms in the models that correct for unmeasured spatial effects
[68]. A spatial error term reflects the spatial autocorrelation among residuals, i.e. how similar
the residual of a measurement is compared to those geographically close to it. Residual auto-
correlation of candidate models without spatial error terms is evaluated through the Moran’s I
statistic at distances from 100 to 1000 metres, with 100 m intervals. Spatial error terms are cre-
ated based on the neighbourhood sizes with the largest Moran’s I values, that are then included
in the models. This is done because we are interested in minimising bias from unmeasured
spatial effects and calibrate parameters of the measured variables. Lastly, residual autocorrela-
tion is evaluated through Moran’s I for these spatial models to ensure that biases from unmea-
sured spatial effects are no longer significant. All analyses are performed using R software [69]
and QGIS [70].
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 6 / 20
Results
Descriptive analysis
All positive experiences that contain details about participants’ age, gender, and EA are ana-
lysed. In total, 325 respondents provide 544 positive experiences. Of these positive experiences,
100% of them have at least one indicator of restoration (see appendix 2 for details on each indi-
cator). Participants between ages 18 and 70 make up almost the whole entirety of the sample
(98%). The largest age group is 25 to 34 years old (36%), followed by 35 to 44 years old (35%)
and 45 to 54 years old (20%). The distribution between women and men is fairly even (52%
women) (Fig 1A). The results for EA are skewed towards higher values for both men and
women (Fig 1B), but women’s EA (mean = 0.78, median = 0.81) result to be significantly
higher than men’s (mean = 0.66, median = 0.71) (t(297.52) = 5.51, p<0.001). High values and
gender differences are in line with existing literature and further validates our measurement of
EA [71–75].
Of all restorative experiences 45.7% are in natural areas and 43.0% are in areas considered
having some form of healthy ecosystem (Fig 2). 16.2% are in areas with scores for EH between
0 and 1.5, 5.3% between 1.5 and 2.5, 6.6% between 2.5 and 3.5, 7.5% between 3.5 and 4.5 and
7.4% above 4.5. Hence, the first result to consider in this study is that (i) restorative experiences
do not occur solely in natural environments, but can happen everywhere in the urban
landscape.
Predicting restorative experiences
Logistic regression shows how NP, NLC, EH, and EA and their statistical interactions predict
restorative experiences (see Appendix 3 for details and autocorrelation analysis). There are sev-
eral results worth noticing from this analysis (see Table 1 for summary). (ii) The degree of
health of an ecosystem is significant to predict all restorative experiences. Independently of a
person’s EA, EH predicts escaping one’s routine (OR = 3.00, 95% CI: 1.69–5.30, p<0.001),
being relaxed (OR = 2.93, 95% CI: 1.48–5.79, p = 0.002), and being mindful (OR = 1.86, 95%
CI: 1.03–3.36, p = 0.041). On the contrary, NP and NLC alone most often do not. When NP is
modelled as an independent predictor, it does not significantly predict any restorative experi-
ences. Among all six NLCs used, only deciduous forest results to be significant and only for
feeling immersed in the place (OR = 1.75, 95% CI: 1.08–2.84, p = 0.022). These results imply
that an ecologically resilient, biodiverse, and ecologically connected ecosystem is more impor-
tant for restorative experiences than the mere presence of some form of natural environment.
Another result to notice is that (iii) age is a significant predictor of several restorative experi-
ences and gender of one. Older respondents show to have less restorative experiences associ-
ated with escaping one’s routine (OR = 0.07, 95% CI: 0.02–0.20, p<0.001), feeling safe
(OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.10–0.67, p = 0.005), and being fascinated (OR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.05–0.33,
p<0.001), whereas females have more restorative experiences associated with being oneself
(OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.43–0.90, p = 0.012).
However, the most striking result from this analysis is that (iv) statistical interactions
between EA and EH or between EA and NP predict almost all restorative experiences (except
for escaping one’s routine) better than when EA, EH, and NP are independent predictors. This
means that for restorative experiences the compatibility between people’s attitudes and natural
environments is more relevant then the environments or the attitudes per se. The interaction
between EA and NP is significant for experiences of being relaxed (OR = 7.66, 95% CI: 1.11–
52.9, p = 0.038) and being mindful (OR = 10.5, 95% CI: 1.61–67.9, p = 0.014). Similarly, the
interactions between EA and EH is significant for feeling safe (OR = 62.3, 95% CI: 1.60–2417,
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 7 / 20
p = 0.027), feeling immersed in the place (OR = 68.0, 95% CI: 1.62–2860, p = 0.027), being fas-
cinated (OR = 271, 95% CI 5.30–1380, p = 0.005), and being oneself (OR = 193, 95% CI: 4.34–
8555, p = 0.007). All odds ratios reported above are robust with respect to adjusting for inclu-
sion or exclusion of age and gender (see Appendix 3 for details). Most sensitive for adjustment
is EH as a predictor for escaping one’s routine (O.R. ranging 2.41–3.00).
The noteworthy relevance of interactions in the models requires further analysis. Hence, we
transform odds ratios to probabilities and plot them to make the interactions visually under-
standable (Fig 3). From the graphical analysis we can observe that being relaxed and mindful
are considerably more likely to happen in natural areas when people have high EA rather than
low. However, this relationship ceases to be important when restorative experiences take place
outside natural areas. We saw above that restorative experiences can happen everywhere, not
only in natural areas. With that in mind, these results suggest that (v) when relaxation and
mindfulness happen in natural environments, restorative processes are triggered by EA.
The analysis of interactions between EA and EH show a similar pattern of compatibility
(Fig 4). Feeling safe, feeling immersed, being fascinated, and being oneself are indicators of
restorative experiences that are considerably more likely to happen in natural areas when peo-
ple have high EA. These results bear resemblance with what we present above for the interac-
tion between NP and EA. When restoration from feeling safe, feeling immersed, being
fascinated and being oneself happens in healthy ecosystems, restorative processes seem to be
triggered by one’s attitude towards nature. We call the restorative synergy between environ-
mental attitudes and healthy ecosystems regenerative compatibility.
Fig 1. Descriptive statistics of participants. A) Distributions of age groups for each gender. B) Density distributions of EA for each gender. Dashed lines show median
values for each gender.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311.g001
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 8 / 20
Discussion
Regenerative compatibility
This paper aims to investigate how the relationship between environmental attitudes and
healthy ecosystems influences restorative experiences. The results show that (i) restorative
experiences can happen anywhere in the urban landscape and do not necessarily require a nat-
ural setting, but (v) when they occur in natural environments, restorative processes seem to be
triggered by one’s positive attitude towards nature. (iv) The results show that including the
interactions between one’s EA and natural environments makes for better predictions of
almost all restorative experiences than when these variables are considered independent from
each other. It is also worth noticing that, (ii) to promote restorative experiences, biodiverse
and ecologically connected ecosystems are more important factors than the mere presence of
natural environments. These results support the hypothesis of this study. Restorative
Fig 2. Occurrence of restorative experiences. The figure overlays the maps for nature presence, ecosystem health, and all the restorative experiences (n = 544) analysed
within the boundaries of the Stockholm municipality.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311.g002
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 9 / 20
experiences in nature happen more often when there is compatibility between people’s attitude
for nature and the kind of natural environments experienced. This synergy is what we call
regenerative compatibility. We see regenerative compatibility as a set of human-nature rela-
tionships that synergistically support healthy ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restor-
ative experiences.
Table 1. Summary of results for restorative experiences.
Restorative experience NP
1
NLC
2
EH
3
EA
4
EA�NP EA�EH Age Gender
Escaping routine - - 3.00��� - - - 0.07��� -
Being relaxed 0.30. - 2.93�� 1.11 7.67�- - -
Being mindful 0.25. - 1.86�0.60 10.5�- - -
Feeling safe - - 0.05�2.08 - 62.3�0.26�� -
Feeling immersed - 1.75�0.02�� 0.95 - 68.0�- -
Being fascinated - - 0.01�� 0.58 - 279�� 0.13��� -
Being oneself - - 0.02�0.89 - 193�� - 0.62�
The table shows the odds ratio values of the best-fitting models that predict each restorative experience. Colours are used to highlight the main results of this analysis.
An orange background highlights the notable importance of EH over NP and NLC (ii). A green background highlights the importance of age and gender (iii). A blue
background the importance of interactions between EA and either NP or EH (iv). The reference value for age is the youngest age group, and for gender it is women.
1
NP: Nature Presence
2
NLC: Natural Land Covers
3
EH: Ecosystem Health
4
EA: Environmental Attitude
p-values legend: p<0.1: .—p<0.05: �—p<0.01: ��—p<0.001: ���
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311.t001
Fig 3. Interactions between environmental attitudes and nature presence. Probabilities that restorative experiences characterised by being relaxed and being mindful
in (green lines) or outside (red lines) areas with presence of nature, in relation to respondent’s EA. Shaded areas show 95% confidence intervals of estimations. Points
show actual experiences and are jittered to avoid overplotting.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311.g003
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 10 / 20
The qualities and directionalities of interactions between healthy ecosystems, environmen-
tal attitudes, and restorative experiences might be complex. However, existing literature pres-
ents evidence of specific associations that when taken together suggest a self-reinforcing
feedback loop between these variables. Reoccurring nature experiences provide a variety of
Fig 4. Interactions between environmental attitudes and ecosystem health. Predicted probabilities that restorative experiences are characterised
by feeling safe, being immersed in the place, fascinated, or oneself, in relation to respondent’s HNC and ecosystem health at the place of the
experience. Colours correspond to the probability that experiences feature the attribute and contour lines are spaced at 5 percentage points between
them. Points show actual experiences and are jittered to avoid overplotting.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311.g004
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 11 / 20
health and wellbeing benefits (for reviews see [2,20,76,77]) and are known to promote EAs (for
review see [78]), especially during childhood [17,79]. EAs are also known to promote nature
conservation (for reviews see [80,81]), which in turn ensures the presence of nature experi-
ences. At the same time, EAs are also known to motivate people in seeking further nature expe-
riences [16,82–84]. Contrariwise, the lack of nature experiences in cities can promote a self-
reinforcing cycle of disaffection and disengagement with the environment [85,86]. This litera-
ture suggests that the interactions between the variables representing regenerative compatibil-
ity can over time describe both regenerative and degenerative trajectories for human health
and EAs, and by extension for EH.
In this study, we show that EAs moderate the restorativeness of nature experiences in the
moment. We think the continuous occurrence, or not, of such experiences might be the driv-
ing factor to shape regenerative or degenerative trajectories. Hence, it might be most meaning-
ful to consider healthy ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences not
through their cause-effect mechanisms, but as the restorative effect being co-produced from
the relation between healthy ecosystems and environmental attitudes. Regenerative compati-
bility is then a property that emerges from the continuous relational interaction of these vari-
ables. In summary, the relational approach underpinning regenerative compatibility offers a
novel interpretation of this feedback loop by connecting trajectories of long-term change with
momentary experiences.
In this study (iii) demographic factors (age and gender) are also significant predictors of
several kinds of restorative experience. This result further promotes the idea that at any point
in time, the restorative value of nature experiences emerges from relationships among mind,
body, and environment. This relational interpretation is in line with existing literature that
suggests that the psychological effect of an experience is not a direct consequence of the stimuli
per se, but of the meanings that are attributed to the stimuli [28]. In relational terms, regenera-
tive compatibility actualises restoration in nature experiences. Following the concept of
embodied ecosystems [50], we argue that the regenerative or degenerative feedback loops are
manifestations of the strengthening or weakening of regenerative compatibility due to its
actualisation or non-actualisation in momentary experiences. It is this kind of compatible rela-
tionships between ecosystems, mind, and body that hold the potential to recreate and sustain a
lost balance between human development and ecological dynamics.
As previously mentioned, our participants are not a representative sample of the Swedish
population. For example, the descriptive analysis showed that 71% of respondents are from 25
to 44 years old. We also focus specifically on city dwellers and nature in urban environments.
Hence, we are wary of concluding that our results are universally generalisable or applicable
beyond the urban context. However, our results are supported by theory, so verifying the
regenerative compatibility with different samples in different settings and through longitudinal
designs is a promising and important task for future research. Within the context of Western
urbanised societies, we believe that regenerative compatibility has the potential for being used
as a leverage point for a sustainable and healthy urban living [87].
Regenerative compatibility, ecosystem health, and human health
Regenerative compatibility might be a key aspect to promote healthy and sustainable urban liv-
ing in the future because it could resolve several issues where ecosystem and human health
seem at odds. For example, Gatersleben and Andrews [88] show that perceived safety in natu-
ral environments is important for their restorative function. But while they study perceived
safety as a consequence of the environment’s physical structure (the visibility it affords), we
study it as emergent from the interaction between a person’s mind and the physical
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 12 / 20
environment. Our results show that including this interaction improves predictions as com-
pared to when the environment is modelled as an independent predictor. Being comfortable
in nature is to a large extent a learnt ability [17,89]. This ability might be crucial to safeguard
from a public health perspective, as the mere presence of residential green space in childhood
is strongly associated with lower occurrences of psychiatric disorders in new generations [31].
Van Heezik and Brymer [90] note that trade-offs related to physiological aspects of health
might exist, for example when higher levels of biodiversity cause problems related to pollen.
However, exposure to biodiverse nature among adolescents is linked to reduced allergic disposi-
tions [91]. In the public health literature, reduced contact with environmental features, biodiver-
sity, and microbiota, is well-known to lead to immunodeficiencies [91,92]. This begs the question
whether this issue could be more sustainably addressed in the long term by promoting human-
nature interactions rather than by limiting them, especially when simultaneously considering
other physical health benefits of nature presence in cities. For example, local green areas provide
air purification services of remarkable value to the health of urban populations [93].
We agree with many others [7,94] that dissolving the fictitious dichotomy between people
and nature is the only viable solution for having healthy people on a healthy planet. Ultimately,
indications that what is best for human health is at odds with what is best for ecosystems might
be symptomatic of a deeper need to reorient sustainability science towards, first and foremost,
promoting sustainable relationships between people and planet [44,87].
Policy recommendations
Regenerative compatibility suggests that human habitats that are ecologically sustainable and sup-
port healthy and sustainable living do not need to be utopian—rather the opposite. This study
contributes to the vast literature that directly links public health and wellbeing benefits to the
availability of nature experiences in cities [2,20]. However, our results specifically suggest that the
positive effects of nature interactions are enabled by positive environmental attitudes (v) and
amplified by the ecological health of the ecosystem (ii). Consequently, future policies for sustain-
able urban development should consider environmental education, city design, and urban ecol-
ogy jointly. Given the non-linear behaviour of self-reinforcing dynamics, multifaceted solutions
that unify these areas can have great leverage for rapid changes with long-term impact.
Multifaceted policy interventions might provide synergistic and long-lasting benefits that
counter the limitations of the more common reductionist and short-term approaches. For
example, Stanley et al. [95] argue that policies that promote public health through the urban
green infrastructure pose a threat to urban ecosystems, as it requires urban nature to become
more ‘people-friendly’. Examples of this are the construction of walkways, clearing of under-
story vegetation and preference for flat open spaces. Yet, we found that people with high envi-
ronmental attitudes do not seek out these environments for restoration (ii). Wild areas can be
as relaxing as manicured environments when people are more connected with nature [96].
Learning to be comfortable and appreciating different natural environments is a function of
reoccurring nature experiences [17,89]. Given that a sustainable human habitat has to exist
within ecologically sustainable and resilient ecosystems, a long-term solution might have to
address what is culturally assumed to be ‘people-friendly’ nature, rather than isolating issues of
ecosystem conservation and urban nature experiences from each other. The value of urban
nature for public health is amplified when combined with environmental education. Support-
ing inhabitants’ wellbeing, conserving local flora and fauna, and promoting environmental
education should be seen as different requirements of the same design intervention.
Integrating experiences of different kinds of nature, from the wild to the manicured, with urban
life requires nature to cover large geographical areas in cities. As nature and buildings compete for
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 13 / 20
space in cities, policies that promote regenerative compatibility might be at odds with compact city
development. In order to respond to global environmental challenges, increasing urban densifica-
tion is a recognised spatial solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and
increase energy efficiency [97–99]. However, when social dynamics are taken into consideration,
urban densification is not a driving variable to reduce carbon footprint [100]. For example, elec-
tricity consumption per capita is not related to compact urban form per se [101]. Increased urban
density is linked to increased weekend trips and short- and long-haul air travel [102]. Once more,
the potential to respond to the climate crisis by maximising one single attribute, such as urban den-
sification, is limited [103] and policy interventions have to be multifaceted.
Realising living environments for humans that combine energy efficiency with healthy and
expansive ecosystems requires a shift in focus from a simplistic ‘dense vs. green’ framing [104].
Policy interventions have to be developed in conjunction with human experiences and social
values [105]. The importance of nurturing shared values for nature for a sustainable future is
remarked by many academic authors [7,44,106] and a few noted its particular relevance in the
context of developing sustainable human habitats [94,107,108]. In cities, policies have to simul-
taneously address climate change, disrupted ecosystem services, unhealthy habits, and unsus-
tainable lifestyles. These objectives cannot be considered in separation from each other.
Ultimately, the human habitat has to exist within ecologically sustainable and resilient ecosys-
tems. Separating human and natural living environments might be an obsolete custom in city
design that have no place in shaping future sustainable human habitats.
Policies that exploit synergies like regenerative compatibility and promote dynamic and
holistic interventions, rather than static and isolated ones, might be better suited to couple
healthy living with an urban development supportive of the biosphere. Regenerative compati-
bility might be just one of several potential regenerative dynamics valuable to design sustain-
able human habitats. Nevertheless, it suggests a way towards sustainable human development
through the regeneration of human-nature relationships rather than through the implementa-
tion of atomistic solutions.
Conclusion
The severe global environmental challenges that cities face demand human habitats that support
both healthy people and a sustainable biosphere. In this study, we find a synergy between healthy
ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences that we call regenerative compati-
bility. Restorative experiences in nature are more likely to happen in healthy ecosystems and among
people with positive environmental attitudes. This could prove to be a general synergy that is worth
further academic exploration and practical application in nature-based solutions. We believe that
sustainable human habitats are best understood as relational systems that intertwine psychological,
social, and environmental variables. Nurturing regenerative compatibility could help to dissolve fic-
titious dichotomies that still exist between people and nature, between healthy humans and a
healthy biosphere, and ultimately between natural habitats and human habitats. Thus, interventions
to promote future sustainable cities ought to address people’s health, environmental education, and
urban ecology simultaneously. Such approaches are central to the shift from a static and compart-
mentalised view of sustainability to one that is holistic, dynamic, and regenerative.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Table of items for environmental attitudes. Table with items used in the survey
“Var a¨r ditt Stockholm?” to assess environmental attitudes.
(DOCX)
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 14 / 20
S2 Table. Description of restorative experiences. Table with number of each typology of
restorative experiences and percentage on the total amount of experiences analysed.
(DOCX)
S3 Table. Regressions and spatial autocorrelation results. Table of results from the regres-
sion and spatial autocorrelation analysis for each restorative experience.
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
We thank Stephan Barthel, Andreas Haga, Noah Linder, and the reviewers for their construc-
tive feedback.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Matteo Giusti, Karl Samuelsson.
Data curation: Matteo Giusti, Karl Samuelsson.
Formal analysis: Matteo Giusti, Karl Samuelsson.
Investigation: Matteo Giusti, Karl Samuelsson.
Methodology: Matteo Giusti, Karl Samuelsson.
Project administration: Matteo Giusti.
Supervision: Matteo Giusti.
Validation: Matteo Giusti, Karl Samuelsson.
Visualization: Matteo Giusti, Karl Samuelsson.
Writing – original draft: Matteo Giusti, Karl Samuelsson.
Writing – review & editing: Matteo Giusti.
References
1. UN-Habitat. Urbanization and development: emerging futures. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-Habitat; 2016.
2. Hartig T, Mitchell R, de Vries S, Frumkin H. Nature and health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014; 35:
207–28. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443 PMID: 24387090
3. Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, Zelson M. Stress recovery during exposure to
natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol. 1991; 11: 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0272-4944(05)80184-7
4. Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol.
1995; 15: 169–182.
5. Hartig T, Kahn PHJ. Living in Cities, Naturally. Science. 2016; 352.
6. Edwards AR. The sustainability revolution: portrait of a paradigm shift. 2005. Available: http://www.
deslibris.ca/ID/404478
7. Folke C, Jansson Å, Rockstro
¨m J, Olsson P, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, et al. Reconnecting to the Bio-
sphere. Ambio. 2011; 40: 719–738. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y PMID: 22338712
8. Rockstrom J, Klum M. Big World, Small Planet: Abundance Within Planetary Boundaries. Stockholm:
Bokforlaget Max Strom; 2015.
9. Reed B. Shifting our Mental Model–”Sustainability” to Regeneration. Rethink Sustain Constr 2006
Gener Green Build. 2006; 1–18.
10. Cole RJ. Regenerative design and development: current theory and practice. Build Res Inf. 2012; 40:
1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.617516
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 15 / 20
11. Du Plessis C, Brandon P. An ecological worldview as basis for a regenerative sustainability paradigm
for the built environment. J Clean Prod. 2014; 109: 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.
098
12. Bennett EM, Cramer W, Begossi A, Cundill G, Dı
´az S, Egoh BN, et al. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem
services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr Opin
Environ Sustain. 2015; 14: 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.007
13. Bennett EM. Research Frontiers in Ecosystem Service Science. Ecosystems. 2017; 20: 31–37.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-016-0049-0
14. Andersson E, Langemeyer J, Borgstro
¨m S, McPhearson T, Haase D, Kronenberg J, et al. Enabling
Green and Blue Infrastructure to Improve Contributions to Human Well-Being and Equity in Urban Sys-
tems. BioScience. 2019 [cited 2 Jul 2019]. https://doi.org/doi:10.1093/biosci/biz058
15. Raymond CM, Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N, Berry P, Breil M, Nita MR, et al. A framework for assessing
and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ Sci Policy. 2017;
77: 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008
16. Soga M, Gaston KJ. Extinction of experience: the loss of human-nature interactions. Front Ecol Envi-
ron. 2016; 14: 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225
17. Giusti M, Barthel S, Marcus L. Nature Routines and Affinity with the Biosphere: A Case Study of Pre-
school Children in Stockholm. Child Youth Environ. 2014; 24: 16. https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.
24.3.0016
18. Bar M. The proactive brain: memory for predictions. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2009; 364: 1235–
1243. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0310 PMID: 19528004
19. Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali LM, Knight TM, Pullin AS. A systematic review of evidence for the added bene-
fits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health. 2010; 10: 456–456. https://doi.
org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-456 PMID: 20684754
20. Bratman GN, Hamilton JP, Daily GC. The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function
and mental health. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012; 1249: 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.
2011.06400.x PMID: 22320203
21. Keniger LE, Gaston KJ, Irvine KN, Fuller R a. What are the Benefits of Interacting with Nature? Int J
Environ Res Public Health. 2013; 10: 913–935. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10030913 PMID:
23466828
22. Ulrich RS. View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from surgery. Science. 1984; 224: 420–
421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402 PMID: 6143402
23. Berman M, Jonides J, Kaplan S. The Cognitive Benifits of Interacting With Nature. Psychol Scinece.
2008; 19: 1207–1212.
24. Roe J, Aspinall P. The Emotional Affordances of Forest Settings: An Investigation in Boys with
Extreme Behavioural Problems. Landsc Res. 2011; 36: 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.
2010.543670
25. Korpela K, De Bloom J, Sianoja M, Pasanen T, Kinnunen U. Nature at home and at work: Naturally
good? Links between window views, indoor plants, outdoor activities and employee well-being over
one year. Landsc Urban Plan. 2017; 160: 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.12.005
26. Lee KE, Williams K, Sargent L, Williams N, Johnson K. 40-second green roof views sustain attention:
The role of micro-breaks in attention restoration. 2015; 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.
2016.12.005
27. Kahn PH, Severson RL, Ruckert JH. The Human Relation With Nature and Technological Nature.
Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2009; 18: 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01602.x
28. Haga A, Halin N, Holmgren M, So
¨rqvist P. Psychological Restoration Can Depend on Stimulus-Source
Attribution: A Challenge for the Evolutionary Account? Front Psychol. 2016; 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2016.01831 PMID: 27933011
29. Alvarsson JJ, Wiens S, Nilsson ME. Stress Recovery during Exposure to Nature Sound and Environ-
mental Noise. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2010; 7: 1036–1046. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph7031036 PMID: 20617017
30. Berto R. Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. J Environ Psychol.
2005; 25: 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001
31. Engemann K, Pedersen CB, Arge L, Tsirogiannis C, Mortensen PB, Svenning J-C. Residential green
space in childhood is associated with lower risk of psychiatric disorders from adolescence into adult-
hood. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019; 116: 5188–5193. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1807504116 PMID:
30804178
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 16 / 20
32. Cox DTC, Shanahan DF, Hudson HL, Fuller RA, Gaston KJ. The impact of urbanisation on nature
dose and the implications for human health. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018; 179: 72–80. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.landurbplan.2018.07.013
33. Collado S, Staats H, Sorrel MA. A relational model of perceived restorativeness: Intertwined effects of
obligations, familiarity, security and parental supervision. J Environ Psychol. 2016; 48: 24–32. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.08.004
34. Staats H, Hartig T. Alone or with a friend: A social context for psychological restoration and environ-
mental preferences. J Environ Psychol. 2004; 24: 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.
005
35. von Lindern E. Setting-dependent constraints on human restoration while visiting a wilderness park. J
Outdoor Recreat Tour. 2015; 10: 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2015.06.001
36. von Lindern E, Bauer N, Frick J, Hunziker M, Hartig T. Occupational engagement as a constraint on
restoration during leisure time in forest settings. Landsc Urban Plan. 2013; 118: 90–97. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.03.001
37. Grahn P, Stigsdotter UK. The relation between perceived sensory dimensions of urban green space
and stress restoration. Landsc Urban Plan. 2010; 94: 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.
2009.10.012
38. Scopelliti M, Giuliani VM. Choosing restorative environments across the lifespan: A matter of place
experience. J Environ Psychol. 2004; 24: 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.11.002
39. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, et al. Biodiversity loss and its
impact on humanity. Nature. 2012; 486: 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11148 PMID: 22678280
40. Rockstrom J, Steffen W, Noone K, Lambin E, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, et al. Planetary Boundaries:
Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecol Soc. 2009.
41. Biggs R, Schlu¨ter M, Schoon ML, editors. Principles for building resilience: sustaining ecosystem ser-
vices in social-ecological systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.
42. Costanza R, Mageau M. What is a healthy ecosystem? Aquat Ecol. 1999; 33: 105–115. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1009930313242
43. Costanza R. Ecosystem health and ecological engineering. Ecol Eng. 2012; 45: 24–29. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.03.023
44. Ives CD, Abson DJ, von Wehrden H, Dorninger C, Klaniecki K, Fischer J. Reconnecting with nature for
sustainability. Sustain Sci. 2018; 13: 1389–1397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0542-9 PMID:
30220917
45. Ives CD, Kendal D. The role of social values in the management of ecological systems. J Environ Man-
age. 2014; 144: 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.013 PMID: 24921963
46. Barbaro N, Pickett SM, Parkhill MR. Environmental attitudes mediate the link between need for cogni-
tion and pro-environmental goal choice. Personal Individ Differ. 2015; 75: 220–223. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2014.11.032
47. Kaiser FG, Bru¨gger A, Hartig T, Bogner FX, Gutscher H. Appreciation of nature and appreciation of
environmental protection: How stable are these attitudes and which comes first? Rev Eur Psychol
Applique
´eEuropean Rev Appl Psychol. 2014; 64: 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2014.09.
001
48. Altman I, Rogoff B. World Views in Psychology: Trait, Interactional, Organismic, and Transactional
Perspectives. In: Stokols D, Altman I, editors. Handbook of Environmental Psychology (Volume 1).
New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1987. pp. 7–40.
49. Chemero A. Radical Embodied Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2009.
50. Raymond CM, Giusti M, Barthel S. An embodied perspective on the co-production of cultural ecosys-
tem services: toward embodied ecosystems. J Environ Plan Manag. 2017; 1–22. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09640568.2017.1312300
51. Pascual U, Balvanera P, Dı
´az S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M, et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to
people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2017; 26–27: 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cosust.2016.12.006
52. Ohly H, White MP, Wheeler BW, Bethel A, Ukoumunne OC, Nikolaou V, et al. Attention Restoration
Theory: A systematic review of the attention restoration potential of exposure to natural environments.
J Toxicol Environ Health Part B. 2016; 19: 305–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2016.1196155
PMID: 27668460
53. Gibson JJ. The ecological approach to visual perception. New York, N.Y: Psychology Press; 1979.
54. Giusti M, Barthel S, Samuelsson K. Where is your Stockholm—geographical points. Swedish National
Data Service; 2017. https://doi.org/10.5878/002917
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 17 / 20
55. Samuelsson K, Giusti M, Peterson GD, Legeby A, Brandt SA, Barthel S. Impact of environment on
people’ s everyday experiences in Stockholm. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018; 171: 7–17. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.landurbplan.2017.11.009
56. Hartig T, Korpela K, Evans GW, Ga
¨rling T. A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scand
Hous Plan Res. 1997; 14: 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02815739708730435
57. Tabrizian P, Baran PK, Smith WR, Meentemeyer RK. Exploring perceived restoration potential of
urban green enclosure through immersive virtual environments. J Environ Psychol. 2018; 55: 99–109.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.01.001
58. White MP, Pahl S, Ashbullby K, Herbert S, Depledge MH. Feelings of restoration from recent nature
visits. J Environ Psychol. 2013; 35: 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.04.002
59. Tam KP. Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. J Envi-
ron Psychol. 2013; 34: 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.01.004
60. Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy S a The Nature Relatedness Scale: Linking Individuals’ Connection
With Nature to Environmental Concern and Behavior. Environ Behav. 2008; 41: 715–740. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013916508318748
61. Cheng JC-H, Monroe MC. Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environ
Behav. 2012; 44: 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510385082
62. Dunlap RE, Van Liere K. The new environmental paradigm. J Environ Educ. 1978; 9: 10–19.
63. Clayton S. Environmental Identity: A Conceptual and Operational Definition. In: Clayton S, Opotow S,
editors. Identity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press; 2003. pp. 45–66.
64. Perkins HE. Measuring love and care for nature. J Environ Psychol. 2010; 30: 455–463. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.004
65. Ellis RJ, Thompson F. Culture and the environment in the Pacific Northwest. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1997;
91: 885–897.
66. Naturvårdsverket. Svenska Markta
¨ckedata. 2017.
67. Barthel S, Koffman A, Bovin M, Lundqvist E, Campbell E, Tuvendal M. Kartla
¨ggning och analys av
ekosystemtja
¨nster i Stockholms stad. Stockholm: Calluna AB; 2015.
68. Bivand R. Spatial Dependence: Weighting Schemes, Statistics and Models. 2017.
69. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical
Computing. Vienna, Austria; 2016. p. 3503. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74686-7
70. QGIS Development Team. QGIS. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial
Foundation Project; 2019. Available: http://qgis.osgeo.org
71. Stern PC, Dietz T, Kalof L. Value Orientations, Gender, and Environmental Concern. Environ Behav.
1993; 25: 322–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916593255002
72. Gifford R, Nilsson A. Personal and social factors that influence pro-environmental concern and behav-
iour: A review. Int J Psychol. 2014 [cited 19 Dec 2017]. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12034 PMID:
24821503
73. Gutteling JM, Wiegman O. Gender-specific reactions to environmental hazards in the Netherlands.
Sex Roles. 1993; 28: 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289606
74. Luchs MG, Mooradian TA. Sex, Personality, and Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: Elucidating the
Gender Effect. J Consum Policy. 2012; 35: 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-011-9179-0
75. Scannell L, Gifford R. Personally Relevant Climate Change: The Role of Place Attachment and Local
Versus Global Message Framing in Engagement. Environ Behav. 2013; 45: 60–85. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0013916511421196
76. Shanahan DF, Fuller RA, Bush R, Lin BB, Gaston KJ. The health benefits of urban nature: How much
do we need? BioScience. 2015; 65: 476–485. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv032
77. Franco LS, Shanahan DF, Fuller RA. A Review of the Benefits of Nature Experiences: More Than
Meets the Eye. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017; 14: 864. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14080864
PMID: 28763021
78. Charles C, Keenleyside K, Chapple R, Kilburn B, van der Leest PS, Allen D, et al. Home to Us All: How
Connecting with Nature Helps Us Care for Ourselves and the Earth. Children and Nature Network;
2018. Available: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/597b547aebbd1a681f3883f2/t/
5bf561f12b6a2890e1a04b37/1542808051665/HometoUsAll.pdf
79. Chawla L. Life paths into effective environmental action. J Environ Educ. 1999; 31: 15–26.
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 18 / 20
80. Zylstra MJ, Knight AT, Esler KJ, Le Grange LLL. Connectedness as a Core Conservation Concern: An
Interdisciplinary Review of Theory and a Call for Practice. Springer Sci Rev. 2014; 119–143. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40362-014-0021-3
81. Gifford R. Environmental psychology matters. Annu Rev Psychol. 2014; 65: 541–79. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115048 PMID: 24050189
82. Lin BB, Fuller R a., Bush R, Gaston KJ, Shanahan DF. Opportunity or orientation? Who uses urban
parks and why. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087422 PMID:
24489913
83. Bjerke T, And CT, Kleiven J. Outdoor recreation interests and environmental attitudes in Norway.
Manag Leis. 2006; 11: 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/13606710500520197
84. Lin BB, Gaston KJ, Fuller RA, Wu D, Bush R, Shanahan DF. How green is your garden?: Urban form
and socio-demographic factors influence yard vegetation, visitation, and ecosystem service benefits.
Landsc Urban Plan. 2017; 157: 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.07.007
85. Pyle RM. The Thunder Tree: Lessons from an Urban Wildland. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1993.
86. Miller JR. Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends Ecol Evol. 2005; 20: 430–
4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013 PMID: 16701413
87. Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, Vilsmaier U, et al. Leverage points for sus-
tainability transformation. Ambio. 2017; 46: 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y PMID:
27344324
88. Gatersleben B, Andrews M. When walking in nature is not restorative—The role of prospect and ref-
uge. Health Place. 2013; 20: 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.01.001 PMID:
23399852
89. Giusti M, Svane U, Raymond CM, Beery T. A Framework to Assess Where and How Children Connect
to Nature. Front Psychol. 2018; 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02283 PMID: 29354088
90. van Heezik Y, Brymer E. Nature as a Commodity: What’s Good for Human Health Might Not Be Good
for Ecosystem Health. Front Psychol. 2018; 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01673 PMID:
30250443
91. Hanski I, von Hertzen L, Fyhrquist N, Koskinen K, Torppa K, Laatikainen T, et al. Environmental biodi-
versity, human microbiota, and allergy are interrelated. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012; 109: 8334–8339.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1205624109 PMID: 22566627
92. Hertzen L von, Hanski I, Haahtela T. Natural immunity. EMBO Rep. 2011; 12: 1089–1093.https://doi.
org/10.1038/embor.2011.195 PMID: 21979814
93. Khan A, Plana-Ripoll O, Antonsen S, Brandt J, Geels C, Landecker H, et al. Environmental pollution is
associated with increased risk of psychiatric disorders in the US and Denmark. Ioannidis JPA, editor.
PLOS Biol. 2019; 17: e3000353. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000353 PMID: 31430271
94. Andersson E, Barthel S, Borgstro
¨m S, Colding J, Elmqvist T, Folke C, et al. Reconnecting cities to the
biosphere: Stewardship of green infrastructure and urban ecosystem services. Ambio. 2014; 43: 445–
453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0506-y PMID: 24740616
95. Stanley MC, Beggs JR, Bassett IE, Burns BR, Dirks KN, Jones DN, et al. Emerging threats in urban
ecosystems: a horizon scanning exercise. Front Ecol Environ. 2015; 13: 553–560. https://doi.org/10.
1890/150229
96. Davis N, Gatersleben B. Transcendent Experiences in Wild and Manicured Settings: The Influence of
the Trait “Connectedness to Nature.” Ecopsychology. 2013; 5: 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.
2013.0016
97. Gu¨neralp B, Zhou Y, U
¨rge-Vorsatz D, Gupta M, Yu S, Patel PL, et al. Global scenarios of urban density
and its impacts on building energy use through 2050. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017; 114: 8945–8950.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606035114 PMID: 28069957
98. Resch E, Bohne RA, Kvamsdal T, Lohne J. Impact of Urban Density and Building Height on Energy
Use in Cities. Energy Procedia. 2016; 96: 800–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.142
99. Soga M, Yamaura Y, Koike S, Gaston KJ. Land sharing vs. land sparing: does the compact city recon-
cile urban development and biodiversity conservation? J Appl Ecol. 2014; 51: 1378–1386. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1365-2664.12280
100. Neuman M. The Compact City Fallacy. J Plan Educ Res. 2005; 25: 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0739456X04270466
101. Kennedy CA, Stewart I, Facchini A, Cersosimo I, Mele R, Chen B, et al. Energy and material flows of
megacities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112: 5985–5990. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1504315112 PMID: 25918371
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 19 / 20
102. Foord J. Mixed-Use Trade-Offs: How to Live and Work in a Compact City Neighbourhood. Built Envi-
ron. 2010; 36: 47–62. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.36.1.47
103. Van Der Waals J. The compact city and the environment: a review. Tijdschr Voor Econ En Soc Geogr.
2000; 91: 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00099
104. Wentz EA, York AM, Alberti M, Conrow L, Fischer H, Inostroza L, et al. Six fundamental aspects for
conceptualizing multidimensional urban form: A spatial mapping perspective. Landsc Urban Plan.
2018; 179: 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.07.007
105. Samuelsson K, Colding J, Barthel S. Urban resilience at eye level: Spatial analysis of empirically
defined experiential landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan. 2019; 187: 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2019.03.015
106. Pyle RM. Nature matrix: reconnecting people and nature. Oryx. 2003; 37: 206–214. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S0030605303000383
107. Giusti M. Home for future earth lovers: foundations of nature-connecting habitats for children. 2018.
108. Beatley T. Biophilic Cities. 2010.
The regenerative compatibility between urban ecosystems, environmental attitudes, and restorative experiences
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227311 January 7, 2020 20 / 20
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
