Therapeutic and restorative landscapes: including preferences for bluespaces in planning urban infrastructure

Abstract

The impact of urbanization on our mental health and well-being calls for urban design and infrastructure development to include accessibility to restorative spaces and therapeutic landscapes, like green and blue spaces, that can potentially improve our wellbeing. Research in the suburb of Glebe in Sydney (Australia) aimed to identify the preferences for, and use of, different types of green and blue spaces. Semi-structured interviews involving photo elicitation (12 participants) and an online survey (53 respondents) showed that bluespaces and the combination of blue and green spaces, are preferred over built and green spaces. Bluespace preferences are explained by four key themes: (i) ineffable emotions and the ‘affect’ of space; (ii) childhood memories; (iii) the separation of human and nature through language and (iv) environmental and social sustainability. The design of bluespace to improve the quality and access to urban bluespaces, such as lakes, rivers, creeks and canals, involves the provision of adequate and appropriate infrastructure. Restorative spaces and therapeutic landscapes thereby become more accessible and potentially can improve health and wellbeing for more city residents.

INTRODUCTION

Mental health is a major issue in most countries [1]. Physical aspects of our urban environment can both positively and negatively influence our mental health and well-being. Designing cities with access to ‘natural spaces’ can alleviate the stress urban environments evoke [2, 3]. Bluespace is a therapeutic landscape until recently often mentioned only in relation to greenspaces [4], and generally limited by bluespace research focusing on quantitative methods [5] that are unable to explain the deep reasons behind why these spaces affect us (although see [6, 7]). Understanding the emotion that drives our relationships with natural spaces is essential to understand the complexities of why and how it influences our well-being. This article will develop a more holistic understanding of bluespace by revealing nuanced, qualitative reasoning behind preferences for nature in the city.

The Therapeutic Landscape Framework gained popularity in the 1980s and is now primarily used as a way for health geographers to integrate well-being with place on physical, social and symbolic levels [8–10]. Research on the benefits and use of these spaces revolves around themes, such as exercise, children, marginalized groups and vulnerable people [2, 11, 12]. While the Therapeutic Landscapes Framework was traditionally associated with healing spaces, such as gardens, hot spring or spas [13, 14], therapeutic research has incorporated open spaces in urban contexts, including greenspace and bluespace [15–17]. Similarly to therapeutic landscapes, public green and blue spaces in the city (and beyond) have the potential to be restorative and improve mental health [18–21].

Greenspace refers to natural spaces that are green in colour, including grass, trees, bushes and other vegetation. Greenspace positively alters the physical characteristics of our cities, helping reduce the urban heat island effects [22–24] and adding diversity to the urban ecology of a city by sustaining remnant native flora and fauna [25, 26]. Greenspace is the dominant term, and it often includes other natural elements, such as bluespace, although we argue they need to be considered as separate but related entities.

Bluespace incorporates urban environments containing visible surface water, for instance, coasts, rivers, lakes and bays [27]. Half of the world’s cities are built <100 km from the coast [28], and the rest typically have access to bluespace in the form of a river, canal or lake, including other colours of water, such as ‘brown, grey and green waters, … remembering water is not everywhere always the same’ ([6]). Like greenspace, bluespace influences physical components of urban space by mitigating heat [22, 29]. It is sometimes referred to as Green Blue Infrastructure in that green spaces and water elements are incorporated into urban planning and design [4, 30], although not all authors agree with the framing of nature as infrastructure (see [31]). On the one hand, the ecosystem benefits provided by these spaces obviate the need for ‘grey infrastructure’ in the form of human-made infrastructure, while on the other hand, the concept turns nature into an expanded notion of infrastructure where the benefits to humans come to justify the existence of blue and green spaces.

Despite the prominence of water in our lives and in cities, urban bluespace is under researched because the distinct benefits of bluespace are lost if research on ‘nature’ conflates greenspace and bluespace. Recent work on BlueHealth [32] suggests that bluespace is increasingly valued in its own right and is being connected to wider health benefits. For example, research has shown waterside environments result in the greatest positive change to self-esteem and mood compared to other types of environments, including countryside, forest, woodland, urban green, farmland and wild habitats [33]. While greenspaces did improve self-esteem and mood, waterside greenspace had a larger effect for both measures [33]. Similarly, Nutsford et al. [34] found higher levels of bluespace visibility from a participant’s residence resulted in significantly lower psychological distress scores, with visibility to greenspace having no significant effect. These findings suggest that bluespace positively impacts our well-being and mental health in a different way than greenspace. This is further supported by research showing bluespace is generally preferred to other environments. White et al. [5] found that environments containing water were always more preferred by participants in their photo elicitation study comparing built, green and aquatic environments, other than when aquatic and green spaces were shown together. Therefore, continuing to research the combination of bluespace and greenspace within a distinct concept of bluespace research is necessary to reveal how to best combine these two spaces and to further understand why urban water environments have such a great impact on our preferences and well-being.

Contexts of bluespace environments further evoke different results, as an important distinction between urban and blue spaces is the different effect of weather. White et al. [35] highlight perceptions of bluespaces are significantly more positive in sunny rather than cloudy conditions, while urban landscape preferences are not affected by weather. Explanations indicate that bluespaces are associated with relief from hot weather, while on cloudy days they do not provide much shelter and warmth [36]. The notion of ‘calm’ water being more restorative has also been linked to the effect of weather, as clouds could indicate a storm and rougher bluespace [35, 37]. Another contextual factor is familiarity with local spaces or preferred places that individuals regularly visit. Korpela et al. [38] found that when we exercise or do activities in the city, our favourite bluespaces, including beaches and harbours, give a stronger restorative experience than our favourite built or green spaces.

There are several important issues that arise from the current research into the benefits of bluespace. Many bluespace studies focus on the coast or the beach [39–42], while urban waterways, such as bays, harbours, rivers, creeks and canals, which are often more accessible for many urban residents, receive less attention. These non-coastal bluespaces warrant research to identify if they can provide the same benefits as the coast, and how their design and maintenance can be improved so to provide city dwellers with convenient access to quality bluespaces.

Different results between locations and nationalities further suggest the need for location-specific research. For example, White et al. [43] found large differences existed between the east and west coasts of the UK regarding the positive impact of proximity to the coast.

Building on these personal place histories, the importance of emotion and affect as foundations of human existence that influence our actions and reactions throughout our lifetime should inform bluespace research. Affect and emotion occur at different levels of consciousness in our mind, but while they are distinct, they work in parallel and must be simultaneously applied in research. Together, emotional and affective geographies allow for a greater understanding of how and why individuals perceive environments differently. It is necessary to discover why humans benefit from a connection to nature while acknowledging that this connection differs from person to person. Therefore, this study incorporates emotion and affect using qualitative research methods to reveal personal perceptions and acknowledge the unique experience of each individual.

CASE STUDY BACKGROUND

The empirical research for this article was conducted in Glebe, an older, inner suburb <3 km southwest of the central area of Australia’s largest city, Sydney. The area is predominantly residential, with access to urban bluespace via foreshore parks and walkways at Rozelle Bay, Blackwattle Bay and Johnstons Creek. This research was conducted in 2017 and updated with recent literature. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics [44] Census, Glebe (postcode 2037) at the time of the research had a population of 16 115, with a median age of 34, marginally younger than the Sydney average of 36, was slightly below the Greater Sydney average [44, 45] for the median weekly household income, but was significantly more educated, with 39.5% of residents university or tertiary educated compared to Sydney’s 19.2% [44, 45].

The traditional custodians of the land at Glebe Foreshore are the Gadigal and Wangal people of the Eora Nation [46]. After British Invasion in 1788, the Gadigal and Wangal populations dropped significantly. From the 1830s, waterfront sites became desirable for industries [47], including soap and candle factories, tanneries and abattoirs that polluted the bays and creeks [48]. One hundred years later, many of these industries had aged or required deeper water to ship their products [49]. Exiting industries and the creation of Bicentennial Park in 1988, followed by the completion of the Foreshore Walk in 2006 [50], and restoration work on the Johnstons Creek Parklands from 2013, have fostered an extensive and accessible blue-green infrastructure for Glebe residents and visitors.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Measures

Based on the Photo Elicitation study by White et al. [5], photos of 16 different environmental scene combinations in Glebe (see Fig. 1) were produced to represent blue, green and built (such as infrastructure and buildings) environments and their various combinations. These combinations of scenes included: Bluespace, Built, Greenspace, Bluespace-Greenspace-Built, Bluespace-Greenspace, Bluespace-Built and Greenspace-Built. These were then edited to represent both sunny and cloudy days. Two additional images of Johnstons Creek full of water (see Fig. 1H), and when it was drained with the concrete foundations visible (see Fig. 1C) were included in the study.

In the online survey, participants were asked to rate the 16 photographs on a measured rating scale (see Fig. 2) in terms of how ‘attractive’ they find the scene (aesthetic), their willingness to ‘visit’ and ‘live’ near the scene (behavioural), and how the scene makes them ‘feel’ (affect and emotion). Qualitative data was also gathered as participants were given comment boxes where they could explain why they liked or disliked a scene.

These measurements aimed to reveal three values of each scene: aesthetic, behaviour and emotion. This method has previously been used to compare natural and built scenes, revealing a preference for photographs with natural, not urban, environments [5, 51, 52]. However, previous studies used one-dimensional scales for measuring affect and emotion, simply asking participants to rate how a scene makes them feel from very sad (1) to very happy (10) [5]. To gain deeper insight into ‘affect’ within these spaces, this study listed common emotions for participants to select as answers for how the scene made them ‘feel’ (Fig. 3). Primary emotions theories [53] informed the selection of emotions listed, and the opposites of these common feelings were further included, e.g. ‘stressed’ was accompanied with the opposing option of ‘relaxed’. Participants were then asked to choose their most and least preferred photo among the 16 scenes and to rank their most and least preferred types of bluespaces. Comment boxes asked why they chose their most and least preferred photo scene and type of bluespace.

Procedure

Research included two components: semi-structured interviews with Glebe residents and an online survey created on SurveyMonkey. Both semi-structured interviews and the survey started with brief demographic questions (current age, gender identity, current postcode and distance in time to nearest bluespace). The online survey utilized photo elicitation to explore dimensions of bluespace preferences and the emotions they evoke for participants, who then further ranked bluespace types by most to least preferred and answered how many times they had visited bluespace the past 2 weeks. The online survey included comment boxes for participants to elaborate qualitatively on the quantitative measures included. The online survey was refined after being piloted with five people.

Semi-structured interviews used the same images from the photo elicitation in the online survey, but instead of rating all 16 photos, participants were asked to choose their most and least preferred images to allow for deeper discussion of the reason behind ratings and selection of certain scenes over others. Discussion was prompted by open-ended questions about aesthetics, behaviour and emotion, like the online survey, giving interviewees the opportunity to lead the discussion and bring attention to what is important from their experience and perspective. Like the online survey, participants were asked to rank different types of bluespaces, further facilitating in-depth discussion about the experiences and emotions behind their preferences. Open-ended questions included, ‘how important is it for you to live near blue or greenspace?’, ‘how does this photo make you feel?’, ‘why did you choose this as your most/least preferred bluespace?’ and ‘could you tell me more about what you mean by that?’

Participants and sampling

Eligible participants were required to be 18 years or older, currently residing in Sydney, Australia, and fluent in English. The online survey returned 53 responses (37 female and 16 male), and 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted (6 female and 6 male, age range 18–80).

A convenience sample of the general Sydney, Australia population was recruited for both the online survey and semi-structured interviews via distribution of flyers around Glebe mailboxes, posters in Glebe on bus stops and the library, digital flyers and posts on social networking platform Facebook groups and pages based in Glebe and Greater Sydney, and personal contacts via email further disseminated via snowballing.

Limitations

A relatively small sample size limits the generalizability of the study to reflect perspectives of the Greater Sydney population. Lack of demographic data, such as socio-economic status, including employment, annual income, level of education and living arrangements limits, our understanding of other factors that can influence well-being. Similar to de Groot and van den Born [54], who found that ‘more nature-friendly respondents may have returned the questionnaire’, rather than a general representation of society, this recruitment process may have attracted more nature-friendly people, and people interested in the type of research being conducted.

RESULTS

Photo elicitation: the influence of weather

For online survey participants, the order of preference for different environmental combinations changed according to the different weather conditions in the photograph and varied depending on the question being measured (see Fig. 4). Cloudy conditions were rated lower on average compared to sunny conditions. Cloudy scenes containing bluespace were rated as more attractive than photo scenes without bluespace, and participants were more willing to visit cloudy scenes with bluespace. In the cloudy condition, Blue, Blue-Green and Blue-Green-Built combinations were the most preferred in ‘attractiveness’ and ‘wanting to live near’. Blue-Green-Built was the photo that participants were most willing to visit in the cloudy condition. These results indicate that on average, environmental scenes in a cloudy condition are more preferred when they contain bluespace (see Fig. 4). Interviews confirmed this as participants indicated they were not influenced whether photo scenes with bluespace were in a cloudy or sunny condition, with several subjects stating the cloudiness in scenes, including bluespace would not bother them, commenting that overcast days and clouds can add value to the water scenes they recognized as their local Glebe Foreshore, for example:

‘…a grey day here, can be the nicest sort of day. Photos don’t pick that up I suppose’ (Interviewee 4, female)

Figure 4 shows there was minimal difference between sunny conditions in all three measurements of preference ratings of Green, Blue-Built, Green-Built and Blue-Green-Built, except for an increased willingness to visit the Blue-Green-Built sunny scene. In the sunny condition, the highest ratings overall were given to Blue and Blue-Green photo scenes. There was no overall preference for blue over green spaces in the sunny condition when either were combined with a built component. However, the combination of Blue-Green had much higher ratings in all conditions compared to the Green-Sunny scene, while the Blue-Sunny scene had significantly higher ratings than the Green-Sunny. This suggests that bluespace may have greater power over how greenspace is rated, and that greenspace does not have the same agency over bluespace ratings. This was confirmed by interviews where most participants said they would ideally like access to a combination of blue and green space, but when asked specifically, all chose bluespace over greenspace, stating:

‘I really like the combination, I think that’s the key. But I think the bluespace makes the greenspace, … you can enjoy the greenspace more if the bluespace is there… if you’re talking about emotion because you don’t need the greenspace there’ (Interviewee 8, male)

‘Well, it’s that combination of water and greenery... (Bluespace) is more important yeah, but the combination is better’ (Interviewee 11, male)

Photo elicitation: most preferred scenes

Figures 5 and 6 show the most and least preferred photo scenes that online survey participants chose out of the 16 images presented (Fig. 5). The most preferred photo scenes all contained bluespace.

Creek-Filled was the most preferred by online participants, with common explanations for the choice including that it seemed peaceful, away from the city, and wild, e.g.:

‘I think it's my most preferred photo because it's the most untouched, and the most wild. There's lots of beautiful vegetation and I get a sense of wildness from it that it isn't possible to get from a scene which has a large city in the background.’ (Online Survey Participant 1)

Interviewees were also drawn to the Creek-Filled photo scene, with a surprising result being the image consistently evoked reference to kayaks:

‘Looks like somewhere you could go kayaking or something’ (Interviewee 9, male)

All participants who referred to this image mentioned kayaking, or floating along the water in a similar vessel, such as a canoe:

‘Can’t you just picture yourself, lying in a canoe just floating down?’ (Interviewee 1, female)

Blue-Green Sunny was the second most preferred photo; with comments indicating it was because it included both trees and water. Blue-Sunny was the third most preferred, with reasons based around the fact that it reminded participants of the beach, and it was ‘calming’ and ‘relaxing’ because of the water. Participants further valued spaces that were ‘used’ by people.

‘I love the boats on the water. It's not just a body of water with nothing happening. But, combined with the bridge & the city scape reminds me of the possibilities of living in a city. I love cities, but if they're near water they are even better’ (Online Survey Participant 2)

Interviewees stated they enjoyed the Glebe Foreshore Parks because the public regularly used them for exercise, picnics, cycling and dog-walking:

‘I actually quite like working bluespaces,… I think they can be quite attractive and quite interesting’ (Interviewee 8, male)

This indicates the potential for our urban natural spaces to still be therapeutic, as they are more likely to be ‘happening’ with more people and activities occurring because of proximity and access to highly populated residential areas. While participants preferred the images because they evoked a sense of escape from the urban to blue and green spaces that appear untouched and wild, for images containing bluespace, the opportunity for relaxation remained through the idea of engaging in leisurely activities or seeing the water in use.

Photo elicitation: least preferred scenes

Six out of the ten least preferred were cloudy conditions, and all four sunny conditions included a built component. Figure 6 shows the least preferred photo scenes were Creek-Drained (see Fig. 1C ), Built-Cloudy (see Fig. 1E), Blue-Built-Cloudy (see Fig. 1N) and Green-Cloudy (see Fig. 1G). In contrast to Creek-Filled being the most preferred scene, Creek-Drained (see Fig. 1C) was least preferred by 29% of online participants because the water looked dirty:

‘Looks disgusting and dirty. Not very hygenic (sic). Would probably smell really bad as well’ (Online Survey Participant 3)

‘The scene reminds me of pollution and the unfortunate side to city-living; nature is around us but also struggling against the pollution and impact of human life and infrastructure’ (Online Survey Participant 4)

‘Looks like stagnant water and a little industrial’. (Online Survey Participant 5)

Some interviewees also rated the Creek-Drained as their least preferred or had neutral feelings towards it because of its unappealing aesthetic:

‘Yeah that’s horrible... What is it a storm water drain or something?… I just don’t like the brown, grungy water basically’ (Interviewee 8, male)

‘I just wouldn’t go there’ (Interviewee 9, male)

‘I just find these hideous, so ugly, they smell weird. I grew up living next to these kinds of, I think they’re like gutters or drains, not very fond of them’ (Interviewee 2, male)

A couple of participants further drew attention to the potential importance of our connection to, and historical knowledge of, our local places. One resident who initially spoke positively about Creek-Filled, disliked both Creek scenes after realising the images were taken in the same spot in Glebe, stating:

‘If I treated it as it is (in real life) it would be no different to the one of the stormwater drain at low tide (Creek-Drained)… that (Creek-Filled) looks like a much more attractive place than it is…that’s (Creek-Drained) sort of everything’s that’s wrong with what we’ve done with our creeks’ (Interviewee 11, male)

Whereas, for another participant, their connection and knowledge of the place enhanced their perception of the Creek-Drained image, commenting:

‘I know it sounds a bit weird but I actually like that (Creek-Drained). But I think it’s because I know where it’s coming from, if I didn’t know it I think it would be a bit different…I know the history of it and I’m familiar with it. And I know it’s tidal and I know its different depths at different times of the day. And it’s also part of my very enjoyable walk or cycle, circuit’ (Interviewee 7, female)

The contrasting results between Creek-Filled and Creek-Drained draw attention to the maintenance of urban bluespaces, our personal connection to urban blue and green spaces, as well as our knowledge of their history and purpose or function potentially impacting their therapeutic possibilities.

Figure 6 shows the second least preferred scene was Built-Cloudy (see Fig. 1E) mainly because of the built component of the scene combined with the lack of nature and cloudy weather conditions:

‘I hate any environment which feels to (sic) man made and removed from nature. When I see sky scrapers I imagine the smell and the noise of the city which I hate.’ (Online Survey Participant)

‘Cities just don't do it for me, the harsh environment of concrete and steel is unappealing. Factor in what looks to be bad weather and the whole image is completely unattractive.’ (Online Survey Participant)

These results suggest there is a perceived disconnect between urban and natural environments, which is further explored in the discussion.

Interviewees also rated both sunny and cloudy Green photo scenes low, drawing attention to the idea of unappealing forms of greenspace. For example, participants found some greenspace images boring or too manicured:

‘It’s a bit of a boring photo. I mean I love that it’s green. It’s not natural green it’s kind of contrived. I mean the oval has to be. What else can I say; it’s been mowed by the looks of it (laughs)... I’m just trying to think. It not a very appealing photo… it looks like a playfield waiting for players, waiting for something to happen’ (Interviewee 7, female)

‘That is an uninteresting greenspace…wildness is nice, I like wildness or at least the illusion of wildness’ (Interviewee 4, female)

There is a suggestion here that some types of greenspaces, including bare, flat and grassy areas, are not as preferable and therefore might not be providing the same therapeutic qualities as other green and bluespaces. Participants much preferred the idea of built-up, wild greenery surrounding water and thus may prefer greenspaces that are less structured, more spontaneous and include some form of natural water feature.

Photo elicitation: associated emotions

The most consistent emotions were elicited from photos that contained bluespace. Online survey results revealed the Blue-Green-Sunny scene evoked the most consistent emotions with ~75% of participants indicating it made them feel relaxed, ~60% happy and ~58% calm. The Blue-Sunny scene also evoked consistent emotions with ~70% of participants selecting relaxed, ~68% calm, and ~60% happy. The reasoning behind these consistencies and emotions was further explored in interviews, where it was revealed that examining silences, childhood memories, language, urban planning and class could explain why there is a preference for bluespace in the quantitative results.

First, it is important to highlight that participants often struggled to explain their own preferences and feelings:

‘Just… I think just cause it is’ (Interviewee 1, female)

‘Well I don’t know. You’re making me think’ (Interviewee 3, male)

Participants had further difficulty in expressing their feelings towards scenes. Some interviewees would laugh in response to being asked how the scenes made them feel. Alternatively, they would simply not be able to explain or express why in any more detail other than the fact that they felt they liked it:

“No reason…it’s just like a feeling” (Interviewee 1, female)

“Um… I really like it” (Interviewee 4, female)

Ineffability surrounding bluespace was further expressed in the ‘words’ participants used, which suggested the preferences for bluespace were due to an indescribable notion that it represents something greater than human existence. Participants refer to the greatness of water in comparison to us, drawing on the idea of the more-than-human side of water that is represented by its expanse, mass and uncontrollability. Although participants struggled to answer direct questions of why certain photos were more preferred over others, or evoked different feelings, possible reasons were revealed throughout the interview in moments when participants were able to discuss their life more freely in a conversational manner.

The second common theme in interviews was that bluespace preferences were related to childhood memories. Memories were evoked by the initial definition and discussion of bluespace in Glebe:

‘… we spent a lot of time down at the river and um, throwing rocks and playing and jumping and swimming and exploring and fishing… and I guess water for me is, you know as a child was always fun and playful and yeah exciting, exploring’ (Interviewee 6, female)

and by images presented during the photo elicitation:

‘See I love rivers and creeks and things like that because it reminds me of when I was little in Fiji. We would swim in a creek…I’m just picturing myself when I was little’ (Interviewee 1, female)

And when they were asked to explain why they preferred different photos or types of bluespace:

‘This free flowing, wandering, meandering, bubbly sound that I’m used to for creeks. And part of this might have been growing up in Michigan there were a couple of nice creeks around the house that were just not very big, not very deep, but the sound of them as they go over the limbs, or over the rocks…’ (Interviewee 3, male)

‘It actually reminds me of being a child. Being down at the seaside. The sand, it’s very childlike for me. It reminds me of when I was a kid…. I can imagine playing with my bucket and spade here. And it’s calm. … I can almost feel the sand under my feet but I’m little and it’s very uncomplicated and simple’ (Interviewee 7, female)

Additionally, participants who referenced a childhood memory would then go on to choose the type that had evoked the memory as their most preferred type of bluespace.

Third and fourth common themes are intertwined, as there was an acknowledgement of the influence of urban planning and class privileges. Open space was used as a description of preferable environments, as participants acknowledged that it was pleasant but rare to have openness close to the city:

‘It makes a big difference, I feel, when you’ve got a small space (that you live in) to have an open, expansive view’ (Interviewee 8, male)

‘It's very open, while still being close to the city. There's still great access to nature and the outdoors, while being within easy reach of the city’ (Online participant 8 explaining why they like the Blue-Green-Built photo)

‘…One spends one’s whole life trying to buy places where you think you can’t be built out. And that’s another thing about public spaces, you feel like it’s a protection from, you know, commercial monstrosities that they can inflict on you at any time’ (Interviewee 4, female)

The notion of well-designed public spaces is especially significant for bluespaces, as interviewees and online survey comments indicated a relationship between bluespace and wealth in that it is only accessible for those with enough money to afford boats or waterfront homes:

‘Rich people with boats and stinky fish’ (Online Survey Participant 9)

‘The boats are unattractive. It looks like a parking lot for rich people. I feel like they do not deserve to occupy this space’ (Online Survey Participant 10)

‘I associate bluespaces with moneyed suburbs… I mean obviously rich people like bluespaces and they’re obsessed with bluespaces, I do not get it. There are a lot of these suburbs which have these fabulous harbour views I don’t want to live in…’ (Interviewee 4, female)

Expanding access to bluespaces beyond only the privileged necessitates the creation of beautiful, accessible and public bluespaces in many parts of cities.

DISCUSSION

Results from this study highlight that respondents prefer bluespaces, or the combination of blue and green space. Differences between sunny and cloudy conditions support previous findings that weather has a greater impact on preferences for blue and green spaces than for urban environments [35]. Results suggest that the inclusion of bluespace is the primary factor influencing how highly a scene is rated, suggesting bluespace is distinct and adds more perceived value to environments like green and built spaces [5, 34]. Results further confirm the suggestion that the combination of blue and green spaces is of particular value [5], but bluespace on its own is preferred and impactful.

The above findings suggest four themes to explain ‘why’ bluespaces are preferred and beneficial for participants.

Ineffable emotions and the ‘affect’ of space

First, considering ineffable emotions and the ‘affect’ of space through an emotional and affective geography lens illuminated the difficulty in explaining bluespace preferences and benefits. Participants had difficulty in explaining what it is about bluespace that influenced their preferences. Results show a common occurrence of ineffable reasoning by interviewees when asked to explain their preferences and feelings towards scenes. Participants instead responded by continuing to describe the aesthetic appeal of the scene or laugh awkwardly rather than reveal the emotion tied to their preference. This was also exemplified in the online survey, as there was no emotion universally selected for any of the photo scenes, and the only consistency was for relaxed, calm and happy emotions evoked by the Blue and Blue-Green photos. Difficulty in explaining the ‘why’ suggests our preferences are embedded within our emotion and affect rather than rooted in reason and language, but those emotions can be hard to articulate for most. Smith et al. [55] argue feelings are ineffable because the objectifying nature of language cannot explain the complexities of our emotional involvement with people and places. Therefore, this study provides empirical evidence for Pike et al. [56] categorization of social values as being tangible or intangible, where the intangible, non-cognitive, emotional responses to the environment were more important to people. The inconsistency of the results gathered for emotions evoked by each photo scene reflects intangible feelings towards bluespace, confirming labelled emotions do not represent universal experiences of space. Findings also validate the importance of qualitative, emotional and affective approaches because the explanation of the results from this study relied on the investigation of each participant’s experience through semi-structured interviews. This further validates the claims of Bird [57] as understanding this would not have been achieved without the casual setting of interviews and open-ended dialogue, which enabled participants agency and time to deeply reflect.

Childhood memories

The second major theme of childhood and memory explores the possibility that early memories influence our preferences and emotions towards bluespace later in life. All interviewees chose the type of bluespace that evoked their childhood memory as their most preferred, or used a childhood memory to explain why it was their favourite type. These results indicate that foundations for bluespace preferences are created early in our lives, and these memories are then referred to when we consider our perceptions of certain spaces in the present. Bell et al. [58] argued participants held agency over their experience in green and blue spaces through temporal structures of fleeting time, restorative time and biographical time. The findings regarding childhood memories are therefore important because they provide empirical evidence of how someone’s personal history shapes their therapeutic experience of bluespace. It is important to acknowledge that negative experiences can occur in what is otherwise considered a therapeutic space (see [20]), and results show negative associations were expressed towards both most and least preferred bluespaces. However, within this study only positive childhood memories were evoked.

Results from this research suggest unstructured and wild features were the most preferred aspects of the urban environment because they also related to childhood memories. This supports Armstrong’s [59] suggestion for the use of forgotten spaces in the city as playgrounds for children to reconnect with more wild and spontaneous environments. Wells and Lekies [60] also found that adults who had childhood experiences in ‘wild nature’ had more positive environmental behaviours and attitudes than those who experienced ‘domesticated nature’. Therefore, results suggest providing organic natural spaces in our urban environments, that include bluespace, to foster well-being in children [61, 62], as well as to maintain well-being in current and future adults whose childhood memories of those environments influence their well-being and experiences of space throughout life.

The separation of human and nature through language

The third key theme highlights a problematic distinction between humans and the environment that must be addressed to improve our perception and experience of urban spaces. The language we use to describe spaces creates an idea of legitimate versus illegitimate nature. Separation became evident when participants distinguished blue and green spaces as natural, or legitimate, and urban spaces as unnatural, or illegitimate. The preference results indicate we legitimize the complementary link between blue and green spaces by acknowledging they naturally exist together. Yet we disconnect ourselves from these spaces in our discourse [9, 63]. This language becomes problematic as it suggests human actions are detached from nature when we are inextricably connected. This notion of separation is especially contradictory in regards to bluespace as water is a ‘natural’ space we can physically be a part of, and benefit from, but we still objectify it as separate from human existence. Water can never be separate from people as bluespace is more than something we look at from a distance because it physically demands for us to acknowledge we are connected to it [64]. The issue of language has previously been raised within bluespace literature. Thomas [65] argues that although research distinguishes green and blue spaces as distinctly separate from urban, or ‘grey’ spaces, in our day-to-day reality humans experience all these spaces as an interconnected matrix, where our emotions are not confined to be experienced in the vacuum of only one space.

Although we express that we feel connected to nature as a therapeutic space, our language suggests we do not recognize that this connection extends to our other actions. Discourse acknowledges our link to nature when it is of benefit to us and our well-being, but disconnects nature from our destructive, ‘man-made’ behaviours as if the urban exists within its own isolated bubble. For example, creeks in urban settings and canals are negatively perceived because within our language they have been defined by their context and historical tendency to be polluted and associated with disease.

Therefore, we should consider redefining our language given that what we categorize as ‘unnatural’, urban natural spaces, can provide equal restoration and enjoyment as spaces we traditionally recognize as ‘natural’ environments [38, 66, 67]. To create more positive experiences in urban space, future discourse should be framed around these ideas in an effort to eliminate the separation that currently exists in our language when discussing ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ spaces. If we can successfully redefine and reimagine what a city is by looking at it as part of nature [9, 63], we can begin a path of reconnecting what we think is separately human back into what we describe as distinctively natural. This is particularly important for the inclusion of bluespace in urban design because ‘if urban planners and associated professionals can make any difference to the way a particular city develops, this is in part due to the vision they communicate in documents. That vision is presented in images, diagrams, tables, and in the language that constructs a city, the perceived problems, and the proposed solutions’ ([68]).

Environmental and social sustainability

The fourth and final key theme of sustainable urban development considers the importance of open space and informed design of bluespace in the city, as well as the social privileges tied to bluespace. The idea presented above of redefining language is vital within the theme of ‘sustainability’. The results of this study indicated sustainability relates to bluespace preferences physically, as participants were concerned with the rate and quality of construction around bluespace, as well as socially, in the privilege of class that exists on and around bluespaces. Preferences in this study tended to be for spaces without built components, but the inclusion of blue spaces improved the rating of built scenes. This supports Barton and Pretty [33], who found that urban waterside environments had the most positive impact on people, even when compared to wild habitats. Participants in this research liked creeks that were secluded, and would promote ecology and wildlife, while disliking pollution and poor maintenance. The ecological restoration of urban bluespaces not only restores the environment but can also provide residents with the greatest amount of therapeutic restoration by offering urban residents access to bluespace that could benefit their well-being in a similar way to ‘wild nature’ without the need to travel far.

This notion further expands sustainability to link with class and social privileges. Natural spaces physically change the composition of the surface of our cities, resulting in changes to temperatures and air quality, which in turn impact how comfortably or uncomfortably we live our everyday lives [29, 36]. If, as participants noted accurately, upper-class people live closer to the water, this means they generally live in cooler, more comfortable environments than those with no bluespace access [69]. Predictions for rising temperatures with climate change require designing cities to lower the temperature, and these designs should provide all social classes with relief from extreme heat.

CONCLUSION

Green and blue spaces are important in our cities. This study confirms bluespace is a distinct space that residents have a unique preference for compared to built and green spaces, because it offers a different experience, emotion and affect. The combination of blue and green spaces was the most preferred environment, and the inclusion of both improved ratings of built environments. In summary, photo elicitation ratings show a preference for sunny conditions over cloudy, and scenes that include bluespace were generally more preferred than other scenes. The most and least preferred photos were the Creek-Filled and Creek-Drained, respectively, with a substantial difference found in ratings of preference between the two. Bluespace is argued to be the main influence on preference, as its inclusion significantly improved the rating of a scene. It is important to not only consider how to incorporate green and bluespaces into plans, but also how to design and plan built elements of cities to be interesting, attractive and beneficial for people other than the wealthy who can afford to live in proximity to desirable blue spaces or can easily travel to such spaces.

This requires a greater emphasis to be placed on promoting blue space in parts of the city away from the coast (if applicable) and away from the wealthier suburbs. It means creating new bluespaces, enhancing existing forms of bluespace that may have been degraded by industrialization or by a desire to remove water from an area to prevent disease so that they can be enjoyed by many people with diverse needs, as well as providing appropriate access to such spaces. This could be in the form of improved transport infrastructure, better signage or working with local communities to raise awareness and civic pride in their local environments. These spaces are closer to many people than are coastal environments—‘~50% of the European population lives within 50 km of a coastline, while the average urban European lives only 2.5 km from a freshwater source such as a river, lake or canal’ [32]. The same is true for urban residents on other continents, representing an opportunity to build on understandings of bluespace preferences and more create better and accessible bluespaces that enhance the health and lives of city dwellers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the referees and the journal editors for their helpful feedback on an earlier version of this article. Kate Eager developed the idea of exploring preferences for bluespace, conducted original research and wrote much of the earlier version of the text. Phil McManus supervised her Honours thesis and edited the thesis to develop an article with updated material included.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None declared.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

Kate Eager (Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing) and Phil McManus (Project administration, Supervision, Writing—review & editing).

DATA AVAILABILITY

The data underlying this article are available in the article and in its online supplementary material.

References