Water and Meadow Views Both Afford Perceived but Not Performance-Based Attention Restoration: Results From Two Experimental Studies.

Attention Restoration Theory proposes that exposure to natural environments helps to restore attention. For sustained attention-the ongoing application of focus to a task, the effect appears to be modest, and the underlying mechanisms of attention restoration remain unclear. Exposure to nature may improve attention performance through many means: modulation of alertness and one's connection to nature were investigated here, in two separate studies. In both studies, participants performed the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) before and immediately after viewing a meadow, ocean, or urban image for 40 s, and then completed the Perceived Restorativeness Scale. In Study 1 (n = 68), an eye-tracker recorded the participants' tonic pupil diameter during the SARTs, providing a measure of alertness. In Study 2 (n = 186), the effects of connectedness to nature on SART performance and perceived restoration were studied. In both studies, the image viewed was not associated with participants' sustained attention performance; both nature images were perceived as equally restorative, and more restorative than the urban image. The image viewed was not associated with changes in alertness. Connectedness to nature was not associated with sustained attention performance, but it did moderate the relation between viewing the natural images and perceived restorativeness; participants reporting a higher connection to nature also reported feeling more restored after viewing the nature, but not the urban, images. Dissociation was found between the physiological and behavioral measures and the perceived restorativeness of the images. The results suggest that restoration associated with nature exposure is not associated with modulation of alertness but is associated with connectedness with nature.

Plant blindness and the implications for plant conservation.

Plant conservation initiatives lag behind and receive considerably less funding than animal conservation projects. We explored a potential reason for this bias: a tendency among humans to neither notice nor value plants in the environment. Experimental research and surveys have demonstrated higher preference for, superior recall of, and better visual detection of animals compared with plants. This bias has been attributed to perceptual factors such as lack of motion by plants and the tendency of plants to visually blend together but also to cultural factors such as a greater focus on animals in formal biological education. In contrast, ethnographic research reveals that many social groups have strong bonds with plants, including nonhierarchical kinship relationships. We argue that plant blindness is common, but not inevitable. If immersed in a plant-affiliated culture, the individual will experience language and practices that enhance capacity to detect, recall, and value plants, something less likely to occur in zoocentric societies. Therefore, conservation programs can contribute to reducing this bias. We considered strategies that might reduce this bias and encourage plant conservation behavior. Psychological research demonstrates that people are more likely to support conservation of species that have human-like characteristics and that support for conservation can be increased by encouraging people to practice empathy and anthropomorphism of nonhuman species. We argue that support for plant conservation may be garnered through strategies that promote identification and empathy with plants.

Clearfell controversies and alternative timber harvest designs: how acceptability perceptions vary between Tasmania and the U.S. Pacific Northwest.

Perceptions of the acceptability of alternative "variable retention" timber harvests, that keep trees standing in harvested areas, were compared between regions beset by major forestry conflicts. Data from similar studies of similar harvest systems were compared between Oregon and Tasmania. These comparisons were related to attitudes and to differences in ecosystems, silvicultural prescriptions, forestry outcomes, aesthetics, and social-political context. Findings showed that perceptions measured in one region cannot be assumed valid in another. Substantial regional differences arose not from general sociological differences but from differences in local forestry outcomes. These largely arose from different regeneration requirements of commercial tree species and consequent differences in the design of otherwise analogous harvests. Comparisons of perceptions by people with similar attitudes yielded substantial regional differences. Those prioritizing ecological conservation were mainly influenced by habitat outcomes, and consequently preferred harvests with aggregated tree retention patterns in Tasmania but not in Oregon. People sympathetic to timber industry interests in both regions showed little association between forestry outcomes and acceptability and favoured more intensive harvests. Tasmanian harvest advocates perceived harvests that keep more standing trees as less acceptable than those in Oregon. This may be due to sampling differences or to greater risk perceptions towards new harvest designs in Tasmania. Tasmanians generally disliked clearfelling more than Oregonians, likely due to different political narratives framing these perceptions or to higher aesthetic impacts in Tasmania due to burning. Dispersed retention was perceived as more acceptable in Oregon than in Tasmania, likely because Oregon had much higher post-harvest tree densities. Regional differences in wildfire-risk and logger-safety were not strongly associated with different acceptability perceptions because these were confounded by other more influential concerns. More and better cross-regional studies of environmental perceptions are needed and would benefit from more standardized or coordinated methods.

Effects of information on the social acceptability of alternatives to clearfelling in Australian wet eucalypt forests.

The effects of viewing different types of information were investigated in people judging the social acceptability of alternative forest harvest systems. Approximately 500 Tasmanians were shown still-simulated images of four harvest systems (a clearfell system, two aggregated retention systems, and a selective system) and were asked to judge their acceptability. Individual interviews were conducted with 12 of the participants. It was anticipated that people holding different beliefs about the consequences of harvesting would have different responses to information. Cluster analysis was used to group participants according to these beliefs. Responses to still images were compared with responses to two other types of information: information about consequences of the harvest systems in the form of indicator symbols, and information about regeneration over time, presented as visual animations. The effects of information differed across both harvest system and belief cluster groups of participants. The largest effects of information occurred in people who held a mix of beliefs about consequences. Within this group, participants who viewed the indicators rated a 30% aggregated retention system higher and selective harvesting lower, than those who did not view the indicators. Viewing animated sequences led to slightly higher ratings of the more intensive harvest systems and significantly lower ratings of the selective harvest system than those based on the still images. The interview data provided examples of interviewees viewing information critically against their own values and beliefs. Only some interviewees appeared to use it in judging social acceptability.