Nature as a Restorative Environment

Explanations for the benefits of restorative natural environments focus broadly on information processing of the perceptual properties of the setting and/or on affective appraisals of both perceptual properties and their generic meanings. In the former, attention restoration theory (ART; Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1995) suggests that restorative environments, and especially those found in nature, engage attention effortlessly through “soft fascination,” offer a sense of “being away” from everyday concerns, are spatially coherent and extensive, and are compatible with one’s aims and desires. ART posits that these properties lead to the recovery of directed attention necessary to perform well on resource-intensive cognitive tasks; an argument that has been built on in recent years by the processing fluency account (PFA; Joye & van den Berg, 2011), in which the ease of visual processing of many elements of nature is thought to reduce cognitive demands. The second, affectively driven, approach of stress reduction theory (SRT; Ulrich, 1983; Ulrich et al., 1991) suggests that (primarily visuospatial) properties of nature such as water, deflected vistas, complexity, and structure are perceived as pleasant and associated with human survival, and as such are responsible for reduced arousal and feelings of stress in non-threatening human environments.

These theories are not prescriptive about the practical outcomes of being in restorative environments beyond such cognitive and/or affective changes, but we suggest that the prevalence of studies focusing on self-reported cognition and affect, physiological change, and improvement in objective measures of attention and/or working memory has led to a shorthand association between restorative environments and basic affective and cognitive outcomes. What can integration with other domains of psychology, such as the study of creativity, tell us about the wider psychological benefits of nature? This is a question that has only recently started to be addressed (e.g., see Williams et al., 2018, for a proposal regarding creative benefits of attention restoration and mind wandering in nature).

Nature as an Environment for Creativity

We borrow Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow’s (2004, p. 90) extended definition of creativity as “the interaction among aptitude, process and environment by which an individual or groups produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined within a social context.” This definition emphasizes the influence of multiple interacting factors on the creative product, including characteristics of the person, process, and creative press (environment). Nevertheless, compared to work on the person and product, there has been relatively little work on the creative environment. Where this is studied it has tended to focus on the social and organizational, rather than the physical, environment, and more rarely still on the natural environment (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; McCoy & Evans, 2002; Stokols, Clitheroe, & Zmuidzinas, 2002).

Consideration of creativity as an outcome following nature experiences broadens applicability of this research topic to those beyond environmental psychology, and takes study of the effects of nature outside the laboratory and/or inventory measures of affect and cognition. Likewise, understanding of the role of the physical environment in creativity may stimulate research in this domain to explore factors beyond the personal and social environment that may encourage or inhibit creative ideation and outputs. Below we review available empirical evidence on links between nature and creativity.

Understanding Links Between Nature and Creativity

Consideration of nature as a restorative environment focuses primarily on changes in affect and cognition. The role of affect and cognition is also of relevance to study of creativity, and therefore, examination of these two concepts is potentially a fertile ground for understanding links between nature and creativity. Here, we review key literature on creativity, affect, and cognition, and identify how nature may be of relevance to those relationships.

Aims and Research Questions

Participants and Design

Twenty adult residents of the United Kingdom (10 females; M age = 49.5 years, SD = 18 years) were recruited to participate in an interview-based study on the topic of “perceptions of surroundings.” Recruitment was conducted through local and online advertising in London and South East England, and snowball sampling through the first authors’ academic contacts. This recruitment took place based on age quotas informed by contemporary UK demographic estimates (ONS, 2011), with at least three participants per bracket; that is, four males and three females in the age bracket 18–44 years, three males and four females aged 45–64, and three males and three females aged 65 years and older. Participants did not receive compensation for taking part in the study. In line with the policies of the university where the research was conducted, the study did not require specific ethical review but was conducted in accordance with institutional ethical guidelines.

Materials

Procedure

Participants provided informed consent prior to completing the demographics and creative activities measures, and the semi-structured interview. Interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis between the participant and the first author in a private space (the participant’s home where possible, or otherwise a quiet location such as the university office). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim with each participant’s permission, supported by researcher notes taken during the interview. The names of participants, other individuals, and identifying locations were removed during transcription. Due to a technical error, parts of the interview with Participant 18 relating to creativity were not recorded and data were reconstructed as far as possible from researcher’s notes immediately after the interview. Interviews ranged from 20 to 50 minutes long. After the interview, participants were thanked and debriefed.

Analysis

Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) was used to analyses interview transcripts, supported by ATLAS.ti software. Transcripts were read in full individually, and text coded where it related to creative activities and the natural environment, with initial theme names drawn from the data where possible. This process was conducted per transcript, with previous transcripts cross-checked and coded for any new themes arising from later transcripts. Once all transcripts had been coded in such a way, themes were grouped into sets of master- and sub-themes based on overarching communalities, as shown in Figure 1. To check the validity of the coding, the first author and an independent coder examined 18 randomly selected quotes (three per theme) and compared allocation to themes. Inter-rater reliability between these two coders was, on average, moderate to substantial (M Cohen’s κ = .61; Landis & Koch, 1977).

Affective Appraisals

We define appraisals and self-reported states of affect and arousal as states of, for example, pleasure, relaxation, and stress/arousal. These were perceived to be direct influences on, and results of, creativity. As Participant 1 noted, “certainly mood would be a big one for me, like physically” in facilitating creative experiences. Non-activated positive affective states such as relaxation, calmness, and a sense of peace were perceived to be important. Participant 1 felt that natural sound “gets you into the most relaxed state. Relaxation being one of the most important things for creativity.”

However, affective appraisals of nature as arousing were also perceived to be helpful for creativity and to link with cognition. Participant 10 commented on the powerful, arousing nature of the sea as a source of inspiration: “… I think the most inspiring thing in nature is the sea. You know, the crashing waves, it kind of makes you feel good. […] It’s much greater than we are, and it has so much power.” Furthermore, states of both high arousal and positive affect, such as happiness and enjoyment, were described as products of pursuing creativity in relation to nature. Participant 4 talked about drawing plants in a green outdoor environment: “I just enjoy doing it […] I do find it’s lovely to spend time, an hour or two and I’ll just make, in the best detail as I can, a representation of that plant.”

Negative affective appraisals of and responses to nature were generally not perceived as helpful for creativity, largely because they related to highly activated perceptions of fear and threat. As Participant 1 noted, “it's distrust. So essentially what happens, what comes up is an element of, ‘I'm not safe here’, you know? And then, at which point, the biggest concern is, ‘Let me make sure I stay alive. Let me protect myself. Let me check,’ you know, and pretty much all your focus and attention is there.”

Cognitive Appraisals

We define cognitive appraisals/experiences of nature as interest and inspiration, memory, maintaining/losing focus, and a sense of cognitive escape or “being away.”

Participant 17 felt that interest in and awareness of birdsong at a particular time of year would help her directly in her creative work as a homeopath, by enabling her to form insights, inspiration, and reflect on her work: “There were birds singing […] they’re kind of flashes in the inward eye, as it were.” For Participant 3, the affective state of relaxation achieved through experience of environmental properties was, in turn, perceived to benefit attentional focus on her writing: “I guess I associate it with, sort of, being relaxed out there. […] It would probably be a nice, hot day and you would have a nice, cool drink and that all kind of helps when you’re sort of just trying to think.”

For Participant 2, certain aspects of natural environments also helped her to maintain focus when writing, but this was perceived as a cognitive process that did not interact with affect; rather, their congruency with the rest of the surroundings aided her attention. “So more like flowers and trees and things like that, I think, are helpful, yeah. […] because they kind of don’t distract from the natural environment. Then, yeah, you can just focus on what you’re doing.”

Loss of focus through distraction was mentioned by participants as a cognitive process that would be unhelpful for creativity by drawing attention away from the task at hand, and this was usually linked to environmental properties that increased arousal or were perceived as chaotic. For example, Participant 2 reflected on natural environmental stimuli that would be unhelpful for her drawing and painting: “I guess it would be a really busy beach, would probably be unhelpful. Places where, yeah, you can get distracted. Yeah, where you can't really hear the nature, yeah, like other people's music, things like that. Really chaotic, probably, natural environments.”

Nature experiences could stimulate memories that some participants perceived as helpful for creativity. For example, Participant 18 said, “You could find something that inspires you, ideas for stories - trees, people passing by. Sky, clouds, animals, trees in the breeze. I like them, associations and memories.” Certain natural settings that afforded a sense of escape or being away, such as being on a hill, also facilitated creative activities like Participant 2’s artwork: “The open […] feeling, kind of detached from what's below.”

Aesthetic Appraisals

We define participants’ aesthetic appraisals of nature as: perceived change, contrast, and movement in the environment; accessibility/practicality; spatial extent; and beauty.

Change in the environment, such as the passage of time, movement through or in a space, and perceptions of contrast were explicitly related to perceptions of creativity. These are concepts that are not discussed in-depth in theories of restorative environments, and as such deserve particular attention here as novel findings. Participant 9 reflected on birdsong when discussing creative activities in the garden, and noted how changes helped generate wider connection to nature: “… occasionally, probably every year, there’s a blackbird, I presume it’s a blackbird. Apparently their song changes, I don’t know how I found this out. […] It’s something I notice, yeah. It helps you bond with your environment, you know.” Contrast in certain natural environments, and resulting unpredictability, was also perceived as inspiring and helpful for creativity. For example, Participant 10 said of the sea: “I think it’s kind of connection with something you don’t really know. It’s the unknown, isn’t it? […] And it can go from being very calm and completely like, you know, like a mirror, to then being gentle into being quite dangerous. You just don’t know. … So it’s because […] it’s temperamental, you know? You don’t know what’s going to happen next. So I think that’s what makes it so inspiring, really.”

Participant 19 also commented on how movement outdoors facilitated intuition and imagination in his writing, some of which may be prompted by memories or associations. This may also link to concepts of mind wandering. “I think it just allows […] intuitive thoughts to come into your brain more easily than if you’re trying to analyse a particular problem. If you try to analyse it […] I could end up with some sort of thing that wasn’t that creative, whereas if you want to be really creative you have to allow your imagination free rein, and that means, for me, a lot of it being outside. Or having some outside walking around rather than sitting down.”

Accessibility and practicality were mentioned by participants as reasons for choosing an environment for creative pursuits, and this tended to explain why they might prefer to stay indoors instead of going into nature: “… everything I need is close at hand. It's just easier just to be here, really.” (Participant 3). However, the spatial extent afforded by nature did facilitate certain creative activities, such as Participant 10’s dancing: “… years ago there was a group of us who went to Wales, went to the seaside there, and it was very open. Quite a barren place, but we did do some dancing by the sea, which was nice. […] I think just having the space, you know, vast, open space. And feeling part of the environment. You feel-, when I was dancing I felt like-, you feel part of it, you feel a sense of freedom, I suppose.”

Perceived beauty was also considered to be helpful for Participant 7’s work as a therapist because it related to concepts of “goodness”: “… the general beauty and the sound of the river and the sight of swans. Because I suppose part of being a therapist is to help people to see wider horizons and to, you know, to integrate good experiences into their life where they maybe haven't before, so that they can feed themselves, really, on the good things.”

Environmental Properties

Participants discussed links between creativity and physical environmental properties, which we define as green/blue space, weather and seasons, plants and animals, and landscapes. Participant 4 commented that green nature and the presence of water contributed to a sense of psychological escape that could facilitate creativity. “Yeah, again, you've got the hills, you've got the river, people enjoying the river, and it's generally-, people leave their troubles, you know, behind.” Animals were often mentioned during descriptions of natural environments, but some participants noted that they could be detrimental to creativity if they caused disgust: “Well, the foxes leave their mess, don't they? That's not really a great inspiration to great art.” (Participant 4).

Affective states were described as being particularly influenced by environmental properties such as seasons and the weather, as Participant 2 noted: “... I think in general I was kind of happier in the summer, so yeah I guess my paintings are more jolly and joyous in summer as well.” Participant 16 commented on how change in mood as a function of the weather might be helpful for verbal creativity and wordplay. Links to high arousal were also apparent here, in terms of “fun”: “… actually, some things like that might actually put [me] into a different mood and not actually be a bad thing. Like sudden rain, yes, it might make myself a bit more uncomfortable in the sense that, well, being wet might have its consequences, not very pleasant, but still it might be a bit of fun….”

When discussing physical landscapes, Participant 10 linked this to a sense of spatial extent (see also aesthetic appraisals theme) that was perceived as inspiring, potentially through sense of achievement: “I like to see the whole picture of an area. Up from a height, yeah. And I find that inspiring, as well. Especially when you can climb to the top and you feel you've got there, and then there's the view as well.”

Sensory Experiences

Participants commented on four domains of sensory experience in relation to creativity, defined as vision, sound, smell, and touch. For some, these were combined as multi-sensory experiences; for example, prior to discussing the sea above, Participant 10 said that “Smelling, hearing, listening. Even just actually getting in the sea, the whole experience really” was inspiring for her.

For others, the senses were more dissociable. Participant 10 emphasized the importance of her visual experience of nature for her art practice, linked to aesthetic appraisals of beauty. “It’s the form, the shape, the colour. It’s very beautiful, you know. Nature has its own beauty. Like, you know, in the winter when there’s no leaves on the trees, you can actually see the shape of the tree, you know....”

By contrast, Participant 7 felt that the sound of water, such as a river, would be helpful for her when thinking about her psychotherapy work because it facilitated connection to nature and vitality. “It’s quite a powerful sound and it’s like a life force.” For Participant 22, smell reminded her of previous experiences that would be helpful for her writing, linking again to concepts of inspiration. “Well, there are certain smells that are very evocative of certain things, that remind you of things. I mean, there’s nothing like smell to remind you of certain things or people or places.”

Regarding haptic experience or touch, Participant 9 commented on gardening as a creative activity, and emphasized the physical and spatial involvement he felt: “… occasionally in the summer, I’ll orchestrate the garden. [...] So what I do is, I go out and buy a load of annuals or something, or geraniums, anything […] that I haven’t grown, and I just put them in bigger pots and stand them in between-, build up bricks between the shrubs….” This spatial involvement was key to the creative output of the gardening itself: “… so that it looks like […] it’s orchestrated, like, arranged. Like a picture, actually. […].” Participant 9 emphasizes that this spatial aspect of the environment is multi-sensory in itself: “So it’s like painting, it’s a bit like painting a picture outside.”

The Self

Participants reflected on the role of sense of self in relation to creativity in, or facilitated by, natural environments. We define this as concepts of identity and attachment; memories; being alone or with others; and behavioral engagement with nature.

For some participants, nature was perceived as facilitating creativity because it enabled awareness of one’s own identity (e.g., Participant 7 noted that “being close to nature makes you closer to your innermost self…”). However, others had less attachment to or familiarity with nature, which meant they found it hard to conceptualize it as a space for creativity, for example, Participant 9: “I'm not thinking about work, violin, or composing or practising or anything. […] Normally I'm not in a natural environment very much, so I wouldn't know how it makes me feel.”

Similarly, some participants perceived nature as more or less beneficial depending on whether they were there alone or with others. Participant 3: “I guess if you were kind of out in the garden, on a nice day. You know, relaxing. Again, probably on your own, not with the kids running around everywhere, that would be good.” In contrast, Participant 4 spoke about gardening in his allotment and how that would be facilitated by the presence of others and associated new information: “Well, I’ve got an allotment [laughs] and, er, there’s always someone growing something new. You say, ‘How does that taste?’ ‘I’ll give you a few seeds,’ and I’ll try it out.”

Discussion of the self also focused on memories that participants had of certain natural environments, and how they might facilitate creativity (see also the theme of cognitive appraisals). For example, Participant 19 felt that memories triggered by walking outdoors could help him generate ideas for writing: “I think the important thing is that it allows your memories to circulate a little more freely. I mean, you’re seeing different people, probably in a park, maybe in a wood. They may jog your memory, depending on what you’re writing. You may want to relate something to childhood or something, and you’ve actually got to think back and dig, and if you’re sitting purely at a desk, you won’t be able to dig.”

Behavioral engagement with, as opposed to merely being exposed to, nature was also described as helpful for creativity, often in the form of cognitive inspiration through engagement and play with natural stimuli. Participant 4 noted how he had a “conversation” with a bird when making music: “Well, the birds will-, you can have a little conversation with them. […] Yeah, you can chat. I remember one time when I was DJing and I was-, the guy had some sort of bird in a cage in his house, and it was late and I was doing a bit of scratching on the-, going wiki-wiki-wiki [mimics scratching a vinyl record] and the bird in the kitchen was chatting back to me, going wiki-wiki-wiki and I was going wiki-wiki-wiki [laughs]. And, er, I’m not the only one, there’s a few people who have taken their inspiration from birdsong, you know.”

Environment, Senses, and the Self in Relation to Creativity

Participants in this study described rich, populated natural environments as relevant for their creative activities, which they experienced in a multi-sensory manner and in the context of their individual self-identity. Research on restorative environments has focused to a great extent on the value of landscapes and green and blue space for psychological restoration, but rather less on specific types or elements of nature (Wheeler et al., 2015). The identification of environmental properties such as weather, plants, and animals as also relevant for creativity emphasizes the need to look beyond “nature” per se when considering environments that can help or hinder various outcomes. Research should also focus on the specific content of those natural environments, and moreover, how that content is experienced through non-visual senses; that is, sound, touch, and smell. Given the growing interest in the contributions of different sensory modalities, united and separately, to the psychological benefits of nature (e.g., Benfield, Taff, Newman, & Smyth, 2014; Jahncke, Eriksson, & Naula, 2015), our findings indicate that such sensory experiences merit further consideration in the context of benefits to creativity, as well as psychological restoration.

In their 2018 paper, Williams et al. suggest that creativity and nature experience may be linked by alternating processes of mind wandering and attention restoration. In this study, we also find some tentative evidence for the role of mind wandering, especially in relation to memories triggered by movement, as discussed by Participant 19. His recounting of imagination and free thought through physical experiences in nature may suggest links between mind wandering and embodied cognition in nature, which has received increased attention in environmental psychology literature (e.g., Schilhab & Esbensen, 2019).

In this study creativity was perceived to be enhanced either by company or by being alone in nature, depending on the individual and the task they wanted to accomplish. Restoration in non-threatening nature can be enhanced by being alone (Staats & Hartig, 2004). Being alone is not explicitly discussed in the context of attention restoration theory, but may link to concepts of being away and compatibility as presented by Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) and Kaplan (1995). However, social aspects of restorative natural environments are less explored, and study of creativity as an outcome may offer avenues for research on social company in nature.

Overall, the role of the individual person in restorative experiences of nature is under-explored. Memories in relation to place are explored in the context of research on favorite places and restorative environments (e.g., Ratcliffe & Korpela, 2018) but not in the context of creativity in nature. This may be a fruitful direction for future research, especially with regard to the concept of compatibility within attention restoration theory, and models of the benefits of nature to creativity should take care to include this concept. For example, it may be interesting to examine whether potential benefits to creativity, achieved through low arousal in nature, are moderated by introversion, and whether such effects may differ depending on the creative task (e.g., solitary tasks such as writing vs. group activities like dancing).

Appraisals of Nature in Relation to Creativity

The present study identified three perceived routes through which the themes above (self, sensory experience, and environmental properties) may contribute to creativity in response to nature. These were ways in which nature was appraised aesthetically, affectively, and cognitively.

Aesthetic appraisals of the natural environment as dynamic and stimulating (through change, contrast, or unpredictability) were particularly perceived as helpful for creativity. This is somewhat in contrast to evidence and theory on restorative environments (i.e., that pleasant and non-threatening nature can reduce psychophysiological arousal and enable recovery from stress; Hartig et al., 2014; Ulrich, 1983). Exploration of such a distinction would be well-suited to further, experimental studies that examine whether experience of different types of nature (e.g., dramatic vs. mundane) can lead to differential outcomes (creativity and vitality vs. restoration and relaxation).

Affective appraisals and states such as pleasure or happiness were perceived as beneficial for creativity, linking to the argument for positive affect as a driver of restoration found in stress reduction theory (SRT; Ulrich, 1983). Furthermore, in contrast to the literature showing activating but not deactivating mood states support creativity (e.g., Baas et al., 2008; De Dreu et al., 2008) both low and high arousal affective states were perceived as beneficial for creativity here; some participants perceived states of relaxation generated by nature to be helpful, whereas others perceived the highly arousing, dominant, and even frightening aspects of nature (e.g., weather and the sea) to be inspiring in their creative work. This potential benefit of arousing nature is in contrast to the position put forward in SRT, in which appraisals of low arousal are deemed more helpful, and indicates a potential difference in motivations for nature experience between those seeking arousing, inspiring creative experiences in nature, and those seeking calming or restorative experiences, albeit these could in turn facilitate creativity.

Furthermore, our results align with findings from Ryan et al. (2010), which link nature experiences to the aroused state of vitality, and with those of van den Berg and ter Heijne (2005), in which threatening nature experiences were found to elicit not only fear but also pleasure and fascination, especially among sensation-seeking individuals. We highlight here the need to better include measures of individual differences, including personality traits such as sensation seeking, in the study of psychological experiences of nature and their impact on creativity.

Limitations and Extensions

This study identified perceived qualities and processes relating experience of nature to creativity among members of the British general public. In so doing, it adds to understanding of the kinds of environment that can support creativity, especially through its qualitative methodology that captures participants’ self-reported experiences and interpretations. However, we acknowledge that inferences regarding causal mechanisms of action, and especially changes in cognition or affect, are limited.

The data used in this study were collected at the same time as data on perceived restorative experiences of nature. Participants discussed both topics in their interviews at different points, and may have, therefore, themselves drawn connections between concepts of restoration and creativity in their comments. However, given that research in this field uses theories of restorative environments as foundations to understand links between nature and creativity (e.g., Williams et al., 2018), we do not imagine that this has raised spurious connections in this study. Rather, we view this work as a way to better understand potential reasons why the benefits of nature may extend from restoration to creativity.

Participants interviewed in this study were members of the public who enjoyed various creative pursuits, from artwork to writing and dancing. We did not use any objective measure of participants’ creative performance or achievement, but rather sought to understand how environment relates to their own understanding of creativity. Our sample was recruited according to age and gender quotas to capture a range of experiences across demographic groups, and not to compare these experiences between groups. Some participants discussed creativity in relation to their work, and indeed some worked specifically in creative fields, while others focused only on hobbies. We think this is a strength of the work, in that it views creativity as a process that all individuals undertake in differing ways, but we suggest that further research examines whether the themes identified in this study also apply to professional creative practice more specifically. It is notable that three of the participants had occupations relating to physical and/or psychological well-being (e.g., therapy) and may have had an intrinsic interest in related psychological research. We also did not systematically examine participants’ engagement or identification with nature (e.g., nature connectedness, frequency or length of time spent in nature per week, etc.) which may be useful to capture in future studies on nature and creativity.

Future research in this area may seek to examine whether nature experiences can causally and quantifiably enhance creative output through change in either cognitive processing or affective state, or both. Such a study might, for example, compare effects of different types of nature (e.g., tranquil vs. dynamic) as well as more traditional natural versus urban environments; utilize standardized measures such as the Alternate Uses Task and inventories of mood and cognitive state; and examine mediated relationships among nature experience, creative outcomes, and cognition/affect. Beyond the laboratory, future research might also examine in situ nature experiences in the workplace and whether and how these can have quantifiable effects on creativity in a professional setting.