Ulrich's (1984) study entitled *View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery* regarding the correlation of nature views with shorter hospital stays is a compelling study in environmental psychology. It provides some evidence supporting the idea that nature is in fact restorative - not only for mental health, but for physical health as well. In the study, Ulrich found that patients in rooms with views of trees had "shorter postoperative hospital stays, had fewer negative evaluative comments from nurses, took fewer moderate and strong analgesic doses, and slightly lower scores for minor post-surgical complications," (p. 421) when compared to those with views of brick walls. The plan of the hospital is show below: ![[Restorative Effects of Nature__1.png]] *Figure 1*. Plan diagram of hospital used in study. From Ulrich, R. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. _Science_, _224_(4647), 420–421. Copyright 1984 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. As I have considered the experiences of the patients in both the rooms viewing the brick wall and in the rooms observing trees, I have also thought about prospect-refuge theory: > There is much evidence to show that at both human and sub-human level the ability to see and the ability to hide are both important in calculating a creature's survival prospects, we must next see whether we can find some means of erecting a system for classifying the components of landscape according to this simple principle, whether or not they are conducive to the observer seeing and hiding. Where he has an unimpeded opportunity to see we can call it a *prospect*. Where he has an opportunity to hide, a *refuge*. (Appleton, 1996, p. 73) Was it nature itself that led to shorter recovery times, or simply the visualization of prospects beyond the hospital bed? It would be interesting to understand more about the tree-room patients' actual sightlines, and how much else of outside life they could see from their rooms. While one's line of sight obviously ends at a brick wall, one can imagine how it would be possible to see beyond a cluster of trees. There is something to be said about the ability to imagine life beyond the walls of their hospital room, so that those who could see out further could at least imagine that life is still happening, and would continue to happen once they were well enough to leave the hospital. I also understand the efforts in minimizing confounding variables in this type of study by using the same hospital, but I wonder if a more apt comparison would be: How do recovery times compare between people whose hospital rooms look out over a field with trees versus those who look out and see a cityscape or skyline? When prospect is "equal", do natural environments still possess the same advantages in recovery over more urban environments? G.W. Evans' work (2003) suggests that natural environments do hold a particular edge over urban environments in terms of restoration, at least: "Laboratory and field studies have demonstrated that exposure to natural elements such as trees, water, and natural landscapes replenishes cognitive energy," (p. 545). A similar experiment might consider the view of a brick wall versus that of a tall shrub that obscures one's entire view. In this example, prospect is removed entirely, and recovery is examined through the lens of natural vs human-made "texture". F.L. Olmstead’s writing in *Public Parks and the Enlargement of Towns* (1870) likely influenced some of my thinking above. Olmstead writes: “Openness is one thing you cannot get in buildings. Picturesqueness you can get. Let your buildings be as picturesque as your artists can make them...We want, especially, the greatest possible contrast with the restraining and confining conditions of the town.” Olmstead was speaking on the fact that nature is not necessarily more beautiful than towns, but what it offers is simply different. Nature must compliment the town by offering what the town does not.  I cannot imagine many more situations that feel more restraining and confining than being stuck in a hospital bed, and could see how views that offer what is essentially the opposite of this will lead to more positive results in recovery times. Ultimately, I am not arguing against the restorative effects of nature, but rather for the consideration of balanced needs as Olmstead did with regard to parks in towns and cities. As Rita Berto writes in The Role of Nature in Coping with Psycho-Physiological Stress (2014), “It’s more likely to experience mental fatigue in the urban versus natural environment...built content captures attention dramatically, requiring attention to be overcome.” This onset of mental fatigue must be balanced with a place that one can “rest” their thoughts, and “plans for urban settings should consider the need for restoration.” Berto also describes how “research can help integrate natural elements and structural features into built environments in order to plan urban environments that are [[Cognitive Sustainability|cognitively sustainable]].” # References Appleton, J. (1996). _The experience of landscape_ (Rev. ed). Wiley. Berto, R. (2014). The Role of Nature in Coping with Psycho-Physiological Stress: A Literature Review on Restorativeness. _Behavioral Sciences_, _4_(4), 394–409. [https://doi.org/10.3390/bs4040394](https://doi.org/10.3390/bs4040394) Evans, G. W. (2003). The built environment and mental health. *Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 80*(4), 536-555. Olmstead, F.L. (1870). Public parks and the enlargement of towns. In LeGates, R. T., & Stout, F. (Eds.). (2020). _The city reader_ (Seventh edition). Routledge. Ulrich, R. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. _Science_, _224_(4647), 420–421. [https://doi.org/10.1126/scien ce.6143402](https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402)