ve experience. “People can be fascinated by events that may negatively affect their mental and emotional states, such as violence” (Hartig et al. 1997b, 178). Therefore, researchers formed the concept that fascination ranges along a continuum from hard fascination to soft fascination based on the elements of the stimuli (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). Hard fascination involves dramatic attention grabbing stimuli such as watching auto racing (Kaplan 1995) and staring at horrific sights, or giant trees and vast waterfalls (Herzog et al. 1997; Williams 1998). Soft fascination is based on stimuli that “hold the attention in an undramatic fashion” (Williams 1998, 60) and includes activities such as learning (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989) and elements of nature such as sunsets and waterfalls, caves and fires (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989), leaves moving in a breeze and cloud formations (Kaplan 1995; Williams 1998). Elements closer to the soft fascination end of the spectrum are considered to be restorative (Kaplan 1995; Williams 1998) as they provide opportunities for effortless attention (Kaplan 2001b). As such, attention can be maintained over an extended period of time. Remaining in an environment, however, is dependent upon its compatibility with the purpose of entering the environment- the final component considered to comprise a restorative environment.
CompatibilityThe fourth and final component of a restorative environment is that of Compatibility; that is, the environment is believed to be supportive of an individual’s purpose while in the environment (Kaplan 1983; 1995; 2001b). There are a number of ways an environment could be incompatible with an individual’s desired behavior (Kaplan 1983). For example, environmental conditions may dictate certain behaviors at odds with individual goals, or stimuli within the environment may distract from goals. Alternatively, some predetermined activities may elicit spontaneous behaviors. For example, children may decide to play catch, a relatively stationary game, and end up playing brandy, where the ball is thrown at a running person. For an environment to be considered restorative, it must not only support the specific activities, but also any inclinations of the individual. Therefore compatibility is “a function of environmental dictates and personal intentions” (Hartig et al. 1997b, 178). If the environment or elements of the environment are not, or are perceived to be not supportive of specific activities proposed, then the environment is not compatible (Kaplan 1983). If the component of Compatibility is met, environmental elements are supportive of and congruent with required behavior, and functions can be performed without difficulty or distraction, an important component of a restorative environment.
Restorative Component MeasuresAlthough the four components of restorative environments were initially proposed two decades ago (Kaplan 1983), the development of measures for these constructs has only recently been addressed and has focused on young adult samples. In 1997, Hartig and colleagues, continuing work initially published in 1991, conducted a series of studies in order to develop the Perceived Restorativeness Scale (PRS) with varied success (Hartig et al. 1997b). Overall, their data yielded two factors: a General Restorativeness Factor and a Coherence Factor. They suggested further improvements were warranted to strengthen the measure, a point reiterated by Korpela et al. (2001) after finding a similar factor structure with favorite and unpleasant places. Hartig et al. (1997b) did, however, caution against a simplified model being pursued.
Development of a measure of the five restorative components was subsequently conducted by Laumann et al. (2001), with 22 items loading onto five factors. This measure will be referred to as the Restorative Components Scale (RCS) in keeping with Herzog et al. (2003). Interestingly, the a priori Being Away items split into two factors: a physical being away, novelty (e.g., I am in a different setting than usual) and a psychological being away, escape (