ldren reported the library to be more interesting than the playground, whereas younger children reported the two environments to be of similar interest.
Evaluation of MeasureThe findings reported here are important for three reasons. First, they indicate the measure can distinguish between different types of environments. Second, they establish that the measure can detect differences across different groups of people. Both are key criteria when determining the validity of a measure of restorative environments. Third, the overall results are in keeping with predictions (i.e., the library should score lower than the playground as it would more closely resemble a classroom than outdoors), supporting the fact that the PRCS-C is functioning as would be expected. The finding that Fascination scored higher in libraries than playgrounds is intriguing and is attributed to the girls’ and older children’s responses. Although too early to determine the implications of these differences, it does add to the small body of research reporting sex differences within children’s environmental research (Bagot and Gullone 2003, Faber Taylor, et al. 2001, 2002), and indicates that sex differences should be considered where sample size allows.
Limitations and Future ResearchAlthough deemed a fair size and adequate by the ten participants per item rule (Tabachnick and Fidell 1996), the sample of 225 participants has potentially influenced the factor structure outcomes through low eigen values for some of the factors. It is argued that a larger sample would yield strengthened results, an issue to be addressed by future research.
The key limitation regarding the outcome of the measure is the Extent factor. It contains only two items and had a low internal consistency result. Both items address the Scope component of Extent, and did not cover Connectedness. Future work would do well to consider additional items for this component.
The current study’s methodology focused on adapting items drawn from adult measures. The inclusion of qualitative methods such as focus groups and semi-structured interviews could further understanding of children’s perceptions and experiences of their environments. In turn, additional items not previously representative of the five factors in adult work could be included and further examination of the factor structure reported by children be conducted.
Understanding the development of restoration and the role of restorative environments across the lifespan requires measures suitable for each developmental stage. Work with those in early adulthood is underway, and this initial study indicates that children should be considered in restorative environment research, specifically emphasizing late childhood (i.e., aged 8 to 11). The importance and distinction of restorative environments for different developmental stages is yet to be investigated. Although younger and older children generally reported similar results in this study, the sample did not fully cover any developmental period. The inclusion of two or more developmental stages would more likely yield differences. With a measure of the restorative components available, an evaluation of the restoration potential of children’s environments can be made and thus contribute to the theoretically proposed components of the restoration of attentional capacity in children. Consideration of the relationship between the restorative components individually or combined and ART with individual factors such as preferences and attitudes also awaits future research.
A measure of the level of naturalness within environments would have been of interest in this study. Obviously school playgrounds have a higher level of natural elements than school libraries, and results reported support the proposal that restorative environments are more likely to be natural environments. A measure of levels of nature, however, would have facilitated the determination of whether the measure could distinguish between familiar, everyday outdoor environments on that basis. This was beyond the scope of this 