Search

The authors investigated the impact of perceived danger on judged likelihood of restoration. Participants imagined that they were in a state of directed attention fatigue and then that they were taking a walk in a potentially restorative setting. The authors varied two properties of the setting in a factorial design. The setting was either a nature trail or a busy urban street, and it contained either no obvious source of danger or an ominous stalker. Measures of perceived danger and of judged likelihood of restoration were obtained. For both types of measures, in the low-danger condition the two setting categories differed, with the natural setting seen as less dangerous and more likely to be restorative. In the highdanger condition, the difference between the setting categories was eliminated. The authors conclude that the presence of a serious and potentially uncontrollable source of danger can damage the perceived restorative potential of a setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judgments concerning features of environments do not always correspond accurately with objective measures of those same features. Moreover, perceived and objectively assessed environmental attributes, including proximity of destinations, may influence walking behavior in different ways. This study compares perceived and objectively assessed distance to several different destinations and examines whether correspondence between objective and perceived distance is influenced by age, gender, neighborhood walkability, and walking behavior. Distances to most destinations close to home are overestimated, whereas distances to those farther away are underestimated. Perceived and objective distances to certain types of destinations are differentially associated with walking behavior. Perceived environmental attributes do not consistently reflect objectively assessed attributes, and both appear to have differential effects on physical activity behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]