Curator

Museums as Restorative Environments

• • • • •

Jan Packer and Nigel Bond

Abstract Restorative environments possess a combination of attributes that facil-

itate recovery from mental fatigue. Most previous research in this regard has focused
on natural environments, but this paper explores the extent to which museum envi-
ronments also provide access to restorative experiences. Visitors (307 tourists and
274 local residents) to a history museum, an art museum, an aquarium, and a bota-
nic garden completed a questionnaire regarding the restorative qualities and benefits
of the environment they visited. The findings indicate that for some people, muse-
ums are at least as restorative as natural environments. The paper contributes to the
development of a theoretical understanding of museums as restorative environments
and provides insights into the factors that facilitate and enhance restorative experi-
ences. Such experiences have the potential to contribute to visitors’ well-being and
satisfaction.

• • • • •

Introduction

R and R, or ‘‘rest and recuperation,’’ is an acknowledged need for soldiers on the front-
lines. It is not, however, uniquely the concern of the battle weary. Many people suffer
from mental fatigue, decreased attention span, and irritability, and few seem to have an
abundance of tranquillity, serenity, or peace of mind.
—Kaplan, Kaplan and Ryan (1998, 67)

Mental fatigue, caused by the stresses and strains of everyday life, is a common com-
plaint in today’s society, and the need to escape from the personal and interpersonal
demands of life is one of the major reasons that people have for engaging in tourism
and leisure experiences (Iso-Ahola 1980). As we tire mentally over the course of a

Jan Packer (j.packer@uq.edu.au) is a senior research fellow and Nigel Bond (n.bond@
uq.edu.au) is a senior research officer in the School of Tourism, University of Queens-
land (St Lucia), Australia 4072.

421
422 JAN PACKER AND NIGEL BOND • RESTORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS

workweek, or after prolonged or intense engagement in a project, our resources regularly

and predictably become depleted (Hartig 2004). Some places—restorative environ-
ments—help us recover from our efforts to meet the demands of everyday life. The desire
for restorative experiences has been recognized by researchers examining tourism and
leisure motivations (Pearce and Lee 2005; Snepenger, King, Marshall and Uysal 2006).
Research focusing on environmental preference has also indicated that people actively
seek out environments they believe to be restorative. Van den Berg, Koole, and van der
Wulp (2003) suggested that people’s tendency to prefer natural over built environments
may be at least partly explained in terms of variations in restorative potential between
these different types of environments. Similar conclusions were also drawn by Hartig,
Mang, and Evans (1991) and Staats, Kieviet, and Hartig (2003).
Restoration is defined as ‘‘the process of renewing physical, psychological and
social capabilities diminished in ongoing efforts to meet adaptive demands’’ (Hartig
2004, 2). Most of the existing research on the attributes and benefits of restorative envi-
ronments, and the process by which they contribute to reducing mental fatigue and
renewing diminished capacities, has been conducted within the framework of Attention
Restoration Theory (Kaplan 1995; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). According to Attention
Restoration Theory, the capacity to continually focus attention on a particular activity
can be reduced or lost through mental exhaustion. This state, referred to as ‘‘directed
attention fatigue,’’ can result in irritability, anxiety, anger, frustration, mental and physi-
cal fatigue, diminished ability to perform cognitive tasks, and increased likelihood of
errors in performance. According to Kaplan’s theory, in order to fully recover from direc-
ted attention fatigue, it is important that the individual’s attention is engaged involun-
tarily or effortlessly, rather than intentionally. While the individual is engaged in
involuntary attention or ‘‘fascination,’’ the effort involved in inhibiting distractions can
be relaxed, and directed attention can be rested (Kaplan 1995).
Fascination (being engaged without effort) is thus one of four components
that have been identified as integral to a restorative experience. The other three
components are a sense of escape or being away (being physically or mentally
removed from routine or demanding activities); the perception of extent (the envi-
ronment has sufficient content and structure that it can occupy the mind for an
extended period); and compatibility (providing a good fit with one’s purposes or
inclinations). Kaplan and Kaplan argue that these four attributes are most com-
monly found in natural environments (1989). Research has consistently demon-
strated that natural environments are generally perceived and experienced as more
restorative than urban environments (Hartig and Staats 2003). Museum environ-
ments provide rich opportunities for visitors to experience fascination, being away,
extent, and compatibility, but very few studies have attempted to examine the
restorative attributes and benefits of these environments.
The earliest reported study of restorative experiences outside of natural environ-
ments was conducted by Kaplan et al. in an art museum (1993). They re-analyzed focus
group comments that had been collected for a different purpose, to determine whether,
in talking generally about their museum experience, participants raised any of the
themes theoretically related to Kaplan’s restoration construct (for instance: restorative
CURATOR 53/4 • OCTOBER 2010 423

attributes such as fascination, being away, extent, compatibility; and restorative out-
comes such as feeling calm or peaceful and engaging in reflection). They found that such
comments were quite prevalent, especially among frequent visitors. In a follow-up ques-
tionnaire study, the researchers confirmed that most visitors felt they had a restorative
experience in the art museum, and identified two factors that appeared to contribute to
the restorative potential of the setting: feeling comfortable or at ease in the setting, and
being able to find one’s way around.
Subsequent research has demonstrated that different types of museum environ-
ments (including art museums, history museums, gardens, and zoos) have the potential
to offer visitors a restorative experience that provides respite from the stresses of life and
replenishes their cognitive capacity. For example, visitors to two public gardens in New
York rated relaxation and stress reduction as their most important reasons for coming to
the gardens, and 91 percent of respondents reported some level of perceived stress reduc-
tion after visiting the gardens (Bennett and Swasey 1996). Similarly, visitors to the
Brisbane Botanic Gardens rated restoration as one of their most important reasons for
visiting (Ballantyne, Packer, and Hughes 2008). Rest, relaxation and recovery from stress
were also among the reasons people had for visiting museums and galleries (Packer and
Ballantyne 2002). According to Scopelliti and Giuliani (2004), visiting a museum and
taking a walk in a park were among a range of experiences that people considered would
allow them to regain wellbeing and effectiveness in their everyday activities. Pals, Steg,
Siero, and van der Zee measured the perceived restorativeness of two different attractions
in a Dutch zoo (2009). They found that, on average, visitors agreed that the attractions
possessed the four restorative components, and that measures of fascination and escape
(being away) were significant predictors of both experienced pleasure and preference for
the attraction. Despite the obvious differences among types of museum environments, it
would appear that their common features, including the provision of free-choice or
leisure learning experiences, may contribute to their effectiveness as restorative environ-
ments.
Packer (2006) noted a significant overlap between the conditions that make learn-
ing in museum settings enjoyable, and those suggested by Kaplan (1995) as being neces-
sary for a restorative experience (in particular the presence of fascination or attention
that requires no effort; an environment that is rich and coherent; and compatibility
between the environment and one’s purposes or inclinations). The phenomenon of
restoration was further explored in Packer’s study of the beneficial outcomes ‘‘beyond
learning’’ that visitors seek and obtain from a museum visit (2008). Interviewees in the
latter study gave many examples that reflected both the restorative attributes of museum
environments and the restorative benefits of a museum visit. In fact the majority of
visitors reported having attained a sense of relaxation, peace and tranquility, or thought-
fulness as a result of their visit, and some reported having gained a renewed ability to
deal positively with life. When Falk (2009) used the term ‘‘rechargers’’ to refer to the
motivational segment he had previously labeled ‘‘spiritual pilgrims’’ (Falk 2006), he
brought a new level of attention to this small but significant group of museum visitors.
Falk described rechargers as ‘‘individuals who visit in order to reflect, rejuvenate, or
generally just bask in the wonder of the place’’ (2009, 203–204). Given this recent
424 JAN PACKER AND NIGEL BOND • RESTORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS

attention, it seems timely to further examine the extent to which visitors perceive muse-
ums to be restorative environments.
This paper aims to extend our understanding of museums as restorative environ-
ments by exploring visitors’ perceptions of the restorative attributes and benefits of four
different sites, two of which are focused on cultural exhibits (history museum and art
gallery) and two on natural exhibits (aquarium and botanic garden). Research has dem-
onstrated that frequent or repeat visitors are more likely to seek restorative experiences
than first-time visitors (Kaplan, Bardwell, and Slakter 1993; Ouellette, Kaplan, and Kap-
lan 2005). This may indicate that familiarity with the environment is a prerequisite for a
restorative experience, or that those who encounter a restorative experience are more
likely to return to the environment. However, the relationship between familiarity and
perceived restorativeness is not a simple one (Purcell, Peron, and Berto 2001) and may
vary according to the context, or level of familiarity. This research will investigate the dif-
ferences between various visitor groups (first-time and repeat visitors; frequent and occa-
sional visitors; tourists and local visitors) in their perceptions of the restorative attributes
and benefits of various environments.
This research also aims to explore the factors that make a restorative experience
more likely. Previous research has identified a number of such factors, which are mostly
associated with visitor comfort (Herzog, Maguire, and Nebel 2003; Packer 2008). In
extending this research from nature settings to museum environments, there is a need to
incorporate new variables that may facilitate restorative experiences. To this end, the sat-
isfying experiences framework (Doering 1999) was employed. This framework has been
found to be particularly important in understanding visitor experiences in museum envi-
ronments (Packer 2008). The framework was initially developed as an empirical list of
four categories of ‘‘satisfying experiences’’ that visitors generally find satisfying in muse-
ums (Pekarik, Doering, and Karns 1999): object experiences, which focus on something
outside the visitor, such as seeing rare, valuable, or beautiful objects; cognitive experiences,
which focus on the interpretive or intellectual aspects of the experience, such as gaining
information or understanding; introspective experiences, which focus on private feelings
and experiences, such as imagining, reflecting, reminiscing, and connecting; and social
experiences, which focus on interactions with friends, family, other visitors, or museum
staff.
Pekarik, Doering, and Karns found that different types of museums, and different
exhibitions within museums, appear to elicit these experiences to varying extents, and
that different visitor groups report different types of experiences as their most satisfying
(1999). The present research explores whether measures of these satisfying experiences
can contribute to the explanation of restorative benefits, beyond that explained by mea-
sures of restorative attributes, as hypothesized in figure 1.
Specifically, this research aims to:
1. measure and compare visitors’ perceptions of the restorative attributes and restor-
ative benefits of each of four museum environments;
2. compare the extent to which different visitor groups perceive restorative attributes
and experience restorative benefits; and
CURATOR 53/4 • OCTOBER 2010 425

AƩributes of the
physical environment
(wayfinding, comfort,
temperature, noise)

RestoraƟve aƩributes
(fascinaƟon, being
away, extent, RestoraƟve benefits
compaƟbility)
SaƟsfying experiences
(object, cogniƟve,
introspecƟve, social)

Figure 1. Model of hypothesized relationships.

3. investigate the extent to which attributes of the physical environment and satisfy-
ing experiences contribute to visitors’ perceptions of restorative attributes and
restorative benefits.

Method

Research sites—The research was conducted in four different museum-type environ-

ments:
• The Queensland Museum is located in the cultural precinct of Brisbane, a short
walk from the CBD. The museum contains a range of exhibits, in themed areas,
covering both the natural environment and cultural heritage.
• The National Gallery of Victoria in St Kilda, Melbourne contains one of the most
comprehensive collections of international art in the country, and indeed in the
world.
• The UnderWater World aquarium is located close to a seaside resort area on
Queensland’s Sunshine Coast and contains a range of live aquatic displays includ-
ing sharks, crocodiles, stingrays, corals, fish, sea jellies, and seals.
• The Brisbane Botanic Gardens at Mt Coot-tha are Queensland’s premier subtropi-
cal botanic gardens. The gardens are situated seven kilometers from the city center
and include a series of distinctly different gardens arranged in themes and geo-
graphical displays.
Participants and procedure—Adult visitors to each of the four sites were approached on
completion of their visit, as they exited the museum, gallery, aquarium, or garden, and
invited to complete a questionnaire. A non-random quota sampling technique was used
to ensure adequate numbers of males and females; first-time and repeat visitors; tourists
and local visitors; and under- and over-30s, with at least 40 participants in each category
at each site. Questionnaires were distributed on both weekdays and weekends at all of
the sites. A total of 596 visitors participated in the study.
426 JAN PACKER AND NIGEL BOND • RESTORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS

Statistical comparisons were conducted (using ANOVA) to examine differences

between visitor groups, and differences among the four attractions in visitors’ percep-
tions of the restorative attributes and benefits of each environment. Multiple regression
analysis was used to examine the relationships between attributes of the environment,
aspects of the experience, and the attainment of restorative outcomes.
Instrument—A number of psychological scales, all of which were rated on a seven-point
(0–6) scale, were included in the questionnaire in order to measure perceptions of
restorative environments, restorative attributes, restorative benefits, visitor characteristics,
attributes of the physical environment, and satisfying experiences. Details of these scales
are provided in Appendix A.

Results

Perceptions of restorative environments—Visitors to each site were asked to rate each of

nine different types of environment according to the extent to which the site helped
them to relax and recover from the tension of everyday life. As expected from previous
research (Hartig and Staats 2003), natural environments were generally considered more
restorative than the museum environments (see table 1). Visitors to all four of the
research sites considered national parks and beaches to be the most restorative, with
mean ratings of 4.6 (where 5 = ‘‘very much’’). Shopping centers were considered the
least restorative with a mean rating of 1.9 (where 2 = ‘‘rather little’’). The four research
sites were placed between these two extremes, with mean ratings between 3.5 and 4.4
(where 4 = ‘‘rather much’’). Pair-wise comparisons of ratings indicated that botanic
gardens were considered more restorative than the other three research sites; aquariums

Table 1. Perceptions of restorative environments, as rated by visitors to the four research sites
(highlighted).

Mean score across % who indicated the

all respondents (n = 591) environment was restorativea
National parks 4.6 84%
Beaches 4.6 84%
Botanic gardens 4.4 81%
Aquariums 3.9 66%
Cinemas 3.8 62%
Zoos 3.6 58%
Museums 3.6 56%
Art galleries 3.5 56%
Shopping centers 1.9 16%
a
helped them to relax and recover ‘‘rather much,’’ ‘‘very much,’’ or ‘‘completely’’ (top three options
on a 7-point scale).
CURATOR 53/4 • OCTOBER 2010 427

were considered more restorative than art galleries and museums; and there was no
significant difference between art galleries and museums.1
There were some interesting differences, however, between visitors to the different
sites. For example, art gallery visitors’ ratings of art galleries were significantly higher
(M = 4.5) than ratings of art galleries by visitors to the other three sites (M = 3.6, 3.0,
3.2), F (3,585) = 28.66, p<.001. A similar pattern was found at each site. Further analysis
indicated that even among art gallery visitors, frequent visitors (who visit art galleries
more than twice a year) rated art galleries as more restorative than did infrequent visitors
(M = 4.8 and 4.0 respectively). The difference in visitors’ ratings according to frequency
of visitation was significant in the art gallery and the botanic garden.2 In other words,
visitors who consider a site to be restorative are likely to be those who visit it often. It is
still not clear, however, whether they visited frequently because they found it restorative,
whether familiarity contributed to the restorative effect, or whether they were inclined to
rate it as restorative because they had invested time and effort in visiting. For the botanic
garden, aquarium, and art gallery, the majority of visitors to the particular site considered
that site to be at least as restorative as a national park. This was not the case for visitors to
the museum, where 36 percent considered the museum to be at least as restorative as a
national park.
Restorative attributes of the environment—The Restorative Components Scale
(so-named by Herzog et al. [2003], referring to the un-named scale developed by
Laumann, Gärling, and Stormark [2001]) was used to compare the restorative compo-
nents (Fascination, Extent, Escape, and Compatibility) of the four sites (see table 2).
Cronbach alphas3 for the four subscales were .85, .79, .85, and .82 respectively. On this
and subsequent measures, visitors were asked to rate only the site they had just visited.
Ratings on all dimensions confirmed that visitors at all of the sites considered them to
have restorative qualities (mean ratings between 4 ‘‘rather much’’ and 5 ‘‘very much’’).
The botanic garden was significantly higher than all other sites in relation to Escape and
Extent.

Table 2. Restorative attributes of the environment (0–6 scale with midpoint 3).

Botanic Art
Garden Aquarium Gallery Museum Total
Fascination 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5
e.g., there is plenty to discover here
Extent* 4.6 4.3 4.1 4.3 4.3
e.g., the elements here go together
Escape (Being Away)** 4.6 4.3 4.2 4.1 4.3
e.g., when I am here I feel free
from work and routine
Compatibility 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3
e.g., the environment gives me the
opportunity to do activities that I like

* ANOVA: F (3, 584) = 6.13, p = .000

** ANOVA: F (3, 583) = 6.39, p < .001

428 JAN PACKER AND NIGEL BOND • RESTORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS

Across sites, there were significant differences between frequent and infrequent vis-
itors on the Fascination subscale and the Compatibility subscale.4 Frequent visitors rated
both of these attributes more highly than infrequent visitors. There were no significant
differences overall between tourists and local residents in their ratings of the restorative
attributes of the particular sites they had visited, and no interaction effects between the
frequency of visitation and tourist-local variables.
Restorative benefits of the visit—Restorative benefits were measured using the two
subscales of the Attention Recovery and Reflection Scale (Staats et al. 2003), as well as
the Restored Mental State Scale (which was developed for this study). Table 3 presents
the means for these scales by site. Factor analysis confirmed the two-factor structure for
the Attention Recovery and Reflection Scale and one factor for the Restored Mental State
Scale. Cronbach alphas for the three scales were .94, .92, and .92 respectively.
Visitors rated the restorative benefits of their visit in the range of 3.0 (neutral) - 4.0
(rather much) at all sites, with the exception of the botanic garden where the mean
Restored Mental State score reached 4.3. The botanic garden was significantly higher
than all other sites in relation to Attention Recovery and Restored Mental State.
There was a small effect of frequency of visitation on visitors’ ratings on the
Restored Mental State Scale.5 The effect size increased (from 0.19 to 0.22) when consid-
ered in terms of whether or not this was the respondent’s first visit to the specific site:
repeat visitors felt more relaxed and restored after the visit than first-time visitors. There
were no differences overall between tourists and locals, and no interaction effects
between the frequency of visitation and tourist-local variables.
Visitor experiences that support restoration—The ‘‘satisfying experiences’’ framework
(Doering 1999; Pekarik et al. 1999) was used in this study in order to incorporate aspects
of the visitor experience that have been identified as important in museum environ-
ments, as well as those previously used to explore the restorative effects of natural envi-
ronments. Respondents were asked to select one of four types of experience—Object,
Cognitive, Introspective, and Social—that they believed had been the most satisfying in
their visit that day. As illustrated in figure 2, there were significant differences between

Table 3. Restorative benefits of the visit (0–6 scale with midpoint 3).

Botanic Art
Garden Aquarium Gallery Museum
1
Attention Recovery ** 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.1
e.g., renew energy, regain the ability to concentrate
Reflection 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.2
e.g., think about important issues,
see things in a new perspective
Restored Mental State**2 4.3 4.0 4.0 3.8
e.g., feel refreshed ⁄ restored; calm ⁄ relaxed

**1 ANOVA: F (3, 567) = 6.88, p < .001

**2 ANOVA: F (3, 574) = 6.57, p < .001

CURATOR 53/4 • OCTOBER 2010 429

Most Satisfying Experiences

100.0
10.7
90.0 22.5 22.1

80.0
45.0
4.0 29.0
70.0 11.9
10.1

60.0
Proportion (%)

Social
Introspective
50.0 23.7
14.1 Cognitive
46.4 Object
40.0 4.0

63.8
30.0

20.0
36.9 36.6

10.0 19.2

0.0
Museum Aquarium Gardens Art Gallery
Site

Figure 2. Most satisfying experiences at each site.

Note. Significant difference between sites in visitors’ selection of most satisfying experience, v2(9, N = 580) =
180.25, p< .001.

the four sites in the type of experience selected as most satisfying. The Cognitive experi-
ence (gaining new knowledge) was seen as the most satisfying experience by visitors to
the museum. The Object Experience (seeing rare or beautiful objects ⁄ marine life) was
seen as the most satisfying experience by visitors to the aquarium. The Social Experience
(spending time with friends or family) was seen as the most satisfying experience by visi-
tors to the botanic garden. The Introspective Experience (using your mind to reflect or
imagine) was second to the Object experience as most satisfying for art gallery visitors,
but was chosen more often in the art gallery than at any other site. There were no signifi-
cant differences between frequent and infrequent visitors in the kinds of experience they
considered most satisfying, but there were between tourists and local visitors. Tourists
considered the Object and Cognitive Experiences more satisfying, while local visitors
found Social and Introspective Experiences more satisfying.6
Visitors were also asked to rate various aspects of the physical environment, such
as noise, temperature, lighting, physical and cognitive comfort, and wayfinding. The
nine items all loaded onto a single factor, and a composite measure of Attributes of the
Physical Environment was formed (Cronbach’s alpha = .85). The four sites varied signif-
icantly on the composite scale, F (3, 561) = 6.11, p < .001, the art gallery scoring lower
than the other three sites. The art gallery gave lower ratings than the other sites on six of
the nine items, including the item ‘‘I felt comfortable in the environment.’’
Regression analyses were conducted in order to explore the relationships depicted
in figure 1. In order to simplify the analysis of the relationships depicted in the model,
average scores for Restorative Benefits, Restorative Attributes, Satisfying Experiences, and
430 JAN PACKER AND NIGEL BOND • RESTORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS

Attributes of the Physical Environment were calculated by combining the relevant

subscale measures of each construct (Cronbach alphas all exceeded .70). All three of the
independent variables had significant direct relationships with the dependent variable
Restorative Benefits.7 Because previous theory and research in other contexts has postu-
lated the restorative attributes of the environment as the factors that best predict and
explain the restorative benefits attained, the Restorative Attributes variable was entered
first into a hierarchical multiple regression analysis, with Restorative Benefits as the
dependent variable. Satisfying Experiences and Attributes of the Physical Environment
were entered at the second step. Restorative Attributes explained 32.5 percent of the vari-
ance in Restorative benefits. The addition of the Satisfying Experiences and Attributes of
the Physical Environment variables accounted for an additional 13.9 percent of the vari-
ance, a statistically significant difference (F [2,522] = 60.08, p < .001). Satisfying Experi-
ences made a significant contribution to the model, beyond that explained by
Restorative Attributes. Attributes of the Physical Environment did not explain any addi-
tional variance in Restorative Benefits. However, it did contribute to explaining both
Restorative Attributes and Satisfying Experiences. These relationships are illustrated in
figure 3.
To further explore these effects, the individual subscales for Restorative Attributes
and Satisfying Experiences were entered as predictors of Restorative Benefits. The best
subscale predictors of Restorative Benefits were an Introspective Experience and Escape
Attributes. Finally, the individual items for Attributes of the Physical Environment and
Satisfying Experiences were entered as predictors of Restorative Attributes. The best
predictors of Restorative Attributes were items representing the Object Experience
(especially ‘‘being moved by beauty’’) and ‘‘I felt comfortable in the physical sur-
roundings’’.

AƩributes of the
physical environment
(especially feeling
comfortable) .35

.39 RestoraƟve aƩributes .34

(especially escape) RestoraƟve benefits
.44
SaƟsfying experiences
(especially object .46
and introspecƟve)

Figure 3. Relationships between variables.

Note: The reported values are the standardized regression coefficients obtained in the following analyses: IV Attri-
butes of the Physical Environment with DV Satisfying Experiences (beta = .39); IVs Attributes of the Physical Envi-
ronment and Satisfying Experiences with DV Restorative Attributes (beta = .35, .44 respectively); IVs Attributes
of the Physical Environment, Satisfying Experiences and Restorative Attributes with DV Restorative Benefits
(beta = ).06, .46, .34 respectively). All tolerance levels were greater than .5 (> .2 considered acceptable).
CURATOR 53/4 • OCTOBER 2010 431

Discussion

Restoration can be defined as the renewing of physical, psychological, and social

capabilities that are reduced by the ongoing efforts to meet the demands of daily
life. Previous research suggests that this is more likely to occur in natural environ-
ments (Hartig and Staats 2003), and the present study confirms this. Not only
were national parks and beaches considered more restorative than urban environ-
ments, but among the research sites, those that were focused on natural heritage
(especially the botanic garden) were considered more restorative, both in attributes
and benefits, than those focused on cultural heritage (the museum and art
gallery).
However, museum environments were found to offer an alternative to natural set-
tings as a restorative experience, especially for their frequent visitors. Studies by Korpela
and colleagues suggest that many people have ‘‘favorite places’’ to which they become
particularly attached, and to which they go to relax, calm down, or clear their minds
(Korpela and Hartig 1996; Korpela, Ylén, Tyrväinen, and Silvennoinen 2008). These
places include nature areas, waterside environments, green spaces, and exercise areas,
and are often perceived as being high in restorative attributes. The present research,
together with interview data reported by Packer (2008) and Falk (2009), suggest that
for some people, museums may act as a ‘‘favorite place’’ to which they frequently go for
restoration.
As in previous research (Kaplan et al. 1993), frequent or repeat visitors were
more likely to report having experienced restoration than occasional or first-time
visitors. Assuming that frequency of visitation to a particular site can be taken as
an indicator of a preference for that type of site, the findings of the research
reported here support van den Berg, Koole, and van der Wulp’s conclusion that
there is an association between environmental preference—based in their case on
ratings of beauty—and perceived restorative potential (2003). It is not clear,
however, what the direction of this effect is. People may prefer environments they
perceive to be restorative, or they may feel more restored when they visit their
preferred environments, or indeed, both effects may be operating. In either case, by
facilitating restorative experiences for their visitors, museums can add value to the
visit and increase the likelihood that visitors will return.
Feeling comfortable in the physical surroundings of the site was identified by
Kaplan et al. as a factor contributing to restoration (1993), and was confirmed here as a
predictor both of visitors’ perceptions of the restorative attributes of the setting, and their
satisfying experiences. Bitner also found that conditions such as temperature, lighting,
noise, and spatial layout influenced visitors’ cognitive, emotional, and physiological
responses to the environment (1992). The finding that attributes of the physical
environment such as comfort and wayfinding contributed to the perception of restor-
ative attributes partly explains the restorative advantage of repeat visitation. If greater
attention were given to visitors’ comfort, first-time and infrequent visitors, who are less
familiar with the site, may be more able to experience restorative benefits as a result of
their visit. Helping visitors find their way through an unfamiliar environment, providing
432 JAN PACKER AND NIGEL BOND • RESTORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS

adequate physical facilities such as seats and rest areas, and ensuring that noise,
temperature, and lighting levels are pleasant, can all increase the likelihood that visitors
will encounter a restorative experience.
It was found that local visitors placed more importance on social and introspective
experiences, and tourists placed more importance on cognitive and object experiences.
Previous research on visitor motivations (Packer 2004) suggests that tourists are more
likely to be looking for a learning and discovery experience—they want to discover new
things and often try to ‘‘see as much as they can.’’ These experiences may be incompatible
with a restorative experience. Visitors who have already satisfied their initial curiosity
about the site may be more open to an introspective experience, which in turn is associ-
ated with greater restoration. Since the introspective experience was the best predictor of
restorative outcomes in this study, it might be concluded that the restorative experience
could also be enhanced by encouraging visitors to take the time to think about what
they are seeing, to make personal connections with exhibits, and to exercise their
imaginations.
Further research is needed to explore ways in which introspective experiences
might be encouraged and supported. These experiences were particularly evident in the
art gallery. Other venues might thus consider the use of visual art, poetry, and music as a
means of stimulating reflection. Experiments along these lines have already met with
considerable success—the use of poetry at the Central Park Zoo in New York, for
instance (Institute of Museums and Library Services 2006). Further research is also
needed to test the findings of this study using physiological as well as self-report mea-
sures of restoration. It may be that there is a difference between the perception of restora-
tion and the achievement of physiological effects such as reduced blood pressure or
muscle tension. Although some congruence between self-report and physiological mea-
sures has been demonstrated in natural environments (Chang et al. 2008), this needs to
be tested also in museum environments.
Focusing on the restorative benefits that museum environments can provide will
enhance and extend their contribution to their visitors’ health and well-being, and to
society in general. Providing opportunities to quickly, easily, and regularly access places
that support restoration is especially important in today’s urbanized society, where
access to natural environments is limited, and where information fatigue and stress are
increasingly prevalent.

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted with the assistance of a University of Queensland Early
Career Researcher Grant. The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the
Queensland Museum, Brisbane Botanic Gardens Mt Coot-tha, UnderWater World
Aquarium, and the National Gallery of Victoria, and all the visitors who gave their leisure
time to complete our survey.
CURATOR 53/4 • OCTOBER 2010 433

Notes

1. BG-AQ, t (571) = 7.57, p < .001; BG-AG, t (583) = 13.57, p < .001; BG-MU,
t (580) = 13.90, p < .001 : AQ-AG, t (575) = 4.15, p < .001; AQ-MU
t (573) = 4.10, p < .001; AG-MU, t (584) = 0.58, p = .559.
2. Significant effects of frequency of visitation on visitors’ ratings of restorativeness:
within art gallery, F (3,133) = 6.07, p=.001; within botanic garden, F (3,147) =
7.80, p<.001.
3. The Cronbach alpha statistic provides a measure, ranging from 0 to 1, of the inter-
nal consistency of the items and thus the appropriateness of combining them into
a single scale or subscale. Values above 0.70 are usually considered acceptable.
4. Significant differences between frequent and infrequent visitors on Fascination:
t (584) = 3.34, p = .001; and Compatibility: t (583) = 3.04, p = .002.
5. Significant differences between frequent and infrequent visitors on Restored
Mental State: t (573) = 2.10, p = .036; Significant differences between first-time
and repeat visitors on Restored Mental State: t (570) = 2.63, p = .009.
6. Tourist-local x most satisfying experience: v2 (3, N = 577) = 38.00, p < .001.
7. Correlations between Restorative Benefits and Attributes of the Physical Environ-
ment (r 538= .284, p<.001); Satisfying Experiences (r 551= .630, p<.001); and
Restorative Attributes (r 563 = .567, p<.001).

References

Ballantyne, R., J. Packer, and K. Hughes. 2008. Environmental awareness, interests

and motives of Botanic Gardens visitors: Implications for interpretive prac-
tice. Tourism Management 29(3): 439–444.
Bennett, E. S. and J. E. Swasey. 1996. Perceived stress reduction in urban public
gardens. HortTechnology 6(2): 125–128.
Bitner, M. J. 1992. Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on custom-
ers and employees. Journal of Marketing 5(2): 57–71.
Chang, C-Y., W. E. Hammitt, P-K. Chen, L. Machnik, and W-C. Su. 2008. Psycho-
physiological responses and restorative values of natural environments in
Taiwan. Landscape and Urban Planning 85: 79–84.
Doering, Z. D. 1999. Strangers, guests, or clients? Visitor experiences in museums.
Curator: The Museum Journal 42(2): 74–87.
Falk, J. H. 2006. An identity-centered approach to understanding museum learn-
ing. Curator: The Museum Journal 49(2): 151–166.
———. 2009. Identity and the Museum Visitor Experience. Walnut Creek, CA: Left
Coast Press.
Hartig, T. 2004. Toward understanding the restorative environment as a health
resource. Open space—People space: An international conference on inclu-
sive environments. Accessed April 2, 2009 at http://www.openspace.eca.
ac.uk/conference/proceedings/summary/Hartig.htm.
434 JAN PACKER AND NIGEL BOND • RESTORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS

Hartig, T., M. Mang, and G. W. Evans. 1991. Restorative effects of natural envi-
ronment experience. Environment and Behavior 23: 3–26.
Hartig, T., and H. Staats. 2003. Guest editors’ introduction: Restorative environ-
ments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 103–107.
Herzog, T. R., C. P. Maguire, and M. B. Nebel. 2003. Assessing the restorative
components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 159–
170.
Institute of Museums and Library Services. 2006. The language of conservation:
The poet in residence at the Central Park Zoo. Accessed on Sept. 9, 2008 at
http://www.imls.gov/profiles/Apr06.shtm.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. 1980. Social Psychology of Leisure and Recreation. Dubuque, IA: Wil-
liam C. Brown.
Kaplan, R., and S. Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspec-
tive. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan, and R. L. Ryan. 1998. With People in Mind: Design and Man-
agement of Everyday Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kaplan, S. 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative frame-
work. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15: 169–182.
Kaplan, S., L. V. Bardwell, and D. V. Slakter. 1993. The museum as a restorative
environment. Environment and Behavior 25: 725–742.
Korpela, K., and T. Hartig. 1996. Restorative qualities of favorite places. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 16: 221–233.
Korpela, K. M., M. Ylén, L. Tyrväinen, and H. Silvennoinen. 2008. Determinants
of restorative experiences in everyday favorite places. Health and Place 14:
636–652.
Laumann, K., T. Gärling, and K. M. Stormark. 2001. Rating scale measures of
restorative components of environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology
21: 31–44.
Law, C. M. 2002. Urban Tourism: The Visitor Economy and the Growth of Large Cities.
Second edition. London: Continuum.
Ouellette, P., R. Kaplan, and S. Kaplan. 2005. The monastery as a restorative envi-
ronment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25: 175–188.
Packer, J. 2004. Motivational factors and the experience of learning in educational
leisure settings. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Queensland University of Tech-
nology, Australia.
———. 2006. Learning for fun: The unique offering of educational leisure experi-
ences. Curator: The Museum Journal 49(3): 329–344.
———. 2008. Beyond learning: Exploring visitors’ perceptions of the value
and benefits of museum experiences. Curator: The Museum Journal 51(1):
33–55.
Packer, J. and R. Ballantyne. 2002. Motivational factors and the visitor experience:
A comparison of three sites. Curator: The Museum Journal 45(3): 183–198.
CURATOR 53/4 • OCTOBER 2010 435

Pals, R., L. Steg, F. W. Siero, and K. I. van der Zee. 2009. Development of the
PRCQ: A measure of perceived restorative characteristics of zoo attractions.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 29(4): 441–449.
Pearce, P. L. and U-I. Lee. 2005. Developing the Travel Career Approach to Tour-
ist Motivation. Journal of Travel Research 43: 226–237.
Pekarik, A. J., Z. D. Doering, and D. A. Karns. 1999. Satisfying experiences in
museums. Curator: The Museum Journal 42(2): 152–173.
Purcell, T., E. Peron, and R. Berto. 2001. Why do preferences differ between scene
types? Environment and Behavior 33: 93–106.
Scopelliti, M. and M. V. Giuliani. 2004. Choosing restorative environments across
the lifespan: A matter of place experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology
24: 423–437.
Snepenger, D., J. King, E. Marshall, and M. Uysal. 2006. Modeling Iso-Ahola’s
Motivation Theory in the tourism context. Journal of Travel Research 45: 140–
149.
Staats, H., A. Kieviet, and T. Hartig. 2003. Where to recover from attentional fati-
gue: An expectancy-value analysis of environmental preference. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 23: 147–157.
Ulrich, R. S. 1979. Visual landscapes and psychological well-being. Landscape
Research 4(1): 17–23.
——— 1983. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In Behavior
and the Natural Environment, I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill, eds., 85–125. New
York: Plenum.
———. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery.
Science 224: 420–421.
Van den Berg, A. E., S. L. Koole, and N. Y. van der Wulp. 2003. Environmental
preference and restoration: (How) are they related? Journal of Environmental
Psychology 23: 135–146.

Appendix A. Details of Measurement Procedures

Perceptions of restorative environments—A set of nine items asked respondents to rate the
extent to which each of the four research sites, as well as five other sites (national parks,
beaches, zoos, cinemas and shopping centers), helped them to ‘‘relax and recover from
the tension of everyday life.’’ Each item was rated on a 7-point scale where 0 = not at all,
1 = very little, 2 = rather little, 3 = neither little nor much, 4 = rather much, 5 = very
much, 6 = completely. (This is the same scale used by Laumann, Gärling, and Stormark
[2001], in their Restorative Components Scale; see below.) These items were included in
order to situate visitors’ perceptions of the restorative nature of the research sites within a
broader context of natural and urban environments.
Restorative attributes—The Restorative Components Scale (so-named by Herzog et al.
[2003], referring to the un-named scale developed by Laumann, et al. [2001]) was used
436 JAN PACKER AND NIGEL BOND • RESTORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS

to measure the perceived restorative attributes of the environment: fascination (6 items),

extent or coherence (4 items), being away (which they labeled ‘‘escape,’’ 4 items) and
compatibility (5 items). The ‘‘novelty’’ factor, which consisted of three items about doing
something different or being in a different environment from usual, was not included.
Each item was rated on a 7-point scale where 0 = not at all, 1 = very little, 2 = rather
little, 3 = neither little nor much, 4 = rather much, 5 = very much, 6 = completely, as
used by Laumann, et al. (2001).
Restorative benefits—A modified version of the Attention Recovery and Reflection Scale
(Staats, Kieviet, and Hartig, 2003) was used to measure the restorative benefits attained
from the visit. This modified scale consisted of 13 individual items, divided into two sep-
arate subscales, termed ‘‘Attention Recovery’’ and ‘‘Reflection.’’ In the original version
(Staats, Kieviet, and Hartig, 2003), an additional six items relating to ‘‘Social Stimula-
tion’’ were also included. These were excluded in the present study in order to avoid per-
ceived repetition of similar items in other sections of the questionnaire (see section on
the visitor experience below). The same 7-point rating was used as in the previous two
scales.
A Restored Mental State Scale was also developed for use in this project, which
asked participants to rate the impact of their experience using seven sets of adjectives
drawn from previous work by Ouellette et al. (2005) and Packer (2008).
Visitor characteristics—Demographic information (including age, gender, education,
occupation, local resident or tourist, first-time or repeat visitor to the specific site, fre-
quency of visitation to that kind of museum environment) and an estimate of the length
of the visit were collected. For the purposes of analysis, frequent visitors were defined as
those who visited that particular type of museum at least twice a year.
Attributes of the physical environment—Nine items were used to rate visitors’ perceptions
of attributes of the environment that previous research has suggested may be important
in facilitating a restorative experience: wayfinding, lighting, noise level, flow, tempera-
ture, labeling, ease, seating, and comfort (Kaplan et al. 1993; Packer 2008). These were
rated on a 7-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Satisfying experiences—Respondents were asked to choose, from a list of four types of
experience (seeing rare or beautiful objects; gaining new knowledge or understanding;
using your mind to reflect or imagine; and spending time with friends or family), the
one they believed had been the most satisfying in their visit that day. In addition to this
nominal measure, a Satisfying Experiences Scale was developed in order to provide more
comprehensive data that could be used in more sophisticated quantitative analyses. This
scale was based on the 14 items suggested by Pekarik et al. (1999) to represent object,
cognitive, introspective, and social experiences, and was rated on Laumann et al.’s
7-point scale from 0–6, according to the extent to which each was satisfying to the
respondent during their visit.