Investigative Study of Relationship between Built Environment and Perceived Restorativeness: Cases of Colonial Churches of Dalhousie

  • Shreya Rai Department of Architecture, National Institute of Technology Hamirpur, India
  • Farhan Asim Department of Architecture and Planning, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India
  • Venu Shree Department of Architecture, National Institute of Technology Hamirpur, India


The built environment of a region can influence or dominate its ecosystems, services and can regulate the processes associated with human health and well-being. Built environments can be of any shape and size depending upon where they originate from and how they progress. They may be urban or rural, and this simple classification merely cannot explain the associated perception and satisfaction of the human population unless the Built environment is quantified in terms of its processes, resources and constituting elements in order to identify the major contributors, thus a larger scope of Built Environment comes into the frame. Urban areas are considered central business hubs and are hence created with elements of attraction and benefits which can influence human satisfaction; whereas rural areas are rich in nature and are claimed to be associated with psychological restoration due to their natural diversity. Studies in this aspect have covered either built environment or psychological health, there is still space for a multidisciplinary study which can explore the relationship between the built environments and how humans respond to it in a psychological manner. The relationship between these two is observed through a detailed study of two Churches of Dalhousie town in Chamba District, H.P. The study focuses on the four related aspects of Perceived Restorativeness Scale which can be influenced by the constituting elements of Built Environment. It also explores some of the human preferences in nature-rich religious built environments.


Asim, F. & Shree V. (2019). The impact of Biophilic Built Environment on Psychological Restoration within student hostels. Visions for Sustainability, 12: 18-33.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., and Folke, C. (2003) Navigating social–ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Brymer, E. and Davids, K., 2013. Ecological dynamics as a theoretical framework for development of sustainable behaviours towards the environment. Environmental Education Research, 19(1), pp.45-63.

Brymer, E. and Oades, L.G., 2009. Extreme sports: A positive transformation in courage and humility. Journal of humanistic psychology, 49(1), pp.114-126.

Brymer, E. and Schweitzer, R., 2013. The search for freedom in extreme sports: A phenomenological exploration. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(6), pp.865-873.

Brymer, E., Cuddihy, T.F. and Sharma-Brymer, V., 2010. The role of nature-based experiences in the development and maintenance of wellness. Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 1(2), pp.21-27.

Doucette, C., Ransom, P. and Kowalewski, D., 2007. Nature and nurture: Teaching eco-pragmatism to high-school students at a winter camp in the Canadian Arctic. Children Youth and Environments, 17(4), pp.227-236.

Downton, P., Jones, D., Zeunert, J. and Roos, P., 2017, January. Biophilic design applications: theory and patterns into built environment education. In DesTech 2016: Proceedings of the International Conference on Design and Technology (pp. 59-65). Knowledge E.

Fischer-Kowalski, M. and Weisz, H., 1999. Society as hybrid between material and symbolic realms: Toward a theoretical framework of society-nature interaction. Advances in human ecology, 8, pp.215-252.

Frumkin, H., 2001. Beyond toxicity: human health and the natural environment. American journal of preventive medicine, 20(3), pp.234-240.

Gunderson, L. H., and Holling C. S. (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Hartig, T., Korpela, K., Evans, G.W. and Gärling, T., 1997. A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scandinavian housing and planning research, 14(4), pp.175-194.

Hattie, J., Marsh, H.W., Neill, J.T. and Richards, G.E., 1997. Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of educational research, 67(1), pp.43-87.

Herzog, T.R. and Strevey, S.J., 2008. Contact with nature, sense of humor, and psychological well-being. Environment and behavior, 40(6), pp.747-776.

Hull IV, R.B. and Stewart, W.P., 1992. Validity of photo-based scenic beauty judgments. Journal of environmental psychology, 12(2), pp.101-114.

Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. and Brown, T., 1989. Environmental preference: A comparison of four domains of predictors. Environment and behavior, 21(5), pp.509-530.

Kaplan, S. and Talbot, J.F., 1983. Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. In Behavior and the natural environment (pp. 163-203). Springer, Boston, MA.

Kellert, S.R., Heerwagen, J. and Mador, M., 2011. Biophilic design: the theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life. John Wiley & Sons.

Kuo, F.E. and Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior, 33(3), pp.343-367.

Machlis, G.E., Force J.E, and. Burch, W.R Jr. 1997. The human ecosystem part I: The human ecosystem as an organizing concept in ecosystem management. Society and Natural Resources, Vol.10, pp.347-367.

Maller, C., Townsend, M., Leger, L., Henderson-Wilson, C., Pryor, A., Prosser, L. and Moore, M., 2008. Healthy parks, healthy people: The health benefits of contact with nature in a park context-a review of relevant literature.

Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P. and St Leger, L., 2006. Healthy nature healthy people:‘contact with nature’as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health promotion international, 21(1), pp.45-54.

Mayer, F.S. and Frantz, C.M., 2004. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of environmental psychology, 24(4), pp.503-515.

Mayer, F.S., Frantz, C.M., Bruehlman-Senecal, E. and Dolliver, K., 2009. Why is nature beneficial? The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and behavior, 41(5), pp.607-643.

Rai, S., Asim, F. and Shree, V., 2019. The Significance of Biophilic Architecture in Perceived Restorativeness: Cases of Colonial Churches of Himachal Pradesh. Proceedings of National Seminar on Green Building & Rating Systems, India.

Redman, C., Grove, M. J. and Kuby, L. (2004). Integrating Social Science into the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network: Social Dimensions of Ecological Change and Ecological Dimensions of Social Change. Ecosystems Vol.7 (2), pp. 161-171.

Ryan, C.O., Browning, W.D., Clancy, J.O., Andrews, S.L. and Kallianpurkar, N.B., 2014. Biophilic design patterns: emerging nature-based parameters for health and well-being in the built environment. International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR, 8(2), pp.62-76.

Sharma-Brymer, V., Brymer, E. and Davids, K.E.I.T.H., 2015. The relationship between physical activity in green space and human health and wellbeing: an ecological dynamics perspective. Journal of Physical Education Research, 2(1), pp.7-22.

Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J. and James, P., 2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and urban planning, 81(3), pp.167-178.

Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A. and Zelson, M., 1991. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of environmental psychology, 11(3), pp.201-230.

Wolsko, C. and Hoyt, K., 2012. Employing the restorative capacity of nature: Pathways to practicing ecotherapy among mental health professionals. Ecopsychology, 4(1), pp.10-24.

Original Papers