Introduction
The aim of this study is to investigate the relation between natural environments and human creativity. Our society's need for creative people calls for different perspectives on how we enhance creativity. Innovative organisations need creative employees because creativity provides the raw intellectual materials – ideas, concepts, insights and discovery – that eventually become new theories, approaches, tools, products and services which underlie innovation (Vithayathawornwong et al., 2003, Baumann and Boutellier, 2009, Dul and Ceylan, 2011).
Psychology is one of the fields that describe and look into creativity. Questions like “what is creativity?”, “who is creative?” and “how can the creative person, process and work environment be understood?” have been explored and described in the literature rather comprehensively (Guilford, 1950, Oldham and Cummings, 1996, Hennessey and Amabile, 2010). An extensive amount of research within the area of human–nature interaction, especially within the field of environmental psychology explains why and how nature impacts us and may reduce human stress and relieve burn-out symptoms (Ulrich, 1984, Kaplan, 1995, Kaplan et al., 1998, Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2010). In spite of this work, nature's ability to stimulate our creativity has only been investigated to a very limited extent within the areas of psychology and environmental psychology. To our knowledge, the attention from other fields (such as landscape architecture) for nature–creativity linkages has also been limited.
This study therefore aims to investigate the relationship between nature and creativity, as it may reveal new and important knowledge about nature's role in creative processes which may be valuable in today's and tomorrow's society.
Even though definitions of creativity differ, creativity is generally defined as ‘a useful novelty’ – not a novelty for its own sake, but a novelty that can be applied, and add value to products and services (Oldham and Cummings, 1996, Hennessey and Amabile, 2010).
Creativity, or creative performance, can be described in many ways. According to Dul and Ceylan (2011), creative performance depends on the person, the process, the social-organisational work environment as well as the physical work environment (as visualised in Fig. 1). The focus of this study has been on natural environments as part of the Physical work environment and as impacting the Creative person and the process.
On a psychological level there is no distinction between the creativity that is used by artists, and the creativity we all use when we try to create something new within our field (Mikkelsen, 2009).
It was J.P. Guilford, test and intelligence researcher, who for the first time defined what characterises the thoughts involved in a creative process:
1.Being sensitive towards problems (we are aware of things that do not work or fit together and it makes us curious to find out why).
2.We get lots of ideas, and our ideas are new and not just replications of old ideas.
We are flexible and able to shift between different perspectives. We can view a problem from different angles and branch out into new channels of thought.
4.We think in a synthesising way – organising ideas into larger, more inclusive patterns and as part of it analyse to see the relevant and interesting aspects (Guilford, 1950).
The creative process consists of a number of phases (Wallas, 1926):
•Preparation: when the person directs his attention to a particular topic, and starts to gather information and look into issues that are interesting and arouse curiosity.
•Incubation: conscious work stops, and attention is directed to other things, while unconsciously the creative process continues. The unconscious scanning is based upon personal, visual and sensory qualities (Ehrenzweig, 1968).
•Idea: the moment when new ideas suddenly come to mind, and the work done during the preparation phase turns into concrete and conscious ideas.
•Evaluation: when logical and rational thought returns to decide, whether the insight is valuable and worth pursuing.
The output of the creative process is a creative performance.
Many creative thinkers have recognised the potential role of the environment in influencing creativity (Amabile et al., 1996, McCoy and Evans, 2002).
Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural, physical, or material world or universe (Wikipedia, 2014). The natural environment encompasses all living and non-living things occurring naturally on Earth or some region thereof. It is an environment that encompasses the interaction of all living species (Johnson et al., 1997). Humans have a major impact on nature and natural environments, especially in urbanised countries (Hauxner, 2011).
Highly relevant research has been carried out within the field of environmental psychology. Below, three theoretical perspectives are introduced that are considered of high relevance to the focus of this article.
The Attention Restoration Theory (ART) by Steven Kaplan (1995) identified two types of attention. One refers to the direct attention system, which is used in unnatural environments, like urban environments, office work or when driving a car. In these situations our brains are ‘hit’ by 11 million bits of information per second, which demand our attention, while only 15–20 bits of information are cognitively adapted. The rest we have to sort out, and this demands energy, which will become mentally tiring (Kaplan, 1995). The other concerns spontaneous attention, or soft fascination, which is the ability to experience things unnoticed, thus stimulating the brain without being mentally tiring. In nature, this type of attention is used and stimulated (Kaplan et al., 1998). As illustrated in Table 1, there are four factors, in particular, that are important for a restorative feeling and they can all be found in nature (Kaplan et al., 1998).
The Affective Aesthetic Theory (AAT) differs from ART by having its focus on psychological and affective reactions, rather than cognitive ones (Ulrich, 1983).
Evolutionary forces have shaped human beings, and natural environments have been of crucial importance for survival during most of human evolutionary history. To be able to survive, it was important to be able to trust our affects. Affections are bodily reactions that occur unconsciously and instinctively and within fraction of a second, they can tell us if an environment is secure or insecure. Thus we know when we can rest, or when we should be active, including being prepared to flee or fight (Ulrich, 1984, Ulrich et al., 1991, Nemiah, 1994). We cannot trust our affects in an urban landscape. Instead, we have to use our logical thinking, which may result in fatigue and stress. In a natural environment, we can trust our affects, which is why humans have a preference for natural landscapes (Stigsdotter, 2008).
Research indicates a relationship between sensory perception of natural environments and human health. Grahn and Stigsdotter (2010) describe that people perceive green spaces in terms of eight sensory dimensions (as illustrated in Table 2), where some dimensions are more important and preferred than others. People, in general, prefer the dimension Serene, followed by Space, Nature, Rich in Species, Refuge, Culture, Prospect and Social. These preferences, however, change depending on e.g., one's mental state. If someone suffers from mental fatigue the preferences change; then a combination of Refuge, Nature and Rich in Species, and a low or no presence of Social, could be interpreted as the most restorative environment (Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2010).
The theoretical frame for this study is developed based on what research says about creativity as well as human–nature interaction. It has, however, not been possible to find a comprehensive theory describing if, why and how natural environments enhance creativity, and if some types of natural environments are preferred when it comes to the enhancement of creativity. The following hypotheses have been formulated with the purpose of outlining the knowledge gaps and enhance our understanding of the relationship between natural environments and human creativity:
1.The interaction between humans and nature evoke the creative way of thinking.
2.Nature plays different roles during the different phases of a creative process.
Some types of nature are preferred when it comes to the enhancement of creativity.
Section snippets
Methods
The presented study applies a qualitative approach, recognising that such research is particularly useful for “the description and interpretation of new or not well-researched issues as well as theory generation, theory development, theory qualification, and theory correction” (Bitsch, 2005, p. 76).
Hypothesis 1. The interaction between humans and nature evoke the creative way of thinking
As described in the theoretical frame, creativity can be fostered by the physical environment including elements from nature (Kaplan et al., 1998, McCoy and Evans, 2002). Being asked if nature may enhance their creativity, all of the respondents said yes: nature plays an important role in the ability to be creative.
“When something is wild and on nature's terms it helps opening up to my creativity”. (Actor, Woman/37)
From the theoretical frame we know that there are different characteristics of
Discussion
Compared to current theory the findings fill in part of the knowledge gap concerning the relation between nature and creativity. Enhancing creativity is a complex process, and current theory has explained the characteristics of a creative person (Guilford, 1950), the social–organisational work environment, the physical work environment (Dul and Ceylan, 2011), as well as the creative process and its phases (Wallas, 1926). The findings of this study builds upon current theory, and – as
Recommended articles (6)
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.