Article

Everyday Use of the City Cemetery: A Study of

Environmental Qualities and Perceived
Restorativeness in a Scottish Context
Ka Yan Lai 1, *, Iain Scott 2 and Ziwen Sun 2
1 Department of Urban Planning and Design, Faculty of Architecture, The University of Hong Kong,
Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong
2 Edinburgh School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Edinburgh College of Art,
University of Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 1JZ, UK
* Correspondence: laikyy@hku.hk




Received: 17 June 2019; Accepted: 12 July 2019; Published: 16 July 2019


Abstract: As the number of historical urban cemeteries where interment is no longer available
continues to grow, the everyday use and restorative benefit of these spaces (beyond commemoration
and remembrance) is worthy of further exploration. This study primarily investigates the everyday
use of two historical urban cemeteries in Edinburgh through behavioural observation (N = 185).
We also explore further the relationships between cemetery qualities and perceived restorativeness
through an interviewer-administered survey (N = 134) and face-to-face interviews (N = 24) at the
sites. The survey findings showed that usage and aesthetics in the cemeteries were both significantly
and positively associated with various restorative qualities including ‘being away’, ‘fascination’ and
‘compatibility’. The data provided from the interviews and behavioural observations complement
the survey findings that the everyday use of urban cemeteries (i.e., using them as an alternative
route for pedestrian journeys or simply walking the dog) could facilitate users’ mental restorative
process. After controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, provision of facilities (e.g., benches
and toilets) was found to have no significant association with any restorative qualities. Using a mixed
method approach, this study provides a novel understanding of how the urban population uses, and
perceives, old urban cemeteries in contemporary Scotland.

Keywords: cemetery; everyday use; perceived restorativeness; Scottish context

1. Introduction
Urban greenspace has generally been found to encompass various environmental qualities, which
help to facilitate people’s perceived restorativeness [1,2], restoring depleted psychological resources [3,4].
Previous research has generally focused on parks, rather than informal urban greenspace [5]. In
considering the dimension of proximity, access to formal urban greenspace in a person’s neighbourhood
could be an obstacle for urban populations [6]. Subsequently, informal urban greenspace might be
more important for everyday use and become an increasingly significant research topic, such as
brownfield land, railway verges [7], vacant lots [8], golf courses [9], zoos [10], and cemeteries [11].
With the growing number of urban cemeteries [12] and the potential integration of everyday use into
this park-like environment [12,13], this study is divided into two parts: 1) Investigating the everyday
use of historical urban cemeteries in a Scottish context; 2) exploring the relationships between the
environmental qualities of these places, and people’s perceived restorativeness.

Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72; doi:10.3390/urbansci3030072 www.mdpi.com/journal/urbansci

Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 2 of 19

1.1. The Everyday Use of Historical Urban Cemeteries

As shown in the National Land Use Nomenclature, cemeteries in the UK are categorised as ‘utilities
and infrastructure’, suggesting a place for ‘storage and disposal of human remains’ [14] (p. 38).
However, interment is often no longer available in historical urban cemeteries. Though burial plot
recycling has been proposed to address cemetery overcrowding, previous studies have shown that
urban cemeteries, a cultural institution filled with many beliefs and values, are used by local residents
in many different ways, displaying the various roles these spaces play in the everyday life of the
city [13,15]. Cemeteries are habitats to a rich variety of birds, and generate a series of different human
behaviours in response to activities and other environmental characteristics [16]. The use of cemeteries
by tourists has also been studied, exploring the economic and educational potential of these places [17].
Swensen et al. [18] found that Finnish cemeteries could also be regarded as a route of local pedestrian
travel, indicating that walking for exercise was the most common everyday use in the cemetery,
followed by cycling, walking the dog, walking with babies in prams, and contemplation. Tângari [19]
highlighted that cemeteries could be categorised as urban open space that supports interment as well
as other activities related to commerce, recreation, or sports. Recently, cemeteries as a peaceful place
in the city were found to be ‘a park-like environment’ for restoration, in another qualitative study
based in Norway, where four restorative elements including ‘fascination’, ‘being away’, ‘compatibility’,
and ‘coherence’ were discussed [11] (p. 109–110). These studies, primarily being conducted in the
Scandinavian region, displayed further potential uses of cemeteries in the city, rather than solely being
used for the purpose of human interment separated from people’s daily living [20–22]. In order to
address the inadequate relevant evidence in the UK, this is the first study to investigate the everyday
use of the historical urban cemetery in a Scottish context through behavioural observation.

1.2. Environmental Qualities and Perceived Restorativeness in the Cemetery

Attention restoration theory (ART) highlights the recovery of an individual’s capacity to concentrate
on a specific task with minimal cognitive effort [23]. Directed attention, the principal concept of the
theory, helps to facilitate people’s mental effectiveness in their daily lives [24]. A natural environment
is believed to enable a more complete restorative experience by effortlessly restoring the capacity for a
person’s directed attention [24,25]. Based on the theory, perceived restorativeness can be divided into
four sub-dimensions consisting of ‘being away’, ‘fascination’, ‘compatibility’, and ‘coherence’ [3]. Being
away represents physically being away in a novel setting or having a psychological experience of escape
from a person’s everyday routine [4,26]. Fascination refers to holding one’s involuntary attention
through interesting stimulations, allowing directed attention to rest. Compatibility emphasises
consistency between a person’s purpose and experienced environmental features [24]. The discussion
of this quality is usually about the relationship between the ‘demands’ of a person and the ‘supply’
of an environment. Coherence was originally included in another component of ‘extent’ [27], and
subsequently divided into two factors of connectedness and scope [28]. With reference to the discussions
of coherence by Hauru et al. [27] and Pals et al. [28], in this study we define coherence as the perception
of an environment being ordered and having sufficient scope for preferred physical and imaginative
activities. As raised by Kaplan [24], a place with sufficient scope ‘provide(s) enough to see, experience,
and think about’ in order to engage a person’s mind (p. 173). An environment with these four
characteristics can be regarded as having restorative potential.
Restorativeness emphasises the involuntary recovery from mental fatigue [29]. With the growing
urban population and the need for good mental health in coping with pressurised modern lifestyles [30],
improving restorativeness in contemporary cities becomes an increasingly significant research topic.
Previous empirical findings generally show that urban greenspace can provide a liveable, peaceful,
and walkable environment that encourages perceived restorativeness [31]. In terms of usage, running
in parks or outside towns was found to have a positive association with perceived restorativeness [32].
Walking was also found to have a positive impact upon mental health [33]. With regard to aesthetics, the
perceptions of greenspace qualities including perceived greenness, perceived birds, perceived butterflies,
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 3 of 19

and perceived plants and trees were positively associated with perceived restorativeness [2,23]. For
facilities, the aspect of refuge, representing the presence of benches, tables, and play equipment
of small public urban greenspace was associated with compatibility and coherence of perceived
restorativeness [34]. Perceived safety, which may affect the use of public parks, was also beneficially
associated with perceived restorativeness [35]. Compared with physical aspects, population perception
towards urban greenspace is more crucial to affect visitorship and to inform future greenspace
planning [36].
However, many publications relating to the perceptions of greenspace features and perceived
restorativeness have been limited to studying formal greenspace such as public parks and gardens.
In order to address the common negligence of the role of informal greenspace in the city, this study
further explores the relationships between the environmental qualities of historical urban cemeteries
and people’s perceived restorativeness through a survey and interviews at sites. Previous publications
generally adopted a qualitative approach, mostly interviews, to investigate an individual’s perceptions
towards cemeteries. This is the first study that has employed a mixed method approach to explore the
associations between environmental qualities of historical urban cemeteries and people’s perceived
restorativeness in contemporary Scotland. Based on the literature review and the subsequent factor
analysis as demonstrated in the following section, we proposed four hypotheses (H) as shown below:
H1. Usage of the study’s cemeteries is positively associated with perceived restorativeness.
H2. Aesthetics of the study’s cemeteries is positively associated with perceived restorativeness.
H3. Presence of facilities in the study’s cemeteries is positively associated with perceived restorativeness.
H4. Safety of the study’s cemeteries is positively associated with perceived restorativeness.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

Figure 1 presents the study procedures in relation to the research questions. The methods of
behavioural observation, an interviewer-conducted survey, and face-to-face interview at the sites were
conducted from March to April 2018 in two cemetery sites in the City of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. At
each site, data collection was conducted for five days, of which three were weekdays and two were
weekend days. Time used for data collection included 7 hours each day (09.00–12.00 and 13.00–17.00).
One specific observatory point (Figures 2 and 3) was chosen by the researcher at each site based on the
amount of users passing by, so as to increase the potential of data collection. Users’ behaviours were
firstly recorded (details are shown below). They were then invited to answer the survey questions.
Some of them were further invited to participate in an interview (criteria for interviews and other
details are shown below). Although some users were found more than once at the study sites during
the survey period, each of them was invited only once for the interview. All eligible participants
were aged 18 or above and could answer the survey questions independently. When the researcher
encountered more than one person walking together, all of them were invited to participate in the
study. However, they usually preferred that only one of them answered the questionnaire. Ethical
approval has been granted by the University of Edinburgh.
H4. Safety of the study’s cemeteries is positively associated with perceived restorativeness.

2. Methods
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 4 of 19
2.1. Study Design and Participants

Urban Sci. 2019, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19

Figure 1 presents the study procedures in relation to the research questions. The methods of
behavioural observation, an interviewer-conducted survey, and face-to-face interview at the sites
were conducted from March to April 2018 in two cemetery sites in the City of Edinburgh, Scotland,
UK. At each site, data collection was conducted for five days, of which three were weekdays and two
were weekend days. Time used for data collection included 7 hours each day (09.00–12.00 and 13.00–
17.00). One specific observatory point (Figures 2 and 3) was chosen by the researcher at each site
based on the amount of users passing by, so as to increase the potential of data collection. Users’
behaviours were firstly recorded (details are shown below). They were then invited to answer the
survey questions. Some of them were further invited to participate in an interview (criteria for
interviews and other details are shown below). Although some users were found more than once at
the study sites during the survey period, each of them was invited only once for the interview. All
eligible participants were aged 18 or above and could answer the survey questions independently.
When the researcher encountered more than one person walking together, all of them were invited
to participate in the study. However, they usually preferred that only one of them answered the
questionnaire. Ethical approval has been granted by the University of Edinburgh.

2.2. Study Sites Figure 1.

Figure Research procedures
1. Research procedures in
in relation
relation to the research questions.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Map and image of the Warriston CemeteryCemetery in
in Edinburgh
Edinburgh (the
(the map
map was
was retrieved
retrieved from
from
www.google.no/maps/). The
www.google.no/maps/). The white
white spot
spot indicates
indicates the
the location
location where
where data
data collection
collection was
was conducted,
conducted,
and the
and the white
white line
line indicates
indicatesthe
theboundary
boundaryof ofthe
theWarriston
WarristonCemetery.
Cemetery.

Edinburgh is the capital city of Scotland. Its population reached over 500,000 in 2017 [37]. With
the growing population and rapid expansion of the city from the early 19th century, many private
cemeteries were instituted to address the growing problem of inadequate space for the interment of
human remains. Many of these historical cemeteries are now under the control of the City Council,
but no longer available for burial use due to being full. Two historical cemeteries, the Warriston
Cemetery (Figure 2) and the Morningside Cemetery (Figure 3) in the north and south of the city, and
which opened in 1843 and 1878, respectively, were selected for this study. The Warriston Cemetery
(88,815.72 square meters) is surrounded by residential land use. To the south of the Morningside
Cemetery (55,099.82 square meters), a large number of residential plots exist, while land to the
northeast is mostly occupied by commercial businesses. In order to select the two study sites, all of
the cemeteries in the list of cemeteries in Edinburgh [38] were initially visited by the main researcher.
 Urban Sci. 2019, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19

of the
Urban Sci.most intensively
2019, 3, 72 used of the various cemeteries visited, resulting in their selection as study
5 of 19
sites.

Figure3.3.Map
Figure Map and
and image
image of
of the
the Morningside
Morningside Cemetery
Cemetery in
in Edinburgh
Edinburgh(the
(themap
mapwaswasretrieved
retrievedfrom
from
www.google.no/maps/). The
www.google.no/maps/). The white
white spot
spot indicates
indicates the
the location
location where
wheredata
datacollection
collectionwas
wasconducted,
conducted,
andthe
and thewhite
whiteline
lineindicates
indicates the
the boundary
boundary of
of the
the Morningside
Morningside Cemetery.
Cemetery.

2.2.
2.3.Study Sites Observations
Behavioural
Edinburgh is the capital city of Scotland. Its population reached over 500,000 in 2017 [37]. With
Data collection
the growing population and rapid expansion of the city from the early 19th century, many private
Behavioural
cemeteries observations
were instituted are useful
to address to provide
the growing quantitative
problem data tospace
of inadequate determine
for thethe levels ofof
interment
behaviours,
human and Many
remains. frequency is one
of these of the most
historical common
cemeteries arefeatures to observe.
now under Users’
the control ofbehaviours were
the City Council,
recorded
but on a available
no longer record sheetfor at each use
burial site due
in a systematic way.Two
to being full. Thehistorical
record sheet mainly contained
cemeteries, two
the Warriston
elements comprised of gender and activities. For example, ‘dog’ was used to represent
Cemetery (Figure 2) and the Morningside Cemetery (Figure 3) in the north and south of the city, and the behaviour
of ‘dogopened
which walking’. As this
in 1843 andstudy
1878,intended to explore
respectively, werethe overallfor
selected usethis
of cemeteries,
study. Therecurring
Warriston users were
Cemetery
coded as many
(88,815.72 squaretimes as they
meters) appeared inby
is surrounded theresidential
study area. If a use.
land groupToofthe
users appeared
south in the study
of the Morningside
area at the same time, photos were first taken before their behaviours were recorded.
Cemetery (55,099.82 square meters), a large number of residential plots exist, while land to the northeast
is mostly occupied by commercial businesses. In order to select the two study sites, all of the cemeteries
in2.4.
theInterviewer-Administered On-Site Survey
list of cemeteries in Edinburgh [38] were initially visited by the main researcher. From this
initial observation, it was clear that the Warriston and Morningside cemeteries were two of the most
2.4.1. Measures
intensively used of the various cemeteries visited, resulting in their selection as study sites.
The Neighbourhood Open Space Scale (13 items) was used to measure the independent variables
2.3. Behavioural
of environmental Observations
qualities in the cemeteries [39]. The scale was rated by using a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from ‘(1) strongly disagree’ to ‘(5) strongly agree’. The term ‘neighbourhood open space’ was
Data Collection
changed to ‘cemeteries’ in the questionnaire. Though the scale was used to measure the perceived
neighbourhood
Behaviouralopen space in the
observations areUK before,
useful to principal component analysis
provide quantitative data towas conducted
determine thetolevels
divideof
the 13 itemsand
behaviours, intofrequency
various dimensions
is one of thebasedmost on the specific
common cemetery
features context.
to observe. Items
Users’ with a factor
behaviours were
loading lower
recorded than 0.50
on a record were
sheet excluded.
at each After
site in exclusion,way.
a systematic the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin
The record sheet mainly(KMO) of the scale
contained two
was 0.636
elements (p = 0.000),
comprised indicating
of gender andan acceptable
activities. Forlevel of sampling
example, ‘dog’ wasadequacy. Varimax the
used to represent rotation was
behaviour
ofadopted. Only 10As
‘dog walking’. items
thisremained after thetofactor
study intended exploreanalysis (Tableuse
the overall A1).
ofThe four dimensions
cemeteries, recurringwere
userssafety
were
coded as many times as they appeared in the study area. If a group of users appeared in the study are
(4 items, e.g., the cemetery is free from crime), usage (4 items, e.g., the paths to the cemeteries area
atenjoyable
the sametotime,
walkphotos
through),
werefacilities (single
first taken item,
before i.e.,behaviours
their there are good
werefacilities
recorded.in the cemetery), and
aesthetics (single item, i.e., trees and plants in the cemetery are attractive). The former two had a
Cronbach’s alpha(α) score higher than 0.50, indicating an acceptable level of internal consistency. A
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 6 of 19

2.4. Interviewer-Administered On-Site Survey

2.4.1. Measures
The Neighbourhood Open Space Scale (13 items) was used to measure the independent variables
of environmental qualities in the cemeteries [39]. The scale was rated by using a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from ‘(1) strongly disagree’ to ‘(5) strongly agree’. The term ‘neighbourhood open space’ was
changed to ‘cemeteries’ in the questionnaire. Though the scale was used to measure the perceived
neighbourhood open space in the UK before, principal component analysis was conducted to divide
the 13 items into various dimensions based on the specific cemetery context. Items with a factor loading
lower than 0.50 were excluded. After exclusion, the Kaiser—Meyer–Olkin (KMO) of the scale was
0.636 (p = 0.000), indicating an acceptable level of sampling adequacy. Varimax rotation was adopted.
Only 10 items remained after the factor analysis (Table A1). The four dimensions were safety (4 items,
e.g., the cemetery is free from crime), usage (4 items, e.g., the paths to the cemeteries are enjoyable
to walk through), facilities (single item, i.e., there are good facilities in the cemetery), and aesthetics
(single item, i.e., trees and plants in the cemetery are attractive). The former two had a Cronbach’s
alpha(α) score higher than 0.50, indicating an acceptable level of internal consistency. A higher mean
score for each dimension indicated a higher perception of a particular quality in the cemeteries.
The 16-item Perceived Restorativeness Scale (16-item PRS scale), commonly applied in previous
studies [23,34,40] was used to measure perceived restorativeness [4] as the outcome variable of this
study. The scale was rated by using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘(0) not at all’ to ‘(6) very much’.
It was used in the UK previously with validated reliability [23]. The mean score of the 16 items was
calculated to form a 16-item PRS scale. Mean scores of the four dimensions as discussed above were
also reported for further studies. As the items of coherence imply negative meanings, scores for its
items were reversed before calculation. A higher score indicated a higher level of restorative quality.
Similar to the previous study (16-item PRS scale: α = 0.90; being away: α = 0.85; fascination: α = 0.94;
compatibility: α = 0.92) [23], the Cronbach’s alpha scores of the 16-item PRS scale (α = 0.891), being
away (α = 0.832), fascination (α = 0.860), and compatibility (α = 0.869) were at acceptable levels in
this study. However, compared with the previous analysis conducted (coherence: α = 0.62) [23], the
dimension of coherence (α = 0.483) had a relatively low Cronbach’s alpha score in this study, indicating
a relatively low level of internal consistency. As it nearly reaches 0.50 as a basic acceptable level,
coherence was also included to examine its associations with different environmental qualities for
further analysis and discussion.
Sociodemographic characteristics including age, gender, marital status, education level, and
working status were reported. Interviewees were also asked if they had any physical disability. Physical
disability is defined as perceived difficulty in mobility in this study [41].
As the survey data were collected from two sites, the Warriston Cemetery and the Morningside
Cemetery were coded as 1 and 0 respectively to indicate the uniqueness of the two cemeteries.

2.4.2. Data Analysis

The study firstly used SPSS Version 23 to analyse the survey data. All survey data collected
in the two study sites were combined for analysis. Missing data were replaced by a mean value,
despite the low missing rate. Descriptive analysis was initially conducted to present the number of
samples at each site and participants’ sociodemographic characteristics. Bivariate analysis was then
conducted to explore the correlations between environmental qualities and outcome variables (16-item
PRS scale and other sub-dimensions of perceived restorativeness). Outcome variables in the bivariate
analysis at significant levels were further analysed in the regression analysis. Multiple linear regression
was conducted to explore the effect of environmental qualities on the 16-item PRS scale and other
dimensions of perceived restorativeness, after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and
site selections.
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 7 of 19

2.5. Face-to-Face On-Site Interviews

2.5.1. Interviews
A total of 24 interviews were conducted at the two study sites, where 12 interviews (6 male and
6 female) were conducted at each site. On average, one to two interviews were conducted per day.
Gender was controlled so as to ensure gender balance in the number of participants. In order to
understand how users perceive the environment through a more comprehensive approach, and to
help interpret the survey data, each interview began with two core questions—‘Why are you here
today?’ and ‘What do you think about the environment in this place?’ [42]. The following questions
were dependent on the interviewees’ answers. For example, when the respondents noted that they
liked the gravestones in the cemetery without any explanations, they were further asked about the
reasons behind the answers given. Each interview took approximately 10 to 15 minutes. The main
points of the discourse were recorded on a table (containing gender, site, questions, and response) by
the researcher during the interviews, including direct quotations. Some incomplete data were further
expanded [42] as a complete sentence from the interviewees’ perspectives on the same day of data
collection when the main researcher still kept fresh memory with regard to the discourse. This explains
why the following interview data look verbatim.

2.5.2. Data Analysis

Using Nvivo, thematic analysis was conducted by coding the data based on the four dimensions
(i.e., safety, usage, facilities, and aesthetics) analysed in the quantitative approach. For instance, the
relevant text of an interview associated with safety was coded as ‘safety’. The same text related to more
than one theme was coded more than once. A coding report for each theme was subsequently generated.
By relating the interview results with the four dimensions as resulting from the quantitative analysis,
the interview results shed light on explaining the associations between environmental qualities and
perceived restorativeness. Pseudonyms were used to protect the interviewees’ confidentiality.

3. Results

3.1. Behavioural Observations

Figure 4 shows the frequency of activities in the two cemeteries by using a bar chart. In the
Warriston Cemetery, dog walking (n = 42, 46.67%) was the most popular use (Figure 5), followed by
walking as a through route (n = 20, 22.22%), sitting down on a bench (n = 13, 14.44%), and others
(n = 11, 12.22%). In the Morningside Cemetery, walking as a through route (n = 74, 77.89%) was the
most popular use, followed by walking with a baby in a pram (n = 7, 7.37%) (Figure 6), sitting down
on a bench (n = 4, 4.21%), and others (n = 4, 4.21%). On average, walking as a through route was the
most popular use (n = 94, 50.81%) in the two cemeteries.
environmental qualities and perceived restorativeness. 94
Pseudonyms were used to protect the
100
interviewees’ confidentiality.
80

Frequency
60 45 74
3. Results
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 40 8 of 19
42 17 15
20
3.1. Behavioural Observations 5 9
2 3 3 13 4 20 2 7 11 4
0
Cycling Dog Sitting Walking as Walking Others
Results of behavioural
walking down on a observations
through with a baby
bench 94
route in pram
100
Activity
80
Frequency 60 45
Warriston Cemetery
74
Morningside Cemetery Total
40
42 17 15
5 9
Figure 4. Results20of behavioural
2 3 observations.
3 13‘Others’
4 include
20 doing2 voluntary
7 11 work,
4 meditation,
0
cycling, running, taking photographs, watching birds, and flying drones.
Cycling Dog Sitting Walking as Walking Others
walking down on a through with a baby
Figure 4 shows the frequency of activities in the two
bench
cemeteries
route in pram
by using a bar chart. In the
Warriston Cemetery, dog walking (n = 42, 46.67%) was the most popular use (Figure 5), followed by
Activity
walking as a through route (n = 20, 22.22%), sitting down on a bench (n = 13, 14.44%), and others (n =
11, 12.22%). In the Morningside
WarristonCemetery,
Cemetery walking as a through
Morningside route (n = 74,
Cemetery 77.89%) was the most
Total
popular use, followed by walking with a baby in a pram (n = 7, 7.37%) (Figure 6), sitting down on a
bench (n = 4, 4.21%), and others (n = 4, 4.21%). On average, walking as a through route was the most
Figure 4. Results of behavioural observations. ‘Others’
‘Others’ include
include doing
doing voluntary
voluntary work,
work, meditation,
meditation,
popular use (n = 94, 50.81%) in the two cemeteries.
cycling, running, taking photographs, watching birds, and
and flying
flying drones.
drones.

Figure 4 shows the frequency of activities in the two cemeteries by using a bar chart. In the
Warriston Cemetery, dog walking (n = 42, 46.67%) was the most popular use (Figure 5), followed by
walking as a through route (n = 20, 22.22%), sitting down on a bench (n = 13, 14.44%), and others (n =
11, 12.22%). In the Morningside Cemetery, walking as a through route (n = 74, 77.89%) was the most
popular use, followed by walking with a baby in a pram (n = 7, 7.37%) (Figure 6), sitting down on a
bench (n = 4, 4.21%), and others (n = 4, 4.21%). On average, walking as a through route was the most
popular use (n = 94, 50.81%) in the two cemeteries.

Urban Sci. 2019, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19

Figure
Figure 5.
5. Dog
Dog walking
walking at
at the
the Warriston
Warriston Cemetery.
Cemetery.

Figure 6. Walking
Walking with babies in prams at the Morningside Cemetery.
Cemetery.

3.2. Interviewer-Administered On-Site Survey

3.2. Interviewer-Administered On-Site Survey
A total of 134 (Warriston: n = 65; Morningside: n = 69) out of 185 (Warriston: n = 90; Morningside:
A total of 134 (Warriston: n = 65; Morningside: n = 69) out of 185 (Warriston: n = 90; Morningside:
n = 95) approached users completed the questionnaires in the two study sites. The response rate of the
n = 95) approached users completed the questionnaires in the two study sites. The response rate of
survey is 72.43%.
the survey is 72.43%.
Table 1 shows the results of the descriptive analysis for the sample. Interviewees’ mean age was
49.79 (SD = 17.16), and over half of them were female. The participants were mostly married, had an
undergraduate degree or above, and were employed or self-employed. The majority also had no
physical disability.
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 9 of 19

Table 1 shows the results of the descriptive analysis for the sample. Interviewees’ mean age was
49.79 (SD = 17.16), and over half of them were female. The participants were mostly married, had
an undergraduate degree or above, and were employed or self-employed. The majority also had no
physical disability.

Table 1. Descriptive analysis for the sample (N = 134).

N/M %/SD
Study site
Warriston Cemetery 65 48.5%
Morningside Cemetery 69 51.5%
Sociodemographic characteristics
Age (years) 49.79 17.16
Male 60 44.8%
Marital status
Single 47 35.1%
Married 60 44.8%
Cohabitated 9 6.7%
Divorced/separated/widowed 18 13.4%
Education level
Secondary school or below 23 17.2%
Technical school or similar level 23 17.2%
Undergraduate degree 49 36.6%
Postgraduate degree 39 29.1%
Working status
Employed/self-employed 78 58.2%
Unemployed 20 14.9%
Retired/partially retired 36 26.9%
Without physical disability 131 97.8%
Note. N, Number; M, Mean; SD, Standard deviation.

Table 2 shows the bivariate correlations between environmental qualities and perceived
restorativeness (the 16-item PRS scale and the four dimensions of perceived restorativeness). Both
usage and aesthetics were found to be positively correlated with the 16-item PRS scale, being away,
compatibility, and fascination. The dimension of facilities was positively correlated with the 16-item
PRS scale and compatibility.

Table 2. Bivariate analysis between perceived restorativeness and environmental qualities (N = 134).

Variable M (SD) Safety Usage Facilities Aesthetics

16-item PRS scale (0–6) 4.03 (1.03) 0.063 0.569 ** 0.188 * 0.370 **
Being away (0–6) 3.97 (1.72) 0.025 0.458 ** 0.063 0.318 **
Compatibility (0–6) 3.57 (1.49) 0.114 0.557 ** 0.214 * 0.358 **
Fascination (0–6) 3.86 (1.46) 0.069 0.571 ** 0.150 0.291 **
Coherence (0–6) 4.83 (.98) −0.102 −0.129 0.052 0.057
Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; M (SD), Mean (Standard deviation); PRS, Perceived Restorativeness Scale.

Table 3 shows the multiple linear regression results for environmental qualities predicting the
16-item PRS scale, being away, compatibility, and fascination. As usage, facilities, and aesthetics were
significantly associated with perceived restorativeness in the bivariate analysis, they were further
added in the regression analysis. After adjusting for study selections and other sociodemographic
characteristics, only usage and aesthetics were significantly and positively associated with the 16-item
PRS scale, being away, compatibility, and fascination. All of the models predicting the four outcomes
had a R2 greater than 38%. Significant results were also shown from the F-tests (p < 0.01) across the
four models, indicating an acceptable level of model fit.
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 10 of 19

Table 3. Summary of multiple linear regression analyses for variables predicting 16-item PRS scale, being away, compatibility, and fascination (N = 134).

16-item PRS Scale a Being Away a Compatibility a Fascination a

Variable B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β B SE B β
Usage 0.630 0.111 0.419 ** 0.766 0.208 0.305 ** 0.898 0.166 0.413 ** 0.837 0.158 0.393 **
Facilities 0.064 0.073 0.060 −0.111 0.136 –0.063 0.146 0.109 0.096 0.060 0.104 0.040
Aesthetics 0.381 0.101 0.275 ** 0.630 0.189 0.272 ** 0.480 0.151 0.240 ** 0.410 0.144 0.209 **
R2 0.516 0.390 0.478 0.509
F 8.398 ** 5.023 ** 7.191 ** 8.160 **
Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; a adjusted for study site, age, gender, marital status, education level, working status, and physical health.
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 11 of 19

3.3. Face-to-Face On-Site Interviews

With reference to the factor analysis of environmental qualities in the cemeteries as shown in
the survey results, interview results were coded as safety, usage, facilities, and aesthetics. Some
representative coding results are shown below to help interpret the survey results in the discussion
section. Interviewees’ pseudonyms, gender, age, and place of interview are shown in the brackets after
each quotation.

3.3.1. Safety
As shown from the coding results, some interviewees had experienced or heard of anti-social
behaviours in the cemetery, and so gave a poor evaluation with respect to safety. Others had no
similar experience, but still had a poor perception of the place in relation to safety. Importantly, a clear
difference could be seen in these evaluations on the basis of gender. Participants clearly thought the
cemeteries were less safe for women.
‘I do know there are drug addicts who lay syringes in the playground, so I imagine they do it here as
well, I don’t know though. I think it’s not safe to walk in any parkland after dark or dark area in the
city anywhere in Britain, and I imagine the same in other countries for women in particular.’
(Pauline, female, aged 57, Morningside Cemetery)
Though some interviewees regarded cemeteries as an unsafe place, some walked home using
cemetery routes. They found it a peaceful place in the neighbourhood and did not consider safety to
be an issue even at night.
‘I sometimes walk through here to go home at night. It’s a very good neighbourhood, and I don’t have
any negative associations with this cemetery. I kind of grew up next to a very big park like a cemetery,
so it’s normal for me. I think this place is very peaceful.’
(Monica, female, aged 25, Warriston Cemetery)

3.3.2. Usage
A wide range of physical activities were undertaken in the two cemeteries such as walking,
drinking alcohol, cycling, and flying drones. A majority of the interviewees revealed that routes in the
Morningside Cemetery were usually taken as a short-cut by residents living nearby to go to the main
street for grocery shopping or to return home. In other words, the cemeteries were usually not their
final destination but were used as a ‘through-space’.
‘I am on the way home from the shops. This is a short-cut.’
(Sandy, female, aged 67, Morningside Cemetery)
Interview results commonly showed that pathways in the Warriston Cemetery were often used for
dog-walking. Some participants explained that proximity was the main reason for this, while others
pointed out that the enclosed space surrounded by high walls allowed them to unleash their dogs.
Some dog walkers walked their dogs together if they encountered neighbours.
‘In Edinburgh, it’s very difficult to find an enclosed area. The parks are all open. Because of the
enclosed environment here, I can let my dogs off the leash and they can run around freely.’
(Candy, female, aged 52, Warriston Cemetery)

3.3.3. Facilities
Participants’ opinions regarding cemetery facilities varied. Some of them regarded the cemeteries
as their ‘backyard garden’ with the desired facilities. For example, some of them sat on the benches and
had meetings with friends there. Others however considered facilities as inappropriate, emphasising
that cemeteries were a place of tranquillity, unlike a park.
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 12 of 19

‘It’s my backyard garden! I usually sit on the bench drinking beer with my friends on weekends.
I think it is a very nice place, very quiet and peaceful.’
(Betty, female, aged 30, Morningside Cemetery) (Figure 7)

‘I don’t think if it’s necessary to have any facilities in the cemetery. It’s a cemetery, not a park.’
(Nina, female, aged 83, Warriston Cemetery)
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 19

Figure
Figure 7.
7. A
A wooden
wooden bench
bench at
at the
the Morningside
Morningside Cemetery.
Cemetery.

3.3.4.Participants’
Aesthetics opinions regarding cemetery facilities varied. Some of them regarded the
cemeteries as their ‘backyard
Some interviewees garden’
compared with the desired
the environment facilities.toFor
of cemeteries theexample,
streets in some of them sat on
their neighbourhood.
the
Theybenches and the
appreciated hadvisual
meetings with
pleasure friends
given by thethere.
greenOthers
setting. however
In additionconsidered
to flowersfacilities as
and plants,
inappropriate, emphasising that cemeteries were a place of tranquillity, unlike a
some of them appreciated the design of the cemetery pathways where they could take exercise.park.
‘It’s my backyard garden! I usually sit on the bench drinking beer with my friends on weekends. I think
‘When I am walking home, I prefer it, compared to the regular street or other parks. Because it’s a
it is a very nice place, very quiet and peaceful.’ (Betty, female, aged 30, Morningside Cemetery)
little bit more scenic and calm. So I come here five to six times a week. I like the flowers and I like
(Figure 7)
looking at different designs of gravestones, which make this place unique’
‘I don’t think
(Monica, if it’s aged
female, necessary to have any facilities
25, Morningside in the cemetery. It’s a cemetery, not a park.’ (Nina,
Cemetery)
female, aged 83, Warriston Cemetery)
‘I like the curved pathways of this place. It’s well designed. As I am recovering from illness, it’s good
3.3.4.toAesthetics
have some stairs and steep roads where I can do exercise.’
(Kingston,
Some male, agedcompared
interviewees 42, Warriston theCemetery)
environment of cemeteries to the streets in their
neighbourhood. They appreciated the visual pleasure given by the green setting. In addition to
As and
flowers some interviewees
plants, travelled
some of them throughthe
appreciated thedesign
cemeteries
of theevery
cemetery day,pathways
they found thatthey
where graveside
could
adornments
take exercise. not only offered aesthetic pleasure, but also implied more meaningful stories and
treasured memories.
‘When I am walking home, I prefer it, compared to the regular street or other parks. Because it’s a little
‘I notice
bit there isand
more scenic a grave
calm.inSothe middle
I come which
here always
five to has lots
six times of flowers.
a week. I like theItflowers
has been
andlikeI like
thatlooking
for manyat
years . . . it’s
different a veryofyoung
designs child, so Iwhich
gravestones, thought that was
make this very . . . I don’t
placesadunique’ know if Ifemale,
(Monica, would doaged the same
25,
if it was my child.
Morningside This is many, many years later and she is still doing it, so that’s extraordinary that
Cemetery)
she is still honouring that memory of her child.’
‘I like the curved pathways of this place. It’s well designed. As I am recovering from illness, it’s good to
(Pauline,
have some female, aged
stairs and 57,roads
steep Morningside
where I canCemetery)
do exercise.’ (Kingston, male, aged 42, Warriston
Cemetery)
As some interviewees travelled through the cemeteries every day, they found that graveside
adornments not only offered aesthetic pleasure, but also implied more meaningful stories and
treasured memories.
‘I notice there is a grave in the middle which always has lots of flowers. It has been like that for many
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 13 of 19

4. Discussion
We present the first study to investigate the everyday use of the historical urban cemetery in a
Scottish context through behavioural observation. This is also an initial study that employed a mixed
method approach to explore the associations between environmental qualities of old urban cemeteries
and people’s perceived restorativeness in contemporary Scotland. The first part of the study reflects on
further potential activities and uses of this particular urban space. Findings from the second part are
important in identifying the potential for urban cemeteries to affect people’s restorative experience.

4.1. The Everyday Use of Historical Urban Cemeteries

With the onset of 19th century rapid urban sprawl, many historical cemeteries in the city of
Edinburgh (previously situated at the city’s edge), were subsumed into new suburban neighbourhoods
and subsequently became neighbourhood amenities. This phenomenon subverted how people
interacted with this particular environment. Challenging the common perception and expected
function of these urban spaces, the two cemeteries in this study were commonly used for the purpose
of dog-walking or as an alternative walking route. A study conducted in Norway also found that
people often took the trip through the cemetery as an alternative route to work or to other places [18].
The two cemeteries in this study tended to support different activities. The most popular activity
in the Warriston Cemetery was dog walking, and in the Morningside Cemetery it was walking as a
through route to a different destination. This difference could be caused by the different surrounding
environments [13]. For example, a large area of housing exists to the south of Morningside Cemetery
with land to the northeast mostly occupied by commercial uses including shops. This spatial relationship
could encourage people living nearby to take the cemetery route as a short cut to the grocery store.
This appears to be the reason why walking as a through route is the most popular activity in the
Morningside Cemetery. However, the Warriston Cemetery, exclusively surrounded by residential land
use, (and a lack of nearby public parks with enclosed boundaries) affords people an enclosed green
area to allow their dogs to run ‘off the leash’, making this the most popular activity. The difference in
the everyday use of the two cemeteries studied illustrates the flexibility of this land use in relation to
people’s daily living in the city.

4.2. Environmental Qualities and Perceived Restorativeness in the Cemeteries

H1 was supported by our findings. The environmental quality of usage was found to be positively
associated with the 16-item PRS scale and three particular dimensions (i.e., being away, compatibility,
and fascination) of perceived restorativeness, after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and
site selections. This result indicates that a variety of activities in the cemeteries could be beneficial to
different aspects of perceived restorativeness. Unlike other types of greenspace such as parks, cemeteries
are usually enclosed spaces surrounded by high walls, which provide a favourable environment for
dog walkers to unleash their pets [11]. Compatibility emphasises a positive relationship or good fit
between an environment and a person’s activities. As the participants’ daily activities (e.g., walking as a
through route and walking dogs) are afforded by the environment provided in the cemeteries, the level
of compatibility is therefore higher. Furthermore, these activities in the cemeteries allow participants
to be temporarily apart from the hustle and bustle of the city, thereby enhancing the quality of being
away. Fascination indicates a process where one’s interests or attention are caught involuntarily [4,11].
Activities pursued in the cemeteries spontaneously distracted people from daily demands and stressful
thoughts. Directed attention, which usually appears when a demanding cognitive function is required,
is therefore minimised, contributing to an increase in effortless attention as well as fascination [3,4].
Another environmental quality, aesthetics, was found to be positively associated with the 16-item
PRS scale and three dimensions of perceived restorativeness (i.e., being away, compatibility, and
fascination), after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and site selections. Therefore,
H2 was also supported. Similar findings were demonstrated in other studies which emphasised
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 14 of 19

the significance of aesthetics in improving perceived restorativeness [40,43]. Though the dimension
of aesthetics only contains one item, namely the trees and plants in the cemeteries, the interview
results further explained how other aesthetic elements could enhance the restorative potential of these
places. As illustrated by the interview results, people appreciated different types of green features in
the cemeteries, providing them with an environment distinct and clearly different from more often
used places, such as the home and workplace. One participant also emphasised gravestones in the
cemeteries as a special feature that further illustrated her sense of being away. More so than other more
common types of greenspace such as parks or gardens, many interviewees appreciated the physical
design of the cemeteries, highlighting the often curved pathways. Well-designed pathways could
also enlarge the visual size of an area [24,44]. Fascinated by natural elements and the ground design,
many participants experienced a sense of ‘soft fascination’ through interacting with these aesthetically
pleasing features [3]. Many aesthetic elements of the cemeteries provided visual enjoyment for the
participants, thereby increasing their level of fascination. As highlighted by Hartig et al. [4], a higher
level of compatibility does not only imply a better match between the environment and human
activities, but also a higher degree of interest that generates a reflective cognitive state. One interviewee
walking through the cemetery everyday witnessed a woman laying flowers for her deceased child
over a very long time. This experience made her reflect deeply and established a person–place bond,
enriching her identity of place as well as perception of restorativeness [45,46]. Flowers and other
graveside adornments can provide visual enjoyment, but also imply deeper meanings that encourage
reflection, potentially heightening the sense of compatibility.
H3 was partially supported. Though presence of facilities was positively correlated with the
16-item PRS scale and compatibility in the bivariate analysis, the relationships were no longer significant
in the multiple linear regression analysis. It shows that compared with usage and aesthetics, facilities
are less important with respect to restorative potential. As illustrated by the interview results, some
participants like to use benches when gathering with friends. The use of benches in the cemeteries
shows a match between people’s desire to sit down for gathering and what the environment provides.
The dimension of facilities was therefore found to be positively correlated with compatibility in
the bivariate analysis. However, some participants found it unnecessary to have any facilities in
the cemeteries, unlike in public parks where they generally need toilets [47] and playgrounds for
children [48]. On the one hand, many participants go to the cemeteries as it is a quiet place, so their
reason for visiting the cemetery is relatively simple. Unlike many contemporary cemeteries where
toilets and a waiting room are generally provided, these amenities are not typically present in the
historical urban cemetery. As facilities in the cemeteries were generally perceived as unnecessary and
only a few amenities could be found in the historical urban settings studied here, the dimension of
facilities was not significantly associated with the 16-item PRS scale and compatibility in the multiple
linear regression analysis.
H4 was not evident. Safety was not significantly correlated with the 16-item PRS scale or any
dimension of perceived restorativeness in the bivariate analysis. This result is contradictory to many
previous studies. Safety was generally found to enhance various health outcomes at significant
levels [49,50]. Some scholars indicated that safety could be a very controversial topic [51]. People could
have very different experiences in the same cemetery. For example, as some interviewees grew up in a
neighbourhood with a greenspace similar to the cemeteries studied here, they did not consider safety
an issue in these settings. However, some participants may have a preconceived, negative notion of
the cemetery as a potential place of anti-social behaviour such as public alcohol consumption or drug
use, resulting in potential bias when evaluating safety. Therefore, people’s varied experiences in the
cemeteries as well as their attitudes towards them could result in different evaluations of the cemetery
as a safe place to visit. Lachowycz and Jones [52] highlighted that cultural and historical attitudes
towards greenspace could affect how it is evaluated. The incongruent opinions among the participants
made it difficult to establish a solid pattern to explore the relationship between safety and perceived
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 15 of 19

restorativeness. Therefore, safety was not significantly correlated with the 16-item PRS scale and any
dimension of perceived restorativeness in the bivariate results.
In accordance with a study conducted in the US which found that greenness was not associated
with coherence [2], none of the environmental qualities highlighted were found to be related to
coherence in this study. Furthermore, in line with other studies [23,27], Cronbach’s alpha score of
coherence was relatively low here. The result may indicate the incompatibility of some items of
coherence with the environment studied. Sufficient coherence demonstrates a sufficient scope for
both physical and imagined activities [23,28]. In the present study, some people walked their dogs
together upon encountering neighbours, illustrating opportunities for physical activities and social
encounters more akin to parks [34]. An adequate scope refers to whether or not a place ‘provides
enough to see, experience, and think about’ [24] (p. 173). Proximity to the cemetery provides people
with the convenience to walk through it regularly, thus becoming a place people commonly visit as
part of their daily routine. Additionally, when people regard the place as a ‘backyard garden’, they
naturally spend more time there and become more familiar with the environment. Freshness and
novelty may gradually disappear as a result of everyday use. In other words, for users’ who access
this place more frequently, it may be harder for the environment to engage their imagination. The
limitation of imagined activities may explain the low internal consistency of this dimension and why
none of the environmental qualities were correlated with it. How this dimension could be used to
explain restorative quality is worthy of further discussion.

5. Limitations
This study illustrated the relationships between different environmental qualities and people’s
perceived restorativeness, but their level of perceived restorativeness could also be impacted by outside
factors such as their psychological state prior to their visit to the place of study [53]. Further research
which takes more factors into account could be conducted. Some previous studies on greenspace
added stressors to participants such as watching a scary movie or doing a paper test before visiting the
site. This was not an option for this study due to the decision to focus on users who visit the sites for
their own particular reasons. This study also did not conduct comparative research into cemeteries and
other greenspace typologies, and this could be a rich seam of investigation. Future research could be
conducted to compare how environmental qualities could be correlated with perceived restorativeness
or other health outcomes at different times of day or in different seasons. Researchers could also
consider quantifying the environmental qualities of cemeteries including the number of tables or
benches, and to explore further their relationships with people’s health status.
As this is a cross-sectional study, the causal relationship between variables cannot be established.
The sample size in the quantitative approach is relatively small, but interviews were conducted to
further understand and interpret the survey results in a more comprehensive way. Another limitation
considers the potential loss of original data caused by the absence of audio recording. Though the main
researcher audio-recorded the discourse on the first few days given the interviewees’ consents, it is
believed that using field notes without audio recording is more appropriate in the setting of cemeteries.
The target group of this study is limited to people who visit the cemeteries quite regularly, and therefore,
how less-frequent visitors use and perceive cemeteries could also be addressed. Furthermore, due to
the various methods used in this study and limited labour support, some potential interviewees were
not approached while the researcher was collecting survey or interview data, potentially leading to
less data collection. As cemeteries are still not a particularly well-frequented place this did not occur
on many occasions. A few potential users left the study sites when they saw the main researcher at the
site entrance, illustrating the potential influence of this study on users’ behaviours in the cemeteries.
We believe this effect to be minimal.
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 16 of 19

6. Conclusions
This study presents the everyday use of the historical urban cemetery in a Scottish context, and
the positive relationships between environmental qualities and perceived restorativeness in these
settings. We believe the study findings may be extended to many historical urban cemeteries in the
UK, or other European countries with similar contexts. Functions of a land use are often narrowly
defined, ignoring how different types of activity are acted out by the general public. Though interment
and remembrance are typically the main human activities that take place in a cemetery, this may
no longer be the case for many historical urban cemeteries. This typically occurs where spaces for
burial are no longer available and many of the graves, due to their age, may no longer be visited
by family members. We here propose two brief recommendations based on our findings. Firstly, in
addition to reusing cemeteries for sustainable land use, relevant stakeholders should recognize the
daily importance of historical urban cemeteries among dwellers living nearby. In considering the
cemetery as a place for people’s health benefit, other potential uses and everyday activities could be
encouraged or at least tolerated. However, researchers should be aware of potential controversy with
respect to the alternative use of cemetery spaces. For example, though usage such as dog walking
was found to be positively correlated with perceived restorativeness, some interviewees were of the
opinion that it showed a lack of respect. Unlike other types of urban greenspace such as parks and
gardens, cemeteries are still a place with special constraints. With the increased variety of everyday use
of these spaces, the potential for further facilities such as public toilets also raised concern. Secondly,
they should also be aware of the restorative benefits that people can derive from the aesthetical aspects
of cemeteries. We believe that the idea of reconsidering urban cemeteries as informal greenspace could
significantly influence policy-making, especially in deciding the locations and design of cemeteries.
Further research on how these fascinating urban spaces could be utilised should be conducted.

Author Contributions: K.Y.L. collected the data, performed data analysis and prepared the original manuscript.
I.S. and Z.S. critically reviewed and edited the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank all the participants for their time spent in this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Declarations: The data used in this study is part of the first author’s master thesis at the University of Edinburgh.

Appendix A

Table A1. Factor analysis of the Neighbourhood Open Scale in the cemeteries (N = 134).

Component
1 2 3 4
Safety Usage Facilities Aesthetics
The paths to the cemetery are safe to walk after dark 0.796
The cemetery is safe to walk after dark 0.707
The cemetery is free from crime 0.681
The paths to the cemetery are easy to walk on 0.562
The cemetery is good for children to play in 0.763
The paths to the cemetery are enjoyable to walk through 0.710
Many different activities take place in the cemetery 0.606
The cemetery is good for chatting with people 0.517
There are good facilities in the cemetery 0.903
Trees and plants in the cemetery are attractive 0.840
Cronbach’s Alpha Score 0.662 0.584
% of Variance explained 21.15 19.32 12.28 11.03
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 17 of 19

References
1. Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.M.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. A systematic review of evidence for the added
benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 2010, 10, 456. [CrossRef]
2. Hipp, J.A.; Gulwadi, G.B.; Alves, S.; Sequeira, S. The Relationship Between Perceived Greenness and
Perceived Restorativeness of University Campuses and Student-Reported Quality of Life. Environ. Behav.
2016, 48, 1292–1308. [CrossRef]
3. Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1989; Available online: https:
//books.google.com.hk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7l80AAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&ots=TpL3RFpa3k&sig=
AMu2guU28KGiIT70_Pu2GRtmAck&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 10 January 2019).
4. Hartig, T.; Korpela, K.; Evans, G.W.; Gärling, T. A measure of restorative quality in environments. Scand.
Hous. Plan. Res. 1997, 14, 175–194. [CrossRef]
5. Bastian, O.; Haase, D.; Grunewald, K. Ecosystem properties, potentials and services—The EPPS conceptual
framework and an urban application example. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 21, 7–16. [CrossRef]
6. Næss, P. Residential location affects travel behavior—But how and why? The case of Copenhagen metropolitan
area. Prog. Plan. 2005, 63, 167–257. [CrossRef]
7. Rupprecht, C.D.D.; Byrne, J.A.; Ueda, H.; Lo, A.Y. ‘It’s real, not fake like a park’: Residents’ perception and
use of informal urban green-space in Brisbane, Australia and Sapporo, Japan. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 143,
205–218. [CrossRef]
8. Anderson, E.C.; Minor, E.S. Vacant lots: An underexplored resource for ecological and social benefits in cities.
Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 21, 146–152. [CrossRef]
9. Jackson, J.D.; Smith, J.; Shah, J.P.; Wisniewski, S.J.; Dahm, D.L. Golf after total knee arthroplasty: Do patients
return to walking the course? Am. J. Sports Med. 2009, 37, 2201–2204. [CrossRef]
10. Pals, R.; Steg, L.; Siero, F.W.; van Der Zee, K.I. Development of the PRCQ: A measure of perceived restorative
characteristics of zoo attractions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 441–449. [CrossRef]
11. Nordh, H.; Evensen, K.H.; Skår, M. A peaceful place in the city—A qualitative study of restorative components
of the cemetery. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 167, 108–117. [CrossRef]
12. Brown, T. The making of urban ‘healtheries’: The transformation of cemeteries and burial grounds in
late-Victorian East London. J. Hist. Geogr. 2013, 42, 12–23. [CrossRef]
13. Evensen, K.H.; Nordh, H.; Skaar, M. Everyday use of urban cemeteries: A Norwegian case study. Landsc.
Urban Plan. 2017, 159, 76–84. [CrossRef]
14. Harrison, A.R. National Land Use Database: Land Use and Land Cover Classification; version 4.4; Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister: London, UK, 2006. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/11493/144275.pdf (accessed on 8 November 2018).
15. Francis, D. Cemeteries as cultural landscapes. Mortality 2003, 8, 222–227. [CrossRef]
16. Morelli, F.; Mikula, P.; Benedetti, Y.; Bussière, R.; Jerzak, L.; Tryjanowski, P. Escape behaviour of birds in
urban parks and cemeteries across Europe: Evidence of behavioural adaptation to human activity. Sci. Total
Environ. 2018, 631–632, 803–810. [CrossRef]
17. Indrawati, S.; Soetomo, B.; Setioko, T.W.; Murtini, T.W.; Nurhasan, T.W. Edu—Religious Tourism Based on
Islamic Architecture Approach, a Prelimenary Research in Majasto Cemetery—Sukoharjo Regency Central
Java. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 227, 656–663. [CrossRef]
18. Swensen, G.; Nordh, H.; Brendalsmo, J. A green space between life and death—A case study of activities in
Gamlebyen Cemetery in Oslo, Norway. Nor. Geogr. Tidsskr. Nor. J. Geogr. 2016, 70, 41–53. [CrossRef]
19. Tângari, V.R. Open Space Systems in Rio de Janeiro: The Public and Private Spheres Reflected in the Urban
Landscape. In Urban Public Spaces from Planned Policies to Everyday Politics (Illustrated with Brazilian Case
Studies); Capanema Alvares, L., Barbosa, J.L., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland,
2018; pp. 109–126. Available online: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-74253-3 (accessed
on 9 October 2018).
20. Firth, R. Foreword: The Body in the Sacred Garden. In The Secret Cemetery, English ed.; Doris, F., Kellaher, L.,
Neophytou, G., Eds.; Berg Publishers: Oxford, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2005; Available online: https:
//scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&cluster=15010529624822592883 (accessed on 12 May 2018).
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 18 of 19

21. Francis, D.; Kellaher, L.; Neophytou, G. Sustaining cemeteries: The user perspective. Mortality 2000, 5, 34–52.
[CrossRef]
22. Jones, D. The City of the Dead: The Place of Cultural Identity and Environmental Sustainability in the
African-American Cemetery. Landsc. J. Des. Plan. Manag. Land 2011, 30, 226–240. [CrossRef]
23. Marselle, M.R.; Irvine, K.N.; Lorenzo-Arribas, A.; Warber, S.L. Does perceived restorativeness mediate the
effects of perceived biodiversity and perceived naturalness on emotional well-being following group walks
in nature? J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 46, 217–232. [CrossRef]
24. Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15,
169–182. [CrossRef]
25. Kaplan, S. Meditation, Restoration, and the Management of Mental Fatigue. Environ. Behav. 2001, 33, 480–506.
[CrossRef]
26. Laumann, K.; Gärling, T.; Stormark, K.M. Rating scale measures of restorative components of environments.
J. Environ. Psychol. 2001, 21, 31–44. [CrossRef]
27. Hauru, K.; Lehvävirta, S.; Korpela, K.; Kotze, D.J. Closure of view to the urban matrix has positive effects
on perceived restorativeness in urban forests in Helsinki, Finland. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 107, 361–369.
[CrossRef]
28. Pals, R.; Steg, L.; Dontje, J.; Siero, F.W.; van Der Zee, K.I. Physical features, coherence and positive outcomes
of person–environment interactions: A virtual reality study. J. Environ. Psychol. 2014, 40, 108–116. [CrossRef]
29. Hartig, T.; Mang, M.; Evans, G.W. Restorative Effects of Natural Environment Experiences. Environ. Behav.
1991, 23, 3–26. [CrossRef]
30. World Health Organization. Mental Health Action Plan 2013–2020. Available online:
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/89966/9789241506021_eng.pdfjsessionid=
5CF10901D53C2E99BA9F8FF2710E67BA?sequence=1 (accessed on 8 November 2018).
31. Weber, A.M.; Trojan, J. The Restorative Value of the Urban Environment: A Systematic Review of the Existing
Literature. Environ. Health Insights 2018, 12. [CrossRef]
32. Ettema, D. Runnable Cities: How Does the Running Environment Influence Perceived Attractiveness,
Restorativeness, and Running Frequency? Environ. Behav. 2016, 48, 1127–1147. [CrossRef]
33. Kelly, P.; Williamson, C.; Niven, A.G.; Hunter, R.; Mutrie, N.; Richards, J. Walking on sunshine: Scoping
review of the evidence for walking and mental health. Br. J. Sports Med. 2018, 52, 800–806. [CrossRef]
34. Peschardt, K.K.; Stigsdotter, U.K. Associations between park characteristics and perceived restorativeness of
small public urban green spaces. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2013, 112, 26–39. [CrossRef]
35. Nikunen, H.; Korpela, K. The effects of scene contents and focus of light on perceived restorativeness, fear
and preference in nightscapes. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2012, 55, 453–468. [CrossRef]
36. Lo, A.Y.H.; Jim, C.Y. Differential community effects on perception and use of urban greenspaces. Cities 2010,
27, 430–442. [CrossRef]
37. The City of Edinburgh Council. Edinburgh’s Population. Available online: http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/
info/20247/edinburgh_by_numbers/34/edinburghs_population (accessed on 8 November 2018).
38. The City of Edinburgh Council. Cemeteries and Crematoria. Available online: http://www.edinburgh.gov.
uk/directory/40/cemeteries_and_crematoria?page=1 (accessed on 8 November 2018).
39. Sugiyama, T.; Thompson, C.W.; Alves, S. Associations Between Neighborhood Open Space Attributes and
Quality of Life for Older People in Britain. Environ. Behav. 2009, 41, 3–21. [CrossRef]
40. Tenngart Ivarsson, C.; Hagerhall, C.M. The perceived restorativeness of gardens—Assessing the
restorativeness of a mixed built and natural scene type. Urban For. Urban Green. 2008, 7, 107–118.
[CrossRef]
41. Veselinova, C. Understanding physical disability. Nurs. Resid. Care 2013, 15, 161–164. [CrossRef]
42. Francis, D.; Kellaher, L.; Neophytou, G. The Secret Cemetery; Berg Publishers: Oxford, UK;
New York, NY, USA, 2005; Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&cluster=
15010529624822592883 (accessed on 2 May 2018).
43. Nordh, H.; Hartig, T.; Hagerhall, C.M.; Fry, G. Components of small urban parks that predict the possibility
for restoration. Urban For. Urban Green. 2009, 8, 225–235. [CrossRef]
44. Herzog, T.R.; Bryce, A.G. Mystery and Preference in Within-Forest Settings. Environ. Behav. 2007, 39, 779–796.
[CrossRef]
Urban Sci. 2019, 3, 72 19 of 19

45. Bornioli, A.; Parkhurst, G.; Morgan, P.L. The psychological wellbeing benefits of place engagement during
walking in urban environments: A qualitative photo-elicitation study. Health Place 2018, 53, 228–236.
[CrossRef]
46. Menatti, L.; Subiza-Pérez, M.; Villalpando-Flores, A.; Vozmediano, L.; San Juan, C. Place attachment and
identification as predictors of expected landscape restorativeness. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 63, 36–43.
[CrossRef]
47. Sugiyama, T.; Ward Thompson, C. Associations between characteristics of neighbourhood open space and
older people’s walking. Urban For. Urban Green. 2008, 7, 41–51. [CrossRef]
48. Fan, M.; Jin, Y. Do Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds Reduce Childhood Obesity? Am. J. Agric. Econ.
2014, 96, 26–42. [CrossRef]
49. Nijs, M.; Bun, C.; Tempelaar, W.; Wit, N.; Burger, H.; Plevier, C.; Boks, M. Perceived School Safety is Strongly
Associated with Adolescent Mental Health Problems. Community Ment. Health J. 2014, 50, 127–134. [CrossRef]
50. Van Dyck, D.; Teychenne, M.; McNaughton, S.A.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Salmon, J. Relationship of the
perceived social and physical environment with mental health-related quality of life in middle-aged and
older adults: Mediating effects of physical activity. PLoS ONE 2015, 10. [CrossRef]
51. Madge, C. Public parks and the geography of fear. Tijdschr. Voor Econ. En Soc. Geogr. 1997, 88, 237–250.
[CrossRef]
52. Lachowycz, K.; Jones, A. Does walking explain associations between access to greenspace and lower
mortality? Soc. Sci. Med. 2014, 107, 9–17. [CrossRef]
53. Stevens, P. Affective priming of perceived environmental restorativeness. Int. J. Psychol. 2014, 49, 51–55.
[CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).