by Patrick Larter

Point Pleasant Park is the largest park on the Halifax Peninsula and a meaningful place of nature for park visitors (Point Pleasant Park 2011). Point Pleasant Park is a unique and meaningful place due to the fact that it contains both natural and cultural elements. Since its establishment as a public park in 1866, it has served both as a military installation and as a place of recreation and relaxation for park visitors (Kitz and Castle 1999; Point Pleasant Park 2011). This long history of the park and the proximity of the park to the city are important factors in how park users have established important and strong place attachments.

On September 29th 2003, Hurricane Juan struck the city of Halifax. The Category 2 storm resulted in the destruction of approximately 75% of the forest cover, which consisted of 70,000 trees (Hyndman et al. 2009, 291-292). The damage to the park devastated the attachments that many park users had established with Point Pleasant Park. When the park was re-opened a few months later for viewing, thousands of park visitors felt a sense of mourning and loss when they saw the damage that their treasured urban park had sustained (The Canadian Press 2013). Twelve years after the original event, many park users can still vividly describe the raw, awe-struck emotions that they experienced when they viewed the damage done to the park for the first time; a number of park users can even recall crying over the devastation. Given this level of emotional attachment and sense of loss, city officials solicited public input as part of an international design competition that would ultimately generate a restoration plan for the park in 2005. Although there were discussions regarding an opportunity to do something new and exciting with the park, public input demonstrated passionate support for restoring the Acadian mixed forest that existed on this site prior to the settlement of Halifax (Point Pleasant 2003). NIP Paysage and Ekistics Planning & Design, whose proposed plans best incorporated the restoration of an Acadian mixed forest and the restoration of sightlines to and pathways between the military and cultural installations, won the design competition (Point Pleasant Park 2011). The Comprehensive plan, designed in 2007 and implemented in 2008, covered the management of the park for the next 50 years and 70,000 trees were planted from 2007-2008 (Point Pleasant Park Comprehensive Plan 2008).

Point Pleasant Park makes an excellent case study due to its proximity to the city as well as close walking distance for many Halifax residents. The Halifax Regional Municipality, which includes Halifax and numerous adjacent towns and communities, is home to approximately 414,000 people (Statistics Canada 2011) and the park is visited by nearly two million visitors a year (Point Pleasant Park Comprehensive Plan 2008). The 75-hectare park (Point Pleasant Park 2011), located at the southern end of the Halifax peninsula, is bordered by the city along its northern border and is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean along its Western, Eastern, and Southern borders. To the northeast, the park is bordered by a shipyard, while low-density residential neighbourhoods can be found along the rest of its Northern border. Point Pleasant Park is unique in the fact that it is a man-made park that acts as both a large forested area within the city limits and as a historical and cultural site that is reminiscent of Halifax’s past (Kitz and Castle 1999). This uniqueness is evident through a variety of visible factors such as: the groomed fields along the park’s coast; the view of the active shipyard; the densely forested core and through the military installations which include the Prince of Wales Tower, the batteries, and war memorials.

The purpose of this research is to explore how park visitors’ place attachments have been restored over the past 12 years since Hurricane Juan hit Point Pleasant Park in 2003. Additionally, this research will examine how the long-term restoration of park users’ place attachments impacts their psychological well-being. The key argument of this research understands that park users’ place attachments and psychological well-being are expected to be at a restored level that is similar to the level of attachments and benefits user’s received before Hurricane Juan hit. However, this research will explore if this sense of restoration is seen among all participants and explore if there are factors preventing the restoration of place attachments and psychological benefits. Thus, this research will analyze the meanings behind a restoration of or a lack of restoration of place attachments and psychological benefits. The following research questions will guide my research: 1) What is the current degree of attachment that park users have with the park? 2) How do current place attachment levels of long-term users compare to their pre-Juan attachments now that restoration has taken place? 3) Is the strength of place attachment different between people who did not visit Point Pleasant Park before Hurricane Juan’s impact compared to people who did visit and experience the park before Juan? 4) Are park users receiving psychological benefits from the park? Are long-term users receiving more benefits than short-term users?

Literature Review

There are three bodies of research that this study draws from. The first body of research is place-based research, which originates from the discipline of Geography. The second body of research is the psychological health and the natural environment research. A large portion of this literature comes from Environmental Psychology. The third body of research is a new concept known as solastalgia, which acts as the bridge between place attachment and psychological well-being.

Study of Place

It is well documented that Geographers have been examining the concept of place since the 1970’s (Williams and Kitchen 2012; Cresswell 2008; Lewicka 2011). Although the concept surfaced in the 1970’s, the idea of attachment to a particular place has been around since the ancient Greeks (Tuan 1976). Within Geography, the concept of place was developed by Humanistic Geographers as a reaction to the increasing focus on scientific methodology in Human Geography, which many Humanistic Geographers felt ignored the complexities, intentions, values, and subjectivity embedded in human interactions (Ley 1981; Entrikin 1976). Thus, Humanist Geography, or rather, the place-based approach, attempts to better understand the meanings behind human experiences/choices.

Since the 1970’s, place has been defined as a meaningful location (Cresswell 2008, 2009; Tuan 1975). One of the pioneering researchers to develop the ‘sense of place’ concept is Yi-Fu Tuan, who published the influential book Topophilia in 1974. This text is especially significant to the study of place because of its discussion of attitude and preference (Tuan 1974). In his book, he discusses how human senses play a significant role in establishing likeability (preference) and a positive connection (attitude). Furthermore, Tuan discusses how aesthetics/beauty, particularly in contrast to the city, are important aspects in establishing love of place (Tuan 1974, 8). As described by Tuan (1974), contrast to the city is significant as nature signifies cleanliness and beauty compared to the pollution of the city. This text is particularly relevant, as Point Pleasant Park is situated right next to the city and its natural environment is in contrast to the urban environment. As discussed by Cresswell (2004, 2008, 2009), who is one of the key modern place researchers, one’s establishment of place can be influenced by a variety of outside influences. For example, visitors of Point Pleasant Park do not just solely experience a natural environment from an individual perspective; instead, their experience is influenced by interactions with other users, by being immersed in cultural aspects (monuments), and by experiencing the activity from the container pier and by experiencing the natural environment.

Place attachment is determined by having/developing factors such as: memories; positive perceptions and thoughts; and knowledge of the past and present the place (Lewicka 2011; Hidalgo and Hernández 2001; Cresswell 2004). Having positive thoughts towards a place and developing a sense of community results in an increased usage of that place. Thus, place attachment can be best described as a positive bond that develops between groups or individuals and their environment (Jorgensen and Stedman 2001). The longevity of Point Pleasant Park has led to a sense of rootedness (Lewicka 2011; Tuan 1975) and many generations of visitors have developed memories, even their first memories, of being at the park. Additionally, the aspects of a natural environment, such as: the pleasurable views of the greenness of the trees and shrubbery, the pleasurable sounds of the forest (animals, flowing water, etc.) and a sense of clean air are known to be aesthetically pleasing and valued (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Maller et al. 2010). Thus, the natural aesthetics of the park contribute to the beauty of the park and to visitors developing positive attachments (Tuan 1989; Thompson 2002). Furthermore, Point Pleasant Park serves as a place where people can fulfill their daily recreational needs and develop a sense of community (Banda et al. 2014; Cresswell 2009). For example, Point Pleasant Park is the largest and one of the few off-leash parks in the city (Point Pleasant Park 2011), where visitors can walk their dogs together and spend time taking part in social activities such as: picnics, community events, jogging/walking, and so on.

Health and nature

Since the late 1970s and early 1980s a large body of literature has emerged which focuses on how psychological health and the natural environment are linked. The key figures in this area of research are Stephen Kaplan and Roger Ulrich. Kaplan and Kaplan, in their 1989 book The experience of nature: A psychological perspective, discuss how different environments impact perceived psychological well-being, particularly by comparing urban and natural environments. Ulrich’s research (1984, 1999) is pioneering due to how his results on how having a view of and access to nature improves surgical recovery times of hospital patients. His study illustrates the importance of having access to nature on a physiological level. The restorative features of natural environments, particularly in comparison to urban environments, are important on psychological processes such as attention, stress, and mental fatigue (Maller et al. 2010; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Hartig et al. 1991; Velarde et al. 2007; Mcsweeney et al. 2014). Current studies are giving greater attention to how parks have an influence on human health (Bedimo-Rung et al. 2005; Chiesura 2004, Gies 2006, Hansmann et al. 2007, Maller et al. 2010; Solecki and Welch 1995; Tzoulas et al. 2007). These studies not only explore the restorative benefits parks have on stress and attention, but also touch on how urban parks are integral to the design of cities, as parks promote social and community benefits that also affect psychological health, such as acting as a meeting place, where community events take place and where people can feel a sense of release from urban life.

Throughout its history, Point Pleasant Park has served (and still serves) as a place where people can escape from the city and where many community events, such as Remembrance Day ceremonies and children’s athletic events take place (Kitz and Castle, 1999). Urban parks are becoming more important to study because they are one of the more visited natural environments (Williams and Kitchen, 2012). Given the close proximity urban parks have to cities, it is important to understand the psychological health benefits urban parks provide as they are a close source of accessible nature with modern comforts, such as having manicured paths with washroom and food facilities. (Bixler and Floyd 1997; Bedimo-Rung et al. 2005). Point Pleasant Park, being a close, accessible and forested natural environment, provides many residents with the opportunity to receive psychological benefits to stress, comfort, mental fatigue, and attention.

Solastalgia

There is a growing body of literature that discusses how natural places, such as Point Pleasant Park, impact psychological health (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Ulrich 1999; Mcsweeney, et al. 2014; Maller et al. 2010). The sense of loss experienced by park users after Hurricane Juan reflects how drastic changes to a natural environment can have a negative impact on psychological health (Albrecht et al. 2007). As shown by Williams and Kitchen (2012), Albrecht (2005), and O’brien and Morris (2014) the strength of ones’ sense of place attachments is associated with psychological health. Thus, there is an ever-growing importance in understanding the role nature plays within the city in terms of psychological well-being and place attachment.

Particularly insightful is the work of environmental philosopher Glenn Albrecht (2005). He discusses how a changing natural environment, such as drought or destructive mining, can negatively impact our psychological health – drought impacts harvest yields, leading to a loss of livelihood which, due to the inability to support the home, leads to despair and affects mental health. Coined in 2005, the term solastalgia was created to describe the relationship between environmental change (natural or human induced) and human health. As part of the concept, Albrecht (2006) discusses how a change in the home environment leads to a change in place attachment and results in a negative impact on psychological health. Thus, solastalgia is the bridge between how a change in place attachment impacts psychological well-being. Solastalgia, being a relatively new concept, has only been studied in the context of short-term change. In the case of Point Pleasant Park, it is well-documented that the damage caused by Hurricane Juan had an immediate impact on park user’s psychological well-being. However, this research will be examining how the initial impact to park user’s well-being has changed over the past 12 years.

Methodology

This qualitative research utilized a mixed-method, place-based approach to obtain subjective data (memories, perceptions, thoughts, etc.) from park users. Qualitative data was collected in the form of three different methods including: archival research (where perceptions, emotions and thoughts of users regarding Point Pleasant Park immediately after Juan were collected from newspaper articles), semi-structured interviews, and online surveys. The interviews and online surveys were promoted through the snowball technique, social media, posters, and through email lists. An important aspect of this study was comparing the place attachments of long-term users (those who used/visited the park before Hurricane Juan) and short-term users (those who never used/visited the park before Hurricane Juan). These groups were chosen on the basis that long-term users were expected to have had a change in place attachment compared to short-term users who would be expected to have more stable attachments. In total, 90 participants (11 interviews and 79 online surveys) participated in the study. The interviews were audio recorded and manually transcribed. A textual/thematic analysis was conducted on the text responses from the online surveys and from the transcribed interviews. Open coding was used to seek out key words and/or phrases that referenced an individual’s level of place attachment or psychological well-being. Codes were then grouped together to form themes that were both formed from out of the data and informed by a literature review from key texts such as Kaplan and Kaplan (1989), Cheisura (2004), Maller et al. (2010), Lewicka (2011) and Hidalgo & Hernández (2001).

Results and Discussion

Although my analysis of the results is at a preliminary stage, themes are emerging from participants’ responses. In terms of answering question 1: “What is the current degree of attachment that park users have with the park?”, many themes have emerged so far. First, a sense of community is evident among most park users. Many users walk their dogs together and dog-walkers usually stop and chat with each other. Additionally, there is a positive reaction to small-talk. Whether it’s a “good day” or “nice weather”, respondents state that they have a pleasant experience when passing and greeting other park users. Thus, we currently see a positive and meaningful sense of community among respondents.

Second, we see a cultural appreciation for the park. Many respondents describe how they enjoy walking amongst the military instillations and memorials. Feeling the historic atmosphere of the park and the city is an important aspect of connecting to the park for some respondents. Furthermore, a local described his cultural understanding of the park as follows: “when you think of Halifax, you think of Point Pleasant Park.” A respondent who has used the park recently, but was not originally from Nova Scotia, described how she could see how important the park is both to Halifax and to Haligonians. Third, we see an expected appreciation of nature. Respondents describe how they enjoy viewing the trees, the green, the ocean views and just the beauty that comes with a natural environment. Also, some describe how hearing the ambient noises of the trees, waterways and animals is a pleasant aspect of a visit to the park.

As expected based on results from available literature, it appears that all participants have positive attachments and that many users have strong attachments to the park as reflected through the above preliminary themes. This sheds positive light on the management team’s strategy for the restoration plan in that they sought out public opinion and included their values in their selection of the management plan. Although the post-Juan park is, in many ways (biologically, layout, entrances, atmosphere), similar to the pre-Juan park, the choice to go with a local Acadian ecology park appears to have restored place attachments well. Many participants discuss how they are very happy with the direction that the management team has taken with the restoration of the park. Interestingly, some short-term participants could tell that something ‘happened’ to the park. One participant describes that they thought part of the park was clear-cut. Additionally, some short-term participants who have seen pictures or have heard others state that the park must have looked beautiful before Hurricane Juan still indicate that they are perfectly happy and enjoy the post-Juan park.

Themes have also emerged regarding question 2: “How do current place attachment levels of long-term users compare to their pre-Juan attachments now that restoration has taken place?” Many respondents describe the pre-Juan park as being denser, fuller, greener, and more lush; as described by a few respondents, it “felt more like a forest.” One participant states: “It was shocking. Compared to the rich, vibrant, grand woods of the early 2000s, Point Pleasant Park looked as though nature had intentionally decimated all its richness and vibrancy and barely left a living field in its place.” Another describes how the opening of the park to see the damage felt like mourning at a funeral.

However, a good number of respondents also describe a sense that “things are coming along” and that they enjoy and even prefer the park as it currently is, compared to the pre-Juan park. We see this theme in how they describe the improved views that were opened up after Juan, how the green is returning, how running dogs can be better seen when they rush out of trees and around tight corners, and they like the fact that, as one respondent describes, you can “feel the park growing.” One participant states that there was “A sense of loss and sadness. However, there is optimism as to its [the park’s] future, with the replanting of trees, redoing the paths, and the locals returning to the park in greater numbers. The park has been a blessing for Haligonians for over 250 years, and is used more now than ever before.” Thus, it appears that the majority of the long-term residents, particularly those who had their place attachments heavily damaged, have a more restored, positive place attachment.

However, not every long-term user has fully restored. One participant describes: “In a couple of occasions we have been attacked by dogs. I have been back several times since, but that day has left such a negative impact that I hate the park.” Many participants state that they have friends and family members who cannot bring themselves to return because the park is so different. Unfortunately, none of the individuals who cannot return to the park participated in this study.

In terms of answering question 3: “Is the strength of place attachment different between people who did not visit Point Pleasant Park before Hurricane Juan’s impact compared to people who did visit and experience the park before Juan?”, both long-term users and short-term users have positive place attachments. The restoration of long-term user’s place attachments is also an interesting result. On one hand, the restoration of long-term users may have just been due to the passing of time and the experience of the initial event fading. However, this may be due to the type of place Point Pleasant Park is. Since Point Pleasant Park is a place where people go to meet specific needs e.g. walk the dog, go for a jog, etc., there may be a strong utilitarian aspect to park users’ place attachments. If users can meet their needs at the park like they did before, then the same interactions can take place, and just as positive attachments can develop.

In terms of answering question 4: “Are park users receiving psychological benefits from the park? Are long-term users receiving more benefits than short-term users?”, it appears that all groups of park users are receiving psychological benefits. Participants were asked to describe how they felt in terms of their health. Participants described themes such as: feeling relaxed, feeling stress-free, feeling comfortable during their visits to the park and feeling happy.

Conclusions and Further Research

Given the preliminary data analysis, it appears that park users’ place attachments to Point Pleasant Park are largely positive and that most users appear to be receiving psychological benefits. Long-term users who were particularly affected negatively by the impact of Hurricane Juan appear to have restored place attachments and are receiving psychological benefits. It may be difficult and unrealistic to truly re-create the same experience and atmosphere of a pre-disaster site and this appears to be the case with Point Pleasant Park. However, new and just as positive attachments will develop given enough time for users to return. With the research still in the analysis stage, some themes will be researched and analyzed further. One theme to analyze further is how long-term users still reminisce about the pre-Juan park. If park users still have that feeling of sadness or regret regarding how the pre-Juan park was ‘better’ than the current park, then those users may not be getting the same psychological benefits that others are receiving. Additionally, further analyses of the differences in place attachments between long-term and short-term users, as well as how many long-term users place attachments have been restored, will take place.

Bibliography

Albrecht, Glenn. 2005. "'Solastalgia'. A New Concept in Health and Identity." PAN: Philosophy Activism Nature 3: 41. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=897723015186456;res=IELHSS.

Albrecht, Glenn. 2006. "Solastalgia: Environmental damage has made it possible to be homesick without leaving home." Alternatives Journal 32, no. 4-5: 34-37. Accessed March 29, 2016.http://go.galegroup.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA161545303&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=fulltext&issn=12057398&p=AONE&sw=w&authCount=1&isAnonymousEntry=true.

Albrecht, Glenn, Gina-Maree Sartore, Linda Connor, Nick Higginbotham, Sonia Freeman, Brian Kelly, Helen Stain, Anne Tonna, and Georgia Pollard. 2007. "Solastalgia: The distress caused by environmental change." Australasian Psychiatry 15, no. sup1: S95-S98. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1080/10398560701701288.

Banda, Jorge A., Sara Wilcox, Natalie Colabianchi, Steven P. Hooker, Andrew T. Kaczynski, and James Hussey. 2014. "The Associations Between Park Environments and Park Use in Southern US Communities." The Journal of Rural Health 30, no. 4: 369-378. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12071.

Bedimo-Rung, Ariane L., Andrew J. Mowen, and Deborah A. Cohen. 2005. "The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: a conceptual model." American journal of preventive medicine 28, no. 2: 159-168. Accessed March 29, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024.

Bixler, Robert D., and Myron F. Floyd. 1997. "Nature is scary, disgusting, and uncomfortable." Environment and behavior 29, no. 4: 443-467. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1177/001391659702900401.

Chiesura, Anna. 2004. "The role of urban parks for the sustainable city." Landscape and urban planning 68, no. 1: 129-138. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003.

Cresswell, Tim. 2004. Place: a short introduction. Coventry, United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Cresswell, Tim. 2008. "Place: encountering geography as philosophy." Geography 93, no. 3: 132. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://search.proquest.com/openview/ec7aaa6d13450673efc5b777633d209d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar.

Cresswell, Tim. 2009. “Place.” Elsevier Inc. Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, United Kingdom. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://booksite.elsevier.com/brochures/hugy/SampleContent/Place.pdf.

Entrikin, J. Nicholas. 1976. " Contemporary Humanism in Geography.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 66, no. 4: 615-632. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1976.tb01113.x.

Gies, Erica. 2007. The health benefits of parks: how parks help keep Americans and their communities fit and healthy. The Trust for Public Land. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://usahomepagewww.eastshorepark.org/HealthBenefitsReport_FINAL_010307.pdf.

Hansmann, Ralf, Stella-Maria Hug, and Klaus Seeland. 2007. "Restoration and stress relief through physical activities in forests and parks." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 6, no. 4: 213-225. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.0 8.004.

Hartig, Terry, Marlis Mang, and Gary W. Evans. 1991. "Restorative effects of natural environment experiences." Environment and behavior 23, no. 1: 3-26. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013916591231001.

Hidalgo, M. Carmen, and Bernardo Hernandez. 2001. "Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions." Journal of environmental psychology 21, no. 3: 273-281. Accessed March 29, 2016 http://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0221.

Hyndman, Donald, Hyndman, David, and Norm Catto. 2009. Natural Hazards and Disasters. First Canadian Edition, Nelson Education LTD.

Jorgensen, Bradley S., and Richard C. Stedman. 2001. "Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owner’s attitudes toward their properties." Journal of environmental psychology 21, no. 3: 233-248. Accessed March 29, 2016. doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0226.

Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge. 3 – 39.

Kitz, Janet, and Castle, Gary. (1999). Point Pleasant Park: An Illustrated History. Halifax, N.S., Canada, Pleasant Point Publishing.

Lewicka, Maria. 2011. "Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years?" Journal of environmental psychology 31, no. 3: 207-230. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.10.001.

Ley, David. 1981. "Cultural/humanistic geography." Progress in human geography 5, no. 2: 249- 257. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1177/030913258100500205.

Maller, Cecily, Mardie Townsend, Lawrence St Leger, Claire Henderson-Wilson, Anita Pryor, Lauren Prosser, and Megan Moore. 2009. "Healthy parks, healthy people: The health benefits of contact with nature in a park context." Paper presented at The George Wright Forum, 26, no. 2: 51-83. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://search.proquest.com/openview/adfeb29f1c051e575fc9e8b65e876ba1/1?pq-origsite=gscholar.

McSweeney, J., D. Rainham, S. A. Johnson, S. B. Sherry, and J. Singleton. 2014. "Indoor nature exposure (INE): a health-promotion framework." Health promotion international. 30(1): 126–139. Accessed February 24, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dau081.

O'Brien, Liz, and Jake Morris. 2014. "Well-being for all? The social distribution of benefits gained from woodlands and forests in Britain." Local Environment 19, no. 4: 356-383. Accessed March 29, 2016. doi:10.1080/13549839.2013.790354. Point Pleasant. 2003. Letters to the editor, Chronicle herald, October 21.

Point Pleasant Park. 2011. “Point Pleasant Park: A Symbol of Halifax”. Accessed February 24, 2016. http://www.pointpleasantpark.ca/en/home/education/aboutthepark.aspx.

Point Pleasant Park Comprehensive Plan. 2008. Submitted by NIPpaysage and Ekistics Planning and Design, Halifax Regional Municipality. Halifax, NS, Canada. Accessed February 24, 2016. http://www.pointpleasantpark.ca.

Solecki, William D., and Joan M. Welch. 1995. "Urban parks: green spaces or green walls?" Landscape and Urban Planning 32, no. 2: 93-106. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(94)00193-7.

Statistics Canada. 2011. “Population of census metropolitan areas”. Last modified February 10, 2016. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo05a-eng.htm.

The Canadian Press. 2013. “A decade later, Hurricane Juan's destructive legacy lingers in Halifax.” Accessed March 29, 2016. http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/a-decade-later-hurricane-juan-s-destructive-legacy-lingers-in-halifax-1.1473300.

Thompson, Catharine Ward. 2002. "Urban open space in the 21st century." Landscape and urban planning 60, no. 2: 59-72. Accessed March 29, 2016. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00059-2.

Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1974. Topophilia: a study of environmental perception, attitudes and values. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs.

Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1975. "Place: an experiential perspective." Geographical Review. 151-165. Accessed on March 29, 2016. doi:10.2307/213970.

Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1976. "Humanistic geography." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 66, no. 2: 266-276. Accessed March 29, 2016. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1976.tb01089.x.

Tuan, Yi–Fu. 1989. "Surface phenomena and aesthetic experience." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 79, no. 2: 233-241. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.1989.tb00260.x.

Tzoulas, Konstantinos, Kalevi Korpela, Stephen Venn, Vesa Yli-Pelkonen, Aleksandra Kaźmierczak, Jari Niemela, and Philip James. 2007. "Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review." Landscape and urban planning 81, no. 3: 167-178. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001.

Ulrich, Roger. 1984. "View through a window may influence recovery." Science 224, no. 4647: 224-225.Accessed March 29, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402.

Ulrich, Roger S. 1999. "Effects of gardens on health outcomes: Theory and research." In Healing gardens: Therapeutic benefits and design recommendations, edited by Marcus, Clare Cooper, and Marni Barnes. Healing gardens, 27-86. John Wiley & Sons.

Velarde, Ma D., Gareth Fry, and Mari Tveit. 2007. "Health effects of viewing landscapes–Landscape types in environmental psychology." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 6, no. 4 (2007): 199-212. Accessed March 29, 2016. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.07.001.

Williams, Allison, and Peter Kitchen. 2012. "Sense of place and health in Hamilton, Ontario: A case study." Social indicators research 108, no. 2 (2012): 257-276. Accessed March 29, 2016 http://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0065-1.