Ranking Perceived Biophilic Dimensions is Method-Dependent: Evidencefrom Four Ugandan Primary Schools
Résumé
Schools with limited resources need credible evidence about which environmental qualities to prioritise, yet rankings of biophilic dimensions may change with the analytical method used. This focused secondary analysis examined questionnaire records from 302 pupils in four government-sponsored primary schools in Mukono District, Uganda. Emotional and Social Environment was the outcome; perceived Nature in the Space, Sensory Nature Stimuli, Nature of the Space and Natural Analogues were the environmental domains. Spearman correlations, simultaneous ordinary least-squares regression and a school-fixed-effects sensitivity model were compared. All four domains were positively correlated with well-being (rho=.36-.43, all p<.001). Together, they explained 26.6% of variance (adjusted R2=.256; F(4,297)=26.85, p<.001). In the simultaneous model, Natural Analogues (beta=.23, p<.001) and Nature in the Space (beta=.19, p=.003) retained unique associations. After school adjustment, Nature in the Space, Natural Analogues and Nature of the Space remained associated with well-being, whereas Sensory Nature Stimuli did not. Natural Analogues ranked first by bivariate and simultaneous estimates, but Nature in the Space ranked first after school adjustment. The central finding is therefore not a winning dimension, but the instability of the ranking itself. For low-resource schools, design priorities should be based on converging evidence about direct nature, spatial experience and interior qualities rather than a single coefficient. Larger, longitudinal studies with validated measures are needed before resource-allocation rules are proposed.
Citer ce document
Accès au document
Texte intégral en lecture en ligne, réservé aux abonnés SPHAERO et aux membres de l'institution. Se connecter
Voir l'article sur le site de la revueAuteur(s)
Statistiques
Consultations : 1
Téléchargements : 0