“The Solace of Open Spaces” by Ehrlich was investigated from the point of view of psychological value by many researchers. In her The Psychological Value of Open Space by Nora J Rubenstein tells about different aspects of The Solace of Open Spaces and communications with open landscapes and nature. Her investigation is concentrated on how environment is showed in The Solace of Open Spaces. The interaction between Ehrlich, the author, scribe and environment is an issue which is examined thoroughly all through the essay.
Rubenstein tell us about how environment is applied as a symbol. In The Solace of Open Spaces one can find many quotations where Ehrlich, the writer, values environment as a symbol to illustrate contemporary humanity. Rubenstein’s research can be applied to investigate these symbols. The Psychological Value of Open space explains why persons may apply to nature for curing. This Rubenstein’s quote shows how one might use environment or open land: “Perhaps the dominant expressed rationale for using open space is the need for a place of contemplation and solitude” (Rubenstein, 1997)
In the very important research of the connection between environment and wellbeing, Cimprich (1990) after with breast cancerous patients proposed that engaging in person delightful and nature-connected “healing actions” had spectacular consequences related to cognitive method and value of life. The two groups of people were created and they signed an agreement acquiescing to enlist in chosen undertakings. Preliminary pre- interference assesses displayed critical “attentional exhaustion” for both uncontrolled and managing groups.
After the settled period, the uncontrolled group displayed important developments in vigilance, on self-told value of life assesses, and they started a kind of new tasks, at the same time as managing group people, who were not given any recommendations considering environment exposure undertakings, proceeded to have shortfalls in assesses of vigilance, began no new tasks, and smaller value of life results. (Rubenstein, 1997 The difference between nature as an amenity and nature as a human need is underscored by this research. People often say that they like nature; yet they often fail to recognize that they need it… Nature is not merely ‘nice. ‘ It is not just a matter of improving one’s mood, rather it is a vital ingredient in healthy human functioning” ((Rubenstein, 1997). Very evident work was implemented by the Kaplans and other investigators. It was an adversity and extent change investigation, implemented by a uncontrolled group.
Their investigation of the facts and numbers from periodicals and pre- and post- research questionnaires made a lot of conclusions. It is probable that these alterations are a consequence of reasons other than contact with the wilds, such as the lessons in public communication methods and skill guidance, there is little issue that partakers have advantage from being exposed to nature that change their familiar behavior patterns. (Rubenstein, 1997).