Cited by 567Urban Green Space and HealthEnvironmental Philosophy and EthicsAesthetic Perception and Analysis

Assessing the restorative components of environments

Herzog, Thomas R., Colleen, Maguire, P., Nebel, Mary B.·2003·Journal of Environmental Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0272-4944(02)00113-5

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Herzog, T. R., Colleen, Maguire, P., & Nebel, M. B.
Affiliations
Grand Valley State University (US)
Corresponding author
Herzog, Thomas R.
Venue
Journal of Environmental Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-06
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
159-170
ISSN
0272-4944 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1970454729
Cited by
567
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 20
FWCI
5.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Environmental Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Environmental Philosophy and Ethics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
Keywords
restorative environments, attention restoration theory, being away, extent, fascination, compatibility, natural environment, urban environment, visual access, openness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review