Table 2.
One-way ANOVA analysis of PRS for environments with different degrees of perceived naturalness in urban settings.
| HN (n = 34) | MN (n = 33) | LN (n = 33) | F | p | Post test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M. (S.D.) | M. (S.D.) | M. (S.D.) | ||||
| Being away | 4.12 (0.59) | 3.79 (0.82) | 3.15 (0.97) | 12.341 | 0.000 | HN>LN* MN>LN* |
| Fascination | 3.82 (0.76) | 3.88 (0.96) | 3.45 (0.87) | 2.352 | 0.101 | |
| Coherence | 2.97 (0.97) | 3.52 (0.83) | 3.52 (0.76) | 4.517 | 0.013 | LN>HN* MN>HN* |
| Scope | 3.82 (0.67) | 3.97 (0.77) | 3.12 (0.89) | 11.111 | 0.000 | HN>LN* MN>LN* |
| Compatibility | 3.76 (0.92) | 4.15 (0.87) | 3.39 (0.93) | 5.725 | 0.004 | MN>LN* |
| PRS | 18.50 (2.29) | 19.30 (2.89) | 16.64 (2.98) | 8.293 | 0.000 | HN>LN* MN>LN* |
*p < 0.05.