Evaluating the restorative potential of church buildings Josée Laplace 1 Catherine Guastavino 2 Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Music Media and Technology (CIRMMT) McGill University, School of Information Studies 3661 Peel St., Montreal Quebec (Canada) H3A 1X1

ABSTRACT We report the preliminary results of a study on the experience of soundscape and architectural am- biances of church buildings, with an emphasis on their restorative qualities. Through questionnaires, commented walks, and interviews with 16 diverse participants, we aim to characterize the sensory qualities of 2 contrasting church buildings in Montreal. Our data collection instruments operation- alize concepts at the intersection of different research fields: soundscapes, attention restoration, quiet areas, architectural ambiances, and heritage (including religious) places. As such, it encompasses a broad range of descriptors and outcomes. At a methodological level, we discuss the questionnaire results with regards to situational factors, items wording and procedure that may affect the ratings, with the complements of the qualitative methods used to provide a better understanding of people’s experiences with church interiors. At a theoretical level, we report how the findings provide grounds to revisit the Biophilia hypothesis, in interior space with very little natural elements. At a practical level, we discuss how the research design can contribute to a broader discussion on the future of redundant churches.

1. INTRODUCTION

Since the early works of Kaplan and Kaplan (summarized in their 1989 book [1]) in environmental psychology, restorative environments have gained increased interest in a wide range of contexts in- cluding health care, urban design, and more recently sound research. Restorative environments are considered to foster attentional fatigue recovery and reduction of stress levels, thereby contributing to the well-being of visitors [2,3]. Such environments are perhaps more important than ever now, with today’s high levels of cognitive demands.

The Attention Restoration Theory (ART) framework that follows identified four components (known as FACE) that the properties of an environment should foster in order to be restorative [2]. These are Fascination, that refers to the capacity to capture involuntary/effortless attention in such a way that direct attention resources are not solicited [2,4]. The second component, Being-Away, is the possibility to gain distance (physically or conceptually) from ordinary routines that drain cognitive resources [2,5,4]. The third component Compatibility refers to the congruence with an environment that fits one’s inclination [2,4]. The fourth component, Extent, applies to an environment that offers the possibility the feel immersed and engaged in an “other world”. It has two subcomponents: Coher- ence which refers to an organization where the parts form a coherent whole, while Scope suggests a certain scale and richness of an environment that will allow for exploration and discovery [2,4].

This approach is deeply rooted in the biophilia hypothesis (Kellert & Wilson, 1993) [6] through an evolutionary perspective. In this hypothesis, since humans evolved outdoors in nature, they have an innate tendency to respond positively to natural environments. In contrast, our contemporary life- style is mostly spent indoors with limited contact to nature, investigating restorative potential of the 1 josee.laplace@mail.mcgill.ca

2 catherine.guastavino@mcgill.ca

built environment shows great promises. A few studies have investigated this potential in the context of historical sites [5,7,8]. While the initial Attention Restoration Theory does not per se preclude indoor environments, the restorative potential of indoor spaces has received limited attention to date, with only a handful of studies on environments such as museums [9], health care facilities [10,11], restaurants [12] and religious spaces [13,14].

While these few studies suggest that built environments can provide restorative outcomes [5], we need to develop new ways to understand and measure the restorative properties of these environ- ments. Previous research focuses on the role of sound in restoration, and how the initial ART frame- work has been adapted to account for the potential of the sound environment to contribute to the 4 components of ART [15,16]. Specific instruments and scales have been developed in order to evalu- ate people reception of sound in different settings (and in lab) and adapting the initial components to specific research goals [8,11,17,18,19,20, among others]. But we need to explore the relationship between the properties of the environment and the sensory experience, considered “as the relations that humans are able to establish with the physical world through their senses” to understand under which conditions built environments can foster restoration [21].

In this article, we investigate the restorative qualities of church buildings. Indeed, in Europe and North America, secularization has left many churches vacant and underused, raising issues about the future of preservations of these heritage buildings. While being indoor environments, church spaces resemble restorative environments found in nature along certain properties. In a former study, we found that church experiences were characterized by a distinctive sense of space and time (Being away), their architectural features and objects draw attention (Fascination), and that their vast spaces allowing for exploration (Extent) [22]. Furthermore, the results highlighted the importance of sound in church experiences. For instance, church acoustics characterized by long reverberation times seem to alter the perception of time and space, resulting in a very embodied experience [23].

A related study conducted in a monastery in the context of a retreat [13] highlighted positive out- comes, assessed through 4 categories of factors (Satisfaction, Peace, Competence and Inability to focus, along 17 adjectives describing mental state). Items of the first 3 categories received high en- dorsement, while those related to the 4 th received very low rating. Interestingly, the researchers intro- duced new components to the ART framework, that is Spirituality and Beauty (which they consider as a combination of soft Fascination and Extent). However, they were used to assess the motivation to participant in the retreat [13], rather than the sensory experience. Similarly, another study on “houses of worship” asked students to reflect on their experience, motivations and uses of such places, but without trying to characterize their experience or the properties of the spaces [14].

In order to better understand how the specificities of the church environments, particularly in terms of sound, contribute to sensory experience and resulting restorative benefits, we developed and tested a new research instrument, building upon distinct bodies of literature which included studies of ar- chitectural ambiances, heritage buildings, and soundscape research. This paper describes the devel- opment of the research instrument and its application to evaluate the experience of visitors in two contrasting churches in Montreal. Our work is guided by the following research questions: How can we evaluate the restorative potential of church interiors? How does sound inside churches contribute to the experience and well-being of visitors? 2. METHODS

2.1. Elaboration of the research instrument

A questionnaire was developed to evaluate the experience of church buildings from the point of view of the visitors, collecting both their appreciation and impressions about the restorative potential of the church visit. The questionnaire brings together items and scales from previous studies and also operationalizes new concepts from our previous work on experience of church [22]. To validate the operationalization, we explore different phrasings for related concepts. The questionnaire is divided

into 6 sections, focusing on the different properties of the church spaces, as well as the sensory expe- rience. These are: 1. General impressions; 2. Ambiances qualifiers; 3. Perceived Restorativeness Soundscape Scale (PRSS); 4. Effects on well-being; 5. Outcomes of the visit; 6. Potential future uses of the space. The questionnaire was administered as part of a mixed-method data collection, which including a commented walk [24] and semi-structured interview to gather spontaneous verbalizations of the sensory experiences of participants, which is used to interpret the questionnaire data and facil- itate further in-depth exploration.

The first part of the questionnaire is a semantic differential with opposite pairs of adjectives about the general impressions, wherein some of the adjectives are drawn from the literature on the evalua- tion of cultural and historical significance [7,25] (see Appendix A). The question of maintenance and cleanness is part of the “expert analysis for the collection of nonacoustic data” in the European Quadmap guidelines for quiet area [26] and appears in Masullo et al. [7] and Payne & Bruce [18]. It was also an important factor of appreciation in our former church research [22], which also gave rise to other scales related to the significance ( sacred/ profane, unique/ordinary ) and comfort ( warm/cold, sad/joyful ). Finally, an element to assess the quietness of the place is introduced with the adjectives silent/noisy . Drawing from Payne & Bruce [18] who investigates the use of the adjectives quiet, calm , and tranquil in their exploration of the definition of quiet areas, we introduced the quiet dimension in different instances (parts of the questionnaire or interview) and vocabulary in order to consider it both as a quality of the place (ex. peaceful which is also an adjective used by participants in Payne & Bruce study [18]) or an effect on the person (ex. to calm down ). In that respect, and also for other items of the questionnaire we ran into challenges in translation to create French and English versions, in which the meaning of these adjectives can differ.

Part 2 draws from the work of Findelli et al. [27] who have empirically identified adjectives to qualify lighting ambiances in interior spaces; 6 adjectives which correspond to what they named “ambiances dimensions” (see table in Appendix A). Among them, they identified the legibility fac- tor [1]. These adjectives were relevant in summarizing some of the aspects of the church space expe- rience in our former study, although not all, and additions were made to cover qualities that emerged in [22], including intimate, historical, beautiful, and peaceful . While these adjectives all have a pos- itive connotation, two adjectives with a negative component were introduced as a “control variable”, but are also adjectives that were used in the church study context.

Part 3 focuses on soundscape restorativeness, with a selection of descriptors from the Perceived Restorativeness Soundscape Scale (PRSS) [16], with slight adaptation to the context of the research. 7 items are introduced corresponding to 3 of the 4 of the ART components (Fascination, Being-Away, Extent – Coherence, Extent – Scope). The Compatibility criteria was not retained because of the “artificial” context of the survey, where participants came especially for the study purpose.

Part 4 includes items related to the effects of being in the space on participants. They operationalize concepts identified from interviews in our previous study [22]. They cover dimensions of wellbeing, perceived constraints, the relation to the “scale” and monumentality of the space (like feeling to be little or the space giving one an impression of strength or power). This section also includes the dimension of being in “another world” where one loses track of time.

Part 5 is dedicated to the outcomes of the church visit. Most of the items are taken from Payne & Bruce (6 of their 8 items, see Appendix A) [18]. Three were changed or replaced: Increase the ability to concentrate was transformed into Clarify my thoughts [13] because we consider it is difficult to self-assess one’s own ability to concentrate, and Become yourself again was replace with Reconnect with myself [22] for the same reason, while Reduce any tension became Reduce my stress levels , considering the short stay in church will not cancel all tensions and with the intention of naming “stress” explicitly. The addition of calm down and slow down are other ways of assessing the effects of tranquility and the change of pace/rhythm often observed in churches.

Part 6 lists activities previously assessed [22] with having an “interiority component” (reflection, contemplation, prayer), appreciation of the settings (history, architecture, art), relaxation, and exam- ples of cultural uses common in churches (e.g. concerts) – that may be considered to foster restoration. These are “uses” that can already be performed with the place “as it is” without prior changes in the

church setting. The intention of these questions is to assess by the participants the appropriateness of such uses according to the place character and their own experience of it. At the end of the question- naire, we collected sociodemographic factors, place of residence/work, relation to religion, frequency of church visits, and sensibility to noise. See Appendix A for the entire questionnaire items and their sources.

2.2. Methodology Places

The research took place in two churches in the city of Montréal, selected to be as contrasted as it could be in terms of size/volume, geometry, architectural style, type of worship/denomination, cul- ture, and history. Both churches, however, are about the same age, built respectively in 1851-1853 for the church of Saint-Pierre-Apôtre (further referred to as SPA) and 1853-1854 for the Saint Peter and Saint Paul Russian Orthodox Cathedral (SPPOC). The two churches are at an approximate 5 minutes walking distance from one another, on a noisy boulevard (Figure 1), with the installations of Radio-Canada/CBC (old and new) on the other side.

eo acy be : Se es

Figure 1: The church of Saint-Pierre-Apôtre (top-left) is a tall roman-catholic church built in Gothic Revival style, serving a francophone community. The Saint Peter and Paul Russian Orthodox Cathe- dral (bottom-left) is a small church, initially built as an Anglican church, now inhabited by a Russian orthodox community since 1925. On the right, location of churches along René-Lévesque Boulevard. Data collection The procedure combined three collecting data techniques, namely a commented walk followed by a questionnaire and a semi-structured interview. During the commented walk [23], participants ex- plored the first church freely, describing in their own words their experience with a focus on sound phenomena. They are then asked to fill in the questionnaire and to participate in an interview before leaving the church. Then they walked with the researcher, continuing the discussion on sound and the contrast with the city, to the second church, where they repeated the same procedure. The interview in the second church is generally longer and included comparisons between the 2 churches, conclu- sive and disclosure statements. Typical participation took about 2 and a half hours from start to finish. The order of the church visits was counterbalanced across participants.

Participants

16 residents from the neighbourhood took part in this study, whom had lived in the area for 8.4 years on average (from 6 months to 34 years) and represented a range of age, culture, income level and religious affiliations. 15 of them were French speakers, while only one completed the study in English. While most participants grew up with catholic affiliation (14/16, plus one protestant and one Buddhist), the majority (10/16) declared being agnostic or atheist. None had visited any of these churches before. 10 participated individually, while 6 participated in pairs. Analysis

For each question, we report the mean and the standard error collapsing over 15 respondents (one participant did not provide usable information). Given the small sample, only descriptive statistics are reported. The first graph refers to opposite pairs of adjectives (3 points – a little , s omewhat , very – on each side of the neutral position neither/nor ), while the other graphs are based on a 5-points Likert scale, 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ). The data points are colour-coded for each church and connected for legibility. The analysis of the spontaneous verbalization (commented walks and interviews) is still in progress and will be briefly touch upon in the discussion.

3. RESULTS

General trends The different graphs show similar patterns of responses for the two churches, although the scale ratings for the Saint-Pierre-Apôtre (SPA) church are overall higher in reference to positively connoted adjectives or outcomes). Generally, the ratings are also more consistent for this church than for the Saint Peter and Saint Paul Russian Orthodox Cathedral (SPPOC), with smaller error bars for most items. This church globally corresponds more to the “image” of the church as an uncommon building with a very elaborated architecture, high ceiling, pronounced sound effects, more possibilities for exploration and more familiar to churches the participants already know. The orthodox cathedral, in contrast, is a much more modest building (despite its name). Its interior is a single room, on an almost square plan with very shallow transept, with an architecture and layout (no pews in the middle of the space, a hidden choir, candles in sand, etc.) unfamiliar to most participants (see Figure 1). The interior decoration is dominated by a great number of icons on the walls, small altars and special displays; the place is very well maintained. In terms of sound, the room has little reverberation, squeaky floors and noisy fans on the ceiling. Both churches are quite well insulated from exterior traffic noise.

Overall impressions The first part of the questionnaire consisted of eight bipolar scales about general impressions of the church. Overall the mean ratings for both churches are on the side of the positively connoted adjectives (Figure 2). The pattern of responses is overall similar for the 2 churches. Moreover, mean ratings are generally close except for the pairs warm/cold and pleasant/unpleasant , where the means value differs of about 1 point. The “thermic” qualifier could refer to many impressions, the sense of “heat” being very “multisensorial” [28]. It could refer to the temperature, or figuratively speaking to a general impression/ambiance of the place, a warm welcome, components of the ambiance (color, light, acoustic, smell, etc.). The large standard error reflects this polysemy. The differences observed along the pleasant/unpleasant pair will be further discussed in light of the other sections. High rating for both churches were observed along uniqueness, sacredness and significance which can be inter- preted as an indicator of the heritage value. The lower scores are for sad/joyful and noisy/silent which could indicate contrasting experiences with regards to situational conditions of the visits (background noise, natural light, etc.).

Overall Impressions - Opposites Adjectives

Unique Sacred Joyful Warm Pleasant Well Maintained Silent Significant

3

2

1

Mean Rating

0

-1

SPA Church

-2

SPPOC Church

-3

Ordinary Profane Sad Cold Unpleasant Not maintained Noisy Not significant

Figure 2: Mean ratings and standard error for overall impression bipolar scales (section 1). Ambiance scales Ambiance scale ratings reveal that both churches ranked high (means higher or close to 4) in terms of the historical and beautiful aspects, both giving the impression of a rich history and high aesthetic standards (Figure 3). It should be noted that no information about the churches was communicated prior to the visit. The SPA church was rated higher than SPPOC in terms of “grandeur” but also on descriptors related to a form of “hospitality” ( welcoming, protective, open, intimate, lively ), which could be surprising for a grand stone building. These results can be interpreted in many aspects related as much to the building (possibility to hide, to create one own “bubble”), familiarity, the perceived “openness” of the community (manifested for example in the Chapelle de l’Espoir (Hope Chapel), a space dedicated to AIDS victims), and the context of the visit (on-going activities including music rehearsals). In this respect, the SPPOC church gave rise to mixed reactions. Some participants were very enthusiastic to discover a distinctive cultural place, with intriguing features, and even interacted with the priest to learn more about the space. But other participants felt more constrained in their movements, felt that they were missing keys for interpretation, therefore not easily appropriating the place. As for the peaceful scale, both churches have a mean rating higher than 3,5, despite a some- times high-level of background noise and occasional activity (including a loud choir rehearsal). The two negatively connotated adjectives ( austere and oppressive ) received low scores, confirming the positive impressions.

Ambiance Qualifiers

5

4

Mean rating

3

SPA Church

SPPOC Church

2

1

Welcoming Lively Austere Ordered Grand Protective Open Oppressive Intimate Historical Beautiful Peaceful

Figure 3: Mean ratings and standard error for ambiances scales (section 2).

Perceived Restorativeness Soundscape Scale Figure 4 shows the means rating for the items of the Perceived Restorativeness Soundscape Scale. Parallel patterns are observed here again for the two churches, with SPA’s ratings higher from 0,5 ( curiosity ) to 1,5 points ( coherent soundscape ) on all descriptors. The items a break from my day-to- day routine and a whole world to itself have higher ratings for both churches in line with both the idea of Being away and Extent-scope, while refuge and limitless , parts of the same components have rated as lower. Items related to Fascination score around the middle values ( Awakens my curiosity slightly above Is fascinating to me slightly below). In French, the term “ fascinant ” might not be so commonly used than in English and may be reserved for truly outstanding phenomena. SPA has a mean above 4 for the coherence of its soundscape, while SPPOC is under 3. Comments indicate that the sounds of loud fans in SPPOC were perceived as popping out of the ambient soundscape, which could have contributed to this difference.

Components of Perceived Restorativeness Soundscape Scale (PRSS)

5

4

Mean rating

3

2

SPA Church

SPPOC Church

1

Awakens my

Is fascinating to

Break from day-

Refuge from

Seems limitless Quality of being a

Sounds fit to form a coherent

curiosity

me

to-day routine

unwanted distractions

whole world to

itself

soundscape

EXTENT BEING-AWAY FASCINATION

Figure 4: Mean ratings and standard error for PRSS components (section 3).

Effects on participants In the section of the questionnaire related to effects of the church visit on participants (Figure 5), rating for I feel good were generally high. Rating for SPA higher and more consistently than for SPPOC, which can be attributed to the experiences among participants discussed early. The item I forget the outside world received also high rating, in line with the hypothesis of church as place “out of the world” a specific mode to “being away”. The item I would stay for hours relatively middle- low means may reflect the fact that while feeling “well” in the space, one would not necessarily spend a long time in it, after a certain time in this enclosed space feeling the need to return to the “world” (with light and fresh air). On that aspect, Scopelletti & al. have concluded to an inverse relationship, between time spent and restoration in built outdoor restorative environment [5, p.9]. The two items I dare not do whatever I feel like doing and I feel free both aim to capture the extent to which people feel free to experiment church, as a place with restrictions and rules, but in different directions. Yet, both yielded very similar rating for SPA and quite different ones for SPPOC, which calls for future investigation. The items related to the scale of the place I feel small and I feel powerful which were statements encountered in our former research, receive relatively low means which may indicate that they may not be relevant to a wider group of participants. I feel sad have similar low means in both

churches, which may indicate that they are not conducive to sadness. Finally, the item I lose track of time , with a mean rating of 3.5 and 3.1) reflect a nuanced sense of a place with “another time”.

Effects on participants

5

SPA Church SPPOC Church

4

Mean Rating

3

2

1

I feel good Forget outside

Would stay

I feel small I dare not

I feel free I feel sad I feel powerful

I lose track

for hours

do…

of time

world

Figure 5: Mean ratings and standard error for effect of being in the church scales (section 4). Outcomes of the visit in the church The section dedicated to the outcomes of the visit (Figure 6) show again similar pattern for both churches except the scale See things in a new perspective which shows a slightly higher mean in the SPPOC church, probably due to the novelty of the experience and the discovery of a different culture. In fact, the wording could have been interpreted differently depending on whether it is interpreted with a focus on the place, or on one’s own life. To calm down , Reduce my stress levels , Slow down from my daily pace are among the descriptors that show the higher means for the two churches (while the variation is higher in the SPPOC church) bringing some evidence of the “relaxing” effect of being in a church. Improve my energy levels and Clarify my thoughts receive higher rates in the SPA church, but relatively average mean, which may indicate this is not a significant effect of the stay in the church, despite the fact that some participants gave a quite high rates, mostly in the large church. The item Reconnect with myself received relatively high rates, especially in the SPA church. While it could be an effect of “being away” in an environment distinct of that of daily life, some participants have shared the insight that the exercise of walking through space, giving attention to one’s impres- sions and sensations could be conducive of such a connection to oneself.

Finally, the three items about the theme of one’s thoughts in the church ( daily experience, rela- tionship with others, or important issues ) follow the prediction that one would rather reflect on the latter two than about their daily life, but not significantly. Indeed, the means are relatively low and standard error quite high in both churches. This could be attributed to many things, such as some participants focusing their attention on the commented walk, while others may have let their mind wander at the same time and/or interacted with the person accompanying them (for those who partic- ipated in pairs), which could lead to different interpretations.

Outcomes

5

4

Mean rating

3

2

SPA Church

SPPOC Church

1

Improve energy levels

Clarify thoughts

Reduce stress levels

Ponder over

Think about relationships

Think about

Reconnect with myself

To calm

See things

Slow down

daily exp.

important

down

new perspective

from daily

issues

pace

Figure 6: Mean ratings and standard error for outcomes of the church visit scales (section 5). Activities The last graph (Figure 7) presents mean ratings for a range of activities envisaged in the churches. All means are above 3 with more variation in SPPOC. The items related to history and artistic appre- ciation received the highest ratings for the two churches, along with listening to a concert in SPA. Items related to more introspective activities ( relaxation, reflection, contemplation and prayer ) were also rated high in SPA where participants commented on the fact that they could more easily create a more intimate space to be on their own (in their own “bubble”). Higher variation (and slightly lower mean) for prayer might indicate that some would rather have considered it as an activity they will not engage in, rather than an activity appropriate to the settings. Generally speaking cultural and commu- nity activities were rated as highly suitable. Comments further indicate an emphasis on cultural ac- tivities in SPA and community (but also cultural) in SPPOC (gathering, discussion groups, etc.).

Activities

5

4

Mean rating

3

2

SPA Church

SPPOC Church

1

Relaxation /

Discovery of

Appreciation of

Reflection Contemplation Prayer Listening

Listening

Other cultural and community

rest

history

architecture

concert

lecture

and art

Figure 7: Mean ratings and standard error for activities suitability scales (section 6).

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Building upon previous work on architectural ambiances and the restorative outcomes of religious environments [13,14], we explored physical and spatiotemporal properties of churches, and the mul- tisensorial sensory experiences of visitors. The preliminary results of this inquiry into the restorative potential of church buildings raise interesting questions at both methodological and theoretical levels.

Method

At a methodological level, we introduce and evaluated a questionnaire to measure various facets of the sensory experience, with an emphasis on sound. The same participants completed the ques- tionnaires in 2 contrasting places within walking distance, within a short period of time with similar environmental conditions (in terms of weather, light, traffic, etc.). The results highlight the contribu- tion of situational factors (such as ongoing activities, familiarity with a setting) on the sensory expe- rience, and subsequently the restorative outcomes. The analysis of the questionnaire data was also informed, to some extent, by the preliminary analysis of qualitative data collected through interview and commented walk with the same participants.

Certain scales gave rise to a wide range of interpretations – as discussed for the “thermic” ( warm/cold ) or open scale. Translations issues also need to be examined given the nuances in meaning between French and English. Further analysis of the spontaneous verbalizations will allow us to val- idate the different items and phrasings tested and propose a shorter version of the questionnaire for future research.

With respect to the comparison of the two churches, similar trends were found and both churches were rated as having strong restorative properties. Specifically, both churches rated high in the areas related to quietness/calming ( silent/noisy, peaceful, reduce stress levels, calm down ), being-away ( unique/sacred/significant , forget the outside world, a whole world to itself, reconnect to oneself) , impression of time different ( break from routine, slow down from daily pace ), extent (the sense of exploration and discovery was salient in the walks and interviews). The larger church received gen- erally higher rating which could be attributed to its grandeur, among other factors. The small church offered also an experience that was clearly distinctive of everyday situations.

Participants further commented on the insulation from outdoor noise, particularly car traffic. The striking contrast between interior and exterior sounds contributes to the sense of being in protected spaces, away from the city. That said, certain exterior sounds were described as noticeable in some parts of the churches, namely sirens from emergency vehicles and heavy vehicles (trucks, buses). In terms of interior sounds, results from the questionnaire, commented walks and interviews indicate that the sound of fans were clearly noticeable and perceived as incongruent. Using quieter mechanical equipment in churches could thus enhance the restorative potential.

The familiarity or the cultural proximity to one’s religious environment was found to be an im- portant factor to apprehend these spaces, even for non-religious participants. Confidence seems to be more difficult to establish, with regards to activities oriented to interiority, in a space where one’s lacks referents on how to “use it”. In this case, other factors related to the setting itself (e.g., no subspaces to “hide” or create conditions of intimacy) could also have played a role in that respect.

The research procedure itself could also influence the results, in the sense that participants focused their attention on the task at hand, at least partly; while others alternated between focused attention and mind wandering. In that respect, some reported that focusing their attention to their sensory ex- perience might have been conducive to connecting to oneself . While an interesting outcome, this might limit the transferability of our findings to ordinary church visits. Theory

At a theoretical level, the findings provide grounds to revisit the Biophilia hypothesis [6], in that interior space, with very little natural elements (except for flowers and plants, sometimes artificial), provide restorative outcomes. One could argue that materials used in the church could also evoke landscape, earthly properties, in relation to the fundamental elements (minerals (stone, marble),

wood, fire (light, candle), water (a fountain)) – that were also used in secular times in the ritual/wor- ship. Fascination could also be attributed to the complex stone and plaster art works, or the grandiose architecture.

But in comparison to large green spaces, the restorative potential of the church seems could have a shorter temporality, which could be compared with that of small public or semi-private spaces, such as pocket parks [17], courtyards/interior garden [7,8], or heritage spaces [5]. These smaller spaces could lend themselves to short breaks, when passing by, or be used as destination for special occasions (e.g. concert). Church settings however have distinctive properties of being associated with interiority – first religious – but still also conducive to contemplation. Practice

At the practical level, the questionnaire developed and tested here could be used on a wider range of church places, from a single to multiple buildings in an area, to identify the sensory qualities of these elements of the built environment and inform conversion or adaptive reuse projects. The restor- ative potential can then contribute to a broader discussion on the future of churches, as interior quiet zones in cities, particularly in places where the climate limits the use of outdoor spaces (e.g. in Can- ada, with very cold winters and very hot summers). Other indoors environments with particular acous- tic qualities (e.g. industrial spaces, public baths, halls and theatres) could also benefit from the as- sessment of restorative potential.

Further analysis of the commented walks and interviews will investigate potential uses and activ- ities in relations to societal impacts in terms of health and well-being for each of the two churches. It should be noted that we do not mean to rank the churches in any way, but rather to identify the specificities of each place and consider its restorative potential in exploring future interventions in line with respective qualities. Future directions include characterizing the experience in other churches with a larger group of participants, as well as establishing relationship with acoustic meas- urements (reverberation time, sound insulation). 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank warmly the persons in charge of the two churches for their kind hospitality and all the participants to the study, as well as fellow colleagues (Edda Bild, Nicola Di Croce, Daniel Steele, Cynthia Tarlao and Christopher Trudeau) for their feedback on the questionnaire development and Richard Yanaky for proofreading. This research was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et Culture (FRQSC - Postdoctoral fellowship to JL). 6. REFERENCES

1. Kaplan R. and S. Kaplan. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective . New York: Cam-

bridge University Press (1989) (Republished by Ann Arbor, MI: Ulrich’s,1995). 2. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J. Envi-

ron. Psychol . 15 , 169–182. doi: 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2. 3. Ulrich, R. S. (1983). “Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment,” in Behaviour and

the Natural Environment , eds I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (New York: Plenum Press), 85–125. 4. Payne, S. R. (2013). The production of a Perceived Restorativeness Soundscape Scale. Applied

Acoustics. 74 , 255–263. doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2011.11.005 5. Scopelliti M., Carrus G. and Bonaiuto. M. (2019) Is it Really Nature That Restores People? A

Comparison With Historical Sites With High Restorative Potential. Front. Psychol. 9: 2742. 6. Kellert, S. R., and Wilson, E. O. (1993). The Biophilia Hypothesis . Olympia, WA: Island Press. 7. Masullo, M., Ozcevik Bilen, A., Toma, R.A., Akin Guler, G., Maffei, L. (2021). The Restorative-

ness of Outdoor Historical Sites in Urban Areas: Physical and Perceptual Correlations. Sustaina- bility 2021 , 13 , 5603. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105603 . 8. Maffei, L., R. A. Toma, M. Masullo. (2018). Objective and subjective assessment of pockets of

quiet inside historical urban areas. Proceedings of the Internoise 2018 , Chicago, Ill., August.

9. Kaplan, S., Bardwell, L.V., Slakter, D.B. (1993). The Restorative Experience as a Museum Ben-

efit. J. Mus. Educ . 1993, 18, 15–18. 10. Payne, S. R., Mackrill, J., Cain, R., Strelitz, J. & Gate, L. (2015). Developing interior design

briefs for healthcare and wellbeing centres through public participation. Architectural Engineer- ing and Design management . 11(4) , p. 264-279. 11. Watts, G., Khan, A., Pheasant, R. (2016). Influence of soundscape and interior design on anxiety

and perceived tranquility of patients in a healthcare setting. Applied Acoustics , 104 , p. 135-141. 12. Tarlao C., P. Fernandez, I. Frissen, C. Guastavino. (2021). Influence of sound level on diners’

perceptions and behavior in a Montreal restaurant. Applied Acoustics 174 . 107772 13. Ouellette, P., Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. (2005). The Monastery as a restorative environment. Journ.

of Envir. Psychology . 25 , 175-188. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.06.001. 14. Herzog, T. R., P. Ouellette, J. R. Rolens, and A.M. Koenigs. (2010). Houses of Worship as Re-

storative Environments. Environment and Behavior 42(4) : 395-419. 15. Payne, S. R. (2013). The production of a Perceived Restorativeness Soundscape Scale. Applied

Acoustics 74 , 255–263. doi: 10.1016/j.apacoust.2011.11.005. 16. Payne, S. R. & Guastavino, C.. (2018). Exploring the validity of the Perceived Restorativeness

Soundscape Scale: a psycholinguistic approach. Frontiers in Psychology, s. Envir. Psych. 9 , 2224. 17. Steele, D., E. Bild, C. Tarlao and C. Guastavino. (2019) Soundtracking the Public Space: Out-

comes of the Musikiosk Soundscape Intervention. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 16, 1865. 18. Payne, S. R & N. Bruce (2019). Exploring the Relationship between Urban Quiet Areas and Per-

ceived Restorative Benefits. Internat. Journ. of Environml Research and Public Health . 16, 1611. 19. Uebel, K., Marselle, M., Dean, AJ, Rhodes, JR, Bonn, A. (2021). “Urban green space soundscapes

and their perceived restorativeness”. People and Nature . 3. 756–769. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10215. 20. Krzywicka, P., Byrka, K., Restorative Qualities of and Preference for Natural and Urban Sound-

scapes. (2017). Frontiers in Psychology , 8 : 1705.10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01705. 21. Dubois, D., Cance, C., Coler, M., Paté, A. & Guastavino, C. (eds.). 2021. Sensory Experiences:

Exploring meaning and the senses . Benjamins, Amsterdam, NL. 22. Laplace J. (2017). Expériences d’églises : sémiographies et ethnographies d’une mémoire patri-

moniale. Thèse de doctorat en études urbaines. Université du Québec à Montréal (Canada). 23. Laplace J., & C. Guastavino (2022). Exploring sonic experiences in church spaces: a psycholin-

guistic analysis. The Senses and Society (submitted). 24. Thibaud, J-P. Commented City Walks (2013). Wi: Journal of Mobile Culture . 07(01). pp.1-32.

ffhal-00980752f. 25. Jordan P. (2019). Historic Approaches to Sonic Encounter at the Berlin Wall Memoria, Acoustics

2019, 1 , 517–537; doi:10.3390/acoustics1030029. 26. Bartalucci, C., Borchi, F., Carfacni, M., Governi, L., Zonfrillo, G., Aspuru, I., Garcia, I., Herranz,

K., Weber, M., Wolfert, H. et al. (2015). Guidelines for the Identification, Selection, Analysis, and Managaement of Quiet Urban Areas . Ver 2.0. 2015. LIFE10 ENV/IT/000407. 27. Findelli, A., Von Wyl, N. et J. Sütterlin. (2012). Une méthode de caractérisation des ambiances

lumineuses en architecture d’intérieur. In Thibaud et Siret (eds.). Ambiances in action , Proceed- ings of the 2 nd International Congress on Ambiances, p. 203-208. 28. Ong, B.L. (2012). Ecology and the aesthetics of heat. Ambiances in action . International Con-

gress on Ambiances, Sep 2012, Montreal, Canada. pp.129-134. ffhalshs-00745023f.

Appendix A: Questionnaire contents

Section 4 To what extent do you agree with the fol-

Section 1 What are your impressions of this

Source

Source

place? (bipolar scale)

lowing statements?

When I am in this place…

Overall

Unique / Ordinary [22]

Effects of

I feel good [18,22]

impressions

Sacred / Profane [22]

being in the

I forget the outside world [22]

Sad / Joyful [22]

church

I would stay for hours [22]

Warm / Cold [22]

I feel small [22]

Unpleasant / Pleasant [25]

I dare not do whatever I feel like doing [22]

Well maintained / Poorly maintained [7, 18,

I feel free [22]

22,26]

I feel sad [22]

Silent / Noisy [7,18,22]

I feel powerful [22]

Significant / Not significant [7,26,22] Section 2 To what extent do the following adjectives apply

I lose track of time [22] Section 5 To what extent do you agree with the following

to this place? (Likert scale)

statements?

Ambiance

Welcoming [27]

Spending time in this place today allowed me to…

qualifiers

Lively [27].

Improve my energy levels [18]

Outcomes of

Austere [22]

Clarify my thoughts [18]

the visit in the

Ordered [27].

church

Reduce my stress levels [18]

Grand [27]

Ponder over my daily experiences [13,19]

Protective [27].

Think about my relationships with oth-

[13,18]

Open [27]

ers

(adapted)

Oppressive [22]

Think about important issues [18]

Intimate [22]

Reconnect with myself [18]

Historical [22]

To calm down [18]

Beautiful [13,22]

See things in a new perspective [18]

Peaceful [13,18,

Slow down from my daily pace [19,22] Section 6 In light of your visit to this church, do

22] Section 3 PRSS

To what extent do you agree with the following

you find that this place is conducive to:

statements?

The sound environment of this place…

Activities

Relaxation / rest [22]

Discovery of the history [22]

suitable

Fascination Awakens my curiosity [16]

Appreciation of architecture and works

[22]

Is fascinating to me [16]

of art

Being-Away Gives me a break from my day-to-day

[16]

Reflection [22]

routine

Contemplation [22]

Is a refuge for me from unwanted dis-

[16]

Prayer [22]

tractions

Listening to a concert [22]

Extent-Scope Seems limitless [16]

Listening to a lecture [22]

Has the quality of being a whole

[16]

world to itself

Other cultural and community activi-

[22]

Extent-

The sounds fit together to form a co-

[16]

ties, Specify

Coherence

herent soundscape

Other , Specify: