Two studies tested whether nature (vs. built) photographs could increase participants' judgments of environmental satisfaction and perceived quality of life. In Study 1 (N=122), participants assigned to view local nature photographs were more satisfied with the conditions of their local environment, compared to those who viewed local built photographs. In Study 2 (N=218), we replicated the satisfaction difference, and we explored potential reasons for this relationship. Specifically, we found that ratings of the photos' pleasantness (how interesting/relaxing/attractive the photo was) and the quality of life represented by the photo, but not familiarity, mediated the relationship between photo condition and satisfaction. Across studies, mood and nature connectedness did not differ between conditions. Overall, these findings underscore the importance of natural spaces for perceived local environmental satisfaction. Key Words: Nature—Environmental satisfaction—Mood—Quality of life—Nature connectedness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
2.
DonovanG. H., & PrestemonJ. P. (2012). The effect of trees on crime in Portland, Oregon. Environment and Behavior, 44, 3–30.
3.
EvansG. W., & McCoyJ. M. (1998). When buildings don't work: The role of architecture in human health. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 85–94.
4.
HartigT., KaiserF. G., & BowlerP. A. (2001). Psychological restoration in nature as a positive motivation for ecological behavior. Environment and Behavior, 33, 590–607.
5.
HerzeleA. V., & de VriesS. (2012). Linking green space to health: A comparative study of two neighbourhoods in Ghent, Belgium. Population and Environment, 34, 171–193.
6.
HowellA. J., DopkoR. L., PassmoreH., & BuroK. (2011). Nature connectedness: Associations with well-being and mindfulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 166–171.
7.
KahnP. H.Jr. (2011). Technological nature: Adaptation and the future of human life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
KaplanR. (2001). The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior, 33, 507–542.
9.
KaplanR., & KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
KaplanS., KaplanR., & WendtJ. S. (1972). Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 354–356.
11.
KuoF. E., & SullivanW. C. (2001). Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?. Environment and Behavior, 33, 343–367.
12.
LouvR. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin.
13.
LucasR. E., & LawlessN. M. (2013). Does life seem better on a sunny day? Examining the association between daily weather conditions and life satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 872–884.
14.
MacKerronG., and MouratoS. (2013). Happiness is greater in natural environments. Global Environmental Change, 23, 992–1000.
15.
MayerF. S., & FrantzC. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals' feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 503–515.
16.
MayerF. S., FrantzC. M., Bruehlman-SenecalE., & DolliverK. (2009). Why is nature beneficial?: The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior, 41, 607–643.
17.
MitchellR., & PophamF. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: An observational population study. The Lancet, 372, 1655–1660.
18.
NisbetE. K., & ZelenskiJ. M. (2011). Underestimating nearby nature: Affective forecasting errors obscure the happy path to sustainability. Psychological Science, 22, 1101–1106.
19.
NisbetE. K., ZelenskiJ. M., & MurphyS. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740.
20.
NisbetE. K., ZelenskiJ. M., & MurphyS. A. (2011). Happiness is in our nature: Exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 303–322.
21.
NormanG. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15, 625–632.
22.
PelletierL. G., LegaultL. R., & TusonK. M. (1996). The environmental satisfaction scale: A measure of satisfaction with local environmental conditions and government environmental policies. Environment and Behavior, 28, 5–26.
23.
PreacherK. J., & HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36, 717–731.
RustingC. L. (1998). Personality, mood, and cognitive processing of emotional information: Three conceptual frameworks. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 165–196.
26.
RyanR. M., & FrederickC. (1997). On energy, personality and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65, 529–565.
27.
RyanR. M., WeinsteinN., BernsteinJ., BrownK. W., MistrettaL., & GagnéM. (2010). Vitalizing effects of being outdoors and in nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 159–168.
28.
SchimmackU., DienerE., & OishiS. (2002). Life-satisfaction is a momentary judgment and a stable personality characteristic: The use of chronically accessible and stable sources. Journal of Personality, 70, 345–384.
29.
SchimmackU., & OishiS. (2005). The influence of chronically and temporarily accessible information on life satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 395–406.
30.
SchultzP. W. (2002). Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In SchmuckP. & SchultzW. P. (Eds.), Psychology of sustainable development (pp. 62–78). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
31.
SchwarzN., & CloreG. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Information and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513–523.
32.
SchwarzN., & StrackF. (1999). Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In KahnemanD., DienerE., and SchwarzN. (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 61–84). New York: Russell Sage Foundation
33.
SchwarzN., StrackF., & MaiH. P. (1991). Assimilation and contrast effects in part-whole question sequences: A conversational logic analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 3–23.
34.
TabachnickB. G., & FidellL. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
35.
TamK. P. (2013). Concepts and measures related to connection to nature: Similarities and differences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 64–78.
36.
UlrichR. S. (1981). Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior, 523–556.
37.
UlrichR. S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224, 420–421.
van den BergA. E., MaasJ., VerheijR. A., & GroenewegenP. P. (2010). Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1203–1210.
40.
WatsonD., ClarkL. A., & TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
41.
WeinsteinN., PrzybylskiA. K., & RyanR. M. (2009). Can nature make us more caring? Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1315–1329.
42.
WhiteM. P., AlcockI., WheelerB. W., & DepledgeM. H. (2013). Would you be happier living in a greener urban area? A fixed-effects analysis of panel data. Psychological Science, 24, 920–928.
43.
WilsonE. O. (1984). Biophilia: The human bond with other species. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
WilsonE. O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In KellertS. & WilsonE. O. (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 31–41). Washington, DC: Island Press.
45.
ZelenskiJ. M., & NisbetE. K. (2014). Happiness and feeling connected: The distinct role of nature relatedness. Environment and Behaviour, 46, 3–23.
