Evidence links greenspace exposure with restorative benefits to cognition and well-being, yet nature contact is declining for younger demographics. Although natural settings have been shown to restore the capacity to inhibit distracting stimuli, it remains unknown whether smartphone attention capture disrupts nature contact. Here, we analyzed ~2.5 million observations of logged smartphone use, texting, calling, and environmental exposures for 701 young adults over 2 years. Participants’ weekly smartphone screen-time was over double their green-time. The relationship between greenspace exposure and smartphone activity differed by exposure dose, type, and mobility state. Calling and texting increased during short recreational greenspace visits while all smartphone use declined over the first 3 hr in nature areas, suggesting that nature exposure may support digital impulse inhibition. Those with elevated baseline screen-time or green-time significantly reduced device use in nature, indicating that parts of the biosphere may provide a reprieve from the cybersphere for highly connected youth.
AertsR.HonnayO.Van NieuwenhuyseA. (2018). Biodiversity and human health: Mechanisms and evidence of the positive health effects of diversity in nature and green spaces. British Medical Bulletin, 127(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldy021
2.
AlessandrettiL.SapiezynskiP.SekaraV.LehmannS.BaronchelliA. (2018). Evidence for a conserved quantity in human mobility. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(7), 485–491. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0364-x
3.
AllcottH.BraghieriL.EichmeyerS.GentzkowM. (2020). The welfare effects of social media. American Economic Review, 110(3), 629–676. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190658
4.
AlthoffT.WhiteR. W.HorvitzE. (2016). Influence of Pokémon Go on physical activity: Study and implications. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(12), e315. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6759
5.
AndersonS. E.EconomosC. D.MustA. (2008). Active play and screen time in US children aged 4 to 11 years in relation to sociodemographic and weight status characteristics: A nationally representative cross-sectional analysis. BMC Public Health, 8(1), 366. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-366
6.
AspinallP.MavrosP.CoyneR.RoeJ. (2015). The urban brain: Analysing outdoor physical activity with mobile EEG. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(4), 272–276. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2012-091877
7.
BakolisI.HammoudR.SmytheM.GibbonsJ.DavidsonN.TogninS.MechelliA. (2018). Urban mind: Using smartphone technologies to investigate the impact of Nature on mental well-being in real time. Bioscience, 68(2), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix149
8.
BartonJ.PrettyJ. (2010). What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(10), 3947–3955. https://doi.org/10.1021/es903183r
9.
BassettD. R.JohnD.CongerS. A.FitzhughE. C.CoeD. P. (2015). Trends in physical activity and sedentary behaviors of United States Youth. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 12(8), 1102–1111. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2014-0050
10.
BasuA.DuvallJ.KaplanR. (2019). Attention restoration theory: Exploring the role of soft fascination and mental bandwidth. Environment and Behavior, 51(9-10), 1055–1081. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518774400
BermanM. G.KrossE.KrpanK. M.AskrenM. K.BursonA.DeldinP. J.KaplanS.SherdellL.GotlibI. H.JonidesJ. (2012). Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140(3), 300–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.012
13.
BertoR. (2014). The role of nature in coping with psycho-physiological stress: A literature review on restorativeness. Behavioral Sciences, 4(4), 394–409. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs4040394
14.
Bjerre-NielsenA.AndersenA.MinorK.LassenD. D. (2020). The negative effect of smartphone use on academic performance may Be overestimated: Evidence from a 2-year panel study. Psychological Science, 31(11), 1351–1362. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620956613
15.
Bjerre-NielsenA.KassarnigV.LassenD. D.LehmannS. (2021). Task-specific information outperforms surveillance-style big data in predictive analytics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(14), e2020258118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2020258118
16.
Bjerre-NielsenA.MinorK.SapieżyńskiP.LehmannS.LassenD. D. (2020). Inferring transportation mode from smartphone sensors: Evaluating the potential of Wi-Fi and bluetooth. PLoS One, 15(7), e0234003. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234003
17.
BowlerD. E.Buyung-AliL. M.KnightT. M.PullinA. S. (2010). A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 456. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-456
18.
BraghieriL.LevyR.MakarinA. (2022). Social media and mental health. American Economic Review, 112(11), 3660–3693.
19.
BratmanG. N.AndersonC. B.BermanM. G.CochranB.de VriesS.FlandersJ.FolkeC.FrumkinH.GrossJ. J.HartigT.KahnPhJrKuoMLawlerJ. JLevinP. SLindahlTMeyer-LindenbergAMitchellROuyangZRoeJ, . . . DailyGC. (2019). Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Science Advances, 5(7), eaax0903. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax0903
20.
BratmanG. N.DailyG. C.LevyB. J.GrossJ. J. (2015). The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.005
21.
BratmanG. N.HamiltonJ. P.DailyG. C. (2012). The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249, 118–136.
22.
BratmanG. N.HamiltonJ. P.HahnK. S.DailyG. C.GrossJ. J. (2015). Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(28), 8567–8572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510459112
23.
BrowningM. H. E. M.MimnaughK. J.van RiperC. J.LaurentH. K.LaValleS. M. (2020). Can simulated nature support mental health? Comparing short, single-doses of 360-degree nature videos in virtual reality with the outdoors. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2667. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02667
24.
CelikorsE.WellsN. M.FieldD. J. (2020). On the statistics of soothing natural scenes. Journal of Vision, 20(11), 821. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.20.11.821
25.
CharmaramanL.RicherA. M.Ben-JosephE. P.KlermanE. B. (2021). Quantity, content, and context matter: Associations among social technology use and sleep habits in early adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 69, 162–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.09.035
26.
ChawlaL.KeenaK.PevecI.StanleyE. (2014). Green schoolyards as havens from stress and resources for resilience in childhood and adolescence. Health & Place, 28, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.03.001
27.
CheeverN. A.RosenL. D.CarrierL. M.ChavezA. (2014). Out of sight is not out of mind: The impact of restricting wireless mobile device use on anxiety levels among low, moderate and high users. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 290–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.002
28.
ClearyA.FieldingK. S.BellS. L.MurrayZ.RoikoA. (2017). Exploring potential mechanisms involved in the relationship between eudaimonic wellbeing and nature connection. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.10.003
29.
CohenS.EvansG. W.StokolsD.KrantzD. S. (2013). Behavior, health, and environmental stress. Springer Science & Business Media.
30.
CoxD. T.ShanahanD. F.HudsonH. L.FullerR. A.AndersonK.HancockS.GastonK. J. (2017a). Doses of nearby nature simultaneously associated with multiple health benefits. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(2), 172. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14020172
31.
CoxD. T. C.ShanahanD. F.HudsonH. L.PlummerK. E.SiriwardenaG. M.FullerR. A.AndersonK.HancockS.GastonK. J. (2017). Doses of neighborhood nature: The benefits for mental health of living with nature. Bioscience, 67(2), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw173
32.
CrawfordM. R.HolderM. D.O’ConnorB. P. (2017). Using mobile technology to engage children with nature. Environment and Behavior, 49(9), 959–984. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916516673870
33.
CroftonK. (2020). Less screen, more green (B&W edition): The mindful tech plan is Digital detox made fun using the powers of nature, mindfulness and being truly connected. Independently Published.
34.
CuttoneA.LehmannS.LarsenJ. E. (2014). Inferring human mobility from sparse low accuracy mobile sensing data [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct Publication, 995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1145/2638728.2641283
35.
de VriesS.ClaßenT.Eigenheer-HugS.-M.KorpelaK.MaasJ.MitchellR.SchantzP. (2011). Contributions of natural environments to physical activity. In NilssonK.SangsterM.GallisC.HartigT.de VriesS.SeelandK.SchipperijnJ. (Eds.), Forests, trees and human health (pp. 205–243). Springer Netherlands.
36.
de VriesS.van DillenS. M. E.GroenewegenP. P.SpreeuwenbergP. (2013). Streetscape greenery and health: Stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Social Science & Medicine, 94, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.030
37.
de VriesS.VerheijR. A.GroenewegenP. P.SpreeuwenbergP. (2003). Natural Environments—healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relationship between Greenspace and Health. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 35(10), 1717–1731. https://doi.org/10.1068/a35111
38.
DwyerR. J.KushlevK.DunnE. W. (2018). Smartphone use undermines enjoyment of face-to-face social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.10.007
39.
DzhambovA.HartigT.MarkevychI.TilovB.DimitrovaD. (2018). Urban residential greenspace and mental health in youth: Different approaches to testing multiple pathways yield different conclusions. Environmental Research, 160, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.09.015
40.
EdwardsR. C.LarsonB. M. H. (2020). When screens replace backyards: Strategies to connect digital-media-oriented young people to nature. Environmental Education Research, 26(7), 950–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2020.1776844
41.
EllisD. A. (2019). Are smartphones really that bad? Improving the psychological measurement of technology-related behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.006
42.
EngemannK.PedersenC. B.ArgeL.TsirogiannisC.MortensenP. B.SvenningJ.-C. (2019). Residential green space in childhood is associated with lower risk of psychiatric disorders from adolescence into adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(11), 5188–5193. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1807504116
43.
EvansG. W.OttoS.KaiserF. G. (2018). Childhood origins of young adult environmental behavior. Psychological Science, 29(5), 679–687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741894
44.
FongK. C.HartJ. E.JamesP. (2018). A review of Epidemiologic Studies on Greenness and Health: Updated literature through 2017. Current Environmental Health Reports, 5(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-018-0179-y
45.
FrumkinH.BratmanG. N.BreslowS. J.CochranB.KahnP. H.JrLawlerJ. J.LevinP. S.TandonP. S.VaranasiU.WolfK. L.WoodS. A. (2017). Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(7), 075001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1663
46.
FullerR. A.IrvineK. N.Devine-WrightP.WarrenP. H.GastonK. J. (2007). Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biology Letters, 3, 390–394. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0149
GreenwoodA.GaterslebenB. (2016). Let’s go outside! Environmental restoration amongst adolescents and the impact of friends and phones. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.09.007
49.
GroenewegenP. P.van Den BergA. E.MaasJ.VerheijR. A.de VriesS. (2012). Is a green residential environment better for health? If so, why?Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(5), 996–1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2012.674899
50.
HartigT. (2021). Restoration in nature: Beyond the conventional narrative. In A. R. Schutte, J. R. Stevens, & J. C. Torquati (Eds.), Nature and psychology (pp. 89–151). Springer.
51.
HodesL. N.ThomasK. G. F. (2021). Smartphone screen time: Inaccuracy of self-reports and influence of psychological and contextual factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106616
52.
HofferthS. L. (2009). Changes in American children’s time - 1997 to 2003. Electronic International Journal of Time Use Research, 6(1), 26–47.
53.
HunterM. R.GillespieB. W.ChenS. Y. (2019). Urban nature experiences reduce stress in the context of daily life based on salivary biomarkers. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 722. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00722
54.
JamesP.BanayR. F.HartJ. E.LadenF. (2015). A review of the health benefits of Greenness. Current Epidemiology Reports, 2(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-015-0043-7
55.
JiangB.SchmillenR.SullivanW. C. (2019). How to waste a break: Using portable electronic devices substantially counteracts attention enhancement effects of green spaces. Environment and Behavior, 51(9-10), 1133–1160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518788603
56.
JohanssonM.HartigT.StaatsH. (2011). Psychological benefits of walking: Moderation by company and outdoor environment. Applied Psychology. Health and Well-Being, 3(3), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2011.01051.x
57.
Jones-JangS. M.HeoY.-J.McKeeverR.KimJ.-H.MoscowitzL.MoscowitzD. (2020). Good news! communication findings may be underestimated: Comparing effect sizes with self-reported and logged smartphone use data. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25, 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmaa009
58.
KahnP. H. (2011). Technological nature: Adaptation and the future of human life. MIT Press.
59.
KaplanR.KaplanS. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. CUP Archive.
60.
KaplanS. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2
61.
KassarnigV.Bjerre-NielsenA.MonesE.LehmannS.LassenD. D. (2017). Class attendance, peer similarity, and academic performance in a large field study. PLoS One, 12(11), e0187078. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187078
62.
KeelerB. L.HamelP.McPhearsonT.HamannM. H.DonahueM. L.Meza PradoK. A.ArkemaK. K.BratmanG. N.BraumanK. A.FinlayJ. C.GuerryA. D.HobbieS. E.JohnsonJ. A.MacDonaldG. K.McDonaldR. I.NeveriskyN.WoodS. A. (2019). Social-ecological and technological factors moderate the value of urban nature. Nature Sustainability, 2(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0202-1
63.
KellertS. R.WilsonE. O. (1993). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press.
64.
KojakuS.Hébert-DufresneL.MonesE.LehmannS.AhnY.-Y. (2021). The effectiveness of backward contact tracing in networks. Nature Physics, 17(5), 652–658. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-021-01187-2
65.
KuoF. E.SullivanW. C.ColeyR. L.BrunsonL. (1998). Fertile ground for community: Inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 823–851. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022294028903
66.
KuoM. (2015). How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093
67.
KushlevK.DwyerR.DunnE. W. (2019). The social price of constant connectivity: smartphones impose subtle costs on well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), 347–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419847200
68.
KushlevK.HunterJ. F.ProulxJ.PressmanS. D.DunnE. (2019). Smartphones reduce smiles between strangers. Computers in Human Behavior, 91, 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.09.023
69.
LarsonL. R.SzczytkoR.BowersE. P.StephensL. E.StevensonK. T.FloydM. F. (2019). Outdoor time, screen time, and connection to nature: Troubling trends among rural youth?Environment and Behavior, 51(8), 966–991. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518806686
70.
LeBlancA. G.ChaputJ.-P. (2017). Pokémon Go: A game changer for the physical inactivity crisis?Preventive Medicine, 101, 235–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.11.012
71.
LiD.DealB.ZhouX.SlavenasM.SullivanW. C. (2018). Moving beyond the neighborhood: Daily exposure to nature and adolescents’ mood. Landscape and Urban Planning, 173, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.01.009
LingR. (2017). A brief history of individual addressability: The role of mobile communication in being permanently connected. In VordererP.HefnerD.ReineckeL.KlimmtC. (Eds.), Permanently Online, Permanently Connected (pp. 10–17). Routledge.
74.
LissakG. (2018). Adverse physiological and psychological effects of screen time on children and adolescents: Literature review and case study. Environmental Research, 164, 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.015
MaasJ.van DillenS. M. E.VerheijR. A.GroenewegenP. P. (2009). Social contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and health. Health & Place, 15(2), 586–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.09.006
McEwanK.RichardsonM.BrindleyP.SheffieldD.TaitC.JohnsonS.SutchH.FergusonF. J. (2020). Shmapped: Development of an app to record and promote the well-being benefits of noticing urban nature. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 10(3), 723–733. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibz027
80.
McNeishD.KelleyK. (2019). Fixed effects models versus mixed effects models for clustered data: Reviewing the approaches, disentangling the differences, and making recommendations. Psychological Methods, 24(1), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000182
81.
MilgramS. (1970). The experience of living in cities: A psychological analysis. In Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association., Sep, 1969, Washington, DC, US; This paper is based on an Invited Address presented to the Division of General Psychology at the aforementioned meeting. American Psychological Association.
82.
MisraS.ChengL.GenevieJ.YuanM. (2016). The iphone effect: The quality of in-person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices. Environment and Behavior, 48(2), 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916514539755
MisraS.StokolsD. (2012b). Psychological and health outcomes of perceived information overload. Environment and Behavior, 44(6), 737–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511404408
85.
MitchellR.PophamF. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: An observational population study. Lancet, 372(9650), 1655–1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61689-x
86.
MüllerS. R.BayerJ. B.RossM. Q.MountJ.StachlC.HarariG. M.ChangY. J.LeH. T. K. (2022). Analyzing GPS data for psychological research: A Tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 5(2), 25152459221082680.
87.
MyersS.FrumkinH. (2020). Planetary health: Protecting nature to protect ourselves. Island Press.
88.
NardoneA.RudolphK. E.Morello-FroschR.CaseyJ. A. (2021). Redlines and greenspace: The relationship between historical redlining and 2010 greenspace across the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives, 129(1), 17006.
89.
NieuwenhuijsenM. J.KhreisH.Triguero-MasM.GasconM.DadvandP. (2017). Fifty Shades of Green: Pathway to Healthy Urban Living. Epidemiology, 28(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000549
90.
OhlyH.WhiteM. P.WheelerB. W.BethelA.UkoumunneO. C.NikolaouV.GarsideR. (2016). Attention Restoration Theory: A systematic review of the attention restoration potential of exposure to natural environments. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B, 19(7), 305–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2016.1196155
91.
OleksyT.WnukA. (2017). Catch them all and increase your place attachment! The role of location-based augmented reality games in changing people - place relations. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.008
92.
OrbenA. (2020). Teenagers, screens and social media: A narrative review of reviews and key studies. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 55(4), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01825-4
93.
OrbenA.DienlinT.PrzybylskiA. K. (2019). Social media’s enduring effect on adolescent life satisfaction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(21), 10226–10228. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1902058116
94.
ParkB. J.TsunetsuguY.KasetaniT.KagawaT.MiyazakiY. (2010). The physiological effects of shinrin-yoku (taking in the forest atmosphere or forest bathing): Evidence from field experiments in 24 forests across Japan. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 15(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12199-009-0086-9
95.
ParryD. A.DavidsonB. I.SewallC. J. R.FisherJ. T.MieczkowskiH.QuintanaD. S. (2021). A systematic review and meta-analysis of discrepancies between logged and self-reported digital media use. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 1535–1547. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01117-5
96.
PergamsO. R. WZaradicP. A. (2006). Is love of nature in the US becoming love of electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies, playing video games, internet use, and oil prices. Journal of Environmental Management, 80(4), 387–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.02.001
97.
PergamsO. R. W.ZaradicP. A. (2008). Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(7), 2295–2300. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0709893105
98.
PykyR.NeuvonenM.KangasK.OjalaA.LankiT.BorodulinK.TyrväinenL. (2019). Individual and environmental factors associated with green exercise in urban and suburban areas. Health & Place, 55, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.11.001
99.
RadtkeT.ApelT.SchenkelK.KellerJ.von LindernE. (2022). Digital detox: An effective solution in the smartphone era? A systematic literature review. Mobile Media & Communication, 10, 190–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/20501579211028647
100.
RafaeliA.AshtarS.AltmanD. (2019). Digital traces: New data, resources, and tools for psychological-science research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(6), 560–566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419861410
101.
ReidC.CloughertyJ.ShmoolJ.KubzanskyL. (2017). Is all urban green space the same? A comparison of the health benefits of trees and grass in New York City. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(11), 1411. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111411
102.
RoeJ. J.ThompsonC. W.AspinallP. A.BrewerM. J.DuffE. I.MillerD.MitchellR.ClowA. (2013). Green space and stress: Evidence from cortisol measures in deprived urban communities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(9), 4086–4103. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph10094086
103.
San JuanC.Subiza-PérezM.VozmedianoL. (2017). Restoration and the city: The role of public urban squares. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2093. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02093
104.
SapiezynskiP.StopczynskiA.LassenD. D.LehmannS. (2019). Interaction data from the Copenhagen Networks Study. Scientific Data, 6(1), 315. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0325-x
105.
SchilhabT. S. S.StevensonM. P.BentsenP. (2018). Contrasting screen-time and green-time: A case for using smart technology and nature to optimize learning processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 773. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00773
106.
SchipperijnJ.EkholmO.StigsdotterU. K.ToftagerM.BentsenP.Kamper-JørgensenF.RandrupT. B. (2010). Factors influencing the use of green space: Results from a Danish national representative survey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 95(3), 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.12.010
107.
SchneiderJ.SchaalS. (2018). Location-based smartphone games in the context of environmental education and education for sustainable development: Fostering connectedness to nature with Geogames. Environmental Education Research, 24(11), 1597–1610. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1383360
108.
SchwartzA. J.DoddsP. S.O’Neil-DunneJ. P. M.RickettsT. H.DanforthC. M. (2020). Gauging the happiness benefit of US urban parks through Twitter. ArXiv:2006.10658 [Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.10658
109.
SchwartzA. J.DoddsP. S.O’Neil-DunneJ. P. M.DanforthC. M.RickettsT. H. (2019). Visitors to urban greenspace have higher sentiment and lower negativity on Twitter. People and Nature, 1(4), 476–485. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10045
110.
SchwarzK.FragkiasM.BooneC. G.ZhouW.McHaleM.GroveJ. M.O’Neil-DunneJ.McFaddenJ. P.BuckleyG. L.ChildersD.OgdenL.PincetlS.PatakiD.WhitmerA.CadenassoM. L. (2015). Trees Grow on Money: Urban tree canopy cover and environmental justice. PLoS One, 10(4), e0122051. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122051
111.
SekaraV.StopczynskiA.LehmannS. (2016). Fundamental structures of dynamic social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(36), 9977–9982. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1602803113
112.
ShanahanD. F.BushR.GastonK. J.LinB. B.DeanJ.BarberE.FullerR. A. (2016). Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 28551. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28551
113.
ShawH.EllisD. A.GeyerK.DavidsonB. I.ZieglerF. V.SmithA. (2020a). Quantifying smartphone “Use”: Choice of Measurement Impacts Relationships Between “Usage” and Health. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 1(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000022
114.
ShawH.EllisD.GeyerK.DavidsonB. I.ZieglerF.SmithA. (2020b). Quantifying smartphone ‘use’: Choice of measurement impacts relationships between ‘usage’ and health. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mpxra
115.
SogaM.GastonK. J. (2023). Global synthesis reveals heterogeneous changes in connection of humans to nature. One Earth, 6(2), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.01.007
116.
SogaM.GastonK. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: The loss of human-nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(2), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225
117.
SouthE. C.HohlB. C.KondoM. C.MacDonaldJ. M.BranasC. C. (2018). Effect of greening vacant land on Mental Health of community-dwelling adults: A cluster randomized trial. JAMA network open, 1(3), e180298. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0298
118.
StaatsH.HartigT. (2004). Alone or with a friend: A social context for psychological restoration and environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2003.12.005
119.
StevensonM. P.SchilhabT.BentsenP. (2018). Attention restoration theory II: A systematic review to clarify attention processes affected by exposure to natural environments. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B, 21(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10937404.2018.1505571
120.
StokolsD. (2018). 4—Rise of the Internet—navigating our online and place-based ecologies. In StokolsD. (Ed.), Social ecology in the digital age (pp. 89–136). Academic Press.
121.
StopczynskiA.SekaraV.SapiezynskiP.CuttoneA.MadsenM. M.LarsenJ. E.LehmannS. (2014). Measuring large-scale social networks with high resolution. PLoS One, 9(4), e95978. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095978
122.
TaylorA. F.KuoF. E.SullivanW. C. (2002). Views of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(1-2), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0241
123.
ThorntonB.FairesA.RobbinsM.RollinsE. (2014). The mere presence of a cell phone may be distracting: Implications for attention and task performance. Social Psychology, 45(6), 479–488. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000216
124.
TurkleS. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.
125.
TwengeJ. M. (2019). More Time on technology, less happiness? Associations between digital-media use and psychological well-being. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), 372–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419838244
126.
TwengeJ. M.CampbellW. K. (2018). Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents: Evidence from a population-based study. Preventive Medicine Reports, 12, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2018.10.003
127.
UlrichR. (1983). Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. Human Behavior & Environment: Advances in Theory & Research, 6, 85–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_4
128.
UlrichR. S.SimonsR. F.LositoB. D.FioritoE.MilesM. A.ZelsonM. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80184-7
van Den BergA. E.JoyeY.de VriesS. (2018). Health benefits of nature. In StegL.de GrootJ. I. (Eds.), Environmental psychology: An introduction (pp. 55–64). Wiley.
131.
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(8), 1203–1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.002
132.
van Den BergM.Wendel-VosW.van PoppelM.KemperH.van MechelenW.MaasJ. (2015). Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: A systematic review of epidemiological studies. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(4), 806–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.008
133.
WardA. F.DukeK.GneezyA.BosM. W. (2017). Brain Drain: The Mere presence of one’s own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1086/691462
134.
Ward ThompsonC.RoeJ.AspinallP.MitchellR.ClowA.MillerD. (2012). More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(3), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.015
135.
WellsN.LekiesK. (2006). Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhood nature experiences to adult environmentalism1. Children Youth and Environments, 16(1), 1–24.
136.
WellsN. M. (2000). At home with nature: Effects of “Greenness” on children’s cognitive functioning. Environment and Behavior, 32(6), 775–795. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972793
137.
WellsN. M.EvansG. W. (2003). Nearby nature: A buffer of life stress among rural children. Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503035003001
138.
WhiteM. P.AlcockI.GrellierJ.WheelerB. W.HartigT.WarberS. L.BoneA.DepledgeM. H.FlemingL. E. (2019). Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 7730. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44097-3
139.
WhitlockJ.MasurP. K. (2019). Disentangling the association of screen time with developmental outcomes and well-being: Problems, challenges, and opportunities. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(11), 1021–1022. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3191
140.
WilkieS.ThompsonE.CrannerP.GintyK. (2020). Attention restoration theory as a framework for analysis of tweets about urban green space: A case study. Landscape Research, 45(6), 777–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2020.1738363
141.
WilmerH. H.ShermanL. E.CheinJ. M. (2017). Smartphones and cognition: A review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cognitive functioning. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 605. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00605
142.
WilsonE. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.
143.
WinkelG.SaegertS.EvansG. W. (2009). An ecological perspective on theory, methods, and analysis in environmental psychology: Advances and challenges. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.02.005
144.
WooldridgeJ. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). The MIT Press.
145.
WylesK. J.WhiteM. P.HattamC.PahlS.KingH.AustenM. (2019). Are some natural environments more psychologically beneficial than others? The importance of type and quality on connectedness to nature and psychological restoration. Environment and Behavior, 51(2), 111–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517738312
146.
ZaradicP. A.PergamsO. R. W. (2007). Videophilia: Implications for Childhood Development and Conservation. 20.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
