A brief introduction to environmental psychology
Peter M Forster
Charles Darwin University
Figure 1: Forest of Dean
Abstract
Environmental psychology is a relatively
new branch of psychology that studies the
interactions between humans and their
environments from a psychological
perspective. This brief overview of some
main themes and theories is intended to
introduce newcomers to this exciting and
important field. Ideas introduced here
include the effects of environments on
perception, on health and well-being and on
crime and aggression.
Environmental psychology is the study of the
interconnections between people and
environments, including natural landscapes and
built environments. It is a diverse and
multidisciplinary area of study that includes
topics such as wayfinding, restorative
environments and the management of shared
spaces. With more recent attention being paid to
global changes, the promotion of conservation
behaviour and the need for a ‘conservation
psychology’ is being promoted (Clayton &
Myers, in press). The aim of this brief
introduction to environmental psychology is to
provide an overview of some of the main topics
-1-
and theories in the field, and to highlight one or
two trends.
Perceiving and navigating through
environments
One of the longest-studied areas of
environmental psychology is that of how we
perceive and navigate through environments.
Most psychologists who have studied visual
perception have studied object perception.
Environmental perception is different from
object perception:
• Environments are larger and more
complex
• We experience environments from within
• Environments require navigation skills
Seeing environments
We locate ourselves in environments by an
active process of constructing internal
representations or cognitive maps. These
structures bring together past experience with
current perceptions. They include
representations of cognitions, affects and
behaviour. They enable us to plan our
movements as well as navigate through the
present environment.
This combination of past and present means that
we never see the world as it is. We see the
world we expect, the world coloured by our
feelings, the world coloured by our memories of
the present scene and those it reminds us of.
Even in new places we see the past not the
present.
Siegel and White (1975) propose that we begin
the process of constructing cognitive maps by
identifying and remembering landmarks. We
then put landmarks together into routes, which
include landmarks and other decision points, for
the purpose of wayfinding. Finally they propose
that routes are combined into networks to
provide a more holistic representation of an
environment.
Others, such as Kuipers (1982) for example, say
that we represent space more like an atlas than a
map; that we have representations at different
levels of detail. One level might be a relatively
detailed representation of the area around one’s
own house; another might be a less detailed
representation of the forest in which one’s
house is located; while yet another might be a
course representation of the region of which the
forest is a part.
We prefer some places to others. We prefer and
approach places where we expect to experience
positive feelings and avoid those where we
expect negative feelings (Veitch & Arkkelin,
1995, p97). A place that one person perceives
as beautiful and restorative may be seen by
another as sinister and dangerous because of
past experience.
Salience produces distortions in our
environmental representations. Ladd (1970)
carried out a classic study of black children who
lived in a district of Boston, USA. Ladd asked
the children to draw maps of the area and then
interviewed them about their drawings.
Distortions included children drawing the areas
where white people lived as larger and more
central than their own area. Some also drew the
street that marked the boundary between the
black area and the white area as larger than
other streets.
-2-
Perspectives on what we see
Evolutionary perspective
According to Appleton (1975, p73), our
environmental preferences are derived from our
evolutionary origins. His Prospect-Refuge
theory proposes that our modern preferences are
based on the needs of our hunter-gatherer
ancestors to see prey and predators from a long
way off, combined with the need to hide nearby
very quickly. His theory predicts that we will
tend to prefer environments like the savannah in
which humans are said to have lived for much
of our evolutionary history.
Needs perspective
Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) developed these
ideas further and proposed that our
environmental preferences evolved from the
most salient environments for seeking food and
fulfilling other fundamental needs. In other
words, humans have positive aesthetic reactions
to environments in which we have functioned
more effectively over the greater part of our
evolutionary history.
A study consistent with these ideas was carried
out by Orians & Heerwagen (1992). They
invited participants from three countries to rate
their preferences for different types of trees. The
most popular were those resembling savannah
trees, while the least popular were those that
departed most from that type of tree in terms of
height and density of foliage.
From their study of people’s preferences for
photographs of different scenes, the Kaplans
identified four components of environmental
preferences:
• Coherence: the level of organisation of a
scene
• Legibility: the ease of processing the
elements of a scene
• Complexity: the diversity of the elements in
the scene
• Mystery: the potential of a scene to provide
new information
Urban and natural environments
Although the natural environment presents city
dwellers with a number of challenges from
minor problems with the weather and pests, to
major problems with earthquakes and floods,
for example, studies that compare people’s
preference for images of urban versus rural
environments usually find a preference for rural
(see Kaplan, Kaplan & Wendt, 1972; and Evans
& Wood, 1980, for example). Viewing a video
of a natural environment also induces more
relaxation, as measured by heart rate, compared
to viewing an urban environment (Laumann,
Gärling and Stormark, 2003).
Kaplan, Ivancich and De Young (2007), in
describing the many roles played by natural
elements within urban settings, emphasise the
importance of nature within urban
environments. As the authors put it, “Urban
nature is not just an amenity; it is essential.”
Health and wellbeing
The origins of environmental psychology, and
its connections to health and wellbeing can be
traced to the work of Proshansky and his
colleagues who, in studying which hospital
designs would provide health benefits to
patients, can be said to have founded a new
discipline (Proshansky, Ittelson, & Rivlin,
1970).
Natural environments and health
In his classic and oft-cited study, Ulrich (1984)
examined hospital patients after they had major
surgery. The patients were in two groups, one of
which had a view of trees, plants and grass
while the other had a view of a brick wall. It
was found that the patients with a natural view
spent less time in hospital, required fewer pain-
relieving drugs, had fewer complications and
received fewer negative comments in nurse's
notes compared to patients with the brick view.
A potential criticism of the study was that the
differences may have been due to differences
other than the naturalness of the scene, such as
visual complexity. However, subsequent
research suggested that the naturalness of the
view was a significant factor (see Ulrich and
Lunden, 1990, for example).
On a smaller scale, it has also been shown that
the presence of indoor plants in a hospital room
can have positive effects on health, including
recovery from surgery (Park, 2006). This
suggests that hospitals, hospices and clinics
without access to a natural environment can
benefit patients’ health by making indoor plants
available.
Natural environments and wellbeing
Two studies of gardeners found benefits of
active engagement with garden environments.
Kaplan (1973) studied largely middle-class
members of the American Horticulture Society
while Lewis (1996) studied working-class urban
gardeners in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago
and Vancouver, Canada. Both reported
peacefulness, tranquillity and wellbeing as
-3-
benefits of participating in gardening. The latter
study also reported benefits of increased
sociability, reduced vandalism and
neighbourhood revitilisation. At an individual
level, this study also reported increased self-
esteem. Medical checks on the participants
found lowered blood-pressure, reduced need for
medication, and feeling more relaxed and
needed. Both active gardening and the passive
contemplation of plants appear to have
therapeutic effects.
According to Mitchell and Popham (2008),
parks, playing fields and forests provide both a
stress-reducing restorative effect and also allow
more physical activity, both of which improve
health by lowering the risk of heart disease. The
authors observed that having access to such
environments substantially narrowed the health
gap between rich and poor in terms of death
rates.
According to Ulrich and Addoms (1981), even
people who do not visit parks feel better for
knowing that they are there; an argument in
favour of creating parks and reserves in remote
areas with restricted or perhaps only webcam
access.
A study in Sweden of elderly (average age 86!)
residents in a care home, showed that they
obtained higher scores on tests of concentration
when they had a rest period in a natural setting
compared to an indoor setting (Ottosson &
Grahn, 2005).
Natural environments and mental health
Several studies have shown that children
diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD) experience an improvement
in their symptoms following outdoor green play,
compared to outdoor urban play or indoor play
(Faber, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2001; Kuo, & Faber,
2004).
Natural environments have also been shown to
reduce the impact of stressful events on
children, particularly those who had
experienced a greater number of stressful events
(Wells & Evans, 2003).
A longitudinal study of older people living in
France demonstrated a link between gardening
and a reduced risk of developing dementia
(Fabrigoule, Letenneur, Commenges &
Barberger-Gateau, 1995).
 Theories on the restorative effects of
environments
Biophilia – Wilson (1984) defined biophilia as
“the innately emotional affiliation of human
beings to other living organisms. Innate means
hereditary and hence part of ultimate human
nature”.
Wilson proposes that humans have evolved to
respond positively to natural environments to
help us survive. The theory proposes that we are
attracted to environments where we feel more
positive emotions and can live more effectively.
The theory accounts for some aspects of
behaviour, but needs extending to account for
the biophobia experienced by some.
Attention Restoration Theory – This model
assumes that there are two types of attention.
One type of attention requires focussed
concentration and is tiring. Indirect attention,
however, is said to attract our attention with
little effort and is therefore restorative. The
model further proposes that natural
environments are more likely to facilitate
indirect attention (Chang, Hammitt, Chen,
Machnik, & Su, 2008; Kaplan, 1995). Directed
attention, such as that required to read this
article, takes effort and is tiring. The result,
according to Kaplan (2001), is distractibility,
planning impairment, impulsive behaviour and
irritability. This model has been evoked to
account for the reduction in crime observed in
areas with more natural features such as trees
and grassy areas.
Psycho-physiological Stress Recovery Theory –
This model is based on the observation that
viewing natural environments leads to a
reduction in heart rate and blood pressure in
people who report feelings of stress (Ulrich,
1983; Velarde, Fry, & Tveit, 2007). This model
proposes that natural settings are restorative
because they had survival-related advantages
for early humans, thus helping us cope with
stress. Research within this model includes the
observation that participants who view even a
video of natural surroundings recover more
rapidly from stress (Ulrich, Simons, Losito,
Fiorito, Miles & Zeison, 1991).
These models are not mutually exclusive.
Crime and aggression
Effects on crime
Within cities, although it is possible that dense
vegetation could provide cover for criminal
-4-
activities, there is evidence that green areas with
trees are more likely to attract local residents of
all ages to use the space and thus deter crime
(Coley, Sullivan, & Kuo, 1997).
In a study of felt safety, one hundred residents
of a single area in Chicago reported that their
sense of safety was influenced by the density of
trees and the maintenance of the grass in an area
adjacent to their homes (Kuo, Bacaicoa, &
Sullivan, 1998).
A further study using police crime reports in a
city neighbourhood found that more vegetation
around a building was associated with fewer
violent crimes and fewer property crimes (Kuo
& Sullivan, 2001a).
It is unclear whether such effects are due to
reduced mental fatigue leading to reduced
impulsiveness or to the perception that an area
is better cared for and protected, and is thus a
less suitable target for crime. What is clear is
that the presence of trees, grass and other
vegetation in an otherwise built environment
has an important role in influencing the social
interactions that take place there (Sullivan, Kuo,
& Depooter, 2004).
Effects on aggression
A further study by Kuo & Sullivan (2001b)
supports the view that natural environments can
contribute to reduced aggression and violence in
inner cities by reducing mental fatigue and thus
irritability. In this study, levels of aggression
and violence by single mothers was reduced in
those who had a view of trees and a green area,
compared to those with a built (labelled
‘barren’) view. The study involved random
allocation of families to a housing project. Bell,
Greene, Fisher & Baum (2005) discuss this
effect in terms of attention restoration theory.
Conclusion
Although a very slim introduction to
environmental psychology, the areas outlined
here are clearly relevant and important to
human health and well-being. Yet, from even
the early days of the field (see Proshansky,
1987, for example) doubts have been cast about
the viability of the area. Stokols (1995) offers a
different perspective and suggests that the field
of environmental psychology is flourishing, but
that it is losing its distinct identity as its
concepts and methods become diffused through
many other branches of psychology and other
disciplines.
For a contemporary account of the field and a
more in-depth review of the trends that have
contributed to the current state of environmental
psychology, see Giuliani and Scopelliti (2009).
For an exciting synthesis of environmental
psychology with another relatively new field,
positive psychology, see Kaplan and Kaplan,
(2008).
It has been an aim of this paper to illustrate the
relevance of environmental psychology to a
number of important and pressing issues.
Indeed, many issues related to human health,
well-being, and both pro-social and anti-social
behaviour, cannot be understood without
including the perspectives and findings of
environmental psychology.
References
Appleton, J. (1975). The Experience of
Landscape. London: John Wiley.
Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., &
Baum, A. S. (2005). Environmental
psychology (Fifth ed.). New York:
Harcourt College.
Chang, C.-Y., Hammitt, W. E., Chen, P.-K.,
Machnik, L., & Su, W.-C. (2008).
Psychophysiological responses and
restorative values of natural
environments in Taiwan. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 85(2), 79-84.
Clayton, S., & Myers, O. E. J. (in press).
Conservation Psychology:
Understanding and promoting human
care for nature. New York: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Coley, R. L., Sullivan, W. C., & Kuo, F. E.
(1997). Where Does Community
Grow? The Social Context Created by
Nature in Urban Public Housing
Environment and Behavior, 29(4), 468-
494.
Evans, G.W., & K.W. Wood. 1980. Assessment
of environmental aesthetics in scenic
highway corridors. Environment &
Behavior, 12, 255-273.
Faber, T.A., Kuo, F. & Sullivan, W. (2001).
Coping with ADD: the surprising
connection to green play setting.
Environment and Behavior. 33, 54-77.
Fabrigoule, C., Letenneur, L., Commenges, D.
& Barberger-Gateau, P.J. (1995) Social
and leisure activities and risk of
dementia: a prospective longitudinal
study. Journal of the American
Geriatric Society, 43(5), 485-490.
Giuliani, M.V. & Scopelliti, M. (2009).
Empirical research in environmental
psychology: past, present and future.
-5-
Journal of Environmental Psychology,
29, 375-386.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of
nature: toward an integrative
framework. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 15, 241-248.
Kaplan, S. (2001). Meditation, restoration and
the management of mental fatigue.
Environment & Behavior, 33(4), 480-
506.
Kaplan, R., Ivancich, J.E. & De Young, R.
(2007). Nearby nature in the city:
Enhancing and preserving livability.
Retrieved 23rd December 2010 from:
http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/48784
Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience
of Nature: A psychological perspective.
New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (2008). Bringing out
the best in people: A psychological
perspective. Conservation Biology,
22(4), 826-829.
Kaplan, S., Kaplan, R., & Wendt, J. S. (1972).
Rated preference and complexity for
natural and urban visual material.
Perception and Psychophysics, 12,
354-356.
Kuipers, B., 1982, The `Map in the head'
metaphor. Environment and Behavior,
14, 202-220.
Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C.
(1998). Transforming inner-city
landscapes: trees, sense of safety and
preference. Environment and Behavior,
30(1), 28-59.
Kuo, F.E. & Faber, T.A. (2004). A potential
natural nreatment for Attention-Deficit
Hyperactivity disorder: Evidence from
a national study. American Journal of
Public Health, 94(9), 1580-1586.
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001a).
Environment and Crime in the Inner
City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime?
Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 343-
367.
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001b).
Aggression and violence in the inner
city: Effects of environment via mental
fatigue. Environment and Behavior,
33(4), 543-571.
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001a).
Environment and Crime in the Inner
City: Does Vegetation Reduce Crime?
Environment and Behavior, 33(3), 343-
367.
Ladd, F. C. 1970. Black youths view their Ulrich, R.S. and Lunden, O. (1990). Effects of
environment. Environment and nature and abstract pictures on patients
Behavior 2, 74-99. recovering from open heart surgery.
Laumann, K., Gärling, T. & Stormark, K.M. Paper presented at the International
(2003). Selective attention and heart Congress of Behavioral Medicine,
rate responses to natural and urban Uppsala, Sweden, June 27-30.
environments. Journal of Ulrich, R., Simons, R.F., Losito, E., Fiorito, E.,
Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 125- Miles, M.A. & Zelson, M. (1991).
134. Stress recovery during exposure to
Lewis, C.A. (1996). Green Nature, Human natural and urban environments.
Nature: The Meaning of Plants in Our Journal of Environmental Psychology,
Lives. Chicago: University of Illinois 11, 201-230.
Press. Veitch, R. and Arkkelin, D. (1995).
Orians, G. H., & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Environmental psychology: An
Evolved responses to landscapes. In J. interdisciplinary perspective. Prentice-
H. Barkow, L. Cosmides & J. Tooby Hall, Inc.
(Eds.), The adapted mind: Velarde, M. D., Fry, G., & Tveit, M. (2007).
Evolutionary psychology and the Health effects of viewing landscapes –
generation of culture (pp. 555-579). landscape types in environmental
New York: Oxford University Press. psychology. Urban Forestry and
Ottosson, J. & Grahn, P. (2005). A comparison Urban Greening, 6(4), 199-212.
of leisure time spent in a garden with Wells, N.M. & Evans, G.W. (2003). Nearby
leisure time spent indoors: On nature: a buffer of life stress among
measures of restoration in residents in rural children. Environment and
geriatric care. Landscape Research, Behavior, 35(3), 311-330.
30(1) 23-55. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia: The Human
Park, S.-H. (2006). Randomized clinical trials Bond with Other Species. Cambridge:
evaluating therapeutic influences of Harvard University Press.
ornamental indoor plants in hospital
rooms on health outcomes of patients
recovering from surgery. Unpublished
Dissertation, Kansas State University.
Proshansky, H. M. (1987). The field of
environmental psychology: securing its
future. In D. Stokols, & I. Altman
(eds.), Handbook of Environmental
Psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 1467–1488).
New York: Wiley.
Proshansky, H. M., Ittelson, W. H., & Rivlin, L.
G. (1970). Environmental psychology.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Siegel, A.W. & White, S.H. (1975). The
development of spatial representations
of large-scale environments, In H.W.
Reese (ed) Advances in Child
Development & Behavior by H.W.
Reese 10, 9-55. New York: Academic
Press.
Stokols, D. (1995). The paradox of
environmental psychology. American
Psychologist, 50, 821–837.
Sullivan, W. C., Kuo, F. E., & Depooter, S. F.
(2004). The Fruit of Urban Nature:
Vital Neighborhood Spaces.
Environment and Behavior, 36(5), 678-
700.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). Aesthetic and affective
response to natural environment. In I.
Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.),
Behavior and the Natural Environment
(pp. 85-125). New York: Plenum Press. Figure 2: Todd River, Alice Springs

-6-