Sociodemographic and visit-related correlates of ‘psychologically rich’ nature visits

Experiences of nature are often appraised as interesting, novel or perspective-changing, with both experimental and qualitative work invoking these constructs, particularly regarding biodiversity. However, these psychological outcomes of interactions with nature are seldom investigated quantitatively, perhaps due to the lack of a coherent conceptualisation. Drawing on ‘psychological richness’ – an account of subjective well-being from positive psychology which unifies these constructs – we explored the predictors of psychologically rich nature visits. Using data from English adults taken from 10 years of the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment survey (n=9,827), we used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to identify a set of survey items pertaining to the psychological richness experienced after recent nature visits and subsequently constructed linear regression models which explored sociodemographic and visit-related variables that predicted this. To demonstrate the discriminant validity of the construct, we further examined comparable associations with survey items concerning enjoyment and perceived restorativeness. We found that ratings of psychological richness were higher on nature visits taken by people who were female, older/retired, lower socioeconomic status, non-white-British, non-disabled, car-free respondents, and on visits taken to community gardens, farmland, woodlands, uplands, inland waters, country parks, and designated sites, involving wildlife watching or fishing, and taken further afield or while on holiday. These findings were largely robust to two alternative model specifications. Associations differed in strength, sign, or statistical significance when considering enjoyment/restorativeness. We argue that these findings demonstrate that psychological richness overlaps with, but is distinct from, related psychological outcomes of nature experience. We discuss the results with regards to socioeconomic inequalities and biodiversity, and present research avenues for the continued exploration of the psychological richness of nature experience. • We posit ‘psychological richness’ as an understudied appraisal of nature experience • We studied its predictors in a large sample of voluntary nature visits from England • Higher ratings of psychological richness were given by marginalised populations • Higher ratings were also associated with biodiverse environments and activities • Differing links with enjoyment/restorativeness indicate discriminant validity

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Environmental Psychology
Published
2026-03-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2026.102999
Primary Topic
Urban Green Space and Health
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Sociodemographic and visit-related correlates of ‘psychologically rich’ nature visits

Joanne K. Garrett, Kevin J. Gaston, Lewis R. Elliott, Fränze Kibowski et al.
Journal of Environmental Psychology
Urban Green Space and Health
article

Sociodemographic and visit-related correlates of ‘psychologically rich’ nature visits

Joanne K. Garrett, Kevin J. Gaston, Lewis R. Elliott, Fränze Kibowski, Rebecca Lovell
article en

Abstract

Experiences of nature are often appraised as interesting, novel or perspective-changing, with both experimental and qualitative work invoking these constructs, particularly regarding biodiversity. However, these psychological outcomes of interactions with nature are seldom investigated quantitatively, perhaps due to the lack of a coherent conceptualisation. Drawing on ‘psychological richness’ – an account of subjective well-being from positive psychology which unifies these constructs – we explored the predictors of psychologically rich nature visits. Using data from English adults taken from 10 years of the Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment survey (n=9,827), we used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to identify a set of survey items pertaining to the psychological richness experienced after recent nature visits and subsequently constructed linear regression models which explored sociodemographic and visit-related variables that predicted this. To demonstrate the discriminant validity of the construct, we further examined comparable associations with survey items concerning enjoyment and perceived restorativeness. We found that ratings of psychological richness were higher on nature visits taken by people who were female, older/retired, lower socioeconomic status, non-white-British, non-disabled, car-free respondents, and on visits taken to community gardens, farmland, woodlands, uplands, inland waters, country parks, and designated sites, involving wildlife watching or fishing, and taken further afield or while on holiday. These findings were largely robust to two alternative model specifications. Associations differed in strength, sign, or statistical significance when considering enjoyment/restorativeness. We argue that these findings demonstrate that psychological richness overlaps with, but is distinct from, related psychological outcomes of nature experience. We discuss the results with regards to socioeconomic inequalities and biodiversity, and present research avenues for the continued exploration of the psychological richness of nature experience. • We posit ‘psychological richness’ as an understudied appraisal of nature experience • We studied its predictors in a large sample of voluntary nature visits from England • Higher ratings of psychological richness were given by marginalised populations • Higher ratings were also associated with biodiverse environments and activities • Differing links with enjoyment/restorativeness indicate discriminant validity

Journal of Environmental PsychologyVol. 111
Natural England (GB), University of Exeter (GB), Sustainability Institute (ZA)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 27%
Urban Green Space and Health
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.