Positive environments for children and adults

  • Giuseppe CarrusEmail author
  • Sabine Pirchio


The places we live in are crucial for our well-being and health. In this chapter, we present a brief review of theories and research on the relationship between the physical environment and human well-being, focusing in particular on the concept of positive environments. Positive environments have been defined as physical settings that bring about positive outcomes to the individuals and communities, but also demand a certain degree of care, attention and appropriation from their users. Positive environments, and their relation to human well-being across the life span, can also be analysed through the concept of restorative environments, as suggested by theories and empirical findings outlining the cognitive and affective benefits of interacting with nature in daily life settings. These concepts can also help to improve interventions promoting quality of life, environmental sustainability and socio-ecological resilience.


  1. Argyle M (1999) Causes and correlates of happiness. In: Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N (eds), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. Russel Sage Foundation, New York, pp 353–373Google Scholar
  2. Barbaro N, Pickett SM (2016) Mindfully green: Examining the effect of connectedness to nature on the relationship between mindfulness and engagement in pro-environmental behavior. Personality and Individual Differences 93:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coley R L, Kuo F E, Sullivan W C (1997) Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior 29:468–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corral-Verdugo V, Frías M, Gaxiola J, Tapia C, Fraijo B, Corral N (2014) Ambientes positivos. Ideando entornos sostenibles para el bienestar humano y la calidad ambiental. Mexico City: Pearson. Cumming G (2014) The new statistics: why and how. Psychological Science 25:7–29Google Scholar
  5. Corral-Verdugo V, Mireles-Acosta J, Tapia-Fonllem C, Fraijo-Sing B (2011) Happiness as correlate of sustainable behavior: A study of pro-ecological, frugal, equitable and altruistic actions that promote subjective well-being. Human Ecology Review:18, 95–104Google Scholar
  6. Cumming G (2014) The new statistics: why and how. Psychological Science 25:7–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Csikszentmihalyi M (1990) Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Carrus G, Passiatore Y, Pirchio S, Scopelliti M (2015) Contact with nature in educational settings might help cognitive functioning and promote positive social behaviour. Psyecology 6:191–212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Churchman A, Sadan E (2004) Public participation in environmental design and planning. In: Spielberger C (ed) Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology. Elsevier/Academic Press, New York, pp 793–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Young R (2000) Expanding and evaluating motives for environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56:509–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diener E (2000) Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist 55:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ericson T, Kjønstad BG, Barstad A (2014) Mindfulness and sustainability. Ecological Economics 104:73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans G W (2006) Child development and the physical environment. Annual Review of Psychology 57:423–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleury-Bahi G, Pol E, Navarro O (eds) (2017) Handbook of Environmental Psychology and Quality of Life Research. Springer International PublishingGoogle Scholar
  15. Hartig T (2004) Restorative environments. In: Spielberger C (ed), Encyclopedia of applied psychology. Academic Press/ Elsevier, New York, NY, pp 273–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ikeme J (2003) Equity, environmental justice and sustainability: incomplete approaches in climate change politics. Global Environmental Change 13(3):195–206Google Scholar
  17. Jacob J, Jovic E, Brinkerhoff M B (2009) Personal and planetary well-being: Mindfulness meditation, pro-environmental behavior and personal quality of life in a survey from the social justice and ecological sustainability movement. Social Indicators Research 93(2):275–294Google Scholar
  18. Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N (eds) (1999) Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. Russel Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Kweon B S, Sullivan W C, Wiley A R (1998) Green common spaces and the social integration of inner-city older adults. Environment and Behavior 30:832–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krasny M E, Roth W M (2010) Environmental education for social–ecological system resilience: a perspective from activity theory. Environmental Education Research 16:545–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krasny M E, Tidball KG (2009) Applying a resilience systems framework to urban environmental education. Environmental Education Research 15:465–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Louv R (2005) Last child in the woods: Saving our kids from nature deficit disorder. Algonquin BooksGoogle Scholar
  24. Mitchell R, Popham F (2008) Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study. The Lancet 372(9650):1655–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Panno A, Giacomantonio M, Carrus G, Maricchiolo F, Pirchio S, Mannetti L (2018) Mindfulness, pro-environmental behavior, and belief in climate change: the mediating role of social dominance. Environment and Behavior. First published online: July 2017. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pol E, Castrechini A, Carrus G (2017) Quality of life and sustainability: The end of quality at any price. In Fleury-Bahi G, Pol E, Navarro O (eds) Handbook of Environmental Psychology and Quality of Life Research. Springer International Publishing, pp 11–39Google Scholar
  27. Proshansky HM, Ittelson W, Rivlin LG (eds) (1970) Environmental psychology: Man and his physical settings. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Proshansky HM, Nelson-Schulman Y, Kaminoff RD (1979) The role of physical setting in life crisis experiences. In: Sharon I, Spielberger C (eds) Stress and anxiety, vol. 6, Hemisphere, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Steinebach C (2016) Connecting mindfulness and positive environments to enhance resilience in adolescence and adulthood. International Journal of Psychology 51:666Google Scholar
  30. Steinebach C, Schär M (2016) Body and mind: Building resilience for adolescents with problems in eating behavior. International Journal of Psychology 51:666–667Google Scholar
  31. Steinebach C, Steinebach U (2009) Positive peer culture with German youth. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 18(2):27–33Google Scholar
  32. Steinebach C, Steinebach U, Brendtro LK (2013) Positive youth psychology: Lessons from positive peer culture. Reclaiming Children and Youth 21(4):15–21Google Scholar
  33. Stokols D (2018) Social ecology in the Digital Age: Solving complex problems in a globalized world. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Strife S, Downey L (2009) Childhood development and access to nature: A new direction for environmental inequality research. Organization & Environment 22:99–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sullivan WC, Kuo FE, De Pooter SF (2004) The fruit of urban nature. Vital neighborhood spaces. Environment and Behavior 36:678–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ulrich RS (1981) Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological effects. Environment and Behavior 13:523–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ulrich RS (1984) View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 224:420–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van den Berg A, Hartig T, Staats H (2007) Preference for nature in urbanized societies: stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues 63:79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. WHO (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being – Health Synthesis. A report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Vol. 5. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Wells NM (2000) At home with nature. Effects of “greenness” on children’s cognitive functioning. Environment and Behavior 32:775–795Google Scholar
  41. Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento Scienze della FormazioneUniversità Roma TreRomaItalien
  2. 2.Department of Dynamic and Clinical PsycologySapienza University of RomeRomaItalien

Personalised recommendations