Social media, nature, and life satisfaction: global evidence of the biophilia hypothesis

Scientific Reports

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2020, Pages

  Chang, Chia chen ^a   Cheng, Gwyneth Jia Yi ^a   Nghiem, Thi Phuong Le ^a   Song, Xiao Ping ^a,c   Oh, Rachel Rui Ying ^b   Richards, Daniel R ^c   Carrasco, L Roman ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^c FUTURE CITIES LABORATORY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; LIFE SATISFACTION; MEMORY; PHOTOGRAPHY; SOCIAL MEDIA; SATISFACTION;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; HUMANS; PERSONAL SATISFACTION; PHOTOGRAPHY; SOCIAL MEDIA;

EID: 85081293214     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-60902-w     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Balmford, A. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297, 950–953 (2002).
2. Costanza, R. et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environ. Change 26, 152–158 (2014).
3. Rosenberg, K. V. et al. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 366, 120–124 (2019).
4. Thomas, J. A. et al. Comparative losses of British butterflies, birds, and plants and the global extinction crisis. Science 303, 1879–1881 (2004).
5. Bratman, G. N. et al. Daily, Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0903 (2019).
6. Costanza, R. et al. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 1–16 (2017).
7. Chan, K. M. et al. Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62, 744–756 (2012).
8. Chan, K. M. et al. Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113, 1462–1465 (2016).
9. Fish, R., Church, A. & Winter, M. Conceptualising cultural ecosystem services: A novel framework for research and critical engagement. Ecosyst. Serv. 21, 208–217 (2016).
10. Gifford, R. Environmental psychology matters. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65, 541–579 (2014).
11. Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E. & Bieling, C. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33, 118–129 (2013).
12. Paracchini, M. L. et al. Mapping cultural ecosystem services: A framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecol. Indic. 45, 371–385 (2014).
13. Wood, S. A., Guerry, A. D., Silver, J. M. & Lacayo, M. Using social media to quantify nature-based tourism and recreation. Sci. Rep. 3, 2976 (2013).
14. Richards, D. R. & Friess, D. A. A rapid indicator of cultural ecosystem service usage at a fine spatial scale: Content analysis of social media photographs. Ecol. Indic. 53, 187–195 (2015).
15. Hausmann, A. et al. Social media data can be used to understand tourists’ preferences for nature-based experiences in protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12343 (2018).
16. Seresinhe, C. I., Preis, T., MacKerron, G. & Moat, H. S. Happiness is greater in more scenic locations. Sci. Rep. 9, 4498 (2019).
17. Richards, D. R. & Tunçer, B. Using image recognition to automate assessment of cultural ecosystem services from social media photographs. Ecosyst. Serv. 31, 318–325 (2018).
18. Kellert, S. R. & Wilson, E. O. The biophilia hypothesis. (Island Press, 1995).
19. Keniger, L., Gaston, K., Irvine, K. & Fuller, R. What are the benefits of interacting with nature? Int. J. Env. Res. Pub. He. 10, 913–935 (2013).
20. Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 15, 169–182 (1995).
21. Zelenski, J. M. & Nisbet, E. K. Happiness and feeling connected: The distinct role of nature relatedness. Environ. Behav. 46, 3–23 (2014).
22. Kuo, M. How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway. Front. Psychol. 6, 1093 (2015).
23. Biedenweg, K., Scott, R. P. & Scott, T. A. How does engaging with nature relate to life satisfaction? Demonstrating the link between environment-specific social experiences and life satisfaction. J. Environ. Psychol. 50, 112–124 (2017).
24. Berman, M. G. et al. Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. J. Affec. Disorders 140, 300–305 (2012).
25. Balmford, A. et al. Walk on the wild side: Estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. Plos Biol. 13, e1002074 (2015).
26. Ament, J. M., Moore, C. A., Herbst, M. & Cumming, G. S. Cultural ecosystem services in Protected Areas: understanding bundles, trade-offs, and synergies. Conserv. Lett. 10, 440–450 (2017).
27. Bryce, R. et al. Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 21, 258–269 (2016).
28. Iwata, Y., Fukamachi, K. & Morimoto, Y. Public perception of the cultural value of Satoyama landscape types in Japan. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 7, 173–184 (2011).
29. Bremer, S. & Funtowicz, S. Negotiating a place for sustainability science: Narratives from the Waikaraka Estuary in New Zealand. Environ. Sci. Policy. 53, 47–59 (2015).
30. Tengberg, A. et al. Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosys. Serv. 2, 14–26 (2012).
31. Nguyen, T.-D. T. & Belk, R. W. Harmonization processes and relational meanings in constructing Asian weddings. J. Consum. Res. 40, 518–538 (2013).
32. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M. & Murphy, S. A. The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environ. Behav. 41, 715–740 (2009).
33. Schultz, P. W. Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. Psychology of sustainable development. Springer, Boston, MA. 61–78 (2002).
34. Bang, M., Medin, D. L. & Atran, S. Cultural mosaics and mental models of nature. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 13868–13874 (2007).
35. Lindemann-Matthies, P., Keller, D., Li, X. & Schmid, B. Attitudes toward forest diversity and forest ecosystem services—a cross-cultural comparison between China and Switzerland. J. Plant Ecol. 7, 1–9 (2013).
36. Jennings, V. & Bamkole, O. The Relationship between Social Cohesion and Urban Green Space: An Avenue for Health Promotion. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. He. 16, 452 (2019).
37. Cleary, A., Fielding, K. S., Bell, S. L., Murray, Z. & Roiko, A. Exploring potential mechanisms involved in the relationship between eudaimonic wellbeing and nature connection. Landscape Urban Plan. 158, 119–128 (2017).
38. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55, 68 (2000).
39. Guéguen, N. & Stefan, J. “Green altruism” short immersion in natural green environments and helping behavior. Environ. Beh. 48, 324–342 (2016).
40. Hudecheck, M. revgeo: Reverse Geocoding with the Photon Geocoder for OpenStreetMap, Google Maps, and Bing. R package version 0.15 (2017).
41. Teschner, F. RoogleVision: Access to Google’s Cloud Vision API for image recognition, OCR and Labeling. R package version 0.0.1.1 (2016).
42. Helliwell, J. F., Huang, H. & Wang, S. World Happiness Report 2019. (Sustainable Development Solutions Network, New York).
43. Ortiz-Ospina, E, & Roser, M. Our World in Data. (OurWorldInData.org, 2017), https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-vs-happiness.
44. The World Bank, World Development Indicators. (The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 2017).