Understanding Preferences in Environmental Settings

Every day, we make choices about the spaces we live in, work in, and relax in. Some people thrive in a bustling city apartment, while others feel most at peace in a quiet suburban home surrounded by greenery. These are not random inclinations – they are shaped by a rich web of psychological, social, cultural, and personal factors. In environmental psychology, the study of environmental preference helps us understand why certain settings feel “right” to us and how those preferences connect to our satisfaction, well-being, and even our vision for the future.

What is environmental preference? 🔗

Environmental preference refers to the subjective evaluation or inclination that individuals express towards different types of environments. It is the psychological pull we feel toward certain spaces – whether that’s a cozy, well-lit living room, a park filled with mature trees, or a sleek urban loft. These preferences are not simply about aesthetics. They reflect how a space meets our functional needs, emotional expectations, and sense of identity.

According to environmental psychologists Rachel and Stephen Kaplan, preference is rooted in how we process information from our surroundings. Their influential preference matrix identifies four key informational variables that predict how much people will like an environment: coherence, complexity, legibility, and mystery. These variables arise from two fundamental human needs – the need to understand the environment and the desire to explore it.

The Kaplan preference matrix explained 🔗

Coherence is about how well a scene “hangs together.” A well-organized, orderly space is easier to process and tends to be more preferred. Legibility relates to how easy it would be to navigate the environment – to find your way around without feeling lost. Complexity captures how much variety and visual richness a scene offers, stimulating our desire to explore. And mystery refers to the promise that more information awaits if you move deeper into the scene, like a winding path that disappears around a corner.

A meta-analysis published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology reviewed data from over 6,000 participants and more than 1,800 scenes. It confirmed that these four informational variables, particularly mystery, are consistent predictors of environmental preference across both natural and built settings. Research in urban park settings has further shown that attributes of complexity – such as variety of elements and colour – as well as coherence and distinctive landmarks all influence which spaces people choose to spend time in.

Environmental preference in residential settings 🔗

While the Kaplan model is frequently applied to natural landscapes, environmental preference is perhaps most directly felt in residential settings – the places where we eat, sleep, and spend the majority of our time. Our homes are not just physical structures; they carry deep psychological meaning. The distinction between a “house” (the structure) and a “home” (the meaning) is central to how environmental psychologists approach residential preference.

Gifford, Steg, and Reser (2011) note that residential satisfaction depends on many determinants, including life stage, socioeconomic status, personality, values, hopes for the future, peer norms, and relationships with neighbours. Physical features also matter – things like architectural style, floor plan, colour scheme, outdoor areas, and access to natural light can all shape how people feel about their homes.

When there is a strong match between a person’s preferences and their actual living environment, satisfaction tends to be high. But when the fit is poor – for example, a person who craves quiet and open spaces living in a noisy, crowded neighbourhood – dissatisfaction, stress, and even mental health difficulties can result.

The role of nature in residential preference 🔗

Access to greenery and natural elements is one of the most consistent predictors of residential satisfaction. Research grounded in Attention Restoration Theory (ART), developed by the Kaplans, suggests that natural environments help restore mental fatigue by providing “soft fascination” – a type of effortless attention that allows directed attention to rest and recover.

A 2025 study published in Frontiers in Psychology examined how indoor greenery in residential settings affects perceived restorativeness. Spaces with integrated greenery – as opposed to no greenery or simple potted plants – were associated with higher restorative potential, aligning with the concept of biophilia, the idea that humans have an innate tendency to seek connections with nature. Incorporating plants, natural materials, and even water features in homes can meaningfully boost emotional well-being and reduce stress.

Socio-demographic factors shaping environmental preference 🔗

Environmental preference is not uniform across populations. Socio-demographic characteristics – including age, income, education, gender, and family structure – play a significant role in determining which environments people gravitate towards.

Young professionals, for instance, often prefer urban settings with easy access to social activities, entertainment, and workplaces. Families with young children frequently prioritise quieter neighbourhoods with green spaces and good schools. Older adults may prefer communities that offer walkability, proximity to healthcare, and a sense of safety. Income is another powerful factor: higher-income individuals typically have more freedom to choose residential environments that align with their preferences, while lower-income households may find themselves in environments that conflict with their ideal.

A study from Gauteng province, South Africa, found that employment status was a positive predictor of environmental perceptions, while education level and migration status predicted place attachment. Satisfaction with amenities like water and waste services also significantly influenced environmental attitudes. These findings highlight that preference is not just about personal taste – it is deeply shaped by socioeconomic realities.

Duration of stay and place attachment 🔗

How long someone has lived in a particular environment also affects their preference and satisfaction. Over time, people tend to develop place attachment – an emotional bond with their surroundings that encompasses both place dependence (the functional utility of a location) and place identity (the degree to which a place becomes part of one’s self-concept).

A 2023 study in Frontiers in Psychology examining Korean housing residents found that multiple elements of the residential environment contributed to place attachment, which in turn influenced overall satisfaction and even pro-environmental behaviour. People who feel a strong bond with their neighbourhood are more likely to care for it, engage in sustainable practices, and recommend it to others. Conversely, those forced into environments they find unsatisfying often struggle to form these bonds, which can reduce both their well-being and environmental engagement.

Cultural attitudes and environmental preference 🔗

One of the most powerful yet often underappreciated drivers of environmental preference is culture. The values, beliefs, and traditions we inherit from our cultural backgrounds shape not only how we design and use spaces, but also what we consider desirable or comfortable in the first place.

For example, traditional households in many South Asian cultures emphasise communal living spaces – open kitchens, shared gathering areas, and spaces for prayer or meditation. Western cultures, by contrast, have historically placed greater emphasis on individual privacy, with distinct rooms for separate activities. These differences reflect deeper cultural attitudes toward family, community, and personal autonomy.

Research published in Psychology Today notes that environmental attitudes differ significantly across cultures, particularly along dimensions such as collectivism versus individualism, materialism versus post-materialism, and short-term versus long-term orientation. Collectivist cultures, which prioritise group welfare and social harmony, tend to show stronger support for environmental conservation and shared green spaces. Individualistic cultures may emphasise personal choice and comfort, sometimes at the cost of environmental sustainability.

A study published in Kyklos used the cultural diversity of immigrants in European countries to isolate the effect of national culture on environmental preferences. The results confirmed that culture is a significant and independent determinant of how people relate to their environments, even after controlling for the economic and institutional context in which they live.

Cultural values and sustainability preferences 🔗

Cultural background also shapes how people feel about environmental sustainability in their living spaces. In societies where conservation is a deeply held value, residents are more likely to prefer eco-friendly housing options, energy-efficient building designs, and communities with ample green infrastructure. In rapidly developing economies, however, preferences may lean toward modern amenities and infrastructure, sometimes creating tension between development goals and environmental ideals.

This interplay between cultural values and environmental preference has important implications for urban planning and housing policy. Designs that work well in one cultural context may not translate to another. Effective planning requires understanding local values, family structures, and community norms – not just applying universal design templates.

Immediate needs and future visions 🔗

Environmental preference is also shaped by what people need right now and what they hope for in the future. These two time horizons often pull in different directions.

Immediate needs include practical considerations: proximity to work, access to schools and healthcare, affordable housing, public transport, and safety. A young professional may tolerate a small apartment in a noisy area if it means a short commute. A parent might choose a neighbourhood they otherwise wouldn’t prefer because of a particular school.

Future visions, on the other hand, reflect aspirations. Someone planning to start a family may begin looking at quieter, safer neighbourhoods years before they actually need to move. A person approaching retirement might start prioritising natural settings, walkability, and healthcare access. These forward-looking preferences often incorporate ideals about quality of life, community, and even legacy – the kind of environment they want to leave for the next generation.

The tension between immediate needs and future aspirations is especially visible in rapidly urbanising regions. In cities across India, China, and sub-Saharan Africa, millions of people move to urban centres for economic opportunity, even when their environmental preferences might favour rural or semi-rural settings. Over time, their preferences may shift – or they may experience chronic dissatisfaction with environments that don’t match their deeper values.

The intersection of preference, well-being, and sustainability 🔗

Environmental preference is not an isolated academic concept. It has real consequences for individual well-being and collective environmental sustainability.

When people live in environments that match their preferences, they report higher life satisfaction, lower stress, and better mental health. Research consistently shows that access to natural elements – parks, trees, water features – is associated with reduced anxiety, lower blood pressure, and improved cognitive function. On the other hand, living in poorly designed, overcrowded, or polluted environments contributes to frustration, anxiety, and depression.

At a broader level, understanding environmental preference can help designers, urban planners, and policymakers create spaces that people genuinely want to live in – reducing environmental conflict, increasing community engagement, and supporting sustainable development. If housing developments are designed with attention to coherence, legibility, greenery, cultural values, and the diverse needs of residents, the result is not just better buildings but healthier, more connected communities.

Environmental psychologists also point out that preference and pro-environmental behaviour are connected. People who feel attached to their environments – who find them satisfying and meaningful – are more likely to engage in behaviours that protect those environments, from recycling to supporting conservation policies.

Why environmental preference matters more than ever 🔗

As the global population becomes increasingly urbanised, the gap between people’s environmental preferences and their actual living conditions is growing. More than half the world’s population now lives in cities, and that figure is projected to reach nearly 70% by 2050. This makes understanding environmental preference not just an academic exercise but a practical necessity for sustainable development.

Climate change adds another layer. As temperatures rise, weather patterns shift, and natural disasters become more frequent, people’s preferences for residential environments will continue to evolve. The demand for green, resilient, and climate-adaptive housing is already reshaping real estate and urban planning in many parts of the world.

By studying how socio-demographics, cultural values, immediate needs, and future aspirations interact to shape environmental preference, psychologists and planners can work together to design environments that support both human well-being and ecological sustainability. The spaces we live in are not just backdrops to our lives – they actively shape how we think, feel, and act.

What do you think? How much do your cultural background and current life circumstances influence where you choose to live – and do you think your environmental preferences will change as your needs evolve over time?

References

1. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916589215001
2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494403000239
3. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7357
4. https://www.rug.nl/staff/e.m.steg/giffordstegreser2011.pdf
5. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1631417/pdf
6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468227621000764
7. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1217877/full
8. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/non-weird-science/202108/does-culture-shape-our-environmental-attitudes
9. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/kykl.12114