More than green space: Study finds different natural environments shape different human experiences

When people talk about spending time in nature, the phrase often suggests a single, universal experience. Whether it is a walk through a city park, a weekend camping trip, or a hike through a forest, “nature” is frequently treated as one broad category associated with relaxation and wellbeing. New research from the University of Michigan challenges that assumption. The study suggests that different types of natural environments produce distinctly different psychological and social experiences, influencing how people feel, what activities they undertake, who they spend time with, and even how they describe their experiences afterward.

The findings, published in the journal Environment and Behavior, are based on an analysis of nearly 400,000 social media posts describing outdoor experiences across the United States. Rather than relying on surveys or laboratory experiments, the researchers examined spontaneous, real-world reflections shared online. This approach provided an unusually large-scale view of how people actually experience nature in their daily lives.

According to lead researcher Kate Schertz, a psychology research fellow at the University of Michigan, the study highlights the importance of recognising nature as a diverse collection of environments rather than a single category. “Our findings show that nature isn’t a single, uniform experience,” Schertz explained. “The psychological benefits people receive depend not only on spending time outdoors, but also on the kind of natural environment they’re experiencing.”

The researchers used advanced text analytics to identify patterns across hundreds of thousands of posts. The scale of the study allowed themes to emerge that would have been difficult to detect through conventional qualitative methods. The analysis revealed that nature experiences were overwhelmingly positive regardless of location. However, the type of natural setting influenced how people described their activities and emotions.

Parks versus wilderness

One of the most striking findings was the contrast between urban green spaces and more remote natural environments. Posts referring to city parks were frequently associated with family activities, recreation, social interaction and community experiences. These locations often served as settings for picnics, exercise, organised events, and time spent with friends and relatives.

In contrast, people writing about forests, wilderness areas and rural landscapes were more likely to discuss adventure, exploration, camping and personal challenge. Popular outdoor hashtags such as #GetOutside and #OptOutside appeared frequently in posts linked to more remote environments. The results suggest that different landscapes may fulfil different psychological and social functions.

“Nature is psychologically diverse,” Schertz noted. “A visit to a city park can offer something very different from a day in the wilderness, and both experiences have value.”

This finding adds nuance to a growing body of evidence showing the mental health benefits of spending time outdoors. Rather than viewing green space as interchangeable, planners and policymakers may need to consider the particular experiences that different environments support.

The implications extend beyond psychology. Urbanisation continues to reshape how people interact with natural environments. As cities expand, nearby access to green space often becomes an important public-health consideration. Yet the study suggests that simply providing access to “nature” may not fully address people’s diverse recreational and emotional needs. The research indicates that preserving a variety of natural settings may be just as important as preserving nature itself.

“Our results remind us that access to nature isn’t simply about having green space nearby,” Schertz explained. “Different environments foster different experiences, relationships and connections with the natural world.”This perspective may become increasingly important as communities face environmental change, biodiversity loss and climate adaptation challenges.

The Canadian perspective

The findings are particularly relevant for Canada, a country that contains some of the world’s largest protected wilderness areas while also experiencing rapid urban growth. Canada’s population is increasingly concentrated in metropolitan regions such as Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal and Calgary. For many Canadians, everyday encounters with nature occur in urban parks, riverside pathways and suburban green corridors.

At the same time, Canada possesses vast areas of wilderness ranging from the boreal forest and Rocky Mountains to Arctic tundra and coastal ecosystems. The University of Michigan findings suggest that these different environments may contribute to wellbeing in complementary rather than interchangeable ways.

An urban park in downtown Toronto may provide opportunities for social connection, recreation and stress reduction during daily life. A canoe trip through Algonquin Provincial Park or a hiking expedition in Banff National Park may support entirely different experiences involving solitude, adventure, reflection and personal challenge.

This distinction has implications for Canadian conservation policy. Canada’s commitment to protecting biodiversity through initiatives such as the 30×30 conservation target seeks to preserve 30 percent of land and water by 2030. The new study suggests that preserving natural diversity may also mean preserving psychological diversity: the range of experiences available to people interacting with the natural world.

The findings arrive at a time when access to nature is increasingly discussed in the context of climate change. Urban green spaces can help reduce heat-island effects, improve air quality and support community resilience during extreme weather. At the same time, larger wilderness areas play critical roles in carbon storage, biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services. The study suggests an additional benefit: different landscapes support different forms of human connection and wellbeing.

For policymakers, this means that decisions about land use are not merely environmental or economic questions. They may also influence how future generations experience nature, form social relationships and maintain psychological wellbeing.