This paper presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of 2,851 articles published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology (JEVP) and Environment and Behavior (EB) from 1990 to 2022 using the CiteSpace software. The study aims to provide an in-depth examination of the evolving trends, influential researchers, central themes, and future directions that have characterized the field of environmental psychology over the past three decades.
The analysis identifies four major trends shaping the current landscape of environmental psychology. First, the geographic distribution of influential research has shifted from a U.S.-centric focus to a more globally representative network, with increasing contributions from countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, and Australia. This shift reflects the growing international commitment to environmental psychology, promoting a cross-cultural and inclusive understanding of environmental issues beyond traditional geographic boundaries.
Second, the field has developed around nine core themes that reflect the discipline’s engagement with both foundational and emerging issues. Key themes include environmental perception;, environmental preference, and place attachment, which have long been central topics in the field. More recent themes, such as pro-environmental behavior, pro-environmental attitudes, and environmental activism, have gained prominence in response to contemporary concerns around sustainability, ecological responsibility, and climate change. These themes indicate that future research will likely emphasize topics related to climate change, green consumption, and sustained pro-environmental behavior, marking a shift from traditional environmental psychology topics toward addressing urgent global challenges.
Third, the findings suggest a significant shift in the field’s underlying theoretical perspective;, moving from an anthropocentric (human-centered) to an ecocentric (ecological-centered) orientation. This shift represents an expanded recognition within the field of the interconnectedness of human behavior and environmental sustainability. While traditional environmental psychology focused primarily on human responses to the environment, contemporary research increasingly explores how ecological health impacts human well-being. This shift underscores a deeper integration of ecological and ethical considerations into the study of human-environment relationships and positions environmental psychology to address pressing issues such as climate change and biodiversity loss.
Fourth, the analysis reveals a notable fragmentation of research topics and methodological approaches within environmental psychology. This fragmentation is evident in both the distribution of high-impact publications and the thematic clusters identified in this study. The findings indicate that the field has grown beyond a unified, centralized body of knowledge to encompass diverse perspectives, methodologies, and subfields. Although this diversity allows environmental psychology to engage in a variety of complex topics, it also poses challenges for the development of a cohesive theoretical and methodological framework. Consequently, one of the future challenges for environmental psychology will be to reconcile these diverse research directions into a more integrated framework that effectively addresses the core questions of the field.
Solving this fragmentation issue is essential to the future development of environmental psychology. This study proposes that the field should focus on four primary tasks: (1) clarifying and popularizing the core concept of “Human-Environment Relationships”, (2) redefining the scope of “environment”, (3) establishing foundational theories or paradigms for environmental psychology, and (4) constructing a structured content framework around this core concept. The first task—promoting a clear understanding of “Human-Environment Relationships”—is primarily an issue of outreach and education. Therefore;, this paper emphasizes the latter three tasks as essential steps in advancing the field.
First, regarding the redefinition of “environment”, the study advocates viewing it as a complex system that integrates physical, social, virtual, and other layers. This redefinition recognizes that today’s environments are not limited to physical spaces but extend to virtual and data-driven settings that reshape how people interact with their surroundings. Second;, to establish a theoretical foundation, this study suggests constructing a new paradigm characterized by ecological and dynamic perspectives to accommodate the evolving nature of person-environment relationships.
Finally, this study proposes a three-dimensional framework consisting of spatial scale, temporal scale, and the core of person-environment relation to create a structured content model for the field. This framework is intended to create a systematic structure for environmental psychology research, ensuring that studies are aligned with the discipline’s core concept of person-environment relationships.
The spatial scale dimension includes the different physical and psychological spaces that environmental psychology examines;, from the personal and home environments to community, urban, and global contexts. By addressing different spatial scales, researchers can systematically analyze how environmental factors influence individuals, groups, and societies across diverse settings. The temporal scale dimension reflects the time-dependent nature of human-environment interactions, covering short-term responses to immediate environmental factors, medium-term adaptation processes, and long-term developmental impacts. This dimension underscores not only the duration of environmental effects but also the adaptive processes that unfold over time, revealing both immediate and cumulative influences on psychological outcomes. The core of person-environment relation dimension represents the fundamental nature of human-environment interactions, organized into four perspectives: individual-centered, environment-centered, interactive systems, and emergent coexistence. The core of person-environment relation dimension addresses varied theoretical viewpoints, from considering individuals as active processors of environmental information to conceiving the environment as an autonomous influence that shapes human behavior, emphasizing dynamic and emergent qualities in these interactions.
This three-dimensional framework may help environmental psychology better organize research themes systematically, facilitating a clearer understanding of the complex, multi-layered relationships between individuals and their environments. The framework not only serves as a tool for organizing existing research but also as a guide for identifying and creating new research directions based on the core question of person-environment relationships. By structuring the discipline in this way, environmental psychology can enhance dialogue and integration across various research areas, providing theoretical and practical support to address today’s environmental challenges.
In conclusion;, this study offers a comprehensive overview of the current state of environmental psychology and identifies future directions through a bibliometric analysis of JEVP and EB publications. The findings emphasize that the future of environmental psychology requires a clarified core concept, a unifying theoretical framework, and a structured content model. Such an approach enables environmental psychology to contribute valuable insights and theoretical foundations for addressing real-world environmental issues, ultimately supporting a more sustainable and ecologically aware society.
Key words
environmental psychology /
current state /
future directions /
Citespace /
Journal of Environmental Psychology /
Environment and Behavior
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] 陈巍, 郭本禹. (2014). 具身-生成的认知科学: 走出“战国时代”. 心理学探新, 34(2), 111-116.
[2] 陈悦, 陈超美, 刘则渊, 胡志刚, 王贤文. (2015). CiteSpace知识图谱的方法论功能. 科学学研究, 33(2), 242-253.
[3] 耿柳娜, 卓敏. (2018). 环境问题研究的反思: 环境心理学的视角. 南京工业大学学报(社会科学版), 17(1), 78-96.
[4] 李寿涛, 田浩. (2019). 基于文献计量学方法的国外环境心理学研究分析. 心理研究, 12(1), 45-55.
[5] 李悦, 王梓康, 王志蒙, 陈少彬, 郑艳竹, 吴建平. (2021). 虚拟现实自然场景中正念训练对大学生注意力的影响. 中国健康心理学杂志, 29(7), 1100-1106.
[6] 李云昊, 杜雪妍, 吴建平. (2024). 感知复愈性量表的中文版修订. 中国健康心理学杂志, 32(12), 1883-1889.
[7] 刘晓力. (2020). 哲学与认知科学交叉融合的途径. 中国社会科学, 9, 23-47, 204-205.
[8] 吕晓峰. (2015). 环境心理学学科新主张及其哲学意义. 自然辩证法通讯, 37(4), 132-137.
[9] 彭运石, 王珊珊. (2009). 环境心理学方法论研究. 心理学探新, 29(3), 11-14.
[10] 苏佳佳, 叶浩生. (2023). 延展心智: 脑是实现心智的唯一基础吗? 心理学报, 55(11), 1889-1902.
[11] 苏彦捷. (2016). 环境心理学. 高等教育出版社..
[12] 孙彦. (2023). “公民十条”促进公民践行生态环境保护义务. 中国环境监察, 7, 35-36.
[13] 孙彦, 陈雪峰, 龚园超, 田健池, 纪泽宇, 李杨, 张林秀. (2023). 气候变化心理学研究进展及发展建议. 中国科学院院刊, 38(8), 1197-1211.
[14] 王晓楠. (2017). 国外环境行为的元分析评述: 历程与展望. 河海大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 19(2), 72-77.
[15] 伍麟. (2005). 时代精神与当代环境心理学的应对. 南京师大学报(社会科学版), 5, 96-100.
[16] 张珂烨, 左孟杰, 耿柳娜. (2021). 走进大自然: 自然体验及其积极效应. 心理科学, 44(6), 1469-1475.
[17] Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
[18] Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (1992). Place attachment. Springer.
[19] Barker R. G.(1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford University Press.
[20] Bechtel, R. B., & Churchman, A. (2002). Handbook of environmental psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[21] Bonnes, M., & Secchiaroli, G. (1995). Environmental psychology: A psycho-social introduction. SAGE Publications, Inc.
[22] Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
[23] Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husén & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education ( pp. 37-43). Elsevier.
[24] Clayton S. D.(2012). The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. Oxford University Press..
[25] Collado, S., & Evans, G. W. (2019). Outcome expectancy: A key factor to understanding childhood exposure to nature and children's pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 61, 30-36.
[26] Collado S., Staats H., & Corraliza J. A. (2013). Experiencing nature in children's summer camps: Affective, cognitive and behavioural consequences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33, 37-44.
[27] Craik, K. H. (1973). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, 403-422.
[28] Cutting J. E.,& Vishton, P. M. (1995). Perceiving layout and knowing distances: The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth In W Epstein & S Rogers (Eds), Perception of space and motion (pp 69-177) Academic Press The integration, relative potency, and contextual use of different information about depth. In W. Epstein & S. Rogers (Eds.), Perception of space and motion (pp. 69-177). Academic Press.
[29] Duff H., Vignoles V. L., Becker M., & Milfont T. L. (2022). Self-construals and environmental values in 55 cultures. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 79, Article 101722.
[30] Dunlap R. E., van Liere K. D., Mertig A. G., & Jones R. E. (2000). New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425-442.
[31] Elkington J., Burke T., & Hailes J. (2017). Green pages: The business of saving the world. Routledge.
[32] Evans, G. W. (2006). Child development and the physical environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 423-451.
[33] Frick J., Kaiser F. G., & Wilson M. (2004). Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: Exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(8), 1597-1613.
[34] Fritsche I., Barth M., Jugert P., Masson T., & Reese G. (2018). A social identity model of pro-environmental action (SIMPEA). Psychological Review, 125(2), 245-269.
[35] Gärling, T., & Golledge, R. G. (2018). Cognitive mapping and spatial decision-making. In R. Kitchin & S. Freundschuh (Eds.), Cognitive mapping (pp. 44-65). Routledge.
[36] Gifford, R. (2013). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Optimal Books.
[37] Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 541-579.
[38] Giles-Corti B., Broomhall M. H., Knuiman M., Collins C., Douglas K., Ng K., & Donovan R. J. (2005). Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 169-176.
[39] Giles-Corti B., Vernez-Moudon A., Reis R., Turrell G., Dannenberg A. L., Badland H., & Owen N. (2016). City planning and population health: A global challenge. The Lancet, 388(10062), 2912-2924.
[40] Giuliani, M. V., & Scopelliti, M. (2009). Empirical research in environmental psychology: Past, present, and future. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 375-386.
[41] Hägerstrand, T. (1970). What about people in regional science? Papers in Regional Science, 24(1), 7-21.
[42] Hartig T., Mitchell R., De Vries S., & Frumkin H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 207-228.
[43] Harvey, D. (2009). Social justice and the city. University of Georgia Press..
[44] Holahan, C. J. (1986). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 381-407.
[45] Hornsey M. J., Harris E. A., Bain P. G., & Fielding K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 622-626.
[46] Kaiser F. G., Wölfing S., & Fuhrer U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 1-19.
[47] Kaplan R.,& Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective Cambridge University Press A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press.
[48] Kelz C., Evans G. W., & Röderer K. (2015). The restorative effects of redesigning the schoolyard: A multi-methodological, quasi-experimental study in rural Austrian middle schools. Environment and Behavior, 47(2), 119-139.
[49] Kormos, C., & Gifford, R. (2014). The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 359-371.
[50] Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 111-130.
[51] Milfont, T. L., & Tam, K. P. (2017). Cross-cultural environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 54, I.
[52] Pred, A. (1977). The choreography of existence: Comments on Hägerstrand's time-geography and its usefulness. Economic Geography, 53(2), 207-221.
[53] Pred, A. (1984). Place as historically contingent process: Structuration and the time-geography of becoming places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 74(2), 279-297.
[54] Proshansky H. M., Ittelson W. H., & Rivlin L. G. (1970). Environmental psychology: Man and his physical setting. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
[55] Rapoport, A. (1990). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach. University of Arizona Press.
[56] Rashid, M., & Zimring, C. (2008). A review of the empirical literature on the relationships between indoor environment and stress in health care and office settings: Problems and prospects of sharing evidence. Environment and Behavior, 40(2), 151-190.
[57] Russell, J. A., & Ward, L. M. (1982). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 651-688.
[58] Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. H. (1990). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 441-477.
[59] Steg, L. (2023). Psychology of climate change. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 391-421.
[60] Steg L., Bolderdijk J. W., Keizer K., & Perlaviciute G. (2014). An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 104-115.
[61] Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317.
[62] Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.
[63] Stokols, D. (1978). Environmental psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 29, 253-295.
[64] Stokols, D. (1995). The paradox of environmental psychology. American Psychologist, 50(10), 821-837.
[65] Suedfeld, P., & Steel, G. D. (2000). The environmental psychology of capsule habitats. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 227-253.
[66] Tam, K. P., & Milfont, T. L. (2020). Towards cross-cultural environmental psychology: A state-of-the-art review and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, Article 101474.
[67] Trivedi R. H., Patel J. D., & Acharya N. (2018). Causality analysis of media influence on environmental attitude, intention and behaviors leading to green purchasing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 11-22.
[68] Truelove H. B., Greenberg M. R., & Powers C. W. (2014). Are implicit associations with nuclear energy related to policy support? Evidence from the brief implicit association test. Environment and Behavior, 46(7), 898-923.
[69] Ulrich R. S., Simons R. F., Losito B. D., Fiorito E., Miles M. A., & Zelson M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201-230.
[70] van der Werff E., Steg L., & Keizer K. (2014). I am what I am, by looking past the present: The influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 46(5), 626-657.
[71] Wesley Schultz, P., & Zelezny, L. (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(3), 255-265.
[72] Whitmarsh, L., & O'Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305-314.
[73] Wohlwill, J. F. (1974). Human adaptation to levels of environmental stimulation. Human Ecology, 2(2), 127-147.
PDF(2520 KB)
