Environmental psychology studies the interaction between humans and their physical/social environment — from feelings of comfort in city parks to how spatial design influences environmentally friendly behaviour. Due to its broad scope, the research methods used are also diverse: quantitative surveys, field experiments, behavioural observation, qualitative studies, and mixed-methods designs that combine several approaches.
In recent years, there has been a noticeable shift towards mixed methods and recognition of the value of qualitative research — not just quantifying behaviour but also gaining a deeper understanding of meaning, narrative, and the researcher’s position in socio-ecological studies. Recent reviews highlight how qualitative methods enrich our understanding of climate issues, environmental restoration, and community participation.
For quantitative studies, cross-sectional survey designs remain popular due to their efficiency and ability to measure relationships between variables (e.g., place attachment vs. well-being). However, researchers increasingly emphasise construct validity, examination of measurement invariance (whether measurement tools work similarly across different groups), and more complete reliability reporting.
Measurements of key concepts such as place attachment or restorative environments continue to be refined. A concrete example: a validated short scale for place attachment (Abbreviated Place Attachment Scale — APAS) provides a concise and cross-cultural tool for large surveys, facilitating comparisons between countries and contexts.
Field experiments are also increasingly used in environmental psychology because they provide stronger causal evidence than observational surveys. For example, the effects of simple interventions in public space design or the placement of information signs can be tested directly on visitor behaviour.
Although quantitative methods are powerful for generalisation, new research reveals biases in pro-environmental research practices: samples predominantly from the Global North, a preference for easily measurable behaviours, and a preference for certain theories — this challenges the relevance of the results for the global population. Researchers suggest including more diverse samples and open-science practices to improve the quality of findings.
In-depth interviews, focus groups, and brief ethnographies are increasingly being applied to explore how people construct meaning around place, nature, or environmental risk. These techniques help uncover cognitive-emotional processes that do not always emerge from closed-ended questionnaires.
A critical and integrative approach (e.g. linking environmental psychology with a socio-critical perspective) encourages researchers to question assumptions: who is considered the subject of research, how narratives of environmental change are constructed, and the ethical implications of interventions. This view broadens the scope of methods so that they measure not only individuals but also the social structures that influence behaviour.
Participatory methods (citizen science, co-design) are gaining ground: involving citizens in data collection or intervention design increases the practical relevance of research and facilitates the transfer of knowledge to policy or urban planning. However, the reliability of participatory data needs to be tested with clear quality control procedures.
In the realm of psychometric measurement, recent studies continue to develop and test scales for specific age groups or cultures — for example, the development of a place attachment scale for adolescents through EFA and CFA to ensure its factor structure and reliability. Such processes are important for research results to be valid and usable as a basis for environmental design recommendations.
Data analysis is also becoming increasingly complex: in addition to classical inferential statistics (regression, ANOVA), advanced modelling is used (e.g. multilevel modelling for nested data — individuals in an environment; SEM for causal path testing), as well as text and thematic analysis for qualitative data. The choice of technique must be appropriate to the research design and questions.
Environmental research ethics have several specific concerns: field research in public spaces requires consideration of privacy and informed consent, intervention experiments must avoid negative impacts on the community, and location data (geolocation) management requires extra protection so that participants are not exposed.
For novice researchers: start with clear research questions, choose the most appropriate design (quantitative for generalisation, qualitative for exploration, mixed for both), use validated instruments where possible, and plan the analysis before collecting data so that the sample size and collection methods meet statistical assumptions.
Other practical tips—if using online surveys, conduct a pilot test to check the language and completion time; if observing behaviour, create clear behaviour codes so that observers are consistent; if conducting interviews, create semi-structured guidelines to allow for comparison while allowing space for narrative. Document all steps so that the research can be replicated.
In short, research methods in environmental psychology are now pluralistic, reflexive, and increasingly attentive to the socio-cultural context. Combining appropriate methodologies with open and inclusive practices will make research results more valid and useful for space design, environmental policy, and human well-being.
References:
Brick, C., Nielsen, K. S., Berger, S., et al. (2024). Current research practices on pro-environmental behavior: A survey of environmental psychologists. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 97, 102375. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102375.
Boley, B. B., Strzelecka, M., Yeager, E. P., et al. (2021). Measuring place attachment with the Abbreviated Place Attachment Scale (APAS). Journal of Environmental Psychology, 74, 101577. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101577.
Caggiano, H., et al. (2023). Advances in qualitative methods in environmental research. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-112321-080106.
Kühn, T., et al. (2022). Linking environmental psychology and critical social psychology: Theoretical considerations toward a comprehensive research agenda. Frontiers in Psychology. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.947243.
Erdoğdu, M. Y., et al. (2025). Development of a Place Attachment Scale for Adolescents (PASA) and determination of its psychometric qualities. BMC Psychology. DOI: 10.1186/s40359-025-02448-y.