International Journal of Environmental Health Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cije20

The impact of nature exposure on body image and

happiness: an experience sampling study

Stefan Stieger , Isabel Aichinger & Viren Swami

To cite this article: Stefan Stieger , Isabel Aichinger & Viren Swami (2020): The impact of nature
exposure on body image and happiness: an experience sampling study, International Journal of
Environmental Health Research, DOI: 10.1080/09603123.2020.1803805

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2020.1803805

Published online: 10 Aug 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cije20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2020.1803805

ARTICLE

The impact of nature exposure on body image and happiness: an

experience sampling study
Stefan Stiegera, Isabel Aichingera and Viren Swamib,c
a
Department of Psychology and Psychodynamics, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems an der
Donau, Austria; bSchool of Psychology and Sport Science, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK; cCentre for
Psychological Medicine, Perdana University, Serdang, Malaysia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Exposure to nature is associated with improved psychological well-being Received 27 April 2020
and positive body image. Here, we examined whether everyday exposure Accepted 28 July 2020
to natural environments is associated with state body image outcomes KEYWORDS
(and, for comparative reasons, state happiness) using an experience sam­ Nature exposure; body
pling method. One-hundred-and-seven participants completed a 30-day image; experience sampling;
experience sampling phase in which they reported their state body image natural environment
(body weight, body shape, and physical appearance satisfaction), state
happiness, and features of the surrounding environment (total = 6,025
responses) at three random time-points each day. Results indicated that
being outdoors was associated with significantly higher state body image
on all three indicators, but effect sizes were lower compared to effects on
state happiness. Specific environment type was also important, with blue-
spaces and wood- and grasslands, respectively, having stronger effects
than other environments. These results provide evidence that everyday
exposure to natural environments is associated with more positive state
body image and greater happiness.

The environment around us can be conceptualised as a continuum ranging from built-up, urban
environments to natural spaces, which are relatively unaltered by humans and typically contain
high concentrations of living systems (Abraham et al. 2010). A large body of empirical research now
indicates that exposure to, and engagement with, natural environments (e.g., wild forests, coastal
areas, and designed greenspaces) are associated with wide-ranging positive outcomes (for reviews
and meta-analyses, see Bowler et al. 2010; Hartig et al. 2014; Collado et al. 2017; Frumkin et al. 2017;
Kondo et al. 2018; van den Bosch and Bird 2018). For example, even brief contact with natural
environments has been found to be associated with improved cognition (e.g., Berman et al. 2008),
reduced stress (e.g., Gidlow et al. 2016), enhanced self-esteem (e.g., Barton and Pretty 2010), and
decreased blood pressure (e.g., Lee et al. 2009).

Natural environments and body image

Recently, this body of research has been extended to show that nature exposure is also associated
with positive outcomes in terms of body image, a multifaceted construct that includes one’s
thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and behaviours that are related to the body (Cash and Pruzinsky 2002;
Cash and Smolak 2011). Negative body image, in particular, has been identified as a major public

CONTACT Viren Swami viren.swami@aru.ac.uk Division of Psychology, School of Psychology and Sport Science, Anglia
Ruskin University, Cambridge, CB1 1PT, UK
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 S. STIEGER ET AL.

health concern, not only because it affects a majority of individuals in most socioeconomically
developed settings (e.g., Wardle et al. 2006; Swami et al. 2010), but also because of deleterious
outcomes associated with negative body image. For example, negative body image is one of the most
important prognostic factors in the onset and maintenance of eating pathology (e.g., Stice and Shaw
2002) and is also associated with poorer social functioning (e.g., Cash et al. 2004), exercise
dependence and the use of performance-enhancing drugs (e.g., White and Halliwell 2010), dis­
comfort with sexual functioning (e.g., Woertman and van den Brink 2012), and poorer psycholo­
gical well-being (e.g., Swami et al. 2018c). These negative outcomes mean that is important to
identify putative factors and situations that may protect against negative body image and promote
healthier body image experiences (Tylka and Wood-Barcalow 2015).
One factor that appears to be robustly associated with healthier body image outcomes is
exposure to natural environments. The evidence base underlying this relationship comes from
studies using different methodologies. First, cross-sectional work has shown that greater self-
reported nature exposure is significantly associated with higher indices of positive body image
(i.e., body appreciation and functionality appreciation) in adults from the United States (Swami
et al. 2016a; Mitten and D’Amore 2018) and the United Kingdom (Swami et al. 2019a, p. 2020).
Second, one-group pretest-posttest studies have reported that exposure to natural environments –
such as urban parks, beaches, and botanic gardens – results in significant improvements to state
body image in samples from diverse national contexts (Swami 2020a; Swami, Mohd. Khatib et al.,
2020). Finally, experimental studies have shown that exposure to natural environments, but not
built environments, is associated with significant elevations in state positive body image (Swami
et al. 2018a). Experimental studies have also reported that exposure to isomorphic natural
environments – presented in the form of films of a first-person walk in nature (Swami et al.
2018b; Swami 2020b) and photographs of nature (Swami et al. 2018a) – promotes improved body
appreciation.
Theories concerning the effects of nature exposure on body image have focused on direct and
indirect pathways. Explanations of direct pathways typically borrow from Psychophysiological
Stress Recovery Theory (Ulrich 1981, 1983) and Attention Restoration Theory (Kaplan and
Kaplan 1989; Kaplan 1995; Stevenson et al. 2018), two complementary frameworks that have
been proposed to explain the psychological benefits of nature exposure (Hartig et al. 1996; Hartig
2005; Berto 2014). As applied to body image, it has been suggested that engagement with natural
environments restricts appearance-related cognitions, supports speedier recovery from threats to
body image, and shifts attention away from body aesthetics onto body competencies or function­
ality (Swami et al. 2018a, p. 2019). That is, natural environments may help individuals to distance
themselves physically and mentally from social contexts that are appearance-focused, while also
promoting holistic self-care attitudes that include greater respect, appreciate, and love for one’s
body (Hennigan 2010; Swami et al. 2018a).
In terms of indirect effects, there is some evidence of mediational pathways from nature
exposure to body image via higher self-compassion (Swami et al. 2019a) and greater connectedness
to nature (Swami et al. 2020a; see also Swami et al. 2016b). For example, exposure to nature may
promote greater self-kindness, a key facet of self-compassion, which in turn is associated with more
positive body image (Swami et al. 2019a). In addition, immersion in nature may help some social
identity groups to see commonalities between themselves and wider ecosystems (e.g., by confirming
parallel subordinated roles), which helps to change self-perceptions and promote body-protective
behaviours (Holloway et al. 2014). Although these theories of the relationship between nature
exposure and body image remain in early stages of explication, it is becoming increasingly clear that
nature is beneficial to psychological well-being because of its restorative effects (Gifford 2014) and
that those effects extend to body image specifically (Swami et al. 2018a).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH 3

Experience sampling
Although the body of research documenting a link between nature exposure and body image has
grown substantively in the past several years, it is notable that the extant research is limited to cross-
sectional studies and laboratory-based research. Cross-sectional research is limited because it relies
on retrospective assessments of nature exposure that may be subject to recall biases and because it is
unable to provide moment-to-moment assessments of body image. Likewise, experimental research
is useful in terms of being able to establish causality, but outcome measurements in these studies are
limited in terms of measurement occasions (i.e., all such studies have used pre- and post-
intervention measurements, with no longer-term follow-up). In contrast, there is now much
wider interest in how body image experiences vary within individuals over time, including in
daily life (e.g., Melnyk et al. 2004; Rudiger et al. 2007). Indeed, empirical research has shown that
body image experiences are highly variable intra-individually within and across days (e.g., Colautti
et al. 2011; Heron and Smyth 2013; Mills et al. 2014; Fuller-Tyszkiewicz et al. 2018b). Importantly,
these studies have shown that shifts in state body image experiences are related to a range of
contextual factors, such as appearance-related comparisons with attractive others (e.g., Ridolfi et al.
2011; Fuller-Tyszkiewicz et al. 2019; Griffiths and Stefanovski 2019) and having recently exercised
(e.g., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz et al. 2013, 2018a).
To date, however, studies have not examined such intra-individual changes in state body image
as a function of engagement with natural environments. The experience sampling method (ESM;
also referred to as ecological momentary assessment or ambulatory assessment) affords an ideal
research tool for examining such effects as they occur in individuals’ everyday lives (Bolger and
Laurenceau 2013; Mehl and Conner 2012; for its application to body image research, see Fuller-
Tyszkiewicz 2019; Mills and Ling 2018; for its application to research on natural environments and
well-being, see; Bakolis et al. 2018; MacKerron and Mourato 2013; see also Stieger et al. 2020). By
responding to prompts to complete brief surveys on multiple, semi-random occasions throughout
the day over a period of time, ESM is able to generate intensive longitudinal data in a manner not
possible with traditional laboratory-based research (Bolger and Laurenceau 2013; Stieger and
Kuhlmann 2018). This, in turn, provides a more complete understanding of how often individuals
encounter natural environments in their everyday lives and how such encounters impact on their
body image. More specifically, compared to previous studies, ESM data are less likely to be affected
by memory distortions or judgmental biases, have the benefit of increased ecological validity, and
allows for an examination of the impact of nature exposure across a variety of everyday conditions
(Fuller-Tyszkiewicz 2019).
Another area where ESM offers potentially useful explanatory power is in helping to understand
the impact that different types of natural environments have on body image. In terms of the broader
literature on well-being, for example, it has been shown that woodlands, forests, and coastal areas
are perceived as more restorative than urban playing field and playgrounds (White et al. 2013,
2017). To date, however, studies have not fully examined the impact of different environment types
on body image, although one study from Malaysia indicated that exposure to blue-spaces (speci­
fically beaches) may be more effective than exposure to green-spaces (specifically forests) at
promoting improvements in body image (Swami et al. 2020b, Study, p. 2). However, there is
scope to further extend this line of research by examining the impact of exposure to a broader
range of natural environments. ESM is useful in this regard because it allows for an exploration of
the impact of exposure to the different types and wide range of natural environments that
individuals come into contact with.

The present study

In the present study, therefore, we used ESM to examine whether daily encounters with natural
environments have an impact on body image. Our primary objective was to examine whether, and
4 S. STIEGER ET AL.

the degree to which, daily engagement with natural environments is associated with body image
outcomes, which we operationalised as changes to state feelings about one’s body weight, body
shape, and physical appearance. We also included a measure of state affective well-being, namely
feelings of happiness (MacKerron and Mourato 2013). Although this was included primarily for
comparative reasons, it is useful to note that more positive body image is reliably associated with
greater subjective happiness in cross-sectional studies (e.g., Swami et al. 2018c, 2019b, 2020c). Based
on earlier experimental research (Swami 2020a; Swami et al. 2018a; Swami et al. 2020b), we
hypothesised that exposure to natural environments would be significantly associated with more
positive state body image. A secondary objective of the present study was to examine whether
different types of natural environments have varying effects on state body image. This aspect of our
research was more exploratory, although we preliminarily expected that blue-spaces would be more
strongly associated with positive state body image compared with green-spaces.

Method
Participants and recruitment
The study population were a convenience sample from the community in Austria. Participants were
recruited by word-of-mouth through friends, relatives, and friends-of-friends in three waves (April
and May, July and August, and August and September 2019). Conducting the study in waves was
necessary in order to compensate for seasonal changes in outdoor activities (e.g., bathing season is
in summer, hiking season is usually in spring and autumn). One-hundred-and-sixty individuals
began the study, 151 completed a demographic questionnaire, and 113 completed the final ques­
tionnaire at the end of the study period. In total, 107 participants completed the demographics
questionnaire, the final questionnaire, and at least one questionnaire in the longitudinal assessment
(63% of participants filled in more than 50% of the possible assessments). This surpasses the lower
limit reported in many ESM studies on body image (e.g., Leahey et al. 2011; Fuller-Tyszkiewicz et al.
2019). Participants were mainly women (65.6%; 25.2% men; 9.3% missing) and had a mean age of
26.9 years (SD = 11.2). Mean participant weight was 67.1 kg (SD = 15.8), mean height was 170.2 cm
(SD = 9.5), and mean body mass index (BMI) was 23.0 kg/m2 (SD = 4.2). In terms of relationship
status, 41.7% were single, 39.1% in a relationship, 14.6% married or in a registered partnership, and
0.7% were divorced (4.0% missing).

Measures
Daily questionnaire
Participants were asked to complete a daily questionnaire three times a day for 30 days. First,
participants were asked where they were (indoors vs. outdoors) and to select the most appropriate
description of their surroundings from a predetermined list (adapted from MacKerron and
Mourato 2013): urban (wholly or mainly buildings or human-made structures), suburban (mainly
buildings/structures but some greenery), designed greenspace (city parks, managed forests), rural
developed (some buildings but mainly wood- or grassland), wood- and grassland, mountains (rocks
without vegetation), blue-space (lake, sea, river, wetlands). Next, participants were asked to
complete three state body image items, adapted from visual analogue scales that are widely-used
in body image research and that have been shown to have adequate construct validity (Heinberg
and Thompson 1995). These items were: (1) ‘How do you feel about your body weight right now?’
(1 = extremely dissatisfied, 100 = extremely satisfied); (2) ‘How do you feel about your body shape
right now?’ (1 = extremely dissatisfied, 100 = extremely satisfied), and; (3) ‘How do you feel about
your physical appearance right now?’ (1 = extremely dissatisfied, 100 = extremely satisfied). Similar
items have been used in other ESM studies on body image (e.g., Rogers et al. 2017; Tan et al. 2019)
with similar anchors (Griffiths and Stefanovski 2019). In addition, we included an item about
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH 5

participants’ state affective well-being (i.e., happiness), similar to an item used in previous research
(Griffiths and Stefanovski 2019): ‘How are you feeling right now?’ (1 = extremely unhappy,
100 = extremely happy). For all items, participants provided their responses using a visual analogue
scale without a slider in a predefined position; that is, as soon as a participant touched the line of the
visual analogue scale with their finger, a slider appeared that could then be moved in 1-unit
increments.

Demographic questionnaire
Following the installation of a self-developed ESM smartphone application (see below) and regis­
tration in the study, participants were asked to respond to a request for basic demographic details
(sex, age, weight, height, current relationship status).

Final questionnaire
Following the longitudinal phase of the study (see below), participants were asked to complete
a second set of demographic items (the same items as described below, used to determine data
quality), along with two additional instruments. The first was the Nature Exposure Scale (NES;
Kamitsis and Francis 2013), a 4-item scale that measures an individual’s level of exposure to nature
in everyday life and activities and levels of exposure to nature outside of everyday environments
(sample item: ‘How much do you notice the natural environments in your everyday life?’). Response
anchors varied depending on the item, but all included 5-point scales. An overall score of nature
exposure was computed as the mean of all four items, so that higher scores reflect greater nature
exposure. Previous work has shown that scores on the NES have a 1-dimensional factor structure
(Swami et al. 2016a) and adequate internal consistency and construct validity (Kamitsis and Francis
2013). McDonald’s ω for scores on this scale was .72 (95% CI = .56, .88).
The second instrument was the 14-item Connectedness to Nature Scale (CNS; Mayer and Franz
2004), which measures participants’ affective and experiential connection to nature (sample item: ‘I
often feel part of the web of life’). Items were rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and an overall score was computed as the mean of all items. Higher
scores on this scale reflect greater connectedness to nature. Mayer and Franz (2004) reported that
scores on the scale have a 1-dimensional factor structure, and estimates supported the psychometric
properties of its scores in community samples. In the present study, McDonald’s ω for scores on this
measure was .88 (95% CI = .85, .91).

Procedures
All participants provided written informed consent prior to their participation in the study, in
accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and guidelines of the Karl Landsteiner University of
Health Sciences. Approval by an ethics committee was not required because the study did not affect
the physical or psychological integrity, the right for privacy, or other personal rights or interests of
participants, as determined by Austrian national law. Data collection was anonymous and no
harmful procedures were used. Participants were informed that they could withdraw at any time
during the study without consequences and all participants received written debriefing information
at the end of the study. All participants took part on voluntary basis.
The study utilised ESM using a time-contingent sampling approach, meaning that ‘bings’ (i.e.,
in-app reminders) were sent at semi-random times within a pre-defined time-frame. Semi-random
intervals were used instead of fixed scheduling so as to avoid responses biases due to habituation
(Napa-Scollon et al. 2003). A smartphone application (henceforth ‘app’) was designed for this
project and made freely-available through the Google Play Store. Participants could download the
app anonymously and back-end server software – located on a separate server at the first author’s
university information-and-technology infrastructure – ensured communication with the app, as
well as storage of data (communication was encrypted). When the app was opened, participants
6 S. STIEGER ET AL.

were required to provide a keyword (provided by the study authors in order to ensure that only
participants who had agreed to take part could register for the study). Next, the app provided basic
information about the study and asked for informed consent. Once provided, participants were
successfully registered for the study, were given the possibility of adjusting time-frames for bings,
and were encouraged to complete as many surveys as possible without compromising their personal
safety (e.g., while driving).
Bings (‘Please fill-in the daily questionnaire right now’; see above) were sent out three times
per day for a duration of 30 days (between 8am and 8pm; minimum time between bings = 120 min­
utes) by the app itself (i.e., in-app reminder). This is consistent with previous ESM studies on body
image (e.g., Leahey et al. 2011; Fitzsimmons-Craft et al. 2016) and likely facilitated response
compliance (Rintala et al. 2019). The bing was active for 45 minutes; after that, the bing deleted
itself. Additionally, a reminder was sent 15 minutes after the initial bing if no response was
recorded. The initial demographic questionnaire and the final questionnaire (see above) were also
included in the smartphone app and could be completed by clicking on the name of the ques­
tionnaire on a desktop-type screen. All items across all questionnaires were presented in German.
Because the smartphone app was only available for Android users, we additionally used a web-
version of the smartphone app for participants (n = 40) using other operating systems on their
smartphones (e.g., iOS). With this web-version, questionnaires were identical in wording and
graphical display; they were only presented in a web-browser instead of the app. Because bings
cannot be provided through the web-version, the second author of the study sent bings as
a broadcast message directly to the participants using WhatsApp.

Statistical analyses
We used R (R Development Core Team 2014) to conduct all statistical analyses using the lme4
(Bates et al. 2015) and sjstats packages (Lüdecke 2019). Random-intercept, fixed-slope multi-level
regression analyses were calculated to analyse the effects of environment (indoors vs. outdoors;
direct surroundings of the participant in the field) on state body image (physical appearance, body
shape, body weight) and happiness. The multi-level models account for the nested design of our
study with measurement occasions (level 1) nested within persons (level 2). We created dummy
variables for indoor/outdoor (reference category = indoor) and place (reference category = urban).
We first ran a baseline model without any predictors to calculate intraclass correlation coefficient
(ICC) values. Next, we ran a model with age, sex, CNS scores, and NES scores, which were all
simultaneously entered on level 2 (all level 2 variables were grand-mean centred except sex; Enders
and Tofighi 2007; Nezlek 2012). In terms of our dependent variables (physical appearance, body
shape, body weight, and happiness), none of the level 2 variables reached statistical significance.
Therefore, for the sake of a parsimonious model, we did not include these variables in the final
model. This additionally raises the power of the design, because some participants did not complete
either the demographic variables or the final questionnaire. Furthermore, we report standardised
betas of fixed coefficients (Nezlek 2010). The final model is displayed below:
Level 1 (within person): (physical appearance, body shape, body weight, and happiness)ti = π0i + π1i Outdoorti
+ π2i Place-suburbanti + π3i Place-designed-green-spaceti + π4i Place-ruralti + π5i Place-wood-grasslandti + π6i
Place-mountainsti + π7i Place-waterti + eti

Level 2 (between persons): π0i = β00 + r0i

Level 2: π1i = β10; π2i = β20; π3i = β30; π4i = β40; π5i = β50; π6i = β60; π7i = β70

ICCs for the four dependent measures were: body weight = 84%, body shape = 80%, physical
appearance = 74%, and happiness = 52%. In general, the body image scores were fairly stable within
participants, which is reflected by the relatively high ICC values, i.e., 74% to 84% of variance was
between-participants, 16% to 26% within-participants.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH 7

We used R2GLMM (Nakagawa and Schielzeth 2013; Nakagawa et al. 2017) as a measure of
explained variance, which can be interpreted like the traditional R2 statistic in regression
analyses. R2marginal represents the proportion of variance explained by the fixed factors alone,
and R2conditional the proportion of variance explained by both fixed and random factors.
Additionally, following Nakagawa and Schielzeth (2013), we also included AIC and BIC as
information criterion indices. Unfortunately, because of a technical problem with the smart­
phone app, data from two NES items from 24 participants were not stored. Therefore, the
mean value of the NES overall score depends only on two instead of four items for these 24
participants.1

Results
Validity check
the study, namely at the beginning of the study and again in the final questionnaire. All
demographics were highly consistent across time (participant sex: 100% consistent; age:
r = 1.00; weight: r = .99; height: r = .99; relationship status contingency coefficient: .80; one
single participant changed to being in relationship, two in a relationship changed to being
married, and one to single, one single participant changed to being divorced).
To analyse a possible association between motivations to participate and dropout, respec­
tively, on study variables, we calculated correlations between the compliance rate (number of
assessments during the ESM part) and level 2 variables. We found no significant correlations
or differences with level 2 variables assessed at the beginning of the study including dropouts
(i.e., age, weight, height: all rs < .07, ps > .38; sex: Mann-Whitney-U test: z = −0.64, p = .53;
relationship status: Kruskal-Wallis H = 2.06, p = .56), as well as variables assessed at the end
of the study without participants who left the study prematurely (CNS, NES: all rs < .14,
ps > .14).

Descriptive statistics
Participants were primarily indoors at the time of assessments (76.7%; outdoors 22.9%; 0.5%
missing). In addition, participants were in the following surroundings (N = 6,025) at the time of
assessments: 31.9% urban, 25.0% suburban, 1.9% designed green spaces, 35.1% rural, 2.2% in blue-
spaces, 2.6% wood- and grasslands, and 0.3% in the mountains. In 1.0% of cases, participants failed
to state the surrounding.

Table 1. Results of the multi-level analyses for state body weight satisfaction.
Fixed Random
Coeff. β B SE t Coeff. SD
Intercept β00 61.7 1.78 34.65*** r0i 22.1
Within-person
Outdoors (ref. Indoors) β10 .05 1.1 0.34 3.24**
Place – Suburban β20 <.01 <0.1 0.40 0.20
Place – Designed greenspace β30 .03 0.8 0.98 0.82
Place – Rural developed β40 .02 0.5 0.38 1.28
Place – Wood- and grasslands β50 .08 1.8 0.94 1.96
Place – Mountains β60 .03 0.8 2.25 0.34
Place – Blue-space β70 .09 2.3 0.99 2.28*
R2conditional = 84%, R2marginal = < 1%, AIC = 44568, BIC = 44635
Reference category for Place was ‘Urban’. *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001.
8 S. STIEGER ET AL.

Table 2. Results of the multi-level analyses for state body shape satisfaction.
Fixed Random
Coeff. β B SE t Coeff. SD
Intercept β00 59.3 1.70 34.92** r0i 21.0
Within-person
Outdoors (ref. Indoors) β10 .05 1.1 0.37 2.97*
Place – Suburban β20 .01 0.2 0.43 0.50
Place – Designed greenspace β30 .02 0.4 1.06 0.40
Place – Rural developed β40 .01 0.3 0.41 0.70
Place – Wood- and grasslands β50 .13 3.0 1.02 2.92*
Place – Mountains β60 .14 3.3 2.43 1.37
Place – Blue-space β70 .07 1.6 1.07 1.45
R2conditional = 80%, R2marginal = < 1%, AIC = 45456, BIC = 45523
Reference category for Place was ‘Urban’. *p <.01, **p <.001.

Table 3. Results of the multi-level analyses for state physical appearance satisfaction.
Fixed Random
Coeff. β B SE t Coeff. SD
Intercept β00 60.1 1.64 36.68*** r0i 20.0
Within-person
Outdoors (ref. Indoors) β10 .10 2.4 0.42 5.72***
Place – Suburban β20 .01 0.3 0.49 0.67
Place – Designed greenspace β30 .05 1.1 1.21 0.92
Place – Rural developed β40 .01 0.2 0.46 0.47
Place – Wood- and grasslands β50 .15 3.5 1.17 3.00**
Place – Mountains β60 .36 8.5 2.76 3.08**
Place – Blue-space β70 .11 2.6 1.22 2.13*
R2conditional = 74%, R2marginal = < 1%, AIC = 46812, BIC = 46879
Reference category for Place was ‘Urban’. *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001.

Impact of nature on body image and happiness

As reported in Table 1, on average, participants rated their body weight satisfaction as 61.7 (possible
range 0 to 100). Being outdoors significantly raised this value by 1.1 on average and being in a blue-
space place (lake, sea, river, wetlands) by 2.3 points when compared to being indoors and in an
urban area. Being in wood- and grasslands failed to reach nominal significance (1.8 points). In
terms of body shape satisfaction (see Table 2), on average participants had a value of 59.3 (possible
range 0 to 100). Again, being outdoor raised this value significantly by 1.1 points. Furthermore,
being in wood- and grassland raised this satisfaction score by 3.0 points. Higher values were also
found when participants were in the mountains or in blue spaces (3.3 and 1.6 points respectively),
although these changes failed to reach significance due to the lower number of assessments in these
areas (see above). Similar effects were also found for satisfaction with one’s physical appearance (see
Table 3). On average, participants had a value of 60.1 (possible range 0 to 100). Being outdoor
significantly raised this value by 2.4 points. Furthermore, being in wood- or grasslands (3.5 points),
mountains (8.5 points), or blue-spaces (2.6 points) significantly raised scores.
In general, being in outdoors and in natural environments was significantly associated with
higher scores on state body weight satisfaction, body shape satisfaction, and satisfaction with
one’s physical appearance. For comparative reasons, we also analysed happiness in the different
surroundings (see Table 4). On average, participants had a happiness rating of 64.2 (possible
range 0 to 100). Being outdoors (3.5 points) and in non-urban areas (except designed green
spaces) significantly raised happiness assessments (1.2 to 9.5 points). This replicates the results of
MacKerron and Mourato (2013) who also found higher happiness scores when outdoors (2.3
points) and in non-urban places (range 0.9 [suburban/rural] to 6.0 points [marine, costal
margins]).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH 9

Table 4. Results of the multi-level analyses for state happiness.

Fixed Random
Coeff. β B SE t Coeff. SD
Intercept β00 64.2 1.26 51.17*** r0i 14.7
Within-person
Outdoors (ref. Indoors) β10 .17 3.5 0.50 6.93***
Place – Suburban β20 .06 1.3 0.59 2.21*
Place – Designed greenspace β30 > −.01 −0.2 1.45 −0.11
Place – Rural developed β40 .06 1.2 0.55 2.19*
Place – Wood- and grasslands β50 .31 6.4 1.40 4.60***
Place – Mountains β60 .44 9.0 3.31 2.73**
Place – Blue-space β70 .46 9.5 1.46 6.49***
R2conditional = 52%, R2marginal = 2%, AIC = 48580, BIC = 48646
Reference category for Place was ‘Urban’. *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001.

Discussion
The results of the present study provide a new line of evidence showing that exposure to, and
engagement with, natural environments is associated with more positive body image. That is,
corroborating previous research (e.g., Mitten and D’Amore 2018; Swami 2020a, 2020b; Swami
et al. 2016a; 2019; 2020; Swami et al. 2018a), we found that being in nature was significantly
associated with higher state body weight, body shape, and appearance satisfaction. More generally,
these results are consistent with research indicating that shifts in state body image can occur as
a result of engagement with a range of contextual factors (e.g., Ridolfi et al. 2011; Fuller-Tyszkiewicz
et al. 2018a, 2019; Griffiths and Stefanovski 2019). They are also consistent with earlier ESM studies
indicating that exposure to natural environments is associated with more positive psychological
well-being (e.g., MacKerron and Mourato 2013; Bakolis et al. 2018). In short, the present study adds
to previous cross-sectional and experimental studies indicating that exposure to nature brings
noticeable benefits in terms of body image.
Beyond these general findings, a number of specific effects in the present results are worth
highlighting. First, although the direction of effects was consistent across the three body image
items included here, it was notable that effect sizes were relatively larger for physical appearance
satisfaction. It is possible that this is a function of item content, with physical appearance satisfac­
tion providing a more global index of state body image – and thus, being more amenable to change
(see also the lower ICC for physical appearance, which means larger within-person variation) –
compared to body weight or shape satisfaction. Second, although being outdoors was consistently
associated with significantly more positive body image, the specific natural environment also
mattered. Specifically, while being in blue-spaces was significantly associated with higher body
weight satisfaction, only being in wood- and grasslands was significantly associated with higher
body shape satisfaction. On the other hand, being in wood- and grasslands, mountains, and blue-
spaces were all significantly associated with higher physical appearance satisfaction.
Based on the effects, it might be suggested that certain natural environments have stronger
beneficial effects on body image outcomes. In particular, blue-spaces appear to be particularly
important in this regard, which is consistent with earlier work indicating that the effects on state
body image of spending time in blue-spaces are significantly stronger than of spending time in
green-spaces (Swami et al. 2020b). One reason for this may be because blue-spaces, such as coastal
and riverine environments, are experienced as more restorative than green-spaces (White et al.
2013, 2017). In addition, blue-spaces may be perceived as more aesthetically-pleasing than green-
spaces, which may promote a greater sense of being physically and mentally away (Wyles et al.
2016) from body image stressors. In contrast, and interestingly, our results indicated that exposure
to urban green-spaces was not significantly associated with more positive body image. This stands
in contrast to previous work showing that spending time in urban green-spaces significantly
10 S. STIEGER ET AL.

elevated state body image (Swami et al. 2018a, 2020b; Swami 2020a). It is possible that the present
results point to the relative effects of different environment types, which has not been fully
investigated in terms of body image outcomes: that is, in comparing the impact on body image
across different environment types, our results suggest that urban green-spaces may be less
beneficial than other environment types.
Finally, although the present study’s finding that nature exposure was associated with signifi­
cantly higher state happiness is consistent with previous research (e.g., MacKerron and Mourato
2013), it is interesting to note that impacts on body image were relatively weaker in comparison to
effects on happiness. Although further research is required to understand this divergence, we
suggest that it may be related to the differential impact of nature exposure on global and lower-
order psychological well-being. That is, to the extent that state body image can be considered
a lower-order facet of subjective happiness, it may be that it proves easier to shift indices of
happiness compared to indices of body image (see Fuller-Tyszkiewicz et al. 2015). It is also possible
that there are complex inter-relationships between state body image and happiness, such that
improvements in state body image contribute to more positive state happiness and vice versa.
Given that we relied on a non-clinical sample of participants, we also cannot rule out the possibility
of ceiling effects in state body image compared to state happiness.

Limitations
The results of the present study should be placed in the context of a number of limitations. First, in
the interest of balancing breadth of assessment with participant burden, we measured state body
image using single-item measures. Although this is standard procedure in ESM studies on body
image (Fuller-Tyszkiewicz 2019), this meant that our study was unable to capture nuances in the
body image construct. In particular, we were unable to measure indices of the positive body image
construct specifically (see Tylka 2018; Tylka and Piran 2019), given that very brief instruments for
measuring this construct do not currently exist (for a review of existing measures, see Webb et al.
2015). Given that some scholars have suggested that the impact of nature exposure may be largest
for indices of positive (as opposed to negative) body image specifically (see Swami et al. 2019a), it
may be important in future research to more carefully consider body image outcome measures. Use
of the State Body Appreciation Scale-2 (Homan 2016) may be one possibility, although doing so
may not be expedient in ESM designs given that it consists of 10 items.
Although an ESM design allows for analysis of causal pathways due to the time-lagged structure,
we were unable to determine reliable causal pathways. It would have been interesting to examine
whether people choose environments partly based on their affective state. That is, individuals who
have more positive body image or higher levels of happiness may be more likely to spend time
outdoors. Calculating a multi-level Vector Autoregression model (mlVAR; Epskamp et al. 2018) with
physical appearance satisfaction (perhaps the best indicator of global body image, see above),
happiness, and place found that being outdoors significantly raised happiness by .06 (i.e., standar­
dized path coefficient) and physical appearance satisfaction by .04, but not the other way round (i.e.,
higher happiness and/or higher physical appearance satisfaction led to a higher probability of going
outdoors). Higher physical appearance satisfaction led to higher happiness (.06) and higher happi­
ness also led to higher physical appearance satisfaction (.07; detailed results omitted for brevity).
However, these results have to be treated with caution. Lagged analyses assume that a specific point in
time (t) causally influence the subsequent time point (t+ 1). This can only be analysed when there are
no missing values (i.e., if the timepoint t+ 1 is missing, t cannot be used for analyses). Furthermore,
usually the first measurement of a day is not regressed on the last measurement of the previous day.
This results in fewer assessments points for analyses and, therefore, in reduced power.
Likewise, although we did not expect to recruit a representative sample of the Austrian popula­
tion given our recruitment methods, caution should necessarily be applied when considering the
generalisability of our findings. Specifically, the use of a convenience sample increases the risk of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH 11

sampling biases that may mean our findings do not generalise widely, although it should be noted
that our effects are consistent with previous work (e.g., MacKerron and Mourato 2013). It is also
possible that the specific sites visited by participants had an impact on outcomes. For instance, one
previous study suggested that the presence and degree of pristineness of natural environments may
have an impact on body image outcomes (Swami et al. 2020b), but this was not measured in the
present study. Likewise, in future research it may be important to examine additional factors that
may affect body image outcomes, such as the weather when the participant is outdoors, companion­
ship when outdoors, whether or not participants are on holiday (see MacKerron and Mourato
2013). In a similar vein, it may be useful to examine the extent to which familiarity with different
natural environments and/or specific sites that are visited impacted our results.
Finally, it may be important to examine the type of activity that is conducted when outdoors,
especially given research showing that exercising in natural environments has positive effects on
self-esteem and mood (Barton and Pretty 2010). In particular, we cannot rule out the possibility that
being in nature meant that participants were also more physically active than when indoors. Indeed,
previous ESM research has shown substantial increases in state body image satisfaction post-
exercise relative to random assessments at other times throughout the day (e.g., Fuller-
Tyszkiewicz et al. 2013). However, exercise in these studies is typically defined as deliberate physical
activity (e.g., gym sessions), whereas exposure to natural environments may also involve incidental
physical activity (that is, physical activity may have been a by-product of being in natural environ­
ments). Nevertheless, we cannot discount the possibility that being in natural environments was
confounded with physical activity – whether deliberate or incidental – and, as such, this would
something that could be investigated further in future research.

Conclusion
These limitations aside, the present research is important because it is the first to show that everyday
encounters with natural environments are associated with more positive body image. In broad outline,
our results are consistent with research suggesting that body image experiences vary within individuals
in daily life (Melnyk et al. 2004; Rudiger et al. 2007) and, more specifically, that contact with natural
environments is associated with more positive corporeal experiences. These findings, along with the
results of previous research and the finding that nature exposure is associated with greater state
happiness, are important because they highlight the role that exposure to natural environments could
play in reducing rates of negative body image. For example, our findings may have implications for the
design of therapeutic interventions aimed at promoting healthier body image and, more distally, in the
treatment of disordered eating (e.g., Jepsen Transgrud et al. 2020). More generally, our findings highlight
the importance of prioritising access to natural environments, which is likely to bring substantive
benefits in terms of promoting everyday psychological well-being, including in terms of body image.

Note
1. We also analysed whether weekends vs. weekdays had some predictive value on body image outcomes. For all
body image measures, we found no significant effects. Therefore, we did not include this variable into our final
model. For happiness, there was a significant but small effect (on weekends, happiness was 0.88 points higher
on a VAS from 0 to 100 compared to weekdays; standardized beta =.04, i.e., half of a small effect; see also
Stieger and Reips 2019). Because, the coefficients of the other predictors in the model did not substantially
change, we do not present this additional analysis in detail.

Acknowledgments
We thank Alina Flicker, Marlene Katzensteiner, Samantha Hochstöger, Jasmin Willinger, Alina Doll, Hannah Maurer,
Anja Bauer, and Chiara Bertagnoli for their support in data collection, and David Lewetz for his technical support.
12 S. STIEGER ET AL.

References
Abraham A, Sommerhalder K, Abel T. 2010. Landscape and well-being: A scoping study on the health-promoting
impact of outdoor environments. Int J Public Health. 55:59–69. doi:10.1007/s0038-009-0069-z.
Bakolis I, Hammoud R, Smythe M, Gibbons J, Davidson N, Tognin S, Mecheli A. 2018. Urban Mind: using
smartphone technologies to investigate the impact of nature on mental well-being in real time. BioScience. 68
(2):134–145. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix149.
Barton J, Pretty J. 2010. What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health? A
multi-study analysis. Environ Sci Technol. 44(10):3947–3955. doi:10.1021/es903183r.
Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw. 67:1–48.
doi:10.18637/jss.v067.io1.
Berman MG, Jonides J, Kaplan S. 2008. The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychol Sci. 19
(12):1207–1212. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9820.2008.02225.x.
Berto R. 2014. The role of nature in coping with psycho-physiological stress: A literature review on restorativeness.
Behav Sci (Basel). 4(4):394–409. doi:10.3390/bs4040394.
Bolger N, Laurenceau J-P. 2013. Intensive longitudinal methods: an introduction to diary and experience sampling
research. New York, NY: Guilford.
Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali LM, Knight TM, Pullin AS. 2010. A systematic review of the evidence for the added benefits
to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health. 10:456. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-456.
Cash TF, Pruzinsky T, Eds.. 2002. Body images: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Cash TF, Smolak L, Eds.. 2011. Body image: A handbook of science, practice, and prevention. New York, NY:
Guilford.
Cash TF, Thériault J, Annis NM. 2004. Body image in an interpersonal context: adult attachment, fear of intimacy,
and social anxiety. J Soc Clin Psychol. 23:89–103. doi:10.1521/jscp.23.1.89.26987.
Colautti LA, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Skouteris H, McCabe M, Blackburn S, Wyett E. 2011. Accounting for fluctuations
in body dissatisfaction. Body Image. 8:315–321. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.07.001.
Collado S, Staats H, Corraliza JA, Hartig T. 2017. Restorative environments and health. In: Navarro O, Fleury-Bahi G,
Pol E, editors. Handbook of environmental psychology and quality of life research. Springer;p. 127–148. doi:
10.1007/978-3-319-31416-7_7.
Enders CK, Tofighi D. 2007. Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old
issue. Psychol Methods. 12(2):121–138. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121.
Epskamp S, Waldorp LJ, Mõttus R, Borsboom D. 2018. The gaussian graphical model in cross-sectional and
time-series data. Multivariate Behav Res. 53(4):453–480. doi:10.1080/00273171.2018.1454823.
Fitzsimmons-Craft EE, Ciao AC, Accurso EC. 2016. A naturalistic examination of social comparisons and disordered
eating thoughts, urges, and behaviors in college women. Intl J Eating Disord. 49(2):143–152. doi:10.1002/
eat.22486.
Frumkin H, Bratman GN, Breslow SJ, Cochran B, Kahn Jr. PH, Lawler JJ, Levin PS, Tandon PS, Varanasi U, Wolf KL,
et al. 2017. Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environ Health Perspect. 125(7):075001.
doi:10.1289/EHP1663.
Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M. 2019. Body image states in everyday life: evidence from ecological momentary assessment
methodology. Body Image. 31:245–272. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.02.010.
Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Chhouk J, McCann L-A, Urbina G, Vuo H, Krug I, Ricciardelli L, Linardon J, Broadbent J,
Heron K, et al. 2019. Appearance comparison and other appearance-related influences on body dissatisfaction in
everyday life. Body Image. 28:101–109. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.01.002.
Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Dias S, Krug I, Richardson B, Fassnacht D. 2018a. Motive- and appearance-based explanations
for body (dis)satisfaction following exercise in daily life. Br J Health Psychol. 23(4):982–999. doi:10.1111/
bjhp.12334.
Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, McCabe M, Skouteris H, Richardson B, Nihil K, Watson B, Solomon D. 2015. Does body
satisfaction influence self-esteem in adolescents’ daily lives? An experience sampling study. J Adolesc. 45:11–19.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.08.009.
Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Richardson B, Lewis V, Smyth J, Krug I. 2018b. Do women with greater trait body dissatisfac­
tion experience body dissatisfaction states differently? An experience sampling study. Body Image. 25:1–8.
doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.01.004.
Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Skouteris J, McCabe M. 2013. A re-examination of the benefits of exercise for body
satisfaction: consideration of individual difference factors. J Sport Sci. 31(7):706–713. doi:10.1080/
02640414.2012.746723.
Gidlow CJ, Jones MV, Hurst G, Masterson D, Clark-Carter D, Tarvainen MP, Smith G, Nieuwenhuijsen M. 2016.
Where to put your best foot forward: psycho-physiological responses to walking in natural and urban
environments. J Environ Psychol. 45:22–29. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.003.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH 13

Gifford R. 2014. Environmental psychology matters. Ann Rev Psychol. 65:541–580. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych
-010213-115048.
Griffiths S, Stefanovski A. 2019. Thinspiration and fitspiration in everyday life: an experience sampling study. Body
Image. 30:135–144. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.07.002.
Hartig T. 2005. Teorier om restorativa miljöer – förr, nu och i framtiden. [Theories of restorative environments –
past, present, and future]. In: Johansson M, Küller M, editors. Lund, Sweden: Svensk miljöpsykologi.
Studentlitteratur; p. 263–279.
Hartig T, Böök A, Garvill J, Olsson T, Gärling T. 1996. Environmental influences on psychological restoration. Scand
J Psychol. 37(4):378–393. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.1996.tb00670.x.
Hartig T, Mitchell R, de Vries S, Frumkin H. 2014. Nature and health. Annu Rev Public Health. 35:207–228.
doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443.
Heinberg LJ, Thompson JK. 1995. Body image and televised images of thinness and attractiveness: A controlled
laboratory investigation. J Soc Clin Psychol. 14(4):325–338. doi:10.1521/jscp.1995.14.4.325.
Hennigan K. (2010). Therapeutic potential of time in nature: Implications for body image in women. Ecopsychology.
2:135–140. doi:10.1089/eco.2010.0017 3
Heron K, Smyth J. 2013. Is intensive measurement of body image reactive? A two-study evaluation using ecological
momentary assessment suggests not. Body Image. 10:35–44. doi:10.1016/j.bodyimage.2012.08.006.
Holloway JA, Murray J, Okada R, Emmons AL. 2014. Ecopsychology and relationship competency: the empower­
ment of women graduate students through nature experiences. Women Ther. 37(1–2):141–154. doi:10.1080/
02703149.2014.850343.
Homan KJ. 2016. Factor structure and psychometric properties of a state version of the Body Appreciation Scale-2.
Body Image. 19:204–207. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.10.004
Jepsen Transgrud LK, Borg M, Bratland-Sanda S, Klevan T. 2020. Embodying experiences with nature in everyday life
recovery for persons with eating disorders. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 17(8):2784. doi:10.3390/
ijerph17082784.
Kamitsis I, Francis AJP. 2013. Spirituality mediates the relationship between engagement with nature and psycho­
logical wellbeing. J Environ Psychol. 36:136–143. doi:10.1016/j.envp.2013.07.013.
Kaplan R, Kaplan S. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Kaplan S. 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol. 15:169–182.
doi:10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2.
Kondo MC, Jacoby SF, South EC. 2018. Does spending time outdoors reduce stress? A review of real-time stress
response to outdoor environments. Health Place. 51:136–150. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2018.03.001.
Leahey TM, Crowther JH, Ciesla JA. 2011. An ecological momentary assessment of the effects of weight and shape
social comparisons on women with eating pathology, high body dissatisfaction, and low body dissatisfaction.
Behav Ther. 42(2):192–210. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2010.07.003.
Lee J, Park B, Tsunetsugu Y, Kagawa T, Miyazaki Y. 2009. Restorative effects of viewing real forest landscapes, based
on a comparison with urban landscapes. Scand J For Res. 24(3):227–234. doi:10.1080/02827580902903341.
Lüdecke D (2019). SJSTATS: Statistical functions for regression models (Version 0.17.6). doi:10.5281/
zenodo.1284472
MacKerron G, Mourato S. 2013. Happiness is greater in natural environments. Global Environ. Change. 23
(5):992–1000. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvha.2013.03.010.
Mayer SF, Franz CM. 2004. The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with
nature. J Environ Psychol. 24:503e515. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001.
Mehl MR, Conner TS, Eds. 2012. Handbook of research methods for studying daily life. New York, NY: Guilford.
Melnyk S, Cash TF, Janda L. 2004. Body image ups and downs: prediction of intra-individual level and variability of
women’s daily body image experiences. Body Image. 1:225–235. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2004.03.003.
Mills J, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Holmes M. 2014. State body dissatisfaction and social interactions: an experience
sampling study. Psychol Women Q. 38(4):551–562. doi:10.1177/0361684314521139.
Mills J, Ling M. 2018. Using EMA to assess the relationship between fat talk and women’s body image experiences
(SAGE research method cases). Sage. doi:10.4135/9781526447364.
Mitten S, D’Amore C. 2018. The nature of body image: the relationship between women’s body image and physical
activity in natural environments. In: Vakoch DA, Mickey S, editors. Women and nature? Beyond dualism in
gender, body, and environment. London, UK: Routledge; p. 96–116.
Nakagawa S, Johnson PCD, Schielzeth H. 2017. The coefficient of determination R2 and intra-class correlation
coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded. J. R. Soc. Interface. 14(134):1–11.
doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0213.
Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H. 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects
models. Methods Ecol Evol. 4:133–142. doi:10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x.
Napa-Scollon C, Kim-Prieto C, Diener E. 2003. Experience sampling: promises and pitfalls, strengths and
weaknesses. J Happiness Stud. 4:5–34. doi:10.1023/A:1023605205115.
14 S. STIEGER ET AL.

Nezlek J. 2010. Multilevel modeling and cross-cultural research. In: Matsumoto D, van de Vijver F, editors. Cross-
cultural research methods in psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; p. 299–345.
Nezlek JB. 2012. Multilevel modeling analyses of diary-style data. In: Mehl MR, Conner TS, editors. Handbook of
research methods for studying daily life. Guilford; p. 357–383.
R Development Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Ridolfi DR, Myers TA, Crowther JH, Ciesla JA. 2011. Do appearance focused cognitive distortions moderate the
relationship between social comparisons to peers and media images and body image disturbance? Sex Roles.
65:491–505. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9961-0.
Rintala A, Wampers M, Myin-Germeys I, Viechtbauer W. 2019. Response compliance and predictors thereof using
the experience sampling method. Psychol Assess. 31(2):226–235. doi:10.1037/pas0000662.
Rogers A, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Lewis V, Krug I, Richardson B. 2017. A person-by-situation account of why some
people more frequently engage in upward appearance comparison behaviors in everyday life. Behav Ther. 48
(1):19–28. doi:10.1016/j/beth.2016.09.007.
Rudiger JA, Cash TF, Roehrig M, Thompson JK. 2007. Day-to-day body-image states: prospective predictors of
intra-individual level and variability. Body Image. 4:1–9. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2006.11.004.
Stevenson MP, Schilhab T, Bentsen P. 2018. Attention Restoration Theory II: A systematic review to clarify attention
processes affected by exposure to natural environments. J Toxicol Environ Health. 21(4):227–268. doi:10.1080/
10937404.2018.1505571.
Stice E, Shaw HE. 2002. Role of body dissatisfaction in the onset and maintenance of eating pathology: synthesis of
research findings. J Psychosom Res. 53:985–993. doi:10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00488-9.
Stieger S, Kuhlmann T. 2018. Validating psychometric questionnaires using experience-sampling data: the case of
nightmare distress. Front Neurosci. 12:901. doi:10.3389/fnins.2018.00901.
Stieger S, Lewetz D, Swami V (2020). Psychological well-being under conditions of lockdown: an experience sampling
study in Austria during the COVID-19 pandemic. PsyArXiv. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/gjhfp.
Stieger S, Reips U-D. 2019. Well-being, smartphone sensors, and data from open-access databases: A mobile
experience sampling study. Field Methods. 31:277–291. doi:10.1177/1525822X18824281.
Swami V. 2020a. Body image benefits of allotment gardening. Ecopsychology. 12(1):19–23. doi:10.1089/
eco.2019.0032.
Swami V. 2020b. Impact of exposure to films of natural and built environments on body image in older adults. In:
Columbus N editor. The natural environment: past, present, and future perspectives. Hauppage, NY: Nova Science
Publishers.
Swami V, Barron D, Furnham A. 2018a. Exposure to natural environments, and photographs of natural environ­
ments, promotes more positive body image. Body Image. 24:82–94. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2017.12.006.
Swami V, Barron D, Hari R, Grover S, Smith L, Furnham A. 2019a. The nature of positive body image: examining
associations between nature exposure, self-compassion, functionality appreciation, and body appreciation.
Ecopsychology. 11(4):243–253. doi:10.1089/eco.2019.0019.
Swami V, Barron D, Todd J, Horne G, Furnham A. 2020a. Nature exposure and positive body image: (Re-)examining
the mediating roles of connectedness to nature and trait mindfulness. Body Image. 34:201–208. In press.
doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.06.004.
Swami V, Barron D, Weis L, Furnham A. 2016a. Bodies in nature: associations between exposure to nature,
connectedness to nature, and body image in U.S. adults. Body Image. 18:153–161. doi:10.1016/j.
bodyim.2016.07.002.
Swami V, Frederick DA, Aavik L, Alcalay J, Allik D, Anderson S, Andrianto S, Arora A, Brännström Å,
Cunningham J, et al. 2010. The attractive female body weight and female body dissatisfaction in 26 countries
across 10 world regions: results of the international body project I. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 36:309–325. doi:10.1177/
0146167209359702.
Swami V, Mohd Khatib NA, Vidal-Mollón J, Vintila M, Barron D, Goian C, Mayoral O, Toh EKL, Tudorel O,
Vazirani S, et al. 2020b. Visits to natural environments improve state body appreciation: evidence from Malaysia,
Romania, and Spain. Ecopsychology. 12(1):24–35. doi:10.1089/eco.2019.0065.
Swami V, Mohd.Khatib NA, Toh E, Zahari HS, Todd J, Barron D. 2019b. Factor structure and psychometric
properties of a Bahasa Malaysia (Malay) translation of the body appreciation scale-2. Body Image. 28:66–75.
doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.12.006.
Swami V, Pickering M, Barron D, Patel S. 2018b. The impact of exposure to films of natural and built environments
on state body appreciation. Body Image. 26:70–73. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.06.002.
Swami V, Tran US, Barron D, Afhami R, Aimé A, Almenara CA, Alp Dal N, Amaral ACS, Andrianto S, Anjum G,
et al. 2020c. The breast size satisfaction survey: breast size dissatisfaction and its antecedents and outcomes in
women from 40 countries. Body Image. 32:199–217. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.01.006.
Swami V, von Nordheim L, Barron D. 2016b. Self-esteem mediates the relationship between connectedness to nature
and body appreciation in women, but not in men. Body Image. 16:41–44. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.11.001.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH 15

Swami V, Weis L, Barron D, Furnham A. 2018c. Positive body image is positively associated with hedonic
(emotional) and eudaimonic (psychological and social) well-being in British adults. J Social Psychol.
158:541–552. doi:10.1080/00224545.2017.1392278.
Tan W, Holt N, Krug I, Ling M, Klettke B, Linardon J, Baxter K, Hemmings S, Howard D, Hughes E, et al. 2019. Trait
body image flexibility as a predictor of body image states in everyday life of young Australian women. Body Image.
30:212–220. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.07.006.
Tylka TL. 2018. Overview of the field of positive body image. In: Daniels EA, Gillen MM, Markey CH, editors. Body
positive: understanding and improving body image in science and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press; p. 6–33.
Tylka TL, Piran N, Eds.. 2019. Handbook of positive body image and embodiment: constructs, protective factors, and
interventions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press..
Tylka TL, Wood-Barcalow NL. 2015. What is and what is not positive body image? Conceptual foundations and
construct definition. Body Image. 14:118–129. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.04.001.
Ulrich RS. 1981. Natural versus urban scenes: some psychophysiological effects. Environ Behav. 13(5):523–556.
doi:10.1177/0013916581135001.
Ulrich RS. 1983. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environments. In: Altman I, Wohlwill JF, editors. Human
behaviour and environment. New York, NY: Plenum; p. 85–125.
van den Bosch M, Bird W, Eds.. 2018. Oxford textbook of nature and public health: the role of nature in improving
the health of a population. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wardle J, Haase AM, Steptoe A. 2006. Body image and weight control in young adults: international comparisons in
university students from 22 countries. Int J Obes. 30:644–651. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0803050.
Webb JB, Wood-Barcalow NL, Tylka TL. 2015. Assessing positive body image: contemporary approaches and future
directions. Body Image. 14:130–145. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2015.03.010.
White J, Halliwell E. 2010. Examination of a sociocultural model of excessive exercise among male and female
adolescents. Body Image. 7:227–233. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2010.02.002.
White M, Pahl P, Ashbullby S, Herbert K, Depledge MH. 2013. Feelings of restoration from recent nature visits.
J Environ Psychol. 35:40–51. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.04.002.
White MP, Pahl S, Wheeler BW, Depledge MH, Fleming LEF. 2017. Natural environments and subjective well-being:
different types of nature exposure are associated with different aspects of wellbeing. Health Place. 45:77–84.
doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.03.008.
Woertman L, van den Brink F. 2012. Body image and female sexual functioning and behavior: A review. J Sex Res.
49:184–211. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.658586.
Wyles KJ, Pahl S, Thomas K, Thompson RC. 2016. Factors that can undermine the psychological benefits of coastal
environments: exploring the effect of tidal state, presence, and type of litter. Environ Behav. 48(9):1095–1126.
doi:10.1177/0013916515592177.