Cited by 15Urban Green Space and HealthEnvironmental Philosophy and EthicsAesthetic Perception and Analysis

Nature With a Human Touch: Human-Induced Alteration Negatively Impacts Perceived Naturalness and Preferences for Natural Environments

McMahan, Ethan A., Cloud, Jaime M., Josh, Patrick, Scott, Michaell·2016·Ecopsychology

Abstract

Natural environments vary in the degree to which humans have altered them; some environments, like wilderness areas, are relatively untouched, while others, like urban green spaces, are heavily manicured. The current research examined the effect of human-induced alteration to natural environments on perceived naturalness and environmental preferences in a student sample (Study 1) and a sample of nonstudent adults (Study 2). It was predicted that a human-altered natural environment would be viewed as less natural than a non-altered natural environment. It was also predicted that a human-altered natural environment would be viewed more negatively than a non-altered natural environment. Results largely supported these predictions. Human-altered natural environments were viewed as less natural than non-altered natural environments, and across several indicators of environmental preference, participants responded more negatively to human-altered natural environments than non-altered natural environments. Perceived naturalness mediated the effect of human-induced alteration on each environmental preference variable, suggesting that non-altered environments are preferred because they are viewed as more natural than their human-altered counterparts. These findings are consistent with an evolutionary account of non-altered natural environments offering more benefits and entailing fewer costs than human-altered natural environments. Key Words: Nature—Naturalness—Environmental preferences—Human impact—Conservation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/eco.2015.0068

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • From an environmental perspective, ditches' inherent artificiality can devalue them.

    “From an environmental perspective, ditches' inherent artificiality can devalue them 13 ,24 .”

    From Lines in the landscape (2025) · cites this paper as [24]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McMahan, E. A., Cloud, J. M., Josh, P., & Scott, M.
Affiliations
Western Oregon University (US)
Venue
Ecopsychology
Published
2016-03
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
54-63
ISSN
1942-9347 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2338750576
Cited by
15
References
38
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Ecopsychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Environmental Philosophy and Ethics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Aesthetic Perception and Analysis
Keywords
perceived naturalness, environmental preferences, natural environment, wilderness, urban green space, conservation, evolutionary psychology, anthropogenic impacts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review