Cited by 124Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsUrban Green Space and HealthEnvironmental Education and Sustainability

Do natural landscapes reduce future discounting in humans?

Open access
van der Wal, Arianne J., Schade, Hannah M., Krabbendam, Lydia, van Vugt, Mark·2013·Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

An important barrier to enduring behavioural change is the human tendency to discount the future. Drawing on evolutionary theories of life history and biophilia, this study investigates whether exposure to natural versus urban landscapes affects people's temporal discount rates. The results of three studies, two laboratory experiments and a field study reveal that individual discount rates are systematically lower after people have been exposed to scenes of natural environments as opposed to urban environments. Further, this effect is owing to people placing more value on the future after nature exposure. The finding that nature exposure reduces future discounting—as opposed to exposure to urban environments—conveys important implications for a range of personal and collective outcomes including healthy lifestyles, sustainable resource use and population growth.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspb.2013.2295

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van der Wal, A. J., Schade, H. M., Krabbendam, L., & van Vugt, M.
Affiliations
  • Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • Department of Educational Neuroscience, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Published
2013-12-22
Volume
280
Issue
1773
Pages
20132295
ISSN
  • 0080-4649 (ISSN-L)
  • 0962-8452
  • 1471-2954
OpenAlex
W2123931802
Cited by
124
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5
FWCI
5.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
Keywords
future discounting, delay discounting, nature exposure, urban environment, natural landscapes, biophilia, life history theory, environmental valuation, sustainable resource use, healthy lifestyle, population growth
MeSH terms
Environment, Female, Forecasting, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Psychology, Regression Analysis, Linear Models

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