Why do some places make us feel right away like we’re “in the right place”?

We walk into a space, and within seconds we begin to form an impression of it.

We perceive it as welcoming, reassuring, and stimulating—or as distracting, confusing, or unpleasant. In most cases, we believe this impression depends solely on our personal taste.

Research in environmental psychology tells a different story.

Our preference for certain environments is rooted in the history of our species and is the result of adaptive processes that have shaped human beings for hundreds of thousands of years.

Understanding these processes provides a new lens through which to view not only design but also human behavior.

Image Credits: Pexels – Breno Cardoso

Environmental preference as an evolutionary adaptation

In the 1970s, Rachel Kaplan and Stephen Kaplan began studying why people from different cultures exhibit surprisingly similar preferences for certain landscapes.

Their studies show that humans tend to prefer environments that simultaneously offer opportunities for understanding, orientation, exploration, and safety (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989).

This convergence cannot be explained solely by cultural factors.

From an evolutionary perspective, natural selection has favored individuals capable of quickly recognizing habitats conducive to survival.

Choosing the right location meant increasing the chances of finding water, food, shelter, and protection from predators.

What we now call “preference” is therefore the contemporary expression of an ancient adaptive advantage.

Individuals constantly strive to understand their environment

One of the Kaplan couple’s most important contributions concerns the concept of “environmental information processing.”

Every time we enter a space, we automatically try to answer two questions:

• What kind of environment is this?
• Is it possible to explore it?

These two questions are answered by four environmental characteristics, the pillars of environmental preference:

• Consistency
• Readability
• Complexity
• Mystery

But in the right combination.

Image Credits: Pexels – Marlon Castor

Edward O. Wilson and Biophilia

In 1984, Edward O. Wilson published Biophilia, introducing the hypothesis that human beings possess an innate predisposition to seek connections with other living systems.

This predisposition, shaped over millions of years of coevolution with the natural environment, does not concern only contact with Nature, but also our relationship with the built environment. Studies conducted by Giuseppe Barbiero and Rita Berto, carried out within the GREEN LEAF – Groupe de Recherche en Education à l’Environnement et à la Nature, Laboratory of Affective Ecology at the University of Valle d’Aosta, have further explored this perspective, demonstrating how biophilia represents a complex process involving both cognitive and affective mechanisms.

Environmental preference thus becomes one of the concrete manifestations of the relationship between the individual and the environment.

What does all this mean for designers?

For a designer, understanding these mechanisms means moving beyond a purely aesthetic approach.

A space is perceived as “pleasing to the eye” because it meets needs deeply rooted in our evolutionary history.

The legibility of a space, the presence of reference points, the ability to orient oneself easily, the balance between order and complexity, and the presence of views that invite exploration or natural elements that promote cognitive recovery are all aspects that influence the quality of the spatial experience.

For psychologists and therapists, these principles offer a complementary perspective for understanding how the environmental context can support or hinder processes of adaptation, emotional regulation, and well-being.

The built environment is not a neutral backdrop, but an active component of human experience.

From scientific research to the project

The evidence gathered over the past forty years shows that environmental preferences are not the result of fads, trends, or mere personal tastes.

They are the expression of biological and cognitive mechanisms that continue to guide—often unconsciously—the way we choose and inhabit spaces.

For this reason, contemporary design cannot be limited to formal composition.

Integrating knowledge from environmental psychology and evolutionary biology means designing environments capable of responding to people’s deepest yet most fundamental needs, transforming space into a tool for well-being.

Bibliography

Appleton, J. (1975). The Experience of Landscape. Wiley.
Barbiero, G. (2011). Biophilia and Gaia: Two Hypotheses for an Affective Ecology. Journal of Biourbanism.
Barbiero, G., & Berto, R. (2021). Biophilia as Evolutionary Adaptation. Frontiers in Psychology, 12:700709.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S. (1995). “The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(3), 169–182.
Orians, G. H. (1980). “Habitat Selection: General Theory and Applications to Human Behavior.” In The Evolution of Human Social Behavior.
Ulrich, R. S. (1983). “Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment.” In Behavior and the Natural Environment.
Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Harvard University Press.