Mental health challenges have become increasingly prominent in contemporary urban environments, where rapid urbanization, population growth, environmental stressors, and socio-economic inequalities intensify psychological pressures. As cities continue to expand, the demand for spaces that promote psychological comfort, social interaction, and emotional well-being has grown substantially. While environmental psychology provides rich insights into how physical and social environments shape human behavior, stress, perception, and well-being, urban planning traditionally emphasizes infrastructure, spatial organization, and land use. Despite their shared concerns, these two fields have often developed independently, creating a conceptual and operational gap. Addressing this gap is essential for creating human-centered, health-supportive, and sustainable urban environments. This study responds to this need by systematically analyzing the intellectual landscape, conceptual patterns, and research gaps at the intersection of environmental psychology and urban planning over a 52-year period.
Theoretical Framework
The research is anchored in an interdisciplinary framework that conceptualizes cities as dynamic psychological environments. Environmental psychology theories—including person–environment fit, stress recovery theory, attention restoration theory, and place attachment—highlight that environmental attributes such as green spaces, architectural form, density, mobility networks, and sensory qualities influence cognition, emotional states, social behavior, and health outcomes. Urban planning theories, particularly those related to sustainable development, human-centered design, and socio-spatial justice, emphasize the need for equitable, inclusive, and resilient environments. By integrating these perspectives, the framework positions environmental psychology as a bridge that connects physical design with human needs. This integration helps explain why certain spatial configurations reduce stress, why natural elements enhance emotional well-being, how socio-economic factors shape environmental perceptions, and how built environments influence health disparities among age groups—including children, adults, and the elderly. The theoretical model underscores that psychological well-being is not merely an individual attribute but an outcome shaped by spatial, social, demographic, and environmental systems.
Methodology
The study employs a scientometric design to provide a systematic, quantitative, and visual analysis of research trends. A total of 462 English-language publications from the Scopus database (1973–2025) were retrieved based on carefully selected keywords related to environmental psychology and urban planning. Boolean combinations ensured that only publications addressing both domains were included. VOSviewer software was used to conduct:
• Co-occurrence analysis to identify conceptual linkages,
• Cluster analysis to categorize thematic domains,
• Overlay visualization to map temporal evolution of concepts,
• Density mapping to highlight areas of concentrated scholarly attention.
The time-span was categorized into four major evolutionary phases to reveal how each era contributed to the intellectual development of the field. This methodological approach allows for comprehensive identification of dominant themes, emerging research areas, and underexplored gaps.
Results and Discussion
The analyses revealed six major conceptual clusters that together form the intellectual core of the intersection between environmental psychology and urban planning:
1. Environmental Psychology and Urban Sustainability:
Emphasizing green spaces, environmental quality, restorative environments, and psychological well-being as core components of sustainable cities.
2. Demographic Psychology and Socio-economic Factors:
Highlighting how population growth, socio-economic status, gender, and social inequality affect environmental perception and behavior.
3. Psychology of Elderly Health:
Stressing the importance of supportive environments, accessibility, neighborhood characteristics, and social support for aging populations.
4. Psychology of Physical Activity and Built Environment:
Focusing on walkability, cycling infrastructure, parks, and public spaces that promote active lifestyles and mental health.
5. Psychological Stress and Environmental Risk Factors:
Addressing how noise, crowding, pollution, unsafe neighborhoods, and poor housing conditions induce stress and mental health burdens.
6. Traffic Safety Psychology and Driving Behavior:
Examining risk perception, driver behavior, pedestrian safety, and environmental features affecting traffic-related mental load.
The conceptual evolution indicates a clear progression:
• 1973–2005: Foundations of demographic and environmental behavior research.
• 2005–2010: Increased attention to social determinants of health and environmental inequalities.
• 2010–2015: Expansion toward climate change, urbanization impacts, and mobility behaviors.
• 2015–2025: Focus on mental health, sustainability, green infrastructure, COVID-19 repercussions, and AI-driven urban analytics.
The discussion highlights Environmental Psychology as an integrative lens that explains why and how urban forms influence stress, emotional resilience, social participation, and well-being. The study underscores that cities must be understood not only as physical infrastructures but also as psychological ecosystems that shape daily experiences.
Conclusion
This research concludes that environmental psychology and urban planning form a synergistic and interdependent relationship. Integrating psychological insights into planning processes enhances the creation of environments that support mental health, strengthen social cohesion, and enhance residents' quality of life. The findings demonstrate that:
• Environmental psychology acts as a bridge connecting human needs with spatial design.
• Urban sustainability requires psychological sustainability, including emotional safety, stress reduction, and supportive social environments.
• Human-centered design principles are essential for resilient and equitable urban development.
The study recommends embedding environmental psychology into urban policy-making, planning guidelines, and crisis-responsive strategies—especially in the context of climate change, pandemics, and rapid socio-environmental transitions. Future research should include cross-cultural comparisons, longitudinal psychological assessments of urban residents, and deeper investigation of emerging global challenges. Overall, the study contributes a comprehensive scientometric synthesis that clarifies conceptual structures, identifies research gaps, and highlights critical pathways for future interdisciplinary research.