Large-scale social media analyses and other studies show that higher air pollution reliably lowers happiness—even beyond its physical health effects—likely due to aesthetic unpleasantness, sensory discomfort, and health-related anxieties, with especially strong impacts on vulnerable groups such as children, older adults, and people with respiratory or heart conditions.

Life satisfaction is strongly and consistently harmed by poor air quality, with most studies showing that pollutants like CO₂, NO₂, PM10, and SO₂ lower perceived quality of life, and research linking higher AQI and urban smog to reduced well-being, though some results may be influenced by factors such as income differences across cities.

Air quality strongly influences both physical and psychological well-being, with many studies showing that higher pollution levels reduce happiness and increase depression symptoms, though evidence is mixed regarding whether air pollution affects life satisfaction, suggesting its emotional impact may be stronger than its effect on cognitive evaluations of well-being.

Lower wind speeds are linked to higher life satisfaction, especially for women, with research showing that a one–standard deviation drop in wind speed significantly increases reported life satisfaction.

Cloud cover, rain, humidity, and wind speed generally reduce subjective well-being, with studies showing that cloudy or rainy days, high humidity, and related conditions consistently correlate with lower happiness and more negative emotional states.

Research shows that high temperatures generally reduce life satisfaction and that people in hotter climates report lower happiness than those in cooler regions, but findings vary, as some studies suggest temperature effects disappear when individual traits are accounted for, highlighting that temperature can influence well-being, yet its impact may be overshadowed by personal characteristics and context.

Studies using large-scale Twitter data and daily diary reports show that well-being drops sharply at temperatures above 70°F (especially when paired with high humidity), while cooler temperatures (around 10–15°C) are linked to higher happiness and reduced sadness, with hourly temperature changes exerting a stronger emotional impact than daily averages.

Temperature strongly influences well-being, with research showing a non-linear pattern where both extreme heat and extreme cold reduce happiness; studies indicate that temperatures above about 70°F (21°C) lead to lower positive emotions, higher stress and fatigue, and overall reduced life satisfaction, especially among older adults and individuals with lower education levels.

Overall, sunlight and other light characteristics, such as illuminance and color temperature, significantly influence happiness, emotional health, and life satisfaction, with brighter and more comfortable lighting improving well-being and environmental satisfaction, though these effects are moderated by individual behaviors and contextual factors, making the relationship complex and multifaceted.

The effects of sunlight on emotions and life satisfaction vary across individuals and contexts, with factors like increased outdoor activity and personal traits—including intelligence—modifying how strongly sunlight boosts happiness, demonstrating that light’s influence on well-being is not universal but shaped by individual differences.

Light conditions strongly influence well-being by shaping emotional states and life satisfaction, with sunlight generally improving mood but poorly timed or insufficient light contributing to negative emotions, and research shows that sunlight can intensify both positive and negative feelings, highlighting a complex, not purely positive, relationship between light exposure and emotional experience.

Sunlight generally enhances life satisfaction—people report feeling more satisfied on sunny, clear days, partly because sunlight boosts mood and encourages outdoor activity—but some research shows this effect can be minimal when personal preferences or other environmental stressors play a stronger role in shaping well-being.

Overall, weather conditions such as light, temperature, rainfall, humidity, air quality, and wind speed directly influence well-being by shaping physiological responses, emotional states, and social behaviors; factors like sunlight and comfortable temperatures generally promote positive emotions, while gloomy weather, high humidity, poor air quality, and strong winds can trigger negative feelings or stress, and together these multidimensional weather elements interact to shape mental health, daily behavior, and overall subjective well-being.

These theories show that weather influences well-being through interconnected physiological, emotional, and cognitive processes rooted in both basic needs and evolutionary history.

Evolutionary psychology explains that humans are naturally inclined to feel positive in safe, non-threatening natural environments, meaning favorable weather conditions automatically boost emotional and physiological well-being.

Maslow’s theory and Lyubomirsky’s happiness model suggest that pleasant weather fulfills basic needs and contributes to the environmental portion of well-being, thereby directly influencing emotions and overall happiness.

Environmental psychology offers a key framework for understanding how weather—through factors like temperature, sunlight, precipitation, and air quality—affects emotional and cognitive well-being, but inconsistent findings across studies show that these effects depend not only on objective weather conditions but also on individual physiological, psychological, and social differences.

Well-being is deeply intertwined with weather conditions, a relationship long noted in daily life and literature. Modern research on this topic has rapidly expanded, revealing through multidisciplinary studies how weather influences well-being via physiological, psychological, and social pathways.

Weather conditions influence well-being through a complex mix of direct environmental effects and indirect impacts on physiology, mood, and social behavior, and this paper reviews the theory, evidence, and mechanisms behind those relationships to guide future research and well-being improvement.

When major life changes aren't possible, you can still support your mental health by adjusting your environment by using lights, colors, scents, sounds, organization, and healthy emotional boundaries to regulate your mood and create distance from toxic dynamics, while seeking safety and support if abuse is present.

Small, doable changes in your physical and social environment, like decluttering, adding light, reducing noise, strengthening supportive relationships, and stepping back from harmful ones can significantly improve your mental health and build momentum for bigger shifts.

Recognizing how your environment affects your emotions allows you to make small adjustments or temporary changes to test whether a bigger shift is needed, but if altering your surroundings or relationships isn't enough, professional treatment may still be necessary.

Because perception of an environment can shape mental well-being as much as the environment itself, reframing negative beliefs, practicing gratitude, making small comforting changes, and processing emotions can help improve mental health even when the external situation cannot be changed.

A person's social environment, including relationships, social support, socioeconomic factors, and exposure to conflict or abuse, strongly shapes mental health, with healthy connections promoting resilience and coping, while harmful relationships increases the risk of stress, anxiety, depression, and substance abuse.

Students' learning environment significantly influences mental health, with things such as a sense of belonging, safety, and strong school support systems improving well-being, while bullying, inadequate instructional support, and poor teaching training or academic structure can contribute to negative mental health outcomes.

Because people spend over half of their waking hours at work, the work environment–including factors like high demands, stress, bullying, low support, lack of control, and feeling undervalued–plays a major role in increasing the risk of mental health issues such as depression and anxiety.

The home environment, such as physical conditions of the home, community factors, and exposures such as crime, climate, pollution, toxins, environmental racism, and poverty significantly shapes mental health by influencing stress levels, safety, and overall psychological well-being.

Unfamiliar or new or changing situations can sometimes trigger anxiety. However, when an environment has positive associations, connections and uplifting moods can be created.

Sometimes, when cultures or values are not shared between people, one can feel isolated and even depressed. But sometimes, this differences can also make one more aware and accepting.

Negative types of communication, arguments, and people who cause negative feelings to an individual can cause stress. However, people who are trusted or deemed as "safe" bring a feeling of calmness.

Anything that can be perceived through the senses has the ability to impact how one feels.

Clutter can induce stress, while tidy areas can calm. Meaningful colors and objects can also improve mood.

This supports Alter's point in Chapter 8 of Drunk Tank Pink.

Neuroscience shows that environmental factors can physically affect brain functions.

While nature is known to improve health, this study shows that older students and environmental students experience stronger restorative benefits, emphasizing stress recovery depends on both personal background and environmental factors. Future research should explore how different settings can be used to enhance student well-being and campus designs.

Study's findings are limited by narrow participant sample, reliance on visual-only stimuli, lack of control for landscape openness, restricted environmental scenarios, and absence of true physiological baseline. Future research should include more diverse participants, multi-sensory or real world environments, and stronger methodological controls

Although deserts usually offer low restorative benefits due to evolutionary survival instincts, environmental majors experience greater recovery in desert environments because their education, familiarity, and ecological understanding overrides their innate avoidance. Again, showing that restoration depends not just on the environment bur also the viewers background and learned experiences.

Environmental majors experience stronger physical and psychological recovery from natural environments than non-majors because of their education, familiarity, ecological awareness, and emotional connection to nature enhances their ability to relax and recover. Suggests that nature based mental health interventions should account for students' backgrounds and environmental values

Overall, gender didn't significantly influence restoration (H1 not supported), but juniors (H2 supported) and environmental majors (H3 partially supported) showed notably stronger physiological and psychological recovery from natural landscapes than freshmen and non-majors.

Juniors experience stronger psychological and physical restoration from natural environments than freshman, possibly due to the fact that they are older, more emotionally mature, have better coping skills and social support, and therefore better able to benefit from nature. Suggests that age and developmental stage should guide how schools design nature-based mental health programs.

Psychological restoration varies by landscape type and by viewer characteristics: • lawn scenes are the most mentally restorative and deserts are the least – from most to least restorative: Grass/Lawn, Waterscapes, Forest, Plants, Field, Mountains, Artificial Nature, Deserts • gender does not significantly affect psychological restoration • juniors report stronger psychological recovery than freshmen • environmental majors consistently experience higher psychological restoration than non-majors

Visual preferences depend on the type of landscape and viewer's background: • waterscapes are the most preferred, and deserts are the least • gender does not influence preference • juniors prefer lawn and artificial environments more than freshmen • landscape majors show higher preference for artificial environments than non-majors

Heart rate recovery depends on who the viewer is: • females exhibit in lawn and artificial landscapes • juniors show dramatically stronger HR restoration across almost all landscape types compared to freshmen • environmental majors recover more deeply, especially in forest or artificial nature scenes

Gender and grade level had no effect on systolic BP recovery. The only major-related difference was that landscape/environmental majors showed a significantly larger SBP reduction than non-environment majors when viewing desert landscapes, but not for any other landscape type.

This study shows that visual exposure to natural environments, especially forests and water, produces measurable physiological relaxation: • nature images lower systolic BP • forest images lower diastolic BP • water images lower HR Suggests that different types of natural scenes have different calming effects, and body overall responds physiologically to nature in ways that promote relaxation and reduce stress.

Hypotheses presented for study.