Beautiful outdoor locations are protected by governments and have recently been shown to be associated with better health. But what makes an outdoor space beautiful? Does a beautiful outdoor location differ from an outdoor location that is simply natural? Here, we explore whether ratings of over 200 000 images of Great Britain from the online gameScenic-Or-Not, combined with hundreds of image features extracted using the Places Convolutional Neural Network, might help us understand what beautiful outdoor spaces are composed of. We discover that, as well as natural features such as ‘Coast’, ‘Mountain’ and ‘Canal Natural’, man-made structures such as ‘Tower’, ‘Castle’ and ‘Viaduct’ lead to places being considered more scenic. Importantly, while scenes containing ‘Trees’ tend to rate highly, places containing more bland natural green features such as ‘Grass’ and ‘Athletic Fields’ are considered less scenic. We also find that a neural network can be trained to automatically identify scenic places, and that this network highlights both natural and built locations. Our findings demonstrate how online data combined with neural networks can provide a deeper understanding of what environments we might find beautiful and offer quantitative insights for policymakers charged with design and protection of our built and natural environments.

Does spending time in beautiful settings boost people’s happiness? The answer to this question has long remained elusive due to a paucity of large-scale data on environmental aesthetics and individual happiness. Here, we draw on two novel datasets: first, individual happiness data from the smartphone app, Mappiness, and second, crowdsourced ratings of the “scenicness” of photographs taken across England from the online game Scenic-Or-Not. We find that individuals are happier in more scenic locations, even when we account for a range of factors such as the activity the individual was engaged in at the time, weather conditions and the income of local inhabitants. Crucially, this relationship holds not only in natural environments, but in built-up areas too, even after controlling for the presence of green space. Our results provide evidence that the aesthetics of the environments that policymakers choose to build or demolish may have consequences for our everyday wellbeing.

Quantifying aspects of urban design on a massive scale is crucial to help develop a deeper understanding of urban designs elements that contribute to the success of a public space. In this study, we further develop the Street-Frontage-Net (SFN), a convolutional neural network (CNN) that can successfully evaluate the quality of street frontage as either being active (frontage containing windows and doors) or blank (frontage containing walls, fences and garages). Small-scale studies have indicated that the more active the frontage, the livelier and safer a street feels. However, collecting the city-level data necessary to evaluate street frontage quality is costly. The SFN model uses a deep CNN to classify the frontage of a street. This study expands on the previous research via five experiments. We find robust results in classifying frontage quality for an out-of-sample test set that achieves an accuracy of up to 92.0%. We also find active frontages in a neighbourhood has a significant link with increased house prices. Lastly, we find that active frontage is associated with more scenicness compared to blank frontage. While further research is needed, the results indicate the great potential for using deep learning methods in geographic information extraction and urban design.

Few people would deny an intuitive sense of increased wellbeing when spending time in beautiful locations. Here, we ask: can we quantify the relationship between environmental aesthetics and human health? We draw on data fromScenic-Or-Not, a website that crowdsources ratings of “scenicness” for geotagged photographs across Great Britain, in combination with data on citizen-reported health from the Census for England and Wales. We find that inhabitants of more scenic environments report better health, across urban, suburban and rural areas, even when taking core socioeconomic indicators of deprivation into account, such as income, employment and access to services. Our results provide evidence in line with the striking hypothesis that the aesthetics of the environment may have quantifiable consequences for our wellbeing.

For centuries, philosophers, policy-makers and urban planners have debated whether aesthetically pleasing surroundings can improve our wellbeing. To date, quantifying how scenic an area is has proved challenging, due to the difficulty of gathering large-scale measurements of scenicness. In this study we ask whether images uploaded to the website Flickr, combined with crowdsourced geographic data from OpenStreetMap, can help us estimate how scenic people consider an area to be. We validate our findings using crowdsourced data from Scenic-Or-Not, a website where users rate the scenicness of photos from all around Great Britain. We find that models including crowdsourced data from Flickr and OpenStreetMap can generate more accurate estimates of scenicness than models that consider only basic census measurements such as population density or whether an area is urban or rural. Our results provide evidence that by exploiting the vast quantity of data generated on the Internet, scientists and policy-makers may be able to develop a better understanding of people's subjective experience of the environment in which they live.