Although spending time in nature can improve subjective wellbeing (SWB), little is known about how different types of nature exposure are associated with different dimensions of SWB or the consistency of associations across national/cultural contexts. Using data from 18 countries, associations between green, coastal and freshwater blue space exposures (including residential availability, visits ‘yesterday’ and visits in the previous four weeks) and hedonic, eudaimonic, and evaluative wellbeing were estimated. Overall, residential nature availability showed little association with any wellbeing outcome, whereas visiting green and coastal locations ‘yesterday’ was associated with better hedonic wellbeing. Although frequently visiting green, coastal and freshwater spaces were all associated with greater evaluative wellbeing, greater eudaimonic wellbeing was only associated with frequent visits to green and freshwater spaces. Variations existed across countries. Results suggest that different types of nature exposure vary in their association with different dimensions of SWB. Understanding these differences may help us maximise the potential of natural environments as SWB-promoting resources.

This project received support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 666773 (BlueHealth). MvdB and MN acknowledge support from the grant CEX2018-000806-S funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033, and support from the Generalitat de Catalunya through the CERCA Program.The funders had no role in the conceptualisation, design, analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.Data collection in California was supported by the Center for Conservation Biology, Stanford University. Data collection in Canada was supported by the Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia. Data collection in Finland was supported by the Natural Resources Institute Finland. Data collection in Australia was supported by Griffith University and the University of the Sunshine Coast. Data collection in Portugal was supported by ISCTE—University Institute of Lisbon. Data collection in Ireland was supported by the Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland. Data collection in Hong Kong was supported by an internal University of Exeter—Chinese University of Hong Kong international collaboration fund.