As mentioned above, the time period in which these papers were issued was between 1997 (the first case identified) and 2021 (the end of data collection) (Figure 1). Regarding this period, it is worth noting from the outset that between the late 1990s and early 2000s, a process of transition from printed journals to electronic format began, driven, among other factors, by the expansion of internet access. Therefore, the material reviewed does not accurately reflect the beginning of this production, since it does not cover publications in exclusively printed versions of the journals from that period. Searches carried out in databases not used in this study (e.g. Google Scholar) make it possible to access productions prior to the period covered here, still in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Although they are beyond our review dateline, they indicate possible earlier emergence of EP studies in our country.

During the period reviewed, we observed variations in the number of publications. There were phases in which there was an increase in production in contrast to a previous period, or a decrease in the number of papers. To understand these variations, we paid attention to different factors that refer to a process of recognition and enhancement of EP in this country.

If we look closely at the EP production periods, we can observe that although in some points in time it does not prominently stand out in quantitative terms, they reveal EP constitutive milestones in Brazil.

This is the case of the first year identified in the survey: the three articles published in 1997 comprised the first dossier on Environmental Psychology in this country, published by the journal Estudos de Psicologia (Natal), with the editorship of José Q. Pinheiro. In his introduction to this dossier, the author stated that, at that time, “Environmental Psychology is still a more or less foreign body in the Brazilian Psychology scenario”, concluding that EP “is present among us, yes, but still in its infancy” (J. Pinheiro, 1997b, p. 329). In our assessment, considering the following decades, we are able to glimpse a promising EP journey.

As in the previous case, but with an increase in the number of articles by Brazilian scholars, the years 2003 (N = 8) and 2005 (N = 9) were also marked by the release of two special issues: issue 8.2 of the journal Estudos de Psicologia (J. Q. Pinheiro, 2003), and double issue 1-2 of the journal Psicologia USP (Tassara, 2005). Furthermore, in 2014 (N = 12) a new dossier was released in the journal Psico (Bolzan de Campos & Cruz Bomfim, 2014). Although these special issues and dossiers were edited by Brazilian authors and published in Brazilian journals, the relevance of these productions is enhanced by the presence of publications from Latin America, Europe and North America. The year 2013 deserves attention because it concentrated the largest volume of publications in this survey (N = 16). Among the articles published that year, 5 were part of a special issue on the subject launched by the Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología (Colombia), signaling efforts to engage with a wider audience on the continent.

In order to understand the variation in Brazilian production during this period, it seems pertinent to us to pay attention to the convergence between the increase in production in certain years and the occurrence of scientific events and academic meetings, since they provide spaces for recognition, sharing of knowledge and articulations between researchers in this field, which gain expression in the publications of the respective year and the following ones, something already alluded to in previous analyses (J. Pinheiro, 2001; J. Q. Pinheiro, 2004; Passig et al., 2013).

As examples of this convergence between events and growth in scientific production stand the 34th Inter-American Congress of Psychology in the city of Brasília (BR) in 2013, which, due to the large and diverse number of papers presented (Alchieri & Porto, 2013), proved to be not only a national but also an international milestone in this field. In 2014, something similar occurred at the 5th International Conference on Community Psychology held in the city of Fortaleza (CE), which dedicated a section of the event to socio-environmental issues and Environmental Psychology (Ximenes et al., 2016). In 2019, the 1st Congress on Environmental Psychology and Person-Environment Relations was held, promoted by the recently created Brazilian Association of Environmental Psychology & Person-Environment Relations. Although these examples do not exhaust the list of academic-scientific activities that may have had an impact on EP production over the last three decades, we emphasize the importance of promoting such events.

A second aspect assessed was the language used in the aforementioned production: 145 articles were published in Portuguese, which corresponds to 90% of this production; 13 articles were published in English (8%); and 3 were published in Spanish (2%). The predominance of publications in Portuguese is noteworthy, especially in comparison to publications in Spanish, given our expectation regarding the existence of greater dialogue within the Latin American continent, which is predominantly Spanish-speaking. We also observed the occurrence of articles in Portuguese published in journals from other Latin American countries.

In this connection we found that 94% of the production is published in Brazilian journals (N = 151). This production was distributed among 43 journals, 13 of which are outside psychology, originating from areas such as Social Sciences, Education, Ethology, Geography, Health and Human Development. The use of journals from other areas reflects the recognized interdisciplinary vocation of EP itself, and the openness to dialogue with other fields of knowledge (Bonnes & Carrus, 2004; Hodecker et al., 2019; J. Pinheiro, 1997a; Moser, 2018). Out of the remaining articles, five were published in a Colombian journal, and the others in journals from Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and an International Organization (one article each).

Some journals stood out for concentrating a greater number of publications or for presenting special sections focusing EP. The first of these, Estudos de Psicologia (Natal), included 23 publications. It is also worth mentioning the journals Psico (N = 9) and Psicologia USP (N = 8) which, like the first journal, had special issues and dossiers addressing this subject. A similar case is that of the journal Paidéia (N = 8), which included a special section in 2008 focused on the interface between EP and Developmental Psychology as a result of a round table presented at the 5th North-Northeast Congress the previous year, in the city of Maceió (AL) (I. A. Günther, 2008). The quantitative prominence of the journal Psicologia & Sociedade (N = 18), the second most used journal, may be related to its affiliation with the Associação Brasileira de Psicologia Social (ABRAPSO, Brazilian Association of Social Psychology), as this is an important arena for EP researchers (J. Pinheiro, 2001). And, like the journal Psicologia em Estudo (N = 12), it is dedicated to publications that adopt critical perspectives and qualitative methodological approaches (something to be discussed later).

In a broader view, in relation to the languages and journals used to share EP scientific knowledge by scholars in Brazil, the data suggest a certain isolation of national production in relation to the rest of the Latin American continent. Apparently, according to our analysis, Brazilian authors have chosen to communicate with national peers almost exclusively in Portuguese and in Brazilian journals.

These results are further supported when considering the production of EP in the broader framework of the Latin American continent. Diniz et al. (2023) identified the Brazilian protagonism in production – in open access – in the region, followed by Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Argentina. This aspect was similarly evident with the prevalence of Latin American publications in Brazilian journals, and the number of publications in Portuguese (51.8%) was higher than that of articles published in Spanish (41.3%) (Diniz et al., 2023).

Finally, although it goes beyond the purpose of this study, it seems advisable to consider that bibliographic production resulting from international cooperation work between groups and researchers may be included in closed-access foreign journals. This aspect could represent a result of national policies for the internationalization of postgraduate studies and scientific research, or of research funding by international bodies or institutions.

Regarding the types of work that made up the literature production reviewed, they are mostly constituted by empirical studies corresponding to 63% of the published works (N = 101), as can be seen in Table 1. As to the methodologies used in these studies, we highlight that the majority used qualitative methods (N = 46), about one third used quantitative methods (N = 29), and a little less (N = 26) used mixed methods.

The predominant use of qualitative methods points to a research practice that differs from the hegemony of hypothetical-deductive models and quantification, which are characteristic of the field in the international scenario (Wiesenfeld, 2005). In this connection we glimpse the existence of a particular way of conducting research in the Brazilian and Latin American framework, marked by a greater diversification in the approaches to the phenomena investigated and by the openness in the development of analyses closer to local realities (Wiesenfeld, 2001; Wiesenfeld & Zara, 2012). More than a decade ago, Corral-Verdugo and Pinheiro (2009) already announced that several incipient environmental psychologies could be developing in Latin America as a response to the particularities of the region, contributing to the understanding of the people processes of adaptation to the cultural and physical environments on the continent.

Still regarding the methodological peculiarities of the literature production in question, we can associate them to the prominence of the Brazilian journals found in our study. All the journals that stood out make way – some being explicit about their scope, such as Psicologia & Sociedade and Estudos em Psicologia – for works that contemplate alternative methodologies to the exclusive use of quantification; something rare and discouraged by foreign and closed-access journals, which could justify the slanted choice towards national journals.

We identified 39 works of a theoretical nature (25%), which contributed with discussions on theories (e.g., theory of social representations), on psycho-environmental concepts (e.g., rootedness, affordance, pro-environmental behavior), or on EP historical aspects and characterizations (e.g., interdisciplinarity, milestones of EP development within a context).

We found 13 literature review articles that focused on EP scientific production, addressed a particular concept (e.g., restorative environments, pro-environmental behavior, etc.) or a specific research topic (e.g., drought, use of urban space by children, etc.). These studies began to appear in 2008, which points to a more recent need for efforts to assess and synthesize the accumulation of knowledge produced in a given area, as well as the development of panoramas that favor the advancement of production. We also observed that six publications were of a methodological nature, that is, they discussed something related to methodologies in person-environment studies, addressed the proposal of a measurement instrument, or reported psychometric studies on scales developed in other frameworks.

Finally, we identified only one article with a report on an intervention experience. The subsidiary focus given to publications that address EP theoretical and interventional aspects enhances the evidence of their vocation for research, while there remains a gap in reflections on the theoretical-epistemological bases, something already pointed out with respect to Latin American production (Wiesenfeld, 2005; Wiesenfeld & Zara, 2012). Regarding the knowledge gap surrounding intervention experiences in our context, the Conselho Federal de Psicologia (CFP, Federal Council of Psychology) justified the public call for the development of a PE practices catalog by stating that “the discipline is not always valued or even known in undergraduate courses. Furthermore, little is known regarding professional practices in environmental issues identified under the perspective of the person-environment relationship” (Conselho Federal de Psicologia, 2022, p. 194).

One last aspect assessed concerns the thematic focus of this article. To define this category, we looked at the object and/or central concept for the work, considering Pol’s (2007) proposition about two aspects of PA: one architectural (and urban), and another focused on themes related to sustainability (we used the label “green”). In cases where the object or context of the work was close to interface areas, we used the label “Other” followed by the relevant area. And the works with no specific EP focus or aspect we labeled as “Non-specific” (Figure 2).

Thus, we identified a predominance of works whose themes, concepts and/or objects were situated in an EP architectural/urban aspect (N = 67), corresponding to 42% of the publications, which reinforces previous findings (J. Pinheiro, 1997a; Passig et al., 2013). The most commonly addressed themes are the use and experience in school environments, at home, institutional spaces, as well as in urban areas and in the city. We observed that this aspect marks the first years of the publications identified in our survey, being exclusive until 2004, as can be seen in Figure 3.

Publications that fit into the “green” aspect began to gain space from 2005 onwards (Figure 3), representing 26% of the works (N = 42). They express the alignment with the maturation of the debates around environmental and sustainability themes that had gained prominence in the previous decade (J. Pinheiro, 1997a). Among the most frequent themes in this area, we find empirical works on pro-environmental behaviors, beliefs, values and attitudes (and their terminological and conceptual variants), as well as studies that addressed human-environmental relations and sustainability.

Furthermore, we highlight some cases that associated directly architectural themes with themes related to sustainability (N = 5), addressing contact and care for nature in urban and/or built environments (e.g., green spaces in the city, sustainable cities). The interest in sustainability-related topics reflects international scientific production, which demonstrates a convergence with the broader contemporary debate on environmental preservation, especially with a focus on urban contexts (Santos et al., 2019). As for the “Other” category, we observed a more common interface with Traffic Psychology (N = 10) which, like Risk and Disaster Psychology (N = 9), has a greater proximity to themes of the urban environment and life in cities (e.g., use of transportation modes, housing, etc.), enhancing this aspect in our context and corroborating the understanding that, like Psychology itself, EP is markedly urban (Olivera-Méndez, 2015). However, the focus on traditional peoples (N = 4) and rural areas (N = 9) would be more related to a specificity in our green aspect, since they address groups and phenomena characteristic of the Brazilian reality (e.g., indigenous people, riverside communities, rural settlements).

In the analysis of authorship, we mapped EP references and possible centers of knowledge production in Brazil. From the outset, we gave priority to the first author of the works, as there is an understanding in the scientific field regarding the first author intellectual responsibility for the work (Costa et al., 2012). However, we thought it was important to also pay attention to the second author, since, in our context, the scientific production of students under training or recent graduates (at the scientific initiation, master’s and doctoral levels) commonly occurs in co-authorship with the people responsible for supervising the works, and who have a consolidated trajectory of activity in the area.

Thus, the first element observed concerns the gender of the authors: production was performed mostly by women, who represented 72% of the first authors in the publications (N = 115), and 59% considering the second author (N = 79). Regarding the number of publications per person (considering the productions of the first and second author), two authors stood out with more than a dozen publications each: José de Queiroz Pinheiro with a total of 14 articles retrieved in this survey, being 5 as first and 9 as second author; and Ariane Kuhnen also with a total of 14 articles, being 4 as first and 10 as second author. Subsequently, women continued to stand out in quantitative terms in production, since considering the sum of the works of the first and second author we identified: Gleice Azambuja Elali with 6 publications, followed by Gislei Mocelin Poli, Mara Ignez Campos-de-Carvalho, Sylvia Cavalcante and Zulmira Bomfim, with 5 publications each, as well as the author Hartmut Günther.

Regarding institutional affiliation, considering the sum of publications of the first and second authors, we identified some centers that concentrate the largest amounts of production. The first center highlighted was the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) with 44 articles, followed by the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) (N = 37), University of Brasília (UnB) (N = 26), University of São Paulo (USP) (N = 26) and Federal University of Ceará (UFC) (N = 20).

It is no coincidence that these (public) universities are the centers where the researchers highlighted in this survey founded and led research groups, and have been active since the first EP developments in this country. J. Q. Pinheiro (2004), in his analysis of EP research groups in the directory linked to the Lattes Platform (CNPq, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico), highlighted at that time the presence of groups with respective bibliographic production at UnB, UFRN, UFC, USP and UFSC, some already with lines of research and guidance. In our analysis, we identified the protagonism of these groups, evidenced by the continuity of their production (Passig et al., 2013).

One last finding that seemed relevant to us was the number of co-authors with institutional ties outside Brazil. Considering all the co-authorships identified in this production (some works had up to 6 co-authors), we observed only 7 publications that included the participation of researchers from other Latin American countries (Chile and Ecuador), European countries (Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom), and New Zealand. Although this evidence refers exclusively to the open access production reviewed in this study, it suggests that the research developed in Brazil is not linked to international cooperation networks. This evidence differs from other moments in Brazilian production, in which such articulation contributed to the consolidation of the area in this country (J. Pinheiro, 2001), and may compromise its internationalization process within and outside the continent, a strategy increasingly valued in the national scientific community and in Psychology itself (Costa et al., 2020).