The Urban-Rural Well-Being Paradox in Sri Lanka: Differences in Subjective Well-Being Among Adults in Colombo District

<title>Abstract</title> <p> Background Urban and rural residential environments may differentially influence the cognitive and affective components of subjective well-being, yet evidence from South Asian low- and middle-income country settings remains sparse. This study examined urban-rural differences in subjective well-being among adults in the Colombo District, Sri Lanka, and investigated whether psychological engagement with natural environments may account for observed residential differences. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted among 344 community-dwelling adults recruited through disproportionate stratified random sampling from two Grama Niladhari divisions in the Colombo District. Subjective well-being was assessed using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, and the validated Sinhalese Perceived Stress Scale. Nature engagement was measured using the researcher-developed Nature Experience Scale, a 13-item Sinhala-language instrument comprising four theoretically grounded subscales. Independent samples <italic>t</italic> -tests, Pearson correlations, and hierarchical multiple regression were employed. Results The sample consisted of 219 urban and 125 rural participants. The mean age was 41.8 years (range 18–70), and the cohort was 52.9% female and 62.2% married. Rural participants reported higher positive affect ( <italic>p</italic> = .035) and lower negative affect ( <italic>p</italic> = .039) than urban participants, whilst urban participants reported higher life satisfaction ( <italic>p</italic> = .043). Rural participants scored significantly higher on Sensory Engagement, Cognitive-Reflective Experience, and Connection and Stewardship ( <italic>p</italic> = .001 for all; effect sizes <italic>d</italic>  = 0.51–0.85). Nature engagement explained an additional 18.3% of the variance in life satisfaction beyond sociodemographic covariates (Δ <italic>R</italic> ² = .18, <italic>p</italic> &lt; .001), with Emotional Restoration (β = .31, <italic>p</italic> &lt; .001) and Cognitive-Reflective Experience (β = .24, <italic>p</italic> &lt; .01) as significant independent predictors. Conclusions Findings evidence a residential well-being paradox, where urban cognitive advantages contrast with rural affective advantages. Because restorative and reflective nature engagement significantly predicts life satisfaction, integrating psychologically accessible natural environments into public health infrastructure is essential for rapidly urbanising South Asian contexts. </p>