Next Article in Journal
Genetic Differentiation of Budburst Timing in Fagus crenata Populations along a Spatial Gradient in Late Frost Timing in the Hakkoda Mountains, Northern Japan
Next Article in Special Issue
Direct Experience of Nature as a Predictor of Environmentally Responsible Behaviors
Previous Article in Journal
Hydrochar Application Improves Growth and Intrinsic Water Use Efficiency of Populus alba, Especially during Hot Season
Previous Article in Special Issue
Do Forest Experience, Socialization and Demographic Characteristics Affect the Attitudes toward Hunting of Youths from Urban Areas?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 14
Issue 4
10.3390/f14040660
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Potential of Green Schoolyards for Healthy Child Development: A Conceptual Framework

by
Nicole van den Bogerd
1,*,
Dieuwke Hovinga
2,
Jelle A. Hiemstra
3 and
Jolanda Maas
1
1
Department of Clinical-, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2
Nature and Child Development Research Group, Department of Education, Leiden University of Applied Sciences, Zernikedreef 11, 2333 CK Leiden, The Netherlands
3
Applied Plant Research, Wageningen University and Research, Lingewal 1, 6668 LA Randwijk, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2023, 14(4), 660; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14040660
Submission received: 28 February 2023 / Revised: 14 March 2023 / Accepted: 22 March 2023 / Published: 23 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Efficacy of Nature-Based Learning and Global Outlook on Outdoor Education)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
To provide children more opportunities to interact with nature, an increasing number of schools are ‘greening’ their schoolyards by including abiotic and biotic elements such as vegetation, sand, water, logs, and stones. Although the value of these green, nature-rich schoolyards is increasingly acknowledged, research has focused on a narrow set of child development outcomes. This paper presents a conceptual framework that gives insight into the potential short- and long-term benefits of green schoolyards related to children’s physical, cognitive, social-emotional, and moral development, and the pathways through which they may occur. We argue that a green schoolyard can facilitate diverse behaviors and activities, provide sensory and embodied nature experiences, provide a restorative environment, support biodiversity, and provide a resilient environment that supports climate resilience and mitigates environmental nuisance. These five functions of green schoolyards can act as pathways to help foster healthy child development. In doing so, the framework provides guidance for future research. Although more research is needed to validate the conceptual framework, it seems that through the proposed pathways, green schoolyards can be a promising nature-based intervention to promote healthy child development.

1. Introduction

As a result of increasing urbanization [1], the rise of sedentary pursuits [2,3,4], safety concerns [5], and the excessive planning of children’s lives [6], children nowadays spend considerably less time interacting with nature than previous generations [5,7,8]. At the same time, a growing body of evidence suggests that interaction with nature is positively related to aspects of healthy child development [9,10]. Child development is a fluent process that relies on the balance and interconnection between the physical, social-emotional, cognitive, and moral development areas [11]. Systematic reviews have suggested that contact with nature can contribute to all these areas. With respect to physical development, systematic reviews have suggested that nature contact is positively associated with improved motor skills, physical health, and physical activity [12,13,14]. With respect to social-emotional development, systematic reviews have suggested that nature contact is positively associated with improved mental health, mood, pro-social behavior, self-regulation, and self-esteem [12,13,15,16,17]. With respect to cognitive development, systematic reviews have suggested that nature contact is associated with cognitive play behaviors, attention, and cognitive functions [12,13,14,17]. Nature contact may even contribute to moral development, as pro-environmental behaviors might be seen as an indicator of morality [18,19,20], and nature contact can be a pathway to pro-environmental behaviors [21,22]. Given these benefits for healthy child development, the loss of direct experiences with green spaces and other sorts of natural environments may thus have detrimental consequences.
To provide children more opportunities to interact with nature, an increasing number of schools are ‘greening’ their schoolyards. A green schoolyard is a nature-rich schoolyard that contains a selection of natural, biotic and abiotic, elements and objects, such as sand, water, vegetation, logs, stones, or a lawn [11,12], which challenge children to learn and play in and with the natural elements [13,14]. A green schoolyard is a nature-based intervention implemented at school grounds, which is consciously designed to connect children with a nature-rich environment and/or to support local climate and ecology. Given that all children spend a large share of their time at school, starting already from an age of 3 years at preschool, ‘greening’ schoolyards helps to ensure that all children are exposed to nature [15,16].
The systematic review by Bikomeye et al. [17] already suggested that green schoolyard interventions can contribute to physical activity and socio-emotional health outcomes in children [17]. Although these conclusions are promising, the value of green schoolyards may go beyond the portrayed benefits. If the benefits of green schoolyards are equivalent to those attributed to living in a nature-rich environment and nature play [16,18,19], they may have tremendous implications for healthy child development. Current conceptual frameworks linking nature with human health, e.g., [20,21,22], may help to further unravel the potential of green schoolyards. However, these frameworks do not focus on child development, children’s main activities, or the school context. Another resource that may help to further unravel the potential of green schoolyards is the research agenda proposed by Stevenson et al. [15]. However, this agenda does not give insight into how the effects come about; it primarily focuses on outcomes that validate the business case to policymakers (e.g., cost–benefit analyses, teacher retention, and community well-being), and it is less focused on the premise of children.
In an attempt to provide more insight into the supporting functions and the related hypothetical benefits that green, nature-rich schoolyards can have for the healthy development of children, this paper presents a conceptual framework. The conceptual framework describes how green schoolyards at preschools and primary schools can hypothetically support short- and long-term child development outcomes. With this paper, we aim to further improve the understanding of the potential benefits of green schoolyards and to outline a road ahead.

2. Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework identifies five values of green schoolyards that act as pathways to healthy child development. (Figure 1). In the development of this conceptual framework, the starting point was healthy child development. We first examined what aspects are important for healthy child development, such as the importance of play and learning (not described in detail in this paper). We then examined how nature-rich environments and schoolyards can contribute to these aspects. We drew from literature (e.g., books, research papers, and literature reviews) from various disciplines ranging from developmental psychology, and pedagogy, to environmental science; influential theories (e.g., affordances, restoration theories, and biodiversity hypothesis); and earlier frameworks describing how the physical environment can influence health and child development [20,21,22,23]. We compiled this work and then theorized how green schoolyards can impact healthy child development.
The five pathways of the conceptual framework include facilitating diverse behaviors and activities, providing sensory and embodied nature experiences, providing a restorative environment, supporting biodiversity, and supporting a resilient environment (e.g., climate resilience and mitigating environmental nuisance). These five pathways are called upon during three types of main exposures that fit the functions of a schoolyard: free play during recess and outside school hours; during curricular teaching or activities guided by pedagogic staff or teachers; and indirect exposures from (classroom) window views. The five pathways are not likely to operate in isolation. Rather, they may be intertwined and reinforce each other. For example, during recess, a child can be physically active while building a den and, at the same time, experience sensory nature interactions and restorative feelings, while also encountering a biodiverse and resilient environment. Suggesting that one interaction can potentially influence multiple developmental outcomes. At the same time, the interaction between different pathways might intensify a specific outcome. For example, both pathways—diverse behaviors and activities and restorative environment—can potentially contribute to improved mood.
The conceptual framework also presents potential short-term outcomes for children, ranging from learning or developing certain skills to positive affect and health indicators. We argue that these short-term outcomes can potentially benefit child development in the long term because child development is a fluid process. Development relies on the balance and interconnection between the developmental areas and is shaped by many physical health and many social, cultural, and environmental factors [24].

3. The Five Pathways

3.1. Pathway 1: Diverse Behaviors and Activities

A first pathway through which green, nature-rich schoolyards can support healthy child development is by facilitating a variety of behaviors and activities during free play and teacher-guided activities. Previous studies have suggested that children engage in more diverse play and activities at green schoolyards than at conventional schoolyards [25,26,27,28,29]. It has been suggested that children display diverse activities in green schoolyards because they offer a wide range of affordances. Affordances refer to the functional properties of the physical environment perceived by the child according to its needs and abilities [30,31].
Green schoolyards can offer affordances for children’s play, learning, and behaviors [32] because of four main reasons. First, they offer a variety of loose natural materials (e.g., branches, chestnuts, logs, rocks, leaves, and wood) and sometimes also non-natural loose materials (e.g., pots and pans, ropes, crates, or barrels), which children can arrange, modify, and use as tools, props, or treasures [33]. The function of these materials is not pre-determined, which allows children to use their own creativity to give the materials purpose and function [34]. Second, green schoolyards offer loose, moldable elements such as sand, water, and mud. The functions of these elements are also not pre-determined, and they can take on different forms and react differently when touched or played with. In doing so, such elements encourage varied, responsive, and sensory activities, such as pouring, molding, smearing, and kneading [31,33]. Third, the vegetation and natural elements in green schoolyards can be diverse in form, color, and texture, which change with the seasons and weather conditions [33,35]. This allows for reactive and changing play and learning opportunities. Fourth, green schoolyards often offer various types of landforms, which also afford a variety of activities, such as climbing, running, symbol play, and manipulation play [31,36]. In the next sub-sections, we describe the most often reported activities and behaviors in green schoolyards and their potential for healthy child development.

3.1.1. Physical Activity

During recess play and schoolyard-based learning, children can be physically active [37]. It is well known that being physically active at a younger age has short-term benefits for physical skills such as coordination, motor skills, and strength and longer-term benefits for cardio-metabolic health, cognitive development, and several other health and development outcomes [38,39]. A first study showed that children who had access to a forest area in their schoolyard showed greater improvements in motor skills than children who did not [40]. In addition, several studies have shown that children in green schoolyards displayed more moderate to vigorous physical activity [41,42,43,44,45] and less sedentary behavior [41,46] than children in conventional schoolyards. It should, however, be noted that there are also studies that did not find meaningful differences in physical activity between green schoolyards and standard schoolyards in their overall study sample [12,47,48,49,50]. Some of these studies did find moderating effects of gender or age. Their results imply that green schoolyards offer more affordances to be physically active than standard schoolyards for girls [12,41,48,51,52] and younger children [26,46,47].

3.1.2. Social Activities

Green schoolyards can facilitate a variety of activities children can do together, such as building a den, making assignments, or helping each other navigate the terrain [53,54]. Several theoretical models recognize the importance of peers and the social school environment in child development [55,56,57]. When children do activities together, they must communicate expectations, rules, and objectives. In the short term, this helps them to acquire several social and emotional skills such as pro-social behavior, negotiation, teamwork, leadership, docility, and sharing, and it can teach them how to cope with expectations and social norms, which in the long term will aid in their social-emotional development [58,59]. Studies have suggested that in green schoolyards, children display pro-social behaviors, positive social interactions, and collaboration during play and learning [46,47,50,60,61]. Intervention studies have further shown improved social support, improved prosocial behavior, reduced anti-social behavior, fewer peer problems, and less bullying in schools with a green schoolyard than with a conventional schoolyard [12,46,49,50,62,63].

3.1.3. Exploration

Green schoolyards can offer a variety of opportunities to discover, explore, investigate, and experiment [64,65,66]. Theorists, e.g., [67,68], have suggested that exploration is key to learning and development. Children’s curiosity encourages them to use tactile experiences, observations, and consultation to gain new experiences or information about themselves, the world around them, or the problems they are facing [69,70]. Observations among preschool and primary school children have shown that materials such as stones, branches, shells, or feathers in green schoolyards can afford exploratory play and exploration [27,28,53,71,72]. Teachers from five primary schools further reported that when lessons took place in a green schoolyard, children kept experimenting and were enthusiastic about their discoveries [61].

3.1.4. Manipulative and Constructive Activities

The loose elements in green schoolyards can promote constructive and manipulative play and activities, such as building dens and sandcastles [27,73]. Manipulative and constructive activities are activities aimed at manipulating objects, to create or construct something, and they involve tactile experiences, engagement, concentration, and attention to the process and outcomes. In the short term, this teaches children specific physical skills (e.g., scooping, digging, or balancing objects), and it teaches them to solve problems (e.g., finding a solution for the hut that keeps collapsing). If these experiences are successful, they can contribute to a sense of competence and control in children and help develop positive self-esteem [74,75]. Observations in green schoolyards have shown that preschoolers demonstrate manipulative and constructive play more often and for a longer period than on standard playgrounds [25]. Video observations of primary school children have shown that boys showed somewhat more constructive play during recess after the renovation of conventional schoolyards into green schoolyards [28].

3.1.5. Risky Play

Risky play can be defined as thrilling play, which can involve dangerous elements (e.g., fire, water, or insects), high elevation, high speed, dangerous instruments (e.g., gardening tools), rough and tumble, or a chance of getting lost [76]. Risk-taking and overcoming challenges teach children about risk perception and body awareness and are associated with improved physical activity, less sedentary behaviors, and improved social health [77,78,79,80,81,82]. Observations at early childhood education centers have shown that—next to other non-natural structures—natural elements such as trees, wood, rocks, sticks, hills, cliffs, and water promote spontaneous risk-taking and risky play experiences [83,84]. Although, a study examining the effects of a regeneration of an outdoor space at an early childhood education center did not observe more risky play [49].

3.2. Pathway 2: Sensory and Embodied Nature Experiences

A second pathway through which green, nature-rich schoolyards can support healthy child development is through the provision of sensory and embodied nature experiences. Green schoolyards are sensory-rich environments that allow for visual, tactile, auditory, olfactory, vestibular, gustatory, and proprioceptive stimulation. Observations suggest that children pursue meaningful sensory and embodied nature activities in green schoolyards, such as building with sand, splashing, smashing, tasting, and observing [53,72,85].
Especially for younger children, sensory stimulation is important to develop various cognitive and physical skills and to learn how to respond effectively to different inputs. By providing children with a rich sensory environment, they get to know their body, structure of objects, and their environment, and they form an idea of what they like and do not like [86,87]. Not only our senses but our whole body is involved in our learning and development. Theories of embodied cognition and embodied learning argue that knowledge and cognition are not merely shaped by our brains but that sensory and motor experiences are essential to learning [88,89]. Children learn by gaining, observing, reflecting, and experimenting with and on tangible events [90]. Because green schoolyards offer things to see, feel, hear, smell, taste, and experience, they offer an interesting learning environment. According to Biesta [91,92,93], education is not solely about transferring knowledge and skills; it is also about giving children the time to meet the world and themselves in relation to it. Green schoolyards can help bring the world within reach since the consequences of actions and life can be experienced and seen, both in a positive (e.g., changing of the seasons or birds nesting) and negative way (e.g., dying plants or rotting vegetables).
The sensory and embodied nature experiences can also be a pathway towards nature connectedness [94,95,96]. According to the assessment framework of Giusti et al. [97], engagement of the senses is one of the most important elements to foster children’s nature-connectedness in natural environments and nature-based activities. Nature connectedness is seen as an important driver of pro-environmental behavior in childhood and later life [95,98,99,100] and has been associated with improved well-being in adults and children [101,102,103]. Furthermore, staff of an early childhood education center observed that the green, nature-rich schoolyard afforded multi-sensory experiences, nature exploration, diverse play, and physical activity, which allowed for embodied experiences, learning practical skills, and developing a relationship with nature [71]. Furthermore, primary school teachers observed that lessons in green schoolyards can foster children’s respect for nature and environmental involvement [61].

3.3. Pathway 3: Restorative Environment

A third pathway through which green, nature-rich schoolyards can support healthy child development is through the provision of a restorative environment. The mechanism behind psychological restoration is most often explained by the influential stress reduction theory [104,105] and attention restoration theory [106,107]. Stress reduction theory holds that interaction with nature-rich environments triggers an innate, positive affective response. This affective response in turn influences physical and psychological functioning related to relaxation and helps reduce negative thoughts and moods [104,105,108]. Attention restoration theory explains restoration as a process in which an individual recovers the direct attention resources. The directed attention resources—needed, for example, to focus on school tasks—may become exhausted, which may lead to errors, difficulty concentrating, irritability, and other symptoms of mental fatigue. Attention restoration theory argues that nature-rich environments and natural elements engage attention in an effortless manner, which allows the directed attention resources to rest and restore [106,107]. These theories are succeeded by advanced propositions that further explain the restorative benefits of nature. A promising proposition is the perceptual fluency account [109,110,111], which suggests that nature contains fractal patterns that prompt positive affect and attention.
Following these theories, previous studies have shown associations between green schoolyards and positive emotions and affect, stress reduction, and cognitive benefits. Greater self-perceived restoration has been reported in primary school children in green schoolyards compared to standard schoolyards [112,113], and in schoolyards with a higher volume of vegetation [114,115]. In addition, primary school children also reported that green schoolyards have benefits for themselves (e.g., helping to feel calm, energized, and a good place to learn and play), which were mostly influenced by teacher-led activities in the schoolyard and by looking at and playing with plants [116]. A cross-sectional study showed that fifth-grade students who attended schools with a higher percentage of grass/shrub cover were less likely to display externalizing behavior [117]. Another study found improved self-regulation with greater exposure to ‘green’ outdoor classrooms and green spaces in and around the schoolyard [118]. Additionally, an intervention study suggested that children from an early education center showed less depressive feelings after green schoolyard renovations [49].
With respect to cognitive benefits, systematic reviews have found moderate evidence for the association between green space around schools and academic performance [119,120,121]. Specifically, in green schoolyards, preschool staff observed fewer behaviors of inattention in children who played in outdoor areas that contained large areas of trees, shrubbery, and a hilly terrain [122]. Intervention studies have shown that primary school children who played on a green schoolyard during recess performed better on an attention task after recess than those who played on a conventional schoolyard [12,112]. Moreover, studies have shown that teachers give fewer redirections [123], children display better subsequent classroom behavior [124], and children have better knowledge retention [125] when taught in a ‘green’ outdoor classroom compared to an indoor classroom.

3.4. Pathway 4: Biodiversity

A fourth pathway through which green, nature-rich schoolyards can support healthy child development is through the facilitation of biodiversity. Biodiversity includes the variety of different species such as bacteria, insects, animals, and plants (e.g., trees, herbs, or grass), variety within species, and the variety of ecosystems [126,127]. The loss of biodiversity as a result of urbanization, increased agriculture, and other forms of land conversion in the last few decades [128] threatens not only plants, animals, and microorganisms but also processes related to food security, shelter, water availability, and quality, as well as climate stability. In fact, biodiversity underlies many ecosystem services that are essential for human well-being [129]. Biodiverse ecosystems are therefore essential, even in urban areas. Green schoolyards can contribute to this by forming a habitat for birds, small mammals, insects, and other invertebrates by providing food, shelter, and a living environment [130,131,132].
Biodiversity is not only important for the livelihood of the environment but may also directly contribute to human health and well-being [22,133,134,135]. Particularly the interrelatedness of biodiversity—or lack thereof—and certain allergies and respiratory problems have been topics of attention [136,137,138,139,140]. This may be explained by the biodiversity hypothesis [134,141], which connects and adds to the hypotheses of ‘old friends’ [142], ‘hygiene’ [143], and ‘microbial deprivation’ [144]. According to the biodiversity hypothesis, reduced contact with nature-rich environments with diverse macro- and microbiota, in combination with unhealthy lifestyle behaviors, can negatively affect the assembly and composition of the human microbiota. Consequently, this can lead to immune dysregulation and poor tolerance, which may ultimately lead to clinical disease [134].
The biodiversity in green schoolyards may help optimize students’ health and development [145]. A study showed that children who attended an early childhood center in which biodiversity was enhanced using vegetation and natural surfaces showed more diverse skin and gut microbiota after 28 days compared to children not attending these centers. These more diverse skin and gut microbiota were associated with more favorable blood markers in the children who attended the biodiverse early childhood center [146]. Another study among primary school children showed that 45 min exposure to a forest amplified skin microbiota diversity compared to children exposed to a classroom or school sports field [147].

3.5. Pathway 5: Resilient Environment

A fifth pathway through which green, nature-rich schoolyards can support healthy child development is by providing a resilient environment. The large-scale planting of vegetation and the presence of natural soils in green schoolyards can contribute to local climate resilience as they can help mitigate heat [148], mitigate and manage heavy rainfall through water infiltration, rotation, and storage in the soil, and slow rainfall run-off through vegetation [149]. In addition, it can help mitigate environmental nuisances associated with urban living [150], such as the reduction in air pollution [151] and noise [152]. This aids the local environment and can also benefit three aspects of child health.
First, green schoolyards may contribute to thermal comfort [153]. Built and paved surfaces in urban areas absorb solar radiation and emit the absorbed energy to the environment as thermal radiation, resulting in an increase in temperature in that environment, the urban heat island effect [154]. Green areas do not have this effect; therefore, they can limit the buildup of heat islands in urban areas at the city level [148,155]. On a local level, they create cooler areas through shading and evapotranspiration. Thermal comfort has been associated with physical activity and learning outcomes: studies have shown that on hotter days, children move less during recess [45,156,157] and achieve less on standardized tests [158,159,160].
Second, densely planted vegetation in green schoolyards can reduce the transport of polluted air and remove air pollutants [151,161], which can result in lower indoor and outdoor air-pollutant concentrations around schools [10,162]. In turn, lower levels of air pollutants around schools may improve children’s health [163,164,165], cognitive development [10,166,167], and school attendance [168].
Third, dense green plantings in green schoolyards may help shield children and teachers from environmental noise. Environmental noise can have a negative impact on several aspects of human health [169]. Vegetation can reduce direct exposure to noise through absorption, interference, and diffraction of sound waves [152]. Additionally, the restorative features of nature-rich areas can have a beneficial effect on noise perception [170,171].

4. Future Directions

This paper presents a conceptual framework that describes how green, nature-rich schoolyards at preschools and primary schools can potentially support healthy child development. It presents five values of green schoolyards that can act as pathways to healthy child development and provides an overview of potential short- and long-term benefits related to the physical, cognitive, social-emotional, and moral developmental areas. The presented conceptual framework contributes to and complements existing frameworks on the relationship between nature and health, [20,21,22] and the research agenda of Stevenson et al. [15] as it specifically focuses on the school context, children’s activities therein, and child development.
It seems that research on the possible benefits of green, nature-rich schoolyards and their underlying functions is still in its infancy, with most research focusing on physical activity and social-emotional health outcomes [17] The presented five pathways and their potential benefits were derived from studies on the effects of green schoolyards and from more indirect evidence from the fields of geography, pedagogy, and developmental psychology. In doing so, it presents a range of new directions. For example, it seems that little is still known about how sensory and embodied nature experiences in green schoolyards affect children’s physical, cognitive, and emotional skills, and longer-term outcomes. The range of potential benefits outlined in our theoretical model could help to better understand the value of green schoolyards. Furthermore, investigating the mediating role of the presented pathways could help accelerate the growth of knowledge.
It should be noted that the conceptual framework does not take contextual or modifying factors into account. It seems too early for such endeavors. We do know that green infrastructures and green schoolyards tend to be unequally distributed. Schools with more green infrastructures (e.g., tree cover) around their premises are generally located in the wealthiest neighborhoods [172,173] or at schools with more ‘privileged’ youth [174]. In addition, schools in poorer areas have more difficulties acquiring funds for greening their schoolyard, generating skills and capacity among employees within their limited budget, and acquiring parental support for the implementation of green schoolyards [175].
It may be that these unequal distributions amplify existing health disparities because previous research has suggested that the benefits of green spaces are most pronounced among residents of socio-economically deprived neighborhoods, e.g., [176,177,178]. Future research should therefore examine how this and other geographical, cultural, and educational factors might influence how green schoolyards are used, perceived, or experienced. Such insights will help us gain a more complete understanding of the potential of green schoolyards.
The empirical evidence about green schoolyards summarized in this paper includes experimental studies, e.g., [124]; questionnaire studies, e.g., [113]; observation studies, e.g., [50]; and qualitative studies, e.g., [61]. Although no systematic searches were performed to assemble this evidence, it does give an indication of how interdisciplinary current work is and that patterns are examined using various research designs. The work of Bikomeye et al. [17], however, does suggest that intervention studies are lacking because they only discovered six green schoolyard intervention studies with systematic searches in 2021. We recommend setting up longitudinal, intervention studies that assess development outcomes over time. Such work will give insight into the longer-term and causal impact of green schoolyards on child development.
The five pathways only function if green, nature-rich schoolyards are optimally designed. The five pathways thus also give input for the design of green schoolyards. The framework suggests that green schoolyards ideally should encourage a variety of behaviors and activities, allow for sensory and embodied nature experiences, provide a restorative environment, support biodiversity, and contribute to the local climate. To further support the design of green schoolyards, more insight into effective landscape elements is needed to understand what types of landscape elements support these five values and ultimately healthy child development.
To fully exploit the potential of green schoolyards for healthy child development, they have to be used. So far, most studies seem to have focused on the effects of recess play or the mere presence of green schoolyards. Considerably fewer studies have reported on the effects of using green schoolyards as outdoor classrooms. If green schoolyards are used for more educational purposes, this may enhance children’s contact with nature, and benefits may accumulate. We recommend conducting more research on the effects of teacher-led activities in a green schoolyard on children’s learning and developmental outcomes.

5. Conclusions

In light of the positive effects of nature on child health and development, initiatives that increase the accessibility of nature deserve support. Green, nature-rich schoolyards may be such an initiative. This paper presents a conceptual framework that gives insight into the potential benefits of green schoolyards related to children’s physical, cognitive, social-emotional, and moral development and the pathways through which they may occur. The framework centralizes children and what characterizes them—playing and learning—and recognizes that healthy development relies on the balance and interconnection between physical, social-emotional, cognitive, and moral development areas [24]. The framework places and specifies knowledge about the relationship between nature and child health and development within a narrower context, but with potentially high impact: a green, nature-rich schoolyard can be a rich educational space that contributes to healthy child development during and beyond the school day. Additionally, the assembled scientific work described in this paper suggests that green schoolyards can support healthy child development and also help solve several social dilemmas, including mitigating climate change and increasing biodiversity.
The aim of this paper was not to assess the state of current literature or discuss the strength of the evidence. Rather, we aimed to provide a full understanding of the potential of green schoolyards to inspire other researchers to focus on a broader range of outcomes. This may help shape practice and policy recommendations in the future, and it may help convince schools, parents, communities, funding agencies, and policymakers of the many values green schoolyards can offer for children’s healthy child development as well as local ecology. Although the conceptual framework needs to be validated in future research, it is a first step in improving the functional understanding of the potential of green schoolyards for healthy child development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.v.d.B. and J.M.; methodology, N.v.d.B. and J.M.; investigation, N.v.d.B. and J.M.; writing—original draft preparation, N.v.d.B.; writing—review and editing, N.v.d.B., J.M., D.H. and J.A.H.; visualization, N.v.d.B. and J.M.; funding acquisition, N.v.d.B. and J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This project has received funding from the Topsector Horticulture and Starting materials (LWV-19222-09).

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mart Ottenheim, Karlijn de Jong, Loes van ‘t Hoff, Janneke Hagenaar, Rosanne Steensma, and Sigrun Lobst for their input, thinking along, and critical review of the theoretical model.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. McDonald, R.I.; Beatley, T.; Elmqvist, T. The green soul of the concrete jungle: The urban century, the urban psychological penalty, and the role of nature. Sustain. Earth 2018, 1, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Saunders, T.J.; Vallance, J.K. Screen time and health indicators among children and youth: Current evidence, limitations and future directions. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2017, 15, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Carson, V.; Hunter, S.; Kuzik, N.; Gray, C.E.; Poitras, V.J.; Chaput, J.-P.; Saunders, T.J.; Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Okely, A.D.; Connor Gorber, S. Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in school-aged children and youth: An update. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2016, 41, S240–S265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Mullan, K. A child’s day: Trends in time use in the UK from 1975 to 2015. Br. J. Sociol. 2019, 70, 997–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Clements, R. An investigation of the status of outdoor play. Contemp. Issues Early Child. 2004, 5, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Hofferth, S.L. Changes in American children’s time–1997 to 2003. Electron. Int. J. Time Use Res. 2009, 6, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Louv, R. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder; Algonquin Books: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  8. Soga, M.; Gaston, K.J. Extinction of experience: The loss of human–nature interactions. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2016, 14, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. van Wel, L.; van Dommelen, P.; Zuurbier, M.; Heinen, D.; Odink, J.; Bezem, J.; Verkerk, P.H.; Pronk, A.; Hoek, G.; Kuijpers, E. Exploring the Effects of Environmental Factors on the Development of 0–4-Year Old Children in The Netherlands. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dadvand, P.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Esnaola, M.; Forns, J.; Basagana, X.; Alvarez-Pedrerol, M.; Rivas, I.; Lopez-Vicente, M.; De Castro Pascual, M.; Su, J.; et al. Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 7937–7942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Bell, A.C.; Dyment, J.E. Grounds for health: The intersection of green school grounds and health-promoting schools. Environ. Educ. Res. 2008, 14, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. van Dijk-Wesselius, J.; Maas, J.; Hovinga, D.; van Vugt, M.; van den Berg, A. The impact of greening schoolyards on the appreciation, and physical, cognitive and social-emotional well-being of schoolchildren: A prospective intervention study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 180, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Herrington, S.; Brussoni, M. Beyond physical activity: The importance of play and nature-based play spaces for children’s health and development. Curr. Obes. Rep. 2015, 4, 477–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Danks, S.G. Asphalt to Ecosystems: Design Ideas for Schoolyard Transformation; New Village Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  15. Stevenson, K.T.; Moore, R.; Cosco, N.; Floyd, M.F.; Sullivan, W.; Brink, L.; Gerstein, D.; Jordan, C.; Zaplatosch, J. A national research agenda supporting green schoolyard development and equitable access to nature. Elem. Sci. Anthr. 2020, 8, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Fyfe-Johnson, A.L.; Hazlehurst, M.F.; Perrins, S.P.; Bratman, G.N.; Thomas, R.; Garrett, K.A.; Hafferty, K.R.; Cullaz, T.M.; Marcuse, E.K.; Tandon, P.S. Nature and Children’s Health: A Systematic Review. Pediatrics 2021, 148, e2020049155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bikomeye, J.C.; Balza, J.; Beyer, K.M. The Impact of Schoolyard Greening on Children’s Physical Activity and Socioemotional Health: A Systematic Review of Experimental Studies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mygind, L.; Kurtzhals, M.; Nowell, C.; Melby, P.S.; Stevenson, M.P.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.; Lum, J.A.; Flensborg-Madsen, T.; Bentsen, P.; Enticott, P.G. Landscapes of becoming social: A systematic review of evidence for associations and pathways between interactions with nature and socioemotional development in children. Environ. Int. 2021, 146, 106238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sprague, N.L.; Bancalari, P.; Karim, W.; Siddiq, S. Growing up green: A systematic review of the influence of greenspace on youth development and health outcomes. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2022, 32, 660–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Markevych, I.; Schoierer, J.; Hartig, T.; Chudnovsky, A.; Hystad, P.; Dzhambov, A.M.; de Vries, S.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Brauer, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 2017, 158, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kuo, M. How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Marselle, M.R.; Hartig, T.; Cox, D.T.; de Bell, S.; Knapp, S.; Lindley, S.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Böhning-Gaese, K.; Braubach, M.; Cook, P.A. Pathways linking biodiversity to human health: A conceptual framework. Environ. Int. 2021, 150, 106420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Christian, H.; Zubrick, S.R.; Foster, S.; Giles-Corti, B.; Bull, F.; Wood, L.; Knuiman, M.; Brinkman, S.; Houghton, S.; Boruff, B. The influence of the neighborhood physical environment on early child health and development: A review and call for research. Health Place 2015, 33, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Lightfoot, C.; Cole, M.; Cole, S.R. The Development of Children; Worth Publisher: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  25. Luchs, A.; Fikus, M. A comparative study of active play on differently designed playgrounds. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 2013, 13, 206–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jansson, M.; Gunnarsson, A.; Mårtensson, F.; Andersson, S. Children’s perspectives on vegetation establishment: Implications for school ground greening. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zamani, Z.; Moore, R. The cognitive play behavior affordances of natural and manufactured elements within outdoor preschool settings. Landsc. Res. 2013, 1, 268–278. [Google Scholar]
  28. van Dijk-Wesselius, J.E.; Maas, J.; van Vugt, M.; van den Berg, A.E. A comparison of children’s play and non-play behavior before and after schoolyard greening monitored by video observations. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 80, 101760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kreutz, A.; Timperio, A.; Veitch, J. Participatory school ground design: Play behaviour and student and teacher views of a school ground post-construction. Landsc. Res. 2021, 46, 860–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gibson, J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception; Houghton, Mifflin and Company: Boston, MA, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  31. Heft, H. Affordances of children’s environments: A functional approach to environmental description. Child. Environ. Q. 1988, 5, 29–37. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kyttä, M. Affordances of children’s environments in the context of cities, small towns, suburbs and rural villages in Finland and Belarus. J. Environ. Psychol. 2002, 22, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lerstrup, I.; Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. Affordances of outdoor settings for children in preschool: Revisiting heft’s functional taxonomy. Landsc. Res. 2017, 42, 47–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nicholson, S. The Theory of Loose Parts, An important principle for design methodology. Stud. Des. Educ. Craft Technol. 1972, 4, 5–14. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tovey, H. Laat ze Buiten Spelen: Pleidooi Voor Gezonde Risico’s; Maklu: Antwerpen, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  36. Fjørtoft, I.; Sageie, J. The natural environment as a playground for children: Landscape description and analyses of a natural playscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2000, 48, 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pawlowski, C.S.; Veitch, J.; Andersen, H.B.; Ridgers, N.D. Designing Activating Schoolyards: Seen from the Girls’ Viewpoint. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Carson, V.; Lee, E.-Y.; Hewitt, L.; Jennings, C.; Hunter, S.; Kuzik, N.; Stearns, J.A.; Unrau, S.P.; Poitras, V.J.; Gray, C. Systematic review of the relationships between physical activity and health indicators in the early years (0–4 years). BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 854. [Google Scholar]
  39. Janssen, I.; LeBlanc, A.G. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2010, 7, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Fjørtoft, I. Landscape as playscape: The effects of natural environments on children’s play and motor development. Child. Youth Environ. 2004, 14, 21–44. [Google Scholar]
  41. Raney, M.A.; Hendry, C.F.; Yee, S.A. Physical activity and social behaviors of urban children in green playgrounds. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2019, 56, 522–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Raney, M.A.; Bowers, A.L.; Rissberger, A.L. Recess Behaviors of Urban Children 16 Months After a Green Schoolyard Renovation. J. Phys. Act. Health 2021, 1, 563–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pagels, P.; Raustorp, A.; De Leon, A.P.; Mårtensson, F.; Kylin, M.; Boldemann, C. A repeated measurement study investigating the impact of school outdoor environment upon physical activity across ages and seasons in Swedish second, fifth and eighth graders. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Dyment, J.E.; Bell, A.C. Grounds for movement: Green school grounds as sites for promoting physical activity. Health Educ. Res. 2008, 23, 952–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Boldemann, C.; Blennow, M.; Dal, H.; Mårtensson, F.; Raustorp, A.; Yuen, K.; Wester, U. Impact of preschool environment upon children’s physical activity and sun exposure. Prev. Med. 2006, 42, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bates, C.R.; Bohnert, A.M.; Gerstein, D.E. Green schoolyards in low-income urban neighborhoods: Natural spaces for positive youth development outcomes. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Hamer, M.; Aggio, D.; Knock, G.; Kipps, C.; Shankar, A.; Smith, L. Effect of major school playground reconstruction on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: Camden active spaces. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Mårtensson, F.; Jansson, M.; Johansson, M.; Raustorp, A.; Kylin, M.; Boldemann, C. The role of greenery for physical activity play at school grounds. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Brussoni, M.; Ishikawa, T.; Brunelle, S.; Herrington, S. Landscapes for play: Effects of an intervention to promote nature-based risky play in early childhood centres. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 54, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bohnert, A.M.; Nicholson, L.M.; Mertz, L.; Bates, C.R.; Gerstein, D.E. Green schoolyard renovations in low-income urban neighborhoods: Benefits to students, schools, and the surrounding community. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2021, 69, 463–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fjørtoft, I.; Kristoffersen, B.; Sageie, J. Children in schoolyards: Tracking movement patterns and physical activity in schoolyards using global positioning system and heart rate monitoring. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2009, 93, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Barton, J.; Sandercock, G.; Pretty, J.; Wood, C. The effect of playground-and nature-based playtime interventions on physical activity and self-esteem in UK school children. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2015, 25, 196–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chawla, L.; Keena, K.; Pevec, I.; Stanley, E. Green schoolyards as havens from stress and resources for resilience in childhood and adolescence. Health Place 2014, 28, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Raith, A. Children on green schoolyards: Nature experience, preferences, and behavior. Child. Youth Environ. 2017, 27, 91–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bronfenbrenner, U.; Morris, P.A. The ecology of developmental processes. Handb. Child Psychol. 1998, 1, 993–1028. [Google Scholar]
  57. Catalano, R.F.; Hawkins, J.D. The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In Delinquency and Crime: Current Theories; Hawkins, J.D., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  58. Athey, I. Contributions of play to development. In Child’s Play: Developmental and Applied; Yawkey, T.D., Pellegrini, A.D., Eds.; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2018; Volume 20, pp. 8–28. [Google Scholar]
  59. Rumjaun, A.; Narod, F. Social Learning Theory—Albert Bandura. In Science Education in Theory and Practice; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 85–99. [Google Scholar]
  60. McClain, C.; Vandermaas-Peeler, M. Social contexts of development in natural outdoor environments: Children’s motor activities, personal challenges and peer interactions at the river and the creek. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 2016, 16, 31–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. van Dijk-Wesselius, J.E.; van den Berg, A.E.; Maas, J.; Hovinga, D. Green schoolyards as outdoor learning environments: Barriers and solutions as experienced by primary school teachers. Front. Psychol. 2020, 10, 2919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. de Vries, S.; Langers, F.; Donders, J.L.; Willeboer, M.; Van den Berg, A. Meer Groen op Het Schoolplein: Een Interventiestudie; Report No. 1566-7197; Alterra, Wageningen-UR: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  63. Maas, J.; Tauritz, R.; van der Wal, R.; Hovinga, D. Een Pilot Studie Naar Het Gebruik van en de Ervaringen Met Groene Schoolpleinen; Hogeschool Leiden/Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  64. Lester, S.; Maudsley, M. Play, Naturally: A Review of Children’s Natural Play; The Children’s Play Council: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  65. Chawla, L. Benefits of nature contact for children. J. Plan. Lit. 2015, 30, 433–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gurholt, K.P.; Sanderud, J.R. Curious play: Children’s exploration of nature. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 2016, 16, 318–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Piaget, J. Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood; Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
  68. Erikson, E.H. Childhood and Society; WW Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  69. Reio, T. Curiosity and exploration. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning; Seel, N.M., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 894–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Burghardt, G.M. Play, Exploration, and Learning. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning; Seel, N.M., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; pp. 2650–2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Puhakka, R.; Rantala, O.; Roslund, M.I.; Rajaniemi, J.; Laitinen, O.H.; Sinkkonen, A.; Group, A.R. Greening of daycare yards with biodiverse materials affords well-being, play and environmental relationships. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Malone, K.; Tranter, P.J. School grounds as sites for learning: Making the most of environmental opportunities. Environ. Educ. Res. 2003, 9, 283–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wishart, L.; Cabezas-Benalcázar, C.; Morrissey, A.-M.; Versace, V.L. Traditional vs naturalised design: A comparison of affordances and physical activity in two preschool playscapes. Landsc. Res. 2019, 44, 1031–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wardle, F. Supporting constructive play in the wild. Child Care Inf. Exch. 2000, 133, 26–30. [Google Scholar]
  75. Wood, E.; Attfield, J. Play, Learning and the Early Childhood Curriculum; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  76. Sandseter, E.B.H. Characteristics of risky play. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 2009, 9, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Brussoni, M.; Gibbons, R.; Gray, C.; Ishikawa, T.; Sandseter, E.B.H.; Bienenstock, A.; Chabot, G.; Fuselli, P.; Herrington, S.; Janssen, I. What is the relationship between risky outdoor play and health in children? A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 6423–6454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Brunelle, S.; Herrington, S.; Coghlan, R.; Brussoni, M. Play worth remembering: Are playgrounds too safe? Child. Youth Environ. 2016, 26, 17–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Harper, N.J. Outdoor risky play and healthy child development in the shadow of the “risk society”: A forest and nature school perspective. Child Youth Serv. 2017, 38, 318–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tremblay, M.S.; Gray, C.; Babcock, S.; Barnes, J.; Bradstreet, C.C.; Carr, D.; Chabot, G.; Choquette, L.; Chorney, D.; Collyer, C. Position statement on active outdoor play. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 6475–6505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Lavrysen, A.; Bertrands, E.; Leyssen, L.; Smets, L.; Vanderspikken, A.; De Graef, P. Risky-play at school. Facilitating risk perception and competence in young children. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 2017, 25, 89–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Dodd, H.F.; Lester, K.J. Adventurous play as a mechanism for reducing risk for childhood anxiety: A conceptual model. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev. 2021, 24, 164–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Obee, P.; Sandseter, E.B.H.; Harper, N.J. Children’s use of environmental features affording risky play in early childhood education and care. Early Child Dev. Care 2020, 191, 2607–2625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Coe, H.A. Embracing risk in the Canadian woodlands: Four children’s risky play and risk-taking experiences in a Canadian Forest Kindergarten. J. Early Child. Res. 2017, 15, 374–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Stanley, E. The place of outdoor play in a school community: A case study of recess values. Child. Youth Environ. 2011, 21, 185–211. [Google Scholar]
  86. Ayres, A.J.; Robbins, J. Sensory Integration and the Child: Understanding Hidden Sensory Challenges; Western Psychological Services: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  87. Kohnstamm, R. Kleine Ontwikkelingspsychologie I: Het Jonge Kind; Bohn Stafleu van Loghum: Houten, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  88. Kiefer, M.; Trumpp, N.M. Embodiment theory and education: The foundations of cognition in perception and action. Trends Neurosci. Educ. 2012, 1, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Macedonia, M. Embodied Learning: Why at school the mind needs the body. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 2098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. Kolb, D.A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development; FT Press: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  91. Biesta, G. Wat Is Goed Onderwijs? Over Kwalificatie, Socialisatie en Subjectivering. Available online: https://nivoz.nl/nl/nro/wat-is-goed-onderwijs-over-kwalificatie-socialisatie-en-subjectivering (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  92. Biesta, G. Risking ourselves in education: Qualification, socialization, and subjectification revisited. Educ. Theory 2020, 70, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Biesta, G.J. Beyond Learning: Democratic Education for a Human Future; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  94. Lumber, R.; Richardson, M.; Sheffield, D. Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0177186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Otto, S.; Pensini, P. Nature-based environmental education of children: Environmental knowledge and connectedness to nature, together, are related to ecological behaviour. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 47, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Chawla, L. Childhood nature connection and constructive hope: A review of research on connecting with nature and coping with environmental loss. People Nat. 2020, 2, 619–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Giusti, M.; Svane, U.; Raymond, C.M.; Beery, T.H. A framework to assess where and how children connect to nature. Front. Psychol. 2018, 8, 2283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  98. Barrera-Hernández, L.F.; Sotelo-Castillo, M.A.; Echeverría-Castro, S.B.; Tapia-Fonllem, C.O. Connectedness to nature: Its impact on sustainable behaviors and happiness in children. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Richardson, M.; Cormack, A.; McRobert, L.; Underhill, R. 30 Days Wild: Development and Evaluation of a Large-Scale Nature Engagement Campaign to Improve Well-Being. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0149777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Asah, S.T.; Bengston, D.N.; Westphal, L.M. The influence of childhood: Operational pathways to adulthood participation in nature-based activities. Environ. Behav. 2012, 44, 545–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Capaldi, C.A.; Dopko, R.L.; Zelenski, J.M. The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Pritchard, A.; Richardson, M.; Sheffield, D.; McEwan, K. The relationship between nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: A meta-analysis. J. Happiness Stud. 2020, 21, 1145–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Harvey, C.; Hallam, J.; Richardson, M.; Wells, R. The good things children notice in nature: An extended framework for reconnecting children with nature. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 49, 126573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ulrich, R.S. Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment. In Behavior and the Natural Environment; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1983; pp. 85–125. [Google Scholar]
  105. Ulrich, R.S.; Simons, R.F.; Losito, B.D.; Fiorito, E.; Miles, M.A.; Zelson, M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 1991, 11, 201–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Kaplan, R.; Kaplan, S. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  107. Kaplan, S. The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Towards an Integrative Framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 1995, 15, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Ulrich, R.S. Human responses to vegetation and landscape. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1986, 13, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Joye, Y.; Van den Berg, A. Is love for green in our genes? A critical analysis of evolutionary assumptions in restorative environments research. Urban For. Urban Green. 2011, 10, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Joye, Y. Architectural lessons from environmental psychology: The case of biophilic architecture. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2007, 11, 305–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Joye, Y.; van den Berg, A.E. Restorative environments. In Environmental Psychology: An Introduction, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 65–75. [Google Scholar]
  112. Amicone, G.; Petruccelli, I.; De Dominicis, S.; Gherardini, A.; Costantino, V.; Perucchini, P.; Bonaiuto, M. Green breaks: The restorative effect of the school environment’s green areas on children’s cognitive performance. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Collado, S.; Corraliza, J.A. Children’s restorative experiences and self-reported environmental behaviors. Environ. Behav. 2015, 47, 38–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Luís, S.; Dias, R.; Lima, M.L. Greener Schoolyards, Greener Futures? Greener Schoolyards Buffer Decreased Contact With Nature and Are Linked to Connectedness to Nature. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 567882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Bagot, K.L.; Allen, F.C.L.; Toukhsati, S. Perceived restorativeness of children’s school playground environments: Nature, playground features and play period experiences. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 41, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Zhang, Z.; Stevenson, K.T.; Martin, K.L. Use of nature-based schoolyards predicts students’ perceptions of schoolyards as places to support learning, play, and mental health. Environ. Educ. Res. 2022, 28, 1271–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Sajady, M.; Gower, A.L.; McCullough, M.; Jordan, C. More than a View: School Landscape Features Are Associated with Improved Student Adjustment. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 2020, 41, 436–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Taylor, A.F.; Butts-Wilmsmeyer, C. Self-regulation gains in kindergarten related to frequency of green schoolyard use. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 70, 101440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Vella-Brodrick, D.A.; Gilowska, K. Effects of Nature (Greenspace) on Cognitive Functioning in School Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 2022, 34, 1217–1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Browning, M.H.; Rigolon, A. School green space and its impact on academic performance: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. van den Bogerd, N.; Dijkstra, S.C.; Koole, S.L.; Seidell, J.C.; de Vries, R.; Maas, J. Nature in the indoor and outdoor study environment and secondary and tertiary education students’ well-being, academic outcomes, and possible mediating pathways: A systematic review with recommendations for science and practice. Health Place 2020, 66, 102403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Mårtensson, F.; Boldemann, C.; Söderström, M.; Blennow, M.; Englund, J.-E.; Grahn, P. Outdoor environmental assessment of attention promoting settings for preschool children. Health Place 2009, 15, 1149–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Largo-Wight, E.; Guardino, C.; Wludyka, P.S.; Hall, K.W.; Wight, J.T.; Merten, J.W. Nature contact at school: The impact of an outdoor classroom on children’s well-being. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2018, 28, 653–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Kuo, M.; Browning, M.H.; Penner, M.L. Do lessons in nature boost subsequent classroom engagement? Refueling students in flight. Front. Psychol. 2018, 8, 2253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Fägerstam, E.; Blom, J. Learning biology and mathematics outdoors: Effects and attitudes in a Swedish high school context. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 2013, 13, 56–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Schulze, E.-D.; Mooney, H.A. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  127. Cardinale, B.J.; Duffy, J.E.; Gonzalez, A.; Hooper, D.U.; Perrings, C.; Venail, P.; Narwani, A.; Mace, G.M.; Tilman, D.; Wardle, D.A.; et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 2012, 486, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Butchart, S.H.; Walpole, M.; Collen, B.; van Strien, A.; Scharlemann, J.P.; Almond, R.E.; Baillie, J.E.; Bomhard, B.; Brown, C.; Bruno, J.; et al. Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science 2010, 328, 1164–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Pinho, P.; Moretti, M.; Luz, A.C.; Grilo, F.; Vieira, J.; Luís, L.; Rosalino, L.M.; Martins-Loução, M.A.; Santos-Reis, M.; Correia, O. Biodiversity as support for ecosystem services and human wellbeing. In The Urban Forest; Springer: Cham, Switzerand, 2017; pp. 67–78. [Google Scholar]
  130. Farinha-Marques, P.; Lameiras, J.; Fernandes, C.; Silva, S.; Guilherme, F. Urban biodiversity: A review of current concepts and contributions to multidisciplinary approaches. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2011, 24, 247–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Kim, D.; Song, S.-K. The multifunctional benefits of green infrastructure in community development: An analytical review based on 447 cases. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  132. Pearlmutter, D.; Calfapietra, C.; Samson, R.; O’Brien, L.; Ostoić, S.K.; Sanesi, G.; del Amo, R.A. The Urban Forest: Cultivating Green Infrastructure for People and the Environment; Springer: Cham, Switzerand, 2017; Volume 7. [Google Scholar]
  133. Sandifer, P.A.; Sutton-Grier, A.E.; Ward, B.P. Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 12, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Von Hertzen, L.; Beutler, B.; Bienenstock, J.; Blaser, M.; Cani, P.D.; Eriksson, J.; Färkkilä, M.; Haahtela, T.; Hanski, I.; Jenmalm, M.C. Helsinki alert of biodiversity and health. Ann. Med. 2015, 47, 218–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Aerts, R.; Honnay, O.; Van Nieuwenhuyse, A. Biodiversity and human health: Mechanisms and evidence of the positive health effects of diversity in nature and green spaces. Br. Med. Bull. 2018, 127, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Dallimer, M.; Irvine, K.N.; Skinner, A.M.; Davies, Z.G.; Rouquette, J.R.; Maltby, L.L.; Warren, P.H.; Armsworth, P.R.; Gaston, K.J. Biodiversity and the feel-good factor: Understanding associations between self-reported human well-being and species richness. BioScience 2012, 62, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. Fuller, R.A.; Irvine, K.N.; Devine-Wright, P.; Warren, P.H.; Gaston, K.J. Psychological benefits of greenspace increase with biodiversity. Biol. Lett. 2007, 3, 390–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Carrus, G.; Scopelliti, M.; Lafortezza, R.; Colangelo, G.; Ferrini, F.; Salbitano, F.; Agrimi, M.; Portoghesi, L.; Semenzato, P.; Sanesi, G. Go greener, feel better? The positive effects of biodiversity on the well-being of individuals visiting urban and peri-urban green areas. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Methorst, J.; Rehdanz, K.; Mueller, T.; Hansjürgens, B.; Bonn, A.; Böhning-Gaese, K. The importance of species diversity for human well-being in Europe. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 181, 106917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Cameron, R.W.; Brindley, P.; Mears, M.; McEwan, K.; Ferguson, F.; Sheffield, D.; Jorgensen, A.; Riley, J.; Goodrick, J.; Ballard, L. Where the wild things are! Do urban green spaces with greater avian biodiversity promote more positive emotions in humans? Urban Ecosyst. 2020, 23, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Von Hertzen, L.; Hanski, I.; Haahtela, T. Natural immunity: Biodiversity loss and inflammatory diseases are two global megatrends that might be related. EMBO Rep. 2011, 12, 1089–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Rook, G.A. Regulation of the immune system by biodiversity from the natural environment: An ecosystem service essential to health. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 18360–18367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  143. Strachan, D.P. Family size, infection and atopy: The first decade of the’hygiene hypothesis’. Thorax 2000, 55, S2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  144. Bjorksten, B. Diverse microbial exposure—Consequences for vaccine development. Vaccine 2012, 30, 4336–4340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Robinson, J.M.; Barrable, A. Optimising Early Childhood Educational Settings for Health Using Nature-Based Solutions: The Microbiome Aspect. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Roslund, M.I.; Puhakka, R.; Grönroos, M.; Nurminen, N.; Oikarinen, S.; Gazali, A.M.; Cinek, O.; Kramná, L.; Siter, N.; Vari, H.K. Biodiversity intervention enhances immune regulation and health-associated commensal microbiota among daycare children. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eaba2578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Mills, J.G.; Selway, C.A.; Thomas, T.; Weyrich, L.S.; Lowe, A.J. Schoolyard biodiversity determines short-term recovery of disturbed skin microbiota in children. Microb. Ecol. 2022, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Norton, B.A.; Coutts, A.M.; Livesley, S.J.; Harris, R.J.; Hunter, A.M.; Williams, N.S. Planning for cooler cities: A framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 134, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Voskamp, I.M.; van de Ven, F.H. Planning support system for climate adaptation: Composing effective sets of blue-green measures to reduce urban vulnerability to extreme weather events. Build. Environ. 2015, 83, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Cariñanos, P.; Calaza, P.; Hiemstra, J.; Pearlmutter, D.; Vilhar, U. The role of urban and peri-urban forests in reducing risks and managing disasters. Unasylva 2018, 69, 53–58. [Google Scholar]
  151. McDonald, R.; Kroeger, T.; Boucher, T.; Wang, L.; Salem, R. Planting Healthy Air: A Global Analysis of the Role of Urban Trees in Addressing Particulate Matter Pollution and Extreme Heat; The Nature Conservancy: Arlington, TX, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  152. Van Renterghem, T.; Forssén, J.; Attenborough, K.; Jean, P.; Defrance, J.; Hornikx, M.; Kang, J. Using natural means to reduce surface transport noise during propagation outdoors. Appl. Acoust. 2015, 92, 86–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Antoniadis, D.; Katsoulas, N.; Papanastasiou, D.Κ. Thermal environment of urban schoolyards: Current and future design with respect to children’s thermal comfort. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Oke, T.R. The energetic basis of the urban heat island. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 1982, 108, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Christian, H.; Lester, L.; Trost, S.G.; Trapp, G.; Schipperijn, J.; Boruff, B.; Maitland, C.; Jeemi, Z.; Rosenberg, M.; Barber, P. Shade coverage, ultraviolet radiation and children’s physical activity in early childhood education and care. Int. J. Public Health 2019, 64, 1325–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Lanza, K.; Alcazar, M.; Durand, C.P.; Salvo, D.; Villa, U.; Kohl, H.W. Heat-Resilient Schoolyards: Relations Between Temperature, Shade, and Physical Activity of Children During Recess. J. Phys. Act. Health 2022, 1, 134–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Park, R.J.; Goodman, J.; Hurwitz, M.; Smith, J. Heat and learning. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 2020, 12, 306–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Roach, T.; Whitney, J. Heat and learning in elementary and middle school. Educ. Econ. 2022, 30, 29–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Park, R.J.; Behrer, A.P.; Goodman, J. Learning is inhibited by heat exposure, both internationally and within the United States. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2021, 5, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Hirabayashi, S.; Nowak, D.J. Comprehensive national database of tree effects on air quality and human health in the United States. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 215, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Dadvand, P.; Rivas, I.; Basagaña, X.; Alvarez-Pedrerol, M.; Su, J.; Pascual, M.D.C.; Amato, F.; Jerret, M.; Querol, X.; Sunyer, J. The association between greenness and traffic-related air pollution at schools. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 523, 59–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Bao, W.-W.; Yang, B.-Y.; Zou, Z.-Y.; Ma, J.; Jing, J.; Wang, H.-J.; Luo, J.-Y.; Zhang, X.; Luo, C.-Y.; Wang, H. Greenness surrounding schools and adiposity in children and adolescents: Findings from a national population-based study in China. Environ. Res. 2021, 192, 110289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Zeng, X.-W.; Lowe, A.J.; Lodge, C.J.; Heinrich, J.; Roponen, M.; Jalava, P.; Guo, Y.; Hu, L.-W.; Yang, B.-Y.; Dharmage, S.C. Greenness surrounding schools is associated with lower risk of asthma in schoolchildren. Environ. Int. 2020, 143, 105967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Yu, H.; Hu, L.-W.; Zhou, Y.; Qian, Z.; Schootman, M.; LeBaige, M.H.; Zhou, Y.; Xiong, S.; Shen, X.; Lin, L.-Z. Association between eye-level greenness and lung function in urban Chinese children. Environ. Res. 2021, 202, 111641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Rivas, I.; Basagaña, X.; Cirach, M.; López-Vicente, M.; Suades-González, E.; Garcia-Esteban, R.; Álvarez-Pedrerol, M.; Dadvand, P.; Sunyer, J. Association between early life exposure to air pollution and working memory and attention. Environ. Health Perspect. 2019, 127, 057002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  167. Foraster, M.; Esnaola, M.; López-Vicente, M.; Rivas, I.; Álvarez-Pedrerol, M.; Persavento, C.; Sebastian-Galles, N.; Pujol, J.; Dadvand, P.; Sunyer, J. Exposure to road traffic noise and cognitive development in schoolchildren in Barcelona, Spain: A population-based cohort study. PLoS Med. 2022, 19, e1004001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. MacNaughton, P.; Eitland, E.; Kloog, I.; Schwartz, J.; Allen, J. Impact of particulate matter exposure and surrounding “greenness” on chronic absenteeism in Massachusetts public schools. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. World Health Organization. Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise: Quantification of Healthy Life Years Lost in Europe; World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  170. Van Renterghem, T. Towards explaining the positive effect of vegetation on the perception of environmental noise. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 40, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Dzhambov, A.M.; Dimitrova, D.D. Green spaces and environmental noise perception. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 1000–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Baró, F.; Camacho, D.A.; Del Pulgar, C.P.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Anguelovski, I. School greening: Right or privilege? Examining urban nature within and around primary schools through an equity lens. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2021, 208, 104019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. van Velzen, C.; Helbich, M. Green school outdoor environments, greater equity? Assessing environmental justice in green spaces around Dutch primary schools. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2023, 232, 104687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Kuo, M.; Browning, M.H.; Sachdeva, S.; Lee, K.; Westphal, L. Might school performance grow on trees? Examining the link between “greenness” and academic achievement in urban, high-poverty schools. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Giezen, M.; Pellerey, V. Renaturing the city: Factors contributing to upscaling green schoolyards in Amsterdam and The Hague. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 63, 127190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Mitchell, R.J.; Richardson, E.A.; Shortt, N.K.; Pearce, J.R. Neighborhood Environments and Socioeconomic Inequalities in Mental Well-Being. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2015, 49, 80–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Brown, S.; Perrino, T.; Lombard, J.; Wang, K.; Toro, M.; Rundek, T.; Gutierrez, C.; Dong, C.; Plater-Zyberk, E.; Nardi, M. Health disparities in the relationship of neighborhood greenness to mental health outcomes in 249,405 US Medicare beneficiaries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  178. Maas, J.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P.; de Vries, S.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2006, 60, 587–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Forests 14 00660 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual framework explaining how green, nature-rich schoolyards can contribute to child development.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework explaining how green, nature-rich schoolyards can contribute to child development.
Forests 14 00660 g001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

van den Bogerd, N.; Hovinga, D.; Hiemstra, J.A.; Maas, J. The Potential of Green Schoolyards for Healthy Child Development: A Conceptual Framework. Forests 2023, 14, 660. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14040660

AMA Style

van den Bogerd N, Hovinga D, Hiemstra JA, Maas J. The Potential of Green Schoolyards for Healthy Child Development: A Conceptual Framework. Forests. 2023; 14(4):660. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14040660

Chicago/Turabian Style

van den Bogerd, Nicole, Dieuwke Hovinga, Jelle A. Hiemstra, and Jolanda Maas. 2023. "The Potential of Green Schoolyards for Healthy Child Development: A Conceptual Framework" Forests 14, no. 4: 660. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14040660

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop