Gill (2014) The Benefits of Children's Engagement With Nature - A Systematic Literature Review

The Benefits of Children's Engagement with Nature: A Systematic Literature Review
Author(s): Tim Gill

Source: Children, Youth and Environments, Vol. 24, No. 2, Greening Early Childhood
Education (2014), pp. 10-34
Published by: University of Cincinnati
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.24.2.0010
Accessed: 26-05-2020 15:06 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.24.2.0010?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Cincinnati is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Children, Youth and Environments
This content downloaded from 149.90.238.69 on Tue, 26 May 2020 15:06:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Children, Youth and Environments 24(2), 2014
The Benefits of Children’s Engagement with Nature:

A Systematic Literature Review
Tim Gill
Independent Researcher
London, England
Citation: Gill, Tim (2014). “The Benefits of Children’s Engagement with Nature:
A Systematic Literature Review.” Children, Youth and Environments 24(2): 10-
34. Retrieved [date] from:
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=chilyoutenvi.
Abstract
This paper sets out the findings of a systematic review of the research literature on
the benefits that arise when children under 12 spend time in natural environments.
The review also explored the relationship between these benefits and the style of
children’s engagement with nature. The findings support the view that spending
time in nature is part of a “balanced diet” of childhood experiences that promote
children’s healthy development, well-being and positive environmental attitudes
and values. It also points to the value of more playful engagement styles. The
findings are relevant to the development of educational and planning policy and
practice, and to advocacy work.
Keywords: children, nature, outdoor play, literature review, children’s

development
 2014 Children, Youth and Environments
The Benefits of Children’s Engagement with Nature: A Systematic Literature Review 11
Introduction
This paper sets out the findings of a review of the empirical support for claims
about the benefits that arise when children engage with nature. The review was
carried out in 2011 as part of a wider project exploring children’s relationship with
nature, supported by the London Sustainable Development Commission. The final
report for this wider project was published as Gill (2011).
Some strong claims have been made about the importance of children spending
time in nature (see Louv 2008 for an influential overview). Natural environments
are said to have restorative qualities that help in relaxing and coping with everyday
stress (Louv 2008, chapter 8). They are claimed to promote adaptive processes in
child development (for instance motor fitness, physical competence and self-
confidence) (Louv 2008, chapter 4). They are said to support creativity, learning
and education (Louv 2008, chapters 5 and 7). Finally, it is claimed that spending
time in green outdoor environments as a child nurtures lifelong positive attitudes
about nature and the wider environment (Louv 2008, chapter 6). These claims are
examined here in detail, with the aim of producing a transparent, authoritative
assessment of the empirical evidence base for them.
What Can a Review Like This Tell Us?

Summarizing the research on children and nature is not easy. The topic has been
surveyed in different ways by researchers with different theoretical starting points,
interests and approaches. There are ethical and methodological challenges. Indeed
there are debates (not pursued further here) about the degree to which it is
possible to be impartial or objective on such topics.
Inevitably, an empirical focus means missing out on some of the more theoretical
and descriptive material available. Some of the qualitative, subjective, even
spiritual features of our relationship with nature—its texture and fabric as part of
people’s inner lives—may be underemphasized or omitted.
Moreover, care is needed when looking at the empirical evidence. Studies vary in
quality. They explore the experiences of diverse groups of children—different
countries, age ranges, and socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. Studies’
definitions of “nature” (or a “natural environment”) also vary widely, as does the
style of children’s engagement with those environments. The environments studied
include urban green public spaces, school grounds, woodlands and private gardens.
In some studies children are playing freely, while in others their engagement is
facilitated by adults, sometimes through highly structured programs. It cannot be
assumed that benefits with one group of children, from experiences in one type of
environment, or from one style of engagement, will transfer to other groups,
environments or engagement styles.
While the body of empirical evidence is growing, the picture remains incomplete.
For example, some writers argue that children build their resilience—their ability to
bounce back from the ups and downs of life—when they play in natural
environments. But ethical and methodological challenges make it hard to
empirically study such benefits.
Gathering robust evidence of cause and effect is particularly challenging. To take

one example from the findings discussed here: people who feel close to nature as
adults, or have a strong commitment to environmentalism, tend to have spent time
in childhood in natural places—unlike people who feel less concerned about nature.
What might explain this link? It could be that early experiences influenced or
caused the later attitudes. Or, it could be that some people are from an early age
more inclined than others towards both natural environments and
environmentalism. Cross-sectional studies can show a link between experiences and
benefits, but they cannot show cause and effect.
Longitudinal studies can give more information about the potential benefits of
different experiences, since they can provide a baseline. However, they still leave
open the possibility that the benefits are not caused by the experiences, but by
other factors—perhaps the social background, characteristics or personalities of the
children. To be more confident that the differences are caused by the experiences,
intervention studies are needed that compare groups of children in ways that
control for such factors as their backgrounds or personal characteristics. The
strongest evidence is gained from studies where children are assigned to different
interventions in randomized controlled trials. While such studies are common for
clinical and other health interventions, there are ethical, financial and practical
barriers to carrying them out in other disciplines. Some of the studies included in
this review used more robust before-and-after methodologies, but most were cross-
sectional.
Review Methodology
The literature review used a “rapid evidence assessment” methodology similar to
that used by the UK civil service. This aims to give
a balanced assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice

issue by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise
existing research. They aim to be rigorous and explicit in method and thus
systematic but make concessions to the breadth or depth of the process by
limiting particular aspects of the systematic review process.1
This review began with a systematic search for relevant primary empirical studies.
Each of the studies found were categorized and evaluated in a consistent way,
according to clearly stated criteria.
This review was undertaken in three stages. In stage one, the researcher carried
out a search for relevant primary empirical studies with sound methodologies. In
stage two, the researcher analyzed the studies selected (61 in total) to pull out the
benefits. This analysis also gathered information on the study quality, the type/s of
environment and style/s of engagement under study, and the characteristics of the
children/adults that were studied. In stage three the evidence for each category of
1
http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/networks/gsr/resources-and-guidance/rapid-evidence-
assessment/what-is.
benefit was pulled together to give an assessment that reflects the quality and
number of relevant studies. Stage three also analyzed how engagement style
related to benefits. Each stage is described in more detail below.
Stage One: Search for Relevant Studies

The search for relevant studies began with a trawl (carried out in January and
February 2011) through 32 relevant literature reviews, around half of which focused
on children. These reviews were all undertaken between 2003 and 2010. Some of
these reviews were known to the researcher, while others came to light either as
citations, or as a result of contacting one of a number of experts. The reviews are
listed in Tables 7 and 8 (Appendix A) and the experts are listed in Table 9 (also in
Appendix A). Tables 7 and 8 also state whether or not the review gave information
about the methodological quality of the primary studies cited. Where this
information was given, it was used in stage two (see below for more details). This
search identified 71 studies for further analysis.
The inclusion/exclusion criteria are set out in Table 1 below, and are adapted from
those used in Bell et al. (2008)2. The geographical and date criteria reflected the
wider project’s interest in children living in London today, and recognized that
childhoods are influenced by cultural, economic and social context (James and Prout
1997). The age criterion reflected the project’s interest in engaging children at a
relatively young age (Gill 2011). These criteria also focus on more everyday
experiences with natural environments—what Louv (2008) calls “nearby nature”—
again a reflection of the project’s priorities.
Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria

Studies reporting the benefits or outcomes of Studies that do not consider benefits or
children’s experiences of nature. outcomes.
The relevant experiences happened before Studies focusing on experiences after
the age of 12 age 12
The style of engagement is potentially a Studies of residential, remote or
regular part of everyday childhood wilderness experiences, where children
are taken some distance away from
their everyday environments
The environment under study is one of the  Outdoor spaces where there is no
following natural spaces: mention of nature or greenness
 Woodlands  Remote wilderness areas
 Urban green public spaces  Studies focusing on experiences with
 Outdoor green domestic spaces animals or pets
 School grounds, including school gardens
 “Wild areas” that may be found in or
near urban areas
2
The application of these criteria is not an entirely objective process, and judgements had
to be made. A considered view was taken, in the light of the reviewer’s expertise in the
area.
Inclusion criteria, cont. Exclusion criteria, cont.

Studies undertaken in developed countries Studies undertaken in developing
countries
Papers reporting primary studies of an  Papers not reporting empirical
evaluative and/or empirical nature (relevant studies, for example, editorials,
literature reviews were not included, but any think-pieces, theoretical and
studies they cited/referenced were methodological discussion papers
considered for inclusion)  Theses and dissertations
Papers published in English Papers not published in English
Papers published (in print or online) in a Papers published by other sources such
peer-reviewed journal or scholarly book, or as local authorities, private individuals
by an authoritative source, including national and private companies
governments, national public bodies,
academic institutions and leading NGOs
Papers published between 1990 and Papers published before 1990
February 2011
Stage Two: Analysis of Study Quality

In stage two, for each of the 71 studies identified in stage one, the reviewer made
an assessment about the quality of the research methods used. This assessment
used a simplified version of the approach taken in Bell et al. (2008). The studies
were assessed against the following three questions:
 Does the research test for a benefit/outcome, with clear aims?

 Is there a clear, justified methodology?
 Is there a clear analysis?
Each study was graded “good,” “fair,” “unclear” or “poor” using the following
criteria:
 Good: positive assessment against all three questions.

 Fair: positive assessment against most of the questions; no negative
assessments.
 Unclear: unclear quality in accordance with all the questions.
 Poor: negative assessment against one or more of the questions.
The results of this assessment are given in Table 2 below. Any studies that were
cited in a literature review that incorporated inclusion criteria about the quality of
the study’s methodology were automatically assessed as “good.”
Table 2. Results of assessment of studies’ research methods
Grade Number of studies

Good 46
Fair 13
Unclear 2
Poor 10
The ten studies assessed as poor were excluded from any further analysis. The 61
remaining studies were categorized according to the specific benefit(s) that were
addressed.3 A small proportion of studies (nine in total) addressed more than one
benefit; these were included under each relevant benefit category. The typology of
benefits used was adapted from Malone (2008) and is set out in Table 3 below.
In addition, each study was also analyzed for the following information:
 Key findings (usually taken from abstract)

 Type(s) of environment under study
 Style(s) of children’s engagement under study
 Characteristics of subjects studied (e.g., age, socio-economic background,
ethnic background)
 Geographical location
 Caveats and other comments
Table 3. Typology of benefits
General benefit Specific benefit Number of relevant studiesa

Health (physical, Physical activity 16
emotional and Mental and emotional health 11
mental) Healthy eating 3
Motor development 2
Well-being Quality of outdoor play 2
Psychosocial healthb 1
Cognitive Scientific learning 4
Environmental knowledge 2
Language and communication 2
Social Social skills 4
Emotional/ Self-control 2
behavioral Self-confidence 1
Self-awareness 1
Ethical/attitudinal Concern for the environment 13
Connectedness to nature 5
Sense of place 4
Notes:
a. The total adds up to more than the total number of studies because some studies were
relevant to more than one benefit.
b. The psychosocial health measure used in the relevant paper (British Trust for
Conservation Volunteers 2009) is based on measures of children’s emotional, social and
school functioning.
3
The references for these 61 studies are marked by an asterisk (*) in the list of references
at the end of this paper.
Stage Three: Synthesizing Evidence of Benefits

Having grouped the 61 studies together under each specific benefit, the reviewer
synthesized the evidence to give an overall assessment of the degree of support for
that benefit. Table 4 below sets out how this assessment was carried out.
Table 4. Assessing the degree of support for each specific benefit
Degree of
Criterion
support
Claims that are Two or more studies with positive findings, all assessed as
well-supported “good” and none with contradictory findings. (There may
also be other studies of varying quality, and studies with
neutral or non-significant findings.)
Claims that have One study with positive findings, assessed as “good” and
some good support none with contradictory findings. (There may also be other
studies of varying quality, and there may also be some
studies with neutral or non-significant findings.)
Claims with some One or more studies with positive findings but none
support assessed as “good.”
Given the heterogeneous nature of the studies, and the fact that, even taken as a
whole, they only give a partial picture of the topic, there is limited scope for further
analysis that might reveal specific factors found to shape or influence the benefits
for children. However, one factor was significant enough to warrant further
exploration: the style of children’s engagement with nature. This aspect is
prominent in the theoretical and discursive literature.4
Therefore, the 61 studies were analyzed in one further way: the degree to which
the engagement style under study could be described as “more playful” or “less
playful.” More playful styles included free play, leisure, child-initiated learning (such
as in forest schools) and freely chosen gardening activities and games, while less
playful styles included school gardening programs, guided walks and field trips.
Where both styles were studied, or the nature of the engagement style was
unclear, this was also noted. The results of this analysis are discussed at the end of
the results section.
Limitations of the Review Methodology

This review differs from a full systematic literature review in several ways. These
differences are all a consequence of the limited time and resources available. No
comprehensive trawls of academic databases were carried out, and the
references/citations of individual papers and primary studies were not themselves
used as sources of other potential studies (unless the papers referenced/cited were
literature reviews). Hence there is a risk that some relevant studies may not have
been identified—especially studies that may have been published too recently to
feature in any of the reviews surveyed. This limitation was partially addressed by
4
See, for example, Louv (2008) (especially Part II).
contacting the experts above, and by drawing on the material on the Children &
Nature Network website5, which is proactive in publicizing relevant material.
Furthermore, no independent checks of the assessments of study quality,

categorizations or analyses were undertaken (in a full systematic review, analyses
are often cross-checked through the use of two or more reviewers, whose
judgments are compared for consistency). However, the review methodology was
developed and refined with support from Professor Catharine Ward Thompson at
Edinburgh University, who has substantial experience with conducting and
overseeing similar literature reviews.
Finally, the assessments of study quality made in this review fall short of what
might be expected in, for instance, a clinical review. For example, no assessment
was made of the validity of any statistical tests used (though it should be noted
that for material published in peer-reviewed journals, such tests would often form
part of the peer review process).
These limitations mean that this review is less rigorous than might be expected in a
clinically oriented literature review. However, it is worth noting that reviews of
benefits from children’s engagement with nature do not need to meet the same
standards of rigor, because studies of this topic do not carry risks of false positives.
If a study concludes that a medication is beneficial when it is not, that is a false
conclusion with potentially seriously adverse consequences. If an intervention that
increases children’s engagement with nature does not have all the benefits claimed
in this review, the potential adverse consequences are less serious. Overall, this
paper stands as the first such review of its topic area that is both transparent and
systematic in its approach to searching, categorizing, appraising, and analyzing the
empirical evidence base.
Results
Taken as a whole, the studies support the view that spending time in nature is part
of a “balanced diet” of childhood experiences that promote children’s healthy
development, well-being and positive environmental attitudes and values. Claims
about health benefits, both physical and mental, are the most strongly supported
by empirical evidence. In the case of mental health, emotional regulation and motor
development, the evidence base includes a small number of more robust, cause-
and-effect studies. (See Tables 10 and 11, Appendix B for the studies that support
these claims.)
There is also good evidence of a link between time spent in natural settings as a
child, and positive views about nature as an adult. The evidence base for these
benefits covers a comparatively broad range of children from different countries
and backgrounds. However, not all children are equally keen on nature and the
outdoors. Studies have found that a lack of regular positive experiences in nature is
5
http://www.childrenandnature.org/
associated with the development of fear, discomfort and dislike of the

environment.6 (See Table 10, Appendix B for the studies that support these claims.)
A more modest body of evidence from a diverse mix of studies points to

improvements in children’s self-confidence, language/communication and
psychosocial health. (See Table 12, Appendix B for the studies that support these
claims.)
The analysis of the degree of support for specific benefits is summarized in Table 5
below.
Table 5. Overall conclusions from the literature review
Claims that are well supported

 Spending time in natural environments as a child is associated with adult
pro-environment attitudes and feelings of being connected with the natural
world, and is also associated with a stronger sense of place.
 Living nearby green spaces is associated with greater physical activity.
 Spending time in nearby nature leads to improvements in mental health
and emotional regulation, both for specific groups of children (such as
those with ADHD) and for children as a whole.
 Children who take part in school gardening projects improve in scientific
learning more than those who do not, and have healthier eating habits.
 Experience of green environments is associated with greater
environmental knowledge.
 Play in natural environments leads to improvements in motor fitness for
pre-school children.
Claims that have some good support
 Forest school and school gardening projects are associated with improved
social skills; in addition, forest school leads to improved self-control and
school gardening projects lead to increased self-awareness.
Claims with some support
 Nearby nature is associated with more outdoor play and hence improved
well-being.
 Forest school is associated with improved self-confidence and language
and communication.
 Conservation activities in school grounds and nearby open spaces are
associated with improved psychosocial health.
One further finding emerged from the analysis of papers, which points to the value
of more playful engagement styles such as free play, exploration, leisure and child-
initiated learning. While no studies directly compared different styles of
engagement, across the pool of studies analyzed, more playful styles were
associated with both health benefits and positive environmental attitudes. Less
playful styles such as school gardening projects and field trips were mainly
6
See, for example, Bixler, Carlisle and Hammitt (1994).
associated with educational benefits. The analysis of engagement style is shown in

Table 6.
Table 6. Studies, benefits and engagement styles
“More playful” “Less playful” Both, or unclear

Benefit engagement engagement engagement
style style style
Physical activity 15 1 0
Concern for the 8 3 2
environment
Mental and emotional 7 1 2
health
Connected to nature 3 0 2
Scientific knowledge 0 4 0
Social skills 2 1 1
Sense of place 3 1 0
Total 38 11 7
Conclusions
The review’s main findings on benefits, which largely support the claims made in
Louv (2008) and elsewhere, are unlikely to surprise those who advocate that
children should spend more time in nature. In particular, the relatively strong
evidence for a range of health benefits points to the need for more early
intervention and preventative initiatives from the health sector.
The topic of children and nature has been reviewed frequently in recent years, as
Table 7 shows (see Appendix A). The present review differs from almost all the
reviews identified in Table 7, in that it includes assessments of study quality
alongside clear inclusion criteria (the only exception is Ward Thompson, Travlou
and Roe (2006), which focused on older children). As Roberts and Petticrew (2006)
argue, reviews that do not state their inclusion criteria are open to criticism that
their assessment is partial or biased (for instance, they may have ignored negative
or inconclusive studies). Similarly, reviews that make no attempt to assess study
quality, or that fail to describe how they do this, may not adequately reflect the
weight of evidence. Hence this review provides useful material to make a stronger
case for relevant interventions, especially to more skeptical audiences such as
planners and policy makers.
The significance of playfulness as an engagement style is perhaps this review’s

most important contribution to the literature. It provides a rationale for the view
that practitioners and policy makers need to focus not only on structured,
educational interventions, but also on initiatives that allow for more open-ended,
child-directed and playful experiences in natural environments.
The evidence base presented here only gives a partial picture of the benefits that
might arise from children’s engagement with nature. Many questions remain that
could usefully be explored in future empirical studies, including:
 The key qualities of the environment—landscape qualities, tree and plant

cover, biodiversity, ambience, size—and how they influence benefits;
 The effect of time spent in natural settings; while evidence points to the
value of repeated visits, little is known about how patterns of use over time
influence benefits;
 The effects and influences of an adult presence (or absence); how benefits
are shaped by different adults, and different professional approaches;
 How benefits vary for different children, including older children and those in
developing countries. While there are grounds for giving greater emphasis to
the experiences of younger children, the way children’s relationship with
nature changes with age is under-explored, as are factors such as culture,
socio-economic group, ability, and gender.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the London Sustainable Development Commission for choosing me to
carry out the project of which this literature review was a part. Thanks also to Professor
Catharine Ward Thompson for her advice and support in carrying out the review, and to two
reviewers from CYE, whose suggestions have helped to improve the paper.
Tim Gill is an independent researcher, writer and consultant based in London, UK.
He is interested in children’s everyday lives and the changing nature of childhood,
with a focus on children’s play and free time. His book No Fear: Growing up in a
Risk-Averse Society was published in 2007. In 2009 he was awarded an honorary
doctorate from Edge Hill University. He also holds a degree in philosophy and
psychology from Oxford University and a master’s degree in philosophy from
London University, and he is a former director of the Children’s Play Council (now
Play England). His website is www.rethinkingchildhood.com.
References
The 61 primary empirical studies are prefixed with an asterisk *
* Bell, J., J. Wilson and G. Liu (2008). “Neighborhood Greenness and 2-Year
Changes in Body Mass Index of Children and Youth.” American Journal of
Preventative Medicine 35(6): 547–553.
* Bell, S. (2005). “Nature for People: The Importance of Green Spaces to East
Midlands Communities.” In Ingo Kowarik and Stefan Körner, eds. Wild Urban
Woodlands: New Perspectives for Urban Forestry. Berlin: Springer, 81-94.
Bell, S., V. Hamilton, A. Montarzino, H. Rothnie, P. Travlou and S. Alves

(2008). Greenspace and Quality of Life: A Critical Literature Review. Research
Report by OPENspace for Greenspace Scotland. Stirling: Greenspace Scotland.
Bird, W. (2004). Natural Fit: Can Green Space and Biodiversity Increase Levels of
Physical Activity? Sandy: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
---- (2007). Natural Thinking. Sandy: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
Bixler, R., C. Carlisle and W. Hammitt (1994). “Observed Fears and Discomforts
among Urban Students on Field Trips to Wildland Areas.” Journal of Environmental
Education 26(1): 24-33
* Bixler, R., M. Floyd and W. Hammitt (2002). “Environmental Socialization:

Quantitative Tests of the Childhood Play Hypothesis.” Environment and Behavior
34(6): 795-818.
* Blizard, C. and R. Schuster (2007). “Fostering Children’s Connections to

Natural Places through Cultural and Natural History Storytelling.” Children, Youth
and Environments 17(4): 171-206. Available from:
Bowler, D., T. Knight and A. Pullin (2009). The Value of Contact with Nature for
Health Promotion: How the Evidence Has Been Reviewed. Bangor: Centre for
Evidence Based Conservation, School of the Environment and Natural Resources,
Bangor University.
Bowler, D., L. Buyung-Ali, T. Knight and A. Pullin (2010a). The Importance of

Nature for Health: Is There a Specific Benefit of Contact with Green Space? Bangor:
Centre for Evidence Based Conservation. Available from:
www.environmentalevidence.org/SR40.html.
----- (2010b). “A Systematic Review of Evidence for the Added Benefits to Health of
Exposure to Natural Environments.” BMC Public Health 10: 456.
* British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (2009). School Green Gym

Evaluation Findings: Health and Social Outcomes. Doncaster: British Trust for
Conservation Volunteers.
Charles, C. and A. Senauer (2010a). Health Benefits to Children from Contact

with the Outdoors and Nature. Minneapolis: Children & Nature Network.
----- (2010b). Children’s Contact with the Outdoors and Nature: A Focus on
Educators and Educational Settings. Minneapolis: Children & Nature Network.
* Chawla, L. (1999). “Life Paths into Effective Environmental Action.” Journal of

Environmental Education 1: 15-26.
Chawla, L. and D. Cushing (2007). “Education for Strategic Environmental

Behavior.” Environmental Education Research 13(4): 437-452.
Croucher, K., L. Myers and J. Bretherton (2007). The Links between

Greenspace and Health: A Critical Literature Review. Stirling: Greenspace Scotland.
Croucher, K., L. Myers, R. Jones and A. Elleaway (2007). Physical

Characteristics of Urban Neighbourhoods and Health: Critical Literature Review.
Glasgow: Glasgow Centre for Population Health.
Davies, P. and J. Deaville (2007). Natural Heritage: A Pathway to Health. Cardiff:

Countryside Commission for Wales.
* Davis, B. and S. Waite (2005). Forest School: An Evaluation of the

Opportunities and Challenges in Early Years. University of Plymouth.
* de Vries, S., I. Bakker, W. van Mechelen and M. Hopman-Rock (2007).

“Determinants of Activity-Friendly Neighborhoods for Children: Results from the
SPACE Study.” American Journal of Health Promotion 21(4): 312-316.
* Dirks, A. and K. Orvis (2005). “An Evaluation of the Junior Master Gardener
Program in Third Grade Classrooms.” HortTechnology 15: 443-447.
* Dyment, J. and A. Bell (2008). “Grounds for Movement: Green School Grounds
as Sites for Promoting Physical Activity.” Health Education Research 23(6): 952–
962.
* Dyment, J., A. Bell and A. Lucas (2009). “The Relationship between School
Ground Design and Intensity of Physical Activity.” Children's Geographies 7(3):
261-276.
* Ewert, A., G. Place and J. Sibthorp (2005). “Early-Life Outdoor Experiences

and an Individual's Environmental Attitudes.” Leisure Sciences 27: 225-239.
* Faber Taylor, A. and F. Kuo (2009). “Children with Attention Deficits

Concentrate Better after Walk in the Park.” Journal of Attention Disorders 12(5):
402-409.
* Faber Taylor, A., F. Kuo and W. Sullivan (2001). “Coping with ADD: The
Surprising Connection to Green Play Settings.” Environment and Behavior 33(1):
54-77.
* ----- (2002). “Views of Nature and Self-Discipline: Evidence from Inner-City

Children.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 22: 49-63.
* Faber Taylor, A., A. Wiley, F. Kuo and W. Sullivan (1998). “Growing up in the
Inner-City: Green Spaces as Places to Grow.” Environment and Behavior 30(1): 3-
27.
Faculty of Public Health (2010). Great Outdoors: How Our Natural Health Service
Uses Green Space to Improve Wellbeing—An Action Report. London: Faculty of
Public Health in association with Natural England.
* Fjortoft, I. (2004). “Landscape as Playscape: The Effects of Natural

Environments on Children’s Play and Motor Development.” Children, Youth and
Environments 14(2): 21-44. Available from:
Foster, C., M. Hillsdon, A. Jones and J. Panter (2006). Assessing the

Relationship between the Quality of Urban Green Space and Physical Activity.
London: CABE Space.
* Furihata, S., T. Ishizaka, M. Hatakeyama, M. Hitsumoto and S. Ito (2007).

“Potentials and Challenges of Research on ‘Significant Life Experiences’ in Japan.”
Children, Youth and Environments 17(4): 207-226.
Gill, T. (2011). Sowing the Seeds: Reconnecting London’s Children with Nature.
London: Mayor of London.
Health Council of the Netherlands (2004). Nature and Health: The Influence of
Nature on Social, Psychological and Physical Well-Being. The Hague: Health Council
of the Netherlands.
Huby, M. and J. Bradshaw (2006). A Review of the Environmental Dimension of

Children and Young People’s Well-being. A Report for the Sustainable Development
Commission. London: Sustainable Development Commission.
* Hume, C., J. Salmon and K. Ball (2005). “Children’s Perceptions of Their Home
and Neighborhood Environments, and Their Association with Objectively Measured
Physical Activity: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study.” Health Education Research
20(1): 1–13.
James, A. and A. Prout, eds. (1997) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood:

Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. London: Falmer Press.
* Kals, E., D. Schumacher and L. Montada (1999). “Emotional Affinity towards

Nature as a Motivational Basis to Protect Nature.” Environment and Behavior 31(2):
178-203.
* Klemmer, C., I. Waliczek and J. Zajicek (2005). “The Effect of a School

Gardening Program on the Science Achievement of Elementary Students.”
HortTechnology 15: 448-552.
* Knapp, D. and E. Barrie (2001). “Content Evaluation of an Environmental

Science Field Trip.” Journal of Science Education & Technology 10(4): 351–7.
* Knapp, D. and R. Poff (2001). “A Qualitative Analysis of the Immediate and

Short-Term Impact of an Environmental Interpretive Program.” Environmental
Education Research 7(1): 55–65.
* Korpela, K., M. Kytta and T. Hartig (2002). “Restorative Experience, Self-

Regulation, and Children's Place Preferences.” Journal of Environmental Psychology
22: 387-398.
* Kuo, F. and A. Faber Taylor (2004). “A Potential Natural Treatment for

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disordr: Evidence from a National Study.” American
Journal of Public Health 94(9): 1580–1586.
Lester, S. and M. Maudsley (2006). Play, Naturally: A Review of Children’s

Natural Play. London: Play England.
* Lineberger, S. and J. Zajicek (2000). “School Gardens: Can a Hands-on

Teaching Tool Affect Students' Attitudes and Behaviors Regarding Fruits and
Vegetables?” HortTechnology 10: 593-597.
* Lohr, V. and C. Pearson-Mims (2002). “Childhood Contact with Nature

Influences Adult Attitudes and Actions toward Trees and Gardening.” In C.A.
Shoemaker, ed. Interaction by Design: Bringing People and Plants Together for
Health and Well-Being: An International Symposium. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
Press, 267-277.
* Lohr, V. and C. Pearson-Mims (2004). “The Relative Influence of Childhood

Activities and Demographics on Adult Appreciation for the Role of Trees in Human
Well-Being.” Acta Horticulturae 639: 253-259.
Louv, R. (2008). Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit
Disorder, 2nd ed. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
* Lovell, R. (2009). Physical Activity at Forest School. London: Forestry

Commission.
Lovell, R., L. O’Brien and R. Owen (2010). Review of the Research Evidence in
Relation to the Role of Trees and Woods in Formal Education and Learning. London:
Forestry Commission.
* Mabie, R. and M. Baker (1996). “A Comparison of Experiential Instructional

Strategies upon the Science Process Skills of Urban Elementary Students.” Journal
of Agricultural Education 37(2): 1–7.
* Maller, C. and M. Townsend (2006). “Children’s Mental Health and Wellbeing

and Hands-on Contact with Nature.” International Journal of Learning 12: 359-372.
Malone, K. (2008). Every Experience Matters: An Evidence Based Research Report

on the Role of Learning Outside the Classroom for Children’s Whole Development
from Birth to Eighteen Years. Stoneleigh Park, Warwickshire: Farming &

Countryside Education.
* Mårtensson, F., C. Boldemann, M. Söderström, M. Blennow, J. Englund

and P. Grahn (2009). “Outdoor Environmental Assessment of Attention Promoting
Settings for Preschool Children.” Health & Place 15(4): 1149-1157.
* Milton, B., E. Cleveland and D. Bennett-Gates (1995). “Changing Perceptions

of Nature, Self, and Others: A Report on a Park/School Program.” Journal of
Environmental Education 26(3): 32–9.
* Min, B. and J. Lee (2006). “Children's Neighborhood Place as a Psychological

and Behavioral Domain.’ Journal of Environmental Psychology 26: 51-71.
* Morris, J. and S. Zidenberg-Cherr (2002). “Garden-Enhanced Nutrition

Education Curriculum Improves Fourth-Grade School Children's Knowledge of
Nutrition and Preferences for Some Vegetables.” Journal of American Dietetic
Association 102(1): 91-93.
* Morris, J., A. Netistadcer and S. Zidenberg-Cherr (2001). “First-Grade

Gardeners More Likely to Taste Vegetables.” California Agriculture 55(1): 43-46.
Muñoz, S. (2009). Children in the Outdoors: A Literature Review. Inverness:

Sustainable Development Research Centre.
* Mygind, E. (2007). “A Comparison between Children's Physical Activity Levels at

School and Learning in an outdoor Environment.” Journal of Adventure Education
and Outdoor Learning 7(2): 161-176.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Evidence (2006). Physical Activity
and the Environment: Review 3—Natural Environment. London: National Institute
for Health and Clinical Evidence Public Collaborating Centre - Physical Activity.
New Economics Foundation (2006). Review of the Environmental Dimension of

Children and Young People’s Well-Being: A Report for the Sustainable Development
Commission. London: Sustainable Development Commission.
Newton, J. (2007). Wellbeing and the Natural Environment: A Brief Overview of
the Evidence. London: Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs.
* O’Brien, L. and R. Murray (2007). “Forest School and Its Impacts on Young
Children: Case Studies in Britain.’ Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 6: 249–265.
* Ozdemir, A. and O. Yilmaz (2008). “Assessment of Outdoor School

Environments and Physical Activity in Ankara's Primary Schools.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 28(3): 287-300.
* Palmer, J. and J. Suggate (1996). “Influences and Experiences Affecting the

Proenvironmental Behaviour of Educators.” Environmental Education Research 2(1):
109–121.
* Palmer, J., J. Suggate, B. Bajd and E. Tsaliki (1998). “Significant Influences

on the Development of Adults’ Environmental Awareness in the UK, Slovenia and
Greece.” Environmental Education Research 4(4): 429–444.
* Palmer, J., J. Suggate, I. Robottom and P. Hart (1999). “Significant Life

Experiences and Formative Influences on the Development of Adults’ Environmental
Awareness in the UK, Australia and Canada.” Environmental Education Research
5(2): 181–200.
Parsons, G. (2007). Heading Out: Exploring the Impact of Outdoor Experiences on

Young Children. Winchester: Learning through Landscapes.
* Pilgrim, S., D. Smith and J. Pretty (2007). “A Cross-Regional Assessment of

the Factors Affecting Ecoliteracy: Implications for Policy and Practice.” Ecological
Applications 17(6): 1742–1751.
* Potwarka, L., A. Kaczynski and A. Flack (2008). “Places to Play: Association

of Park Space and Facilities with Healthy Weight Status among Children.” Journal of
Community Health 33(5): 344-50.
Pretty, J., C. Angus, M. Bain, J. Barton, V. Gladwell, R. Hine, S Pilgrim, G.

Sandercock and M. Sellens (2009). Nature, Childhood, Health and Life Pathways.
Colchester: University of Essex.
Raffan, J., C. Robertson, H. Batten and P. Young (2000). Nature Nurtures:

Investigating the Potential of School Grounds. Toronto: Evergreen.
Rickinson, M., J. Dillon, K. Teamey, M. Morris, M. Young Choi, D. Sanders

and P. Benefield (2004). A Review of Research on Outdoor Learning. London:
National Foundation for Educational Research and King's College London.
Roberts, H. and M. Petticrew (2006). “Policy for Children and Young People:
What Is the Evidence and Can We Trust It?” Children’s Geographies 4(1): 19-36.
* Robinson, C. and J. Zajicek (2005). “Growing Minds: The Effects of a One-Year

School Garden Program on Six Constructs of Life Skills of Elementary School
Children.” HortTechnology 15: 453-457.
* Roe, J. (2009). Forest School and Restorative Health Benefits in Young People
with Varying Emotional Health. London: Forestry Commission.
* Roe, J. and P. Aspinall (2011). “The Emotional Affordances of Forest Settings:

An Investigation in Boys with Extreme Behavioural Problems.” Landscape Research
36(5): 535-552.
* Roemmich, J., L. Epstein and S. Raja (2007). “The Neighborhood and Home
Environments: Disparate Relationships with Physical Activity and Sedentary
Behaviors in Youth.” Annals of Behavioral Medicine 33(1): 29–38.
* Roemmich, J., L. Epstein, S. Raja, L. Yin, J. Robinson and D. Winiewicz

(2006). “Association of Access to Parks and Recreational Facilities with the Physical
Activity of Young Children.” Preventive Medicine 43: 437-441.
* Samborski, S. (2010). “Biodiverse or Barren School Grounds: Their Effects on

Children.” Children, Youth and Environments 20(2): 67-115. Available from:
* Scholz, U. and H. Krombholz (2007). “A Study of the Physical Performance

Ability of Children from Wood Kindergartens and from Regular Kindergartens.”
Motorik 1: 17-22.
* Sebba, R. (1991). “The Landscapes of Childhood: The Reflection of Childhood's

Environment in Adult Memories and in the Children's Attitudes.” Environment and
Behavior 23(4): 395-422.
Sempik, J., J. Aldridge and S. Becker (2003). Social and Therapeutic

Horticulture: Evidence and Messages from Research. Loughborough: Loughborough
University.
* Skelly, S. and J. Zajicek (1998). “The Effect of an Interdisciplinary Garden

Program on the Environmental Attitudes of Elementary School Students.”
HortTechnology 8(4): 579-583.
* Smith, L. and C. Motsenbocker (2005). “Impact of Hands-on Science through

School Gardening in Louisiana Public Elementary Schools.” HortTechnology 15:
439-443.
Sustainable Development Commission (2010). Improving Young People’s Lives:

The Role of the Environment in Building Resilience, Responsibility and Employment
Chances. London: Sustainable Development Commission.
* Timperio, A., D. Crawford, A. Telford and J. Salmon (2004). “Perceptions

about the Local Neighborhood and Walking and Cycling among Children.”
Preventative Medicine 38(1): 39-47.
Van den Berg, A. (2005). Health Impacts of Healing Environments: A Review of

the Benefits of Nature, Daylight, Fresh Air and Quiet in Healthcare Settings.
Groningen: Foundation 200 Years University Hospital Groningen.
* Waliczek, T. and J. Zajicek (1999). “School Gardening: Improving

Environmental Attitudes of Children through Hands-on Learning.” Journal of
Environmental Horticulture 17: 180-184.
* Waliczek, T., R. Bradley and J. Zajicek (2001). “The Effect of School Gardens
on Children's Interpersonal Relationships and Attitudes toward School.”
HortTechnology 11: 466-468.
* Ward Thompson, C., P. Aspinall, A. Montarzino (2008). “The Childhood

Factor: Adult Visits to Green Places and the Significance of Childhood Experience.”
Environment and Behavior 40(1): 111-143.
Ward Thompson, C., P. Travlou and J. Roe (2006). Free-Range Teenagers: The
Role of Wild Adventure Space in Young People's Lives. Edinburgh: OPENSpace.
* Wells, N. (2000). “At Home with Nature: Effects of ‘Greenness’ on Children’s

Cognitive Functioning.” Environment and Behavior 32(6): 775-795.
* Wells, N. and G. Evans (2003). “Nearby Nature: A Buffer of Life Stress among
Rural Children.” Environment and Behavior 35(3): 311-330.
* Wells, N. and S. Lekies (2006). “Nature and the Life Course: Pathways from
Childhood Nature Experiences to Adult Environmentalism.” Children, Youth and
Environments 16(1): 1-24. Available from:
Woolley, H., L. Pattacini and A. Somerset Ward (2009). Children and the
Natural Environment: Experiences, Influences and Interventions. Sheffield:
Sheffield University.
Appendix A. Literature Reviews Searched and Experts Contacted
Table 7. Relevant literature reviews that focus on children
Study quality assessed

Reference
within the review?
Charles and Senauer (2010a) No
Charles and Senauer (2010b) No
Chawla and Cushing (2007) No
Huby and Bradshaw (2006) No
Lester and Maudsley (2006) No
Lovell, O’Brien and Owen (2010) No
Malone (2008) No
Muñoz (2009) No
New Economics Foundation (2006) No
Parsons (2007) No
Pretty et al. (2009) No
Raffan et al. (2000) No
Rickinson et al. (2004) No
Sustainable Development Commission (2010) No
Ward Thompson, Travlou and Roe (2006) Yes
Woolley, Pattacini and Somerset Ward (2009) No
Table 8. Relevant literature reviews that do not solely focus on children
Study quality assessed

Reference
within the review?
Bell et al. (2008) Yes
Bird (2004) No
Bird (2007) No
Bowler, Knight and Pullin (2009) A review of reviews
Bowler et al. (2010a) Yes
Bowler et al. (2010b) Yes
Croucher, Myers and Bretherton (2007) Yes
Croucher et al. (2007) Yes
Davies and Deaville (2007) Yes
Faculty of Public Health (2010) No
Foster et al. (2006) Yes
Health Council of the Netherlands (2004) No
National Institute for Health and Clinical Evidence Yes
(2006)
Newton (2007) No
Sempik, Aldridge and Becker (2003) Yes
Van den Berg (2005) Yes
To supplement these literature reviews, 13 experts were contacted in January and

February 2011 to ask for references and pointers to relevant material. They were
asked in fairly general terms for information on “post-2005 empirical studies

relevant to children and nature.” The experts contacted are listed in Table 9 below.
Table 9. Experts contacted
Name Institution
Catherine Andrews Formerly Learning through Landscapes
Dr. William Bird Adviser to Natural England
Stephen Close Formerly Play England
Anna Kassman-McKerrell Children’s Play Information Service, National
Children’s Bureau
Rebecca Lovell Forestry Commission
Prof. Karen Malone University of Western Sydney
Dr. Liz O’Brien Forestry Commission
Dr. Jake Reynolds Formerly Sustainable Development Commission
Marcus Sangster Formerly Forestry Commission
Prof Chris Spencer Sheffield University
Sam Thompson New Economics Foundation
Prof. Catharine Ward OPENspace, Edinburgh University
Thompson
Helen Woolley Sheffield University
Appendix B. Analysis of Evidence of Benefits
Table 10. Benefits that are well-supported by good evidence
Specific No. of Relevant studies Types of Typical style Characteristics

benefit relevant (grouped by environments of of subjects;
studies research quality) studied engagement other remarks
Physical 16 Good Green outdoor Forest school; Hume et al.
activity Bell, Wilson and Liu space; play; (2005) and
(2008) woodland conservation Potwarka et al.
De Vries et al. settings; school activities (2008) have
(2007) grounds; urban mixed findings
Fjortoft (2004) green public
Hume, Salmon and space
Ball (2005)
Lovell (2009)
Mygind (2007)
Ozdemir and Yilmaz
(2008)
Potwarka, Kaczynski
and Flack (2008)
Roemmich et al.
(2006)
Roemmich, Epstein
and Raja (2007)
Scholz and
Krombholz (2007)
Timperio et al.
(2004)
Fair
Dyment and Bell
(2008)
Dyment, Bell and
Lucas (2008)
British Trust for
Conservation
Volunteers (2009)
O’Brien and Murray
(2007)
Table 10 (cont.). Benefits that are well-supported by good evidence
Concern for 13 Good Natural Play; leisure; Most studies

the environ- Chawla (1999) environments gardening are based on
ment Ewert, Place and regularly data from
Sibthorp (2005) visited; adults
Kals, Schumacher domestic
and Montada (1999) outdoor spaces;
Lohr and Pearson- school gardens
Mims (2002)
Palmer and Suggate
(1996)
Palmer et al. (1998)
Skelly and Zajicek
(1998)
Waliczek and
Zajicek (1999)
Wells and Lekies
(2006)
Fair
Furihata et al.
(2007)
Knapp and Barrie
(2001)
Unclear
Palmer et al. (1999)
Sebba (1991)
Mental and 11 Good Woodland sites; Play; guided Korpela et al.
emotional Faber Taylor and urban green walk; view has neutral
health Kuo (2009) public space; from home; findings
Faber Taylor, Kuo domestic Forest school
and Sullivan (2001) outdoor space;
Faber Taylor, Kuo natural
and Sullivan (2002) settings; school
Korpela, Kytta and grounds
Hartig (2002)
Kuo and Faber
Taylor (2004)
Mårtensson et al.
(2009)
Roe (2009)
Wells and Evans
(2003)
Fair
Maller and
Townsend (2006)
Roe and Aspinall
(2011)
Wells (2000)
Table 10 (cont.). Benefits that are well-supported by good evidence
Specific No. of Relevant studies Types of Typical style Characteristics

benefit relevant (grouped by research environments of of subjects;
studies quality) studied engagement other remarks
Connected 5 Good Woodland Visits; play Some studies
to nature Bell (2005) sites; wild are based on
Bixler, Floyd and environments data from adults
Hammitt (2002)
Lohr and Pearson-
Mims (2002)
Lohr and Pearson-
Mims (2004)
Ward Thompson,
Travlou and Roe
(2008)
Scientific 4 Good School Curriculum All studies focus
learning Dirks and Orvis (2005) gardens gardening on similar
Klemmer, Waliczek schemes interventions
and Zajicek (2005)
Smith and
Motsenbocker (2005)
Fair
Mabie and Baker
(1996)
Sense of 4 Good Woodland Forest school;
place Blizard and Schuster sites; urban play; field
(2007) green public trip;
Min and Lee (2006) space storytelling
Fair
Knapp and Poff (2001)
(2007)
Healthy 3 Good School Curriculum All studies focus
eating Lineberger and Zajicek gardens gardening on similar
(2000) schemes interventions
Morris and Zidenberg-
Cherr (2002)
Morris, Netistadcer
and Zidenberg-Cherr
(2001)
Environ- 2 Good Rural areas; Games and
mental Milton, Cleveland and neighborhood field studies
knowledge Bennett-Gates (1995) park projects
Pilgrim, Smith and
Pretty (2007)
Motor 2 Good Pre-school Play Both studies
develop- Fjortoft (2004) grounds looked at pre-
ment Scholz and Krombholz school children
(2007)
Table 11. Benefits with some support from good evidence
Benefit No. of Relevant studies Types of Typical style Characteristics

relevant (grouped by environments of of subjects;
studies research quality) studied engagement other remarks
Social 4 Good Woodland Forest Waliczek et al
skills Robinson and sites; school school; (2001) has
Zajicek (2005) gardens school neutral
Waliczek, Bradley gardening findings
and Zajicek (2001)
Fair
Davis and Waite
(2005)
(2007)
Quality of 2 Good Urban green Play Various ages
outdoor Faber Taylor et al. public space;
play (1998) school
Fair grounds
Samborski and Silva
(2010)
Self- 2 Good Woodland Forest
control Roe (2009) sites; school school;
Fair farms school
Roe and Aspinall gardening
(2011)
Self- 1 Good School School 5 – 8 year olds
awareness Robinson and gardens gardening
Zajicek (2005)
Table 12. Benefits with some support, but modest evidence
Benefit No. of Relevant Types of Typical style Characteristics

relevant studies environments of of subjects;
studies studied engagement other remarks
Language and 2 Davis and Woodland Forest school Small sample
communication Waite (2005) sites
O’Brien and
Murray (2007)
Self- 1 O’Brien and Woodland Forest school Small sample
confidence Murray (2007) sites
Psychosocial 1 British Trust School Conservation Children aged
health for grounds and activities 7 - 11
Conservation nearby open
Volunteers spaces
(2009)
Note: In this table, the relevant studies were all assessed as “fair.”

Gill (2014) The Benefits of Children's Engagement With Nature - A Systematic Literature Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gill (2014) The Benefits of Children's Engagement With Nature - A Systematic Literature Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Benefits of Children's Engagement with Nature: A Systematic Literature Review

Author(s): Tim Gill

The Benefits of Children’s Engagement with Nature:

Keywords: children, nature, outdoor play, literature review, children’s

 2014 Children, Youth and Environments

What Can a Review Like This Tell Us?

Gathering robust evidence of cause and effect is particularly challenging. To take

a balanced assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice

Stage One: Search for Relevant Studies

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria, cont. Exclusion criteria, cont.

Stage Two: Analysis of Study Quality

 Does the research test for a benefit/outcome, with clear aims?

 Good: positive assessment against all three questions.

Table 2. Results of assessment of studies’ research methods

Grade Number of studies

 Key findings (usually taken from abstract)

Table 3. Typology of benefits

General benefit Specific benefit Number of relevant studiesa

Stage Three: Synthesizing Evidence of Benefits

Table 4. Assessing the degree of support for each specific benefit

Limitations of the Review Methodology

Furthermore, no independent checks of the assessments of study quality,

associated with the development of fear, discomfort and dislike of the

A more modest body of evidence from a diverse mix of studies points to

Table 5. Overall conclusions from the literature review

Claims that are well supported

associated with educational benefits. The analysis of engagement style is shown in

Table 6. Studies, benefits and engagement styles

“More playful” “Less playful” Both, or unclear

The significance of playfulness as an engagement style is perhaps this review’s

 The key qualities of the environment—landscape qualities, tree and plant

The 61 primary empirical studies are prefixed with an asterisk *

Bell, S., V. Hamilton, A. Montarzino, H. Rothnie, P. Travlou and S. Alves

* Bixler, R., M. Floyd and W. Hammitt (2002). “Environmental Socialization:

* Blizard, C. and R. Schuster (2007). “Fostering Children’s Connections to

Bowler, D., L. Buyung-Ali, T. Knight and A. Pullin (2010a). The Importance of

* British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (2009). School Green Gym

Charles, C. and A. Senauer (2010a). Health Benefits to Children from Contact

* Chawla, L. (1999). “Life Paths into Effective Environmental Action.” Journal of

Chawla, L. and D. Cushing (2007). “Education for Strategic Environmental

Croucher, K., L. Myers and J. Bretherton (2007). The Links between

Croucher, K., L. Myers, R. Jones and A. Elleaway (2007). Physical

Davies, P. and J. Deaville (2007). Natural Heritage: A Pathway to Health. Cardiff:

* Davis, B. and S. Waite (2005). Forest School: An Evaluation of the

* de Vries, S., I. Bakker, W. van Mechelen and M. Hopman-Rock (2007).

* Ewert, A., G. Place and J. Sibthorp (2005). “Early-Life Outdoor Experiences

* Faber Taylor, A. and F. Kuo (2009). “Children with Attention Deficits

* ----- (2002). “Views of Nature and Self-Discipline: Evidence from Inner-City

* Fjortoft, I. (2004). “Landscape as Playscape: The Effects of Natural

Foster, C., M. Hillsdon, A. Jones and J. Panter (2006). Assessing the

* Furihata, S., T. Ishizaka, M. Hatakeyama, M. Hitsumoto and S. Ito (2007).

Huby, M. and J. Bradshaw (2006). A Review of the Environmental Dimension of

James, A. and A. Prout, eds. (1997) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood:

* Kals, E., D. Schumacher and L. Montada (1999). “Emotional Affinity towards

* Klemmer, C., I. Waliczek and J. Zajicek (2005). “The Effect of a School

* Knapp, D. and E. Barrie (2001). “Content Evaluation of an Environmental

* Knapp, D. and R. Poff (2001). “A Qualitative Analysis of the Immediate and

* Korpela, K., M. Kytta and T. Hartig (2002). “Restorative Experience, Self-

* Kuo, F. and A. Faber Taylor (2004). “A Potential Natural Treatment for

Lester, S. and M. Maudsley (2006). Play, Naturally: A Review of Children’s