Skip to main content
PMC home page
EPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to EPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Nov 5.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Behav Sci. 2019 Nov 5;8(6):142–150.

The Role of Interaction with Nature in Childhood Development: An Under-Appreciated Ecosystem Service

J Kevin Summers 1,*, Deborah N Vivian 1, J Tobias Summers 2,**
PMCID: PMC7424505  NIHMSID: NIHMS1612071  PMID: 32802912

Abstract

Humans depend on the vital services provided by natural ecosystems. Regrettably, some individuals believe these ecosystem services are free; and therefore, have no value. An under-appreciated service provided by ecosystems is strengthening childhood development through interaction with nature to enhance childhood cognitive and physical development. The development of a child’s physical and cognitive abilities is complex with studies indicating multiple determinants and varied time scales. Childhood development is the product of many natural, social and built environmental attributes. While the impacts of social and built environments on childhood development are clearly described in the scientific literature, the role of natural environment is less clear.

Even though people do not pay for this ecosystem service in a conventional sense, the loss of this service can result in a significant cost to humans through slower cognitive and physical development in children. Deprivation of these exposures to natural ecosystems can diminish a child’s development and eventually their underlying quality of life. While the impact of nature on childhood development is understood by most child developmental psychologists, this impact is under-appreciated by non-social scientists studying the contributions of ecosystem services in society. The complicated and symbiotic interactions of natural ecosystems, their services and childhood development are poorly acknowledged in the ecological literature. In this article, the important role of natural ecosystems and their services in childhood cognitive and physical development are examined through an examination of studies assessing this childhood development-ecosystem service connection.

Keywords: Child Development, Ecosystem Services, Cognition, Nature

1. Introduction

Childhood cognitive development is a series of progressive of stages involving multiple interactions among stages that is the result of continuing experiences with the natural environment. (Piaget and Inhelder 1972). However, because of the ever-changing nature of human development, no individual factor or exposure window determines a child’s probable development. Regardless, there is a significant period, spanning the ages of 3 to 6 years old and to a lesser degree 7 to 12 years old, when a child is most likely to develop specific cognitive and developmental skills that are essential for learning at a later age (Doherty 1997). Environmental psychological theory suggests that contact with nature is important because it promotes a child’s creativity and imagination, intellectual and cognitive development and boosts social relationships (Heerwagen and Orians 2002, Kellert 2002, 2005). Similarly, basic theories of education suggest interaction with nature enhances a child’s knowledge of nature, establishes their emotional, cognitive and spiritual connection to the world, and promotes their understanding of their place in the world (Hart 1997, Capra 1999, Moore 2000, Green 2004, Cramer 2008).

Natural ecosystems produce basic services (i.e., ecosystem services) upon which people depend (Daily 1997). Ecosystem services that are provided by Nature (e.g., simply the existence of Nature and natural ecosystems providing developmental or therapeutic services) (Summers and Vivian 2018), without explicit cost, are an underappreciated ecosystem services in the present ecological literature describing intermediate and final ecosystem goods and services. Regrettably, many researchers and individuals throughout society believe because these types of ecosystem services have no direct cost to them; they therefore, have no value (Daily 1997). These ecosystem services, while unlikely to have a specific economic value measured in currency, can impact day-to-day decisions made by communities. Similarly, community decisions can impact the magnitude and quality of ecosystem services provided by nature. While humans do not pay directly for these services, society bears significant costs for their loss. These losses can be realized as decreased health, increased destruction of soil fertility, enhanced greenhouse gases, increased needs for contaminant treatment, and simple disappearances of those visions of nature that upgrade our basic quality of life.

The purpose of this review is to examine the positive aspects (and negative aspects) that exposure to the natural environment provides a child in his/her formative years for psychological and cognitive development, physical development, and development of independence, team building, creativity and self-concept. Nature, whether in a city park, walking in the woods, or strolling down a tree-lined street, has the capacity to help develop and restore children and that simply playing in nature can develop cognition, independence and team-building attributes. (Bratman et al., 2015, Chawla, 2015, Dadvand et al. 2015, de Keijzer et al. 2016, Ward et al. 2016, Adams and Savahl 2017, Amicone et al. 2018, Stevenson et al. 2019, Wyles et al. 2019). Even just seeing photographs of greenery for short periods of time can enhance and improve your mood. Spending time in natural environments invigorates people and reduces stress (Brown and Ryan 2003). Using mobile EEG devices, recent studies could monitor a subject’s emotional state during a stroll in a natural environment. Researchers found that people experienced less frustration and produced meditative-like brain waves if they were walking in a natural or created green spaces, compared to a busy business area or a bustling shopping street (Aspinall et al. 2013).

Finally, exposure to nature in years 3-12 for children through free play is important for several normal developmental aspects (Cobb 1969). As a result, four childhood developmental aspects are discussed in greater detail in this review, particularly in their relationship to free play:

  • Self-Esteem and Creativity

  • Cognition

  • Independence

  • Well-being and Life Satisfaction.

3.0. Interaction with Nature and Development

Children, today, encounter an assortment of indoor play venues to choose from, including television, indoor play gardens, videogames, and even indoor playground equipment (Karsten 2005). Opportunities for natural safe outdoor play have been increasingly reduced by urbanization; often extending into surrounding suburban areas. Many parents actively discourage their children from going outdoors in order to protect them from harm (Veitch et al. 2010). This abatement results in more children maturing disconnected from nature and the outdoors. This disconnection from nature is having important consequences for children’s overall well-being and development directly impacting cognitive development, independence, and creativity (Little and Wyver 2008).

3.1. Free Play:

Play with peers and in nature in is one of the first non-mother-directed activities to appear in early life of non-human species (Poirer 1970, Bekoff, M. 1972). Similarly, human play indicates a very deliberate and real form of behavior for the infant and child (Axline 1969), and free play, particularly in natural settings, can be an important determinant of socialization and cognition (Rubin et al., 1976).

Research on children’s preferences has reported that spaces in the outdoors that might be designed by children would not be asphalt or dirt playgrounds with scattered pieces of playground equipment but rather areas that are full of trees, flowers, plants, dirt, water, mud, dirt, sand, insects and animals (White and Stoecklin 1998). Most educators and parents agree that outdoor play is an important and natural part of a child’s healthy development (Sobel 1997, 2008, 2017). This natural development through free play fosters many skills that are necessary for adults (e.g., problem solving social competence, safety skills and creative thinking) (Clements 2004).

Natural ecosystems represent rugged and dynamic playscapes that challenge cognitive and motor activity in children. Intuitively, children use their environments for physical challenges and play, creative problems to be solved and opportunities to expand their mental capacities and understanding of the structure and function of their natural environment (Fjortoft 2001). Recent research findings indicate that people, particularly children, benefit from contact with nature for their well-being (O’Brien and Murray 2006, Gleave 2009, Summers and Vivian 2018). Unfortunately, at the present time, access to the outdoors seems to be diminishing for young children making them increasingly separated from the natural environments (Dowdell et al. 2011). According to a study of 2400 children from sixteen nations, aged 1-12 years, free play has been declining over the past two decades with the lack of free play and experiential learning opportunities significantly hampering children’s development (Singer et al. 2009). Free play activities in nature have been replaced by watching television and playing video and computer games (Singer et al. 2009). Children’s best learning occurs through interactive play that is hands-on and personally directed self-discovery (White and Stoecklin 2008). Younger children (i.e., aged 3-6 years) have a natural curiosity that demands direct sensory engagement rather than conceptualization (Bradekamp and Copple 1997). This curiosity and sensory engagement coupled with fantasy creation may be one reason children are being driven to computer gaming as adults limit access to natural environments through fear of injury or perceived protection (Louv 2008).

3.2. Self-Esteem, and Creativity:

Research over the past three decades has established important and significant connections between strengthened development in children and direct contact with nature (Bandoroff and Schrer 1994, Kellert and Derr 1998, Kuo and Faber Taylor 2004, Noddings 2006, Louv 2008). Direct contact with natural environments positively and significantly improves children’s cognitive, affective, and moral development (Kellert 2002). Test scores for behavioral conduct disorders, anxiety, and depression have been shown to be lower for rural children living near nature (Wells and Evans 2003). Children living near natural environments ranked themselves higher on self-worth measures than their peers who resided in less natural settings (Wells and Evans 2003). Similarly, children with a greener view from their apartment scored higher on several measures of impulse control and delay of gratification (Faber Taylor et al. 2002).

Children’s general access to nature appears to be diminishing (Kahn 2002, Kellert 2002). Not only has the quantity of natural environments for children to utilize been reduced, but some parents seem to be limiting their children’s access to natural environments for fear of accident or violence (Spencer and Wooley 2000, Louv 2008). Programmed activities increasingly fill children’s lives leaving them with smaller portions of their days for nature exploration. A broad literature has examined the potential effects of increased exposure to green spaces and natural environments on healthy child development. Some of the most exhilarating findings of a connection between developmental outcomes in children and contact with nature come from studies examining the relationships among children’s sense of self and self-esteem and outdoor challenge programs. These findings suggest significant benefits for children’s development result from contact with nature (Kaplan 1995, Kahn 1997, Kaplan and Talbot 1983, Kellert and Derr 1998). Similarly, systematic relationships between enhanced learning and involvement in outdoor curricula in green space have been described (Basile 2000, Ratanapojnard 2001). Studies comparing creative play in built versus natural spaces are consistent with social, cognitive, and emotional development being supported by nature (Kirkby 1989, Faber Taylor et al. 1998).

While arguments concerning methodologies could be brought forward with some of the above referenced studies, all the findings point to a pattern projecting a persistence and the same direction of results regardless of childhood setting or cultural grouping. That persistence and direction points to the general tenet that several domains of children’s development – social, cognitive, and emotional – are supported by contact with nature. Just as children require good sleep patterns and nutrition for proper development, they also may require interactions with nature.

3.3. Cognition:

Studies into children’s outdoor experiences have pinpointed enhanced cognitive functioning to be a primary benefit of ecosystem interaction (Chipeniuk 1995, Falk and Dierking 1997, Wells 2000, Kisiel 2005, Tzoulas et al. 2007). In a longitudinal study of young children from low-income families where the families were relocated to homes in closer proximity to natural environments, the children were determined to have enhanced levels of cognition as well as an improved ability to direct attention (Wells 2000). These changes continued several months after returning to their original homes (Wells 2000).

Natural and built environments, as well as demographics, inherent factors associated with children and parents, diet, lifestyle and social environments, have been shown to impact the development of cognition (Del Carmen Ruiz et al. 2016). The environmental influences of nature on cognitive development in their review were primarily the result of contaminant exposure with little examination of role of simple exposure to nature and outdoor experiences. Interactions with nature has been shown to improve cognition for adults suffering major depressive disorder (Berman et al. 2012) and generally improve cognitive benefits (increased working memory) (Bratman et al. 2015) although no similar studies have been conducted with children.

Although interactions with nature can improve adult cognition, experiential interactions with nature during childhood and adolescence provide an important basis for cognitive development (Kellert 2002). The development of cognition described by Benjamin Bloom and colleagues (Bloom et al. 1956, Maker and Schiever 2005) explores the impact potential of experiential contact with natural environments in the development of children’s intellect. For most children, the values of nature, both intrinsic and extrinsic, develop at specific stages (Kellert 1996). The first stage in the development of children’s values of nature occurs between three and six years of age and focuses on satisfying material and physical needs while the second developmental period (roughly 6-12 years of age) replaces these utilitarian perspectives with comfort and familiarity of natural setting often relative to proximity to the home. A propensity for exploration replaces the earlier sense of wonder and children use natural environments to develop an identity apart from parents and the immediate home. The establishment of familiarity with nearby environments, often through outdoor play, is constructive and promotes creativity and the generation of feelings of autonomy, independence and self-sufficiency (Kellert 1996).

In these early years, children are especially preoccupied in making things, in establishing a self and in demonstrating creativity and competence, separate from adults, generally, and their parents, specifically (Sobel 1993, 2008, 2011). These objectives are often realized by building places in proximity to the home often referred to as forts, dens, and secret hiding places. These constructed and intimate places outside but near the home, nestled in the foliage of trees and bushes of ordinary natural ecosystems, offer the child the chance to create and construct. Finally, in adolescence, children become much more cognizant and appreciative of ecosystems and landscapes and visualize human dependencies on nature (e.g., the role of ecosystems in human interactions). Adolescent children engage in activities testing the physical limits of the natural world nurturing self-confidence, self-esteem, an increased sense of identity and further cognitive development (Kellert 2002).

3.4. Independence:

The landscape of childhood contains various stages of development. Childhood needs to encompass playing out of doors and interactions with nature to take an obvious role. This goes beyond the fact that this type of play is fun; it is developmentally adaptive. Just as wild animals play to develop dexterity for survival skills, children play to develop independence through mental dexterity (Sobel 2017). Outdoor play develops a child’s understanding that the world is malleable and that their behavior in the world can make a difference. Playing with simple materials and materials provided by nature (e.g., a simple board is a plank on a pirate’s ship, access to the first branch of a tree, a jump for runners, a roof support for a fort) prepares children for playing with ideas as an adult.

Edith Cobb in her seminal discourse, “The Ecology of Imagination in Children” (Cobb 1969) touts the importance of the ages between five or six and eleven or twelve as a time when the natural world is experienced in a highly evocative way. This interaction produces “a sense of some profound continuity with natural processes” (Cobb 1969, Sobel 2017). This early work suggests that certain types of experience with natural ecosystems occur at this critical time to promote healthy psychological and physiological development. This period in childhood is epitomized by extreme personal originality and the creation of private worlds and rarely persists in the same way into adulthood (Cobb 1969). It is crucial for children to have opportunities to participate in existence-building activities whether out of doors (e.g., building forts, playing imaginary games) or indoors (e.g., playing with clay or Legos). These activities give a child an opportunity to organize their world and become the person they are meant to be (Sobel 2017).

Darwin early observations during his voyage on the Beagle had a significant impact on his ideas relating to speciation and island biogeography (Darwin 1839). While visiting more than twenty islands, he discovered, through observation, that although the islands were close together, they were quite dissimilar in terms of soil type and development, rainfall and other conditions. The variety of islands also had very different types of finches. Darwin speculated that individuals of a single species of finch arrived at of the Galapagos Islands from South America and as the individual island population developed, they spread among the islands from one to the next. Once upon an island, natural selection drove the morphology of the original species in varying and unique directions and unique species developed accordingly. Sobel (2008) contends that childhood play follows the same principles as speciation in geographically and culturally isolated communities. While children obviously do not evolve into different species based on cultural isolation, it suggests that children “evolve” different approaches to independence and its role in their development (e.g., enhanced survival and adaptive skills). This is especially true where adults and children interact with nature over longer time periods like during vacations. On vacations, adults can be freed from day-to-day work responsibilities and children have the freedom to be children and not be immersed in programmed sports or electronic recreation (Sobel 2008). These excursions into play by interacting with each other and nature often promote independence and cultivate imagination (Cobb 1969, Sobel, 1993, 2008, 2017).

3.5. Well-Being and Life Satisfaction:

Recently, several researchers have shown an interest in the positive benefits resulting from interactions with natural ecosystems and time spent outdoors regarding an individual’s well-being (Pretty et al. 2003, 2005, 2007; Peacock et al. 2007; Bird 2007, MIND 2007, Burls 2008). There are several approaches being used to reconnect children to nature. Some of these approaches include simply experiencing nature or participating in physical activity (e.g., exercise). Both play of these approaches can play a significant part in influencing our well-being and physical health in a positive way. Walking for short periods, particularly in natural areas, can enhance and energize personal vitality and well-being (Peacock et al. 2007, Plante et al. 2007, Barton et al. 2009, Focht 2009, Teas et al. 2007, Ryan et al. 2010). Even coupling virtual reality settings that depict natural systems with walking can enhance well-being and provide relaxation although (Plante et al. 2003, 2006). Similarly, an “enhanced” exercise like running in nature enhances mood and physiology as well as increasing overall well-being (McMurray et al. 1988, Harte and Eifert 1995, Kerr et al. 2006, Hug et al. 2008). A strong link between enhanced well-being and contact with nature has been established (Greenleaf et al. 2014). This enhancement can take the form of exposure to nature series on television, movies or simply through books describing nature and its inhabitants. These virtual reality settings can significantly contribute to a child’s understanding and appreciation of nature (Weiss et al. 2003, Roussou 2004, Harris and Reid 2005, Marsh 2010).

4.0. Discussion

The main intent of this examination of the literature is to bring attention to an ecosystem service that is often undervalued by researchers examining ecosystem services. Researchers examining cognitive development from a psychological aspect have long valued interactions with nature; however, recent research endeavors into the importance of ecosystem services rarely point out long-valued aspects of psychological interactions with nature. For example, in recent examination of ecosystem services by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, many final ecosystem goods and services (FEGS) are addressed but the role of nature interactions in childhood development is ignored altogether (Landers and Nahlik 2013). Ecological researchers primarily address issues associated with the recycling of nutrients, the cleansing of air and water, the support of living natural resources used for food and fiber and the decomposition of waste. The impact of nature and its services on human development, as well as mental and physical health, can rival the importance of the services listed above.

This review targets natural interactions which tend to arise outside of the ecosystem service’s identification. For example, how reliable is the data relating the impact of interactions with nature on these conditions describing human health? Strong claims have been made about the importance of children spending time in nature (Louv 2008). This interaction with nature is claimed to promote adaptive processes in child development (motor fitness, physical competence, self-confidence) and to support creativity, learning, education and positive attitudes about nature (Louv 2012, 2016, Kuo et al. 2019).

Summarizing the research on children and nature regarding developmental aspects is not easy. The topic has been addressed in many ways by researchers representing different theoretical models and approaches. While the empirical evidence is growing, the picture remains incomplete. Some researchers argue that interaction with nature increases a child’s resilience as part of their developmental growth. However, it is very difficult to study these types of benefits empirically.

Over sixty studies were reviewed assessing the benefits of interaction of children with nature. These studies examined cognitive (scientific learning, environmental knowledge and language skills and communication), general health (physical activity, mental and emotional health, healthy eating and motor development), social (social skills), emotional and behavioral, (self-control, self-confidence, self-awareness, independence), ethical/attitudinal (concern of the environment, connectedness to nature and topophilia) and well-being (psychosocial health, quality of play) benefits. Taken as a whole, these studies support the view that just spending time interacting with nature tends to promote a child’s well-being and healthy development. Claims about health benefits (e.g., mental health, emotional regulation and motor development) appear robust and based on cause-and-effect studies. Similarly, good evidence of a linkage of interaction with nature as a child and positive views about nature as an adult seem supported. While more modest in number, a significant number of studies appear to support strong interactions with nature at critical stages in childhood development to enhance independence, critical thinking, self-confidence, creativity, and cognitive skills. Particularly, the use of free outdoor play appears to enhance the development of these skills and further to enhance teamwork skills.

While there are no studies to support this conjecture, this review of available studies suggests the possibility that interactions with nature may result in less money spent on anxiety disorders or therapy. Perhaps children exposed to nature and natural free-play tend to develop “problem-solving” skills and enter into “problem-solving” occupations (e.g., sciences, math, engineering or other STEM or STEAM professions).

5.0. Conclusions

Abundant and clear evidence establishes that interaction with natural ecosystems can influence not only health but well-being throughout life. The data suggest that individuals, who as children actively interact with nature, are likely to have a better quality of life and tend to live longer. This interaction with nature as young children tends to make them more involved with people and society, more engaged with natural places, and be more active. As a result, adults and children who connect with natural environments and ecosystems tend to participate and volunteer more in groups, display better moods and higher self-esteem, continue to learn, be more resilient to personal stress, and continue their regular engagement with natural environments (Hartig et al. 2014). Conversely, people, who, particularly as children, gravitated to staying inside, often seem to be more disconnected from their peers, be more sedentary or inactive, have higher levels of c-reactive proteins and cortisol and eat energy-dense and unhealthy foods (Bowler et al. 2010).

It is clear that playfulness as an engagement style (Gibbons 2007, Barnett 2012, Magnuson and Barnett 2013) provides a rationale for the view that practitioners and policy makers should focus not only on structures, educational interventions, but also on initiatives that permit for more open-ended, child-directed and playful experiences in natural environments. This examination of the professional literature has displayed the role of nature and the human-ecosystem interaction as a development mechanism for a variety of mental, physical and developmental children’s health issues. This is not to suggest that the lack of interaction with nature will always result in inhibited, less healthy children with poorer imaginations and cognitive development. Certainly, there are many adults, who as children minimized their interactions with nature for any number of reasons and developed into healthy adult specimens. However, there is a large set of experimental and observational results that suggest the following developmental aspects are enhanced throughout interactions with nature. These include:

  • Cognitive development,

  • Team-building skills and independence;

  • Relief of anxiety and depression as well as improved memory and ability to concentrate; and

  • Improved familial and social relational skills, self-management and self-esteem.

It seems clear that these types of ecosystem services, provided by Nature without explicit costs (e.g., simply the existence of Nature and natural ecosystems providing developmental or therapeutic services), are underappreciated as a type of ecosystem service in the present ecological literature describing intermediate and final ecosystem goods and services. While often neglected, the “existence of nature” service provided by nature that directly influences childhood development is a very important and meaningful ecosystem service that should be conserved. The consideration of the costs of and need for preservation and restoration of natural environments, if only for their childhood developmental assets, provides a major example of the enrichment of well-being through broad, inclusive discourse compared to the less than holistic limited and specific conversations concerning non-sustainable development strictly for economic growth that promotes the destruction of natural ecosystems (Mehl et al. 2010). Similarly, educational curricula that include explicit interactions with nature (both hands on and virtual) must be part of these discussions.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: Disclaimer

The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any mention of trade names, products, or services does not imply an endorsement by the U.S. Government or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA does not endorse any commercial products, services, or enterprises.

5.0 References

  1. Adams S, Savahl S (2017) Children’s discourses of natural spaces: Considerations for children’s subjective well-being. Child Indicators Research 10: 423–446. [Google Scholar]
  2. Amicone G, Petruccelli I, De Dominicus S, Gherardini A, Costantino V, Perucchini P, Bonaiuto M (2018) Green breaks: The restorative effect of the school environment’s green areas on children’s cognitive performance. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1579. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01579 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Aspinall P, Mavros P, Coyne R, Roe J (2013) The urban brain: Analysing outdoor physical activity with mobile EEG. British Journal of Sports Medicine, arch 6, 2013, doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091877. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Axline VM (1969). Play Therapy. Ballantine Books, New York. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bandoroff S, Schrer DG (1994) Wilderness family therapy: An innovative treatment approach for problem youth. Journal of Child and Family Studies 3: 175–191. [Google Scholar]
  6. Barnett LA (2012) Playful people: Fun is in the mind of the beholder. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 31: 169–197. [Google Scholar]
  7. Barton J, Hine R, Pretty J (2009) The health benefits of walking in greenspaces of high natural and heritage value. Journal of Integrative Environmental Science 6: 261–278. [Google Scholar]
  8. Basile CG (2000) Environmental education as a catalyst for transfer of learning in young children. Journal of Environmental Education 32: 21–27. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bekoff M (1972). The development of social interaction, play, and metacommunication in mammals: An ethnological perspective. The Quarterly Review of Biology 47: 412–434. [Google Scholar]
  10. Berman MG, Kross E, Krpan KM, Askren MK, Burson A, Deldin PJ, Kaplan S, Sherdell L, Gotlib IH, Jonides J (2012) Interacting with nature improves cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective Disorders: 140: 300–305. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bird W (2007) Natural Thinking: Investigating the Links between the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Mental Health. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. http://www/rspb.org.uk/Images/naturalthinking_tcm9-161856.pdf [Google Scholar]
  12. Bloom BS, Engelhart MB, Furst EJ Hill WH, Krathwohl DR (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives, Handbook I: The classification of educational goals – Cognitive domain. New York: Longman. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali LM, Knight TM, Pullin AS (2010) A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC Public Health 10: 456. 10.1186/1471-2458-10-456 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bradekamp S, Copple C (1997) Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood education. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bratman GN, Daily GC, Levy BJ, Gross JJ (2015) The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and cognition. Landscape and Urban Planning 138: 41–50. [Google Scholar]
  16. Brown KW, Ryan RM (2003) The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84: 822–848. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Burls A (2007) People and green spaces: Promoting public health and well-being through Ecotherapy. Journal of Public Mental Health 6: 16: 24–39. [Google Scholar]
  18. Capra F (1999). Ecoliteracy: The Challenge for Education in the Next Century. Center for Ecoliteracy: Berkeley, CA. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chawla L (2015) Benefits of nature contact for children. Journal of Planning Literature 30: 433–452. [Google Scholar]
  20. Chipeniuk R (1995) Childhood foraging as a means of acquiring competent human cognition about biodiversity. Environment and Behavior 27: 490–512. [Google Scholar]
  21. Clements R 2004. An investigation of the status of outdoor play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 3: 68–80. [Google Scholar]
  22. Cobb E (1969) The ecology of imagination in childhood. In Shephard P and McKinley D, The Subversive Science: Essays Towards an Ecology of Man, pp. 122–132. Boston: Houghton Mufflin. [Google Scholar]
  23. Cramer JR (2008) Reviving the connection between children and nature: through service-learning restoration partnerships. Native Plants Journal 9: 278–286. [Google Scholar]
  24. Daily GC (1997) Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems, 391 pp., Washington, DC: Island Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Dadvand P, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Esnaola M, Forns J, Basagana X, Alkvarez-Pedrero M, Rivas I, Lopez-Vicente M, De Castro Pascual M, Su J, Jerrett M, Querol X, Sunyer J (2015). Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 7937–7942. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Darwin C (1839) The Voyage of the Beagle (Journal and Remarks). London: Henry Colburn. [Google Scholar]
  27. Darwin C (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle of Life. London: J. Murray. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. De Keijzer C, Gascon M, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Dadvand P (2016) Long-term green space exposure and cognition across the life course: A systematic review. Current Environmental Health Reports 3: 468–477. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Del Carmen Ruiz J, Quackenboss JJ, Tulve NS (2016) Contributions of a child’s built, natural, and social environments to their general cognitive ability: A systematic scoping review. PloS ONE 11: e0147741; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147741. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Doherty G (1997). Zero to six: the basis for school readiness. Quebec: Human Resources Development. [Google Scholar]
  31. Dowdell K, Gray T, Malone K (2011). Nature and its influence on children’s outdoor play. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education 15:24–35. [Google Scholar]
  32. Faber Taylor A, Kuo FE, Sullivan WC (2002) Views of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children. Journal of Environmental Psychology 22: 49–64. [Google Scholar]
  33. Faber Taylor A, Wiley A, Kuo FE, Sullivan WC (1998) Growing up in the inner city: green spaces as places to grow. Environment and Behavior 30: 3–27. [Google Scholar]
  34. Falk JD, Dierking LD (1997) School field trips: Assessing their long-term impact. Curator 40: 211–218. [Google Scholar]
  35. Fjortoft I 2001. The natural environment as a playground for children: The impact of outdoor play activities in pre-primary school children. Early Childhood Education Journal 29: 111–117. [Google Scholar]
  36. Gibbons A (2007) Philosophers as children: Playing with style in the philosophy of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory. 39: 506–518. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gleave J (2009) Children’s Time To Play: A Literature Review. London: Play England. [Google Scholar]
  38. Greenleaf AT, Bryant RM, Pollack JB (2014) Nature-based counseling: Integrating the healing benefits of nature into practice. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling 36: 162–174. [Google Scholar]
  39. Harris K, Reid D (2005) The influence of virtual reality play on children’s motivation. The Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy 72: 21–29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Hart R (1997) Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care. UNICEF and Earthscan: New York, NY. [Google Scholar]
  41. Harte JL, Eifert GH (1995) The effects of running, environment, and attentional focus on athletes’ catecholamine and cortisol levels and mood. 1995. Psychophysiology 32: 49–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Hartig T, Mitchell R, de Vries S, Frumkin H (2014) Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health 35: 207–228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Heerwagen JH, Orians GH (2002) The ecological world of children. pp. 29–64. In Kahn PHJ, Kellert SR (eds.) Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hug SM, Hansmann R, Monn C, Kratli P, Seeland K (2008) Restorative effects of physical activity in forests and indoor settings. International Journal of Fitness. 4: 25–37. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kahn PH (1997) Developmental psychology and the biophilia hypothesis: Children’s affiliation with nature. Developmental Review 17: 1–61. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kahn PH (2002) “Children’s affiliations with nature: Structure, development and the problem of environmental generational amnesia in Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural and Evolutionary Investigations, eds. Kahn PH and Kellert SR (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; ), 93–11. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kaplan S (1995) The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal; of Environmental Psychology 15: 169–182. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kaplan SR, Talbot JF, J.F. (1983) “Psychological benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework” in Behavior and the Natural Environment, eds. Altman I and Wohlwill JF (New York: Plenum Press; ), 163–204 [Google Scholar]
  49. Karsten L (2005) It used to be better? Different generations on continuity and change in urban children’s daily use of space. Children’s Geographies 3: 275–290. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kellert SR (1996) The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kellert SR (2002) Experiencing Nature: Affective, Cognitive and Evaluative Development. pp. 117–152. In Kahn PH, Kellert SR (eds.) Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; ). [Google Scholar]
  52. Kellert SR (2005) Building for Life – Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection. Island Press: Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kellert SR, Derr V (1998) National Study of Outdoor Wilderness Experience. Washington, DC: Island Press. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kerr JH, Fujiyama H, Sugano A, Okamura T, Chang M, Onouha F (2006) Psychological responses to exercising in laboratory and natural environments. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7: 345–359. [Google Scholar]
  55. Kirkby M (1989) Nature as refuge in children’s environments. Children’s Environments Quarterly 6:1–12. [Google Scholar]
  56. Kisiel J (2005) Understanding elementary teachers’ motivations for science fieldtrips. Science Education 86: 936–955. [Google Scholar]
  57. Kuo FE, Faber Taylor A, A. (2004) A potential natural treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: evidence from a national study. American Journal of Public Health 94: 1580–1586. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Kuo M, Barnes M, Jordan C (2019) Do Experiences with nature promote learning? Converging evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship. Frontiers in Psychology, doi: 10.3389.fpsyg.2019.00305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Landers D, Nahlik A (2013) Final Ecosystem Goods and Services Classification System (FEGS-CS). EPA/600/R-13/ORD-004914, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. [Google Scholar]
  60. Little H, Wyver S (2008) Outdoor play: Does avoiding the risks reduce the benefits? Australian Journal of Early Childhood 33: 33–40. [Google Scholar]
  61. Louv R (2008) Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Press. [Google Scholar]
  62. Louv R (2012) The Nature Principle: Reconnecting with Life in a Virtual Age. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books. [Google Scholar]
  63. Louv R (2016) Vitamin N: The Essential Guide to a Nature-Rich Life. Chapel Hil, NC: Algonquin Books. [Google Scholar]
  64. Magnuson CD, Barnett LA (2013) The playful advantage: How playfulness enhances coping with stress. Leisure Sciences 35: 129–144. [Google Scholar]
  65. Maker CJ, Schiever SW (2005) Teaching models in education of the gifted. Austin: Pro-Ed, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  66. Marsh J (2010) Young children’s play in online virtual worlds. Journal of Early Childhood Research 8: 23–39. [Google Scholar]
  67. McMurray RG, Berry MJ, Vann RT, Hardy CJ, Sheps DS (1988) The effect of running in an outdoor environment on plasma beta endorphins. Annals of Sports Medicine and Research 3: 230–233. [Google Scholar]
  68. Mehl MR, Vazire S, Holleran SE, Clark CS (2010). Eavesdropping on happiness: well-being is related to having less small talk and more substantive conversations. Psychological Science 21: 539–541. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. MIND. (2007) Ecotherapy: The Green Agenda for Mental Health. Mindweek report. http://www.mind.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D9A930D2-30D4-4E5B-BE79-1D401B804165/0/ecotherapy.pdf
  70. Moore RC (2000) Childhood’s domain: Play and place in child development. Michigan Quarterly Review 39: 477–481. [Google Scholar]
  71. Noddings N (2006) Critical lessons: What our schools should teach. New York: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  72. O’Brien E, Murray R (2006) A marvelous opportunity for children to learn: A participatory evaluation of Forest School in England and Wales. England: Forestry Commission. [Google Scholar]
  73. Peacock J, Hine R, Pretty J (2007) Got the blues, then find some Greenspace. The Mental Benefits of Green Exercise Activities and Green Care. Report for Mind 2007. 18 pp. [Google Scholar]
  74. Piaget J, Inhelder B (1972). The psychology of the child. New York: The Perseus Books Group. [Google Scholar]
  75. Plante TG, Aldridge A, Su D, Bogdan R, Belo M, Kahn M (2003) Does virtual reality enhance the management of stress when paired with exercise? An exploratory study. International Journal of Stress Management 10: 203–216. [Google Scholar]
  76. Plante TG, Cage C, Clements S, Stove A (2006) Psychological benefits of exercise paired with virtual reality: Outdoor exercise energizes whereas indoor virtual exercise relaxes. International Journal of Stress Management 13: 108–117. [Google Scholar]
  77. Plante CG, Gores C, Brecht C, Carrow J, Imbs A, Willemsen E (2007) Does exercise environment enhance the psychological benefits of exercise for women? International Journal of Stress Management 14: 88–98. [Google Scholar]
  78. Poirer FE (1970). The Nilgiri langur of South India. In: Rosemblum LA (ed.) Primate Behavior: Developments in Field and Laboratory Research, Vol. 1, pp. 251–383. Academic Press, New York. [Google Scholar]
  79. Pretty J, Griffin M, Sellens M, Pretty CJ (2003) Green Exercise: Complimentary Roles of Nature, Exercise and Diet in Physical and Emotional Well-Being and Implications for Public Health. CES Occasional Paper 2003–1, Colchester: University of Essex. [Google Scholar]
  80. Pretty J, Peacock J, Hine R, Sellens M, South N, Griffin M (2007) Green exercise in the UK countryside: Effects on health and psychological well-being, and implications for policy and planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50: 211–231. [Google Scholar]
  81. Pretty J, Peacock J, Sellens M, Griffin M (2005) The mental and physical health outcomes of green exercise. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 15: 319–337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Ratanapojnard S (2001) Community-Oriented Biodiversity Environmental Education: Its Effect on Knowledge, Values, and Behavior Among Rural Fifth- and Sixth-Grader Students in northeastern Thailand. Ph.D. Thesis. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University. [Google Scholar]
  83. Roussou M (2004) Learning by doing and learning through play: An exploration of Interactivity in virtual environments for children. ACM Computers in Entertainment 2: 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  84. Rubin KH, Maioni TL, Homung M (1976). Free play behaviors in middle- and pre-schoolers: Parten and Piaget revisited. Child Development 47: 414–419. [Google Scholar]
  85. Ryan RM, Weinstein N, Bernstein J, Warren Brown K, Mistretta L, Gagne M (2010) Vitalizing effects of being outdoors and in nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30: 159–168. [Google Scholar]
  86. Singer DG, Singer JL, D’Agostino H, DeLong R (2009). Children’s pastimes and play in sixteen nations: Is free-play declining? American Journal of Play 1: 1–30. [Google Scholar]
  87. Spencer C, Wooley H, H. (2000) Children and the city: A summary of recent environmental psychology research. Child: Care, Health and Development 26: 395–422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Sobel D (1993) Children’s special places: Exploring the role of forts, dens and bush houses in middle childhood. Tucson: Zephyr Press. [Google Scholar]
  89. Sobel D (2008) Childhood and nature: Design principles for educators. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  90. Sobel D (2017) Wild play: Parenting adventures in the great outdoors. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. [Google Scholar]
  91. Stevenson MP, Dewhurst R, Schilhab T, Bentsen P (2019) Cognitive restoration in children following exposure to nature: Evidence from Attention Network Task and mobile eye tracking. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 42 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Summers JK, Vivian DN (2018). Ecotherapy – A forgotten ecosystem service: A review. Frontiers in Psychology. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01389 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Teas J, Hurley T, Ghumare S, Ogoussan K (2007) Walking outside improves mood for healthy postmenopausal women. Clinical Medicine: Oncology. 1: 35–43. [Google Scholar]
  94. Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, Yli-Pelkonen V, Kazmierczak A, Niemela J, James P (2007) Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using green infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning 81: 167–178. [Google Scholar]
  95. Veitch J, Salmon J, Ball K (2010) Individual, social and physical environmental correlates of children’s active free-play: a cross-sectional study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 7: 11. https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1479-5868-7-11?site=ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Ward JS, Duncan JS, Jarden A, Stewart T (2016) The impact of children’s exposure to greenspace on physical activity, cognitive development, emotional well-being, and ability to appraise risk. Health & Place 40: 44–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Weiss PL, Bialik P, Kizony R (2003) Virtual Reality provides leisure time opportunities for young adults with physical and intellectual disabilities. CyberPsychology & Behavior 6: 335–342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Wells NM (2000) A home with nature: Effects of “greenness” on children’s cognitive functioning. Environment and Behavior 39: 775–795. [Google Scholar]
  99. Wells NM, Evans GW (2003) Nearby nature: a buffer of life stress among rural children, Environment and Behavior 35: 311–330. [Google Scholar]
  100. White R and Stoecklin L (1998). Children’s outdoor play and learning environments: Returning to nature. Early Childhood News 10: 24–30. [Google Scholar]
  101. White R, Stoecklin L (2008) Nurturing children’s biophilia: Developmentally appropriate environmental education for young children. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.453.5868&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  102. Wyles KJ, White MP, Hattam C, Pahl S (2019) Are some natural environments more psychologically beneficial than others? The importance of type and quality on connectedness to nature and psychological restoration. Environment and Behavior 0013916517738312. 10.1177/0013916517738312 [DOI]

RESOURCES