Key messages

• Children are spending increasing amounts of time indoors; this has led to more interest in, and research on, the wellbeing effects of contact with different types of nature (‘nature contacts’).
• Nature contacts are influential in the wellbeing of children, particularly during the early years (0–5 years) of childhood. This is a critical age when a child’s relationship with nature is developed.
• Nature play can involve playing with landscape elements (e.g. rocks, hills, water), sensory elements (e.g. dirt, sand), loose materials (e.g. stones, leaves, sticks), living things (e.g. plants, trees, insects) and weather elements (e.g. rain, snow).
• While the research does not suggest there is a prescribed optimal ‘dose’ of nature play, there is enough evidence to conclude that all types of nature contacts are likely to support children’s social and emotional wellbeing. The amount of benefit received varies across individuals and contexts.
• Practitioners working with young children can support child social and emotional wellbeing by encouraging and supporting engagement in nature play.

Introduction

Children around the world are spending more time indoors compared to previous generations (Dealey & Stone, 2017). This has stimulated increased focus in research and practice on the benefits of nature contact for child wellbeing (Arola et al., 2023; Frumkin et al., 2017; Kemp & Josephidou, 2021). Developments such as reduced access to natural spaces due to urbanisation, increased use of digital technologies and concerns about the safety of play in natural environments are among the reasons for children having fewer opportunities to experience nature regularly (Beery, 2020; Capaldi et al., 2015; Dankiw et al., 2020).

Over the past decade there has been increased research into the wellbeing effects of various types of nature contacts for children of all ages; this has often focused on ‘nature play’ (Agostini et al., 2018; Barragan-Jason et al., 2022; Dankiw et al., 2020). Both terms ‘nature contact’ and ‘nature play’ are used in the research. In the broadest sense, nature play in a child’s early years refers to any type of physical contact with the natural environment. The term ‘nature play’ has been used both to describe nature contacts more broadly (i.e. the different ways children connect with nature) and, more specifically, to refer to the child-led, unstructured play activities in nature that children engage in (Dankiw et al., 2020; Ernst et al., 2022). Because the literature does not always distinguish between these 2 concepts – nature play can involve specific types of nature contact and nature contact can include various forms of nature play – this resource explores both.

In either case, there is good evidence that many types of nature contacts, including nature play, are beneficial for children’s wellbeing¹ in the early years. This research suggests that the early years are a critical time in which a child’s relationship with nature is developed and, subsequently, carried on as a preference later in life (Capaldi et al., 2014; O’Farrell et al., 2021; Tamblyn et al., 2022). Therefore, early experiences where children become connected to nature can be a window of opportunity to foster nature connections and promote nature play (Pritchard et al., 2020).

Awareness of the different terms and meanings of nature play can assist practitioners to create more effective nature play programs that are based on research. Understanding the different ways of doing nature play, and how they benefit children, can also guide practitioners in their discussions with caregivers.

This paper will be useful for practitioners and program managers who are thinking of doing nature play as part of their practice with children (or are already doing it) and want to know about its evidence base. This includes professionals working with caregivers of preschool-aged children and those who run playgroups or after-school groups.

Methodology of this review

This resource is based on a rapid evidence review of the research evidence on nature play and its social and emotional wellbeing effects on young children aged 0–5 years. It does not explore developmental or physical wellbeing effects from nature play.

The following research questions guided the review:

• What is nature play, and how does this promote social and emotional wellbeing in children and families?
• What are some of the implications for research, policy and practice of the effects that playing outdoors can have on the social and emotional wellbeing of children and families?

Relevant studies from the research literature from the past 10 years (published from 2013 to 2023) were identified by searching 8 academic and grey literature databases. In the review – and in this resource – we have focused on the early years (0–5) but have discussed relevant evidence for other age groups where none is available for the early years. We have included relevant research using various research designs including systematic reviews and quantitative and qualitative evidence. This paper presents the results of research that has collected data from children, parents and educators through observation as well as through surveys and interviews where participants reflect on their experiences. We have combined the results from these studies to find common themes and indicated where we cannot draw conclusions because there is not enough research evidence available.

Further details on the methodology, including search strategy and data analysis, are provided in the Appendix.

What is the type and quality of the evidence on nature play?

There is a growing body of research on nature play (and nature contacts), most of which has found some benefit for child wellbeing. Much of this evidence is relatively recent because research interest in the wellbeing effects of nature play has increased exponentially over the past 10 years. Most of the research is from Europe (particularly Scandinavia where forest schools have a long tradition), North America and Australia.²

Research on nature play comprises a mixture of qualitative and quantitative studies. Randomised controlled trials are less common than quasi-experimental research. There are some intervention assessments and program evaluations available, mostly using pre-test–post-test designs. Most of the quantitative evidence is based on cross-sectional surveys or observational data provided by parents or teachers rather than children themselves. The qualitative studies often use individual or focus group interviews involving parents and/or teachers, sometimes children. Fewer studies collect data from children using conversational storytelling, drawing elements of outdoor places or nature tours and photographs (see e.g. Moore et al., 2021). There are now also multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the effects of nature play and/or nature contact (e.g. Arola et al., 2023; Brussoni et al., 2015; Dankiw et al., 2020; Fyfe-Johnson et al., 2021).

Although there is growing evidence for the benefits of nature play and nature contact, the research evidence has some limitations. These make it difficult to compare different studies and conclude what types of nature play or contacts work best in supporting children’s wellbeing. In particular, there is significant variation in the way researchers define nature play (or nature contact) as well as variation in study design, quality/rigour, geographical settings and measures used.

The key limitations are further outlined below.

There is a lack of agreed distinction/relationship between nature play and nature contact and no agreed definition for either nature play or nature contact. The term ‘nature play’ is also not always clearly defined (Dankiw et al., 2020). Synonyms used interchangeably with ‘nature play’ (Dankiw et al., 2020) include ‘natural play’ (Groves & McNish, 2011), ‘free play in nature’ (Gardner & Kuzich, 2018), ‘outside play’ (Dealey & Stone, 2018) and ‘outdoor play’ (Howe et al., 2021; Mygind et al., 2021). Thus, the term ‘nature play’ can cover a range of activities and experiences. This variation in definition and what is studied means it is difficult to be specific about, for example, how much nature contact is beneficial or what types of play are most beneficial (Dankiw et al., 2020; Holland et al., 2021).

Studies exploring nature contacts are also highly diverse and can include different geographical settings and nature elements. The term has been used to cover having a nature view from a window, plants in a room to living near a park (Beery, 2020; Frumkin et al., 2017). Furthermore, the research is not always clear about the relationship between ‘nature contact’ and ‘nature play’. Depending on the study, these concepts can be: (a) approached as different things, (b) used with nature play positioned as a subset or type of nature contact, (c) considered as parallel concepts (i.e. they deal with similar concepts but are not studied as a single thing).

Much of the existing research has found some positive wellbeing benefits arising from nature play and/or nature contacts. However, the research evidence comes from studies using a range of different study designs, looking for different wellbeing benefits and using different measures (Frumkin et al., 2017; Holland et al., 2021; Mygind et al., 2021; Tamblyn et al., 2022). The research therefore varies as to which wellbeing benefits there is evidence for and/or whether these benefits are found all the time or some of the time, and in what settings. Further, some studies have looked at what types of nature play have benefits (e.g. playing with natural materials, etc.) while others have looked at what types of contact with nature (living near nature, actively engaging with nature) have benefits for child wellbeing. Although these concepts are related, and can overlap, they are often studied separately.

While there is much supportive evidence available, the studies that link nature contacts to child wellbeing have varying levels of rigour. Common issues with quality include the use of small study samples as well as limited reporting on the consistency, accuracy and statistical significance of the results (i.e. how reliable the results are) (Dankiw et al., 2020; Johnstone et al., 2022).

Physical contacts with nature have a better evidence base for early childhood than psychological contacts (see below for further details) (Egan, 2020; Pritchard et al., 2020). The research evidence on the latter (i.e. children’s relationship to nature) mostly focuses on older children or adults, and so our understanding of this for young children is variable (Passmore et al., 2021; Pritchard et al., 2020).

Although there is a growing body of research evidence on the various wellbeing effects for children from different nature contacts, including nature play, this evidence is not always conclusive. More research is needed to offer practical guidance for professionals who work with families and are thinking of supporting engagement in nature contacts and nature play.

What is nature play?

This section outlines what the research evidence says about nature play, how it is defined, its key features and its benefits for children aged 0–5 years.

There are 4 main types of nature play definitions used in the research literature:

• Basic definitions refer to nature play as a type of play (child-led, free or unstructured play) that occurs in nature (e.g. Dankiw et al., 2020; Ernst et al., 2021). For example, Änggård (2016, p 78) describes nature play as ‘activities children are engaged in when they are free to decide for themselves what to do in natural environments.’
• Nature-centred definitions build on the basic definitions of nature play by listing examples of specific nature elements and/or types of nature interactions, such as climbing rocks, rolling down hills, observing insects or playing with water and sand (Beery, 2020; Kidsafe NSW, 2020). See, for example, this nature-based definition from Outdoor Play Canada:

Nature play is a form of play that takes place in a natural environment and/or involves play with natural elements and features (e.g., water and mud, rocks, hills, forests, and natural loose parts, such as sticks, pinecones, leaves, and grass). (Outdoor Play Canada, 2022, p 2).

• Experience-focused definitions focus on the activities and experiences of children that form part of nature play (Ernst & Burcak, 2019; Green Hearts Institute for Nature in Childhood, 2014). This may include its ability to inspire positive interactions and emotions in children; for example, curiosity, creativity, risk taking, the love of discovery, enthusiasm, joy (Ernst & Burcak, 2019; Picture Perfect Playgrounds, 2023). An example definition:

Nature play, which is defined as freely chosen, unstructured and open-ended playful interactions with and in nature provides opportunities for children to take risks, become actively and fully engaged in their surroundings, solve problems and be curious and creative (Ernst & Burcak, 2019, p 4).

• Learning-oriented definitions emphasise the learning and the skills that can develop as part of nature play (Agostini et al., 2018; Moore, 2014). Some definitions specifically focus on the learning process, through which children learn new skills, and how nature helps them develop an understanding of how the world works (see Moore, 2014).

Nature play is defined as a learning process, engaging children in working together to develop physical skills, to exercise their imaginations, to stimulate poetic expression, to begin to understand the workings of the world around them (Moore, 2014, p vii).

These definitions point to the multiple features and benefits of nature play, including the importance of child-led approaches to play. The different ways to define nature play highlights how nature play can concurrently be about ‘being in nature’, ‘playing or interacting with what’s in nature’, ‘the experiences (activities and emotions)’ and ‘the learning that children gain when in nature’. Current research evidence is not able to prescribe a specific ‘dose’ (or amount) of nature play because there are many factors at play. Children’s individual differences and preferences also matter in terms of the potential benefits gained from nature play (McClain & Vandermaas-Peeler, 2016; Oliver et al., 2022).

Common features of nature play

The research literature commonly explores nature play through 2 or more of the following key features and/or experiences:

• natural elements (e.g. logs, rocks and water) or sites (e.g. parks, forests, green areas)
• play activities – can mean the mode of play (e.g. ‘unstructured’, ‘child-led play’) or activities (e.g. digging holes, climbing trees, hiding in bushes)
• types of experiences that engagement with nature provides (e.g. being mindful, feeling present and fully immersed in the surroundings)
• benefits gained (e.g. learning, skills, health and wellbeing).

Natural elements involved in nature play

The benefits and experiences arising from different kinds of nature play or contact, as well as the play activities involved, are explored in the sections that follow. It is worth briefly noting, however, the different types of natural features involved in nature play (and to some extent in nature contact) because they have a bearing on experiences of nature play and what makes something nature play.

Some common natural elements that can be considered when providing nature play opportunities for children include (Beery, 2020; Dankiw et al., 2020; Moore, 2014):

• landscape elements (e.g. rocks, hills, water)
• sensory elements (e.g. dirt, sand)
• loose materials for play (e.g. stones, leaves, sticks)
• living things (e.g. plants, trees, insects)
• weather elements (e.g. sunny, raining) and changing seasons (e.g. summer, winter).

The natural environment offers diverse opportunities for play (Bento & Dias, 2017; Ernst & Burcak, 2019). This diversity allows children to use their imagination to source raw materials from their environment, manipulate them and shape their own play (Beery, 2020; Brussoni et al., 2017; Mygind et al., 2021).

Research indicates that environmental diversity engages children in ways that improve learning and development, particularly in their early years (Ernst & Burcak, 2019; Kemp & Josephidou, 2021). Play is the primary mechanism by which young children learn new skills as well as about themselves and the (physical and social) world, and this is how they develop (Burgess & Ernst, 2020; Li et al., 2016). There is also some limited evidence suggesting that sensory stimulation is a key mode of learning for children aged under 2 years (Kemp & Josephidou, 2021). Therefore, the outdoor environment can play an important role in supporting their learning and development.

What does the evidence say about the general benefits of nature play activities?

There is growing research evidence (subject to the limitations noted above) to suggest that nature contact, and nature play, can have multiple benefits for young children. The observed benefits of nature play vary according to what type of nature play is being studied. Broadly, however, some of the overarching described benefits include:

• Nature play can improve children’s physical and mental health, sleep, resilience and learning (Arola et al., 2023; Fyfe-Johnson et al., 2021; Puhakka et al., 2019; Ward et al., 2017). Some of these effects can be attributed to children engaging in healthy behaviours when in nature (Dankiw et al., 2020).
• Some research suggests that nature play activities can often be more complex and creative than indoor play (Bento & Dias, 2017; Brussoni et al., 2017). Nature stimulates various types of play (physical, imaginative, sensory-rich and collaborative) that can contribute to various aspects of child development (Beery, 2020; McClain & Vandermaas-Peeler, 2016; Mygind et al., 2021).
• When in nature, children often engage in games such as hide-and-seek, fantasy or pretend play activities (Li et al., 2016; McClain & Vandermaas-Peeler, 2016; Mygind et al., 2021). Through playful physical interactions with nature, children can learn and practice both individual and group play behaviours (Agostini et al., 2018; Brussoni et al., 2017). These are useful in developing their social and communication skills (Li et al., 2016; McClain & Vandermaas-Peeler, 2016; Mygind et al., 2021).
• When play is child-driven, children gain the benefits of learning about decision making and cooperation with others, negotiating their needs and resolving conflicts (Ernst & Burcak, 2019).
• Through independent exploration and overcoming minor challenges and risks, nature play can help children improve their sense of agency, give them a sense of control and promote an understanding of what their bodies are capable of (McClain & Vandermaas-Peeler, 2016; Moore et al., 2021). This can improve children’s confidence, self-esteem and decision-making skills (Puhakka et al., 2019; Ward et al., 2017).
• Nature play can encourage children’s social interactions with peers and adults and can be used for familial and intergenerational bonding (Burgess & Ernst, 2020; Li et al., 2016; McClain & Vandermaas-Peeler, 2016; Ward et al., 2017).
• By engaging with local landmarks, nature play can also be used for teaching children about the local history and culture, including Indigenous meanings and landmarks in play activities (Moore, 2014). This can also promote cultural awareness and learning (Moore, 2014).
• Studies find that children can better self-regulate their emotions when in nature and their mood improves (Puhakka et al., 2019). Young children report many positive emotions from playing outdoors such as feelings of happiness, joy, excitement and relaxation (Coates & Pimlott-Wilson, 2019; McClain & Vandermaas-Peeler, 2016; Moore et al., 2021).

Risks involved in nature play and the potential benefits of moderate risk

There are some risks involved in nature play (as in most types of play); however, some research suggests that there are benefits to play with moderate risk. Although not all nature play is risky play (or vice versa), nature offers children the opportunity to experience some elements of uncertainty or risk, where the child can get hurt, injured or lost (Kleppe, 2018; McClain & Vandermaas-Peeler, 2016). Elements of risk involved in some nature play activities include:

• playing at speed or at height (e.g. injury from jumping off ground at great heights, falling when running fast)
• playing near dangerous elements (e.g. fire, water)
• using potentially dangerous tools (e.g. hammers)
• rough and tumble play (e.g. play wrestling where children can harm each other) (Brussoni et al., 2015; 2017; Kleppe, 2018).

Risk taking is a normal part of children seeking to explore and understand their environments (Kemp & Josephidou, 2021; Kleppe, 2018). As such, although there can be some risk of injury or harm, there is research evidence to suggest that there are potential benefits in play that involves risk. For example, some researchers have suggested that certain types of risks in play teach children how to assess and cope with risk, and this can be beneficial in children developing confidence and resilience for facing future challenges (Ernst & Burcak, 2019; Kleppe, 2018). Learning how to assess and take controlled risks may also teach children appropriate emotional responses, such as how to overcome their fears and not be overwhelmed when facing challenges (Ernst & Burcak, 2019).

What specific types of nature contacts support child wellbeing?

In this section we outline some of what this research says about the relationship between the specific types of nature contact involved in nature play and how they can support child wellbeing.

The research on the potential benefits of nature contacts has largely focused on 2 broad types of nature contacts and how they can promote child wellbeing (Barragan-Jason et al., 2022):

• Physical contacts: that is, physical contact with green spaces or ‘being in’ nature and spending time outdoors (often referred to as nature contact or nature connection). Within this broad category there are 3 aspects of contact that have been explored:
  • nature access
  • nature exposure
  • nature engagement.
• Psychological contacts: that is, the personal and subjective connections people have to nature (e.g. how they see themselves as part of nature). This is also called ‘nature connectedness’, ‘nature relatedness’ or ‘nature relationship’.

Most studies on nature contact and young children have explored the wellbeing effects of physical contacts with nature rather than the psychological contacts. The links between wellbeing and the 3 types of physical nature contacts and psychological contacts are summarised below.

Physical contacts with nature

Nature access (being close to nature)

Nature access (or accessibility) refers to the likelihood a child will interact with nature but does not necessarily mean direct contact (Flouri et al., 2014; Robinson et al., 2022; Tillmann et al., 2018). The common types of nature access explored in the research include:

• mapping the distance from where a child lives or goes to (pre)school to how close it is to nature areas, attempting to link the environmental design to the effects on children’s wellbeing (Bell et al., 2020)
• looking at the residential density, neighbourhood traffic or vegetation cover in a neighbourhood and linking these to wellbeing effects (Feng & Astell-Burt, 2017; Mygind et al., 2022; Robinson et al., 2022).

These studies often find that access to green areas (e.g. parks) or blue areas (e.g. lakes) is associated with better social and emotional wellbeing. However, these results are not consistent across studies. Many studies assume that having access to nature warrants wellbeing benefits; however, just because children live close to green areas does not mean that they use them. Nonetheless, some research suggests that children can also benefit from living in greener neighbourhoods even when they don’t frequently play in or use the green areas (Kabisch et al., 2017). This access is theorised as supporting child wellbeing through several pathways (Kabisch et al., 2017):

• by direct wellbeing effects (e.g. stress reduction and positive impacts on mood)
• by encouraging healthy behaviours (e.g. physical activity and social interaction)
• by reducing risk factors (e.g. air pollution, urban heat).

However, although this research suggests that it is likely beneficial for children to live in or near green areas (regardless of whether they use them) it is not certain which benefits they receive, how big the benefits are, or if they will benefit over time (Kabisch et al., 2017; Mygind et al., 2022).

Nature exposure (brief exposure to nature)

In most studies, nature exposure is defined as incidental contact (short-term or a one-off contact) with nature; for example, ‘time spent in/near’ or simply ‘use of’ a natural area such as a park (Tillmann et al., 2018). Common types of nature exposure include short exploration visits to green areas such as parks, beaches or wild nature settings (e.g. forests, creeks) (Agostini et al., 2018).

The evidence links brief nature exposure to improved child wellbeing such as increases in positive moods and relaxation (Coates & Pimlott-Wilson, 2019; McClain & Vandermaas-Peeler, 2016). However, a key limitation of the evidence is the variation in the length of a ‘short duration’ of contact, as it is commonly a subjective assessment that varies across studies. There is no strong association between any particular duration of exposure to nature and specific wellbeing effects.

Nature engagement (active participation in nature)

Nature engagement differs from access and exposure to nature in that it usually involves direct, intentional, sustained and/or repeated interactions with nature (Tillmann et al., 2018). It includes participation in an immersive activity that takes place in nature and interaction with the diverse natural elements and raw materials available to shape play (e.g. playing with sticks and jumping over rocks) (Brussoni et al., 2017; Moore et al., 2021; Mygind et al., 2021). Nature engagement is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘nature play’; however, the latter can also refer more specifically to child-led engagements with nature (Beery, 2020; Dankiw et al., 2020). Examples of nature engagement include:

• participation in forest schools and bush kindergartens
• outdoor play programs
• overnight camping trips.

Although there is evidence to suggest that these kinds of engagements can benefit child wellbeing, the evidence is not always clear about what types of nature settings or activities, or what length or frequency of engagement/play is involved.

The research also suggests that the types of experiences and activities children engage in when in nature may affect its impact on wellbeing. For example, a child who is actively engaged in nature play and is building sandcastles on the beach is likely to have a different experience (and subsequent wellbeing outcomes) than a child who is less actively engaged and plays video games on a smartphone when on the beach (even if the ‘dose’ of nature, or the time spent on the beach, is similar) (Whitburn et al., 2020). However, the evidence is less clear on how much of a difference the different kinds of experiences, activities or engagement can have on child wellbeing (or how specific experiences contribute to different aspects of wellbeing).

One key type of nature engagement (and a formalised version of nature play) that has been a focus of recent research attention is nature-based early childhood institutions – one of the most popular versions of these is described below.

Forest schools and bush kindergartens

Forest schools and ‘bush kindergartens’ combine nature play and nature engagement in that they aim to get the children playing and engaged in nature. Nature-based early childhood institutions are increasingly popular in Australia and internationally (Alme & Reime, 2021; Ernst & Burcak, 2019; Ernst et al., 2022; Larimore, 2016). The names across countries and contexts vary but they are commonly called nature, forest or ‘bush kindergartens’ and (pre)schools (Alme & Reime, 2021; Ernst & Burcak, 2019; Ernst et al., 2022; Larimore, 2016). Nature-based (nature-inclusive) teaching practices have become increasingly popular in western countries since the 1960s, starting in Scandinavia and spreading to Germany, the UK, Australia and the USA (Alme & Reime, 2021; Sobel, 2014). The US Forest School Foundation provides a history of these types of schools.

Forest schools are programs where children spend most of their day outside (Sella et al., 2023). The specific settings may vary from the use of the outdoor playgrounds to wild or unmaintained nature settings (Egan et al., 2022; Ernst et al., 2022). However, there are some common characteristics across the programs (Alme & Reime, 2021; Coates & Pimlott-Wilson, 2019; Dankiw et al., 2020; Egan et al., 2022):

• nature engagement is the core organising component of the programs
• some of the learning program is conducted outdoors (from a few hours to whole days and can be in all types of weather)
• there is an integrated approach³ to play and learning that incorporates elements of environmental education, child development and school readiness
• there is an emphasis on child-led and play-based learning that considers the individual needs and interests of children
• they conceive of children as capable learners and problem solvers.⁴

In Australia, nature-based (pre)schools are usually called ‘bush kindergartens’ (or ‘bush kinder’) (Campbell & Speldewinde, 2019; Elliott & Chancellor, 2014; Speldewinde & Campbell, 2024). Research evidence is too limited to draw conclusions on the common characteristics of bush kindergartens, as these programs vary. However, they usually include more time spent outdoors than traditional kindergartens and/or nature visits, excursions to outdoor places like forests, zoos, beaches, etc. (Campbell & Speldewinde, 2019; Speldewinde & Campbell, 2024).

A systematic review of 147 international studies has found moderate to strong evidence that nature-specific outdoor learning (as exemplified by forest schools and bush kindergartens) has measurable socio-emotional, academic and wellbeing benefits for children of various ages (from preschool to high school aged children) (Mann et al., 2022). Research focused on the wellbeing effects of Australian bush kindergartens is promising but still emerging. For example, a study by Campbell and Speldewinde (2019) that explored the different interpretations of ‘bush kinder’ as part of the pilot project of Sandy Shores Kids Go Bush kindergartens found that bush kindergartens had strong impacts on children’s wellbeing and improved confidence levels.

Psychological nature contacts

While the nature contacts described above refer to physical contacts with nature, psychological contact with nature can also be important. This is sometimes described as ‘nature connectedness’ (Capaldi et al., 2015).

Nature connectedness is the level of feeling connected to nature (overall, across time and situations) rather than simply spending time there (Arola et al., 2023). Experiences of nature connectedness are on a continuum from low to high with those who identify with and feel connected to nature being higher on the continuum (they also tend to spend more time outdoors) (Capaldi et al., 2014, 2015). The degree to which children feel connected to nature impacts their willingness to engage in nature play. This depends on their sense of belonging and enjoyment when in natural environments (Whitburn et al., 2020).

Research disagrees over whether human beings are born with an innate connectedness to nature (this is called ‘the biophilia hypothesis’) or whether they develop this bond with nature over time (Baxter & Pelletier, 2019; Capaldi et al., 2014; Whitburn et al., 2020). Some recent research suggests people may have a basic psychological need for nature connectedness that is an essential contributor to wellbeing (Baxter & Pelletier, 2019; Hurly & Walker, 2019; Pritchard et al., 2020). Two meta-analyses on nature connectedness have found that people who feel connected to nature are happier and have better wellbeing compared to those who do not (Capaldi et al., 2014; Pritchard et al., 2020). Unfortunately, the research evidence on ‘nature connectedness’ (i.e. children’s relationship to nature) mostly focuses on older children or adults, and so our understanding of young children is limited (Passmore et al., 2021; Pritchard et al., 2020).

Factors that influence children’s nature contacts and nature play

Children’s individual differences and preferences can affect the benefits they gain from nature play and contacts (McClain & Vandermaas-Peeler, 2016; Oliver et al., 2022). Three key aspects contribute towards attachment to nature (Whitburn et al., 2020):

• feelings towards nature (affect)
• knowledge and beliefs about nature (cognition)
• experiences in nature (behaviour).

How much people seek out nature contact and how they respond to being in nature (the benefits they gain) varies. This is influenced by their personal preferences, where they live and the values of the people around them (Hurly & Walker, 2019; Whitburn et al., 2020). An increasing number of studies link the levels of nature connectedness of parents to that of their children (Passmore et al., 2021; Richardson, 2020). There is also strong evidence that adults who feel more connected to nature have spent more time in nature as children (Egan, 2020).

However, the evidence also suggests that nature connectedness can grow and change over a person’s lifespan with repeated contacts and positive experiences in nature (Barragan-Jason et al., 2022; Whitburn et al., 2020). A child who has grown up in a city with limited nature contact may initially have a weaker emotional bond or lack a preference for nature but can develop this preference when exposed to nature (e.g. through attending forest schools) (Egan, 2020). However, it also means that when a person has limited contact with nature throughout their life, they are less likely to develop a relationship or appreciation for nature.

Some common pathways to improving nature connectedness include sensory and emotional contacts with nature: appreciating the beauty of nature, believing that nature brings meaning to our lives, and caring for nature (compassion) (Capaldi et al., 2017; Passmore & Holder, 2017; Richardson & McEwan, 2018). This understanding could inform interventions and programs that promote engagement in nature play.

More information on what influences children’s engagement in nature play can be found here and a closer look at the barriers to children playing outside here.

Considerations for practice

When designing interventions and programs to support children’s engagement in nature, research suggests a focus on 3 key factors that may influence the wellbeing benefits (Brussoni et al., 2017; Richardson, 2020; Shanahan et al., 2016):

• types of experiences (i.e. positive experiences can mean better wellbeing)
• frequency of nature visitations (i.e. more frequent nature visits can mean better wellbeing)
• length of time in nature (i.e. more time in nature can mean better wellbeing).

Research highlights the importance of children’s positive experiences in nature and its impacts on child wellbeing. Engagement with the physical and living elements of nature can bring enjoyment and other positive emotions such as a sense of comfort, confidence and excitement (Beery, 2020; Holland et al., 2021; Kemp & Josephidou, 2021). However, if a child has not previously experienced nature (or been in a particular setting such as in wilderness), they may at first also feel fearful and need to be encouraged to actively engage with nature.

It is also important to support children in developing a relationship with nature through frequent personal experiences in nature. Evidence from studies of adults (which may be applicable to children) suggests that more frequent and/or longer nature contacts could have greater wellbeing benefits. Although there is not enough evidence to recommend the best ‘dose’ of nature – that is, the specific number of visits or time spent in nature – there is some indication that all types of nature contacts provide some benefit and can be recommended.

More information on parents’ concerns regarding the safety of children outdoors, and how these can be addressed, can be found in the Engaging young children (0–5 years) in nature play practice guide.

Conclusion

Nature play is a complex term that is used to describe many play activities and interactions with different nature elements across different contexts. This resource has summarised the evidence for what nature play is, how it is defined, its key features and how it is beneficial for young children. Research suggests that nature play supports social and emotional wellbeing in children, is an activity that children enjoy, and an effective method for learning. Moreover, nature play can teach children how to assess and cope with risks, and so can be beneficial in developing confidence and resilience for facing future challenges.

The inconsistency in the ways that nature contacts and nature play are described – in practice and in the research – limit our understanding of how best to activate their wellbeing benefits. This can make it hard for practitioners to choose the most appropriate program or approach. Despite this, awareness of the different terms and meanings of nature play can assist in creating more effective nature play programs and recommendations based on research.

Understanding that there are different ways of doing nature play that can benefit children may also help guide professionals in their discussions with parents and carers about nature play. This knowledge will aid in selecting the specific features of nature play that match the circumstances and preferences of individual children. This will also help guide the needs, professional techniques, skills and training for practitioners looking to use nature play to advance child wellbeing.

Acknowledgements

Dr Stewart Muir and Dr Jasmine B. MacDonald contributed to the conceptualisation of the broader evidence package focusing on nature play in the early years. Dr Stewart Muir also reviewed drafts of this article.

Citation

Alla, K., & Truong, M. (2024). Nature play and wellbeing. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

¹In this article, wellbeing refers to any type of (social and emotional) general wellbeing as defined by authors of the research studies. For an overview and explanation of how nature contacts benefit different types of wellbeing, see Capaldi et al. (2015).

² There is a substantial body of research on the importance of Australian First Nations people’s connection to country and how this relates to wellbeing. This research and knowledge is largely distinct from the research on nature play or nature contacts and is a large topic in its own right. You can read more about the connection between First Nations relations to country and wellbeing here: Henderson et al. (2024).

³The educational experience is based on an understanding that play and learning are deeply connected (Burgess & Ernst, 2020; Natural Start Alliance, n. d.). The natural environment is used to engage children in various play activities to teach them transferrable and generalisable skills, such as problem solving and cooperation (Burgess & Ernst, 2020; Coates & Pimlott-Wilson, 2019).

⁴This is an outdoor pedagogy approach that supports active engagement of children with minimal supervision (Bento & Costa, 2018; Kemp & Josephidou, 2021).

Further reading and resources

For further information on children’s relationship with nature and play, see the resources below.

AIFS

• Creating environments to support young children’s development
  This short article describes research evidence about the physical environmental factors that impact child development.
• What works to improve young children’s social, emotional and behavioural wellbeing?
  This rapid evidence review identifies national and international prevention and early intervention programs that are effective at improving the social, emotional and behavioural health of at-risk children under the age of five.
• Too much time on screens? Screen time effects and guidelines for children and young people
  This short article provides an overview of the national guidelines for screen time, the effects of excessive screen time and how practitioners can support families to reduce screen time.
• Australian children’s screen time and participation in extracurricular activities
  This report provides insights into the patterns of screen time (watching television, using computers and playing electronic games) among Australin children (ages of 4–13 years) and the associations with physical wellbeing and participation in extracurricular activities.

Emerging Minds

• Could a ‘prescription’ of nature benefit children’s mental health?
  This short article talks about how time spent in nature has the potential to have positive effects on a child’s emotional, cognitive and behavioural development.
• The child and their local ecology
  This is a video about how children’s mental health is tied to the world around them: to the child’s relationships; home, school and neighbourhood environments; and the broader societal and economic context they live in, which all have an impact on their development and wellbeing.

Other Australian resources

• Australian national guidelines on physical activities and screen time for children under 5 years are linked here.
• The Raising Children website has a suite of resources for parents on outdoor play suitable for children aged 0–8 years. These include example games to play and tips on what to do together as a family for the different age groups of children (babies, toddlers and preschoolers).
• Eco Explorers have a series of nature-inspired downloadable resources for parents, educators and teachers to use when outdoors in nature. They also have links to various nature play programs in Australia.
• NaturePlay Australia is made up of 4 state-based, not-for-profit organisations dedicated to supporting the health, wellbeing and development of Australian children through nature play and learning. Their website links to individual state organisation’s home pages and holds a range of resources relevant to nature play, including information on outdoor mobile apps.
• Early Childhood Outdoor Learning Network has resources and tips for educators on outdoor pedagogy and practicalities and links to some examples of outdoor learning programs.
• little bluebirds offers a collection of creative ideas for parents and educators to use with babies and toddlers when engaging with them outdoors.
• Babies and outdoor play information sheet by the Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority explains the importance of outdoor activities for infants and provides some practical ideas for play experiences.
• Information on bush kindergartens: Bush kinder in Australia: A new learning ‘place’ and its effect on local policy.
• Natural environments in early childhood services is a Victorian Government website and provides information about nature play for younger and older children. It provides ideas for nature play at home, as well as tips for educators.
• Outdoors Queensland has a range of resources and tips for how to engage children in nature play.
• The benefits of nature play for children is a website by First Five Years that provides several articles and resources for understanding and promoting nature play among young children. They also talk about the moderate risks involved in this resource: Adventurous play: Why children need risk | First Five Years

International resources

• Recommendations by the World Health Organization for different age groups of physical activity and time outdoors: To grow up healthy, children need to sit less and play more.
• Children & Nature Network, an organisation based in the USA, offers a range of resources designed to help connect children and families to nature, including free toolkits, research summaries, webinars, videos, reports and infographics.
• The UK Forest School Association has some resources and information on forest schools available here: What is forest school?
• Here is a brief historical overview of forest schools internationally provided by the US not-for-profit organisation, the Forest School Foundation: A brief history of forest schools around the world

References

Agostini, F., Minelli, M., & Mandolesi, R. (2018). Outdoor education in Italian kindergartens: How teachers perceive child developmental trajectories. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(1911), 1–12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01911

Alme, H., & Reime, M. A. (2021). Nature kindergartens: A space for children’s participation. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 24(2), 113–131. doi:10.1007/s42322-021-00081-y 

Änggård, E. (2016). How matter comes to matter in children’s nature play: Posthumanist approaches and children’s geographies. Children’s Geographies, 14(1), 77–90. doi:10.1080/14733285.2015.1004523

Arola, T., Aulake, M., Ott, A., Lindholm, M., Kouvonen, P., Virtanen, P. et al. (2023). The impacts of nature connectedness on children’s well-being: Systematic literature review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 85(101913), 1–14. 
doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101913

Barragan-Jason, G., Loreau, M., de Mazancourt, C., Singer, M. C., & Parmesan, C. (2022). Psychological and physical connections with nature improve both human well-being and nature conservation: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Biological Conservation, 277(109842), 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109842

Baxter, D. E., & Pelletier, L. G. (2019). Is nature relatedness a basic human psychological need? A critical examination of the extant literature. Canadian Psychology, 60(1), 21–34. doi:10.1037/cap0000145

Bell, M. F., Turrell, G., Beesley, B., Boruff, B., Trapp, G., Zubrick, S. R. et al. (2020). Children’s neighbourhood physical environment and early development: An individual child level linked data study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 74(4), 321–329. doi:10.1136/jech-2019-212686

Beery, T. (2020). Exploring access to nature play in urban parks: Resilience, sustainability, and early childhood. Sustainability, 12(12), 1–17. doi:10.3390/su12124894

Bento, G., & Costa, J. (2018). Outdoor play as a mean to achieve educational goals: A case study in a Portuguese day-care group. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 18(4), 289–302. doi:10.1080/14729679.2018.1443483.

Bento, G., & Dias, G. (2017). The importance of outdoor play for young children’s healthy development. Porto Biomedical Journal, 2(5), 157–160. doi:10.1016/j.pbj.2017.03.003

Brussoni, M., Gibbons, R., Gray, C., Ishikawa, T., Sandseter, E. B., Bienenstock, A. et al. (2015). What is the relationship between risky outdoor play and health in children? A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(6), 6423–6454. doi:10.3390/ijerph120606423

Brussoni, M., Ishikawa, T., Brunelle, S., & Herrington, S. (2017). Landscapes for play: Effects of an intervention to promote nature-based risky play in early childhood centres. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 54, 139–150. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.11.001  

Burgess, E., & Ernst, J. (2020). Beyond traditional school readiness: How nature preschools help prepare children for academic success. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 7(2), 17–33. eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1255000  

Campbell, C., & Speldewinde, C. (2019). Bush kinder in Australia: A new learning ‘place’ and its effect on local policy. Policy Futures in Education, 17(4), 541–559. doi:10.1177/1478210317753028

Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(976), 1–15. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976

Capaldi, C. A., Passmore, H.-A., Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Dopko, R. L. (2015). Flourishing in nature: A review of the benefits of connecting with nature and its application as a wellbeing intervention. International Journal of Wellbeing, 5(4), 1–16. doi:10.5502/ijw.v5i4.449

Capaldi, C. A., Passmore, H.-A., Ishii, R., Chistopolskaya, K. A., Vowinckel, J., Nikolaev, E. L. et al. (2017). Engaging with natural beauty may be related to well-being because it connects people to nature: Evidence from three cultures. Ecopsychology, 9(4), 199–211. doi:10.1089/eco.2017.0008

Coates, J. K., & Pimlott-Wilson, H. (2019). Learning while playing: Children’s Forest School experiences in the UK. British Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 21–40. doi:10.1002/berj.3491

Dankiw, K. A., Tsiros, M. D., Baldock, K. L., & Kumar, S. (2020). The impacts of unstructured nature play on health in early childhood development: A systematic review. Plos One, 15(2), 1–22. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229006

Dealey, R. P., & Stone, M. H. (2017). Exploring out-of-school play and educational readiness. Early Childhood Education Journal, 46(2), 201–208. doi:10.1007/s10643-017-0849-7

Egan, D. (2020). An exploration of psychological wellbeing in Irish Forest Schools (Doctoral dissertation). The Department of Educational Psychology, Inclusive and Special Education, Mary Immaculate College, Ireland. 
www.dspace.mic.ul.ie/handle/10395/2913

Egan, D., Egan, S. M., & Brophy, T. (2022). The growth of forest school: A review of the evidence base. Leanbh Og – Irish Journal of Early Childhood Studies, 15, 1–14. researchgate.net/profile/Suzanne-Egan/publication/365502626_The_Growth_of_Forest_School_A_Review_of_the_Evidence_Base/
links/6377ab541766b34c543651bf/The-Growth-of-Forest-School-A-Review-of-the-Evidence-Base.pdf

Elliott, S., & Chancellor, B. (2014). From forest preschool to bush kinder: An inspirational approach to preschool provision in Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 39(4), 45–53. doi:10.1177/183693911403900407

Ernst, J., & Burcak, F. (2019). Young children’s contributions to sustainability: The influence of nature play on curiosity, executive function skills, creative thinking, and resilience. Sustainability, 11(15), 1–22. mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/sustainability/sustainability-11-04212/article_deploy/sustainability-11-04212-v2.pdf?version=1565259382

Ernst, J., Burgess, E., & Bruno, L. (2021). Nature preschool as a promoter of physical activity in young children: An exploratory study of nature preschool in a northern climate. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 8(3), 3–19. files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1313005.pdf

Ernst, J., Curran, C., & Budnik, L. (2022). Investigating the impact of preschool type on young children’s empathy. Sustainability, 14(9320), 1–17. doi:10.3390/su14159320

Feng, X., & Astell-Burt, T. (2017). Residential green space quantity and quality and child well-being: A longitudinal study. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 53(5), 616–624. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2017.06.035

Flouri, E., Midouhas, E., & Joshi, H. (2014). The role of urban neighbourhood green space in children’s emotional and behavioural resilience. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 179–186. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.007

Frumkin, H., Bratman, G. N., Breslow, S. J., Cochran, B., Kahn Jr, P. H., Lawler, J. J. et al. (2017). Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(7), 075001–0750018. doi:10.1289/EHP1663

Fyfe-Johnson, A. L., Hazlehurst, M. F., Perrins, S. P., Bratman, G. N., Thomas, R., Garrett, K. A. et al. (2021). Nature and children’s health: A systematic review. Pediatrics, 148(4), 72–94. doi:10.1542/peds.2020-049155

Gardner, P., & Kuzich, S. (2018). Green writing: The influence of natural spaces on primary students’ poetic writing in the UK and Australia. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(4), 427–443. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2017.1337720

Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C. et al. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group: Evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13–22. 
doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007

Green Hearts Institute for Nature in Childhood. (2014). Nature play. greenheartsinc.org/Nature_Play.html

Groves, L., & McNish, H. (2011). Natural play: Making a difference to children’s learning and wellbeing. A longitudinal study of the Forestry Commission-Merrylee Primary School–Glasgow City Council partnership 2008–2011. Scotland Forestry Commission. docplayer.net/59999602-Natural-play-making-a-difference-to-children-s-learning-and-wellbeing.html

Henderson, L., Hawkins, E., Corporal, S., Graham, J., Kruger, N., Marshall, A. et al. (2024). A theoretical conceptualisation of connection to culture in Australian First Peoples children. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 20(1), 178–188. doi:10.1177/11771801241235391

Holland, I., DeVille, N. V., Browning, M. H. E. M., Buehler, R. M., Hart, J. E., Hipp, J. A. et al. (2021). Measuring nature contact: A narrative review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4092), 1–15. 
doi:10.3390/ijerph18084092

Howe, N., Perlman, M., Bergeron, C., & Burns, S. (2021). Scotland embarks on a national outdoor play initiative: Educator perspectives. Early Education and Development, 32(7), 1067–1081. doi:10.1080/10409289.2020.1822079

Hurly, J., & Walker, G. J. (2019). Nature in our lives: Examining the human need for nature relatedness as a basic psychological need. Journal of Leisure Research, 50(4), 290–310. doi:10.1080/00222216.2019.1578939

Johnstone, A., Martin, A., Cordovil, R., Fjortoft, I., Iivonen, S., Jidovtseff, B. et al. (2022). Nature-based early childhood education and children’s social, emotional and cognitive development: A mixed-methods systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(10), 1–30. doi:10.3390/ijerph19105967

Kabisch, N., van den Bosch, M., & Lafortezza, R. (2017). The health benefits of nature-based solutions to urbanization challenges for children and the elderly: A systematic review. Environmental Research, 159, 362–373. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.004

Kemp, N., & Josephidou, J. (2021). Babies and toddlers outdoors: A narrative review of the literature on provision for under twos in ECEC settings. Early Years, 43(1), 137–150. doi:10.1080/09575146.2021.1915962

Kidsafe NSW (2020). Natural playspaces. www.kidsafensw.org

Kleppe, R. (2018). Affordances for 1- to 3-year-olds’ risky play in Early Childhood Education and Care. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 16(3), 258–275. doi:10.1177/1476718X18762237

Larimore, R. (2016). Defining nature-based preschools. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 4(1), 32–36. eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1120149

Li, J. Y., Hestenes, L. L., & Wang, Y. C. (2016). Links between preschool children’s social skills and observed pretend play in outdoor childcare environments. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(1), 61­–68. doi:10.1007/s10643-014-0673-2

Mann, J.; Gray, T.; Truong, S.; Brymer, E.; Passy, R.; Ho, S. et al. (2022). Getting out of the classroom and into nature: A systematic review of nature-specific outdoor learning on school children’s learning and development. Frontiers in Public Health, 10, 877058, 1–10. www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.877058/full

McClain, C., & Vandermaas-Peeler, M. (2016). Social contexts of development in natural outdoor environments: Children’s motor activities, personal challenges and peer interactions at the river and the creek. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 16(1), 31–48. doi:10.1080/14729679.2015.1050682

Moore, D., Morrissey, A.-M., & Robertson, N. (2021). ‘I feel like I’m getting sad there’: Early childhood outdoor playspaces as places for children’s wellbeing. Early Child Development and Care, 191(6), 933–951. doi:10.1080/03004430.2019.1651306

Moore, R. (2014). Nature play & learning places: Creating and managing places where children engage with nature. Raleigh, NC: Natural Learning Initiative and Reston and National Wildlife Federation.

Mygind, L., Kurtzhals, M., Nowell, C., Melby, P. S., Stevenson, M. P., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. et al. (2021). Landscapes of becoming social: A systematic review of evidence for associations and pathways between interactions with nature and socioemotional development in children. Environment International, 146(106238), 1–27. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.106238 

Mygind, L., Elsborg, P., Schipperijn, J., Boruff, B., Lum, J. A. G., Bolling, M. et al. (2022). Is vegetation cover in key behaviour settings important for early childhood socioemotional function? A preregistered, cross-sectional study. Developmental Science, 25(3), 1–14. doi:10.1111/desc.13200

Natural Start Alliance (n.d.). What is a nature preschool? Natural Start Alliance. naturalstart.org/nature-preschool/what-is-a-nature-preschool

O’Farrell, P. E., Liu, H.-L. S., & Carotta, C. L. (2021). Applying the ecological model to explore the influential factors in children’s outdoor recreation participation. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 13(3), 86–92. 
doi:10.18666/JOREL-2021-V13-I3-10695

Oliver, B. E., Nesbit, R. J., McCloy, R., Harvey, K., & Dodd, H. F. (2022). Parent perceived barriers and facilitators of children’s adventurous play in Britain: A framework analysis. BMC Public Health, 22(636), 1–17. doi:10.1186/s12889-022-13019-w

Outdoor Play Canada. (2022). Outdoor play glossary of terms. 
www.outdoorplaycanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Outdoor-Play-Glossary-of-Terms-2022-1.pdf

Passmore, H. A., & Holder, M. D. (2016). Noticing nature: Individual and social benefits of a two-week intervention. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(6), 537–546. doi:10.1080/17439760.2016.1221126

Passmore, H. A., Martin, L., Richardson, M., White, M., Hunt, A., & Pahl, S. (2021). Parental/guardians’ connection to nature better predicts children’s nature connectedness than visits or area-level characteristics. Ecopsychology, 13(2), 103–113. 
doi:10.1089/eco.2020.0033

Picture Perfect Playgrounds (2023). Nature play: The play and playground encyclopedia. www.pgpedia.com/n/nature-play

Pritchard, A., Richardson, M., Sheffield, D., & McEwan, K. (2020). The relationship between nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(3), 1145–1167. doi:10.1007/s10902-019-00118-6

Puhakka, R., Rantala, O., Roslund, M. I., Rajaniemi, J., Laitinen, O. H., Sinkkonen, A. et al. (2019). Greening of daycare yards with biodiverse materials affords well-being, play and environmental relationships. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(16), 1–16. doi:10.3390/ijerph16162948

Richardson, M., & McEwan, K. (2018). 30 days wild and the relationships between engagement with nature’s beauty, nature connectedness and well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(359973), 1–9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01500

Richardson, M. (2020, November 13). Moments not minutes: The trouble with time and green prescriptions. Nature Connectedness Research Blog. findingnature.org.uk/2020/11/13/the-trouble-with-time-and-green-prescriptions/

Robinson, T., Nathan, A., Murray, K., & Christian, H. (2022). Parents’ perceptions of the neighbourhood built environment are associated with the social and emotional development of young children. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6476), 1–14. doi:10.3390/ijerph19116476

Sella, E., Bolognesi, M., Bergamini, E., Mason, L., & Pazzaglia, F. (2023). Psychological benefits of attending forest school for preschool children: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 35, 1–29. doi:10.1007/s10648-023-09750-4

Shanahan, D. F., Bush, R., Gaston, K. J., Lin, B. B., Dean, J., Barber, E., & Fuller, R. A. (2016). Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose. Scientific Reports, 6(1), 1–10. doi:10.1038/srep28551

Sobel, D. (2014). Learning to walk between the raindrops: The value of nature preschools and forest kindergartens. Children Youth and Environments, 24(2), 228–238. doi:10.7721/chilyoutenvi.24.2.0228

Speldewinde, C., & Campbell, C. (2024). Bush Kinders: Building young children’s relationships with the environment. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 40, 7–21. doi:10.1017/aee.2023.36

Tamblyn, A., Skouteris, H., North, A., Sun, Y., May, T., Swart, E., Godsman, N., & Blewitt, C. (2022). Physical and sensory environment interventions to support children’s social and emotional development in early childhood education and care settings: A systematic review. Early Childhood Development and Care, 193(5), 708–724. doi:10.1080/03004430.2022.2152017

Tillmann, S., Tobin, D., Avison, W., & Gilliland, J. (2018). Mental health benefits of interactions with nature in children and teenagers: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 72(10), 958–966. doi:10.1136/jech-2018-210436

Ward, T., Goldingay, S., & Parson, J. (2017). Evaluating a supported nature play programme, parents’ perspectives. Early Child Development and Care, 189(2), 270–283. doi:10.1080/03004430.2017.1317764

Whitburn, J., Linklater, W., & Abrahamse, W. (2020). Meta-analysis of human connection to nature and proenvironmental behavior. Conservation Biology, 34(1), 180–193. doi:10.1111/cobi.13381

Appendix: Methodology

How this review was conducted

The CFCA audience identified social and emotional wellbeing in early childhood as a topic they would like more evidence about to inform practice. A targeted search of 22 relevant organisation websites (e.g. Nature Play Australia, Play Matters Australia, Parenting Research Centre) was conducted to understand the scope and nature of the problem.

This paper is part of a broader evidence package on nature play in early childhood for AIFS Child Family Community (CFCA) information exchange. The studies reviewed were identified through a rapid review and synthesis of international empirical literature. The Cochrane rapid review guidelines (Garritty et al., 2021) were used to inform the review methodology.

Search strategy and search terms

The research question, search strategy and inclusion criteria focused on studies that included the following 4 concepts:

1. early year
2. nature setting
3. social and emotional wellbeing (mental health) outcomes
4. play activities and interventions.

These were identified during consultation with stakeholders and topic scoping.

Systematic searches of the peer-reviewed literature (published January 2012–December 2022) to identify relevant evidence were conducted in January 2023 using these 9 databases: PubMED, Campbell Systematic Reviews, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane, SocINDEX, Scopus, Google Scholar, Web of Science and Australian Institute of Family Studies’ Catalogue Plus portal. The Australian Policy Observatory was searched for grey literature.

Data screening and extraction

Search results were uploaded to Covidence (app.covidence.org), an online research review tool that was used to manage the rapid review process.

To reduce the risk of bias, independent double screening was completed for 10% of search results (title and abstract and full text). Researchers used the study selection criteria (Table 1) and a decision-making hierarchy to independently screen studies. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion between the 2 reviewers.

Data from included studies were extracted into Microsoft Excel with a predesigned coding form. Extracted data comprised the characteristics of each study, including population characteristics, exposure/intervention characteristics, factors/outcomes, key findings and limitations.

Table 1: Study eligibility criteria

Data analysis

Extracted data from included studies were analysed in Microsoft Excel to identify key themes and patterns among study characteristics, measures and findings. A narrative synthesis was conducted; data were categorised according to 3 main concepts of interest: exposure related factors (e.g. type of nature contact and environment), social and emotional wellbeing outcomes and other factors (e.g. play intervention). A descriptive comparison between studies reporting on the same concept/outcome was performed, with similar and divergent findings synthesised. Risk of bias assessment and quality appraisal of studies were not conducted. Therefore, the quality of the studies included in the review was not assessed and considered in the synthesis of findings.

Featured image: © gettyimages/Jecapix