這是用戶在 2025-3-8 14:31 為 https://app.immersivetranslate.com/pdf-pro/3058c961-89ab-4a8a-bbf4-b29cb839ab27/?isTrial=true 保存的雙語快照頁面，由 沉浸式翻譯 提供雙語支持。了解如何保存？

OPEN ACCESS  開放獲取

Edited by:  編輯：

Sabine Pirchio,  薩賓·皮爾基奧，
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
義大利羅馬第一大學

Reviewed by:  審閱者：

César O. Tapia-Fonllem, University of Sonora, Mexico Roberta Fadda, University of Cagliari, Italy
César O. Tapia-Fonllem，墨西哥索諾拉大學 Roberta Fadda，義大利卡利亞里大學

*Correspondence:  *一致：

Alexia Barrable a.barrable@dundee.ac.uk

Specialty section:  專業版塊：

This article was submitted to Environmental Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
本文已提交至《心理學前沿》雜誌的《環境心理學》專欄
Received: 21 October 2019
收諫日期：2019 年 10 月 21 日
Accepted: 02 March 2020  接受日期：2020 年 3 月 2 日
Published: 19 March 2020  發售日期：2020 年 3 月 19 日

Citation:  引用：

Barrable A and Booth D (2020) Increasing Nature Connection in Children: A Mini Review of Interventions.
Barrable A 和 Booth D (2020) 增進兒童與自然的連結：介入措施的簡要回顧。
Front. Psychol. 11:492. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00492
正面。心理學。 11：492。 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00492

Increasing Nature Connection in Children: A Mini Review of Interventions
增進兒童與大自然的連結：介入措施簡述

Alexia Barrable 1 ∗ 1 ∗ ^(1**){ }^{1 *} and David Booth 2 2 ^(2){ }^{2}
Alexia Barrable 1 ∗ 1 ∗ ^(1**){ }^{1 *} 與 David Booth 2 2 ^(2){ }^{2} 1 1 ^(1){ }^{1} School of Education and Social Work, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom, 2 2 ^(2){ }^{2} School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Dundee, United Kingdom
1 1 ^(1){ }^{1} 鄧迪大學教育與社會工作學院，英國鄧迪， 2 2 ^(2){ }^{2} 鄧迪大學生命科學學院，英國鄧迪

Abstract  抽象的

Half of the world’s population live in the urban environment. Lifestyle changes in the 20th century have led to spending more time indoors and less in nature. Due to safety concerns, longer hours in formal education, as well as lack of suitable outdoor environments, children in particular have been found to spend very little time outdoors. We have an opportunity, both timely and unique to have our children (re)connect with nature. Nature connection is a subjective state and trait that encompasses affective, cognitive, and experiential aspects in addition to being positively associated with wellbeing, and strong predictor of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. This minireview brings together recent studies that report on interventions to increase nature connection in children. Fourteen studies were identified through electronic searches of Web of Science, Scopus, PsychInfo, ERIC, and Google Scholar. The review aims to offer an overview of the interventions identified, provide a snapshot of the current state of the literature, briefly present themes and trends in the studies identified in relation to nature connection in young people, and propose potential guidelines for future work.
世界上有一半的人口生活在城市環境中。 20 世紀生活方式的改變導致人們花更多時間待在室內，減少在大自然中相處。由於安全問題、正規教育時間較長以及缺乏合適的戶外環境，研究發現，兒童在戶外度過的時間尤其少。我們有一個及時而獨特的機會讓我們的孩子（重新）與大自然建立聯繫。與自然的連結是一種主觀狀態和特徵，它涵蓋情感、認知和體驗方面，並且與幸福感有積極的聯繫，是親環境態度和行為的強大預測因素。這篇小評論匯集了最近的研究，這些研究報告涉及增進兒童與自然聯繫的干預措施。透過 Web of Science、Scopus、PsychInfo、ERIC 和 Google Scholar 的電子搜索，我們發現了 14 項研究。該評論旨在概述已確定的干預措施，提供當前文獻的快照，簡要介紹與年輕人與自然聯繫有關的研究中的主題和趨勢，並為未來工作提出潛在的指導方針。

Keywords: nature connection, children, intervention, environmental education, sustainability
關鍵字：自然連結、兒童、介入、環境教育、永續性

INTRODUCTION  介紹

In the 21 st century, numerous voices have been calling for children and adults to (re)connect with nature, both as a wellbeing intervention for humans, but also for environmental sustainability (Miller, 2006; Barker, 2007; Louv, 2008; Capaldi et al., 2015; Díaz et al., 2015). Nature connection, the concept that describes the human-nature relationship, has been described in numerous ways. These related, but not identical constructs have at different times been defined as inclusion of nature in self (Schultz, 2002), nature relatedness (Nisbet et al., 2009), emotional affinity toward nature (Müller et al., 2009), and nature connectedness (Mayer and Frantz, 2004). Despite the subtle differences in these constructs, as well as different instruments to measure them, the underlying construct is very similar and it refers to our perceived and subjective connection to the non- human natural world (Capaldi et al., 2014). A review exploring the similarities and differences between the constructs and measures found that not only do the measures correlated strongly with each other, but that they also shared similar correlations with measures of wellbeing, and ecological beliefs and behaviors (Tam, 2013). For this reason, this paper will include all the constructs mentioned above, and use the umbrella term “nature connection” for ease.
在 21 世紀，無數聲音呼籲兒童和成人與大自然重新建立聯繫，這不僅是為了人類的福祉幹預，也是為了環境的可持續性（Miller，2006；Barker，2007；Louv，2008；Capaldi 等，2015；Díaz 等，2015）。自然聯繫這一描述人與自然關係的概念有多種描述方式。這些相關但不相同的結構在不同時期被定義為自我中自然的包容性（Schultz，2002）、自然關聯性（Nisbet 等，2009）、對自然的情感親和力（Müller 等，2009）和自然連通性（Mayer and Frantz，2004）。儘管這些結構存在細微的差別，而且測量工具也不同，但其基本結構非常相似，它指的是我們與非人類自然世界的感知和主觀聯繫（Capaldi 等人，2014 年）。一項探索構想和測量方法之間異同的回顧發現，這些測量方法不僅彼此之間具有很強的相關性，而且與幸福感測量方法以及生態信念和行為也具有相似的相關性（Tam，2013）。因此，本文將涵蓋上述所有構造，並使用「自然聯繫」這一總稱以方便理解。
Several studies have found nature connection is positively associated with wellbeing in adults and children (Mayer and Frantz, 2004; Howell et al., 2011; Nisbet and Zelenski, 2013; Capaldi et al., 2014; Zelenski and Nisbet, 2014; RSPB, 2015). Moreover, feeling close to the natural world has been found to correlate positively with pro-environmental attitudes and ecological behaviors (Mayer and Frantz, 2004; Leary et al., 2008; Nisbet et al., 2009; Frantz and Mayer, 2014). In fact, nature connectedness is a stronger predictor of ecological behaviors in children, than environmental knowledge (Otto and Pensini, 2017). For these reasons, nature connection has been identified as a suitable focus for assessing environmental education (EE) programs (Frantz and Mayer, 2014), as well as a distinct goal for early years’ environmental and outdoor education (Otto and Pensini, 2017; Barrable and Arvanitis, 2018; Barrable, 2019a,b).
多項研究發現，與大自然的連結與成人和兒童的幸福感呈正相關（Mayer 和 Frantz，2004 年；Howell 等人，2011 年；Nisbet 和 Zelenski，2013 年；Capaldi 等人，2014 年；Zelenski 和 Nisbet，2014 年；Capaldi 等人，2014 年；Zelenski 和 Nisbet，2014 年；RSPB，2015 年）。此外，研究發現，親近自然世界的感覺與親環境態度和生態行為呈正相關（Mayer and Frantz，2004；Leary et al.，2008；Nisbet et al.，2009；Frantz and Mayer，2014）。事實上，與環境知識相比，自然連結更能預測兒童的生態行為（Otto 和 Pensini，2017）。基於這些原因，自然連結被認為是評估環境教育 (EE) 計畫的合適重點 (Frantz and Mayer，2014)，也是早期環境和戶外教育的明確目標 (Otto and Pensini，2017；Barrable and Arvanitis，2018；Barrable，2019a、2019b)。
Childhood is often seen as a time of development for values and beliefs (Wigfield and Eccles, 2002). There is also evidence to suggest that adult nature connection and environmental stewardship may have their roots in childhood (Wells and Lekies, 2006; Andrejewski et al., 2011). Therefore, this current mini-review focuses on activities and interventions that aim to promote nature connection in children. More specifically, the review aims to identify and summarize the key points of interventions that promote a connection to nature in people < 18 < 18 < 18<18 years of age, and provide some guidelines for future research.
童年通常被視為價值觀和信仰發展的時期（Wigfield 和 Eccles，2002）。也有證據表明，成年人與自然的連結和環境管理可能源自於童年時期（Wells 和 Lekies，2006 年；Andrejewski 等，2011 年）。因此，本篇小型評論重點在於旨在促進兒童與自然聯繫的活動和介入措施。更具體地說，該評論旨在確定和總結促進 < 18 < 18 < 18<18 歲人群與自然聯繫的干預措施的關鍵點，並為未來的研究提供一些指導。

MATERIALS AND METHODS  材料與方法

Inclusion Criteria  納入標準

In order to find interventions that promote nature connection the author conducted a literature search adopting the following inclusion criteria. The articles identified had to (i) be published in peer-reviewed journals; (ii) be in the English language; (iii) have used experimental or quasi-experimental design, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), pre- and post-testing with or without control groups, and included both betweenand within-subjects testing; (iv) have nature connection as a dependent variable; (v) have used a validated instrument for that age group to measure nature connection; and finally (vi) majority of participants were under the age of 18 years.
為了找到促進自然連結的干預措施，作者進行了文獻檢索，並採用了以下納入標準。所選定的文章必須（i）發表在同儕審查期刊上； (ii) 使用英語； （iii）使用實驗或準實驗設計，包括隨機對照試驗（RCT）、有或沒有對照組的前測試和後測試，以及受試者間和受試者內測試； （iv）以自然聯繫作為因變數； (v) 已經使用針對該年齡層經過驗證的工具來測量與自然的連結；最後（vi）大多數參與者的年齡在 18 歲以下。

Data Sources and Search Strategy
資料來源與搜尋策略

In order to gain a comprehensive coverage of the literature, the following three-fold strategy was used.
為了全面涵蓋文獻，我們採用了以下三重策略。
(1) Keyword searches were undertaken in the following scientific databases: Web of Science, Scopus, PsychInfo, ERIC, and Google Scholar. The terms used were “nature relatedness,” “connection to nature,” and “nature connect*”, in combination with “intervention,” “measure,” and “testing.”
（1）在以下科學資料庫中進行了關鍵字搜尋：Web of Science、Scopus、PsychInfo、ERIC 和 Google Scholar。使用的術語是“自然相關性”、“與自然的聯繫”和“自然聯繫*”，結合“幹預”、“測量”和“測試”。
(2) Specific appropriate journals (such as Journal of Environmental Psychology, Environment and Behavior, Ecopsychology, and others) were targeted and searched using the same terms as above.
（2）找到特定的合適期刊（如《環境心理學雜誌》、《環境與行為》、《生態心理學》等），使用與上述相同的術語進行搜尋。
(3) Finally, by using Google Scholar the first author manually looked through all publications that cited any of the articles of validation of nature connection measures.
（3）最後，第一作者使用 Google Scholar 手動查找了所有引用自然聯繫措施驗證文章的出版物。
The following information was extracted from each of the publications: age and number of participants, length and type of intervention, design, nature connection measure used, and finally effect size, if reported.
從每份出版物中提取了以下資訊：參與者的年齡和人數、介入的長度和類型、設計、使用的自然聯繫測量，以及最終的效果大小（如果報告的話）。

RESULTS  結果

A total of 3794 articles were initially identified, with 635 remained after duplicates were removed. Those were then screened by title and abstract. Forty-three full articles were read and finally 14 articles were identified as meeting all inclusion criteria.
初步查明共3794篇文章，刪除重複文章後剩餘635篇文章。然後根據標題和摘要進行篩選。閱讀了 43 篇全文文章，最終確定 14 篇文章符合所有納入標準。
The ages of participants in the studies ranged from 6 years of age (Bruni et al., 2017) to 19 (Sellmann and Bogner, 2013). All of the studies included pre- and post-intervention measurements, while five also included a control group. The length of activities reported on varied widely, from a short, two-hour field trip reported in Boeve-de Pauw et al. (2019) to programs that lasted several weeks and included regular weekly classes (e.g., Hignett et al., 2018). Environments were also diverse, ranging from the South African bush to the Scottish Highlands, and included urban and wild nature, indoor environments, and coastal areas. Nine of the studies describe activities that were characterized by the authors as EE, while the rest were a mixture of outdoor leisure activities, camps, expeditions, and other educational activities. Several scales were used, which are reported in Table 1.
研究參與者的年齡從 6 歲（Bruni 等人，2017 年）到 19 歲（Sellmann 和 Bogner，2013 年）不等。所有研究都包括幹預前和乾預後的測量，其中五項研究還包括對照組。所報告活動的長度差異很大，從 Boeve-de Pauw 等人報告的短短兩小時實地考察開始。 （2019）持續數週且包括每週定期課程的課程（例如，Hignett 等人，2018 年）。環境也多種多樣，從南非叢林到蘇格蘭高地，包括城市和野生自然、室內環境和沿海地區。其中九項研究描述的活動被作者稱為 EE，其餘研究則是戶外休閒活動、露營、探險和其他教育活動的混合。使用了幾種量表，如表 1 所示。

SUMMARY OF KEY THEMES  主要主題摘要

Participant Age as an Influencing Factor
參與者年齡是影響因素

Some studies looked at the effect of age and reported significant findings. Braun and Dierkes (2017) found that there were significant age-based differences between the samples tested for baseline nature connection, with younger children (10-12) having higher nature connection compared to the older (13-15) group. During analysis, for the 5-day programs 7 − 9 7 − 9 7-97-9-year olds exhibited the largest shift, while for the 1-day intervention, it was the 17-19-year-old group that showed the greatest positive shift. Finally, looking at follow up after 6 weeks, these two groups (1012 and 17-19) exhibited highest retention of nature connection, with 13-15 showing the biggest decline. Liefländer et al. (2013) reported a marked difference in baseline nature connection levels between younger ( 9 − 10 9 − 10 9-109-10-year-old) and older (11-13-yearold) pupils. While both groups showed an increase in levels immediately post intervention, only the younger group (9-10) sustained this at the four-week follow up, indicating perhaps that changes in nature connection in younger children are more likely to be permanent.
一些研究考察了年齡的影響並報告了重要的發現。 Braun 和 Dierkes (2017) 發現，在基線自然聯繫測試樣本中存在明顯的年齡差異，年齡較小的兒童（10-12 歲）與年齡較大的兒童（13-15 歲）相比，具有更高的自然聯繫。分析顯示，對於為期 5 天的計劃， 7 − 9 7 − 9 7-97-9 歲青少年表現出最大的轉變，而對於為期 1 天的干預計劃，17-19 歲群體表現出最大的積極轉變。最後，從 6 週後的追蹤來看，這兩組（1012 和 17-19）表現出最高的自然連結保留，而 13-15 顯示最大的下降。 Liefländer 等人(2013) 報告稱，年齡較小（ 9 − 10 9 − 10 9-109-10 歲）的學生與年齡較大（11-13 歲）的學生在基線自然聯繫水平上存在顯著差異。雖然兩組的水平在幹預後都立即出現了增加，但只有年齡較小的組別（9-10 歲）在四周的追蹤中保持了這種水平，這或許表明年齡較小的兒童在自然聯繫方面的改變更有可能是永久性的。

Length, Type of Intervention, and Environment
時長、介入類型與環境

In studies that compared similar interventions with differing lengths, the longer interventions seemed to have a greater impact
在對不同長度的類似幹預措施進行比較的研究中，較長的干預措施似乎產生更大的影響
TABLE 1 | Interventions to increase nature connection as identified in review.
表 1 |審查中確定的增加自然聯繫的干預措施。
Article  文章 Age of participants (years)
參與者年齡（歲）		 Length of intervention  幹預時長 Type of intervention  幹預類型 Type of environment  環境類型 Design  設計 Control  控制 Number of participants  參加人數 Instrument used  所用儀器

效果大小 （科恩的 d d d ）
Effect size
(Cohen's d d dd )
Effect size (Cohen's d )| Effect size | | :--- | | (Cohen's $d$ ) |
Barton et al., 2016  Barton 等人，2016 年 11-18 5-11 days  5-11天 Wildlife expeditions  野生動物探險 Bush/highlands  灌木叢/高地 Pre-post  前後 No  不 130 CNS ≈ 0.96 ≈ 0.96 ~~0.96\approx 0.96
Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2019
Boeve-de Pauw 等人，2019 年		 10-11 2 h  2 小時 Field trip (EE)  實地考察（EE） Heathland  希斯蘭 Pre-post  前後 No  不 560 INS ≈ 0.26 ≈ 0.26 ~~0.26\approx 0.26
Braun and Dierkes, 2017  Braun 與 Dierkes，2017 年 7-18 1-day, 5-day  1天、5天

1 天實地考察 5 天住宿 (EE)
1-day field trip
5-day residential (EE)
1-day field trip 5-day residential (EE)| 1-day field trip | | :--- | | 5-day residential (EE) |
 Rainforest  雨林 Pre-post  前後 Yes  是的 601 INS ≈ 0.21 ≈ 0.21 ~~0.21\approx 0.21
Bruni et al., 2017  Bruni 等人，2017 年 6-16

多種多樣（30 天 - 活動 1 至 30-45 分鐘）
Varied
(30 days - activity 1 to 30-45 min)
Varied (30 days - activity 1 to 30-45 min)| Varied | | :--- | | (30 days - activity 1 to 30-45 min) |

了解三項活動的三項研究計畫（1）創意藝術競賽，（2）自然寶藏探險，以及（3）虛擬健行
Get to know program three studies for three activities
(1) The Creative Arts Contest,
(2) the Natural Treasure Adventure, and (3)Virtual Hikes
Get to know program three studies for three activities (1) The Creative Arts Contest, (2) the Natural Treasure Adventure, and (3)Virtual Hikes| Get to know program three studies for three activities | | :--- | | (1) The Creative Arts Contest, | | (2) the Natural Treasure Adventure, and (3)Virtual Hikes |
 Urban nature  城市自然 Pre-post  前後 No  不
(1) 168
(2) 35
(3) 50
(1) 168 (2) 35 (3) 50| (1) 168 | | :--- | | (2) 35 | | (3) 50 |
 IAT nature (FlexiTwins)  IAT 性質 (FlexiTwins) ≈ 0.37 ≈ 0.37 ~~0.37\approx 0.37
Bruni et al., 2018  Bruni 等人，2018 年 6-15 Day visit  一日遊 Visit to natural history museum
參觀自然歷史博物館		 Museum  博物館 Pre-post  前後 No  不 238 (across two locations)
238（兩個地點）		 IAT nature (FlexiT wins)  IAT 特性（FlexiT 勝出） ≈ 0.15 ≈ 0.15 ~~0.15\approx 0.15
Collado et al., 2013  Collado 等人，2013 年 Approx. 7-15  大約。 7-15 1-2 weeks  1-2週 Summer camps  夏令營 Mountain camp  山區營地 Pre-post  前後 Yes (urban camp)  是（城市營地）

397（四個不同陣營）
397
(four different camps)
397 (four different camps)| 397 | | :--- | | (four different camps) |
 EAN ≈ 0.89 ≈ 0.89 ~~0.89\approx 0.89
Ernst and Theimer, 2011  Ernst 與 Theimer，2011 年 8-14 Seven different programs all which included sustained contact with nature
七個不同的項目均包括與大自然的持續接觸		 EE programs  電子工程專業 Urban nature  城市自然 Pre-post  前後 Yes  是的 Total 385  總計 385 CNI 0
Hignett et al., 2018  Hignett 等人，2018 年 13-16 12 weekly lessons  每週 12 堂課 Surfing and EE program for "at risk" youth
為「高危險」青少年提供衝浪和 EE 計劃		 Coast  海岸 Pre-post  前後 No  不 58 INS 0
Kossack and Bogner, 2012  Kossack 與 Bogner，2012 年 Approx. 10-16  大約。 10-16 1 day  1天 Indoor and outdoor EE program
室內和室外能源效率計劃		 Woodland  林地 Pre-post and follow up  事前發布及後續跟進 Yes  是的 123 (and 116 control) = 239 123  (and  116  control)  = 239 {:[123" (and "116],[" control) "=239]:}\begin{aligned} & 123 \text { (and } 116 \\ & \text { control) }=239 \end{aligned} INS ≈ 0.42 − 0.71 ≈ 0.42 − 0.71 ~~0.42-0.71\approx 0.42-0.71
Liefländer et al., 2013  Liefländer 等人，2013 年 9-13 4-days  4 天 EE program on water  水上 EE 項目 Woodland  林地 Pre-post and follow up  事前發布及後續跟進 Yes  是的 264 INS ≈ 0.3 − 0.65 ≈ 0.3 − 0.65 ~~0.3-0.65\approx 0.3-0.65
Mullenbach et al., 2018  Mullenbach 等人，2018 年 10-11 4-day  4 天 Residential outdoor EE program
住宅戶外節能項目		 Urban nature  城市自然 Pre-post  前後 Yes  是的 163 Adapted CNS  適應中樞神經系統 ≈ 0.11 − 0.25 ≈ 0.11 − 0.25 ~~0.11-0.25\approx 0.11-0.25
San Jose and Nelson, 2017
聖荷西和尼爾森，2017 年		 9-11 4-day  4 天 4-day outdoor program  4 天戶外活動 Woodland  林地 Pre- and post and follow up
事前、事後和後續行動		 No  不 177 CNI ≈ 0.53 ≈ 0.53 ~~0.53\approx 0.53
Schneider and Schaal, 2017
Schneider 與 Schaal，2017 年		 Approx. 10-16  大約。 10-16 1-day 5-day  1-day   5-day  {:[" 1-day "],[" 5-day "]:}\begin{aligned} & \text { 1-day } \\ & \text { 5-day } \end{aligned} EE program with use of geogames/treasure hunt game
使用地理遊戲/尋寶遊戲的 EE 程序		 Woodland  林地 Pre-post  前後 No  不 339 INS (and DCN)  INS（和 DCN） ≈ 0.2 ≈ 0.2 ~~0.2\approx 0.2
Sellmann and Bogner, 2013
Sellmann 與 Bogner，2013 年		 15-19 1-day  1天 EE program  EE 項目 Urban nature  城市自然 Pre-post, and follow up  發布前和後續跟進 Yes  是的 114 INS ≈ 0.77 ≈ 0.77 ~~0.77\approx 0.77
Article Age of participants (years) Length of intervention Type of intervention Type of environment Design Control Number of participants Instrument used "Effect size (Cohen's d )" Barton et al., 2016 11-18 5-11 days Wildlife expeditions Bush/highlands Pre-post No 130 CNS ~~0.96 Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2019 10-11 2 h Field trip (EE) Heathland Pre-post No 560 INS ~~0.26 Braun and Dierkes, 2017 7-18 1-day, 5-day "1-day field trip 5-day residential (EE)" Rainforest Pre-post Yes 601 INS ~~0.21 Bruni et al., 2017 6-16 "Varied (30 days - activity 1 to 30-45 min)" "Get to know program three studies for three activities (1) The Creative Arts Contest, (2) the Natural Treasure Adventure, and (3)Virtual Hikes" Urban nature Pre-post No "(1) 168 (2) 35 (3) 50" IAT nature (FlexiTwins) ~~0.37 Bruni et al., 2018 6-15 Day visit Visit to natural history museum Museum Pre-post No 238 (across two locations) IAT nature (FlexiT wins) ~~0.15 Collado et al., 2013 Approx. 7-15 1-2 weeks Summer camps Mountain camp Pre-post Yes (urban camp) "397 (four different camps)" EAN ~~0.89 Ernst and Theimer, 2011 8-14 Seven different programs all which included sustained contact with nature EE programs Urban nature Pre-post Yes Total 385 CNI 0 Hignett et al., 2018 13-16 12 weekly lessons Surfing and EE program for "at risk" youth Coast Pre-post No 58 INS 0 Kossack and Bogner, 2012 Approx. 10-16 1 day Indoor and outdoor EE program Woodland Pre-post and follow up Yes "123 (and 116 control) =239" INS ~~0.42-0.71 Liefländer et al., 2013 9-13 4-days EE program on water Woodland Pre-post and follow up Yes 264 INS ~~0.3-0.65 Mullenbach et al., 2018 10-11 4-day Residential outdoor EE program Urban nature Pre-post Yes 163 Adapted CNS ~~0.11-0.25 San Jose and Nelson, 2017 9-11 4-day 4-day outdoor program Woodland Pre- and post and follow up No 177 CNI ~~0.53 Schneider and Schaal, 2017 Approx. 10-16 " 1-day 5-day " EE program with use of geogames/treasure hunt game Woodland Pre-post No 339 INS (and DCN) ~~0.2 Sellmann and Bogner, 2013 15-19 1-day EE program Urban nature Pre-post, and follow up Yes 114 INS ~~0.77| Article | Age of participants (years) | Length of intervention | Type of intervention | Type of environment | Design | Control | Number of participants | Instrument used | Effect size <br> (Cohen's $d$ ) | | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | :---: | | Barton et al., 2016 | 11-18 | 5-11 days | Wildlife expeditions | Bush/highlands | Pre-post | No | 130 | CNS | $\approx 0.96$ | | Boeve-de Pauw et al., 2019 | 10-11 | 2 h | Field trip (EE) | Heathland | Pre-post | No | 560 | INS | $\approx 0.26$ | | Braun and Dierkes, 2017 | 7-18 | 1-day, 5-day | 1-day field trip <br> 5-day residential (EE) | Rainforest | Pre-post | Yes | 601 | INS | $\approx 0.21$ | | Bruni et al., 2017 | 6-16 | Varied <br> (30 days - activity 1 to 30-45 min) | Get to know program three studies for three activities <br> (1) The Creative Arts Contest, <br> (2) the Natural Treasure Adventure, and (3)Virtual Hikes | Urban nature | Pre-post | No | (1) 168 <br> (2) 35 <br> (3) 50 | IAT nature (FlexiTwins) | $\approx 0.37$ | | Bruni et al., 2018 | 6-15 | Day visit | Visit to natural history museum | Museum | Pre-post | No | 238 (across two locations) | IAT nature (FlexiT wins) | $\approx 0.15$ | | Collado et al., 2013 | Approx. 7-15 | 1-2 weeks | Summer camps | Mountain camp | Pre-post | Yes (urban camp) | 397 <br> (four different camps) | EAN | $\approx 0.89$ | | Ernst and Theimer, 2011 | 8-14 | Seven different programs all which included sustained contact with nature | EE programs | Urban nature | Pre-post | Yes | Total 385 | CNI | 0 | | Hignett et al., 2018 | 13-16 | 12 weekly lessons | Surfing and EE program for "at risk" youth | Coast | Pre-post | No | 58 | INS | 0 | | Kossack and Bogner, 2012 | Approx. 10-16 | 1 day | Indoor and outdoor EE program | Woodland | Pre-post and follow up | Yes | $\begin{aligned} & 123 \text { (and } 116 \\ & \text { control) }=239 \end{aligned}$ | INS | $\approx 0.42-0.71$ | | Liefländer et al., 2013 | 9-13 | 4-days | EE program on water | Woodland | Pre-post and follow up | Yes | 264 | INS | $\approx 0.3-0.65$ | | Mullenbach et al., 2018 | 10-11 | 4-day | Residential outdoor EE program | Urban nature | Pre-post | Yes | 163 | Adapted CNS | $\approx 0.11-0.25$ | | San Jose and Nelson, 2017 | 9-11 | 4-day | 4-day outdoor program | Woodland | Pre- and post and follow up | No | 177 | CNI | $\approx 0.53$ | | Schneider and Schaal, 2017 | Approx. 10-16 | $\begin{aligned} & \text { 1-day } \\ & \text { 5-day } \end{aligned}$ | EE program with use of geogames/treasure hunt game | Woodland | Pre-post | No | 339 | INS (and DCN) | $\approx 0.2$ | | Sellmann and Bogner, 2013 | 15-19 | 1-day | EE program | Urban nature | Pre-post, and follow up | Yes | 114 | INS | $\approx 0.77$ |