S

RU

a

ARRAA

KNACMSH

1

sSceosg2tw2

osbsaoa

1T

0d

Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 273–282

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / landurbplan

tudent performance and high school landscapes: Examining the links

odney H. Matsuoka ∗

niversity of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 25 August 2009eceived in revised form 23 May 2010ccepted 25 June 2010vailable online 24 July 2010

eywords:

a b s t r a c t

High school students today are experiencing unprecedented levels of school-related stress. At the sametime, a growing body of research has linked views of nature with restoration from mental fatigue andstress reduction. How important are such views for students while they are at school? This study investi-gated 101 public high schools in southeastern Michigan to examine the role played by the availability ofnearby nature in student academic achievement and behavior. The analyses revealed consistent and sys-tematically positive relationships between nature exposure and student performance. Specifically, views

ature contactcademic achievementlassroom behaviorental fatigue

tressigh school students

with greater quantities of trees and shrubs from cafeteria as well as classroom windows are positivelyassociated with standardized test scores, graduation rates, percentages of students planning to attend afour-year college, and fewer occurrences of criminal behavior. In addition, large expanses of landscapelacking natural features are negatively related to these same test scores and college plans. These fea-tureless landscapes included large areas of campus lawns, athletic fields, and parking lots. All analysesaccounted for student socio-economic status and racial/ethnic makeup, building age, and size of school

enrollment.

. Introduction

High school students have a great need for restorative andtress-reducing environments, and this need may be growing.chool work loads and the competition that students face in theollege application process have increased to unprecedented lev-ls in recent years (Mundy, 2005; Ramírez, 2009; U.S. Departmentf Education, 2005). Research dealing with life events has citedchool-related issues as the leading sources of stress for this ageroup (Ainslie et al., 1996; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005; Stuart,006). In addition, high school dropout rates in major urban areashroughout the United States are high and student satisfactionith the high school experience has decreased significantly (Dillon,

009; Freeman, 2004).At the same time, a growing body of research has linked views

f and access to nature with restoration from mental fatigue andtress reduction. With regard to children and teenagers, this nature-ased restoration process has been associated with higher test

cores (Heschong Mahone Group, 2003a), better attention levelsmong children suffering from attention-deficit hyperactivity dis-rder (Faber Taylor and Kuo, 2009; Faber Taylor et al., 2001; Kuond Faber Taylor, 2004), and greater cognitive functioning (Wells,

∗ Present address: University of Illinois, Department of Landscape Architecture,01 Temple Buell Hall, MC-620, 611 Taft Drive, Champaign, IL 61820, USA.el.: +1 734 709 0811.

E-mail address: rodney0520@yahoo.com.

169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.011

© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

2000). Researchers have also hypothesized that such restorationshould be positively linked with better behavior. For example, find-ings have associated greater nature exposure with enhanced levelsof self-discipline in children (Faber Taylor et al., 2002). In addition,both recovery from mental fatigue and stress were postulated toexplain the positive connections found between the presence ofindoor classroom plants and reductions in misbehaviors, feelingsof unfriendliness, and hours of sick leave of junior high school stu-dents (Han, 2009). These cognitive, social, and behavior benefitsfound among children and younger teenagers, then, should trans-late into better overall high school student performance involvingacademic performance, interest in staying in school, and classroombehaviors.

How important is such contact with outdoor nature for highstudents while they are at school? What features of the campuslandscape have the most affect on student academic achievementand behavior? Surprisingly, there appears to be little informationto answer these questions, particularly with respect to high schoolaged students.

1.1. Nature contact benefits in diverse settings

1.1.1. School setting

As Owens (1997, p. 158) suggested, there has been “limited

interest in improvements to the design of exterior spaces at highschools.” In the context of elementary schools, the HeschongMahone Group (2003a) found that ample classroom window views(i.e., 100 sq. ft. of window area or greater per classroom) that

2 Urba

iifttsu2iTMg

1

tmtwaa1a

fiiG2eTcM2

eutnsp

1

fice

hcwAdbTgchipsodrp

74 R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and

ncluded vegetation (i.e., primarily trees or shrubs) or human activ-ty (e.g., playground, lunch area, parking lot), and objects in thear distance were associated with higher scores on standardizedests. Other studies in the grade school context have concen-rated on playgrounds in preschool, kindergarten, and elementarychool. These studies have found positive connections between nat-ral playscapes and enhanced physical activity (Dyment and Bell,007), motor development (Fjørtoft, 2004), creative play behav-

ors (Dyment and Bell, 2007; Herrington and Studtmann, 1998;ranter and Malone, 2004), environmental learning (Tranter andalone, 2004), and preference as compared to traditional play-

rounds (Ozdemir and Yilmaz, 2008).

.1.2. Other settingsIn the context of the present study, research in workplace set-

ings may be the most pertinent as high school students spendany hours in school buildings. Studies have provided evidence

hat views of nature out of an office or factory are associatedith increased employee productivity, enhanced feelings of job

nd life satisfaction, greater psychological and physical well-being,nd reduced levels of frustration and stress (Heerwagen and Wise,998; Heschong Mahone Group, 2003b; Kaplan, 1993a; Leather etl., 1998; Shin, 2007).

In addition, the psychological, social, and physical health bene-ts of views of and access to nature for individuals have been shown

n residential settings (De Vries et al., 2003; Faber Taylor et al., 2002;idlöf-Gunnarsson and Öhrström, 2007; Jackson, 2003; Kaplan,001; Kearney, 2006; Kuo, 2001; Kuo and Sullivan, 2001a,b; Kuot al., 1998; Lee et al., 2008; Maas et al., 2009; Sullivan et al., 2004;zoulas et al., 2007; Wells, 2000; Wells and Evans, 2003) includingollege dormitories (Tennessen and Cimprich, 1995), prisons (e.g.,oore, 1981), and homes for elderly people (Ottosson and Grahn,

005), and also hospital settings (Curtis et al., 2007; Ulrich, 1984).A growing body of research, therefore, suggests that views of and

xperiences with nearby nature provide many benefits for individ-als while at work, at home, imprisoned, or hospitalized. In spite ofhese studies, however, we know very little about how exposure toature affects a tremendously important population – high schooltudents – at a time in their development when their academicerformance will set them on a life-course.

.2. Explanations for these nature benefits

Researchers have advanced varied explanations for the bene-ts resulting from contact with nature. Two of the most widelyited explanations are the attention restoration and the psycho-volutionary theories.

Attention restoration theory proposes that contact with natureas the potential to restore an individual’s directed attentionapabilities. Directed attention fatigue, or mental fatigue, occurshen the capacity to focus or concentrate is reduced by overuse.n individual experiencing such fatigue not only may have aecreased ability to concentrate, but also may become more irrita-le, distractible, impulsive, antisocial, accident prone, and stressed.his theory proposes that four sequential stages, which representreater levels of restorativeness, are experienced during the pro-ess of complete mental restoration. These include “clearing theead” of miscellaneous thoughts, resting directed attention abil-

ties, dealing with unresolved concerns, and finally reflecting onriorities, possibilities, values, actions, and goals. Reflection repre-

ents the final level of restorativeness, and “is the most demandingf all in terms of both the quality of the environment and theuration required” (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989, p. 197). Natural envi-onments possess qualities that are supportive of this restorationrocess (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1993b, 1995).

n Planning 97 (2010) 273–282

In addition, attention restoration theory proposes that restora-tive environments possess four important components, namelybeing away, extent, fascination, and compatibility (Kaplan andKaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1995). In terms of this study, exposureto greater levels of nature can provide students with enhancedsenses of both psychological distance from school (being away) andimmersion in conceptual surroundings of sufficient scope to sus-tain exploration (extent). Such exposure can also provide additionalenvironmental features that are effortlessly engaging (fascination)and supportive of a student’s need for mental restoration (compat-ibility).

Psycho-evolutionary theory posits that natural settings have astress-reducing and calming effect on an individual. Immediate,subconscious emotional responses play a key role in an individ-ual’s initial reaction to the environment. Nature provides a visuallypleasant physical surrounding that reduces stress by producingpositive emotions, sustaining nontaxing attention, and restrictingnegative thoughts. Neurophysiological arousal is returned to moremoderate levels, fostering an overall sense of well-being (Hartig etal., 1991; Ulrich et al., 1991).

In summary, the attention restoration theory concentrates oncognitive processes while the psycho-evolutionary theory focuseson emotionally based mechanisms. Nevertheless, both theoriessupport the idea that nature functions well as a restorative andstress-reducing environment (Hartig et al., 2003).

1.3. Study overview

In light of the limited prior research, this study is necessarilyexploratory. Many of the school indoor and outdoor characteris-tics that were utilized to assess student exposure and access tonature have not been investigated. In addition, this study will notinvestigate the possible mechanisms explaining how such naturecontact improves student performance, but will utilize the expla-nations posited by researchers in contexts largely other than schoolsettings.

The central proposition of this study is that increased exposureto nature will be positively associated with student performance,including both student academic achievement and behavior. Thisproposition was tested with the following hypotheses:

1. Higher levels of nature in the views that students have fromthe school buildings will be positively associated with studentperformance.

2. Higher levels of nature as determined by objectively measuredcampus landscape elements will be positively associated withstudent performance, in support of the more subjective mea-sures utilized to investigate hypothesis #1.

3. Greater ability of students to view or come into direct contactwith nature, calculated by investigating building features andschool policy, will be positively associated with student perfor-mance.

4. A statistical interaction exists between the size of school build-ing windows and the levels of nature in the views affordedwith regard to student performance. This interaction effect willbe positive with the effect of larger windows increasing acrossnature levels, and the effect of higher nature levels increasingacross window size.

2. Method

2.1. High schools studied

The high schools studied consisted of 101 public schoolslocated in southeastern Michigan, USA (Fig. 1). The schools were

R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 273–282 275

roe, O

ltapcws

wgscala

vatAD

Fig. 1. The high schools studied were located in Lenawee, Livingston, Mon

imited to one region to minimize differences in campus vege-ation, layouts, and building designs, and school district policiesnd climate. To obtain a more homogenous sample of students,rivate high schools, public high schools offering alternative edu-ational or magnet programs, and high schools that were combinedith elementary or middle schools were excluded from the

tudy.Of the 137 schools originally contacted, thirty-six schools (26%)

ere not included in the final database. Two schools were under-oing extensive renovations and the school districts of thirty-fourchools either denied permission or required an approval pro-ess that was too lengthy to be completed during the time periodllotted for data collection. Fourteen of the excluded schools wereocated in inner-cities, eight in other urban settings, eight in ruralreas, and six were urban-fringe schools.

Information about each facility was obtained from the principal,

ice-principal, or other front office personnel through interviewsnd unscheduled drop-in questioning. Site visits were conductedo inventory the landscape and building features of each school.dditional data were obtained from the web sites of the Michiganepartment of Education and Information Technology, Standard

akland, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties, Michigan (highlighted in gray).

and Poor’s School Matters, Public School Review, United StatesGeological Survey (USGS), and the GIS departments of Wayne andLivingston counties, Michigan. All of the information collected wasfor the 2004–2005 academic school year.

2.2. Constructs and measures

2.2.1. Student exposure to natureThe investigation into student exposure to nature at each school

involved three groups of measures. First, the views of nature thatthat students had from the school buildings were rated. Second,vegetation levels on the campuses were measured. Third, studentpotential access to this vegetation was determined.

2.2.1.1. Views of nature ratings. The degrees of naturalness in the

views from the school cafeteria and the classrooms were separatelyrated by the principal researcher, based on site visits to each cam-pus. These two measures represent nature contact during differentstudent activities, were not significantly correlated, and were keptas separate variables:

276 R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 273–282

e view

•

•

2at

aries, including all areas of vegetation contained within orsurrounded by these features and the school borders.

• Landscaped areas – the areas between the school buildings andathletic fields, parking lots, and school boundaries, and outdoorcourtyards totally surrounded by school buildings.

Fig. 2. Examples of the level of naturalness in th

Cafeteria nature – the level of naturalness in the view from eachschool’s primary cafeteria window was rated on a 5-point scale.The scale points were defined as follows, based on similar defi-nitions used in a study by Tennessen and Cimprich (1995) (seeFig. 2):0- “No view” consisted of cafeterias without any window to the

outdoors.1- “All built” consisted of buildings, roads, and walkways without

any vegetation present.2- “Mostly built” indicated that the majority of what could be

seen was built, but with natural elements such as a few treesand shrubs present, or that the majority of what could be seenwas athletic fields or large expanses of lawn devoid of treesand shrubs.

3- “Mostly natural” included evidence of human presence suchas walkways, paved courtyards, and roads along with a mostlynatural setting.

4- “All natural” consisted of trees, shrubs, and forest remnantswithout any evidence of human influence.

Classroom nature – the level of naturalness in the views fromall of the regular classrooms at each school were rated usingthe same 5-point scale as defined for the cafeteria nature, andthen averaged. Regular classrooms were defined as follows –classrooms used for teaching such subjects as history, litera-ture, math, social science, or physical science. Classrooms usedfor shop (e.g., auto, wood, metal), and other specialized class-rooms (e.g., planetarium, greenhouse) were excluded from thecalculations.

.2.1.2. Vegetation levels on each campus (objective measures). Themount of vegetation at each school was objectively measured withhe following campus areas and campus vegetation variables:

from each school’s primary cafeteria window.

Campus areas: Each campus was divided into the following threeareas, and the respective acreage of these areas were calculatedfrom GIS data (see Fig. 3):

• Athletic fields – football, soccer, and baseball fields, tennis courts,and other outdoor sport facilities.

• Parking lots – parking lots and roadways within school bound-

Fig. 3. Campus boundaries and areas measured.

Urban

tda

dbdwuv

••

•

2tdamwfk

•

•

•

•

2

satw

•

••

R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and

In an attempt to account for enrollment size, for each schoolhese three areas were divided by this school’s total number of stu-ents. In this manner, athletic field, parking lot, and landscapedreas on a per student basis were calculated.

Campus vegetation in the landscaped area: Site visits were con-ucted to count the number of trees, measure the area coveredy shrubs and groundcover, and confirm the presence of lawnsepicted in GIS aerial photographs. Lawn area and landscape areaere calculated from GIS data. These three variables measurednique aspects of the campus landscape and were kept as separateariables (see Fig. 4).

Tree density – the number of trees per acre of landscaped area.Shrubs per landscaped area – the percentage of the landscapedarea made up of shrubs and groundcover.Lawn per landscaped area – the percentage of the landscaped areamade up of mowed grass.

.2.1.3. Student potential access to nature. The ability of studentso view or come into direct contact with nature on each campusuring the school day was measured with building window sizesnd school policies. The classroom and cafeteria windows wereeasured by the principal researcher during site visits. These twoindow measures represent potential access to nature during dif-

erent student activities, were not significantly correlated, and wereept as separate variables:

Building window size:

Classroom window area – the average total window area of reg-ular classrooms.Cafeteria window area – the total area of the cafeteria win-dows was categorized by the principal researcher on a 0–5 scalereflecting the percentage of the primary outward facing wall thatconsisted of a window where: 0 = no windows, 1 = 25%, 2 = 50%,3 = 75%, 4 = 100%, and 5 = windows made up 100% of a greater thanone story tall primary outward facing wall. The total window areaof each school’s cafeteria was not used due to the tremendousdiversity of cafeteria room sizes and configurations as comparedto classrooms. The measure chosen was an attempt to avoid morecomplicated adjustment calculations (e.g., dividing the total win-dow area by each school’s enrollment size).

School policy:

Eat lunch outdoors – were the students are allowed to eat lunchoutdoors.Lunch time lengths – amount of time students are given to eatlunch.

.2.2. Student performance measuresStudent performance was evaluated by looking at five aggregate

tudent academic achievement and behavior measures collectednd reported by each school to the Michigan Department of Educa-ion. Academic achievement was measured in the following threeays:

Michigan merit award – the percentage of award winners basedon student performance on the Michigan Educational AssessmentProgram (MEAP) test. All Michigan public high school studentswere required to take this test during the years 1969–2006

(Michigan Department of Education, 2006).Graduation rates – as reported to the state.Four-year college plans – the percentage of seniors stating thatthey planned to attend a four-year college upon graduation.Seventy-eight of the high schools studied polled their outgo-

Planning 97 (2010) 273–282 277

ing seniors. None of the schools conducted follow-up surveys todetermine how many of their students actually attended college.

Behavior was measured with the following two variables:

• Student disorderly conduct – the relative frequencies of seventypes of student discipline problems were averaged, namelystudent social tensions, bullying, verbal abuse of teachers, insub-ordination, acts of disrespect for teachers, physical attacks orfighting, and truancy.

• Student criminal activity – the occurrences of six types of studentcriminal activities were averaged, namely physical violence, ille-gal possession, vandalism, verbal assault, larceny, and minor inpossession.

2.2.3. Control variables: four important factors related to studentperformance

Student socio-economic status, and family and racial/ethnicbackground (Coleman et al., 1966; Fowler and Walberg, 1991;Gottfredson et al., 2005; Hanushek, 1997; Rouse and Barrow, 2006;Rumberger and Palardy, 2005; Welsh, 2001), school enrollment size(Cotton, 1996; Ready et al., 2004; Schneider, 2002; Williams, 1990),and building age (Earthman and Lemasters, 1996; Kumar et al.,2008; McGuffey, 1982; National Research Council, 2006; Schneider,2002; Uline, 2000) have repeatedly been shown to be stronglyrelated to student academic achievement and misbehaviors. Due totheir strong connection with student performance, these followingfour aggregate factors for each school were accounted for in thestatistical analyses conducted in this study.

• School socio-economic status – student participation in free orreduced lunch programs.

• Ethnicity – total percentage of all of the minority racial/ethnicgroups.

• Enrollment – the number of students enrolled.• Building age – the age of the primary classroom building.

2.3. Statistical analyses

The hypotheses were evaluated using both linear and nonlin-ear regression analyses conducted with SPSS version 15.0. Linearregression was used to determine the predictors of the three aca-demic achievement measures. However, the occurrences of studentdisorderly conduct and criminal activity were relatively rare anddid not meet the assumptions of the linear regression models. Forstudent disorderly conduct, the Poisson regression model was used,as this model is specifically suited for many types of count data(Gujarati, 2003). The negative binomial regression model was uti-lized for student criminal activity. The data distribution for thisvariable was over-dispersed, which means that the variance (i.e.,5016.93) was much larger than the mean (i.e., 51.48 occurrences).In these situations, the negative binomial rather than the Poissonregression model provides better estimates (Gujarati, 2003).

3. Results

3.1. Relationships between student performance and the fourcontrol variables

Consistent with previous research, three of the four control vari-

ables, namely school socio-economic status, ethnic/racial makeupof the student body, and the age of the main school building, arestrongly related to the five student performance measures used inthis study (see Table 1). Given these significant relationships, thefour control variables were introduced into the regression analyses

278 R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 273–282

trees o

usalTt

3

sfiffovc

TC

Fig. 4. Examples of schools with a high density of

sed to explore the associations between the possible predictors oftudent performance and the five student academic achievementnd behavior outcome measures. No significant collinearity prob-ems among these variables were observed in any of these analyses.hese four variables were kept in the model regardless of whetherhey were significant predictors of a particular outcome variable.

.2. Testing the central proposition

A series of regression analyses were conducted with the mea-ures of student exposure to nature as predictor variables and theve student performance indices as outcome variables. Predictors

rom the three groups of student exposure to nature variables wereound to explain a significant portion of the variance for one or moref the outcome variables. These predictors will be discussed indi-idually in terms of the four hypotheses utilized to investigate theentral proposition.

able 1orrelations among the four control variables and the five student performance measure

School SES Ethnicity Building age Enrollment

School SESEthnicity −.73**

Building age −.39** .34**

Enrollment .20* .05 .02Michigan merit award .83** −.63** −.35** .16Graduation rates .78** −.76** −.34** .05Four-year college plans .26* .12 −.08 .17Student disorderly conduct −.43** .27** .05 −.07Student criminal activity −.29** .11 .12 −.00

* p < .05.** p < .01.

r high percentage of lawn in the landscaped area.

3.2.1. Hypothesis #1Are higher levels of nature in the views that students have

from the school buildings positively associated with student per-formance? Yes, as Table 2 shows, cafeteria nature is positivelyassociated with each of the three measures of student academicachievement. These findings are the most significant discoveryof this study. For Michigan Merit Award recipients, graduationrates, and four-year college plans, these ratings explain 4.8%,3.7%, and 12.2% of their respective variance. Additional analy-sis revealed that cafeteria nature is also significantly correlatedwith cafeteria window area (see Table 3), the latter variable notbeing a significant predictor of student performance. Therefore,

the schools with greater quantities of natural features in theircafeteria windows also provided their students with larger viewsof these outdoor environments. In addition, the average lengthof time given for students to eat lunch was 40.2 min (n = 98,standard deviation = 7.45). Classroom nature, in contrast, was not

s.

Michigan meritaward

Graduation rate Four-year collegeplans

Student disorderlyconduct

.72**

.50** .16−.39** −.40** −.32**

−.34** −.28** −.37** .37**

R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 273–282 279

Table 2Student performance regressed onto all three groups of nature exposure variables.

Michigan merit award Graduation rates Four-year college plans Student disorderlyconduct

Student criminalactivity

ˇ p value ˇ p value ˇ p value ˇ p value ˇ p value

Control variablesSchool SES 0.75 <.001 0.46 <.001 0.59 <.001 −0.01a <.001 −0.05a <.001Ethnicity ns −0.41 <.001 0.32 <.01 ns −0.02a <.01Building age ns ns −0.31 <.01 ns nsEnrollment ns ns ns ns ns

Adjusted R square control variables 0.68 0.67 0.17 0.36b 0.42b

Views of nature ratings cafeteria nature 0.14 <.001 0.17 <.01 0.25 <.01 ns ns

Vegetation levels on each campus (objective measures)Lawn per landscaped area −0.13 <.05 ns −0.26 <.01 ns 0.02a <.05Parking lot area per student ns ns −0.31 <.05 ns nsAthletic fields ns ns −0.24 <.05 ns ns

Student potential access to natureClassroom window area ns ns 0.23 <.01 ns −0.01a <.05

Adjusted R square entire model 0.73 0.69 0.53 0.36b 0.51b

eneralnerali

ss

3

oflapustwloroMsalyrum

TC

Observations 98 96

a Nonstandardized B values are reported for the Poisson and negative binomial gb Pseudo R-squared values are reported for the Poisson and negative binomial ge

ignificantly associated with any of the student performance mea-ures.

.2.2. Hypothesis #2Did the findings concerning the associations between the more

bjective measures of campus landscape elements and student per-ormance support those of hypothesis #1. Yes, as Table 2 shows,andscapes made up by mowed grass and parking lots are associ-ted with poorer student performance, than landscapes composedrimarily of trees and shrubs. This agrees with the rating systemsed to measure the level of naturalness in the views from thechool building. As discussed in the method section, to receivehe rating of 3, the view had to be “mostly natural,” in otherords dominated by trees, shrubs, and natural features other than

awns. Views made up primarily of built elements or large expansesf lawns without many trees or shrubs were given the lowerating of 2 signifying a “mostly built” view. Higher percentagesf lawn are related with fewer students receiving the Michiganerit Award and planning to attend four-year colleges, and more

tudent criminal activity, explaining 1.8%, 2.6%, and 3.4% of the vari-nce, respectively. In addition, greater parking area per student

evels and athletic field areas are negative predictors of four-ear college plans, accounting for 15.0% and 6.2% of the variance,espectively. None of the other measures of campus vegetationsed in this study is significantly associated with student perfor-ance.

able 3orrelations among the subjective views of nature ratings, objective measures of campus

Cafeteria nature Classroom nature Tree density

Cafeteria natureClassroom nature .21*

Tree density .15 .02Shrubs per landscaped area −.09* .22* .06Lawn per landscaped area .02 .15 −.22*

Classroom window area .04 .27** .27**

Cafeteria window area .68** .13 .18

* p < .05.** p < .01.

76 98 97

ized linear regression models.zed linear regression models.

3.2.3. Hypothesis #3Is greater ability of students to view or come into contact with

nature, as measured by investigating building features and schoolpolicy, positively related to student performance? Yes, as Table 2reveals, larger classroom windows are positively associated withthree measures of student performance. Students at schools withlarger average classroom window areas plan to attend four-yearcolleges at a higher rate as compared to schools with smaller win-dow areas, and also commit fewer crimes while at school. Forfour-year college plans and student criminal activity, this build-ing feature explains 8.4% and 8.5% of the variance, respectively.There is a significant correlation between classroom window areaand classroom nature and tree density in the landscaped areas (seeTable 3). Neither of these latter variables are significant predictorsof student performance. Nonetheless, the views from classroomswith larger window area are more likely to include greater con-centrations of trees and shrubs in the landscapes adjacent to theclassroom buildings.

3.2.4. Hypothesis #4Do school building window sizes and the levels of nature in

the views afforded affect each other, with regards to student per-formance, in a statistically significant manner? No, the results ofthis study did not support the expected relationships (e.g., throughmediation) involving classroom and cafeteria windows and theircorresponding views. No theoretical explanation can be provided

vegetation in the landscaped area, and building window sizes.

Shrubs per landscapedarea

Lawn per landscapedarea

Classroom windowarea

−.16.04 −.18

−.11 −.07 .20

2 Urba

fot

3

tdmaoTntTtssv

4

epsngmptptfii

4

nvwisNsct

rjwcads

tteptst1w

80 R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and

or this finding. Perhaps the five aggregate student performanceutcome measures utilized in this study were not sensitive enougho detect these interactions.

.2.5. Confirmation of the central propositionResults from the regression analyses, therefore, support the cen-

ral proposition and indicated that increased exposure to natureuring the school day is positively associated with student perfor-ance. In fact, all three student academic achievement measures

nd one measure of student behavior are significantly related tone or more of the higher nature exposure predictors used (seeable 2). For the three achievement measures and student crimi-al activity, the independent contributions of enhanced exposureo nature variables are between 3.7% and 20.6% of the variance.hus, except for student disorderly conduct, the central propositionhat student academic achievement and behavior is associated withtudent exposure to nature earns strong support. These effects areignificant while accounting for the influences of the four controlariables.

. Discussion

This study contributes to our understanding of how the physicalnvironment, particularly natural features, can promote academicerformance in a high school setting. Analyses revealed consistent,ystematically positive relationships between student exposure toature during their lunch time and scores on standardized tests,raduation rates, and plans to attend a four-year college. Further-ore, the study documented that not all forms of vegetation are

ositively associated with school achievement and behavior. Whilehe presence of trees and shrubs has a positive connection, therevalence of lawn areas is negatively associated with standardizedest scores, four-year college plans, and criminal behavior. Thesendings held while accounting for a variety of factors known to

nfluence academic performance.

.1. The importance of lunch time

The most consistent results center on student exposure to moreatural landscapes during lunch time. School cafeteria windowiews with higher vegetation content are positively associatedith all three measures of student academic achievement. The

mportance of these views was unexpected since students spendubstantially more time in the classroom on a given school day.onetheless, lunch time may be especially pertinent as it provides

tudents with a valuable break from the learning process. Studentsan recover from mental fatigue and stress, and reflect on eventshat occurred during the first portion of the school day.

While the results suggest that lunch time views play a strongerole, the positive effects of viewing more vegetation are not limitedust to lunch time. Larger classroom window areas were related

ith greater percentages of students planning to attend four-yearolleges and fewer occurrences of student criminal behaviors. Inddition, these larger windows were more likely to view higherensities of trees and shrubs in the landscapes adjacent to thechool buildings.

These positive associations of contact with nature during lunchime and from the classrooms with student performance supporthe propositions of both the attention restoration and psycho-volutionary theories. The strong impact of the cafeteria context is,erhaps, more thoroughly explained by the attention restoration

heory. This theory proposes that four sequential stages, repre-enting greater levels of restorativeness, are experienced duringhe process of complete mental restoration (Kaplan and Kaplan,989; Kaplan, 1995). Although the nature content of classroomindow views is important, students may not have adequate time

n Planning 97 (2010) 273–282

during class time. While in class, students are under a teacher’sconstant supervision and are busy concentrating on the lessonsbeing presented. Indeed, the reflection process may be equatedwith daydreaming, a behavior that is definitely frowned upon bymost teachers.

An argument can be made that due to the social interactionsthat occur among students during lunch time, mental restorationmay not be possible. For example, researchers have discovered that“people find solitude more effective than company in regaining thecapacity for directed attention, provided that the safety that com-pany may bring is guaranteed” (Staats and Hartig, 2004, p. 209). Insupport of this study’s findings, though, one can contend that somedegree of mental restoration may be achieved in a short period oftime. The minimum amount of time needed has yet to be deter-mined. However, studies have revealed that participants exposedto photographs and videos of natural environments for six to sevenminutes attained some degree of restoration (Berto, 2005; Van denBerg et al., 2003). In addition, a student who wishes to be alone maybe able to find a private place during lunch time away from his orher peers. Such physical privacy would not be possible during classtime. Finally, researchers have found that children playing togetherin more natural playgrounds display greater civil and coopera-tive behaviors (Dyment and Bell, 2008; Herrington and Studtmann,1998). These researchers did not cite mental restoration per se asthe underlying reason, but these findings are in agreement with thetenets of the Kaplan’s attention restoration theory.

4.2. Landscapes lacking natural features

Large expanses of campus landscape lacking trees and shrubs,specifically lawns and parking lots, are negatively associated withstudent performance. In the context of school and work settings,prior research has shown decreased performance and increasedfrustration and stress as well as dissatisfaction with the envi-ronment when nature is less available in the immediate view(Heschong Mahone Group, 2003a,b; Kaplan, 1993a,b; Leather et al.,1998; Tennessen and Cimprich, 1995). As the findings reported heredocument, however, the presence of a natural feature like mowedgrass is not sufficient. An explanation for these apparently contra-dictory results is provided by linking the findings of studies in thediverse fields of landscape preference, residential neighborhoodsatisfaction, and student productivity.

Landscape preference research has consistently shown thatlarge, flat landscapes lacking trees and shrubs are often aestheti-cally less preferred, as compared to other natural settings (Kaplanand Kaplan, 1989; Schroeder, 1987; Ulrich, 1986). Studies have alsorevealed that views of less preferred landscapes are associated withlower levels of neighborhood satisfaction and senses of well-being(Kaplan, 2001; Kearney, 2006). In addition, researchers have deter-mined that student psychological well-being and satisfaction withacademic life are positively related to measures of school perfor-mance and productivity (Chambel and Curral, 2005; Chow, 2007;Cotton et al., 2002). The effects of these variables in school settingscould be expected to be similar to their effects in other contexts.Further research would help to test the appropriateness of thisexplanation for the negative relationships that exist in this studybetween views of campus landscapes lacking natural features andstudent performance.

4.3. A link to a student’s future

The findings of this study revealed that student exposure tonature measures were significantly associated with the future four-year college plans of graduating seniors. Most prior research hasonly examined the effects of the physical environment on moreimmediate outcomes, such as standardized test scores and behav-

Urban

ica

4

5o3iComla

4

sis

eaedmwum

5

snarirta

pib

nalfvdfl

A

Mosa

R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and

ors. This study’s results suggest that campus landscape featuresan have connections with a student’s future academic and careerccomplishments.

.4. Not just an aesthetic amenity

Finally, natural features of the campus landscapes explained.2% of the variance in the test scores required to be a recipientf the Michigan Merit Award. This is comparable to the reported–6% of the variance in test scores explained by school build-

ng features in prior research (Earthman, 2004; National Researchouncil, 2006). The often overlooked outdoor physical environmentf schools can perhaps have as much influence on student perfor-ance as the more intensely examined indoor features. The campus

andscape should not be considered just an aesthetic amenity, buts important as the school buildings themselves.

.5. Limitations

Only the principal researcher was able to visit each of the highchool campuses studied. As a result, the reliability of the build-ng view ratings, building window sizes, and the presence of trees,hrubs, and areas of lawn could not be analyzed.

In addition, single measures were used in this study to calculateach of the predictor variables found to be significantly associ-ted with the student performance outcome measures. The studentxposure to nature variables represented either views to natureuring different student activities or corresponded to distinct ele-ents of the landscape area or school buildings. These variablesere, therefore, not combined. Further studies are needed thattilize additional methods to measure these variables to enhanceeasurement validity.

. Conclusions

High school dropout rates are a national concern and studentatisfaction with the high school experience has decreased sig-ificantly in recent years. The students who attend experiencemultitude of school-related stresses. Insights provided by the

esults of this study can aid school administrators and designersn building and renovating campus landscapes in ways that mayeduce student mental fatigue and stress levels, increase satisfac-ion with the school environment, and enhance overall studentcademic achievement and behavior.

The overall results are supported by the tenets of both thesycho-evolutionary and attention restoration theories. The abil-

ty to view nature from the cafeteria and classroom was found toe beneficial for student academic achievement and behavior.

Finally, this study’s findings have linked the benefits of greaterature contact not only to the current performance of students, butlso to their future college plans. Regardless of the socio-economicevel, racial/ethnic makeup, enrollment size, and age of the indooracilities of a school, high school students seem to benefit fromisual access to nearby nature during their school day. Current stu-ents attending such schools will benefit and the returns on theunds spent will continue throughout the lifetimes of both theseandscapes and the graduates themselves.

cknowledgements

This study was supported by funding from the University ofichigan’s Rackham Graduate School, administered by the School

f Natural Resources and Environment, the Department of Land-cape Architecture at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,s well as the USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station

Planning 97 (2010) 273–282 281

through the efforts of Lynne M. Westphal. The author also wishesto express deep gratitude for the assistance of many other indi-viduals and institutions. Rachel Kaplan contributed to the studyin many ways: in terms of conceptual ideas, interpretation of theresults, and help in publication revisions. Stephen Kaplan, WilliamC. Sullivan, and Raymond De Young provided valuable input indata interpretation and editing. Jason Duvall provided importantinsights concerning data analysis. In addition, the author wishesto thank the front office personnel of the 101 Michigan publichigh schools analyzed in this study for their cooperation and assis-tance.

References

Ainslie, R.C., Shafer, A., Reynolds, J., 1996. Mediators of adolescents’ stress in a collegepreparatory environment. Adolescence 31 (124), 913–924.

Berto, R., 2005. Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentionalcapacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (3), 249–259.

Chambel, M.J., Curral, L., 2005. Stress in academic life: work characteristics aspredictors of student well-being and performance. Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review 54 (1), 135–147.

Chow, H.P.H., 2007. Psychological well-being and scholastic achievement amonguniversity students in a Canadian prairie city. Social Psychology of Education10, 483–493.

Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D.,et al., 1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity. U.S. Department of Health,Education, and Welfare, Washington, DC.

Cotton, K., 1996. School Size, School Climate, and Student Performance. NorthwestRegional Educational Laboratory, Portland, OR.

Cotton, S.J., Dollard, M.F., de Jonge, J., 2002. Stress and student job design: satisfac-tion, well-being, and performance in university students. International Journalof Stress Management 9 (3), 147–162.

Curtis, S., Gesler, W., Fabian, K., Francis, S., Priebe, S., 2007. Therapeutic landscapes inhospital design: a qualitative assessment by staff and service users of the designof a new mental health inpatient unit. Environmental Planning C: Governmentand Policy 25, 591–610.

De Vries, S., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., Spreeuwenberg, P., 2003. Naturalenvironments–healthy environments? An exploratory analysis of the relation-ship between greenspace and health. Environment and Planning A 35 (10),1717–1731.

Dillon, S., 2009. Large urban–suburban gap seen in graduation rates. The New YorkTimes, A14.

Dyment, J.E., Bell, A.C., 2007. Active by design: promoting physical activity throughschool ground greening. Children’s Geographies 5 (4), 463–477.

Dyment, J.E., Bell, A.C., 2008. Grounds for movement: green school grounds as sitesfor promoting physical activity. Health Education Research 23 (6), 952–962.

Earthman, G.I., 2004. Prioritization of 31 Criteria for School Building Adequacy.American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.

Earthman, G.I., Lemasters, L., 1996. Review of research on the relationship betweenschool buildings, student achievement, and student behavior. In: Paper Pre-sented at the Council of Educational Facility Planners, International AnnualMeeting, Tarpon Springs, Florida, October 8.

Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F.E., 2009. Children with attention deficits concentrate betterafter walk in the park. Journal of Attention Disorders 12 (5), 402–409.

Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2001. Coping with ADD – the surprisingconnection to green play settings. Environment and Behavior 33 (1), 54–77.

Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2002. Views of nature and self-discipline:evidence from inner city children. Journal of Environmental Psychology 22 (1–2),49–63.

Fjørtoft, I., 2004. Landscape as playscape: the effects of natural environments onchildren’s play and motor development. Children, Youth and Environments 14(2), 21–44.

Fowler, W.J.J., Walberg, H.J., 1991. School size, characteristics, and outcomes. Edu-cational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 13 (2), 189–202.

Freeman, C.E., 2004. Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women: 2004, NCES2005-016. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statis-tics, Washington, DC.

Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, A., Öhrström, E., 2007. Noise and well-being in urban residentialenvironments: the potential role of perceived availability to nearby green areas.Landscape and Urban Planning 83 (2–3), 115–126.

Gottfredson, G.D., Gottfredson, D.C., Payne, A.A., Gottfredson, N.C., 2005. School cli-mate predictors of school disorder: results from a national study of delinquencyprevention in schools. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 42 (4),412–444.

Gujarati, D.N., 2003. Basic Econometrics, 4th edition. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,

New York.

Han, K.-T., 2009. Influence of limitedly visible leafy indoor plants on the psychology,behavior, and health of students at a junior high school in Taiwan. Environmentand Behavior 41 (5), 658–692.

Hanushek, E.A., 1997. Assessing the effects of school resources on student perfor-mance: an update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19 (2), 141–164.

2 Urba

H

H

H

H

H

H

J

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

K

L

L

M

M

M

M

MN

82 R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and

artig, T., Evans, G.W., Jamner, L.D., Davis, D.S., Gärling, T., 2003. Tracking restorationin natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23,109–123.

artig, T., Mang, M.M., Evans, G.W., 1991. Restorative effects of natural environmentexperiences. Environment and Behavior 23 (1), 3–26.

eerwagen, J.H., Wise, J.A., 1998. Green building benefits: differences in perceptionsand experiences across manufacturing shifts. Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning70 (February), 57–63.

errington, S., Studtmann, K., 1998. Landscape interventions: new directions for thedesign of children’s outdoor play environments. Landscape and Urban Planning42 (2–4), 191–205.

eschong Mahone Group, 2003a. Windows and Classrooms: A Study of StudentPerformance and the Indoor Environment. California Energy Commission, Sacra-mento, CA.

eschong Mahone Group, 2003b. Windows and Offices: A Study of Office WorkerPerformance and the Indoor Environment, Technical Report P500-03-082-A-9.California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA.

ackson, L.E., 2003. The relationship of urban design to human health and condition.Landscape and Urban Planning 64 (4), 191–200.

aiser Family Foundation, 2005. Survey of Teens in the Greater Washington, DCArea. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Menlo Park, CA.

aplan, R., 1993a. The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landscape andUrban Planning 26 (1–4), 193–201.

aplan, R., 2001. The nature of the view from home–psychological benefits. Envi-ronment and Behavior 33 (4), 507–542.

aplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY.

aplan, S., 1993b. The role of natural environment aesthetics in the restorative expe-rience. In: Gobster, P.H. (Ed.), Managing Urban and High-Use Recreation Settings,General Technical Report NC-163. Forest Service, USDA, St. Paul, MN, pp. 46–49.

aplan, S., 1995. The restorative benefits of nature – toward an integrative frame-work. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15 (3), 169–182.

earney, A.R., 2006. Residential development patterns and neighborhood satisfac-tion – impacts of density and nearby nature. Environment and Behavior 38 (1),112–139.

umar, R., O’Malley, P.M., Johnston, L.D., 2008. Association between physical envi-ronment of secondary schools and student problem behavior: a national study,2000–2003. Environment and Behavior 40 (4), 455–486.

uo, F.E., 2001. Coping with poverty – impacts of environment and attention in theinner city. Environment and Behavior 33 (1), 5–34.

uo, F.E., Faber Taylor, A., 2004. A potential natural treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: evidence from a national study. American Journalof Public Health 94 (9), 1580–1586.

uo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2001a. Environment and crime in the inner city – doesvegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior 33 (3), 343–367.

uo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2001b. Aggression and violence in the inner city – effectsof environment via mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior 33 (4), 543–571.

uo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., Coley, R.L., Brunson, L., 1998. Fertile ground for commu-nity: inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of CommunityPsychology 26 (6), 823–851.

eather, P., Pyrgas, M., Beale, D., Lawrence, C., 1998. Windows in the workplace: sun-light, view, and occupational stress. Environment and Behavior 30 (6), 739–762.

ee, S.-W., Ellis, C.D., Kweon, B.-S., Hong, S.-K., 2008. Relationship between land-scape structure and neighborhood satisfaction in urbanized areas. Landscapeand Urban Planning 85 (1), 60–70.

aas, J., Spreeuwenberg, P., Van Winsum-Westra, M., Verheij, R.A., de Vries, S.,Groenewegen, P.P., 2009. Is green space in the living environment associatedwith people’s feelings of social safety? Environment and Planning A 41 (7),1763–1777.

cGuffey, C.W., 1982. Facilities. In: Walberg, H.J. (Ed.), Improving Educational Stan-dards and Productivity: The Research Basis for Policy. McCutchan PublishingCorporation, Berkeley, CA, pp. 237–288.

ichigan Department of Education, 2006. School Assessment and Accountability,Retrieved May 21, 2006, from: http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-43092-00.html.

oore, E.O., 1981. A prison environment’s effect on health-care service demands.Journal of Environmental Systems 11 (1), 17–34.

undy, L., 2005. High anxiety. The Washington Post (October), W20.ational Research Council, 2006. Review and Assessment of the Health and Pro-

ductivity Benefits of Green Schools: An Interim Report (2006). The NationalAcademies Press, Washington, DC.

n Planning 97 (2010) 273–282

Ottosson, J., Grahn, P., 2005. A comparison of leisure time spent in a garden withleisure time spent indoors: on measures of restoration in residents in geriatriccare. Landscape Research 30 (1), 25–55.

Owens, P.E., 1997. Adolescence and the cultural landscape: public policy, designdecisions, and popular press reporting. Landscape and Urban Planning 39,153–166.

Ozdemir, A., Yilmaz, O., 2008. Assessment of outdoor school environments and phys-ical activity in Ankara’s primary schools. Journal of Environmental Psychology28 (3), 287–300.

Ramírez, E., 2009. Schools battle student stress with creative strategies.U.S. News & World Report (March), Retrieved August 22, 2009, from:http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2009/03/20/schools-battle-student-stress-with-creative-strategies.html.

Ready, D.D., Lee, V.E., Welner, K.G., 2004. Educational equity and school structure:school size, overcrowding, and schools-within-schools. Teaching College Record106 (10), 1989–2014.

Rouse, C.E., Barrow, L., 2006. U.S. elementary and secondary schools: equalizingopportunity or replicating the status quo? Future Children 16 (2), 99–123.

Rumberger, R.W., Palardy, G.J., 2005. Test scores, dropout rates, and transfer rates asalternative indicators of high school performance. American Education ResearchJournal 42 (1), 3–42.

Schneider, M., 2002. Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes? National Clear-inghouse for Educational Facilities, Washington, DC.

Schroeder, H.W., 1987. Environment, behavior, and design research on urban forests.In: Zube, E.H., Moore, G.T. (Eds.), Advances in Environment, Behavior, and Design,vol. 2. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 87–117.

Shin, W.S., 2007. The influence of forest view through a window on job satisfactionand job stress. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 22, 248–253.

Staats, H., Hartig, T., 2004. Alone or with a friend: a social contect for psychologicalrestoration and environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychol-ogy 24, 199–211.

Stuart, H., 2006. Psychosocial risk clustering in high school students. Social Psychi-atry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 41 (6), 498–507.

Sullivan, W.C., Kuo, F.E., DePooter, S.F., 2004. The fruit of urban nature: vital neigh-borhood spaces. Environment and Behavior 36 (5), 678–700.

Tennessen, C.M., Cimprich, B., 1995. Views to nature: effects on attention. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 15 (1), 77–85.

Tranter, P.J., Malone, K., 2004. Geographies of environmental learning: an explo-ration of children’s use of school grounds. Children’s Geographies 2 (1), 131–155.

Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kazmierczak, A., Niemela, J., et al.,2007. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infras-tructure: a literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning 81 (3), 167–178.

U.S. Department of Education, 2005. America’s High School Graduates: Results fromthe 2005 NAEP High School Transcript Study. U.S. Department of Education,Washington, DC.

Uline, C.L., 2000. Decent facilities and learning: Thirman A. Milner Elementary Schooland beyond. Teaching College Record 102 (2), 442–460.

Ulrich, R.S., 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery.Science 224 (4647), 420–421.

Ulrich, R.S., 1986. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape andUrban Planning 13, 29–44.

Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A., Zelson, M., 1991. Stressrecovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Envi-ronmental Psychology 11, 201–230.

Van den Berg, A.E., Koole, S.L.K., van der Wulp, N.Y., 2003. Environmental preferenceand restoration: (how) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology23, 135–146.

Wells, N.M., 2000. At home with nature – effects of “greenness” on children’s cog-nitive functioning. Environment and Behavior 32 (6), 775–795.

Wells, N.M., Evans, G.W., 2003. Nearby nature – a buffer of life stress among ruralchildren. Environment and Behavior 35 (3), 311–330.

Welsh, W.N., 2001. Effects of student and school factors on five measures of schooldisorder. Justice Quarterly 18 (4), 911–947.

Williams, D.T., 1990. The Dimensions of Education: Recent Research on SchoolSize. Clemson University, Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and PublicAffairs, Clemson, SC.

Rodney H. Matsuoka is currently a post doctoral research scientist in the Depart-ment of Landscape Architecture at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.His research explores the human needs and preferences that underlie successfullandscape designs. His current efforts focus on the psychological, social, and healthbenefits provided by contact with nature.