Did you know that in 2017, there were more than 3.8 million students enrolled in 9,444 (public, catholic and independent) primary and high schools across Australia?

Kids spend a lot of time in schools. Children who attend school from kindergarten to Year 12 spend 13 years inside classrooms and schoolyards. Then there’s the possibility of further study (and time) at university, college, TAFE and so on.

Our school years also coincide with a significant period of mental, emotional and physical development. Kids learn, make friends, make mistakes, develop skills and reach milestones. They go in as little children, become teenagers then surface again as adults. That’s a lot packed into 13 years. So how can we optimise the school environment so kids can get the most out of their time there?

I believe living infrastructure (sometimes called green infrastructure) can help. Living infrastructure – pot plants, green roofs, green walls and facades, gardens and trees – can be implemented in every school and education facility to the benefit of all students, teachers and staff. It can improve classroom air quality, provide biophilic relief to students and teachers, and stimulate learning and development. (It can also bring down the cost of HVAC and utilities – covered in more detail in my other blogs.)

I want to show you that living infrastructure isn’t just a luxury for wealthy schools in ‘well to do areas’ – it is an essential investment in our children, in their education and future. Living infrastructure is for every school and every child. It’s my hope that this blog will inspire you to push for plant integration in your kids’ schools because the benefits are significant and the costs – like project size – are scalable. No millionaires required.

Population growth and urban density – the challenges facing schools today
Urban populations are growing and we are building density into our cities to cope with population growth. Families and children are a natural part of this equation so of course inner city schools have to grow up (rather than out) in order to accommodate students. Even suburban schools have demountable, temporary classrooms on areas previously used for sport and recreation.

Space is at a premium these days and kids spend a long time learning, so it is critical that education facilities are optimised for academic achievement as well as mental, social and physical development. Living infrastructure can deliver this optimised environment.

I know money and space are hard to come by, especially for schools. The good news is living infrastructure is scalable and the benefits can be realised even with a tight budget and a small space.

Green wall

Images courtesy of Junglefy

A scalable solution
Living infrastructure is scalable for the smallest school to the largest university campus. It can be retrofitted in an existing school or integrated into initial blueprints. It can be a few potted plants in the classroom, or a multistorey exterior façade.

Importantly in an increasingly urbanised environment, living infrastructure can be applied both indoors and outdoors, horizontal and vertical. Think inner city schools with green roofs used as outdoor classrooms or play areas. Think lush green facades attracting biodiversity, teaching science students and breaking up the monotony of grey buildings. Think veggie patches to demonstrate biology, climate science and healthy eating principles. Think potted plants cleaning the air and inspiring wild student artworks.

Because living infrastructure doesn’t need to grow outwards, it is a solution that can be adapted to any school or education environment, and however it is designed, the benefits remain.

Enhanced learning and increased engagement
Research has shown that living infrastructure can enhance learning and promote academic achievement in school kids. More than a place to play at recess and lunch, green spaces, gardens and outdoor classrooms can be used for hands-on, experiential learning.

Integrating nature into school lessons can increase student engagement and their enthusiasm for learning. Research indicates that outdoor learning experiences can develop positive environmental attitudes, increase engagement and improve maths and science achievement in students.

Improved behaviour and focus
A number of studies have found that young children show improved behaviour when in natural play spaces (with trees, dirt, grass and shrubs). Kids demonstrated more cooperative play, civil behaviour and positive social relationships.  They were even seen to have more impulse control and less disruptive behaviour.

A space for essential childhood development
Living infrastructure and green spaces with trees and shrubs, rocks and logs, can support different types of play – from dramatic and exploratory play, to solitary, constructive and locomotor play.  It gives young kids the opportunity to run, jump, build, climb and crawl, while outdoor child-directed free play helps improve coordination, physical strength and social skills.

Promote social-emotional skill development
Living infrastructure can help kids develop and strengthen the cognitive and emotional processes that are important for learning. Interaction with and in nature can also help children develop essential social-emotional skills, improve self-esteem and confidence, setting them up to be happy, confident and resilient adults.

Observing student responses to three different green environments in Maryland and Colorado in the United States, one study found that ‘natural areas enabled students to escape stress, focus, build competence and form supportive social groups.

Cleaning indoor air and improving cognitive function
Pollutants and VOCs emitted from everyday objects indoors (like carpets, soft furnishings and electronics) can build to make us sick and impair cognitive function. Not ideal for a learning environment is it?

Well researchers from the University of Technology, Sydney found that living infrastructure (as simple as a few potted plants in the classroom) can remove CO2, VOCs and other pollutants from the air, significantly improving indoor air quality.

Other studies noted that people who work in well-ventilated offices with below-average levels of indoor pollutants and CO2 have significantly higher cognitive functioning scores (between 99-299% improvement) than those who work in offices with typical levels of indoor pollution.[3] It’s a finding repeated in Australian classrooms with improved student performance in spelling, maths, reading and science.

A window with a view of nature can foster academic success
Without even leaving the classroom, tests have shown that a window overlooking a green landscape can significantly improve ‘attentional functioning’ in high school students. The same view also helped the students recover more rapidly from stressful events.

Another US study found that high-schoolers with access to windows overlooking trees and shrubs have higher ‘standardised test scores, graduation rates, percentages of students planning to attend a four-year college, and fewer occurrences of criminal behaviour’.

Growing momentum – a call to action
Living infrastructure can provide the right environment for kids to grow, thrive, be healthy and happy. To use an old cliché – kids are the future. Lets sure up our investment in them with living infrastructure in every Australian school. The benefits I’ve listed above only scratch the surface. They are kid-focused. There are also community, economic and environmental benefits to be gained.

My previous blogs here unpack the benefits of living infrastructure in office, retail and hospitality projects – many of these also apply to schools so please have a read and lets do it for the kids.

Reference:

  1. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018.) 4221.0 – Schools, Australia, 2017. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Canberra. Updated 2 February 2018. Accessed 24 April 2018. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4221.0 Lamar & Jordan. (2016.) Green schoolyards for healthy communities: Building a national movement for green schoolyards in every community. Children & Nature Network.
  2. Rios & Brewer. (2014.) ‘Outdoor education and science achievement.’ Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 13(4), 234-240.
  3. Lieberman & Hoody. (1998.) ‘Executive Summary.’ Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning. Results of a nationwide study. State Education and Environment Roundtable. San Diego, United States. P.5
  4. Nedovic & Morrissey. (2013.) ‘Calm, active and focused: Children’s responses to an organic outdoor learning environment’. Learning Environments Research, 16(2), 281–295.
  5. Bell & Dyment. (2008.) ‘Grounds for health: The intersection of green school grounds and health-promoting schools’. Environmental Education Research, 14(1), 77-90.
  6. Faber Taylor, Kuo and Sullivan. (2002.) ‘Views of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children.’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 49-63.
  7. Ruiz-Gollardo, Verde and Valdés. (2013.) ‘Garden-based learning: An experience with “at risk” secondary education students.’ Journal of Environmental Education, 44(4), 252-270.
  8. Bell & Dyment. (2008.) ‘Grounds for health: The intersection of green school grounds and health-promoting schools’. Environmental Education Research, 14(1), 77-90.
  9. Drown. (2014.) ‘Dramatic Play Affordances of Natural and Manufactured Outdoor Settings for Preschool-Aged Children.’ All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 2185. Utah State University. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/2185
  10. Bell & Dyment. (2008.) ‘Grounds for health: The intersection of green school grounds and health-promoting schools’. Environmental Education Research, 14(1), 77-90.
  11. Lamar & Jordan. (2016.) Green schoolyards for healthy communities: Building a national movement for green schoolyards in every community. Children & Nature Network.
  12. Bell & Dyment. (2008.) ‘Grounds for health: The intersection of green school grounds and health-promoting schools’. Environmental Education Research, 14(1), 77-90.
  13. Bell. (2007.) Natural thinking: Investigating the links between the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and Mental Health.  Report for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. United Kingdom. 11.
  14. Lamar & Jordan. (2016.) Green schoolyards for healthy communities: Building a national movement for green schoolyards in every community. Children & Nature Network.
  15. Department of Health. (2017.) ‘Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour’, Nutrition and Physical Activity. Australian Government. Last updated 21 November 201. Accessed 18 April 2018. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/phy-activity
  16. World Health Organisation. (2011.) Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health: 5-17 years old.
  17. Chawla et al. (2014.) ‘Green schoolyards as havens from stress and resources for resilience in childhood and adolescence’. Health and Place, 28, 1–13.
  18. Allen,J. G., MacNaughton, P., Satish, U., Santanam, S.,  Vallarino, J., Spengler, J.D. (2015.) ‘Green buildings and cognitive function’, Environmental Health Perspectives. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Center for Health and the Global Environment.
  19. Tarran, J., Torpy, F., Burchett, M. (2007.) Use of living pot-plants to cleanse indoor air – research review. Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
  20. Torpy, F. (2013.) Sick building syndrome: how indoor plants can help clear the air, University of Technology Sydney.
  21. Allen,J. G., MacNaughton, P., Satish, U., Santanam, S.,  Vallarino, J., Spengler, J.D. (2015.) ‘Green buildings and cognitive function’, Environmental Health Perspectives. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Center for Health and the Global Environment.
  22. Daly, J., Burchett, M., Torpy, F. (2010.) Plants in the classroom can improve student performance. Faculty of Science, University of Technology, Sydney.
  23. Li & Sullivan. (2016.) ‘Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, 149-158.
  24. Matsuoka. (2010.) ‘Student performance and high school landscapes: Examining the links’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(4), 273–282.