|
 A new
University of Illinois study suggests an unexpected but potentially
potent remedy: trees.
“Hundreds of studies show a positive link between contact with
nature and learning outcomes, but the studies on nature near schools
focus on young children or older learners. We wanted to make sure
the same pattern was true in this vulnerable and overlooked
population,” says Ming Kuo, associate professor in the Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences at Illinois.
It was. Even after taking a whopping 17 variables into account
including student demographics, school resources, and neighborhood
characteristics, Kuo and her co-authors found that the more tree
cover around a school, the better its standardized test scores in
both math and reading. The study included 450 middle schools and
nearly 50,000 students in urban, suburban, and rural communities in
Washington State.
But why would trees boost test scores? Kuo’s previous work points to
a cause-and-effect relationship between nature and learning, with
more exposure to nature resulting in improved concentration, greater
classroom engagement, and less disruptive behavior. No surprise,
then, that greener schools perform better.
Samantha Klein, a master’s student who worked with Kuo on the study,
made a point to compare different kinds of vegetation at different
distances from schools.
“We wanted to offer concrete guidance to landscape architects,
principals, and school boards interested in putting the
greenness–achievement link to work, giving them clues as to what
should be planted, and where,” Klein says.
Kuo, Klein, and their team were able to differentiate tree cover
from grass and shrubs using satellite imagery. “From a practical
standpoint, trees cost more to install than grass. So if school
districts could get away with just putting grass everywhere, that
would be really helpful to know,” Klein explains.
Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case. Trees were far and away more
impactful for test scores than other types of vegetation. Still, Kuo
emphasizes that compared with other school resource investments
planting trees around a schoolyard is still an incredibly cheap and
effective intervention. But it could take a sea change before school
districts accept school greening when other demands seem so much
more pressing.
“I think
school boards have always been faced with distributing very limited
funds, especially in the poorest areas. They might think that, with
all the other pressing needs for funding, school landscaping is the
least of their concerns. Little do they suspect that a treeless
schoolyard may actually be contributing to poor school performance,”
Kuo says.
[to top of second column] |
The satellite images also helped Kuo’s team pinpoint where tree
cover mattered most. They compared the importance of greenness in different
buffer zones around schools, within 250 meters (around two blocks) and 1000
meters. It turned out trees closer to the schools made all the difference, even
when controlling for greenness at farther distances. In other words, even if the
larger neighborhood was leafy, students were no better off if the schoolyard
wasn’t.
These findings extend previous discoveries in Chicago public schools. Kuo’s work
there showed the importance of tree cover near schools in low-income urban
districts. But since her current study includes 450 schools across a wide
spectrum of populations, she’s confident her results apply more broadly.
“One of the nice things about this study is not only the sheer number of schools
and students we’re looking at, but the huge range in Washington State. We’ve
captured everything from extremely urban to totally rural areas; rich schools
and poor schools; schools with predominately white, Hispanic, Black, or American
Indian student bodies; and every level of greenness represented within each of
those samples,” Kuo says. “The fact that the greenness-achievement link is true
here is encouraging to me. It gives us some confidence that our recommendations
apply to a whole variety of schools.”
How does all this apply against the backdrop of remote learning during the
COVID-19 pandemic? School greenness won’t make much of a difference if kids
aren’t leaving the house. But whether they are physically in school or not, Kuo
thinks contact with nature could be critical right now.
“I think the need for trees is more acute at this time. One of the big benefits
of greenery, and one of the reasons we think it affects academic achievement, is
it's a really potent stress reliever. Kids are aware that things are weird and
that a lot of adults are kind of freaked out. And so having access to nature
might be even more important than usual.”
The article, “Greening for academic achievement: Prioritizing what to plant and
where,” is published in Landscape and Urban Planning [DOI:
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103962]. Authors include Ming Kuo, Samantha Klein,
Matthew H.E.M. Browning, and Jaime Zaplatosch. Support for this research was
provided by a USDA NIFA McIntire-Stennis capacity grant (ILLU-875-972).
The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences is in the College
of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
[Source: Ming Kuo,
News writer: Lauren Quinn] |
