Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 273–282

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

Student performance and high school landscapes: Examining the links

Rodney H. Matsuoka ∗
University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: High school students today are experiencing unprecedented levels of school-related stress. At the same
Received 25 August 2009 time, a growing body of research has linked views of nature with restoration from mental fatigue and
Received in revised form 23 May 2010 stress reduction. How important are such views for students while they are at school? This study investi-
Accepted 25 June 2010
gated 101 public high schools in southeastern Michigan to examine the role played by the availability of
Available online 24 July 2010
nearby nature in student academic achievement and behavior. The analyses revealed consistent and sys-
tematically positive relationships between nature exposure and student performance. Specifically, views
Keywords:
with greater quantities of trees and shrubs from cafeteria as well as classroom windows are positively
Nature contact
Academic achievement
associated with standardized test scores, graduation rates, percentages of students planning to attend a
Classroom behavior four-year college, and fewer occurrences of criminal behavior. In addition, large expanses of landscape
Mental fatigue lacking natural features are negatively related to these same test scores and college plans. These fea-
Stress tureless landscapes included large areas of campus lawns, athletic fields, and parking lots. All analyses
High school students accounted for student socio-economic status and racial/ethnic makeup, building age, and size of school
enrollment.
© 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2000). Researchers have also hypothesized that such restoration

High school students have a great need for restorative and
stress-reducing environments, and this need may be growing.
School work loads and the competition that students face in the
college application process have increased to unprecedented lev-
els in recent years (Mundy, 2005; Ramírez, 2009; U.S. Department
of Education, 2005). Research dealing with life events has cited
school-related issues as the leading sources of stress for this age
group (Ainslie et al., 1996; Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005; Stuart,
2006). In addition, high school dropout rates in major urban areas
throughout the United States are high and student satisfaction
with the high school experience has decreased significantly (Dillon,
2009; Freeman, 2004).
At the same time, a growing body of research has linked views
of and access to nature with restoration from mental fatigue and
stress reduction. With regard to children and teenagers, this nature-
based restoration process has been associated with higher test
scores (Heschong Mahone Group, 2003a), better attention levels
among children suffering from attention-deficit hyperactivity dis-
order (Faber Taylor and Kuo, 2009; Faber Taylor et al., 2001; Kuo
and Faber Taylor, 2004), and greater cognitive functioning (Wells,
∗ Present address: University of Illinois, Department of Landscape Architecture,
101 Temple Buell Hall, MC-620, 611 Taft Drive, Champaign, IL 61820, USA.
Tel.: +1 734 709 0811.
E-mail address: rodney0520@yahoo.com.
should be positively linked with better behavior. For example, find-
ings have associated greater nature exposure with enhanced levels
of self-discipline in children (Faber Taylor et al., 2002). In addition,
both recovery from mental fatigue and stress were postulated to
explain the positive connections found between the presence of
indoor classroom plants and reductions in misbehaviors, feelings
of unfriendliness, and hours of sick leave of junior high school stu-
dents (Han, 2009). These cognitive, social, and behavior benefits
found among children and younger teenagers, then, should trans-
late into better overall high school student performance involving
academic performance, interest in staying in school, and classroom
behaviors.
How important is such contact with outdoor nature for high
students while they are at school? What features of the campus
landscape have the most affect on student academic achievement
and behavior? Surprisingly, there appears to be little information
to answer these questions, particularly with respect to high school
aged 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 high
schools.” In the context of elementary schools, the Heschong
Mahone Group (2003a) found that ample classroom window views
(i.e., 100 sq. ft. of window area or greater per classroom) that

0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.011
274 R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 273–282
included vegetation (i.e., primarily trees or shrubs) or human activ-
ity (e.g., playground, lunch area, parking lot), and objects in the
far distance were associated with higher scores on standardized
tests. Other studies in the grade school context have concen-
trated on playgrounds in preschool, kindergarten, and elementary
school. These studies have found positive connections between nat-
ural playscapes and enhanced physical activity (Dyment and Bell,
2007), motor development (Fjørtoft, 2004), creative play behav-
iors (Dyment and Bell, 2007; Herrington and Studtmann, 1998;
Tranter and Malone, 2004), environmental learning (Tranter and
Malone, 2004), and preference as compared to traditional play-
grounds (Ozdemir and Yilmaz, 2008).
1.1.2. Other settings
In the context of the present study, research in workplace set-
tings may be the most pertinent as high school students spend
many hours in school buildings. Studies have provided evidence
that views of nature out of an office or factory are associated
with increased employee productivity, enhanced feelings of job
and life satisfaction, greater psychological and physical well-being,
and reduced levels of frustration and stress (Heerwagen and Wise,
1998; Heschong Mahone Group, 2003b; Kaplan, 1993a; Leather et
al., 1998; Shin, 2007).
In addition, the psychological, social, and physical health bene-
fits of views of and access to nature for individuals have been shown
in residential settings (De Vries et al., 2003; Faber Taylor et al., 2002;
Gidlöf-Gunnarsson and Öhrström, 2007; Jackson, 2003; Kaplan,
2001; Kearney, 2006; Kuo, 2001; Kuo and Sullivan, 2001a,b; Kuo
et al., 1998; Lee et al., 2008; Maas et al., 2009; Sullivan et al., 2004;
Tzoulas et al., 2007; Wells, 2000; Wells and Evans, 2003) including
college dormitories (Tennessen and Cimprich, 1995), prisons (e.g.,
Moore, 1981), and homes for elderly people (Ottosson and Grahn,
2005), and also hospital settings (Curtis et al., 2007; Ulrich, 1984).
A growing body of research, therefore, suggests that views of and
experiences with nearby nature provide many benefits for individ-
uals while at work, at home, imprisoned, or hospitalized. In spite of
these studies, however, we know very little about how exposure to
nature affects a tremendously important population – high school
students – at a time in their development when their academic
performance will set them on a life-course.
1.2. Explanations for these nature benefits
Researchers have advanced varied explanations for the bene-
fits resulting from contact with nature. Two of the most widely
cited explanations are the attention restoration and the psycho-
evolutionary theories.
Attention restoration theory proposes that contact with nature
has the potential to restore an individual’s directed attention
capabilities. Directed attention fatigue, or mental fatigue, occurs
when the capacity to focus or concentrate is reduced by overuse.
An individual experiencing such fatigue not only may have a
decreased ability to concentrate, but also may become more irrita-
ble, distractible, impulsive, antisocial, accident prone, and stressed.
This theory proposes that four sequential stages, which represent
greater levels of restorativeness, are experienced during the pro-
cess of complete mental restoration. These include “clearing the
head” of miscellaneous thoughts, resting directed attention abil-
ities, dealing with unresolved concerns, and finally reflecting on
priorities, possibilities, values, actions, and goals. Reflection repre-
sents the final level of restorativeness, and “is the most demanding
of all in terms of both the quality of the environment and the
duration required” (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989, p. 197). Natural envi-
ronments possess qualities that are supportive of this restoration
process (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1993b, 1995).
In addition, attention restoration theory proposes that restora-
tive environments possess four important components, namely
being away, extent, fascination, and compatibility (Kaplan and
Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1995). In terms of this study, exposure
to greater levels of nature can provide students with enhanced
senses of both psychological distance from school (being away) and
immersion in conceptual surroundings of sufficient scope to sus-
tain exploration (extent). Such exposure can also provide additional
environmental 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 a
stress-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 visually
pleasant physical surrounding that reduces stress by producing
positive emotions, sustaining nontaxing attention, and restricting
negative thoughts. Neurophysiological arousal is returned to more
moderate levels, fostering an overall sense of well-being (Hartig et
al., 1991; Ulrich et al., 1991).
In summary, the attention restoration theory concentrates on
cognitive processes while the psycho-evolutionary theory focuses
on emotionally based mechanisms. Nevertheless, both theories
support the idea that nature functions well as a restorative and
stress-reducing environment (Hartig et al., 2003).
1.3. Study overview
In light of the limited prior research, this study is necessarily
exploratory. Many of the school indoor and outdoor characteris-
tics that were utilized to assess student exposure and access to
nature have not been investigated. In addition, this study will not
investigate the possible mechanisms explaining how such nature
contact improves student performance, but will utilize the expla-
nations posited by researchers in contexts largely other than school
settings.
The central proposition of this study is that increased exposure
to nature will be positively associated with student performance,
including both student academic achievement and behavior. This
proposition was tested with the following hypotheses:
1. Higher levels of nature in the views that students have from
the school buildings will be positively associated with student
performance.
2. Higher levels of nature as determined by objectively measured
campus landscape elements will be positively associated with
student 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 contact
with nature, calculated by investigating building features and
school 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 afforded
with regard to student performance. This interaction effect will
be positive with the effect of larger windows increasing across
nature levels, and the effect of higher nature levels increasing
across window size.
2. Method
2.1. High schools studied
The high schools studied consisted of 101 public schools
located in southeastern Michigan, USA (Fig. 1). The schools were
 R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 273–282
Fig. 1. The high schools studied were located in Lenawee, Livingston, Monroe, Oakland, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties, Michigan (highlighted in gray).
limited to one region to minimize differences in campus vege-
tation, layouts, and building designs, and school district policies
and climate. To obtain a more homogenous sample of students,
private high schools, public high schools offering alternative edu-
cational or magnet programs, and high schools that were combined
with elementary or middle schools were excluded from the
study.
Of the 137 schools originally contacted, thirty-six schools (26%)
were not included in the final database. Two schools were under-
going extensive renovations and the school districts of thirty-four
schools either denied permission or required an approval pro-
cess that was too lengthy to be completed during the time period
allotted for data collection. Fourteen of the excluded schools were
located in inner-cities, eight in other urban settings, eight in rural
areas, and six were urban-fringe schools.
Information about each facility was obtained from the principal,
vice-principal, or other front office personnel through interviews
and unscheduled drop-in questioning. Site visits were conducted
to inventory the landscape and building features of each school.
Additional data were obtained from the web sites of the Michigan
Department of Education and Information Technology, Standard
275
and Poor’s School Matters, Public School Review, United States
Geological Survey (USGS), and the GIS departments of Wayne and
Livingston counties, Michigan. All of the information collected was
for the 2004–2005 academic school year.
2.2. Constructs and measures
2.2.1. Student exposure to nature
The investigation into student exposure to nature at each school
involved three groups of measures. First, the views of nature that
that students had from the school buildings were rated. Second,
vegetation levels on the campuses were measured. Third, student
potential 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 separately
rated by the principal researcher, based on site visits to each cam-
pus. These two measures represent nature contact during different
student activities, were not significantly correlated, and were kept
as separate variables:
276 R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 273–282

Fig. 2. Examples of the level of naturalness in the view from each school’s primary cafeteria window.

• Cafeteria nature – the level of naturalness in the view from each Campus areas: Each campus was divided into the following three
school’s primary cafeteria window was rated on a 5-point scale. areas, and the respective acreage of these areas were calculated
The scale points were defined as follows, based on similar defi- from GIS data (see Fig. 3):
nitions used in a study by Tennessen and Cimprich (1995) (see
Fig. 2): • Athletic fields – football, soccer, and baseball fields, tennis courts,
0- “No view” consisted of cafeterias without any window to the and other outdoor sport facilities.
outdoors. • Parking lots – parking lots and roadways within school bound-
1- “All built” consisted of buildings, roads, and walkways without aries, including all areas of vegetation contained within or
any vegetation present. surrounded by these features and the school borders.
2- “Mostly built” indicated that the majority of what could be • Landscaped areas – the areas between the school buildings and
seen was built, but with natural elements such as a few trees athletic fields, parking lots, and school boundaries, and outdoor
and shrubs present, or that the majority of what could be seen courtyards totally surrounded by school buildings.
was athletic fields or large expanses of lawn devoid of trees
and shrubs.
3- “Mostly natural” included evidence of human presence such
as walkways, paved courtyards, and roads along with a mostly
natural setting.
4- “All natural” consisted of trees, shrubs, and forest remnants
without any evidence of human influence.
• Classroom nature – the level of naturalness in the views from
all of the regular classrooms at each school were rated using
the same 5-point scale as defined for the cafeteria nature, and
then averaged. Regular classrooms were defined as follows –
classrooms used for teaching such subjects as history, litera-
ture, math, social science, or physical science. Classrooms used
for shop (e.g., auto, wood, metal), and other specialized class-
rooms (e.g., planetarium, greenhouse) were excluded from the
calculations.

2.2.1.2. Vegetation levels on each campus (objective measures). The

amount of vegetation at each school was objectively measured with
the following campus areas and campus vegetation variables: Fig. 3. Campus boundaries and areas measured.
 R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 273–282
In an attempt to account for enrollment size, for each school
these three areas were divided by this school’s total number of stu-
dents. In this manner, athletic field, parking lot, and landscaped
areas on a per student basis were calculated.
Campus vegetation in the landscaped area: Site visits were con-
ducted to count the number of trees, measure the area covered
by shrubs and groundcover, and confirm the presence of lawns
depicted in GIS aerial photographs. Lawn area and landscape area
were calculated from GIS data. These three variables measured
unique aspects of the campus landscape and were kept as separate
variables (see Fig. 4).
• Tree density – the number of trees per acre of landscaped area.
• Shrubs per landscaped area – the percentage of the landscaped
area made up of shrubs and groundcover.
• Lawn per landscaped area – the percentage of the landscaped area
made up of mowed grass.
2.2.1.3. Student potential access to nature. The ability of students
to view or come into direct contact with nature on each campus
during the school day was measured with building window sizes
and school policies. The classroom and cafeteria windows were
measured by the principal researcher during site visits. These two
window measures represent potential access to nature during dif-
ferent student activities, were not significantly correlated, and were
kept 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 scale
reflecting the percentage of the primary outward facing wall that
consisted of a window where: 0 = no windows, 1 = 25%, 2 = 50%,
3 = 75%, 4 = 100%, and 5 = windows made up 100% of a greater than
one story tall primary outward facing wall. The total window area
of each school’s cafeteria was not used due to the tremendous
diversity of cafeteria room sizes and configurations as compared
to classrooms. The measure chosen was an attempt to avoid more
complicated 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 lunch
outdoors.
• Lunch time lengths – amount of time students are given to eat
lunch.
2.2.2. Student performance measures
Student performance was evaluated by looking at five aggregate
student academic achievement and behavior measures collected
and reported by each school to the Michigan Department of Educa-
tion. Academic achievement was measured in the following three
ways:
• Michigan merit award – the percentage of award winners based
on student performance on the Michigan Educational Assessment
Program (MEAP) test. All Michigan public high school students
were 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 that
they planned to attend a four-year college upon graduation.
Seventy-eight of the high schools studied polled their outgo-
277
ing seniors. None of the schools conducted follow-up surveys to
determine how many of their students actually attended college.
Behavior was measured with the following two variables:
• Student disorderly conduct – the relative frequencies of seven
types of student discipline problems were averaged, namely
student social tensions, bullying, verbal abuse of teachers, insub-
ordination, acts of disrespect for teachers, physical attacks or
fighting, and truancy.
• Student criminal activity – the occurrences of six types of student
criminal activities were averaged, namely physical violence, ille-
gal possession, vandalism, verbal assault, larceny, and minor in
possession.
2.2.3. Control variables: four important factors related to student
performance
Student socio-economic status, and family and racial/ethnic
background (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 strongly
related to student academic achievement and misbehaviors. Due to
their strong connection with student performance, these following
four aggregate factors for each school were accounted for in the
statistical analyses conducted in this study.
• School socio-economic status – student participation in free or
reduced lunch programs.
• Ethnicity – total percentage of all of the minority racial/ethnic
groups.
• 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. Linear
regression was used to determine the predictors of the three aca-
demic achievement measures. However, the occurrences of student
disorderly conduct and criminal activity were relatively rare and
did not meet the assumptions of the linear regression models. For
student 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 this
variable 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 Poisson
regression model provides better estimates (Gujarati, 2003).
3. Results
3.1. Relationships between student performance and the four
control variables
Consistent with previous research, three of the four control vari-
ables, namely school socio-economic status, ethnic/racial makeup
of the student body, and the age of the main school building, are
strongly related to the five student performance measures used in
this study (see Table 1). Given these significant relationships, the
four control variables were introduced into the regression analyses
278 R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 273–282

Fig. 4. Examples of schools with a high density of trees or high percentage of lawn in the landscaped area.

used to explore the associations between the possible predictors of
student performance and the five student academic achievement
and behavior outcome measures. No significant collinearity prob-
lems among these variables were observed in any of these analyses.
These four variables were kept in the model regardless of whether
they were significant predictors of a particular outcome variable.
3.2. Testing the central proposition
A series of regression analyses were conducted with the mea-
sures of student exposure to nature as predictor variables and the
five student performance indices as outcome variables. Predictors
from the three groups of student exposure to nature variables were
found to explain a significant portion of the variance for one or more
of the outcome variables. These predictors will be discussed indi-
vidually in terms of the four hypotheses utilized to investigate the
central proposition.
3.2.1. Hypothesis #1
Are 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 positively
associated with each of the three measures of student academic
achievement. These findings are the most significant discovery
of this study. For Michigan Merit Award recipients, graduation
rates, 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 correlated
with cafeteria window area (see Table 3), the latter variable not
being a significant predictor of student performance. Therefore,
the schools with greater quantities of natural features in their
cafeteria windows also provided their students with larger views
of these outdoor environments. In addition, the average length
of time given for students to eat lunch was 40.2 min (n = 98,
standard deviation = 7.45). Classroom nature, in contrast, was not

Table 1
Correlations among the four control variables and the five student performance measures.

School SES Ethnicity Building age Enrollment Michigan merit Graduation rate Four-year college Student disorderly
award plans conduct

School SES
Ethnicity −.73**
Building age −.39** .34**
Enrollment .20* .05 .02
Michigan merit award .83** −.63** −.35** .16
Graduation rates .78** −.76** −.34** .05 .72**
Four-year college plans .26* .12 −.08 .17 .50** .16
Student disorderly conduct −.43** .27** .05 −.07 −.39** −.40** −.32**
Student criminal activity −.29** .11 .12 −.00 −.34** −.28** −.37** .37**
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
 R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 273–282 279

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

Michigan merit award Graduation rates Four-year college plans Student disorderly Student criminal
conduct activity

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

Control variables
School SES 0.75 <.001 0.46 <.001 0.59 <.001 −0.01a <.001 −0.05a <.001
Ethnicity ns −0.41 <.001 0.32 <.01 ns −0.02a <.01
Building age ns ns −0.31 <.01 ns ns
Enrollment 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 <.05
Parking lot area per student ns ns −0.31 <.05 ns ns
Athletic fields ns ns −0.24 <.05 ns ns

Student potential access to nature

Classroom 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

Observations 98 96 76 98 97
a
Nonstandardized B values are reported for the Poisson and negative binomial generalized linear regression models.
b
Pseudo R-squared values are reported for the Poisson and negative binomial generalized linear regression models.

significantly associated with any of the student performance mea-
sures.
3.2.2. Hypothesis #2
Did the findings concerning the associations between the more
objective measures of campus landscape elements and student per-
formance support those of hypothesis #1. Yes, as Table 2 shows,
landscapes made up by mowed grass and parking lots are associ-
ated with poorer student performance, than landscapes composed
primarily of trees and shrubs. This agrees with the rating system
used to measure the level of naturalness in the views from the
school building. As discussed in the method section, to receive
the rating of 3, the view had to be “mostly natural,” in other
words dominated by trees, shrubs, and natural features other than
lawns. Views made up primarily of built elements or large expanses
of lawns without many trees or shrubs were given the lower
rating of 2 signifying a “mostly built” view. Higher percentages
of lawn are related with fewer students receiving the Michigan
Merit Award and planning to attend four-year colleges, and more
student criminal activity, explaining 1.8%, 2.6%, and 3.4% of the vari-
ance, respectively. In addition, greater parking area per student
levels and athletic field areas are negative predictors of four-
year college plans, accounting for 15.0% and 6.2% of the variance,
respectively. None of the other measures of campus vegetation
used in this study is significantly associated with student perfor-
mance.
3.2.3. Hypothesis #3
Is greater ability of students to view or come into contact with
nature, as measured by investigating building features and school
policy, positively related to student performance? Yes, as Table 2
reveals, larger classroom windows are positively associated with
three measures of student performance. Students at schools with
larger average classroom window areas plan to attend four-year
colleges at a higher rate as compared to schools with smaller win-
dow areas, and also commit fewer crimes while at school. For
four-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 area
and classroom nature and tree density in the landscaped areas (see
Table 3). Neither of these latter variables are significant predictors
of student performance. Nonetheless, the views from classrooms
with larger window area are more likely to include greater con-
centrations of trees and shrubs in the landscapes adjacent to the
classroom buildings.
3.2.4. Hypothesis #4
Do 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 of
this study did not support the expected relationships (e.g., through
mediation) involving classroom and cafeteria windows and their
corresponding views. No theoretical explanation can be provided

Table 3
Correlations among the subjective views of nature ratings, objective measures of campus vegetation in the landscaped area, and building window sizes.

Cafeteria nature Classroom nature Tree density Shrubs per landscaped Lawn per landscaped Classroom window
area area area

Cafeteria nature
Classroom nature .21*
Tree density .15 .02
Shrubs per landscaped area −.09* .22* .06
Lawn per landscaped area .02 .15 −.22* −.16
Classroom window area .04 .27** .27** .04 −.18
Cafeteria window area .68** .13 .18 −.11 −.07 .20
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
280 R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 273–282
for this finding. Perhaps the five aggregate student performance
outcome measures utilized in this study were not sensitive enough
to detect these interactions.
3.2.5. Confirmation of the central proposition
Results from the regression analyses, therefore, support the cen-
tral proposition and indicated that increased exposure to nature
during the school day is positively associated with student perfor-
mance. In fact, all three student academic achievement measures
and one measure of student behavior are significantly related to
one or more of the higher nature exposure predictors used (see
Table 2). For the three achievement measures and student crimi-
nal activity, the independent contributions of enhanced exposure
to nature variables are between 3.7% and 20.6% of the variance.
Thus, except for student disorderly conduct, the central proposition
that student academic achievement and behavior is associated with
student exposure to nature earns strong support. These effects are
significant while accounting for the influences of the four control
variables.
4. Discussion
This study contributes to our understanding of how the physical
environment, particularly natural features, can promote academic
performance in a high school setting. Analyses revealed consistent,
systematically positive relationships between student exposure to
nature during their lunch time and scores on standardized tests,
graduation rates, and plans to attend a four-year college. Further-
more, the study documented that not all forms of vegetation are
positively associated with school achievement and behavior. While
the presence of trees and shrubs has a positive connection, the
prevalence of lawn areas is negatively associated with standardized
test scores, four-year college plans, and criminal behavior. These
findings held while accounting for a variety of factors known to
influence academic performance.
4.1. The importance of lunch time
The most consistent results center on student exposure to more
natural landscapes during lunch time. School cafeteria window
views with higher vegetation content are positively associated
with all three measures of student academic achievement. The
importance of these views was unexpected since students spend
substantially more time in the classroom on a given school day.
Nonetheless, lunch time may be especially pertinent as it provides
students with a valuable break from the learning process. Students
can recover from mental fatigue and stress, and reflect on events
that occurred during the first portion of the school day.
While the results suggest that lunch time views play a stronger
role, the positive effects of viewing more vegetation are not limited
just to lunch time. Larger classroom window areas were related
with greater percentages of students planning to attend four-year
colleges and fewer occurrences of student criminal behaviors. In
addition, these larger windows were more likely to view higher
densities of trees and shrubs in the landscapes adjacent to the
school buildings.
These positive associations of contact with nature during lunch
time and from the classrooms with student performance support
the propositions of both the attention restoration and psycho-
evolutionary theories. The strong impact of the cafeteria context is,
perhaps, more thoroughly explained by the attention restoration
theory. This theory proposes that four sequential stages, repre-
senting greater levels of restorativeness, are experienced during
the process of complete mental restoration (Kaplan and Kaplan,
1989; Kaplan, 1995). Although the nature content of classroom
window views is important, students may not have adequate time
during class time. While in class, students are under a teacher’s
constant supervision and are busy concentrating on the lessons
being presented. Indeed, the reflection process may be equated
with daydreaming, a behavior that is definitely frowned upon by
most teachers.
An argument can be made that due to the social interactions
that occur among students during lunch time, mental restoration
may not be possible. For example, researchers have discovered that
“people find solitude more effective than company in regaining the
capacity for directed attention, provided that the safety that com-
pany may bring is guaranteed” (Staats and Hartig, 2004, p. 209). In
support of this study’s findings, though, one can contend that some
degree of mental restoration may be achieved in a short period of
time. The minimum amount of time needed has yet to be deter-
mined. However, studies have revealed that participants exposed
to photographs and videos of natural environments for six to seven
minutes attained some degree of restoration (Berto, 2005; Van den
Berg et al., 2003). In addition, a student who wishes to be alone may
be able to find a private place during lunch time away from his or
her peers. Such physical privacy would not be possible during class
time. Finally, researchers have found that children playing together
in 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 as
the underlying reason, but these findings are in agreement with the
tenets 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 with
student performance. In the context of school and work settings,
prior research has shown decreased performance and increased
frustration 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 here
document, however, the presence of a natural feature like mowed
grass is not sufficient. An explanation for these apparently contra-
dictory results is provided by linking the findings of studies in the
diverse fields of landscape preference, residential neighborhood
satisfaction, and student productivity.
Landscape preference research has consistently shown that
large, flat landscapes lacking trees and shrubs are often aestheti-
cally less preferred, as compared to other natural settings (Kaplan
and Kaplan, 1989; Schroeder, 1987; Ulrich, 1986). Studies have also
revealed that views of less preferred landscapes are associated with
lower 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 with
academic 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 settings
could be expected to be similar to their effects in other contexts.
Further research would help to test the appropriateness of this
explanation for the negative relationships that exist in this study
between views of campus landscapes lacking natural features and
student performance.
4.3. A link to a student’s future
The findings of this study revealed that student exposure to
nature measures were significantly associated with the future four-
year college plans of graduating seniors. Most prior research has
only examined the effects of the physical environment on more
immediate outcomes, such as standardized test scores and behav-
 R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 273–282
iors. This study’s results suggest that campus landscape features
can have connections with a student’s future academic and career
accomplishments.
4.4. Not just an aesthetic amenity
Finally, natural features of the campus landscapes explained
5.2% of the variance in the test scores required to be a recipient
of the Michigan Merit Award. This is comparable to the reported
3–6% of the variance in test scores explained by school build-
ing features in prior research (Earthman, 2004; National Research
Council, 2006). The often overlooked outdoor physical environment
of schools can perhaps have as much influence on student perfor-
mance as the more intensely examined indoor features. The campus
landscape should not be considered just an aesthetic amenity, but
as important as the school buildings themselves.
4.5. Limitations
Only the principal researcher was able to visit each of the high
school campuses studied. As a result, the reliability of the build-
ing view ratings, building window sizes, and the presence of trees,
shrubs, and areas of lawn could not be analyzed.
In addition, single measures were used in this study to calculate
each of the predictor variables found to be significantly associ-
ated with the student performance outcome measures. The student
exposure to nature variables represented either views to nature
during different student activities or corresponded to distinct ele-
ments of the landscape area or school buildings. These variables
were, therefore, not combined. Further studies are needed that
utilize additional methods to measure these variables to enhance
measurement validity.
5. Conclusions
High school dropout rates are a national concern and student
satisfaction with the high school experience has decreased sig-
nificantly in recent years. The students who attend experience
a multitude of school-related stresses. Insights provided by the
results of this study can aid school administrators and designers
in building and renovating campus landscapes in ways that may
reduce student mental fatigue and stress levels, increase satisfac-
tion with the school environment, and enhance overall student
academic achievement and behavior.
The overall results are supported by the tenets of both the
psycho-evolutionary and attention restoration theories. The abil-
ity to view nature from the cafeteria and classroom was found to
be beneficial for student academic achievement and behavior.
Finally, this study’s findings have linked the benefits of greater
nature contact not only to the current performance of students, but
also to their future college plans. Regardless of the socio-economic
level, racial/ethnic makeup, enrollment size, and age of the indoor
facilities of a school, high school students seem to benefit from
visual access to nearby nature during their school day. Current stu-
dents attending such schools will benefit and the returns on the
funds spent will continue throughout the lifetimes of both these
landscapes and the graduates themselves.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by funding from the University of
Michigan’s Rackham Graduate School, administered by the School
of Natural Resources and Environment, the Department of Land-
scape Architecture at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,
as well as the USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station
281
through the efforts of Lynne M. Westphal. The author also wishes
to express deep gratitude for the assistance of many other indi-
viduals and institutions. Rachel Kaplan contributed to the study
in many ways: in terms of conceptual ideas, interpretation of the
results, and help in publication revisions. Stephen Kaplan, William
C. Sullivan, and Raymond De Young provided valuable input in
data interpretation and editing. Jason Duvall provided important
insights concerning data analysis. In addition, the author wishes
to thank the front office personnel of the 101 Michigan public
high 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 college
preparatory environment. Adolescence 31 (124), 913–924.
Berto, R., 2005. Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional
capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (3), 249–259.
Chambel, M.J., Curral, L., 2005. Stress in academic life: work characteristics as
predictors of student well-being and performance. Applied Psychology: An
International Review 54 (1), 135–147.
Chow, H.P.H., 2007. Psychological well-being and scholastic achievement among
university students in a Canadian prairie city. Social Psychology of Education
10, 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. Northwest
Regional 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 Journal
of Stress Management 9 (3), 147–162.
Curtis, S., Gesler, W., Fabian, K., Francis, S., Priebe, S., 2007. Therapeutic landscapes in
hospital design: a qualitative assessment by staff and service users of the design
of a new mental health inpatient unit. Environmental Planning C: Government
and Policy 25, 591–610.
De Vries, S., Verheij, R.A., Groenewegen, P.P., Spreeuwenberg, P., 2003. Natural
environments–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 York
Times, A14.
Dyment, J.E., Bell, A.C., 2007. Active by design: promoting physical activity through
school ground greening. Children’s Geographies 5 (4), 463–477.
Dyment, J.E., Bell, A.C., 2008. Grounds for movement: green school grounds as sites
for 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 between
school buildings, student achievement, and student behavior. In: Paper Pre-
sented at the Council of Educational Facility Planners, International Annual
Meeting, Tarpon Springs, Florida, October 8.
Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F.E., 2009. Children with attention deficits concentrate better
after 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 surprising
connection 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 on
children’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, NCES
2005-016. 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 residential
environments: 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 delinquency
prevention 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. Environment
and 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.
282 R.H. Matsuoka / Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2010) 273–282
Hartig, T., Evans, G.W., Jamner, L.D., Davis, D.S., Gärling, T., 2003. Tracking restoration
in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23,
109–123.
Hartig, T., Mang, M.M., Evans, G.W., 1991. Restorative effects of natural environment
experiences. Environment and Behavior 23 (1), 3–26.
Heerwagen, J.H., Wise, J.A., 1998. Green building benefits: differences in perceptions
and experiences across manufacturing shifts. Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning
70 (February), 57–63.
Herrington, S., Studtmann, K., 1998. Landscape interventions: new directions for the
design of children’s outdoor play environments. Landscape and Urban Planning
42 (2–4), 191–205.
Heschong Mahone Group, 2003a. Windows and Classrooms: A Study of Student
Performance and the Indoor Environment. California Energy Commission, Sacra-
mento, CA.
Heschong Mahone Group, 2003b. Windows and Offices: A Study of Office Worker
Performance and the Indoor Environment, Technical Report P500-03-082-A-9.
California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA.
Jackson, L.E., 2003. The relationship of urban design to human health and condition.
Landscape and Urban Planning 64 (4), 191–200.
Kaiser Family Foundation, 2005. Survey of Teens in the Greater Washington, DC
Area. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, Menlo Park, CA.
Kaplan, R., 1993a. The role of nature in the context of the workplace. Landscape and
Urban Planning 26 (1–4), 193–201.
Kaplan, R., 2001. The nature of the view from home–psychological benefits. Envi-
ronment and Behavior 33 (4), 507–542.
Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, NY.
Kaplan, 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.
Kaplan, S., 1995. The restorative benefits of nature – toward an integrative frame-
work. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15 (3), 169–182.
Kearney, A.R., 2006. Residential development patterns and neighborhood satisfac-
tion – impacts of density and nearby nature. Environment and Behavior 38 (1),
112–139.
Kumar, 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.
Kuo, F.E., 2001. Coping with poverty – impacts of environment and attention in the
inner city. Environment and Behavior 33 (1), 5–34.
Kuo, F.E., Faber Taylor, A., 2004. A potential natural treatment for attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder: evidence from a national study. American Journal
of Public Health 94 (9), 1580–1586.
Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2001a. Environment and crime in the inner city – does
vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior 33 (3), 343–367.
Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., 2001b. Aggression and violence in the inner city – effects
of environment via mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior 33 (4), 543–
571.
Kuo, F.E., Sullivan, W.C., Coley, R.L., Brunson, L., 1998. Fertile ground for commu-
nity: inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal of Community
Psychology 26 (6), 823–851.
Leather, 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.
Lee, S.-W., Ellis, C.D., Kweon, B.-S., Hong, S.-K., 2008. Relationship between land-
scape structure and neighborhood satisfaction in urbanized areas. Landscape
and Urban Planning 85 (1), 60–70.
Maas, J., Spreeuwenberg, P., Van Winsum-Westra, M., Verheij, R.A., de Vries, S.,
Groenewegen, P.P., 2009. Is green space in the living environment associated
with people’s feelings of social safety? Environment and Planning A 41 (7),
1763–1777.
McGuffey, C.W., 1982. Facilities. In: Walberg, H.J. (Ed.), Improving Educational Stan-
dards and Productivity: The Research Basis for Policy. McCutchan Publishing
Corporation, Berkeley, CA, pp. 237–288.
Michigan 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.
Moore, E.O., 1981. A prison environment’s effect on health-care service demands.
Journal of Environmental Systems 11 (1), 17–34.
Mundy, L., 2005. High anxiety. The Washington Post (October), W20.
National Research Council, 2006. Review and Assessment of the Health and Pro-
ductivity Benefits of Green Schools: An Interim Report (2006). The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Ottosson, J., Grahn, P., 2005. A comparison of leisure time spent in a garden with
leisure time spent indoors: on measures of restoration in residents in geriatric
care. Landscape Research 30 (1), 25–55.
Owens, P.E., 1997. Adolescence and the cultural landscape: public policy, design
decisions, 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 Psychology
28 (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 Record
106 (10), 1989–2014.
Rouse, C.E., Barrow, L., 2006. U.S. elementary and secondary schools: equalizing
opportunity 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 as
alternative indicators of high school performance. American Education Research
Journal 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 satisfaction
and job stress. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 22, 248–253.
Staats, H., Hartig, T., 2004. Alone or with a friend: a social contect for psychological
restoration 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 of
Environmental 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., Kaźmierczak, 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 from
the 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 School
and 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 and
Urban Planning 13, 29–44.
Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A., Zelson, M., 1991. Stress
recovery 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 preference
and restoration: (how) are they related? Journal of Environmental Psychology
23, 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 rural
children. Environment and Behavior 35 (3), 311–330.
Welsh, W.N., 2001. Effects of student and school factors on five measures of school
disorder. Justice Quarterly 18 (4), 911–947.
Williams, D.T., 1990. The Dimensions of Education: Recent Research on School
Size. Clemson University, Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public
Affairs, 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 successful
landscape designs. His current efforts focus on the psychological, social, and health
benefits provided by contact with nature.