Peer-reviewed article
Physical Environments and Child Well-Being in Early Childhood Education: Current Evidence and Research Gaps
Laura Fornons Casol, Isabel del Arco, Anabel Ramos ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001This systematic review examined how physical environments in early childhood education settings affect child well-being. The researchers analysed 18 studies covering outdoor spaces, indoor layout, and environmental quality. The evidence shows that better-designed spaces with diverse materials and resources support children's play, interaction, activity levels, and emotional regulation. However, the overall quality of evidence remains moderate to low, and studies rarely measured direct effects on child well-being outcomes.
Key points
- Four main ways physical environments support child well-being: expanding participation through diverse areas, shaping interaction through resource distribution, supporting sensory regulation, and maintaining environmental health
- Better physical environments were associated with improved indicators of activity, play, interaction, involvement and regulation
- Most indoor environmental quality studies measured indirect indicators (comfort, exposure, habitability) rather than direct child well-being outcomes
- Methodological limitations across studies include confounding bias, selection bias, and imprecise measurement of environmental exposure
- Stronger evidence requires more robust study designs, reproducible exposure metrics, and comparable outcome measures across studies
Limitations
This is a systematic review of existing literature rather than original research, so it is limited by the quality and scope of the studies it examined. The review cannot establish causal effects on child well-being from physical environments alone, as most included studies had methodological limitations including selection bias and confounding.
Abstract
Healthy, inclusive, and environmentally supportive educational settings are increasingly recognised as relevant to children’s development, well-being, and equity. However, evidence on the physical environment in early childhood education remains fragmented across outdoor spaces, indoor spatial organisation, indoor environmental quality, materials, and contaminant-related conditions. This systematic review aimed to synthesise current evidence on the relationship between the physical environment of early childhood educational settings and multidimensional indicators of child well-being. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, and the review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches were conducted in Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, ERIC, and APA PsycInfo. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using ROBINS-I and JBI critical appraisal tools. Eighteen studies were included. Of these, 10 focused on outdoor spaces and schoolyards, five on indoor spaces and spatial organisation, and three on indoor environmental quality, materials, or contaminants. The findings suggest four main interpretive patterns: (i) expanding opportunities for participation through functionally diverse areas and materials; (ii) shaping coexistence and interaction through access to and distribution of resources; (iii) supporting sensory regulation; and (iv) sustaining environmental health and habitability. Overall, more favourable settings were associated with better indicators of activity and play, interaction and coexistence, and involvement and regulation. For indoor environmental quality studies, however, the evidence was mainly indirect, referring to environmental-health, comfort, exposure, or habitability indicators rather than direct child-level well-being outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was moderate to low due to methodological limitations, particularly confounding and selection bias in non-randomised intervention studies and imprecision in the measurement of environmental exposure in several cross-sectional studies. The findings may inform cautious reflection on spatial design, educational practice, and policy, but stronger recommendations require more robust study designs, reproducible exposure metrics, clearer distinction between direct and indirect well-being-related indicators, and comparable outcome measures.