Research

Research

Peer-reviewed research2017–2026 update

Risky Outdoor Play and Adventure Education in Nature for Child and Adolescent Wellbeing: A Scoping Review

Gray, T., Down, M. J. A., Mann, J., Barnes, J., Sturges, M., Eager, D. et al.Behavioral Sciences19 December 2025International

All 40 studies in this scoping review linked nature-based risky play and adventure education with positive development, but parental anxiety and liability concerns still limit practice.

What's new

This scoping review followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines and synthesised 40 empirical studies (2015–2025), drawn from 5,218 references and conducted mostly in Western nations. It took a benefit-risk approach in which safety is 'as safe as necessary'. All studies reported positive associations across several developmental areas. Themes included resilience and confidence, wellbeing, physical skills, autonomy and agency, nature connectedness, quality play provision and educator influence. Authentic child agency and autonomy were key ways the benefits came about, and barriers included parental anxiety, institutional liability concerns and cultural risk aversion.

Why it matters in Aotearoa

The review's benefit-risk framing is relevant to schools and providers in Aotearoa balancing safety with the developmental value of challenge in EOTC. It also names the attitudes and system barriers that leaders and boards may need to address.

Putting it into practice

Use a benefit-risk assessment for adventurous activities that records the developmental benefits alongside the hazards, and share it with parents to address their concerns.

How strong is the evidence

This is a scoping review of studies that reported positive associations. The studies used varied methods, mostly came from Western nations, and the authors call for longitudinal and cross-cultural research.

What to read

The eight themes and the section on implementation barriers.

Who it's for

TeachersEOTC coordinatorsPrincipals and boardsOutdoor providersSector leadersResearchers
Read the original at doi.org. This summary is a guide: cite the original.Go to the source →