Next Article in Journal
Public Perceptions of Circular Economy in Latvia: Insights for Municipal Governance
Previous Article in Journal
Culinary Knowledge and Sustainability: Chef-Led Food Waste Management in Serbia’s Hospitality Sector
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 18
10.3390/su17188495
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Integrating Child-Friendly Green Spaces into Post-Disaster Recovery: Psychological, Physical, and Educational Sustainability Impact on Children’s Well-Being

by
Dewi Rezalini Anwar
1,2,* and
Gehan Selim
1
1
Architecture and Urbanism Research Group, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
2
Landscape Architecture Department, IPB University, Bogor 16680, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(18), 8495; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188495
Submission received: 26 June 2025 / Revised: 10 September 2025 / Accepted: 13 September 2025 / Published: 22 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Environmental Sustainability and Applications)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study reviews the role of Child-Friendly Green Spaces (CFGS) in supporting children’s psychological, physical, and educational recovery following natural disasters. The main research question guiding this review is the following: how do CFGS contribute to holistic child well-being and resilience in disaster-affected contexts, and what barriers and strategies influence their effective integration into recovery frameworks? Employing a rigorous literature review methodology, we synthesized interdisciplinary evidence from environmental psychology, urban planning, public health, and education, encompassing studies published between 2000 and 2024. Findings demonstrate that CFGS significantly reduce trauma-related symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress, promotes physical health through active play, and foster educational engagement by improving concentration, attendance, and informal learning opportunities. Furthermore, CFGS contribute directly to multiple Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). Despite these advantages, CFGS are often overlooked in formal disaster recovery planning due to prioritization of immediate relief, financial and logistical challenges, and socio-cultural factors. To address these challenges, this study proposes a participatory, culturally sensitive framework for CFGS implementation, which integrates inclusive design, multi-sector collaboration, and ongoing monitoring and evaluation. Grounded in theoretical perspectives such as the Biophilia Hypothesis, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, and restorative environments, CFGS are reframed as critical infrastructures for children’s holistic recovery and resilience. The findings underscore the urgent need to embed CFGS within disaster recovery and urban planning policies to promote child-centered, sustainable community development.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Communities are severely impacted by natural catastrophes, with children particularly vulnerable due to their developmental stage [1,2]. Long-term hazards affect their physical health, psychological well-being, and educational attainment, underscoring the need for comprehensive, sustainable recovery plans [3]. Child-Friendly Green Spaces (CFGS) are becoming more widely acknowledged as useful but underutilized resources for recovery after a disaster. These multifunctional outdoor environments are thoughtfully designed to support children’s developmental needs by providing accessible, inclusive, and nature-based settings that foster play, learning, and social interaction [4,5]. Grounded in the Biophilia Hypothesis and Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, CFGS foster children’s resilience by providing restorative settings that support emotional healing, social interaction, and cognitive development [6,7,8]. Empirical evidence shows that access to CFGS reduces trauma-related symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder [9,10], while promoting physical activity essential for recovery [11,12]. Furthermore, CFGS enhance educational outcomes by improving concentration, school attendance, and informal learning opportunities [13,14].
Despite these benefits, CFGS are often marginalized in disaster recovery planning due to competing priorities, financial constraints, and socio-cultural barriers [15,16]. Building on these insights, we set up the primary research question guiding this study as follows: How do Child-Friendly Green Spaces support the multidimensional recovery of children affected by natural disasters? The objective is to synthesize interdisciplinary literature to elucidate the psychological, physical, and educational roles of CFGS in post-disaster recovery, identify barriers to their integration, and propose a participatory, culturally sensitive framework for sustainable implementation. This aligns with Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), underscoring CFGS as vital infrastructures for resilient, child-centered communities [17,18].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

We conducted a literature review to investigate the multifaceted role of CFGS in supporting children’s recovery after natural disasters. This rigorous approach was selected for its capacity to synthesize interdisciplinary evidence from environmental psychology, urban planning, public health, and educational resilience, providing a comprehensive understanding of how CFGS address children’s psychological, physical, and educational needs in disaster contexts [19,20,21]. The review was guided by predefined criteria, focusing on indicators such as mental health outcomes, access to educational resources, and social support networks [22]. The effectiveness of CFGS was evaluated using established criteria, including psychological well-being, health outcomes, and educational engagement [23], with key themes identified through thematic analysis [24]. Literature searches were conducted across Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar using a broad set of keywords such as “child-friendly green spaces,” “disaster recovery,” and “psychosocial support.” Articles published between 2000 and 2024 were included, resulting in 819 identified articles. From these articles, the manual screening process was conducted to refine a final database for extraction. The selection process is illustrated in Figure 1.

2.2. Data Analysis and Synthesis

The data analysis for this review applied thematic analysis, a qualitative method well-suited for synthesizing interdisciplinary findings from environmental psychology, urban planning, public health, and education [25,26]. This approach enabled the identification of recurring patterns and key themes related to the psychological, physical, and educational benefits of Child-Friendly Green Spaces (CFGS) in post-disaster recovery contexts. Thematic analysis involved familiarization with the data set, initial coding, theme development, and synthesis. Articles were categorized according to vulnerability dimensions—psychological, physical, and educational—to ensure systematic integration and comprehensive coverage. From an initial pool of 75 full-text articles identified across major databases—Scopus (24), Web of Science (30), PubMed (11), and Google Scholar (10)—42 met the eligibility criteria for thematic analysis. After quality appraisal and thematic relevance assessment, 25 articles were included in the final synthesis, ensuring both breadth and depth of evidence [27,28]. The synthesis revealed interconnected benefits of CFGS, highlighting their role in fostering emotional stability, promoting physical health, and facilitating educational engagement among children affected by disasters. The synthesis incorporated the analysis of design features that influence user engagements, including accessibility, sensory affordances, and multifunctionality, as well as barriers to CFGS, thereby integrating policy gaps, financial constraints, and socio-cultural challenges, which must be addressed to optimize recovery outcomes [15,16,27,29]. The data analysis and synthesis are visually represented in Figure 2.

3. Results

3.1. Definitions and Characteristics

CFGS are outdoor spaces designed to meet children’s developmental needs by providing safe, accessible, and stimulating natural settings [4,5]. These areas remain beyond basic green spaces by incorporating various components that encourage play, learning, and social interaction, while remaining culturally sensitive and adapted to the local environment [18,30]. CFGS includes parks, playgrounds, gardens, and natural reserves, which are all designed to support children’s growth mentally, physically, emotionally, and socially [31].
The reviews emphasized how important it is to incorporate significant contributions by Hussein and Din et al., which offer a lot of sensory and healing stimulation that helps children learn and interact with others, especially those with special needs [27,28]. The gardens use sound, touch, scent, and sight to foster involvement, communication, and better behaviors. This shows how CFGS can be used for therapy and education. Accessibility is a key component of CFGS; it ensures that everybody can safely and easily access the site. Another important feature is multifunctionality, indicating that there are both structured and unstructured play areas for children of all ages and abilities [5,16]. Emotional connection is critically important. CFGS gives children a sense of belonging, comfort, and safety, which is particularly significant for children who are recovering from trauma [10,32].
Safety issues require that children with disabilities can utilize the design, which lowers risks while promoting exploration [33,34]. Children’s senses and brains grow when they are around natural things like different plants, water features, and animals. When the community helps design and take care of CFGS, it builds ownership, relevance, and sustainability, making sure that these spaces really meet the needs of children and families. Based on the review, the characteristics of Child-Friendly Green Spaces (CFGS) are explained in Table 1.

3.2. Theoretical Foundations and Practical Outcome

The framework integrates four key theories: the Biophilia Hypothesis, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, the concept of Restorative Environments, and Healing Environments with Multi-sensory stimulation. The Biophilia Hypothesis posits that humans have an innate affinity for nature, which enhances psychological well-being, resilience, and recovery [7,27,39]. Empirical studies demonstrate that children’s interaction with natural environments reduces anxiety and stress, fostering improved coping skills essential for trauma recovery [6]. This intrinsic connection to nature supports emotional regulation and promotes mental health benefits critical in post-disaster healing. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory emphasizes the importance of stable and supportive microsystems in child development [8]. CFGS serve as these nurturing microsystems by providing safe, engaging spaces that foster emotional and social growth [40]. These environments enable children to rebuild disrupted social ties and regain a sense of normalcy, which is vital for their overall recovery and well-being.
The Restorative Environment concept enriches this framework by highlighting the role of nature-inclusive spaces in facilitating cognitive and emotional restoration through a three-stage model: containment, passive restoration, and active restoration [16,37,41]. CFGS offer a balance of quiet reflection areas and active play zones, catering to diverse recovery needs and promoting holistic healing processes. Furthermore, healing Environments focus on enhancing engagement, social interaction, and emotional well-being, particularly for children with special needs [27,29,35,38]. These environments incorporate varied sensory stimuli that support children’s educational, physical, and psychological development, addressing vulnerabilities comprehensively [1]. Together, these theoretical foundations inform the sustainable design and implementation of CFGS, resulting in practical outcomes that include immediate psychological recovery, long-term well-being, community involvement, and the promotion of resilience.
CFGS are characterized by accessibility, multifunctionality, emotional connection, and safety, integrating natural elements such as plants, water features, and biodiversity to foster children’s affinity for nature while ensuring secure environments [5,18,30,33,34,36,37]. CFGS address children’s multidimensional vulnerabilities in the post-disaster context by providing inclusive, nature-based environments that support physical activity, social interaction, cognitive development, and emotional healing. Additionally, it addresses the historical invisibility of children in urban design by centering their needs and perspectives, reshaping urban dynamics toward equity and inclusivity. Participatory approaches involving children enhance the relevance and sustainability of these spaces [16,18]. This holistic approach ensures that CFGS function not merely as recreational areas but as vital infrastructures that nurture children’s recovery and resilience sustainably. The conceptual framework integrating these theoretical foundations with practical outcomes is visually presented in Figure 3, underscoring the synergy between innate human-nature connections, ecological support, restorative experiences, and healing environment to highlight their role in addressing children’s vulnerabilities and fostering holistic recovery after disasters.

3.3. The Role of Play and Landscape in Post-Disaster Recovery

Play and landscape design are highly important for helping children recover after disasters. Play is essential for children’s healing after disaster, enabling trauma processing, social reconnection, and return to normal routines [42,43]. Child-Friendly Green Spaces (CFGS) that include play areas create safe [44], fun places that support children build emotional strength, make friends, and learn new things [4,5]. Studies emphasize the importance of unstructured outdoor play in natural settings for reducing stress and rebuilding confidence [45,46]. Children can learn to be independent, confident, and control their emotions in secure places like playgrounds and natural play areas [44,47]. For instance, the playgrounds in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina served dual roles as play spaces and community hubs, facilitating collective healing and social cohesion [9,30]. Similarly, UNICEF’s child-friendly spaces following the 2010 Haiti earthquake provided structured and unstructured play opportunities that supported children’s emotional and educational recovery [48].
Integrating natural elements like gardens, trees, and water features to play areas makes them more healing by making them more relaxing and lowering tension and anxiety [27,31,41]. Healing gardens and multi-sensory play places with lots of things to touch, hear, and see are great for children with special needs because they help with sensory engagement, social connection, and learning [28,29,35,38]. These settings promote exploration, creativity, and socializing with peers, all of which are important for emotional intelligence and cognitive recovery [40,49,50].
Nature-based play areas are good for both mental and physical health. They encourage vigorous play, which is good for your heart, muscles, and general health [12,51]. Studies show that children with regular access to green play spaces exhibit lower obesity risk and better physical health outcomes, contributing to sustained well-being [52,53]. Children’s social, critical thinking, and problem-solving abilities are all enhanced when they play freely in natural settings, and these abilities are crucial for a full recovery following a disaster [40,50]. CFGS are places that help people heal by giving them both passive restorations, like calm reflection and connection with nature, and active restorations, like play and social interaction [6,41]. These two restorative activities meet a variety of healing requirements, giving children safe places to deal with trauma and become stronger.
Play landscapes should be designed with cultural sensitivity and participation in mind, so that children and communities may be included in the process and feel like they own it [16,54]. This method helps communities stay together and thrive. For example, the successful rehabilitation of City Park in New Orleans, where play areas that included nature helped both individuals and the city heal [15,55]. Play and landscape architecture are essential for children’s post-disaster recovery, supporting emotional healing, physical health, cognitive development, and social cohesion. In the future, disaster recovery planning should put a high priority on including nature-based play areas since they are very important for helping children who have been through a disaster become more resilient and healthier.

3.4. Green Space for Children’s Recovery Post-Natural Disaster

Child-Friendly Green Spaces (CFGS) serve as vital recovery environments that holistically support children’s psychological, physical, and educational well-being following natural disasters. The literature affirms that CFGS extends beyond recreational functions, providing therapeutic, developmental, and resilience-building benefits essential for sustainable recovery [7,30,41,56].
  • Psychological Impact
Access to CFGS significantly mitigates trauma-related psychological distress in children exposed to disasters. Studies consistently report reductions in anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress symptoms among children engaging with natural environments [9,10,52]. Nature-based settings provide restorative experiences that foster emotional stability, stress reduction, and a sense of safety and normalcy critical for trauma recovery [34,57,58,59]. Structured and unstructured play within CFGS further facilitates trauma processing, happiness, and social support, reinforcing emotional resilience [10,54]. Healing environments designed with therapeutic elements—such as safe spaces, personal control, and natural stimuli—enhance recovery outcomes [27,31]. Sensory gardens and multi-sensory play areas, especially for children with special needs, provide critical stimuli that support emotional and cognitive healing [28,29,35,38]. These spaces contribute to social interaction, emotional expression, and behavioral improvements, underscoring the importance of inclusive, sensory-rich design in recovery contexts.
2.
Physical Health Benefits
CFGS encourages physical activity, which is indispensable for children’s physical recovery and overall health post-disaster. Outdoor play in green spaces improves cardiovascular fitness, muscle strength, and mood, helping counteract the physical and psychological toll of trauma [11,60,61,62]. Empirical evidence reveals that children with regular access to CFGS exhibit better attention, reduced obesity risk, and healthier habits [52,53,63,64]. Nature exposure also promotes healthy lifestyle development, encouraging active play and social engagement that contribute to long-term well-being [12,51]. The physical affordances of CFGS, including accessible pathways and varied natural features, support mobility and sustained engagement, particularly for children with disabilities [28]. These physical benefits are integral to holistic recovery, enabling children to regain strength and resilience.
3.
Educational Impact
Educational recovery is a crucial dimension supported by CFGS, which fosters cognitive development, school attendance, and academic performance. Access to green spaces reduces stress and improves concentration, memory, and executive functioning, thereby enhancing children’s ability to learn effectively post-disaster [13,14,17,65,66]. Natural and multifunctional green spaces provide informal learning environments that encourage creativity, exploration, and social skills development—key to academic success and personal growth [47,67,68]. Environmental education programs within CFGS have demonstrated sustained improvements in critical thinking, environmental awareness, and stewardship, reinforcing their role in long-term educational recovery [68,69]. Furthermore, CFGS supports school attendance and engagement by creating stable, welcoming environments conducive to learning and social interaction. These spaces also facilitate trauma-informed care approaches in schools, integrating restorative justice and multicultural education to promote resilience and well-being [70].
4.
Multidimensional and Interconnected Recovery
The benefits of CFGS are deeply interconnected, with psychological, physical, and educational outcomes reinforcing one another to foster holistic recovery and resilience [40,71]. For example, reduced anxiety enhances physical activity participation and academic engagement, while improved physical health supports cognitive function and emotional regulation [52,72]. The integrated and interconnected nature of these benefits positions CFGS as essential elements in recovery strategies for children in post-disaster settings. Studies show that children with access to CFGS experience lower levels of anxiety and depression, which in turn enhances their engagement in physical and academic activities [52]. This synergy supports multiple facets of development concurrently, fostering long-term resilience and positive developmental outcomes [71]. As shown in Table 2, CFGS plays a significant role in addressing children’s vulnerabilities in post-disaster contexts. Figure 4 illustrates the feedback loops, demonstrating how CFGS environments simultaneously nurture emotional well-being, physical fitness, and educational growth. This integrative role positions CFGS as indispensable infrastructure in post-disaster recovery strategies, promoting sustained child development and community resilience between psychological, physical, and educational outcomes, highlighting the interconnectedness of these domains in promoting resilience and well-being among children affected by disasters.

3.5. Quantitative Assessment of CFGS Impact

Quantitative studies demonstrate significant positive impacts of CFGS on children’s mental health, physical activity, and educational outcomes. Overstreet et al. (2011) [10] reported a 30% decrease in these symptoms, measured using the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI), among children participating in structured activities in CFGS located in urban areas. The study utilized pre- and post-intervention assessments to evaluate changes in mental health outcomes. Olteanu et al. (2011) [9] found a 25% reduction in post-traumatic stress symptoms among disaster-affected children engaging with the natural environment. This study employed standardized PTSD scales to measure outcomes, focusing on children in regions affected by natural disasters, thereby highlighting the role of CFGS in fostering emotional stability and resilience. Studies also demonstrate that healing environments designed with therapeutic elements—safe spaces, personal control, and multi-sensory stimuli—significantly reduce stress and improve cognitive healing [27,31,34]. Sensory gardens, especially for children with special needs, provide tactile, auditory, and olfactory stimuli that enhance emotional expression and social interaction, supported by behavioral mapping and interview-based research [12,28,29,35,38,51]. Hirani et al. (2019) [11] observed a 25% increase in outdoor playtime, assessed through activity logs and wearable fitness trackers, among children with access to CFGS in suburban areas, improving cardiovascular health and muscle strength. Longitudinal studies confirm that regular access to CFGS reduces obesity risk and fosters healthy habits [52,53]. Furthermore, the presence of CFGS is linked to enhanced cognitive development and academic performance. Balseviciene et al. (2014) observed a 15% improvement in attention and mood through surveys and observational methods [63]. Dadvand et al. (2015) found a 20% improvement in concentration and memory retention, measured through cognitive tests, among children involved in learning activities in green spaces compared to traditional classroom settings in metropolitan areas [13]. Browning and Rigolon (2019) observed a 10% increase in school attendance, using attendance records, among children with regular access to CFGS, indicating that these environments support educational engagement and recovery [14].

3.6. Synthesis of Findings

This review establishes that CFGS play an integrative and multidimensional role in supporting children’s recovery after natural disasters, addressing psychological, physical, and educational vulnerabilities. The evidence demonstrates that CFGS provides environments conducive to emotional stability, stress reduction, and the alleviation of post-traumatic symptoms such as anxiety and depression [9,10]. The opportunity for structured and unstructured play, social interaction, and exposure to nature within CFGS fosters emotional resilience and a sense of normalcy among affected children. Significantly, the work of Hussein (2010, 2012, 2016, 2017) [28,29,35,38] highlights the critical role of sensory gardens and multi-sensory play environments within CFGS, especially for children with special needs. Hussein’s research emphasizes the therapeutic and educational potential of CFGS in a recovery context [28,29,35,38]. In addition, CFGS are instrumental in promoting physical health by encouraging outdoor activities, which are associated with improved attention, mood, cardiovascular fitness, and the development of healthy habits [11,12,63]. Educational outcomes are enhanced by improved concentration, increased school attendance, and informal learning opportunities fostered in these spaces, which also support creativity and social skills [13,14,47]. These benefits are interconnected, with improvements in one domain reinforcing others, resulting in holistic recovery and resilience [40,71]. Consequently, CFGS should be considered vital infrastructure in disaster recovery and community resilience strategies.

4. Discussion

4.1. Implications

Green Spaces designed for children are integral to holistic post-disaster recovery, addressing their psychological, physical, and educational needs simultaneously. This multidimensional role positions CFGS as essential infrastructure for sustainable recovery, moving beyond immediate survival to long-term well-being and resilience [40,71]. This approach aligns with the Sendai Framework’s “Build Back Better” principle, emphasizing equity, inclusion, and resilience beyond physical reconstruction [73,74].
These spaces foster emotional resilience and social cohesion by providing spaces for structured and unstructured play, quiet reflection, and social interaction, which are vital for children’s trauma recovery and ongoing development [10,28,29,31,35,38]. They also support physical health through active play, enhancing cardiovascular fitness and healthy habits [12,51], while also improving educational outcomes such as concentration, attendance, and informal learning [13,14]
Although the benefits of CFGS are well-documented, their effective integration into disaster recovery strategies requires a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between community needs, cultural contexts, and recovery priorities. Immediate relief efforts often overshadow investments in green space initiatives, and funding for CFGS creation and maintenance is frequently limited [15,27]. Socio-cultural factors further complicate implementation: cultural perceptions of nature, play, and community involvement vary widely, necessitating sensitivity to local norms, gender-specific needs, and community ownership models, as exemplified by post-Katrina New Orleans parks [30,54].
Coordination among multiple stakeholders—including government agencies, NGOs, urban planners, educators, and communities—remains challenging but is essential to secure funding, governance, and coherent implementation [15,27,75,76]. Urban and rural contexts present distinct challenges: urban areas may lack available land, while rural areas may have natural landscapes but insufficient infrastructure for maintenance [77]. Effective recovery frameworks must therefore prioritize participatory planning that actively involves children and local communities to ensure cultural relevance, ownership, and sustainability. Continuous monitoring, evaluation, and community stewardship are also vital to maintain the safety, usability, and therapeutic effectiveness of CFGS over time.
Figure 5 presents a comprehensive framework for implementing CFGS within post-disaster recovery. It delineates sequential stages beginning with the assessment of children’s vulnerabilities across psychological, physical, and educational domains; followed by participatory and inclusive design processes involving children and community stakeholders; translation of these plans into functional, safe, and therapeutic green spaces; integration with broader recovery infrastructure and policy systems to ensure sustainability; and continuous monitoring, evaluation, and community stewardship to adapt and maintain CFGS over time. This cyclical and inclusive framework ensures CFGS remain responsive to evolving community needs and maximize their therapeutic, physical, and educational benefits [16,28,40].
Table 3 complements this framework by detailing key action components, objectives, activities, and expected outcomes. For instance, the needs assessment phase involves surveys, focus groups, and observational studies to tailor CFGS to children’s specific vulnerabilities [1,72,78]. Participatory design employs workshops and community meetings to foster ownership and cultural relevance (Hussein et al., 2016; Ataol et al., 2019) [16,28]. The design and implementation phases focus on creating multifunctional green spaces that support psychological, physical, and educational recovery [33,34,37]. Integration with recovery infrastructure requires collaboration among landscape architects, planners, and policymakers to embed CFGS within recovery policies and secure sustainable funding [27,32]. Finally, monitoring and evaluation activities, including follow-up studies and community stewardship, ensure sustained safety, usability, and therapeutic effectiveness [5,16,28]. This detailed framework and action plan provide practical guidance for operationalizing CFGS as critical post-disaster recovery infrastructure.

4.2. Barriers to CFGS Integration

Despite the demonstrated benefits, CFGS integration into post-disaster recovery faces persistent systemic, institutional, and site-level barriers. A systemic barrier is the absence of explicit, evidence-based policies and implementation guidelines prioritizing CFGS within disaster recovery and urban planning frameworks. While the therapeutic and developmental benefits of CFGS are increasingly recognized [5,27], many recovery plans lack concrete mandates for their inclusion [15,36]. This policy gap hinders institutional commitment and the allocation of sustainable funding essential for long-term success. Recovery priorities tend to focus on immediate survival needs such as housing and healthcare, often relegating green space development and maintenance to lower priority [15]. This short-term focus limits the resources available for CFGS, despite their critical role in long-term psychosocial and physical recovery [23]. This underfunding reflects a broader undervaluation of green spaces as critical public health infrastructure [16].
Institutional barriers arise from fragmented governance, unclear stakeholder responsibilities, and limited technical expertise in designing and maintaining sensory-rich, accessible green spaces [27,28,80]. Coordination among government agencies, NGOs, urban planners, educators, and communities remains challenging, impeding cohesive implementation.
Site-level barriers include accessibility and safety issues, socio-cultural attitudes, site design, and maintenance challenges. Urban areas face land scarcity, competing land uses, safety concerns such as traffic and crime, and restrictions on children’s access to green spaces [36,81]. Socio-cultural factors such as varying perceptions of nature, play, gender norms, and community engagement influence CFGS relevance and use [30,54]. Without culturally sensitive, participatory design and stewardship, CFGS risk underutilization and deterioration, diminishing their therapeutic and educational impact [16,28]. This comprehensive overview of barriers is summarized in Table 4, which details the categories, describing their nature and proposing strategic recommendations to overcome them and illustrated in Figure 6.

4.3. Gaps and Future Directions

While CFGS are increasingly recognized as vital for children in recovery post-disaster, significant gaps remain in research, policy, and practice. Recovery efforts often prioritize immediate survival and physical reconstruction, neglecting long-term psychosocial and developmental needs that CFGS address [73,82]. Policy gaps and lack of dedicated funding hinder widespread CFGS adoption [15]. Intervention often lacks cultural sensitivity and participatory approaches, which are essential for ensuring relevance, sustainability, and community ownership [30,54].
Research gaps include a lack of longitudinal, cross-cultural studies assessing sustained impacts of CFGS on children’s recovery, especially in rural and low-resource contexts [27,77]. Inclusive design for children with special needs remains underutilized in mainstream recovery planning [27,38,83]. More empirical research and policy innovation are needed to develop standardized, evidence-based design guidelines and participatory models that ensure relevance, sustainability, and ownership [16,54].
Case studies illustrate the critical consequences of neglecting CFGS, such as inadequate psychosocial support following the Tajogaite volcano eruption in La Palma [8], contrasted with successful community healing through CFGS in New Orleans post-Hurricane Katrina [9,30] and post-Tohoku earthquake in Japan [76]. These examples highlight CFGS’s transformative potential for equitable and sustainable recovery. These examples underscore the transformative potential of CFGS in promoting equity and sustainability in disaster recovery. Additionally, examples from the Global South highlight CFGS adaptability in resource-limited contexts. Urban initiatives in South Africa and Southeast Asia demonstrate that participatory and culturally sensitive design approaches enable effective implementation of CFGS despite technical and financial constraints [72,77]. These cases expand the understanding of CFGS applicability and inform the development of inclusive frameworks tailored to diverse socio-economic and cultural contexts. Furthermore, attention must be given to urban-rural disparities, as urban areas often confront land scarcity and competition for space, whereas rural regions may lack the necessary infrastructure to support ongoing maintenance and accessibility of CFGS [77].
Addressing these gaps requires a paradigm shift toward holistic, long-term recovery strategies that explicitly include CFGS, supported by culturally sensitive, participatory design standards and robust monitoring and evaluation systems. Aligning CFGS initiatives with SDGs, particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) will help ensure that child well-being and resilience are prioritized in both disaster recovery and sustainable development agendas. Ongoing interdisciplinary research and policy innovation are needed to deepen understanding, refine participatory models, and maximize the long-term benefits of CFGS for children in disaster-affected areas. The CFGS contributions to SDGs are summarized in Table 5.

5. Conclusions

This study confirms that Child-Friendly Green Spaces (CFGS) are vital infrastructures supporting the holistic recovery of children affected by natural disasters. CFGS effectively reduces trauma-related psychological symptoms such as anxiety and depression, promotes physical health through active play, and enhances educational outcomes by improving concentration and school engagement. These interconnected benefits foster sustained resilience and well-being. The review answers the primary research question by demonstrating that CFGS provide safe, inclusive, and nature-based environments that simultaneously nurture emotional healing, physical activity, and cognitive development. Grounded in the Biophilia Hypothesis and Ecological Systems Theory, CFGS serve as critical microsystems that restore disrupted social ties and normalcy essential for children’s recovery. The findings emphasize the urgent need to integrate CFGS into formal disaster recovery and urban planning frameworks. This integration aligns with the Sendai Framework’s “Build Back Better” principle, which advocates recovery approaches that extend beyond physical reconstruction to include equity, inclusion, and resilience. This requires participatory, culturally sensitive planning that actively involves children, families, and communities to ensure relevance, ownership, and sustainability.
Overcoming barriers such as policy gaps, limited funding, fragmented governance, and socio-cultural challenges demands coordinated multi-sector collaboration and clear policy mandates. Embedding CFGS within recovery policies supports Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 3, 4, and 11, promoting child-centered, resilient, and inclusive recovery. Future research should prioritize longitudinal, interdisciplinary studies and develop inclusive design guidelines to maximize CFGS effectiveness. Recognizing CFGS as integral components of disaster recovery will promote children’s well-being and foster resilient and sustainable communities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.R.A. and G.S.; methodology, D.R.A. and G.S.; software, D.R.A.; formal analysis, D.R.A.; investigation, D.R.A.; resources, D.R.A.; data curation, D.R.A.; writing—original draft preparation, D.R.A.; writing—review and editing, D.R.A. and G.S.; visualization, D.R.A.; supervision, G.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan, LPDP) of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia provided PhD funding and had no role in this study.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lori, P. Children and disasters: Understanding vulnerability, developing capacities, and promoting resilience. Child. Youth Environ. 2008, 18, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Giordano, F. A qualitative tool for detecting and approaching psychological trauma in children victims of the 2009 Italian earthquake. In Child and Adolescent Mental Health; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017; pp. 42–57. [Google Scholar]
  3. UNICEF. 100 Children Killed by Earthquake in West Java, Indonesia. 2022. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/100-children-killed-earthquake-west-java-indonesia (accessed on 26 November 2022).
  4. Moore, R. Chapter Eleven Re-Naturing Urban Childhood: A Sustainable Development Strategy1 Robin Moore, Nilda Cosco. In Forests for Public Health; Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2020; p. 259. [Google Scholar]
  5. Sugar, S. The Necessity of Urban Green Space for Children’s Optimal Development. 2021. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/documents/necessity-urban-green-space-childrens-optimal-development (accessed on 25 June 2025).
  6. Kuo, M. How might contact with nature promote human health? Promising mechanisms and a possible central pathway. Front. Psychol. 2015, 6, 1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Masten, A.S. Resilience of children in disasters: A multisystem perspective. Int. J. Psychol. 2021, 56, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Charlesworth, E.; Fien, J. Design and Disaster Resilience: Toward a Role for Design in Disaster Mitigation and Recovery. Architecture 2022, 2, 292–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Olteanu, A.; Arnberger, R.; Grant, R.; Davis, C.; Abramson, D.; Asola, J. Persistence of mental health needs among children affected by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Prehospital Disaster Med. 2011, 26, 3–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Overstreet, S.; Salloum, A.; Burch, B.; West, J. Challenges Associated with Childhood Exposure to Severe Natural Disasters: Research Review and Clinical Implications. J. Child Adolesc. Trauma 2011, 4, 52–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hirani, S.A.A.; Richter, S. Maternal and child health during forced displacement. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2019, 51, 252–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fong, K.C.; Hart, J.E.; James, P. A review of epidemiologic studies on greenness and health: Updated literature through 2017. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2018, 5, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dadvand, P.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; Esnaola, M.; Forns, J.; Basagaña, X.; Alvarez-Pedrerol, M.; Rivas, I.; López-Vicente, M.; De Castro Pascual, M.; Su, J.; et al. Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 7937–7942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Browning, M.H.; Rigolon, A. School green space and its impact on academic performance: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Miller, S. Greenspace After a Disaster: The Need to Close the Gap with Recovery for Greater Resilience. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2020, 86, 339–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ataol, Ö.; Krishnamurthy, S.; van Wesemael, P. Children’s Participation in Urban Planning and Design: A Systematic Review. Child. Youth Environ. 2019, 29, 27–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kruize, H.; Van Der Vliet, N.; Staatsen, B.; Bell, R.; Chiabai, A.; Muiños, G.; Higgins, S.; Quiroga, S.; Martinez-Juarez, P.; Aberg Yngwe, M.; et al. Urban green space: Creating a triple win for environmental sustainability, health, and health equity through behavior change. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Vidal, D.G.; Castro Seixas, E. Children’s Green Infrastructure: Children and Their Rights to Nature and the City. Front. Sociol. 2022, 7, 804535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Markevych, I.; Schoierer, J.; Hartig, T.; Chudnovsky, A.; Hystad, P.; Dzhambov, A.M.; de Vries, S.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Brauer, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J.; et al. Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ. Res. 2017, 158, 301–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Munn, Z.; Peters, M.D.; Stern, C.; Tufanaru, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dadvand, P.; Gascon, M.; Markevych, I. Green spaces and child health and development. In Biodiversity and Health in the Face of Climate Change; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 121–130. [Google Scholar]
  22. Schweiger, G.; Graf, G. Ethics and the dynamic vulnerability of children. Les Ateliers de l’Éthique 2017, 12, 243–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Porter, J.E.; Dabkowski, E.; Ghasemirdekani, M.; Barbagallo, M.S.; James, M.H.; Prokopiv, V.; Wright, W. The impact of nature-led recovery initiatives for individual and community health post disaster: A systematic literature review. Rev. Environ. Health 2023, 38, 637–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Flemming, K.; Booth, A.; Garside, R.; Tunçalp, Ö.; Noyes, J. Qualitative evidence synthesis for complex interventions and guideline development: Clarification of the purpose, designs and relevant methods. BMJ Glob. Health 2019, 4 (Suppl. S1), e000882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nowell, L.S.; Norris, J.M.; White, D.E.; Moules, N.J. Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2017, 16, 1609406917733847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Din, S.K.J.; Russo, A.; Liversedge, J. Designing Healing Environments: A Literature Review on the Benefits of Healing Gardens for Children in Healthcare Facilities and the Urgent Need for Policy Implementation. Land 2023, 12, 971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hussein, H.; Abidin, N.M.N.Z.; Omar, Z. Sensory Gardens: A multidisciplinary effort. Asian J. Behav. Stud. 2016, 1, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hussein, H. The influence of sensory gardens on the behaviour of children with special educational needs. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 38, 343–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chan, J.; DuBois, B.; Tidball, K.G. Refuges of local resilience: Community gardens in post-Sandy New York City. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 625–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Allcock, A. Healing Environments for Children Who Have Experienced Trauma. 2019. Available online: https://www.iriss.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-04/iriss-esss-outline-healing-environ-children-20190506.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2025).
  32. Atmodiwirjo, P.; Ghaziani, R.; Wungpatcharapon, S.; Djuwita, R.; Yatmo, Y.A. Nature-Related Features and Children’s Well-Being in Post-Disaster School Design. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 2023, 16, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jorgensen, A.; Gobster, P.H. Shades of Green: Measuring the Ecology of Urban Green Space in the Context of Human Health and Well-Being. Nat. Cult. 2010, 5, 338–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bratman, G.N.; Hamilton, J.P.; Hahn, K.S.; Daily, G.C.; Gross, J.J. Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 8567–8572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hussein, H. Using the sensory garden as a tool to enhance the educational development and social interaction of children with special needs. Support Learn. 2010, 25, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hällqvist, K. Exploring Dimensions of Children’s Access to Urban Green Space: A Mixed-Method Analysis of Malmö, Sweden. 2024. Available online: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1865174 (accessed on 25 June 2025).
  37. Bagot, K.L. Perceived restorative components: A scale for children. Child. Youth Environ. 2004, 14, 107–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hussein, H. Sensory affordances in outdoor play environment towards well-being of special schooled children. Intell. Build. Int. 2017, 9, 148–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Masten, A.S.; Narayan, A.J. Child development in the context of disaster, war, and terrorism: Pathways of risk and resilience. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 227–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mizuki, R.; Kobayashi, T.; Maeda, M. Disruption of Child Environments and Its Psychological Consequences After the Fukushima Disaster: A Narrative Review Based on the Ecological Systems Model. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 2021, 23, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Bornioli, A.; Subiza-Pérez, M. Restorative urban environments for healthy cities: A theoretical model for the study of restorative experiences in urban built settings. Landsc. Res. 2023, 48, 152–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Perry, B.D. Creative Interventions with Traumatized Children; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  43. Lester, S.; Maudsley, M. Play, Naturally; National Children’s Bureau/Play England: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lester, S.; Russell, W. Children’s Right to Play: An Examination of the Importance of Play in the Lives of Children Worldwide; Working Papers in Early Childhood Development, No. 57; ERIC: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  45. Fjortoft, I. The natural environment as a playground for children: The impact of outdoor play activities in pre-primary school children. Early Child. Educ. J. 2001, 29, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tovey, H. Playing Outdoors: Spaces and Places, Risk and Challenge; McGraw-Hill Education (UK): Maidenhead, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  47. Veitch, J.; Salmon, J.; Ball, K. Children’s active free play in local neighborhoods: A behavioral mapping study. Health Educ. Res. 2007, 23, 870–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. UNICEF. Two Years After the Earthquake, Victories for Haiti’s Children. 2012. Available online: https://www.unicef.ie/stories/two-years-after-the-earthquake-victories-for-haitis-children/ (accessed on 23 September 2023).
  49. Lee, R.L.T.; Lane, S.; Brown, G.; Leung, C.; Kwok, S.W.H.; Chan, S.W.C. Systematic review of the impact of unstructured play interventions to improve young children’s physical, social, and emotional wellbeing. Nurs. Health Sci. 2020, 22, 184–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sheridan, B. The Implications of Climate Change for Children in Lower-Income Countries. Child. Youth Environ. 2008, 18, 71–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cui, Y.; Wang, Q.; Zha, G.; Dang, Y.; Duan, X.; Wang, L.; Luo, M. Evaluation of the Accessibility of Children’s Spaces at the Community Scale: The Case Study of Hangzhou. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2024, 13, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vanaken, G.J.; Danckaerts, M. Impact of green space exposure on children’s and adolescents’ mental health: A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Manandhar, S.; Suksaroj, T.T.; Rattanapan, C. The association between green space and the prevalence of overweight/obesity among primary school children. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2019, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Engelbrecht, A.; Jobson, L. Exploring trauma associated appraisals in trauma survivors from collectivistic cultures. Springerplus 2016, 5, 1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Veitch, J.; Bagley, S.; Ball, K.; Salmon, J. Where do children usually play? A qualitative study of parents’ perceptions of influences on children’s active free-play. Health Place 2006, 12, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gibbs, L.; Mutch, C.; O’COnnor, P.; MacDougall, C. Research with, by, for and about children: Lessons from disaster contexts. Glob. Stud. Child. 2013, 3, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Schutte, A.R.; Torquati, J.C.; Beattie, H.L. Impact of urban nature on executive functioning in early and middle childhood. Environ. Behav. 2017, 49, 3–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Walshe, N.; Lee, E.; Smith, M.J. Supporting children’s well-being with art in nature: Artist pedagogue perceptions. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 14, 98–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Moll, A.; Collado, S.; Staats, H.; Corraliza, J.A. Restorative effects of exposure to nature on children and adolescents: A systematic review. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 84, 101884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Orui, M.; Nakajima, S.; Takebayashi, Y.; Ito, A.; Momoi, M.; Maeda, M.; Yasumura, S.; Ohto, H. Mental health recovery of evacuees and residents from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident after seven years—Contribution of social network and a desirable lifestyle. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Roemmich, J.N.; Johnson, L.; Oberg, G.; Beeler, J.E.; Ufholz, K.E. Youth and Adult Visitation and Physical Activity Intensity at Rural and Urban Parks. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Reuben, A.; Rutherford, G.W.; James, J.; Razani, N. Association of Neighborhood Parks with Child Health in the United States. Prev. Med. 2020, 141, 106265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Balseviciene, B.; Sinkariova, L.; Grazuleviciene, R.; Andrusaityte, S.; Uzdanaviciute, I.; Dedele, A.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.J. Impact of residential greenness on preschool children’s emotional and behavioral problems. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 6757–6770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tillmann, S.; Tobin, D.; Avison, W.; Gilliland, J. Mental health benefits of interactions with nature in children and teenagers: A systematic review. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2018, 72, 958–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Taylor, A.F.; Kuo, F.E. Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park. J. Atten. Disord. 2009, 12, 402–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Jenkin, R.; Frampton, I.; White, M.P.; Pahl, S. The relationship between exposure to natural and urban environments and children’s self-regulation. Landsc. Res. 2018, 43, 315–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Dewi, R.I.; Sya, A.; Vivanti, D. Multifunction Green Open Space for Environmental Education. KnE Soc. Sci. 2020, 4, 10–20. [Google Scholar]
  68. Dost, G. A Critical Review of Environmental Education for Sustainable Development Goals, UNCRC and Child-Friendly Schools. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Education, London, UK, 15–18 July 2021. [Google Scholar]
  69. Laura Healey, M.; Rosie, P. Reconceptualizing School Design: Learning Environments for Children and Youth. Child. Youth Environ. 2012, 22, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Parameswaran, U.D.; Molloy, J.; Kuttner, P. Healing Schools: A Framework for Joining Trauma-Informed Care, Restorative Justice, and Multicultural Education for Whole School Reform. Urban Rev. 2023, 56, 186–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhang, Z.; Stevenson, K.T.; Martin, K.L. Use of nature-based schoolyards predicts students’ perceptions of schoolyards as places to support learning, play, and mental health. Environ. Educ. Res. 2022, 28, 1271–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Goosen, Z. The Planning and Development of Child-Friendly Green Spaces in Urban South Africa. Agric. For. Fish. 2015, 4, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Tyler, J.; Singh, A. Enhancing post-earthquake disaster resilience. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 2011, 2, 103–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Meerow, S.; Stults, M. Comparing conceptualizations of urban climate resilience in theory and practice. Sustainability 2016, 8, 701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Peek, L.; Richardson, K. In their own words: Displaced children’s educational recovery needs after Hurricane Katrina. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 2010, 4, S63–S70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hikichi, H.; Aida, J.; Tsuboya, T.; Kondo, K.; Kawachi, I. Can Community Social Cohesion Prevent Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in the Aftermath of a Disaster? A Natural Experiment From the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake and Tsunami. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2016, 183, 902–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Dimouli, I.; Koumparou, D.; Golfínopoulos, S.K. From School Gardens to Community Oases: Fostering Environmental and Social Resilience in Urban Spaces. Geographies 2024, 4, 687–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Eagland, S.; Curtin, M.; Parnell, T. After the Disaster: Facilitating Children to Talk of Their Feeling and Experiences. In International Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Development; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 197–208. [Google Scholar]
  79. Veitch, J.; Flowers, E.; Ball, K.; Deforche, B.; Timperio, A. Exploring children’s views on important park features: A qualitative study using walk-along interviews. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Peek, L.; Abramson, D.M.; Cox, R.S.; Fothergill, A.; Tobin, J. Children and disasters. In Handbook of Disaster Research; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 243–262. [Google Scholar]
  81. Schneider, A.A. An oasis for students: Investigating the potential co-benefits of schoolyard redesign for climate adaptation. In Master Thesis Series in Environmental Studies and Sustainability Science; Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies: Lund, Sweden, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  82. Hettige, S.; Haigh, R. An integrated social response to disasters: The case of the Indian Ocean tsunami in Sri Lanka. Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J. 2016, 25, 595–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hussein, H. Sensory garden in special schools: The issues, design and use. J. Des. Built Environ. 2009, 5, 77–95. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 08495 g001
Figure 1. Article’s search strategy.
Figure 1. Article’s search strategy.
Sustainability 17 08495 g001
Sustainability 17 08495 g002
Figure 2. Data analysis and synthesis illustrate the steps of thematic analysis, from initial coding of literature to the identification of major themes related to psychological, physical, and educational recovery.
Figure 2. Data analysis and synthesis illustrate the steps of thematic analysis, from initial coding of literature to the identification of major themes related to psychological, physical, and educational recovery.
Sustainability 17 08495 g002
Sustainability 17 08495 g003
Figure 3. Theoretical foundations and practical outcomes of CFGS framework. This conceptual model summarizes the integration of biophilia hypothesis [7,27,39], ecological systems theory [8], restorative environments [16,37,41], and multi-sensory garden and healing environment [27,29,35,38]. It also incorporates children’s vulnerability domains [1], and highlight CFGS characteristics promoting sustainable design for holistic recovery [5,18,30,33,34,36,37].
Figure 3. Theoretical foundations and practical outcomes of CFGS framework. This conceptual model summarizes the integration of biophilia hypothesis [7,27,39], ecological systems theory [8], restorative environments [16,37,41], and multi-sensory garden and healing environment [27,29,35,38]. It also incorporates children’s vulnerability domains [1], and highlight CFGS characteristics promoting sustainable design for holistic recovery [5,18,30,33,34,36,37].
Sustainability 17 08495 g003
Sustainability 17 08495 g004
Figure 4. Interconnected benefits of CFGS show feedback loops between psychological, physical, and educational outcomes.
Figure 4. Interconnected benefits of CFGS show feedback loops between psychological, physical, and educational outcomes.
Sustainability 17 08495 g004
Sustainability 17 08495 g005
Figure 5. Framework for CFGS implementation.
Figure 5. Framework for CFGS implementation.
Sustainability 17 08495 g005
Sustainability 17 08495 g006
Figure 6. Barriers to CFGS integration.
Figure 6. Barriers to CFGS integration.
Sustainability 17 08495 g006
Table 1. CFGS characteristic.
Table 1. CFGS characteristic.
CharacteristicKey Features BenefitsReferences
AccessibilityWithin walking distance, inclusive design. Combines structured/unstructured areas. Reduces health inequalities[5,28,35,36]
MultifunctionalityDiverse experiences and activities tailored to the local cultural and environmental contextSupport holistic development (physical, emotional, social, intellectual, and cognitive development)[18,30,35]
Emotional
Connection		Foster connection to nature, sense of belonging, and nurtures spiritual growth and empathy.Encourages positive feelings, comfort, empathy, and resilience in children[5,10,18,28]
SafetySecure environment; minimized risks; inclusive for children with disabilitiesEnables safe exploration and play; increases parental and community trust[5,33,34]
Natural elementsBiodiversity (Variety of plants, trees, water features, wildlife)Enhances sensory stimulation, supports cognitive restoration, and stewardship of nature [5,37,38]
Community
Participation		Involvement of children, family, stakeholders, and local community in the design and maintenance of green spaceEnsures spaces meet children’s needs, build community ownership, and promote stewardship[5,16,28]
Table 2. Impact of CFGS in addressing Children’s vulnerabilities following disasters.
Table 2. Impact of CFGS in addressing Children’s vulnerabilities following disasters.
Domain Key PointsDescriptionsReferences
1. Psychological Emotional Stability and mental health symptoms reductionsSupport emotional well-being, lower trauma-related mental health, and stress reduction after traumatic events.[9,10,34,52,57,58,59]
Healing EnvironmentsTherapeutic design elements reduce stress, improve recovery, and support cognitive healing.[28,29,31,35]
Structured and Unstructured PlayPositive impacts of structured play within CFGS for trauma processing and stress alleviation.[10,54]
2. Physical Promotion of Physical ActivityEncourage outdoor play, improving physical strength and facilitating physical activity[11,60,61,62]
Overall, Health ImprovementsImproved attention, mood, and physical health observed in children spending time in CFGS.[52,63,64]
Development of Healthy HabitsEncouraging outdoor play contributes to the development of healthy cardiovascular and muscle strength.[12,51]
3. Educational Cognitive DevelopmentAccess to CFGS improves concentration and memory retention.[13,17,65,66]
School Attendance and Academic PerformanceCorrelation between regular access to CFGS and improved attendance/performance.[14,70]
Informal Learning EnvironmentPromotion of creativity and exploration, fostering social skills and emotional intelligence.[47,68,69]
4.Multidimensional RecoveryHolistic Recovery ToolCFGS provide overlapping benefits for psychological, physical, and educational recovery.[40,71]
Interconnectedness of BenefitsEncourages multifaceted recovery linked to increased participation in physical, social interaction and academic activities.[52,72]
Table 3. Framework for CFGS implementation.
Table 3. Framework for CFGS implementation.
Action ComponentObjectiveKey ActivityOutcome and Benefit
Assessment of Children’s NeedsIdentify children’s needs based on children’s vulnerability (psychological, physical, and educational).Conduct surveys, focus groups, and observational studies.Understand specific needs to tailor CFGS, ensuring effective recovery [1,72,78].
Participatory and Inclusive DesignCo-create solutions involving children, community, and stakeholders.Workshops, participatory activities, meetings, and discussions.Foster community involvement and ownership, ensuring relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability [16,28].
Design ImplementationTranslate participatory plans into functional, safe, and therapeutic green spaces.Build multifunctional green spaces, structures/unstructured, and learning environments based on identified needs.Realize design plans into physical spaces, supporting psychological, physical, and educational recovery [5,28,33,34,37,79].
Integration with Recovery
Infrastructure		Align CFGS with broader recovery and policy systems to ensure sustainability.Collaboration between landscape architects, planners, and stakeholders to embed CFGS into the recovery policies and funding mechanism.Ensure CFGS are part of a comprehensive recovery strategy, enhancing impact, policy support and sustainability [27,32].
Monitoring and EvaluationMeasure safety, usability, effectiveness, and long-term impact of CFGS.Conduct follow-up studies, collect feedback, engage the community in stewardship and maintenance, and adjust designs as necessary to improve outcomes.Refine CFGS through continuous evaluation, increased community ownership, ensuring they meet evolving needs, and maximize long-term benefits [5,16,28,40].
Table 4. Barriers to CFGS integration and recommendations.
Table 4. Barriers to CFGS integration and recommendations.
Barrier LevelBarrier
Category		DescriptionRecommendation
SystemicPolicy and GuidelinesLack of clear policies and mandates for CFGS integrationDevelop evidence-based policies; embed CFGS in recovery plans
Recovery PrioritiesImmediate relief focus overshadows green space fundingAdvocate for long-term recovery funding and strategic inclusion
Finance and ResourcesInsufficient dedicated funding for development and maintenanceSecure sustainable funding streams for CFGS
InstitutionalFragmented GovernanceLack of coordinated governance and unclear stakeholder rolesEstablish clear roles and cross-sector collaboration
Stakeholder ResponsibilitiesAmbiguity in mandates and accountabilityDefine responsibilities and improve coordination
Limited Technical ExpertiseInsufficient expertise in sensory and inclusive designBuild capacity and provide specialized training
SiteAccessibility and SafetyLand scarcity, safety risks limit accessImprove safe, inclusive access and infrastructure
Socio-Cultural AttitudesCultural mismatch and low community engagementEmploy culturally sensitive participatory design
Site Design and MaintenancePoor maintenance and lack of community stewardshipPromote community involvement and sustainable maintenance
Table 5. CFGS contribution to SDGs.
Table 5. CFGS contribution to SDGs.
SDGCFGS ContributionKey References
SDG 3:
Health and Well-being		Reduces trauma, supports mental and physical health, fosters active lifestyles [9,17,63]
SDG 4:
Quality Education 		Improves concentration, school attendance, supports informal and experiential learning [13,14,47]
SDG 11:
Sustainable Cities		Promotes inclusive, resilient, and participatory urban development; enhances social cohesion [16,18,74]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Anwar, D.R.; Selim, G. Integrating Child-Friendly Green Spaces into Post-Disaster Recovery: Psychological, Physical, and Educational Sustainability Impact on Children’s Well-Being. Sustainability 2025, 17, 8495. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188495

AMA Style

Anwar DR, Selim G. Integrating Child-Friendly Green Spaces into Post-Disaster Recovery: Psychological, Physical, and Educational Sustainability Impact on Children’s Well-Being. Sustainability. 2025; 17(18):8495. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188495

Chicago/Turabian Style

Anwar, Dewi Rezalini, and Gehan Selim. 2025. "Integrating Child-Friendly Green Spaces into Post-Disaster Recovery: Psychological, Physical, and Educational Sustainability Impact on Children’s Well-Being" Sustainability 17, no. 18: 8495. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188495

APA Style

Anwar, D. R., & Selim, G. (2025). Integrating Child-Friendly Green Spaces into Post-Disaster Recovery: Psychological, Physical, and Educational Sustainability Impact on Children’s Well-Being. Sustainability, 17(18), 8495. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17188495

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop