New Review Highlights What Makes Nature-Based Youth Programs Actually Work

/in , /by

Garst, B. A., Vanic, M., Melton, T. N., Foster, C., & Bowers, E. P. (2025). Principles and practices of impactful nature-based positive youth development programs. Current Opinion in Psychology, 65, 102048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102048

Introduction

Youth development programs have long used nature as a setting for growth, but the field has lacked a unifying framework for explaining why time outdoors produces the benefits it does. This review turns to Hamilton’s tripartite model of positive youth development (PYD) to organize existing research into a coherent account of nature-based positive youth development (NPYD), treating it simultaneously as a developmental process, a program design philosophy, and a set of practices already in use.

Methods

Rather than conducting a systematic review with a formal search protocol, the authors synthesized contemporary literature spanning psychology, environmental science, and public health, organizing findings around Lerner and colleagues’ “Big Three” of PYD, positive youth-adult relationships, skill-building activities, and opportunities for youth leadership, and mapping how nature-specific features intersect with each.

Results

Nature actively shapes youth development through its distinct features. The authors identify four such features: getting away (psychological or physical escape from routine settings), fascination (effortless attention restoration), novelty (adapting to unfamiliar places and activities), and awe (transcendent emotional experiences).  For skill-building, the review finds that hands-on activities, orienteering, outdoor cooking, fire-building, nature journaling, promote problem-solving and personal responsibility, but the depth of this benefit depends heavily on program structure. For youth contribution and leadership, the review connects nature-based leadership roles, such as conservation projects, to adult pro-environmental attitudes and behavior. Programs that build in escalating challenge and risk over time, and that pair nature exposure with strong adult and peer relationships, appear to produce the most durable outcomes: resilience, self-efficacy, environmental identity, and stronger peer bonds.

Discussion

The authors are candid that acknowledges that theoretical development in this space still lags behind program practice. Existing developmental theories, including Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems approach, were not built to capture what is distinct about nature as a setting, and as a result they tend to treat nature as interchangeable with other developmental contexts rather than accounting for features like fascination or awe that appear specific to natural environments. Most existing research asks how nature affects youth outcomes but rarely examines the reverse: how youth engagement, care, and behavior shape their ongoing relationship with natural spaces. The authors suggest this omission matters because environmental identity and stewardship behavior likely develop through a feedback loop rather than a one-directional process, and current frameworks are not well equipped to model that loop.

Implications for Mentoring Programs

Several practical implications follow for mentoring and youth development programs incorporating nature-based components.

  • Design for repeated, graduated exposure rather than one-time events. The review’s clearest practice recommendation is that skill-building and resilience outcomes strengthen with accumulated exposure and a gradual increase in challenge and risk over time, meaning single field trips or one-off outdoor days are unlikely to produce the same developmental gains as sustained, multi-session programming.
  • Treat relationship-building as a prerequisite, not an afterthought. Because some youth approach nature with real apprehension, programs should not assume comfort with outdoor settings is a given. Positive adult and peer relationships appear to function as the mechanism that helps youth move past that apprehension, suggesting relationship-building activities should accompany more challenging outdoor experiences.
  • Match setting to desired outcome. Formal, curriculum-embedded settings appear better suited to building content-specific knowledge (environmental literacy, stewardship attitudes), while informal, unstructured nature time appears to cultivate social skills and community involvement. Programs should be intentional about which setting matches their stated developmental goals rather than assuming any nature exposure produces the same benefits.
  • Invest in leader training. The review points to evidence that youth development professionals who receive nature-specific professional development report gains in self-reliance and reflective practice, suggesting that program quality depends as much on staff preparation as on program design itself.
  • Attend to equitable access. Given that the evidence base underrepresents diverse youth populations and that access to natural spaces is not distributed equally, programs serving diverse communities should treat access and cultural relevance as core design questions rather than secondary considerations.

Read the full article here