Effects of School Gardening Activities on Elementary School Students' Emotional Well-being: The Mediating Effect of Nature Connectedness and the Moderating Effect of Expectations

Article information

J. People Plants Environ. 2026;29(3):373-383
Publication date (electronic) : 2026 June 30
doi : https://doi.org/10.11628/ksppe.2026.29.3.373
1Manager, Secure Power, Schneider Electric Korea, Seoul 07805, Republic of Korea
2Extension Specialist, Division of Rural Resources, Gyeonggi-do Agricultural Research and Extension Services, Gyeonggi-do 18388, Republic of Korea
*Corresponding author: Mi Ri Jun, jmr0403@naver.com, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4009-0728
First author: Sun Young Lee, sym8008@hanmail.com, https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4496-0877
Received 2026 March 3; Revised 2026 April 2; Accepted 2026 April 27.

Abstract

Background and objective

As concerns regarding children’s emotional well-being grow, school-based nature experiences have gained attention as potential supportive interventions. This study examined whether participation in a school gardening program enhances elementary school students’ nature connectedness and emotional well-being. Specifically, it investigated whether satisfaction with the gardening experience indirectly influences emotional well-being through nature connectedness, and whether prior expectations moderate this indirect pathway.

Methods

A single-group pretest-posttest design was employed with 124 third- and fourth-grade elementary school students. Measures included nature connectedness, emotional well-being, pre-program expectations, and post-program satisfaction. Changes before and after the program were analyzed using paired t-tests. Moderated mediation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS Macro (Model 7) with 5,000 bootstrap resamples, while controlling for baseline levels of nature connectedness and emotional well-being.

Results

Both nature connectedness and emotional well-being significantly increased following participation in the program. Post-program satisfaction was significantly higher than pre-program expectations. Satisfaction positively predicted nature connectedness, which in turn significantly predicted emotional well-being. Bootstrap analyses revealed that the indirect effect of satisfaction on emotional well-being mediated by nature connectedness was significant at low, mean, and high levels of expectation. However, the index of moderated mediation was not significant, suggesting that prior expectations did not significantly moderate the indirect pathway.

Conclusion

The findings indicate that a school gardening program enhances children’s emotional well-being primarily by strengthening psychological connectedness to nature. The emotional benefits derived from participation appear to depend more on the quality of satisfaction experienced during the program than on prior expectations. Therefore, school-based gardening programs may serve as meaningful environmental resources that support children’s socio-emotional development within everyday educational settings.

Introduction

Recently, the emotional well-being and mental health of children and adolescents have become central priorities in school education. Schools constitute the primary environments in which children spend most of their daily lives, while being exposed to diverse psychosocial factors such as academic pressure, peer relationships, and teacher-student interactions (Min, 2014; Roeser et al., 2000). Previous studies have demonstrated that the school environment is closely associated with students’ emotional stability, school adjustment, and academic engagement (He et al., 2023; Wang and Degol, 2016). Accordingly, there has been a continuous emphasis on the need for mental health support from a universal prevention perspective (Fazel et al., 2014; Weare and Nind, 2011).

Schools must place substantial emphasis on children’s emotions because emotional difficulties extend beyond individual psychological problems and exert cascading effects on learning and overall school life. Children’s emotional states directly influence not only academic achievement but also interpersonal relationships, and school-based emotional support programs have consistently demonstrated positive effects across emotional, behavioral, and academic domains (Durlak et al., 2011; Greenberg et al., 2003). These findings suggest that emotional support in schools is not merely a supplementary welfare service, but rather a fundamental educational foundation that supports students’ overall learning and development.

Within this context, nature experiences have received increasing attention as environmental factors that facilitate emotional restoration and stress reduction. Exposure to natural environments enhances positive affect (McMahan and Estes, 2015), and contributes to stress recovery and psychological stability (Ulrich et al., 1991). In particular, nature-based activities such as gardening have been shown to alleviate stress and improve emotional well-being (Kim et al., 2024), while also being significantly associated with overall psychological stability (Hartig et al., 2014; Kaplan, 1995; Lee et al., 2021; White et al., 2019). As opportunities for children to experience nature continue to decline due to urbanization (Chawla, 2015; Soga and Gaston, 2016), green spaces within schools have emerged as important resources that enable regular contact with nature in everyday life (Bikomeye et al., 2021; Dyment and Bell, 2007). In particular, school gardening programs are distinguished from passive forms of nature exposure by involving active engagement, including cultivating, nurturing, observing, and harvesting plants (Blair, 2009; Richardson and McEwan, 2018). These multisensory experiences promote emotional well-being and function as psychological intervention mechanisms that strengthen individuals’ connection to nature (Kim et al., 2025; Van Den Berg et al., 2010; Whiteley et al., 2024).

Despite these benefits, previous research on school gardening has primarily focused on outcomes related to nutrition, physical activity, and learning (Ohly et al., 2016; Williams and Dixon, 2013), thereby providing limited insight into the psychological mechanisms underlying improvements in emotional well-being (Skelly and Bradley, 2007; Wells et al., 2014). Accordingly, this study focuses on “connectedness to nature” (or nature connectedness) as a key pathway through which gardening translates into emotional well-being. Connectedness to nature refers to the extent to which individuals perceive nature as being psychologically connected to themselves (Schultz, 2002), which forms an important foundation for positive affect and happiness (Mayer and Frantz, 2004; Nisbet et al., 2011).

Previous studies have reported that direct contact with nature enhances connectedness to nature, and that this psychological bond serves as an important pathway leading to emotional restoration and life satisfaction (Mayer et al., 2009; Nisbet and Zelenski, 2013). Furthermore, nature-based activities influence emotional well-being through the mediation of nature connectedness, which serves as a vital bridge between nature experiences and emotional outcomes (Capaldi et al., 2014; Pritchard et al., 2020). Thus, accumulated experiential interactions with nature through gardening may strengthen familiarity with and emotional attachment to nature, ultimately increasing positive affect and enhancing daily emotional vitality. In other words, connectedness to nature can be understood as a pivotal mediating mechanism that translates the behavioral experience of gardening into emotional well-being, and empirically examining this psychological pathway remains an important research task.

Accordingly, this study aimed to examine the effect of elementary school students’ satisfaction with school garden activities on their emotional well-being with nature connectedness serving as a mediator. In doing so, the study also investigated the moderating effect of prior expectations to elucidate the psychological effects of school-based garden activities in a structural manner.

Research Methods

Research Design and Participants

To investigate the effects of a school gardening program on children’s nature connectedness and emotional well-being, this study employed a one-group pretest-posttest design. Following prior consultation with “A” Elementary School in Gyeonggi-do, the study was conducted on October 21, 2025, as part of the regular school curriculum. The participants comprised 124 third-and fourth-grade students enrolled at the school. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (a) enrollment in the third or fourth grade, (b) ability to participate in the entire program, and (c) ability to complete self-report on the survey items independently. Given the total number of participants, students were divided into small groups of five, and the program was implemented across two separate sessions. All participants attended the single-session program only once. The program lasted 90 minutes and was conducted in an outdoor school garden. The garden, covering approximately 520 m2, functioned as an educational space within the students’ everyday school environment where they could directly engage with natural elements.

The study procedure followed a “pre-survey, program implementation, and post-survey” sequence. Prior to the program, participants completed a pre-survey covering demographic characteristics, including gender and age, as well as the principal study variables. Immediately after completion of the activities, a post-survey using the same measurement instruments was administered. Before the activities began, the purpose and procedures of the program were explained in detail. During the activities, students were encouraged to voluntarily participate and engage with nature through multisensory experiences. The program was jointly supervised by the researchers and homeroom teachers, who maintained continuous observation throughout to ensure participant safety. No physical or emotional adverse events or safety incidents were reported throughout the study period.

This study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards for research involving human participants, and participation was entirely voluntary. Detailed information regarding the study purpose and procedures was provided in advance to both students and their guardians through the school and homeroom teachers. However, since this study applied a one-group pretest-posttest design without a control group for comparison, caution is warranted in making causal interpretations of the findings (Kim et al., 2020). In addition, because the intervention consisted of a single-session gardening activity, the long-term sustain-ability of the observed effects could not be determined (Park et al., 2016).

School Garden-Based Experiential Program

The school gardening program implemented in this study was a nature-based experiential activity designed in consideration of the developmental level of elementary school students. The program was structured to provide progressive opportunities for interaction with nature, drawing upon the pathways to nature connectedness proposed by Lumber et al. (2017) and referencing previous studies on nature connectedness programs for children (Holloway et al., 2023; Kong and Chen, 2024).

Lumber et al. (2017) proposed that nature connectedness develops not merely through exposure to nature, but through multidimensional experiential pathways, including sensory contact, emotion, meaning, compassion, and appreciation of beauty. Reflecting this theoretical framework, the present program was designed to integrate understanding of plant life cycles, repeated contact with nature, sensory-based experiences, caregiving activities, and reflective practices. Specifically, participants developed cognitive understanding of nature through seed sowing and observation of early plant growth stages. Experiences of responsibility and emotional attachment were fostered through caring for plants, while direct interaction with nature was enhanced through sensory engagement. In addition, reflective and sharing activities were incorporated following the gardening experiences to facilitate personal meaning-making and emotional awareness (Table 1).

Structure of the gardening activity program

Meanwhile, as the program was conducted during the autumn season in October, it focused on autumn flowering plants, such as chrysanthemums, and leafy vegetables, including lettuce and arugula, which have relatively short growth cycles and allow observable developmental changes within a limited period. Some plants were experienced through direct sowing and planting activities, whereas pre-existing plants in the garden were used for fruit observation activities.

Measurement Instruments

To evaluate the effects of the nature-based experiences provided through the school gardening program, this study defined nature connectedness, emotional well-being, pre-activity expectations, and post-activity satisfaction as key evaluative variables. Surveys were administered before and after participation in the program. The pre-survey measured nature connectedness, emotional well-being, and expectations regarding the activity. The post-survey employed the identical items for nature connectedness and emotional well-being to assess changes over time, while additionally measuring satisfaction with the activity. All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). Instructions for completing the questionnaire were provided both in written form and verbally by the researchers, and additional explanations were offered when participants experienced difficulty understanding specific items.

Nature Connectedness

Nature connectedness was assessed using five items measuring interest in natural elements, perceived value of nature, sense of connectedness, environmental conservation awareness, and caregiving intentions. All items were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes toward nature. The items were adapted from attitude assessment scales used in prior studies examining nature and environmental experiences among elementary school students (Cheng and Monroe, 2012; Richardson et al., 2019; Sobko et al., 2018). Internal consistency of attitudes toward nature was examined using Cronbach’s α, which yielded a value of 0.815, indicating acceptable reliability.

Emotional Well-Being

Participants’ emotional well-being was assessed using five items reflecting positive affect and everyday emotional vitality, including joy, vitality, confidence, interest/engagement, and happiness. The items were developed based on the conceptual framework of the PANAS-C, a measure of positive affect in children (Laurent et al., 1999). As the study focused on the positive emotional effects of the program, only the positive affect dimension was assessed. The original items were simplified and modified to reflect everyday contexts appropriate to the developmental level of elementary school children. Internal consistency reliability for the emotional well-being scale yielded a Cronbach’s α of 0.701, indicating an acceptable level of reliability.

Pre-Program Expectation and Post-Program Satisfaction

To examine participants’ subjective evaluations of the school gardening program, their levels of pre-program expectation and post-program satisfaction were measured. The instrument was developed with reference to indicators from previous studies investigating satisfaction factors in school horticultural programs (Kook and Kang, 2024; Lee et al., 2020).

Grounded in Expectancy-Disconfirmation Theory (Oliver, 1980), the measurement method was designed to enable a comparative analysis of pre-activity expectations and post-activity perceived performance using identical items. The scale consisted of six items: interest, usefulness, environmental awareness, interpersonal relationships, knowledge acquisition, and intention to continue participation. Reliability analysis demonstrated high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s α values of .867 for expectation and .919 for satisfaction (Table 2).

Measurement variables and instruments

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 24.0 and the PROCESS Macro (Version 4.2). First, descriptive statistical analyses were conducted to examine the general characteristics of the participants, and Cronbach’s α coefficients were calculated to assess the reliability of each measurement variable. To evaluate changes before and after participation in the school gardening program, paired-samples t-tests were performed for nature connectedness, emotional well-being, and expectation-satisfaction variables. Pearson correlation analyses were conducted to examine relationships among the major study variables. To test the primary hypothesis of the study, moderated mediation analysis was conducted using PROCESS Macro Model 7. Post-program satisfaction was specified as the independent variable, post-program nature connectedness as the mediator, post-program emotional well-being as the dependent variable, and pre-program expectation as the moderator. In the analysis, pre-program nature connectedness and pre-program emotional well-being were included as control variables to control for baseline effects. The statistical significance of the mediation effect was examined using 5,000 bootstrap samples, and the effect was considered significant when the 95% confidence interval did not include zero. The significance level for all statistical tests was set at p < .05.

Results and Discussion

General Characteristics of the Participants

The participants comprised 65 children aged 10 years (52.4%) and 59 children aged 11 years (47.6%). Regarding gender distribution, 63 participants were male (50.8%) and 61 were female (49.2%) (Table 3).

General characteristics of the participants (N = 124)

Pre-Post Differences Following Participation in School Gardening Activities

To examine changes associated with participation in the school gardening program, paired-samples t-tests were conducted to compare pre-and post-test scores for nature connectedness, emotional well-being, and expectation-satisfaction variables. The results indicated that both nature connectedness and emotional well-being significantly increased following participation in the program. In addition, the expectation-satisfaction scores for the gardening activities suggested that participants’ post-program satisfaction was significantly higher than their pre-program expectations (Table 4). These findings suggest that engagement in school-based gardening activities brought about positive changes in participants’ connectedness to nature and emotional well-being.

Pre-post differences in program outcomes (N = 124)

Relationships Among the Main Variables

Pearson’s correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationships among the key variables included in this study, and the results are presented in Table 5. The variables analyzed included pre-program expectation, post-program satisfaction, post-program nature connectedness, and post-program emotional well-being. The results showed that post-program satisfaction had statistically significant positive correlations with pre-program expectation (r = .604, p = .001), nature connectedness (r = .693, p = .001), and emotional well-being (r = .419, p = .001). In particular, a strong positive correlation was also found between nature connectedness and emotional well-being (r = .407, p = .001), indicating a close relationship between the two variables.

Correlations among the main variables

Mediating Effect of Nature Connectedness

To examine whether satisfaction influenced emotional well-being through the mediating role of nature connectedness, and whether pre-program expectation moderated this mediating pathway, a moderated mediation analysis was conducted using PROCESS Model 7. In the analysis, pre-program nature connectedness and pre-program emotional well-being were included as control variables, allowing the relationships among the variables to be estimated after controlling for baseline levels.

The first-stage regression model, in which nature connectedness served as the dependent variable, was statistically significant (R2 = .733, F (5, 118) = 64.63, p = .001), explaining 73.3% of the total variance. Satisfaction had a significant positive effect on post-program nature connectedness (B = 0.472, SE = 0.091, p = .000), whereas expectation had a significant negative effect (B = −0.165, SE = 0.066, p = .013). However, the interaction term between satisfaction and expectation was not statistically significant (B = 0.063, SE = 0.060, p = .301), indicating that expectation did not significantly moderate the relationship between satisfaction and nature connectedness.

The second-stage regression model, with post-program emotional well-being as the dependent variable, was also statistically significant (R2 = .549, F (4, 119) = 36.17, p = .001). Satisfaction had a significant positive effect on post-program emotional well-being (B = 0.293, SE = 0.086, p = .001), and nature connectedness also exerted a significant positive effect on emotional well-being (B = 0.526, SE = 0.116, p = .000). These findings suggest that satisfaction significantly affects emotional well-being through the mediation of nature connectedness.

Bootstrapping analyses based on 5,000 resamples indicated that the 95% confidence intervals for the indirect effects did not include zero at any level of expectation— low (−1 SD), mean, or high (+1 SD)—thereby demonstrating statistically significant indirect effects. In contrast, the confidence interval for the index of moderated mediation included zero (95% CI [−0.030, 0.137]), indicating that differences in indirect effects according to expectation levels were not statistically significant. Overall, the findings suggest that nature connectedness partially mediated the relationship between satisfaction and emotional well-being. However, neither the moderating effect of expectation nor the moderated mediation effect was statistically significant (Table 6, Fig. 1).

Results of moderated mediation analysis

Fig. 1

Path model of program satisfaction and emotional well-being.

Conclusion

This study is significant in that it examined the effects of school-based gardening activities on elementary school students’ nature connectedness and emotional well-being using a pretest-posttest design, while also analyzing the structural pathway through which satisfaction influences emotional well-being, as mediated by nature connectedness. The findings demonstrated that both nature connectedness and emotional well-being among elementary school students significantly improved following their participation in gardening activities. These results are consistent with previous studies (Holloway et al., 2023; Ohly et al., 2016), which reported that school garden programs can positively influence children’s health and well-being.

However, whereas previous research has primarily focused on identifying the direct effects of gardening programs, this study distinguishes itself by structurally explaining how gardening activities contribute to emotional well-being through the psychological pathway of nature connectedness. This finding is consistent with prior studies (Gu et al., 2023; Mayer and Frantz, 2004; Nisbet et al., 2011; Zeng et al., 2025) and a recent meta-analysis (Arola et al., 2023), all of which emphasize nature connectedness as a crucial foundation for positive emotions and happiness. That is, this study empirically confirms that the benefits of gardening activities arise not merely from participation itself, but are rather mediated by a psychological connection with nature.

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that significant emotional changes were observed in this study despite the program consisting of only a single session. This finding aligns with previous research showing that even brief exposure to natural environments can enhance positive emotions and nature connectedness (Mayer et al., 2009), as well as studies demonstrating that short-term green activities can improve emotional states (Barton and Pretty, 2010; Bettmann et al., 2025; Gungormus and Pérez-Mármol, 2026). These results suggest that nature-based interventions may produce meaningful psychological benefits even without long-term engagement.

Meanwhile, expectation was not found to significantly moderate the relationship between satisfaction and nature connectedness. This suggests that the quality of the experience during the activity itself may play a more important role than participants’ prior expectations. This finding is in line with discussions by Gungormus and Pérez-Mármol (2026) and Holloway et al. (2023), which emphasized the importance of participatory experiences and contextual factors in explaining the effectiveness of school garden programs. Taken together, this study demonstrates that school gardening activities function as more than mere educational programs; they serve as a psychological mechanism that promotes children’s emotional well-being. Notably, by empirically identifying the mediating role of nature connectedness, this study provides an empirical basis to explain the effects of nature-based educational activities more structurally.

Nevertheless, this study has limitations regarding causal inference due to its single-group pretest-posttest design—a persistent challenge frequently noted in nature-based intervention research (Holloway et al., 2023; Ohly et al., 2016). Additionally, as the participants were limited to elementary school students from a specific region, the generalizability of the findings may be constrained. Future research should examine the long-term effects of nature-based experiences through experimental designs incorporating control groups and longitudinal follow-up studies. In addition, more sophisticated analyses considering contextual factors such as activity intensity, level of participation, and environmental characteristics are needed.

References

Arola T., Aulake M., Ott A., Lindholm M., Kouvonen P., Virtanen P., Paloniemi R.. 2023;The impacts of nature connectedness on children’s well-being: Systematic literature review. Journal of Environmental Psychology 85:101913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101913.
Barton J., Pretty J.. 2010;What is the best dose of nature and green exercise for improving mental health? A multi-study analysis. Environmental Science and Technology 44(10):3947–3955. https://doi.org/10.1021/es903183r.
Bettmann J.E., Speelman E., Jolley A., Casucci T.. 2025;A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of nature exposure dose on adults with mental illness. Behavioral Sciences 15(2):153. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15020153.
Bikomeye J., Balza J., Beyer K.. 2021;The impact of schoolyard greening on children’s physical activity and socioemotional health: A systematic review of experimental studies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(2):535. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020535.
Blair D.. 2009;The child in the garden: An evaluative review of the benefits of school gardening. Journal of Environmental Education 40(2):15–38. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.40.2.15-38.
Capaldi C.A., Dopko R.L., Zelenski J.M.. 2014;The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology :5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976.
Chawla L.. 2015;Benefits of nature contact for children. Journal of Planning Literature 30(4):433–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412215595441.
Cheng JC-H, Monroe M.C.. 2012;Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environment and Behavior 44(1):31–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916510385082.
Durlak J.A., Weissberg R.P., Dymnicki A.B., Taylor R.D., Schellinger K.B.. 2011;The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development 82(1):405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x.
Dyment J.E., Bell A.C.. 2007;Grounds for movement: Green school grounds as sites for promoting physical activity. Health Education Research 23(6):952–962. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cym059.
Fazel M., Hoagwood K., Stephan S., Ford T.. 2014;Mental health interventions in schools in high-income countries. The Lancet Psychiatry 1(5):377–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(14)70312-8.
Greenberg M.T., Weissberg R.P., O’Brien M.U., Zins J.E., Fredericks L., Resnik H., Elias M.J.. 2003;Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional, and academic learning. American Psychologist 58(6–7):466–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466.
Gu X., Zheng H., Tse C.-S.. 2023;Contact with nature for emotion regulation: The roles of nature connectedness and beauty engagement in urban young adults. Scientific Reports 13(1):21377. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-48756-4.
Gungormus D.B., Pérez-Mármol J.M.. 2026;The mental health benefits of hands-on participation in urban afforestation activities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 116:129201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2025.129201.
Hartig T., Mitchell R., De Vries S., Frumkin H.. 2014;Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health 35(1):207–228. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443.
He Z., Ko H.-S., Kim S.-B.. 2023;The effect of adolescents’ peer attachment on adaptation to school life: The mediating effect of self-esteem. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society 24(10):370–379. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2023.24.10.370.
Holloway T.P., Dalton L., Hughes R., Jayasinghe S., Patterson K.A.E., Murray S., Soward R., Byrne N.M., Hills A.P., Ahuja K.D.K.. 2023;School gardening and health and well-being of school-aged children: A realist synthesis. Nutrients 15(5):1190. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15051190.
Kaplan S.. 1995;The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15(3):169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2.
Kim H.S., Kim J.Y., Lee S.H., Park K.S.. 2020;Effects of forest experience education program on adolescents’ aggression and emotion. Korean Journal of Youth Studies 31(4):107–126. https://doi.org/10.14816/sky.2020.31.4.107.
Kim S.-H., Son H.-J., Lee S.-M., Seong M.S., Park S.-A., Jeon M.. 2025;Effects of ACT-based agro-healing programs on subjective emotions: A cross-age group comparison. Journal of People, Plants, and Environment 28(4):419–432. https://doi.org/10.11628/ksppe.2025.28.4.419.
Kim S.-H., Seo J.-B., Ryu B.-Y.. 2024;Stress control in older people through healing garden activities. Behavioral Sciences 14(3):234. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14030234.
Kong C., Chen J.. 2024;School garden and instructional interventions foster children’s interest in nature. People and Nature 6(2):712–732. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10597.
Kook C.S., Kang M.J.. 2024;A study on the effect of horticultural healing program satisfaction on life satisfaction: Focusing on the mediating effect of self-esteem and positive interpersonal relationships. Journal of Business Convergence 9(1):93–100. https://doi.org/10.31152/JB.2024.02.9.1.93.
Laurent J., Catanzaro S.J., Joiner T.E., Rudolph K.D., Potter K.I., Lambert S., Osborne L., Gathright T.. 1999;A measure of positive and negative affect for children: Scale development and preliminary validation. Psychological Assessment 11(3):326–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.11.3.326.
Lee A.-Y., Kim H.-R., Kwon H.J., Kim S.-Y., Park S.-A.. 2021;Improving children’s emotional health through installing biowalls in classrooms. Journal of People, Plants, and Environment 24(1):29–38. https://doi.org/10.11628/ksppe.2021.24.1.29.
Lee S.-M., Seo H., Yoon H.-K., Jung Y.-B., Hong I.-K., Lee S.. 2020;The effect of horticultural therapy program based on basic psychological need theory using school garden for stress and school life satisfaction of middle school students. Journal of Korean Practical Arts Education 26(4):181–200. https://doi.org/10.29113/skpaer.2020.26.4.010.
Lumber R., Richardson M., Sheffield D.. 2017;Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PLoS ONE 12(5):e0177186. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177186.
Mayer F.S., Frantz C.M.. 2004;The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(4):503–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001.
Mayer F.S., Frantz C.M., Bruehlman-Senecal E., Dolliver K.. 2009;Why is nature beneficial?: The role of connectedness to nature. Environment and Behavior 41(5):607–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508319745.
McMahan E.A., Estes D.. 2015;The effect of contact with natural environments on positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Psychology 10(6):507–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.994224.
Min D.K.. 2014;The influence of parents’ child abuse, school violence and friends attachment on mental health in childhood. Journal of the Korean Data and Information Science Society 25(2):293–304. https://doi.org/10.7465/jkdi.2014.25.2.293.
Nisbet E.K., Zelenski J.M.. 2013;The NR-6: A new brief measure of nature relatedness. Frontiers in Psychology :4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00813.
Nisbet E.K., Zelenski J.M., Murphy S.A.. 2011;Happiness is in our nature: Exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies 12(2):303–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7.
Ohly H., Gentry S., Wigglesworth R., Bethel A., Lovell R., Garside R.. 2016;A systematic review of the health and well-being impacts of school gardening: Synthesis of quantitative and qualitative evidence. BMC Public Health 16(1):286. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-2941-0.
Oliver R.L.. 1980;A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research 17(4):460–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700405.
Park S.-A., Lee A.-Y., Lee G.-J., Kim D.-S., Kim W.S., Shoemaker C.A., Son K.-C.. 2016;Horticultural activity interventions and outcomes: A review. Horticultural Science and Technology 34(4):513–527. https://doi.org/10.12972/kjhst.20160053.
Pritchard A., Richardson M., Sheffield D., McEwan K.. 2020;The relationship between nature connectedness and eudaimonic well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies 21(3):1145–1167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00118-6.
Richardson M., McEwan K.. 2018;30 days wild and the relationships between engagement with nature’s beauty, nature connectedness and well-being. Frontiers in Psychology 9:1500. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01500.
Richardson M., Hunt A., Hinds J., Bragg R., Fido D., Petronzi D., Barbett L., Clitherow T., White M.. 2019;A measure of nature connectedness for children and adults: Validation, performance, and insights. Sustainability 11(12):3250. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123250.
Roeser R.W., Eccles J.S., Sameroff A.J.. 2000;School as a context of early adolescents’ academic and social-emotional development: A summary of research findings. Elementary School Journal 100(5):443–471. https://doi.org/10.1086/499650.
Schultz P.W.. 2002. Inclusion with nature: The psychology of human-nature relations. In : Schmuck P., Schultz W.P., eds. Psychology of Sustainable Development Springer. US: p. 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0995-0_4.
Skelly S.M., Bradley J.C.. 2007;The growing phenomenon of school gardens: Measuring their variation and their affect on students’ sense of responsibility and attitudes toward science and the environment. Applied Environmental Education and Communication 6(1):97–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/15330150701319438.
Sobko T., Jia Z., Brown G.. 2018;Measuring connectedness to nature in preschool children in an urban setting and its relation to psychological functioning. PLoS ONE 13(11):e0207057. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207057.
Soga M., Gaston K.J.. 2016;Extinction of experience: The loss of human-nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14(2):94–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225.
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 Environmental Psychology 11(3):201–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7.
Van Den Berg A.E., Van Winsum-Westra M., De Vries S., Van Dillen S.M.. 2010;Allotment gardening and health: A comparative survey among allotment gardeners and their neighbors without an allotment. Environmental Health 9(1):74. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-9-74.
Wang M.-T., Degol J.L.. 2016;School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review 28(2):315–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1.
Weare K., Nind M.. 2011;Mental health promotion and problem prevention in schools: What does the evidence say? Health Promotion International 26(suppl 1):i29–i69. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dar075.
Wells N.M., Myers B.M., Henderson C.R.. 2014;School gardens and physical activity: A randomized controlled trial of low-income elementary schools. Preventive Medicine 69:S27–S33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.10.012.
White M.P., Alcock I., Grellier J., Wheeler B.W., Hartig T., Warber S.L., Bone A., Depledge M.H., Fleming L.E.. 2019;Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Scientific Reports 9(1):7730. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-01944097-3.
Whiteley H., Parkinson J., Hartfiel N., Makanjuola A., Lloyd-Williams H., Lawrence C., Edwards R.T.. 2024;Evaluating the well-being benefits and social value of volunteer gardening: Health economics meets behavioral science. Behavioral Sciences 14(12):1233. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14121233.
Williams D.R., Dixon P.S.. 2013;Impact of garden-based learning on academic outcomes in schools: Synthesis of research between 1990 and 2010. Review of Educational Research 83(2):211–235. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313475824.
Zeng Q., Yang Z., Chen Z., Chen P.. 2025;The relationships between nature connectedness, nature contact, and positive psychological outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology 105:102675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102675.

Article information Continued

Fig. 1

Path model of program satisfaction and emotional well-being.

Table 1

Structure of the gardening activity program

From seed to plant: A gardening activity program

Step Activity stage Description Pathways to nature connectedness (Lumber et al., 2017)
1 Observation of garden plants Observing the form and characteristics of plants Contact, Beauty
2 Understanding plant life cycle Understanding the process of seed-germination-growth-fruiting Meaning
3 Learning plant care Learning growth conditions such as water, light, and soil, and practicing plant care Compassion
4 Sensory-based garden experience Experiencing colors, textures, and scents of plants Emotion, Contact
5 Utilization of plant resources Exploring the relationship between plants and human life Meaning
6 Reflection and sharing Discussing and expressing experiences from the activities Meaning, Emotion

Table 2

Measurement variables and instruments

Variable Measurement items Cronbach’s α References
Nature Connectedness Interest in nature, perceived value of nature, sense of connectedness, environmental conservation awareness, caregiving intentions 0.815 Cheng and Monroe (2012); Richardson et al. (2019); Sobko et al. (2018)
Emotional Well-being Enjoyment, vitality, confidence, interest and engagement, and happiness (positive affect dimension) 0.701 Laurent et al. (1999)
Pre-program expectation Interest, usefulness, environmental awareness, interpersonal relationships, knowledge acquisition, intention to continue 0.867 Kook and Kang (2024); Lee et al. (2020)
Post-program satisfaction 0.919

All items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Table 3

General characteristics of the participants (N = 124)

Category N %
Age 10 65 52.4
11 59 47.6

Gender Male 63 50.8
Female 61 49.2

Table 4

Pre-post differences in program outcomes (N = 124)

Variable Pre gardening activity (M±SD) Post gardening activity (M±SD) t dz p
Nature connectedness 4.06 ± 0.710 4.21 ± 0.734 −3.522 0.32 .001
Emotional well-being 3.64 ± 0.746 3.81 ± 0.889 −2.427 0.20 .017
Expectation-Satisfaction 4.25 ± 0.711 4.50 ± 0.706 −4.406 0.40 .000

M, mean; SD, standard deviation; t, Student’s t statistic; dz, Cohen’s effect size for paired designs.

Table 5

Correlations among the main variables

Variable Expectation Satisfaction Post-program nature connectedness Post-program emotional well-being
Expectation 1
Satisfaction .604** 1
Post-program nature connectedness .475** .693** 1
Post-program emotional well-being .177* .419** .407** 1
*, **

significant at p < .05, and .01, respectively, by Pearson's correlation analysis

Table 6

Results of moderated mediation analysis

Model B SE t p
Outcome: Post-test Nature Connectedness, R2 = 0.733, F = 64.63, p < .001 (path a)

Satisfaction (X) 0.472 0.091 5.208 .000
Expectation (W) −0.165 0.066 −2.507 .013
Satisfaction × Expectation (X × W) 0.063 0.060 1.038 .301
Pre-test Nature Connectedness 0.657 0.065 10.049 .000
Pre-test Emotional well-being −0.025 0.051 −0.496 .620

Outcome: Post-test Emotional well-being, R2 = 0.549, F = 36.17, p < .001 (path b, c')

Satisfaction (X) 0.293 0.086 3.422 .001
Nature Connectedness (M) 0.526 0.116 4.538 .000
Pre-test Nature Connectedness −0.576 0.107 −5.400 .000
Pre-test Emotional well-being 0.599 0.066 9.098 .000

Conditional Indirect Effects (Bootstrapping 5000 samples)

Level of Expectation (W) Effect Boot SE 95%CI
−1SD 0.215 0.079 [0.083, 0.394]
Mean 0.248 0.107 [0.082, 0.497]
+1SD 0.281 0.141 [0.067, 0.618]
Index of Moderated Mediation Index Boot SE 95%CI
Expectation(V) 0.033 0.041 [−0.030, 0.137]

Y = outcome variable

X = independent variable (satisfaction)

M = mediator (nature connectedness)

W = moderator (expectation)

V=covariates (pre-test nature connectedness, pre-test emotional well-being)

LLCI and ULCI indicate the 95% confidence interval based on 5,000 bootstrap samples. Expectation was tested as a moderator of the path from satisfaction to nature connectedness.