A nationwide Norwegian study links school greenery to less bullying and better learning in urban and disadvantaged areas.
Green school surroundings do not benefit all pupils in the same way. According to a new nationwide study from Norway, school greenness was linked to less bullying in densely built areas and better mathematics performance in low‑income neighbourhoods, while showing limited effect in many other contexts.
The findings are based on data from almost the entire Norwegian school system and highlight that greenery surrounding schools matter most where pupils face the greatest social and economic challenges.
A population‑wide Norwegian study
The researchers analysed data from nearly all primary and lower secondary schools in Norway, covering about 636,000 pupils across 2,745 schools. Using satellite images, they assessed the amount of vegetation surrounding each school, both close to school buildings and across full school catchment areas.
These measures of school greenness were then linked to national test results in mathematics, reading, and English, as well as to pupil survey data on bullying, thriving at school, and peer inclusion during breaks.
Greenery mattered mainly in dense urban settings
Across Norway as a whole, the researchers found weak or no direct links between school greenness and pupils’ outcomes. However, when schools were analysed by urban density and neighbourhood conditions, a clear pattern emerged.
“We saw that green school surroundings do not benefit all pupils equally,” says public health researcher Emma Charlott Nordbø from the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU).
“In dense urban environments, where children and adolescents have fewer opportunities to encounter green environments in their daily lives, greenery around schools may play a disproportionately important role. Under such conditions, small differences in access to green surroundings can matter more here,” she explains.
In rural areas and greener regions, the associations were weaker and, in some cases, even reversed.
Less bullying
The strongest links between school greenness and pupils’ well‑being were found in densely built, compact urban areas. In these settings, greener school surroundings were associated with lower levels of bullying and greater thriving at school. A similar, but weaker, tendency was also seen for peer inclusion during breaks.
These associations were not evident in the same way in rural schools, suggesting that greenery plays a different role where access to natural environments is already widespread. In compact cities, where outdoor space is limited and highly built up, even modest amounts of vegetation around schools may contribute to calmer and more supportive everyday environments for pupils.
Neighbourhood social conditions mattered more than greenery
The study also confirms an established finding in education research: pupils’ social and economic background was the strongest and most consistent predictor of academic achievement and was also closely linked to well‑being.
Schools in more affluent neighbourhoods generally performed better in mathematics, reading, and English, regardless of how green their surroundings were.
However, school greenness did appear to play a role in lower socioeconomic neighbourhoods. In these areas, greener school surroundings were linked to better performance in mathematics. This association was not found in higher‑income areas.
“Greener school environments did not, and cannot, outweigh social inequalities in educational achievement alone,” explains Nordbø, “but for pupils in less affluent neighbourhoods, it did appear to offer a measurable academic boost, particularly in mathematics.”
“One possible explanation is that greener school surroundings may offer stress reducing and restorative benefits that matter more where pupils face greater challenges,” says Nordbø. “In more affluent areas, these benefits may already be provided through other resources, making greenness less visible in academic outcomes.”
Mixed patterns in rural schools
The results were more complex outside cities. In rural schools, higher levels of greenness were associated with lower peer inclusion during recess. Similar patterns were also observed in neighbourhoods with lower socioeconomic status.
These findings suggest that greenery alone does not guarantee positive social outcomes. In some settings, green areas may be less structured, less supervised, or less integrated into the design of school outdoor spaces.
More vegetation does not automatically create better social arenas if pupils cannot easily see one another, gather, or play together. How outdoor areas are designed and used in everyday school life is likely crucial.
Not a one‑size‑fits‑all solution
Most previous studies of school greenness have focused on individual cities or regions. By covering almost the entire Norwegian school system, from dense cities to small rural municipalities, this study shows that the potential effects of greenery are strongly context dependent.
Overall, greenness surrounding schools appeared to be most relevant:
- for mathematics performance at schools in low‑income neighbourhoods
- for well‑being at schools in densely built urban areas
In other settings, the associations were weak, absent, or mixed.
“The takeaway is not that green is always good,” says Nordbø. “Context shapes whether greenery becomes a resource for pupils. School greenness seems to work best where needs are greatest and resources are limited, and green initiatives should be adapted to local conditions rather than copied everywhere.”
Fact box: School greenness
- Researchers studied nearly all primary and lower secondary schools in Norway
- The study covered about 636,000 pupils in 2,745 schools
- School greenery was measured using satellite images of vegetation
- Pupils’ results came from national tests and school surveys
- Outcomes included learning, bullying, thriving, and social inclusion
- Greener surroundings mattered most in dense cities and poorer neighbourhoods
- Social and economic background was far more important than greenery overall
- The study shows associations, not cause‑and‑effect