Physical Environments and Child Well-Being in Early Childhood Education: Current Evidence and Research Gaps

Healthy, inclusive, and environmentally supportive educational settings are increasingly recognised as relevant to children’s development, well-being, and equity. However, evidence on the physical environment in early childhood education remains fragmented across outdoor spaces, indoor spatial organisation, indoor environmental quality, materials, and contaminant-related conditions. This systematic review aimed to synthesise current evidence on the relationship between the physical environment of early childhood educational settings and multidimensional indicators of child well-being. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO, and the review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searches were conducted in Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, ERIC, and APA PsycInfo. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using ROBINS-I and JBI critical appraisal tools. Eighteen studies were included. Of these, 10 focused on outdoor spaces and schoolyards, five on indoor spaces and spatial organisation, and three on indoor environmental quality, materials, or contaminants. The findings suggest four main interpretive patterns: (i) expanding opportunities for participation through functionally diverse areas and materials; (ii) shaping coexistence and interaction through access to and distribution of resources; (iii) supporting sensory regulation; and (iv) sustaining environmental health and habitability. Overall, more favourable settings were associated with better indicators of activity and play, interaction and coexistence, and involvement and regulation. For indoor environmental quality studies, however, the evidence was mainly indirect, referring to environmental-health, comfort, exposure, or habitability indicators rather than direct child-level well-being outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was moderate to low due to methodological limitations, particularly confounding and selection bias in non-randomised intervention studies and imprecision in the measurement of environmental exposure in several cross-sectional studies. The findings may inform cautious reflection on spatial design, educational practice, and policy, but stronger recommendations require more robust study designs, reproducible exposure metrics, clearer distinction between direct and indirect well-being-related indicators, and comparable outcome measures.