Search process and overview

The search yielded exactly 1300 initial hits. The removal of duplicates resulted in 911 articles entering title and abstract screening. Among these, a total of 209 articles still underwent the integrative full-text screening and, if deemed eligible, data extraction (Figure 2). We finally assigned 129 articles to five different categories. These categories were inductively derived to structure the results and accounted for the fact that the articles approached the nexus between physical education and environmental education with different functions and purposes, thus requiring separate reporting. More specifically, n = 25 articles contained “conceptual discussions and argumentative patterns,” n = 12 articles contained “curricular discussions and international comparisons,” n = 44 articles contained “programming and intervention content,” n = 32 articles contained “teacher and enabler perspectives,” and n = 37 articles contained “student perspectives and outcomes.” Information about double coding can be retrieved from Supplementary Table 2. The following sections considered the number of assigned articles to appropriately guide the length of the respective category reports.

Figure 2. Flow chart of the review process.

Note: full-text screened articles could be double categorised (for details, see Supplementary Table 2).

Conceptual discussions and argumentative patterns

The discussion at the disciplinary nexus between physical education and environmental education is hallmarked by different terms and concepts, including, for instance, eco-motricity (Pazos-Couto, Arevalo, Middleton & Kawada Reference Pazos-Couto, Arevalo, Middleton and Kawada2021), outdoor physical education (Attali & Saint-Martin, Reference Attali and Saint-Martin2017), wilderness education (Fleishack, Reference Fleishack2012), nature-based physical activity (Gruno & Gibbons, Reference Gruno and Gibbons2020), “friluftsliv” (Beery, Reference Beery2013; Lyngstad & Saether, Reference Lyngstad and Saether2021; Sjödin, Quennerstedt & Öhman Reference Sjödin, Quennerstedt and Öhman2023), or outdoor adventure education (Stratton, Reference Stratton2022; Williams & Wainwright, Reference Williams and Wainwright2016a). Therefore, attention was warranted to not further blur the terminological boundaries and not attribute disproportionate claims to certain concepts (Martin & McCullagh, Reference Martin and McCullagh2011). While most articles argued through a physical education lens to stress the inspiring or enriching potential of certain outdoor elements (Frühauf et al., Reference Frühauf, Kopp and Greier2023; González, Reference González2001; Rose, Reference Rose2001; Stratton, Reference Stratton2022), Riley and Proctor (Reference Riley and Proctor2022) underscored the value of an authentic transdisciplinary endeavour to effectively nourish this interface or nexus. In summary, we recognised parallels and overlaps with discussions on PL. For instance, many researchers highlighted holistic (e.g., bio-psycho-social) health potentials or multidimensional (e.g., physical, cognitive, affective, social) learning outcomes (Bortolotti, Reference Bortolotti2021; Gruno & Gibbons, Reference Gruno and Gibbons2020; Martin & McCullagh, Reference Martin and McCullagh2011; Pignato, Patania, Manzo & Coppola Reference Pignato, Patania, Manzo and Coppola2021; Stratton, Reference Stratton2022; Williams & Wainwright, Reference Williams and Wainwright2016a). There was also an interesting parallel drawing on the pedagogical metaphor of a “journey” (Fleishack, Reference Fleishack2012; Quay, Reference Quay2002; Williams & Wainwright, Reference Williams and Wainwright2016b), denoting experiential and developmental processes (Green et al., Reference Green, Roberts, Sheehan and Keegan2018; Taplin, Reference Taplin and Whitehead2019). Moreover, conceptual articles strongly underlined human-nature bonds (Beery, Reference Beery2013; Gruno & Gibbons, Reference Gruno and Gibbons2020; Luthe et al., Reference Luthe, Häusler and Roth2007; Lyngstad & Saether, Reference Lyngstad and Saether2021; Pignato et al., Reference Pignato, Patania, Manzo and Coppola2021; Quay, Reference Quay2002), thus directly or indirectly corroborating existentialist descriptions of PL about interactions with the physical (and social) environment (Durden-Myers et al., Reference Durden-Myers, Bartle, Whitehead and Dhillon2021; Riley & Proctor, Reference Riley and Proctor2023; Whitehead, Reference Whitehead2007). Similarly, researchers underlined that nature basically provides opportunities to be physically active without competitive aspirations (Beery, Reference Beery2013; Rose, Reference Rose2001; Sjödin et al., Reference Sjödin, Quennerstedt and Öhman2023). Both the outdoor education and the PL literature shared a narrative that portrayed a development away from objective and normative standards (e.g., competencies that have to be mastered) toward individual experiences and responsibilities (Cosgriff, Reference Cosgriff2008; Sjödin et al., Reference Sjödin, Quennerstedt and Öhman2023; Williams & Wainwright, Reference Williams and Wainwright2016a). Some scholars, however, criticised this human-centered view, as the modern era also emphasises person-(ego)centred acting and requests a shift towards sustainability, environmental awareness and connections with Earth (Martin & McCullagh, Reference Martin and McCullagh2011; Mikaels, Reference Mikaels2018; Pazos-Couto et al., Reference Pazos-Couto, Arevalo, Middleton and Kawada2021; Sjödin et al., Reference Sjödin, Quennerstedt and Öhman2023). In this regard, there is risk that the academic discussions of both subjects — physical education and environmental education — might go into diverging directions in the future. If the diverse voices of physical education tend to more strongly stress student-centred acting with rejecting external orientations, whereas environmental education increasingly focuses goals external to humans’ experiences (e.g., along with increasing pressure from climate change), both subjects might develop in opposite directions. As a result, incompatibilities might arise and the nexus, with its potential applications, might reduce. Thus, caution must be warranted when cultivating an overly positive standpoint for the future nexus.

Curricular discussions and international comparisons

On the curricular level, Tortella et al. (Reference Tortella, Ceciliani, Fumagalli, Jidovtseff, Wainwright and Fjortoft2021) generated a multinational position statement that emphasised the role of outdoor movement education in fostering holistic experiences by promoting “not only motor skills and competence but also the cognitive, social, relational and affective development of the child” (p. 452). Accordingly, curricular frameworks should encapsulate a wide range of pedagogical skills and holistic student outcomes (Atencio & Tan, Reference Atencio and Tan2016). Regarding the “domains” to be addressed, there appeared to be a strong parallel to, and compatibility with, the corresponding curricular debates on PL (Brown & Whittle, Reference Brown and Whittle2021; Wainwright et al., Reference Wainwright, Goodway, Whitehed, Williams and Kirk2016). The Scandinavian concept ‘friluftsliv’ with its plea for outdoor experiences and outdoor life was conceptualised to transport values of democracy and equity (Backman, Reference Backman2011a). While the equity claim is, for instance, explicitly reflected in inclusive potential of PL (Arbour-Nicitopoulos et al., Reference Arbour-Nicitopoulos, Boross-Harmer, Leo, Allison, Bremner, Taverna, Sora and Wright2018; Pushkarenko, Causgrove Dunn & Wohlers Reference Pushkarenko, Causgrove Dunn and Wohlers2021), there were few explicit conceptual connections of PL to democracy (Land & Vidotto, Reference Land and Vidotto2021; Lyngstad & Saether, Reference Lyngstad and Saether2021; Santos et al., Reference Santos, Newman, Aytur and Farias2022). Apart from these few thematic overlaps, only parallels in the narratives for curricular discussions could be drawn. For instance, similar to PL, researchers criticised ‘old-fashioned’ versus ‘contemporary’ conceptualisations of education. Curricular concepts in outdoor education have moved from military and mental toughness functions to adventurous approaches as well as more lifestyle-oriented, progressive and ultimately critical understandings (Atencio & Tan, Reference Atencio and Tan2016; Rodrigues & Payne, Reference Rodrigues and Payne2017). Another parallel to PL was the finding that outdoor education criticised the dominance of curricular performance codes (Backman, Reference Backman2008, Reference Backman2011a), conceptual ambiguities (Boyes, Reference Boyes2000) and the lack of transfer of the curriculum into practice (Backman, Reference Backman2008, Reference Backman2011b; Sutherland & Legge, Reference Sutherland and Legge2016). Fröberg et al. (Reference Fröberg, Wiklander and Lundvall2023) broadly analysed the Swedish curriculum from a sustainability perspective and found many aspects that were also voiced by PL literature, such as the inclusion of health promoting behaviours into daily routines, the planning of activities, ethical aspects, empowerment, planning of activities (knowledge), moving in different contexts and testing of different activity forms.

Combined, this nexus category was strongly informed by insights from outdoor education. The discussions share certain narratives about the developments of outdoor education and physical education over the last decades. Commonalities through the applied PL lens largely refer to more overarching aspects of education (e.g., the multidimensional nature of learning goals, democracy) instead of permeating to tangible ideas on how to specifically design education. A large portion of articles from this category stemmed from the Scandinavian or the Pacific region, which limits the current debate to single geographical regions and challenges the generalisability of potential conclusions.

Programming and intervention content

In the two previous sections, we discovered a variety of different concepts studied; this heterogeneity was also recognised when examining the intervention content through the lens of PL. Concrete goals or postulated outcomes in the context of a programme were often structured in line with multidimensional (often physical, cognitive, affective and social) goals in the activity context. For instance, Finn, Yan and McInnis (Reference Finn, Yan and McInnis2018) targeted physical growth, provided information about healthy living, aimed to develop students’ self-accomplishment and fostered team building. Similarly, Schwab and Dustin (Reference Schwab and Dustin2014) separately listed technical skill building, critical thinking, enjoyment, and social interaction. A total of six additional articles formulated content relatable to all four PL domains (physical, cognitive, affective, social) and met the claim of a “complete” list (Casado-Robles, Viciana, Guijarro-Romero & Mayorga-Vega Reference Casado-Robles, Viciana, Guijarro-Romero and Mayorga-Vega2022; Clocksin, Reference Clocksin2006; Cook, Boyan, Mendelsohn, Green & Woolvett Reference Cook, Boyan, Mendelsohn, Green and Woolvett2007; Floresca, Reference Floresca2019; Hall, Robinson, Bradford & Costa Reference Hall, Robinson, Bradford and Costa2022; Philippi & Mulhearn, Reference Philippi and Mulhearn2023). Interestingly, the outdoor education programme by Nguyen (Reference Nguyen2015) was split into different sessions and consequently defined distinct psychomotor, cognitive and affective goals for each day. The adventure education programme for physical education teachers by Kurtzman, Beddoes and Gaudreault (Reference Kurtzman, Beddoes and Gaudreault2023) clearly prioritised affective and social domains. From a methodological perspective, we identified strong compatibility with PL when favouring non-linear over linear/directive teaching styles (Colella & D’Arando, Reference Colella and D’Arando2021), student-centred over teacher-centred approaches (Hall et al., Reference Hall, Robinson, Bradford and Costa2022; Lamoneda, González-Víllora, Evangelio & Fernandez-Rio Reference Lamoneda, González-Víllora, Evangelio and Fernandez-Rio2024; Nguyen, Reference Nguyen2015) and meaningful activity experiences over performance orientation (González, Reference González2001; Gruno & Gibbons, Reference Gruno and Gibbons2021; Lamoneda et al., Reference Lamoneda, González-Víllora, Evangelio and Fernandez-Rio2024). Many researchers in that space have employed approaches of experiential learning (Bentsen et al., Reference Bentsen, Mygind, Elsborg, Nielsen and Mygind2022; Finn et al., Reference Finn, Yan and McInnis2018; Lamoneda et al., Reference Lamoneda, González-Víllora, Evangelio and Fernandez-Rio2024; McNamee & Timken, Reference McNamee and Timken2017), offering student exploration and PL-compatible identification of activity preferences. However, many scholarly endeavours at the nexus outlined the potential to enrich existing physical education through a series of outdoor activities (Chen, Reference Chen2016; Clocksin, Reference Clocksin2006; Cook et al., Reference Cook, Boyan, Mendelsohn, Green and Woolvett2007; Finn et al., Reference Finn, Yan and McInnis2018; Gagnon, Reference Gagnon2024; Gruno & Gibbons, Reference Gruno and Gibbons2020; Kurtzman et al., Reference Kurtzman, Beddoes and Gaudreault2023). Albeit probably not explicitly intended, the corresponding presentation logically tended to follow an activity-centred rather than student- or learning-centred reporting, implying that an important tenet of PL-enriched pedagogy would be violated when prioritising a task or activity orientation (Young et al., Reference Young, O’Connor and Alfrey2020). In line with this activity-centred reporting, it was not always easy to interpret intervention content through the theoretical PL lens, as the concept is not a programme per se and rather has the potential to dictate the ‘stance’ or ‘atmosphere’ in the background. Although many researchers stressed the importance of autonomous learning elements (Casado-Robles et al., Reference Casado-Robles, Viciana, Guijarro-Romero and Mayorga-Vega2022; Colella & D’Arando, Reference Colella and D’Arando2021; Lamoneda et al., Reference Lamoneda, González-Víllora, Evangelio and Fernandez-Rio2024) and opportunities for students to “self-select activities that match their abilities and interests” (Menear et al., Reference Menear, Smith and Lanier2006, p. 23), not many articles provided explicit didactical differentiations.

In summary, for this section on “programming and intervention content,” we identified considerable differences between outdoor education and environmental education. Articles adopting an outdoor education perspective predominantly maintained a physical activity or physical education focus and were, therefore, inherently interested in fostering individuals’ familiarisation process towards an active lifestyle. Some articles even embodied an explicit lifetime orientation for their programme (Gagnon, Reference Gagnon2024; McNamee & Timken, Reference McNamee and Timken2017; Nguyen, Reference Nguyen2015; Schwab & Dustin, Reference Schwab and Dustin2014), which harmonised with the PL aspiration for “engagement in physical activities for life” (International Physical Literacy Association, 2017, front page). In turn, an environmental education perspective within the nexus emphasised sustainability aspects, in which physical activities served as a means toward environmental goals, such as environmental knowledge, attitudes, or behaviours (Gómez Quintana et al., Reference Gómez Quintana, Hidalgo Castro, Díaz Cabrera, Pozo Contrera and Ramos Pérez2023; Gruno & Gibbons, Reference Gruno and Gibbons2020; Li, Reference Li2022; Mischenko et al., Reference Mischenko, Kolokoltsev, Romanova, Bayankin, Kispayev, Vrachinskaya, Loginov, Aganov and Guryanov2023; Santos-Pastor, Ruiz-Montero, Chiva-Bartoll, Baena-Extremera & Martínez-Muñoz Reference Santos-Pastor, Ruiz-Montero, Chiva-Bartoll, Baena-Extremera and Martínez-Muñoz2022). These extrinsic functions may be negatively called an ‘instrumentalisation’ of physical education or physical activities and do partially conflict with the person-centred and idealist PL orientations toward individual’s PA.

Teacher and enabler perspectives

Teachers are central actors for educational processes, with studies providing insights on their experiences at the nexus. Indeed, several studies have revealed that teachers aim to promote holistic development, learning and outcomes (Becker, Grist, Caudle & Watson Reference Becker, Grist, Caudle and Watson2018; Blakey, Reference Blakey2018; Cooley et al., Reference Cooley, Cumming, Holland and Burns2015; Gilkes, Wintle & Reed Reference Gilkes, Wintle and Reed2024; Timken & McNamee, Reference Timken and McNamee2012). However, although elements from different learning domains could be identified (e.g., cognitive, social, affective), most reports did not specify these multidimensional descriptions in the physical activity context directly serving to promote active lifestyles. Instead, the majority of these articles extracted generalised goals independent from the physical education sphere (e.g., personality aspects or transferable skills). Dahl, Standal and Moe (Reference Dahl, Standal and Moe2019) conducted focus groups with more experienced teachers who encountered decreasing physical abilities (physical domain of PL) and regressing interest, abilities and experiences regarding outdoor activities (friluftsliv) among the student cohorts over time. Interestingly, several studies independently found that teachers were aware of the particular role of affective and emotional experiences in students (Braga et al., Reference Braga, Jones, Bulger and Elliott2017; Gilkes et al., Reference Gilkes, Wintle and Reed2024; Legge, Reference Legge2022), with educators having the responsibility to orchestrate pupils’ emotions (Thomas, Reference Thomas2015). Teachers were also cognisant of the relevance to create affordable and outdoor education-friendly environments (Dyment & Bell, Reference Dyment and Bell2007, Reference Dyment and Bell2008; Jidovtseff, Kohnen, Belboom, Dispa & Vidal Reference Jidovtseff, Kohnen, Belboom, Dispa and Vidal2021) to let interactions of students with places and nature “thrive.” Moreover, teachers were interested in also creating a fair and inclusive environment (Dahl et al., Reference Dahl, Standal and Moe2019; Fröberg et al., Reference Fröberg, Wiklander and Lundvall2022), which aligned with the claims of PL to promote human flourishing based on experiential and embodied engagement with movement from one’s situated context (Pushkarenko et al., Reference Pushkarenko, Causgrove Dunn and Wohlers2021). Admittedly, many screened studies did not allow us to draw any interpretations through, or implications for, PL. In these studies, the scholarly focus was not placed on students (e.g., professional teacher development) or the research questions referred to aspects of environmental education or sustainability concurrently exhibiting loose links to PA. Nevertheless, teachers welcomed the outdoors as an opportunity to repress traditional sport and competition in favour of cooperation and positive social interactions (Gilkes et al., Reference Gilkes, Wintle and Reed2024; McNamee & Timken, Reference McNamee and Timken2017). Furthermore, the facilitators themselves expressed the hope that corresponding activities should contribute to enhancing lifetime physical activity and healthy habits (McNamee & Timken, Reference McNamee and Timken2017; Osborne, Reference Osborne2012; Timken & McNamee, Reference Timken and McNamee2012). Despite these positive aspects voiced by teachers, the screening of the literature also uncovered some negative aspects related to outdoor education. For instance, teachers often levelled concerns regarding their didactical ability to provide outdoor education (Atencio et al., Reference Atencio, Tan, Ho and Ching2015; Dyment, Reference Dyment2005; Mañanas-Iglesias et al., Reference Mañanas-Iglesias, Galán-Arroyo, Rojo-Ramos and Adsuar2023; Richards et al., Reference Richards, Jacobs, Wahl-Alexander and Ressler2018) and faced considerable challenges when intending to organise educational activities at the nexus (Ayotte-Beaudet et al., Reference Ayotte-Beaudet, Berrigan, Deschamps, L’Heureux, Beaudry and Turcotte2024; Jidovtseff et al., Reference Jidovtseff, Kohnen, Belboom, Dispa and Vidal2021; McNamee & Timken, Reference McNamee and Timken2017). Taken together, teachers voiced openness and interest regarding educational activities at the nexus. Across the articles screened, physical education more frequently served as a starting point than environmental education. Although the alignment of education with PL appeared realistic through the lens of teachers, most dominant challenges referred to teacher skills and organisational barriers. Studies are lacking with other relevant enabler or stakeholder groups, such as school administrators or parents (Becker et al., Reference Becker, Grist, Caudle and Watson2018; Dyment & Bell, Reference Dyment and Bell2008).

Student outcomes and perspectives

As the PL concept inherently embodies a student-centred understanding (Santos et al., Reference Santos, Newman, Aytur and Farias2022), the category of ‘student outcomes and perspectives’ was of particular importance. Many studies have integrated an assessment of students’ PA, whilst often even employing objective measurement devices (e.g., accelerometers). Almost all studies — irrespective of whether the programme referred to geocaching (Battista & West, Reference Battista and West2018), loose parts (Engelen et al., Reference Engelen, Wyver, Perry, Bundy, Chan, Ragen, Bauman and Naughton2018), nature preschools (Ernst et al., Reference Ernst, Burgess and Bruno2021; Fyfe-Johnson et al., Reference Fyfe-Johnson, Saelens, Christakis and Tandon2019), outdoor concepts (Casado-Robles et al., Reference Casado-Robles, Viciana, Guijarro-Romero and Mayorga-Vega2022; Hernawan et al., Reference Hernawan, WİDyawan, Mukhtar, Nugraha and Haqiyah2024; Mygind, Reference Mygind2007; Peacock et al., Reference Peacock, Bowling, Finn and McInnis2021), or orienteering (Mandrillon, Desplanques & Gottsmann Reference Mandrillon, Desplanques and Gottsmann2024) — registered higher values of children’s physical activity levels compared to a baseline or a regular programme. In line with this operationalisation priority, many studies at the nexus assessed the final outcome of PL (i.e., the actual activity engagement). When analysing student outcomes pertaining to the domains of PL lens, only few articles adopted a holistic perspective on learning outcomes. Floresca (Reference Floresca2019) directly quantified the learning portion of a nature walk programme for physical education and localised 50% of individuals’ learning effects on the affective, 27% on the cognitive, 9% on the social and 14% on the physical level. Interestingly, several programmes emphasised affective variables (Armour & Sandford, Reference Armour and Sandford2013; Bonavolonta et al., Reference Bonavolonta, Cataldi and Fischetti2021; Brewer & Sparkes, Reference Brewer and Sparkes2011; Gatzemann et al., Reference Gatzemann, Schweizer and Hummel2008; Samsudin et al., Reference Samsudin, Kamalden, Aziz, Ismail, Yaakob and Farizan2021) and indirectly corroborated this quantification. Cotterill and Brown (Reference Cotterill and Brown2018) evaluated the effects of a dinghy sailing programme with a qualitative design and extracted a myriad of positive outcomes across the different PL domains. Likewise, the students in the mixed-methods study by Mandrillon et al. (Reference Mandrillon, Desplanques and Gottsmann2024) verbalised many positive lessons learned from orienteering activities that could be clustered to the different PL domains. Adopting a self-critical perspective, Finn et al. (Reference Finn, Yan and McInnis2018) admonished future studies to complement existing outcome categories with operationalisation such as well-being, attitudes, or learning. Two studies harmonised well with PL for other reasons than the learning domains: a practical epistemology analysed students’ meaning making of being outdoors and their connection to place with illustrative existentialist descriptions whilst yielding intensive feelings, elaborate reflections, social statements and embodied experiences (Lundvall & Maivorsdotter, Reference Lundvall and Maivorsdotter2021); Sanderud et al. (Reference Sanderud, Gurholt and Moe2020) described the continuous transformations of children in interaction with winter landscapes resulting in competence gains in the dynamic environment and embodiment manifestations between existential knowledge and skills. In summary, however, several articles did not hold any implications or interpretations for PL. Studies cultivating an environmental education claim logically concentrated more on environmental learning outcomes (Cuenca-Soto et al., Reference Cuenca-Soto, Martínez-Muñoz, Chiva-Bartoll and Santos-Pastor2023; Fang WeiTa et al., Reference Fang WeiTa, Ng and Chang MeiChuan2017; Huang & Reynoso, Reference Huang and Reynoso2018; Lavie Alon, Reference Lavie Alon2015; Mischenko et al., Reference Mischenko, Kolokoltsev, Romanova, Bayankin, Kispayev, Vrachinskaya, Loginov, Aganov and Guryanov2023; Santos-Pastor et al., Reference Santos-Pastor, Ruiz-Montero, Chiva-Bartoll, Baena-Extremera and Martínez-Muñoz2022).