Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Emerging digital technologies have the potential to motivate children’s interaction with nature. However, as the end-users of such tools, children have hardly been involved in their design process. This paper aims to investigate the desired characteristics of digital tools for an ideal interaction with nature from children’s perspective. We conducted an exploratory study, combining an outdoor activity and a co-design workshop, with 23 children from a secondary school in the Netherlands. We used a multimodal approach and the children-nature interaction model as a framework to analyze children’s designs. Findings show that children’s experience of using a nature-related digital tool in nature, and outline the design characteristics, requirements, and intervention functions of children’s on ideal digital tools that can increase their interaction with nature from their perspective.

Keywords

children co-design participatory design nature-related digital tools children-nature interaction

Introduction

Children and teenagers in cities are engaging less and less with natural areas in the city, or the so-called “urban green infrastructure” (UGI) (Freeman et al., 2018; Novotný et al., 2021). This is detrimental to their growth and well-being (Tzoulas et al., 2007; Xu et al., 2020). Globally, cities are implementing policies and initiatives to address children’s lack of regular outdoor play, such as UNICEF’s Child-Friendly Cities Program (Malone, 2013). Meanwhile, the pervasiveness of digital technology is shown to decrease children’s outdoor play in nature (Oswald et al., 2020). Even though some organizations have called for severe limitations on children’s use of digital technology due to the link between the greater use of technology and decreased exposure to nature, it is also argued that emerging digital technologies have the potential to motivate children to interact with nature (Cumbo et al., 2014; Fails & Jones, 2020; Wang & Komlodi, 2012). For example, children are shown to prefer and actively participate more in technology-dependent outdoor activities compared to non-technology-dependent outdoor activities (Chavez, 2009). Furthermore, digital technology is increasingly used for children-nature interaction through design-oriented education (Strawhacker et al., 2020).

Ideally, designing for children should incorporate them as important contributors when creating an interactive application (Markopoulos & Bekker, 2003). They provide crucial information as they share the target group’s cognitive, motor, and comprehension abilities—which sets them apart from the adult population (Bruckman et al., 2009; Hanna et al., 1997). Here, children’s imagination is a precious asset. Additionally, they are often willing to give their opinions and provide unusual perspectives on everything, even the most difficult issues. However, children as the end-users of digital tools are rarely involved in their design process while there is an increasing call from research to take in their actual experience of using digital tools (Rubegni et al., 2022).

Over the past two decades, the field of design research has shifted closer to the end-users. The well-known participatory design movement that began in the early 1970s has given rise to the “co-design” approach (Stålberg et al., 2016). Co-design, an approach to design that aims to actively involve all stakeholders in the design process to ensure the product meets their needs, is usable and accepted (Melonio & Gennari, 2013). Nowadays, children are increasingly engaged in technology design (i.e., the process of creating and perfecting technology) since designers have grown more conscious of children as credible participants with significant insights and firsthand knowledge of the design process (Gennari et al., 2019). Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand children’s technology wants and needs (Druin, 2002).

Nowadays, children are using interactive technology more frequently. Examples of design participation with children in academic literature are still relatively uncommon. Even though an increasing number of studies are focusing on this issue (see Related Works section) (Malinin & Parnell, 2012), it is still challenging to regard a child as an authentic co-designer. Due to factors like budget or time constraints, opportunities for children to participate in design decision-making about their environments are dismissed (Kyttä et al., 2004; Wake, 2013). Although there is a growing interest in engaging children in the design of interactive learning technology (Palaigeorgiou & Sidiropoulou, 2021), children are often involved passively (e.g., as testers) in the design of technology (Van Mechelen, 2016).

Table 1 shows an overview of our research questions and the corresponding used methods. Here, nature-related digital tools are digital devices that support interaction with nature, such as QR codes that can be scanned in nature or mobile applications that could provide nature-related information. Design characteristics refer to the general traits and qualities that should be there to provide a good user experience (Weinberg, 2001). Examples are user-friendliness, responsiveness, speed, security, accessibility, engagement, and personalization. Design requirements are the specific needs, expectations, and criteria that must be met for designing a new product or service (Brown, 2009). This concept is defined from the designers’ perspective. Examples are user interface design, platform compatibility, performance, and security. Finally, intervention functions include broad classifications of actions that can be taken to change behavior (Michie et al., 2014). Examples are enablement, training, coercion, incentivization, persuasion, education, restrictions, environmental restructuring, and modeling.

Table 1.

An Overview of Research Questions and Used Methods.

No.	Research question	Method
1	How do children experience using an existing nature-related digital tool in nature?	Survey in form of an assignment (day 1)
2	What potential design characteristics and requirements do children identify for creating an attractive digital tool that motivates their interaction with nature?	Co-design workshop (day 2)
3	How do children envision using their ideal nature-related digital tools in nature?	Co-design workshop (day 2)

We answer the above questions by analyzing children’s inputs from a survey and organizing a co-design workshop with a structured assignment conducted during a 2-day research activity with around twenty 12–14-year-old children in collaboration with a secondary school in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. On the first day, 21 children aged between 12 and 14 were asked to test an existing digital app designed for children’s interaction with nature, on a walking route in nature. The second day included a co-design workshop with children as co-designers, and two researchers plus a teacher as facilitators. Here, children were asked to design their ideal interactive nature-related digital tool. We analyze the inputs gathered during the 2-day activity using the COM-B behavior change model (Michie et al., 2011) and its adoption to children-UGI interaction (Yin et al., 2022) (see A Conceptual Model for Children-UGI Interaction section). Using a behavior change model enables us to predict how various design characteristics, requirements, and intervention functions could potentially influence children-UGI interaction. Intervention functions are intended to alter an individual’s capability, opportunity, and/or motivation to engage in behavior (Michie et al., 2014). The COM-B model helps with understanding how digital tools can affect the capability, opportunity, and/or motivation for children-UGI interaction, through various intervention functions. This theoretical underpinning can support researchers in understanding the behavioral change impact of nature-related digital tools better but also inform designers to make tools that are more likely to stimulate the desired behavior change toward children’s interaction with nature. Furthermore, the outcomes of this study add to the ongoing research on co-design with children, especially for creating digital tools.

This paper is organized as follows: in Section “Related Works” we review related works on the co-design of interactive digital tools with children and explain a conceptual model for children-UGI interaction. Section “Methodology” outlines the experimental design, data collection, and analysis methods. The results of the analysis are presented in Section “Results”. Finally, we present the conclusion and discussion in Section “Conclusion and Discussion”.

Related Works

Previous Studies on Co-designing Interactive Digital Tools With Children

Children’s input in the collaborative design and development process is critical (Druin et al., 1998). For instance, Liverpool et al. (2020) highlighted that children and young people tend to prefer digital tools that include features such as videos, limited text, personalization, social interactions, and options for receiving text message reminders. Furthermore, the changes in learning conditions by digitalization can significantly influence children’s engagement (Bergdahl et al., 2020). A major part of existing works on co-designing interactive digital tools with children focuses on educational purposes. In a co-design of eBooks with children, Landoni (2010) involved 6–9-year-old in the co-design process to create novel interfaces for children’s e-books by considering interface design, content, and the social aspects of reading. Colombo et al. (2014) conducted co-design activities with 10 children aged 9 to 11 and concluded that designing eBooks should include more flexible and gamification features. Other studies have focused on co-designing educational applications with children, involving gamification features. Guran et al. (2020) tested edutainment applications for preschoolers aged 3–6 years, considering both education and entertainment aspects. Similarly, Palaigeorgiou and Sidiropoulou (2021) co-designed an educational app with 27 sixth-grade elementary school students, aiming to co-design its content and learning representation. They developed a cooperative board game named We!Design!Fractions, consisting of a game board, cards, dice, and pawns. This game helped the children come up with ideas, provided a fun experience, and allowed designers to create a fractions educational application that better suited the children’s needs. Likely, Berggren and Hedler (2014) co-designed with 10 children at the age of 4 to 5 to evaluate CamQuest, a tablet application for children’s educational use. This application can be used as a pedagogical tool that enables children to identify and explore a photograph’s geometrical shapes in their surroundings with a tablet camera. To understand the children’s preference for the camera and the app’s interface, they were asked to make drawings of cameras, buttons, and possible quests by using colors.

Recent works have also co-designed augmented reality (AR) systems with children. Alhumaidan (2017) conducted three co-design studies involving nine primary school children aged 8 to 10 and three adults. The documentation of the co-design process offers a useful framework for developing an AR textbook with children, which includes collaborative experiences, learning, and usability factors as crucial principles. Hamidi et al. (2014) conducted a co-design workshop with 23 children aged 5 to 13 to explore, design, and implement digitally augmented paper artifacts based on traditional folk art from children’s native regions. Finally, some works have applied co-design with children for digital tools to help children with the investigation of spatial practice. For example, Williams et al. (2005) carried out several design workshops with 36 children aged 9 and 10 to create “outdoor soundscapes” by using emerging wireless technology. They conclude that such technologies could impact children’s access to, use of, and safety in an urban environment.

Few studies have focused on co-designing interactive digital tools for children’s nature interaction. Kawas et al. (2019) co-designed the mobile application NatureCollections with seven children at the age of 7–12 to promote children’s interests in nature by sharing photos of nature collections. Similarly, Gennari and Melonio (2019) co-designed two screen-less tangibles with children aged 11 and 14 for nature exploration: ABBOT and GAIA. Om (2022) carried out design activities to enhance children’s nature engagement in urban Bhutan with the use of technology. Twelve children aged 7 to 8 were provided with a pack of design probes (i.e., a customized drawing book as “My Nature Diary,” a magnifying glass, and a set of colored pencils) to explore nature simulatively. Children’s perspectives about outdoor activities and their probe use were identified to help explore design opportunities. Koepfler (2016) explored how children aged 5 to 9 and their caregivers interacted with Ubooly smart toys to get outside and engage in nature. However, Lindqvist et al. (2018) reported a negative relationship between parental safety concerns and children’s use of the tools in nature.

Previous works have created explorative frameworks or prototypes targeted at children, aiming to encourage them to learn about nature with ambient devices (i.e., the tools that display information with simpler interaction and more emphasis on the sounds of nature) (Sankupellay et al., 2017). For example, Rogers et al. (2004) designed the Ambient Wood outdoor learning experience for pairs of children aged 11 to 12 to explore the woodlands with different forms of digital augmentation. Explorations using this outdoor learning experience inspire children to conduct contextualized scientific inquiry and reflect on their interactions in the outdoor surroundings. Soro et al. (2018) produced another prototype, Ambient Birdhouse, which is an interactive digital device that includes sounds and videos of local birds to arouse children’s interest and engagement in nature and awareness for protection. Children were encouraged to learn bird calls and create and play games involving the Birdhouse.

Overall, the existing literature on co-designing interactive digital tools with children focuses more on educational purposes, while promoting children’s interaction with nature has received less attention. Probes, toolkits, and prototypes are three approaches used in the design process (Sanders & Stappers, 2014). Children can be empowered to actively shape technological development and critically reflect on the role of technology in their practices (Iversen et al., 2017). Tsvyatkova and Storni (2019) summarized different co-design approaches, techniques, and tools tailored for children of different ages across four design stages: user needs background research, design explorations, prototyping, and testing. They reported that children aged 7 to 12 were frequently engaged as evaluators, informants, and design partners, and there were various approaches, techniques, and tools to support design exploration and prototype evaluation. They found no discussions on co-design activities for children under 3 years old and over 15 years old. They also reported very few activities that support children aged 3 to 5 and above 14 as testers when evaluating user experience or as idea-makers in the elaboration process. Adolescents aged 14 were mentioned as informants for collecting users’ requirements and as design partners. However, there are few investigations involving teenagers in technology development, especially in prototyping and, less frequently, in co-design explorations (Tsvyatkova & Storni, 2019; Yarosh et al., 2011). Thus, this paper aims to further explore 12–14-year-old children’s ideal digital tools that facilitate their interactions with nature through a co-design experiment.

A Conceptual Model for Children-UGI Interaction

Many design processes and method propositions have operationalized behavior change theories (Cash et al., 2017). Various behavior change theories aim to explain why and how behavior changes. For example, Michie et al. (2011) propose the COM-B model, which is a behavior change framework with three behavior components: capability, opportunity, and motivation. It aims to understand which factors could change the behavior from personal physical or psychological abilities (i.e., physical capability and psychological capability), external chances in an environmental system (i.e., socio-cultural environment and physical environment), and a mental motivation process (i.e., automatic motivation and reflective motivation). The children-UGI interaction model builds on the COM-B model and captures a wide range of determinants related to children’s behavior in nature (Yin et al., 2022), including the ability to independently move or play in nature, ability to understand or remember the natural environment, desires to interact with nature, feelings about decision making to interact with nature, and both social and physical opportunities to interact with nature (Figure 1). This model also identifies the potential functions of digital interventions on each level, including enablement, education, persuasion, and environmental restructuring. We use the children-UGI interaction model as a framework to analyze the children’s inputs gathered during the two-day activity.

Figure 1.

The children-UGI interaction model (Yin et al., 2022).

Methodology

Recruitment and Consent

We undertook a 2-day activity with a class from a secondary school in Rotterdam. Child participants were recruited with their parents’ consent as well as their own. The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the authors’ institution. All participants were informed about the data collection process and the possibility to withdraw from the study at any time desired. In the end, a total of 21 children (11 male and 10 female) participated in the first-day outdoor activity, and two additional children (1 male and 1 female) attended the second-day workshop.

Data Collection

Data were collected on March 6th and 7th, 2023. Since the essence of conceptual design involves “prior information” (i.e., prior knowledge, experience of, or contact with experimental subjects) as an essential element of the design process (Jansson & Smith, 1991), we began by providing an example of a nature-related digital application for children. The children experienced using this example app in nature before starting the design process. So on the first day, children experienced nature by following a route using a nature-related digital application, followed on the second day by an indoor co-design workshop on children’s ideal nature-related digital tools.

On the first day, we organized a children’s outdoor activity in nature (Figure 2). Before the activity, we briefed the children and their parents about the activity’s procedure and explained the research aim. On the day of the activity, children were invited to experience nature by following a walking route using an existing nature-related treasure hunt app. The app, IVN Route, is created by wildlife volunteers and developed by IVN Nederland, a Dutch organization for nature education. The IVN Route app covers a number of walking and cycling routes in natural areas in the Netherlands. This GPS-based app provides various nature-related information (e.g., knowledge of the local flora and fauna), tasks (e.g., measuring the diameter of a tree), or quizzes (e.g., guessing the animal to which a certain footprint belongs). These pop up automatically when areas of interest along the routes are reached. The app interface is shown in Appendix A of the Supplemental Material. After the activity which took around an hour, each child was given a survey to complete as a take-home assignment before the second-day workshop. The survey investigated children’s experiences with the app following its use, aiming to motivate children to reflect on their experience in nature and think about the design characteristics, requirements, and function of nature-related digital tools ahead of the second day’s workshop. The first part of the survey included reflective questions about the experience of using the tested app in nature during the outdoor activity. These questions were based on several sources for the design of relevant and validated user experience questionnaires, that is, the Heuristic Evaluation (Martin et al., 2012) and User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ) (Laugwitz et al., 2007). The second part of the survey was about children’s opinions on whether the tested app changed any of their abilities, opportunities, and motivation to interact with nature by providing examples for each. The last part of the survey investigated children’s suggestions on design characteristics, requirements, and functions that a nature-related digital tool should have. Supplemental Appendix B shows the survey.

Figure 2.

First-day outdoor activity.

On the second day, we conducted a co-design workshop with children, focusing on designing their ideal nature-related digital tools (Figure 3). We organized the workshop at the school, to ensure a familiar and safe environment for the children. The design team consisted of 23 children. At the start, children were randomly divided into five teams of 4 to 5 participants, while two researchers and a teacher moved among groups.

Figure 3.

Second-day indoor co-design workshop.

The workshop started with a brief introduction to explain its aim and tasks. Children were invited to design artifacts in subgroups within approximately an hour’s time. During the design time, they were encouraged to discuss and share their ideas or findings from the survey to come up with a joint program of requirements for the digital tools that could increase their interaction with nature.

The workshop aimed to explore children’s ideas about how to design tools to foster their interaction with nature through an existing participatory design technique named low-tech prototyping (Alhumaidan, 2017). We started the workshop with brainstorming, as it can encourage the sharing of creativity and ideas among teams (Paay et al., 2023). It is argued that children come up with the most creative ideas when brainstorming is followed by prototyping (Sluis-Thiescheffer et al., 2016). We thus provided children with materials and tools for prototyping (e.g., colored pencils, pens, erasers, sticky notes, and clay) to act as catalysts of design ideation (Grigg, 2020). Each group of children was given instructions to explain and visualize their ideal tools on four A3 and A2 papers (see Supplemental Appendix C). Children were asked to introduce their aim and slogan for their design on the first page. Then, they were asked to describe their tool’s design characteristics, requirements, and functions on page 2, and to visualize their tool’s interface on page 3. On the last page, children described their intended use of the tool they designed to interact with nature. In the end, each group was asked to share and present group ideas of their prototypes in a 3-minute presentation.

The role of the adults in this study was to support the activity. The researchers designed and organized the whole event (e.g., activity design, survey design, the introduction of the activity to the participants), and collected all data during the activity. On the first day, two researchers along with the teacher accompanied the children during the outdoor activity to ensure their safety. On the second day, the two researchers conducted the workshop and answered the children’s questions throughout.

The secondary school investigated in this research is located in Rotterdam’s Kralingnen West neighborhood. According to van Goeverden and de Boer (2013), the average distance between children’s homes and their secondary schools in the Dutch context is less than 6.9 km. Given the sensitivity of inquiring about participating children’s socio-economic status, we used Dutch census data to approximate the possible socio-economic backgrounds of the participating children by investigating family socio-economic characteristics within a 6.9 km radius of the school. Here, we assume that the children live near the investigated school and not beyond this radius when interpreting the socio-demographics of the surrounding neighborhoods. Data were obtained from the Dutch census (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2024). Using median-weighted analysis, we found that the annual household income of the community within this radius is approximately 30,150 euros (lower than the average household income in the Netherlands) from 2024. The average education level is medium, which includes upper secondary education and various levels of vocational training. Additionally, the overall ethnic composition of the region is dominated by Dutch or European residents.

Data Analysis

We did a multimodal analysis of data using the transcripts of each group’s presentation and the produced design artifacts. Multimodality is an interdisciplinary approach based on social semiotics, which not only uses language to communicate and represent, but also uses a range of meaning-making forms (e.g., drawing, modeling, and sketching) (Jewitt, 2013; Kress, 2010). This method has been applied in the context of participatory design for analyzing different modes of communication, including both textual and tangible co-design outcomes (Derboven et al., 2015).

Following the method of Khalilollahi et al. (2023), we used deductive and inductive strategies to identify the keywords related to design characteristics, requirements, and intervention functions used by the children. Deductive codes were derived from the components of the COM-B model. Inductive codes were developed by (re)reading children’s group design ideas and their presentation transcripts, identifying concepts with similar attributes, and eventually clustering them into larger groups (for detailed codes and examples, please see tables in sections “Design Characteristics and Requirements” and “Intervention Functions of Children’s Ideal Nature-Related Digital Tools”). The first author conducted the data analysis of children’s group design and their presentations. We did a thematic content analysis to map the keywords used by children regarding their ideal tools’ design characteristics, requirements, or intervention functions, onto the COM-B model components: a design characteristic, requirement, or intervention function is linked to the capability component if it addresses children’s physical or psychological abilities; a design characteristic, requirement, or intervention function is linked to the opportunity component if it addresses the opportunities provided by the physical and socio-cultural environments; finally, a design characteristic, requirement, or intervention function is linked to motivation if it addresses the aspects that drive and guide child-nature interaction.

Results

Children’s Experience With an Existing Nature-Related Digital Tool

The survey given after the app use was completed by 21 children. It investigated how children experienced the app based on a Likert-scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” (Figure 4). In total, 21 children completed the survey. The results indicate that most children have a positive attitude toward the use of the app generally. Specifically, they think they can use it easily and it is aesthetically pleasing. Around 75% of the children hold a neutral attitude toward the app’s personalization potential and attractiveness. Most children support the app’s mapping system, efficiency, personalization, and complexity.

Figure 4.

Children’s experience of using an existing nature-related digital tool during the outdoor activity ordered from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Additionally, we asked children several open-ended questions about their experience of using the app during the outdoor activity, such as their general opinion about the app, and what they (dis)liked about it. Figure 5 demonstrates the frequency of children’s general opinions about the app. Positive numbers refer to positive attitudes, while negative opinions are presented by negative numbers. It shows that children consider the app to be fun or useful. Additionally, Figure 6 shows the frequency of what children (dis)liked about the app. Overall, children’s favorite aspect of the app is its educational function, as they can learn new things when using it in nature, while the most disliked aspect is its dysfunctional user interface (e.g., non-responding buttons or zooming). Interestingly, children have different opinions about the quiz in this app. Some children like it while others do not.

Figure 5.

Frequencies of children’s general opinions on using this app during outdoor activity.

Figure 6.

Frequencies of children’s likes (positive numbers) and dislikes (negative numbers) about their use of the app.

Figure 7 shows children’s opinions on whether the app changes their capabilities, opportunities, and motivation to interact with nature. In terms of capability, we found that the majority disagree that the app could increase their capability to move or play in nature independently (physical capability), while they agree that it could improve their ability to understand or remember the natural environment better (psychological capability). In addition, roughly half of the children are neutral when discussing whether using an app increases their motivation in terms of desires and decisions to interact with nature. Lastly, half of the children think the app could increase the opportunity for social interaction with families, friends, and peers in nature, while most of them agree it could increase their physical opportunities, such as accessibility to nature, playing equipment, and places for nature-related activities.

Figure 7.

Children’s opinions on whether the app changes their capability, opportunity, and motivation to interact with nature.

Design Characteristics and Requirements

We gathered children’s inputs on potential design characteristics and requirements of their ideal nature-related digital tool through the design work in the workshop. We then mapped these onto the components of the COM-B model and its adaptation, the children-UGI interaction model.

Design Characteristics

Table 2 outlines the design characteristics identified from the keywords used by children, and the share of groups that pointed them out. It shows that most groups highlight the design characteristics regarding the aspects of physical capability and automatic motivation, while less focus is placed on psychological capability and reflective motivation.

Table 2.

Design Characteristics Derived From Children’s Keywords, Mapped Onto the COM-B Model and the Children-UGI Interaction Model.

The COM-B model components		Adaptation by the children-UGI interaction model	Design characteristics	Keywords used by children	Group number	Share of groups mentioning the design characteristics
Capability	Physical capability	Ability to independently move or play in nature	Security	“Safe natural areas to walk”	Group 1 Group 3	4/5
			Fantastical and magical elements	“Getting a question about playground equipment”; “going out independently to win a prize”	Group 2Group 5
			Personalization	“Different play mode choices”	Group 2Group 3
	Psychological capability	Ability to understand or remember the natural environment	Narrative elements	“Stories and images about nature (e.g., plants or animals)”	Group 1	1/5
Motivation	Automatic motivation	Desires to interact with nature	Generative elements	“Generating and editing online gardens”	Group 1	4/5
			Fantastical and magical elements	“Adding interesting questions”; “discovering new things”	Group 1Group 3
			Stimulation of children’s senses	“What they see in nature”; “which sound to listen”	Group 5Group 2
	Reflective motivation	Feeling about the choice to interact with nature	Educational information about extinct species	“Protecting endangered plants or animals”; “taking care of the environments”	Group 2	1/5
Opportunity	Socio-cultural environment	Social opportunities to interact with nature	Engagement	“Creating a team to share assignments with friends or families”; “sharing outdoor experiences”	Group 3	3/5
			User-friendliness	“Overtaking each other on the ranking list when going out with friends”; “going outside with friends”	Group 2Group 4	3/5
	Physical environment	Physical opportunities to interact with nature	Accessibility	“Getting notifications near play equipment conveniently”	Group 3Group 4	2/5

Note. “Group” refers to the group that the children were in during the workshop; “The share of groups mentioning the design characteristics” indicates the ratio of groups where children mentioned the listed design characteristics to the total number of groups; Narrative elements are the components or aspects of a story incorporated into the design process. They help to convey the context and user experience. Generative elements refer to components or techniques that stimulate creativity, idea generation, and collaborative problem-solving during the design process (Boudreau & Lakhani, 2009).

Design Requirements

Table 3 presents the design requirements extracted from children’s keywords for their designed artifacts, and the share of groups that have mentioned them. Overall, the focus is more on the design requirements regarding automatic motivation, such as gamification mechanism, and educational information about nature. On the contrary, the keywords related to reflective motivation and physical environment are less mentioned.

Table 3.

Design Requirements Derived From Children’s Keywords, Mapped Onto the COM-B Model and the Children-UGI Interaction Model.

The COM-B model components		Adaptation by the children-UGI interaction model	Design requirements	Keywords used by children	Group number	Share of groups mentioning the design requirements
Capability	Physical capability	Ability to independently move or play in nature	Interesting tasks	“A walking task to a special tree”; “walking safely to get a reward”; “taking pictures of fun things to do in nature”	Group 4	3/5
			Movement barcodes	“Creating their own gardens to move or play after scanning barcodes in different locations”; “going out on their own by walking to question-based places”	Group 1Group 2	3/5
	Psychological capability	Ability to understand or remember the natural environment	Information or questions about nature	“Scanning codes to answer questions about nature”; “learning to remember nature through questions in real nature”; “learning about places and species”	Group 3Group 2Group 4	3/5
Motivation	Automatic motivation	Desires to interact with nature	Gamification mechanism	“Earning rewards, points or online coins”; “gaining a prize”; “playing sports games to see who can win”	Group 1Group 3Group 5	4/5
			Information or questions about nature	“Answering questions about nature”	Group 1Group 2Group 3	4/5
	Reflective motivation	Feeling about the choice to interact with nature	Situational awareness	“An update to show the cleanliness of nature”	Group 3	1/5
Opportunity	Socio-cultural environment	Social opportunities to interact with nature	Competition mechanism	“Including a competitive game”; “matches with friends/peers/families”; “chatting with friends through a chat channel”	Group 1Group 4	2/5
	Physical environment	Physical opportunities to interact with nature	Display of game progress	“Showing the progress on the route on the map”; “the amount of distance walked in kilometers”	Group 2	1/5

Note. “Group” refers to the group that the children were in during the workshop; “The share of groups mentioning the design requirements” indicates the ratio of groups where children mentioned the listed design requirements to the total number of groups; Situational awareness here indicates incorporating features in the tools that help children perceive and understand their surrounding environment, enhance their engagement with the environment, and raise their environmental awareness.

Figure 8 shows the example artifacts from the groups, which are related to the design requirements based on the capability aspect. Figure 9 shows the example artifacts. The left one is linked to the design requirements based on the motivation aspect, while the right one is according to the opportunity aspect.

Figure 8.

(a) Artifacts design from Group 4 and (b) artifacts design from Group 3.

Figure 9.

(a) Artifacts design from Group 1 and (b) artifacts design from Group 2.

Intervention Functions of Children’s Ideal Nature-Related Digital Tools

Table 4 illustrates the design artifacts for each group and the scenarios in which children would use their designed tools in nature. It also compares each group’s design with the tested app. Children’s designs are influenced by the tested app since all groups designed a route app. However, additional features are identified from their designs, such as QR codes along the route, questions regarding environmental protection, and point-based reward mechanisms.

Table 4.

Children’s Design Artifacts per Group, Compared With the Tested App.

Group number	Scenarios of how they would use their designed tools in nature	Similarities or differences between their designed tools and the tested app
Group 1	An app that displays an online garden, allowing users to edit it by scanning QR codes near natural elements.	Similarity: a route app
Group 1		Difference: QR codes along the route; the opportunity to design the online gardens with the scanned elements
Group 2	A route overview app that includes questions or tasks (e.g., find a willow tree, select a leaf that belongs to a willow tree) and outlines the progress on the selected route. It can also show rankings of players based on the number of right answers or completed tasks.	Similarity: a route app
Group 2		Difference: a variety of route options; the completion progress of the selected route; an overview of the rest of the route with tasks during the exploration; a ranking list based on the performance compared to other players
Group 3	A route app that shows questions when walking on the route. The correct answer to the question unlocks the next stage of the journey. A QR code can be scanned when players reach the final point to win, unlocking a fun reward in the app.	Similarity: a route app
Group 3		Difference: an overview of all routes with their lengths and level of difficulty; tasks in form of questions along the route; a QR code at the end of the route to win the game; a final question about how clean the route is
Group 4	An app that helps users choose outdoor places to explore. The map can be clicked to search for information about nature. It is a GPS-based tool and allows users to view the locations of their peers. It also has a chat box through which players talk with each other.	Similarity: a route app; nature-related information is accessed by clicking within the app
Group 4		Difference: opportunities to take pictures along the route based on the players’ preferences. The geo-tagged pictures will be automatically saved and uploaded to the app; a connection with peers along the route
Group 5	A treasure hunt app where the player finds various displayed objects along the route. Photos need to be taken to earn points. After earning enough points, players can purchase real items to use in nature (e.g., a soccer ball or a hula-hoop).	Similarity: a route app
Group 5		Difference: point-based reward mechanism; purchasing real items with the earned points

As explained in Section Data Analysis, we have used thematic content analysis to identify the intervention functions of children’s suggested tools (i.e., how they can potentially change the capability, opportunity and/or motivation to interact with nature). We then mapped the intervention functions onto the components of the children-UGI interaction model (Table 5). The identified intervention functions are explained below.

Table 5.

Intervention Functions Derived From Children’s Keywords, Mapped Onto the COM-B Model and the Children-UGI Interaction Model.

The COM-B model components		Adaptation by the children-UGI interaction model	Intervention functions	Keywords used by children	Group number	Share of groups mentioning the intervention functions
Capability	Physical capability	Ability to independently move or play in nature	Enablement	“Providing QR codes in nature”; “providing several routes with different searching aims”	Group 1Group 5	2/5
	Psychological capability	Ability to understand or remember the natural environment	Enablement	“Showing how difficult and how long the route is”; “seeing how far on the route and where the other questions are”; “including search buttons to identify where players want to open”	Group 2Group 3	2/5
Motivation	Automatic motivation	Desires to interact with nature	Education	“Continuing the game by answering questions about nature correctly”	Group 3	3/5
			Persuasion	“Getting a ranking based on the time spent answering the questions”; “earning points after finding out the objects shown in the app and taking the right pictures in real location”	Group 2Group 5	3/5
	Reflective motivation	Feeling about the choice to interact with nature	Education	“Educating to keep an eye on the surroundings”; “keeping the environment beautiful and clean”; “answering questions about nature, then can receive a tip about the location with a QR code or get a picture to move on”	Group 3	1/5
			Persuasion	“Winning an online award after getting the right answers”; “raising awareness of environmental protection”; “beautifying the environment is everyone’s responsibility”	Group 3	1/5
Opportunity	Socio-cultural environment	Social opportunities to interact with nature	Environmental restructuring	“Can see friends in the digital tool and open a chat to talk with them”; “encouraging to answer questions as fast as possible when seeing how peer or other players performed via the ranking list in the digital tool”	Group 4Group 2	2/5
	Physical environment	Physical opportunities to interact with nature	Environmental restructuring	“Getting notifications or questions when using the playgrounds or any other types of play equipment”; “accessibility factors”	Group 3	1/5

Note. “Group” refers to the group that the children were in during the workshop; “The share of groups mentioning the intervention functions” indicates the ratio of groups where children mentioned the listed intervention functions to the total number of groups.

Enablement function of digital tools for stimulating children’s capability

Enablement refers to increasing capability or opportunity by increasing possibilities or reducing obstacles (Michie et al., 2011). Nature-related digital tools have the potential to enhance children-UGI interaction through the enablement function. For instance, the suggested optional route searching by Group 5 enables child players to choose their favorite natural environment and play in nature more freely. Here, the tool will display different objects (e.g., summer flowers, pine trees, birds, or ants) that children prefer to hunt for based on their selected route. A search button to identify how long and how difficult the route is could also provide players with a desire to interact with nature, as it is helpful in deciding whether to play or not.

Education and Persuasion Functions of Digital Tools for Stimulating Children’s Motivation

Education means increasing knowledge or understanding, and persuasion refers to inducing positive or negative feelings or stimulating actions by using communication (Michie et al., 2011). Children could be motivated to interact with UGI through education and persuasion functions of digital tools. Examples from children’s designs include the questions on nature-related knowledge suggested by Group 3 (education function), or the ranking mechanism proposed by Group 2 (persuasion function) that can influence children’s automatic motivation. Additionally, the persuasive function of digital interventions occurs via communication strategies such as the use of imagery to influence children’s reflective motivation. For instance, Group 3 suggests that a question about the cleanliness of the environment when appears at the end of the route can influence children’s reflective motivation.

Environmental Restructuring of Digital Tools for Stimulating Children’s Opportunity

Environmental restructuring refers to changing the physical or social context (Michie et al., 2011). Digital tools can be used to alter the social and physical opportunities to encourage children-UGI interaction with this function. Child participants preferred to do outdoor activities together with friends or families by using their ideal tools. Specifically, children would like to play multiplayer games in nature, see how their friends behave in nature, or search natural elements together. For example, Group 4 proposes a suggested chat interface to talk with friends. Group 2 creates a ranking mechanism that shows how their peers have performed on the route.

Conclusion and Discussion

This exploratory study aimed to explore children’s experience of a specific nature-related digital tool, and to investigate the design characteristics, requirements, and intervention functions of children’s ideal nature-related digital tools. To do so, we conducted an exploratory study combining an outdoor activity and a co-design workshop with 23 children aged 12 to 14 from a secondary school in the Netherlands. Our findings and recommendations are listed below.

Children’s Experience With an Existing Nature-Related Digital Tool

This study reveals children’s opinions about their experience with the tested app. Regarding capability, most children believe the app enhances their understanding of the natural environment but disagree about its potential to increase their ability to move or play in nature independently. This aligns with findings from Kawas, Kuhn, et al. (2020; Kawas, Sherry-Wagner, et al., 2020) who observed that educational apps tend to prioritize enhancing children’s environmental knowledge over physical engagement. Many existing apps focus on visual learning and knowledge-based interactions (e.g., identifying plants or animals), rather than encouraging free movement or unstructured play. Another possible reason is that parental safety concerns limit children’s independent movement when using the tools in nature (Lindqvist et al. 2018). Regarding motivation, roughly half of our children express neutrality about whether the app increased their desire to interact with nature. One possible reason is that digital tools can sometimes serve more as informative guides than direct enablers or motivational drivers for outdoor engagement (Liverpool et al., 2020). Children might already feel that they do not need technology to motivate them to explore nature, as their motivation could be driven by intrinsic factors, such as personal curiosity or social interactions (Colombo et al., 2014). Regarding opportunities, half of the children believe that the app could enhance their social interactions, and most agree it could increase physical opportunities, such as accessibility to natural spaces and play equipment. Digital tools can not only serve as facilitators for group activities, encouraging shared experiences among peers and family members, but also act as a bridge between the digital world and the physical environment, guiding children to nature-related locations and activities.

Our results indicate that children prefer nature-related digital tools to: (i) have an attractive and easy-to-understand user interface (e.g., by using colors), (ii) include guidance for the user interface (e.g., step-by-step explanation), (iii) include a reward mechanism, (iv) provide concise information, (v) include tips to be able to complete quizzes or tasks, and (vi) be available for all types of mobile operating systems.

Design Characteristics, Requirements, and Intervention Functions

Figure 10 shows the design characteristics and requirements needed for children’s nature-related digital tools, and the intervention functions of these tools, extracted from children’s designs. As mentioned by Michie et al. (2011), some intervention functions might change one or more behavior component(s) (e.g., education function can also influence capability in addition to motivation). However, we have assigned each intervention function to the COM-B model component that it most influences for the sake of clarity.

Figure 10.

Design characteristics, requirements, and intervention functions of children’s ideal nature-related digital tools based on the COM-B model and the children-UGI interaction model.

Design Characteristics

Regarding the capability to interact with nature, our study finds that children prioritize the security of the usage environment in nature-related digital tools. This characteristic is also highlighted by Koepfler (2016) when creating children’s outdoor technologies. Additionally, two groups of children mention fantastical and magical elements. Om (2022)’s findings on children’s perspectives highlight the same features for children’s experiences in nature. Our children find personalization to be another important characteristic. Numerous studies have emphasized children’s needs when designing educational digital applications (Alhumaidan et al., 2015; Colombo et al., 2014; Landoni, 2010; Palaigeorgiou & Sidiropoulou, 2021). Personalized design for child users is worth exploring further considering their age, gender, and individual inclinations.

Regarding capability and motivation, children in our study suggest incorporating narrative and generative elements, such as stories and images, in nature-related digital tools to enhance engagement. Previous researchers have also called for digital tools to include these elements to motivate outdoor explorations (Cumbo et al., 2021; Fails & Jones, 2020; Om, 2022). Sensory stimulation, like taking photos or identifying sounds in nature, is also proposed by our children. This element has also been acknowledged by previous studies showing the importance of sensory experience in nature (Om, 2022). Furthermore, our children highlight the value of educational information about nature in the digital system, a key element for reflective motivation. While previous projects, such as the Ambient Wood project (Rogers et al., 2004) and Ambient Birdhouse (Soro et al., 2018), have reported that educational information prompts enhance engagement and inspire exploration, many studies have prioritized entertainment over structured educational content. Moreover, overly formal educational elements could reduce children’s interest in using the tools, potentially leading to disengagement if tools become too formalized (Bergdahl et al., 2020). Future research should focus on effectively balancing educational and entertainment elements in digital tool design (Large et al. 2002).

Regarding opportunity components of children-UGI interaction, our study highlights the importance of accessibility in children’s interaction with nature via digital tools. For instance, the tools designed by children include accessibility features, such as location-based pop-out notifications for nearby play equipment and natural areas to encourage children to explore and interact with nature. This feature has also been identified by Gennari and Melonio (2019) as a key design objective for children’s outdoor smart tools. Moreover, our findings emphasize the role of engaging and user-friendly interfaces in encouraging peer interaction, such as ranking lists and information-sharing windows. This has been acknowledged by previous studies that emphasize the importance of sharing technology experiences with friends (Druin et al., 1998) and incorporating features that facilitate conversations with peers and family members (Soro et al., 2018).

Design Requirements

In terms of physical capability, children in our study frequently mention interesting tasks within the tools that encourage independent movement in nature. Previous studies have also emphasized this element (Colombo et al., 2014; Kawas, Sherry-Wagner, et al., 2020; Palaigeorgiou & Sidiropoulou, 2021). Regarding motivation, our findings show a preference for gamification elements, such as earning rewards and competitive games. Previous research has also highlighted the role of motivational elements in children-oriented digital tools (Colombo et al., 2014). However, situational awareness is seldom mentioned in our study, with only one group proposing environmental cleanliness. The potential reason might be children’s stage of cognitive development, previous experience in nature, time constraints, and guidance. Particularly, children are more inclined to focus on immediate, visible, and direct experiences when using digital tools, rather than abstract information processing, such as situational awareness, which may be difficult for them to readily understand and express (Piaget, 2013; Piaget & Cook, 1954). According to Gennari and Melonio (2019), children’s design thinking is often limited by their previous experience. Only children regularly engaged in outdoor activities may be more concerned with issues such as changes in the natural environment and cleanliness. Children without this in-depth interaction might neglect them as core needs in design. Based on Sanders and Stappers’s (2014) co-creation toolkit theory, time constraints may lead most children to prefer simple and actionable design tasks while neglecting more complex concepts, such as situational awareness. Finally, children will be more likely to incorporate environmental awareness into the design if group members are concerned about environmental issues or if the facilitator emphasizes them during the design process (Iversen et al., 2017; Kawas, Kuhn, et al., 2020). Therefore, for children to incorporate situational awareness into their digital tools, they need sufficient cognitive ability, relevant experience, as well as sufficient time and guidance.

Furthermore, the display of game progress, providing physical opportunities for children-UGI interaction, is mentioned by our children. This has also been highlighted by Kawas, Sherry-Wagner, et al. (2020) who used the progress bar to track goals. The emphasis on visual feedback can motivate children through clear and tangible markers of success. However, many children’s nature-related digital tools, such as We!Design!Fractions (Palaigeorgiou & Sidiropoulou, 2021) and SnaP Board Game (Gennari & Melonio, 2019), focus on short-term tasks without offering an overarching system to monitor progress, potentially limiting long-term motivation. Our children also valued competition mechanisms, designing tools for matches with friends, peers, or family members, which is also acknowledged by Kawas, Sherry-Wagner, et al. (2020). However, most studies prioritize collaborative learning and a non-competitive environment, promoting teamwork and shared problem-solving over direct competition. Example tools include We!Design!Fractions (Palaigeorgiou & Sidiropoulou, 2021) and CamQuest (Berggren & Hedler, 2014). Some tools focus more on short-term interaction than sustained engagement through competition mechanisms, such as ABBOT and GAIA (Gennari & Melonio, 2019). Future research should investigate how to strategically incorporate competition mechanisms that align with the purpose of the design, balancing short-term engagement with long-term motivation and collaboration.

Intervention Functions

Nature-related digital tools have the potential to enhance children-UGI interaction through the functions of enablement, persuasion, education, and environmental restructuring. Regarding physical and psychological capability, the children in this study highlight the importance of the enablement function in the tools, such as a variety of routes to choose from and an overview of the task difficulty of the tools. Previous studies have also included this function in digital tools designed for children (Alhumaidan et al., 2015; Colombo et al., 2014; Palaigeorgiou & Sidiropoulou, 2021). As for automatic and reflective motivation, our children are encouraged to interact with UGI through the tools’ education and persuasion functions. For instance, characteristics such as educational information, ranking processes, and environmental awareness enhancement are included in children’s designs. These two functions are applied in most existing digital tools for children (Tsvyatkova & Storni, 2015). To alter social and physical opportunities for children, the tools designed by our children can be used to encourage their UGI interaction with the function of environmental restructuring. These tools emphasize building social network systems and incorporating accessible playing elements to facilitate children-UGI interaction. The environmental restructuring function has also been acknowledged by Gennari and Melonio (2019), Kawas, Sherry-Wagner, et al. (2020), and Soro et al. (2018).

As a case study focused on children’s nature-related digital tools, this research does not encompass all potential design considerations. Several elements from prior studies, such as colorfulness, readability, tactile interactions, photographing tasks, and long-term competition mechanisms, were not raised by our participants but remain important. More precisely, Colombo et al. (2014) emphasized the importance of vibrant color and smooth readability in enhancing narrative and generative flow. However, this has not surfaced in our study because our children were old enough to be likely capable of reading smoothly without colorful elements, as suggested by Large et al. (2002) and Large and Beheshti (2005). In addition to visual and auditory elements from our study, tactile interactions, which stimulate sensory engagement with nature (e.g., touching leaves or grass), are important for motivation (Kawas, Sherry-Wagner, et al., 2020). Another feature overlooked in our case is photography tasks, which can encourage children to search for natural elements physically and observe surroundings more closely (Kawas, Sherry-Wagner, et al., 2020). Lastly, long-term competition mechanisms, such as location-based challenges, are crucial for sustained engagement (Kawas, Sherry-Wagner, et al., 2020). While our study identifies a number of key elements of children’s nature-related digital tool design from their perspectives, further research is needed to incorporate more comprehensive and engaging design considerations and create tools that cater to diverse age groups and contexts.

Limitations and Avenues for Future Research

This study explores the experience of a group of children aged 12 to 14 from the Netherlands with a specific nature-related digital tool. It also investigates the design characteristics, requirements, and function interventions of their ideal nature-related digital tools. This is an exploratory study where we test a specific application with a relatively small sample of children in a Dutch city. While the results cannot be generalized, they provide useful first insights into children’s ideal nature-related digital tools and our methodology can be reproduced to investigate other cases. First, the mentioned design characteristics, requirements, and intervention functions are those identified by us so far based on our sample. There is a need for more empirical studies that test a range of nature-related digital tools across various locations and age groups and identify additional design characteristics, requirements, and intervention functions based on children’s inputs. Second, bias may arise as we selected children from a specific technical school in the Netherlands and did not collect data on their precise socioeconomic status or ethnicity data. We recommended that future studies investigate further stratification to control for the influence of these factors. Third, testing an existing digital app in advance of the co-design workshop is likely to have influenced children’s design ideas to some degree. Design problems given without fixating examples might result in a wider range of design ideas not limited by the examples (Jansson & Smith, 1991). Future work is advised to consider how to stimulate children’s divergent thinking when co-designing. Fourth, 5-point Likert scale questions, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, were used to understand their opinions on whether the tested app influenced their capabilities, opportunities, and motivation to interact with nature during outdoor activities. However, further in-depth investigation is required to understand the motivations for their answers. These may be attributed to different personal or contextual factors, such as children’s age and gender, and parents’ attitudes and concerns. Considering interviews or follow-up questions after the activity would be beneficial for gaining deeper insight into the reasoning behind children’s choices. Fifth, children might be interested in using digital tools in the beginning but might feel bored after a while. Thus, longitudinal studies are needed for testing the attractiveness and the use of nature-related digital tools in the long term.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-eab-10.1177_00139165241311071 – Supplemental material for Co-designing an Ideal Nature-Related Digital Tool With Children: An Exploratory Study From the Netherlands

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-eab-10.1177_00139165241311071 for Co-designing an Ideal Nature-Related Digital Tool With Children: An Exploratory Study From the Netherlands by Shengchen Yin, Dena Kasraian, Gubing Wang, Suzan Evers and Pieter van Wesemael in Environment and Behavior

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-eab-10.1177_00139165241311071 – Supplemental material for Co-designing an Ideal Nature-Related Digital Tool With Children: An Exploratory Study From the Netherlands

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-eab-10.1177_00139165241311071 for Co-designing an Ideal Nature-Related Digital Tool With Children: An Exploratory Study From the Netherlands by Shengchen Yin, Dena Kasraian, Gubing Wang, Suzan Evers and Pieter van Wesemael in Environment and Behavior

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-eab-10.1177_00139165241311071 – Supplemental material for Co-designing an Ideal Nature-Related Digital Tool With Children: An Exploratory Study From the Netherlands

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-eab-10.1177_00139165241311071 for Co-designing an Ideal Nature-Related Digital Tool With Children: An Exploratory Study From the Netherlands by Shengchen Yin, Dena Kasraian, Gubing Wang, Suzan Evers and Pieter van Wesemael in Environment and Behavior

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Huub van der Loo for helping us organize the research activity and for his valuable feedback afterwards. We would also like to thank all the participating children from Technasium Libanon Lyceum of Rotterdam.

Author Contributions

Shengchen Yin: Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing, Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Data curation, Formal analysis, Visualization. Dena Kasraian: Writing—review & editing, Supervision, Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology. Gubing Wang: Writing—review & editing, Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology. Suzan Evers: Methodology, Data curation. Pieter van Wesemael: Writing—review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by China Scholarship Council.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Ethical Review Board TU/e (ERB approval number: ERB2022BE48a).

ORCID iD

Shengchen Yin

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Shengchen Yin is a PhD candidate within the Urbanism and Urban Architecture group at Eindhoven University of Technology. Her research interests are children’s interaction with urban green infrastructure, the role of digital intervention in children-nature interaction, children’s perception of nature, and participatory design.

Dena Kasraian is an Irène Curie fellow and an assistant professor of Urbanism and Urban Architecture at Eindhoven University of Technology. She has experience in the fields of architecture, urban design and planning and transportation and is interested in conducting multidisciplinary research between them, combining two or more of the following topics: the built environment, technology, human spatial behavior, urban digital twins, and spatial quantitative analysis.

Gubing Wang is an assistant professor on Digitalization for Health and Wellbeing at Tilburg University. Her research is at the intersection of design research, human-computer interaction, and behavioral sciences. She has co-designed with end-users and stakeholders for dementia care and active aging.

Suzan Evers is a PhD candidate within the Urban Planning and Transportation group at Eindhoven University of Technology. Her research aims to explore how to context-sensitively prompt healthy lifestyles.

Pieter van Wesemael is a professor and chair of Urbanism and Urban Architecture at Eindhoven University of Technology. His research interests include healthy cities, smart mobility, public space design, participation, and placemaking.

References

Alhumaidan

(2017). Co-design of augmented reality textbook for children’s collaborative learning experience in primary schools (Doctoral dissertation, Loughborough University).

Alhumaidan

K. P. Y.

Selby

(2015). Co-design of augmented reality book for collaborative learning experience in primary education. In 2015 SAI Intelligent Systems Conference (IntelliSys) (pp. 427–430). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IntelliSys.2015.7361175

Bergdahl

Nouri

Fors

Knutsson

(2020). Engagement, disengagement and performance when learning with technologies in upper secondary school. Computers and Education, 149, Article 103783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103783

Berggren

Hedler

(2014). CamQuest: Design and evaluation of a tablet application for educational use in preschools. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Interaction design and children (IDC’ 14) (pp. 185–188). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2593968.2610448.

Boudreau

K. J.

Lakhani

K. R.

(2009). How to manage outside innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(4), 69–76.

Brown

(2009). Change by Design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. [Kindle 2 version]. https://www.google.com/search?q=Amazon.+com&oq=Amazon.+com&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i512l5j46i199i465i512j0i512.524j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Bruckman

Bandlow

Forte

(2009). HCI for kids. In Sears

Jacko

J. A.

(Eds.), Human-computer interaction: Designing for diverse users and domains (pp. 33–49). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420088885.ch3

Cash

P. J.

Hartlev

C. G.

Durazo

C. B.

(2017). Behavioural design: A process for integrating behaviour change and design. Design Studies, 48, 96–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.10.001

Central Bureau of Statistics. (2024). Population and housing census: Summary data by region and category. Dutch Census Dataset. https://allecijfers.nl/gemeente-overzicht/rotterdam/

10.

Chavez

D J.

(2009). Youth day in Los Angeles: Evaluating the role of technology in children’s nature activities. Children, Youth and Environments, 19(1), 102–124.

11.

Colombo

Landoni

Rubegni

(2014). Design guidelines for more engaging electronic books: Insights from a cooperative inquiry study. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (pp. 281–284). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2593968.2610472

12.

Cumbo

B. J.

Jacobs

B. C.

Leong

T. W.

Kanstrup

A. M.

(2014). What motivates children to play outdoors? Potential applications for interactive digital tools. Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference, OzCHI 2014 (pp. 168–171). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2686612.2686637

13.

Cumbo

B. J.

Richardson

Bartindale

(2021). Exploring the opportunities for online learning platforms to support the emergency home school context [Conference session]. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 19. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445044

14.

Derboven

Van Mechelen

Slegers

(2015). Multimodal analysis in participatory design with children: A primary school case study. Conference on human factors in computing systems - Proceedings, 2015-April (pp. 2825–2828). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702475

15.

Druin

(2002). The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour and Information Technology, 21(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290110108659

16.

Druin

Bederson

Boltman

Miura

Knotts-callahan

Platt

(1998). Chapter 3 : Children as our technology design partners +. Design, Age 8, 1–9.

17.

Fails

J. A.

Jones

(2020). The design of outdoor technologies for children. In: D. S. McCrickard, M. Jones, T. L. Stelter (Eds.), HCI Outdoors: Theory, Design, Methods and Applications. Human-Computer Interaction Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45289-6_11

18.

Freeman

Stein

Hand

van Heezik

(2018). City children’s nature knowledge and contact: It is not just about biodiversity provision. Environment and Behavior, 50(10), 1145–1171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517732108

19.

Gennari

Matera

A. M

. (2019). A board-game for co-designing smart nature environments in workshops with children. In A. Malizia, S. Valtolina, A. Morch, A. Serrano, A. Stratton (Eds.), End-User Development. IS-EUD 2019. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 11553, pp. 132–148). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24781-2

20.

Gennari

Melonio

(2019). Interactive nature: Designing smart devices for nature exploration by children [Conference session]. CHItaly 2019, September.

21.

Grigg

(2020). Materials and tools as catalysts of invention in graphic design ideation. Design Studies, 70, Article 100960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2020.100960

22.

Guran

A. M.

Cojocar

G. S.

Dioşan

L. S.

(2020). Developing smart edutainment for preschoolers: A multidisciplinary approach. EASEAI 2020 - Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGSOFT international workshop on education through advanced software engineering and artificial intelligence, co-located with ESEC/FSE 2020 (pp. 20–26). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3412453.3423197

23.

Hamidi

Saenz

Baljko

(2014). Sparkles of brilliance: Incorporating cultural and social context in co-design of digital artworks. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Interaction design and children (IDC’ 14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1145/2593968.2593977

24.

Hanna

Risden

Alexander

(1997). Guidelines for usability testing with children. Interactions, 4(5), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/264044.264045

25.

Iversen

O. S.

Smith

R. C.

Dindler

(2017). Child as protagonist: Expanding the role of children in participatory design. IDC 2017 - Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on interaction design and children (pp. 27–37). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3078072.3079725

26.

Jansson

D. G.

Smith

S. M.

(1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3–11.

27.

Jewitt

(2013). Multimodal methods for researching digital technologies. In The SAGE Handbook of Digital Technology Research (pp. 250–265). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282229.n18

28.

Kawas

Chase

S. K.

Yip

Lawler

J. J.

Davis

(2019). Sparking interest: A design framework for mobile technologies to promote children’s interest in nature. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 20, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.01.003

29.

Kawas

Kuhn

N. S.

Tari

Hiniker

Davis

(2020). Otter this world: Can a mobile application promote children’s connectedness to nature. Proceedings of the Interaction Design and Children Conference, IDC 2020 (pp. 444–457). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392063.3394434

30.

Kawas

Sherry-Wagner

Kuhn

N. S.

Chase

S. K.

Bentley

Lawler

J. J.

Davis

(2020). Naturecollections: Can a mobile application trigger children’s interest in nature? CSEDU 2020 - Proceedings of the 12th International conference on computer supported education, CSEDU (1) (pp. 579–592). SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. https://doi.org/10.5220/0009421105790592

31.

Khalilollahi

Kasraian

Kemperman

A. D. A. M.

van Wesemael

(2023). Design principles of interactive play systems for children’s outdoor play: A designers’ perspective. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 36, Article 10057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2023.100577

32.

Koepfler

(2016). Connecting children with nature through smart toy design. Retrieved September, 2018, from https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2016/07/connecting-children-with-nature-through-smart-toy-design/

33.

Kress

(2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.

34.

Kyttä

Kaaja

Horelli

(2004). An internet-based design game as a mediator of children’s environmental visions. Environment and Behavior, 36(1), 127–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503254839

35.

Landoni

(2010). Ebooks children would want to read and engage with. International conference on information and knowledge management, proceedings (pp. 25–28). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1871854.1871862

36.

Large

Beheshti

(2005). Interface design, web portals, and children. Library Trends, 54(2), 318–342.

37.

Large

Beheshti

Rahman

(2002). Design criteria for children’s Web portals: The users speak out. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10012

38.

Laugwitz

Held

Schrepp

(2007). Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. HCI and usability for education and work.In Holzinger

(Ed.), HCI and usability for education and work. USAB 2008. Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 5298). Springer. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.472.3719&rep=rep1&type=pdf

39.

Lindqvist

A. K.

Castelli

Hallberg

Rutberg

(2018). The praise and price of Pokémon GO: A qualitative study of children’s and parents’ experiences. JMIR Serious Games, 20(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.2196/games.8979

40.

Liverpool

Mota

C. P.

Sales

C. M. D.

Čuš

Carletto

Hancheva

Sousa

Cerón

S. C.

Moreno-Peral

Pietrabissa

Moltrecht

Ulberg

Ferreira

Edbrooke-Childs

(2020). Engaging children and young people in digital mental health interventions: Systematic review of modes of delivery, facilitators, and barriers. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(6), Article e16317. https://doi.org/10.2196/16317

41.

Malinin

L. H.

Parnell

(2012). Reconceptualizing school design: Learning environments for children and youth. Children, Youth and Environments, 22(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.22.1.0011

42.

Malone

(2013). “The future lies in our hands”: Children as researchers and environmental change agents in designing a child-friendly neighbourhood. Local Environment, 18(3), 372–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.719020

43.

Markopoulos

Bekker

(2003). On the assessment of usability testing methods for children. Interacting with Computers, 15(2 SPEC.), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(03)00009-2

44.

Martin

Flood

Harrison

(2012). A protocol for evaluating mobile applications. In P. Isaias & M. Baptista Nunes (Eds.), Information System Research and Exploring Social Artifacts: Approaches and Methodologies (pp. 398–414).IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-2491-7.ch020

45.

Melonio

Gennari

(2013). Co-Design with children: The State of the Art. In Italy: KRDB Research Centre for Knowledge and Data (pp. 1–29). University of Bozen. https://www.inf.unibz.it/krdb/

46.

Michie

Atkins

West

(2014). The behaviour change wheel: A guide to designing interventions. 1, Great Britain: Silverback Publishing (pp. 1003–1010).

47.

Michie

van Stralen

M. M.

West

(2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(1), Article 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42

48.

Novotný

Zimová

Mazouchová

Šorgo

(2021). Are children actually losing contact with nature, or is it that their experiences differ from those of 120 years ago? Environment and Behavior, 53(9), 931–952. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916520937457

49.

(2022). Designing interactive technologies to enhance nature engagement for children in urban Bhutan. Queensland University of Technology.

50.

Oswald

T. K.

Rumbold

A. R.

Kedzior

S. G. E.

Moore

V. M.

(2020). Psychological impacts of “screen time” and “green time” for children and adolescents: A systematic scoping review. PLOS ONE, 15(9), Article e0237725.

51.

Paay

Kjeldskov

Bønnerup

Rasenthiran

(2023). Sketching and context: Exploring creativity in idea generation groups. Design Studies, 84, Article 101159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2022.101159

52.

Palaigeorgiou

Sidiropoulou

(2021). Can elementary students co-design the learning content of educational apps: The We!Design!Fractions participatory design approach. In M. E. Auer, T. Tsiatsos (Eds.), Internet of Things, Infrastructures and Mobile Applications. IMCL 2019. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing: Vol. 1192 (pp. 202–214). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49932-7_20

53.

Piaget

(2013). The construction of reality in the child. Routledge.

54.

Piaget

Cook

M. T.

(1954). The development of object concept. Basic Books.

55.

Rogers

Price

Fitzpatrick

Fleck

Harris

Smith

Randell

Muller

O’malley

Stanton

Thompson

Weal

(2004). Ambient wood: Designing new forms of digital augmentation for learning outdoors. Proceedings of the 2004 conference on interaction design and children: Building a community, IDC 2004 (pp. 3–10). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1017833.1017834

56.

Rubegni

Landoni

Malinverni

Jaccheri

(2022). Raising awareness of stereotyping through collaborative digital storytelling: Design for change with and for children. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 157, Article 102727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102727

57.

Sanders

E. B. N.

Stappers

P. J.

(2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: Three approaches to making in codesigning. CoDesign, 10(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.888183

58.

Sankupellay

Kalma

Magin

Cappadonna

J. L.

Roe

Brereton

(2017). BirdSound: Enticing urban dwellers to engage with local birds around their home. ACM International conference proceeding series (pp. 172–181). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3152771.3152790

59.

Sluis-Thiescheffer

Bekker

Eggen

Vermeeren

De Ridder

(2016). Measuring and comparing novelty for design solutions generated by young children through different design methods. Design Studies, 43, 48–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.01.001

60.

Soro

Oliver

J. L.

Brereton

Chai

M. Z.

Dema

Ambe

A. M. H.

(2018). The Ambient Birdhouse: An IoT device to discover birds and engage with nature. Conference on human factors in computing systems - proceedings, 2018-April (pp. 1–13). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173971

61.

Stålberg

Sandberg

Söderbäck

Larsson

(2016). The child’s perspective as a guiding principle: Young children as co-designers in the design of an interactive application meant to facilitate participation in healthcare situations. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 61, 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2016.03.024

62.

Strawhacker

Verish

Shaer

Bers

(2020). Young children’s learning of bioengineering with CRISPEE: A developmentally appropriate tangible user interface. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(3), 319–339.

63.

Tsvyatkova

Storni

(2015). Design an educational interactive technology for children with type 1 diabetes: Exploring ways to better involve users in the design process. In Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Design4Health 2015, Sheffield, 13–16 July 2015, pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/ISBN978-1-84387-385-3

64.

Tsvyatkova

Storni

(2019). A review of selected methods, techniques and tools in Child–Computer Interaction (CCI) developed/adapted to support children’s involvement in technology development. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 22, Article 100148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2019.100148

65.

Tzoulas

Korpela

Venn

Yli-Pelkonen

Kaźmierczak

Niemela

James

(2007). Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81(3), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001

66.

van Goeverden

C. D.

de Boer

. (2013). School travel behaviour in the Netherlands and Flanders. Transport Policy, 26, 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.01.004

67.

Van Mechelen

. (2016). Designing technologies for and with children: Theoretical reflections and a practical inquiry towards a co-design toolkit. KU Leuven.

68.

Wake

S. J.

(2013). Closing the generation gap: Using co-design with children to encourage sustainable practice in the built environment. In P. Hájek, J. Tywoniak, A. Lupíšsk, J. Růžička, K. Sojková (Eds.), CESB 2013 PRAGUE - Central Europe towards sustainable building 2013: Sustainable building and refurbishment for next generations, the Czech Technical University in Prague (pp. 867–870).

69.

Wang

Komlodi

(2012). Children’s formal and informal definition of technology. In ACM International Conference Proceeding Series (pp. 587–588). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2132176.2132299

70.

Weinberg

H. R.

(2001). Trademark law, functional design features, and the trouble with traf fix. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 9(1), 1–117.

71.

Williams

Jones

Fleuriot

Wood

(2005). Children and emerging wireless technologies: Investigating the potential for spatial practice. CHI 2005: Technology, safety, community: Conference proceedings - conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 819–828). ACM.

72.

Yarosh

Radu

Hunter

Rosenbaum

(2011). Examining values: An analysis of nine years of IDC research. Proceedings of IDC 2011 - 10th international conference on interaction design and children (pp. 136–144). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1999030.1999046

73.

Yin

Kasraian

van Wesemael

(2022). Children and urban green infrastructure in the digital age: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(10), Article 5906. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105906

74.

Wang

Zhang

Liu

(2020). Association of sedentary behavior and depression among college students majoring in design. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(10), 3545. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103545

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.24 MB

0.02 MB

0.08 MB