Kids Fail to Get Outdoors

Boys get more outside playtime than girls, and almost half of parents do not take their preschool-aged kids out to play once a day. Katherine Harmon reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

It's springtime, and that means mud pies, bug bites and scraped knees—if you're a preschooler. Or at least it used to.

Health experts say young children should get at least an hour of physical activity a day. And studies have linked more time outside with motor development, improved mental health, better behavior and, of course, more sun-supplied vitamin D.

But a new study of nearly 9,000 U.S. children found that almost half of preschool-age kids are not getting outside at least once a day with their parents.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Girls were even less likely to be taken outside than boys, and some families reported not taking their young children outside more than a few times a month. The findings are in Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine. [Pooja S. Tandon, Chuan Zhou and Dimitri A. Christakis, "Frequency of Parent-Supervised Outdoor Play of US Preschool-Aged Children"]

Kids who had daycare were slightly less likely to get the time outside with a parent. They were also unlikely to get the recommended minimum one-hour of physical activity while at daycare. So researchers recommended checking in with care providers about time outside. One hour out of 24 isn't too much to ask, right?

–Katherine Harmon

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe