81 Children Drew a Place Where Life Can Exist — Here Is What They Drew

About This Dataset

One prompt — "Draw a place where life can exist" — given with no examples, no priming, and no elaboration. Eighty-one children drew their answer. This dataset is what their drawings contained.

Every drawing was coded immediately by a trained observer across thirty binary element categories organised into five domains: water, vegetation, animals, sky and light, and human-made environment. Each drawing received an overall environment classification, a dominant orientation assessment, a setting type, and a total biophilic element count. A second independent observer coded a subset of twenty-two drawings for inter-rater reliability testing.

This is the raw coded data from the preregistered Biophilia Drawing Study. The preregistration — which locked all four hypotheses, the coding scheme, and the analysis thresholds before any child picked up a pencil — is archived separately on OSF (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/F296R). The analytical paper interpreting this data is forthcoming. The dataset is published independently so that any researcher can verify, reanalyse, or extend the findings without relying on the authors' interpretation.

Repository & Access

• Drawing Life Biophilia Dataset (DOI)
• Preregistration on OSF (DOI)

Official Record Description

The following description is reproduced verbatim from the published Harvard Dataverse record:

This dataset contains structured observational coding of children's drawings produced in response to the open-ended prompt "Draw a place where life can exist," administered during a single session at Blue Blocks School, Hyderabad, India. The study is a pilot investigation into biophilic orientation in children — that is, the degree to which children spontaneously represent natural versus built environments when asked to imagine a life-sustaining place.

File 001 contains the primary dataset: 81 participants across three age groups (6–8, 9–12, and 13–16 years), coded across 30 binary element categories organized into five domains — water elements, plant/vegetation elements, animal/living creature elements, sky/light/atmospheric elements, and human-made/built environment elements. Each drawing was assessed for dominant orientation, overall environment classification, setting type, and total biophilic element count. Observer surprise notes are included where recorded.

File 002 contains a second independent observer's coding of a subset of 22 drawings (12 from the Erdkinder adolescent cohort, 10 overlapping with File 001), collected for inter-rater reliability testing. The coding instrument and element categories are identical across both files.

This dataset was produced under the Blue Blocks Micro Research Institute's participatory micro-research methodology. All data collection, coding, and anonymisation procedures followed the Blue Blocks Embedded Observation Protocol (BEOP v1.0, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19087415) and the Micro Research Ethics Framework (MREF v1.0, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19047669).

Coding Categories

30 binary element categories across 5 domains: Water, Vegetation, Animals/Living Creatures, Sky/Light/Atmosphere, Human-made/Built Environment.

Dataset Contents

Coding and Structure

Each row in File 001 represents one child's drawing. Columns are organised into five domains:

Domain A — Water elements: ocean/sea, river/stream/creek, lake/pond, rain/clouds with rain, waterfall, other water element. Each coded as present (1) or absent (0).

Domain B — Plant/vegetation elements: trees, grass/meadow, flowers, fruits/berries, leaves/bushes, forest/jungle, other plant element. Each coded as present (1) or absent (0).

Domain C — Animal/living creature elements: birds, fish/marine life, land animals, insects/butterflies, human figures, other living creature. Each coded as present (1) or absent (0).

Domain D — Sky/light/atmospheric elements: sun, moon/stars, sky, clouds, rainbow, other light or sky element. Each coded as present (1) or absent (0).

Domain E — Human-made/built environment elements: buildings/houses, roads/paths, vehicles, machines/technology, other built element. Each coded as present (1) or absent (0).

Summary variables per drawing: dominant orientation (biophilic/mixed/built), overall environment classification (five-point scale from strongly biophilic to strongly built), setting type, and total biophilic element count (sum of present codes across Domains A–D, maximum possible score of 23).

File 002 uses the identical coding instrument. The second observer coded independently without seeing the first observer's codes. The 10 overlapping drawings enable direct inter-rater comparison; the 12 Erdkinder-only drawings extend reliability testing to the adolescent cohort.

Anonymisation and Ethics

Every participant is identified by an anonymised student code only. No names, photographs, or directly identifying information appear in either file. The coding was applied to finished drawings — children's identities were separated from their artwork before any data entry began.

Data collection followed the Blue Blocks Embedded Observer Protocol (BEOP). The prompt was delivered verbally with no elaboration, examples, or environmental priming. Children drew independently for approximately 20–30 minutes. Observer coding was conducted immediately upon completion within the same session. Parental consent was obtained before data collection began.

Preregistration

This dataset is the output of a preregistered study. The preregistration document — containing all four hypotheses, the complete coding scheme, the analysis plan, inference thresholds, and inclusion/exclusion criteria — was submitted to OSF and timestamped before any data collection began.

• View the Preregistration (DOI)

The Four Preregistered Hypotheses

• H1: More than 60% of drawings will be classified as biophilic
• H2: Water and vegetation will be the two most frequent element categories
• H3: Biophilic element frequency will decrease with age
• H4: Built environment elements will appear in fewer than 30% of drawings

Related Publication

Whether these hypotheses held is a question for the analytical paper — forthcoming. This dataset is the evidence. It can be used independently for secondary analysis, replication, or comparative research on children's biophilic orientation, drawing analysis, environmental psychology, or nature connectedness.

Governance

• Micro-Research Methodology (DOI)
• BEOP v1.0 (DOI)
• MREF v1.0 (DOI)

Reuse and Citation

This dataset is published under CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication — you may use it for any purpose without restriction.

How to Cite (APA)

Blue Blocks Micro Research Institute, Rao, S., & Chakraborty, S. (2026). Drawing Life: Spontaneous Biophilic Imagery in Children's Responses to an Open-Ended Prompt – A Pilot Study from Blue Blocks Montessori School, Hyderabad, India (DATASET). Blue Blocks Micro Research Institute. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/AWUK3Z

Cross-References

• Biophilia Preregistration
• Publications Index
• Governance — Ethics

This record is maintained as part of the Blue Blocks Micro Research Institute open archival framework to support governance transparency, citation permanence, and research continuity.

Related Registry

• Biophilia Preregistration
• Meerkat Bio-Leadership Dataset
• Governance — Ethics
• Publications Index