Promoting children's mental, emotional and social

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0965-4283.htm

HE 109,6

522

Promoting children’s mental, emotional and social health through contact with nature: a model Cecily Jane Maller The Centre for Design & The Global Cities Institute, College of Design and Social Context, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to determine educators’ perceptions about the benefits of contact with nature for children’s mental, emotional and social health. Design/methodology/approach – The approach was exploratory using qualitative methods. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with school principals and teachers as well as professionals from the environmental education industry. Interviews focused on the perceived benefits for children’s health from school activities involving hands-on contact with nature. Findings – Hands-on contact with nature is perceived by educators to improve self-esteem, engagement with school and a sense of empowerment, among other benefits. Different types of activities are perceived to have different outcomes. A model is proposed to illustrate the findings. Research limitations/implications – Activities involving hands-on contact with nature may have significant health outcomes for children. Further empirical work is needed to determine the extent of the benefits and provide further evidence. Practical implications – Findings support the value of activities involving nature and provide further incentive to include such activities in teaching curricula. Activities involving hands-on contact with nature at school may be a means of promoting children’s mental, emotional and social health at a crucial time in their development. Originality/value – This paper addresses two gaps in current knowledge: much research on contact with nature and health and wellbeing has focused on adults not children; despite the popularity of nature-based activities in schools there has been no investigation into the potential of these activities to promote children’s mental, emotional and social health. Keywords Children (age groups), Schools, Personal health, Outdoor training Paper type Research paper

Introduction There is a large body of literature indicating substantial benefits for health and wellbeing are to be derived from contact with nature and exposure to natural environments generally (e.g. Health Council of the Netherlands, 2004; Maller et al., 2006; Rohde and Kendle, 1994). The majority of benefits reported relate to mental Health Education Vol. 109 No. 6, 2009 pp. 522-543 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0965-4283 DOI 10.1108/09654280911001185

This research was undertaken towards completion of a doctorate in public health, generously funded by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation in Melbourne, Australia. I would like to sincerely thank the educators who kindly participated in the research for sharing their time, experiences and insights. Thanks also to two anonymous reviewers who provided constructive feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

health and wellbeing, and include among other outcomes, stress reduction, improving the ability to concentrate, alleviating the effects of depression, and improving self-esteem (Frumkin, 2001; Prosser et al., 2008; Rohde and Kendle, 1994; Seymour, 2003). To date however, most research on contact with nature has concerned adults rather than children. Children’s mental health and wellbeing impacts directly on their ability to learn; that is, children with poor mental health usually have learning as well as other difficulties. There is evidence that mental health problems in teenagers and young people are occurring at an unprecedented rate (Sawyer et al., 2001; Weare, 2000; Zubrick et al., 2000). Weare (2000, p. 3) observes that modern children are part of a social fabric undergoing an accelerated rate of change where “. . . they are increasingly exposed to adult ways of thinking, experience, problems and pressures in ways that they may well not be equipped to handle”. By identifying ways to promote mental wellbeing at the primary school level, children may be better able to cope with these changes, and realise their full potential as young people and adults. Ecological theory suggests that contact with nature is important for children because it promotes imagination and creativity, cognitive and intellectual development, and enhances social relationships (Heerwagen and Orians, 2002; Kellert, 2002; Kellert, 2005). In addition, educational theory suggests contact with nature facilitates children’s understanding of their place in the world, their knowledge of nature, and develops their cognitive, emotional and spiritual connections to the social and biophysical world around them (Capra, 1999; Cramer, 2008; Green, 2004; Hart, 1997; Montessori, 1967; Moore, 2000; Moore and Wong, 1997; Steiner, 1970). Despite limited research, some evidence suggests that from five to 12 years of age children have a particular affinity with nature where they engage in activities such as den construction and use natural places to retreat from the world of adults (Kylin, 2003; Powell, 2007; Sobel, 1993; Titman, 1994). However, because modern urban environments generally limit children’s access to nature (Kellert, 2002; Kellert, 2005; Louv, 2008; Moore and Wong, 1997; Pyle, 2002; Rivkin, 1995; Rivkin, 1997) it could be argued that the responsibility to provide children with nature contact is largely placed on schools, through the physical environment of their grounds and through teaching activities. Research on children’s contact with nature at school is in its early stages and little is known about educators’ perceptions of the mental health benefits children may gain from nature experiences. This paper seeks to determine the importance of hands-on contact with nature at school for children’s mental health and wellbeing as perceived by principals, teachers and other educators in the environmental education industry in Melbourne, Australia. Approach and methods A qualitative, interpretivist approach, where an attempt to understand the social world is made through the researcher’s as well as participants’ perspectives (Snape and Spencer, 2003), was chosen to incorporate the context of the school environment and to understand the benefits of contact with nature from the perspective of adults who work with children in school settings. Due to the close-association of activities involving hands-on contact with nature with environmental education or education for sustainability, the research was conducted within this context. The specific research questions addressed by this paper are:

Contact with nature: a model

523

HE 109,6

.

.

524

What are educators’ perceptions about the different types of hands-on contact with nature children experience at school? What are educators’ perceptions of the benefits of these activities for children’s mental, emotional and social health?

It is important to state that the research was not concerned with the potential of contact with nature as a treatment for mental illness. Rather, the objective was to determine the potential of hands-on contact with nature to improve the emotional wellbeing and social relationships of “normal” primary-aged school children. To avoid confusion, the term “mental, emotional and social health” (Weare, 2000) is used rather than “mental health”. For further clarity, “hands-on contact with nature” is defined as any activity that involves children physically engaging with plants, soil or animals. Hands-on activities were the focus because experiential engagement with nature is likely to be deeper and more meaningful than theoretical or vicarious experiences (Kellert, 2002). The research was conducted in Melbourne, Australia to build on earlier work exploring the types of “nature-based” activities found in Melbourne primary schools (Maller and Townsend, 2006). Interviews, using a semi-structured interview schedule, were the primary form of data collection. The schedule comprised a series of open questions about activities involving hands-on contact with nature and was designed to probe participants’ perceptions about the potential effects on children’s mental, emotional and social health. Interviews were conducted face-to-face with participants at or near their workplaces. Selection and recruitment of participants Two types of educators were sought as participants: (1) principals and teachers from Melbourne primary schools who participated in an earlier research project (Maller and Townsend, 2006); and (2) representatives from leading environmental education organisations in Melbourne. Principals and teachers from Melbourne schools who had taken part in an earlier, quantitative study (Maller and Townsend, 2006) were invited to participate in this more in-depth phase. The criteria used for selection were: . the questionnaire from the earlier study must have been completed in full, including open questions (in order to make an informed decision about each school); . more than one activity involving hands-on contact with nature must have been conducted (the activities could be either related or unrelated) on-site at the school; . the activities must be multidimensional (i.e. involving more than study of a single animal or plant); and . a number of grade levels must participate in the activity (to eliminate those schools that introduce activities involving hands-on contact with nature for the preparatory year or grade one only). Principals were invited to participate by letter, followed up one week later by a telephone call. Principals were also asked to nominate the most appropriate teacher involved in the activities at their school for an interview.

In Melbourne, there are several well-established environmental education organisations that influence developments in the field nationally. These organisations have close working relationships with schools and develop and implement a wide-range of environmental education activities. Including educators from organisations in the environmental education industry as participants would provide a perspective outside of the school sector, enhancing the scope of the research. Purposeful sampling, where participants are selected because they know the phenomena of interest well, have the time and are willing to participate (Spradley, 1979) was used to recruit industry participants. High profile individuals or environmental education organisations in Melbourne were approached by telephone to participate in the research. Additional organisations to supplement potential participants were located using the “Yellow Pages” telephone directory (under the category “Organisations – Conservation and Environment”). Although similar, two separate interview schedules were used for industry and school participants because they had different roles in, and experiences of, activities involving hands-on contact with nature (see Appendix). The interview schedule for school participants comprised 19 items, including questions about the activities at their school, any enablers and barriers encountered, their perceptions about different types of activities, observed outcomes and their understanding of children’s mental, emotional and social health. The interview schedule for industry participants comprised 18 items, including questions concerned with the context of environmental education and/or activities involving hands-on contact with nature in Melbourne, their perceptions about different types of activities and associated outcomes, and their understanding of children’s mental, emotional and social health. Data collection and analysis Interviews were conducted from December, 2004 to June, 2005 until repetition was observed in the data (i.e. data saturation was reached) (Morse and Richards, 2002). This was expected to occur after 20 to 40 interviews had been completed. It was predicted that interviews would last from 60 to 120 minutes. All interviews were digitally recorded and were transcribed verbatim for analysis using qualitative analysis software. Iterative qualitative data analysis techniques, including question coding, content analysis (Morse and Field, 1995) and rich point analysis (Agar, 1999) were used to categorise, compare and interpret the data. Findings Characteristics of participants In total, 30 participants were interviewed when data saturation was observed. Interviews lasted from around 30 minutes to two hours, with most being about an hour in duration. The principal and a lead teacher from 12 schools participated, except for one school where the principal was unable to take part. Eleven schools were government funded schools while the remaining school was a privately funded Catholic school. To locate industry participants, 15 environmental education organisations were approached. Seven participants from across these organisations were interviewed when data saturation occurred. Four industry participants were managers, including a coordinator of a community garden, two managers of environmental education organisations, and a senior officer of a sustainability education organisation. The three remaining participants were practitioners, including


525

HE 109,6

526

a landscape architect of a garden for children, a freelance early childhood environmental education consultant, and an education coordinator at a children’s garden. Six industry participants had teaching qualifications and had worked as teachers, or were currently working in some capacity as a teacher. Findings are presented below according to the research questions this paper seeks to address. Quotes from participants are used to illustrate key points. (1) Educators’ perceptions about the types of hands-on contact with nature in schools When asked about the types of activities involving hands-on contact with nature found in schools, school and industry participants held different perceptions. Industry participants clearly differentiated between environmental education and other activities that might involve nature, whereas school participants did not. For example, when asked about the difference between nature-based activities and environmental education, one principal stated: . . . call it what you might but you’re doing the same activity aren’t you? The content is the same. You’re developing an appreciation for growing things. No, I can’t see that there’s a difference really. They’re one and the same thing . . . (Principal, School 12).

Industry participants perceived some activities to be more structured while others were considered unstructured. For example, unstructured activities were described as experiences children had alone in nature, or with a small group of other children, that were not directed by adults. While structured activities, usually associated with environmental education, were about problem-solving, were shared with other children, and were often directed by adults. The most commonly provided example of an unstructured activity was free play in a school garden or nature reserve, with or without other children, where children are not necessarily supervised by adults or if so, their play is not directed by adults. In this type of activity children can exercise their will to manipulate and discover the environment as they wish. . . . I was in the children’s garden the other day and I found just a little pile of stones, a little sand and a whole lot of sticks around it . . . I just imagined that child being absorbed in that . . . I just think that’s gotta be healthy for a child (Industry participant 1).

For three industry participants, free-play in nature was seen as an essential part of a child’s development, particularly because they considered children’s lives to be overly structured: . . . the philosophy here is that children have to . . . find what they love first . . . I think our children are far too organised these days particularly in terms of school . . . I think we’re institutionalising children too early . . . it can deaden them a bit . . . continually trying to improve them and improve them and [getting them to] do all these [extra curricular] activities . . . (Industry participant 1).

Examples participants provided of structured activities included working in a vegetable garden, restoring native habitat, and building a wetland on the school grounds. Participants described how children work with other children and adults towards achieving a common goal. That notion of being actively involved in a collective way with others . . . Addressing challenges or problems that [the children] see as significant to others in addition to themselves. Working for the community I suppose, for their friends . . . And linked to that,

actually feeling that you are a functioning part of . . . a big wide community (Industry participant 4).

Four industry participants perceived that structured activities were more beneficial for children than unstructured activities because they were about problem-solving, teamwork and contributing to society. . . . they had to do research, they had to use maths, they had to build things . . . they had to [give] a presentation which [brings in] their communication skills . . . The kids . . . designed a garden, a herb and flower garden, which has a pond and it has water tanks, and it has a yabbie farm and it has a solar powered pump . . . the children designed it all. And they now link the products that they sell or they make in the garden, back to the food in the canteen . . . So what they’re doing is fostering creativity, and innovation and enterprise (Industry participant 5).The contrasting viewpoints of industry participants can be explained by their professional roles: managers favoured structured activities, whereas practitioners favoured unstructured activities. Managers held a strategic view of environmental education and were largely removed from daily educational encounters with children. Furthermore, managers considered themselves responsible for promoting best-practice and were acutely aware of the history of environmental education in Melbourne: . . . environmental education tended to start off with a nature-studies approach . . . If you go back to the long history of organisations like the Gould League and the School Forestry Branch and so on, it was very much a ‘let’s go out and observe nature and appreciate its beauty’, and know the names of the creatures and . . . draw pictures of them. But not really try to get involved in actually addressing conservation issues . . . That whole notion of learning through action . . . and really trying to address environmental problems rather than just learn about them, has really started to be picked up much more widely and we [currently] see some fantastic projects and programs that really build that dimension into it (Industry participant 4).

This focus explains their readiness to distinguish between types of activities involving contact with nature and also explained their preferences for structured activities that are goal-oriented and focussed on positive environmental outcomes to benefit society as a whole. Practitioners engaged with children on a regular basis and were more interested in enhancing children’s personal development. They distinguished between types of activities because of their particular belief in the importance of unstructured experiences. This preference was explained by their desire to provide an alternative to current environmental education practice by giving children opportunities for free-play in natural environments. In the children’s garden . . . we wanted children to play . . . What we wanted to do was create a whole series of plant environments . . . [that] have an openness like nature does where it actually allows the children to come in and do what they want to do in those spaces (Industry participant 1).

Despite these distinctions, the views of managers and practitioners were not regarded as mutually exclusive and furthermore, it is likely that some participants had changed roles from a practitioner to a manager, and vice versa, during their career. Conversely, ten out of eleven principals did not distinguish between activities: they perceived all activities involving hands-on contact with nature as interwoven.


527

HE 109,6

. . . I think you integrate things together . . . you might have a different focus . . . but generally you try to integrate things so that it flows and you don’t say, ‘that’s environmental studies, that’s gardening’ . . . It overlaps and you’ve got to see it as being an overlapping of, maybe different concepts, but similar skills . . . (Principal, School 10).

Not surprisingly, all twelve teachers held a similar view.

528

I think because we have our integrated programs . . . everywhere we look around the school something has come from either an integrated unit, or a whole school activity . . . It’s integrated into the school curriculum and it’s integrated into being a student [here] (Teacher, School 7).

School participants did not differentiate between types of activities involving hands-on contact with nature because they saw simpler nature or environmental educational activities as opposite ends of a “contact with nature” spectrum. In practice, the activities were integrated across schools’ curricula and were utilised for different purposes. For example, some school participants spoke of simpler activities as being appropriate for younger children and complex activities as more suitable for older children. I think it’s probably more [determined by] the age group . . . if the Preps look at butterflies, it’s manageable for them, mainly because of the developmental stage that [the children are] at. Whereas if a year 5-6 [child] was doing that, you could expect them to actually build the [butterfly] habitat . . . (Principal, School 2).

(2) Educators’ perceptions of the benefits of hands-on contact with nature for children’s mental, emotional and social health Due to the differences in participants’ perceptions about types of contact with nature, industry and school participants’ views about the potential benefits are examined separately in this section. However, the views of different participants are not considered mutually exclusive; rather they are seen as complementary interpretations of the potential benefits arising from different types of activities involving hands-on contact with nature. (i) Industry participants The benefits of unstructured activities for children’s mental, emotional and social health were perceived by industry practitioners to be associated with children’s individual, self-directed experiences in nature as opposed to those activities where they are directed by adults, for example as part of a lesson. One of the main benefits practitioners described was when children establish a connection with nature as a result of their own discovery. . . . by them finding a lovely little place that they want to play in, that connects to them on a very deep level . . . If we think of our own experiences in nature . . . I remember the smell of the Tea-tree down at Sorrento [where] we used to play hidey . . . in amongst [the] trees . . . I think it’s that sort of connection that a child makes when they choose to go and play in a space, which is different to say going and helping build a wetland (Industry participant 1).

All three practitioners referred to the pedagogies of Rudolf Steiner and Maria Montessori, who advocate the benefits of experiential learning in natural environments, in support of their beliefs. For example, Participant 6 spoke of the importance of informal play spaces, spontaneity, and privacy:

. . . I ask them to reflect on what were the key elements within those experiences that made it special, and it was that sense of being away from adults, having your own secret place, being unsupervised . . . That spontaneity and being able to discover things outside is important in terms of children’s self-esteem if they discover things for themselves, you know, whether it’s a dead bird or it’s a beautiful autumn leaf or whatever (Industry participant 6, practitioner).

Another practitioner’s comments referred to the sensation of being “lost” and then “found”. . . . to move in and out, be found and be lost, so it’s hidey, you know? It’s that whole sense of mass and void, where you’re seen and then you’re not seen (Industry participant 1).

Although not always linked to specific elements of children’s mental, emotional and social health, practitioners’ perceptions appeared to be driven by the importance of unstructured activities for children’s discovery of their environment and of their own place in the world. Furthermore, they were concerned not only about the declining number of natural play spaces available to children, but also about the lack of time to experience them. I like Rivkin’s quote about outdoor play spaces . . . evaporating like water in sunshine. And I think that’s very true . . . it’s not just the space that’s disappearing but it’s also time for children to have that free exploration. It’s the ballet lessons, and the music lessons, and we’ve got to go here and we’ve got to go there. They don’t have that down time which I think is so important for their mental health and wellbeing. In some ways it’s like a big social experiment because we’ll see the outcomes when they’re young teenagers and young adults, and how they understand the natural environment in particular. But also . . . the skills they might be missing, whether its physical skills or [the] thinking skills that come from those experiences, that free-time [and] those more open-ended experiences (Industry participant 6).

Managers did not share practitioners concerns and instead spoke of the beneficial outcomes children experience through participation in structured activities. Managers perceived the benefits of structured activities to be associated with positive outcomes arising from hands-on contact with nature experienced by a child as a member of a group of other children and adults: experiences that are shared with, as well as shared by, others. One of the main outcomes associated with structured activities was a meaningful learning experience. Managers believed that involving children in tackling issues that concern them, such as environmental problems, gives them cognitive thinking skills and puts their learning into a meaningful, real-world context. . . . when you get them involved in these sorts of [sustainability] programs . . . it is . . . authentic, real, meaningful learning for children.” (Industry participant 5).

The link between physical activity and mental, emotional and social health was also recognised as a particular outcome of structured activities. This was illustrated by one participant’s description of the benefits for boys in upper primary school (i.e. early adolescents). I have some boys coming to my garden class . . . and they would be the troublemakers . . . I didn’t know, they’d just come and be [placed] in my gardening group . . . They’d often be the ones who were . . . the most energetic and the most able to deal with tools . . . And these boys would be skilled – they’d know what [the] tools were, they had lots of energy, and they could complete a job and they responded really well to these kinds of fixed goals. ‘Move that pile of compost from that bin to that bin, and then spread that stuff over there . . . these are your


529

HE 109,6

530

tools, use them’ . . . At the end of that lesson these guys would have worked really, really hard and . . . they’d be justifiably proud of their work (Industry participant 2).

As suggested in this quote, managers relayed the benefits of engaging in activities that give children a sense of empowerment and ownership, resulting in improved self-esteem. It was felt in particular that empowerment arose from children experiencing responsibility and having the opportunity to use their initiative to solve environmental problems. . . . in terms of the hands-on practical thing it also helps them develop . . . knowledge and skills for directly addressing environmental problems, in the sense of restoring vegetation or controlling weeds . . . or growing your own food . . . And feeling empowered, like you are able to do it and other people aren’t able to do it . . . It’s good for your self-esteem, especially young people when . . . they know how to do something and they know that that’s a bit rare . . . They become [the] experts (Industry participant 4).

Additionally, there was a strong perception that structured activities cater to children with different learning styles and predispositions. Social outcomes include boosting students’ self-esteem by providing leadership roles for children of all ages and abilities, improving attendance rates, [and] benefits for children with behavioural and learning difficulties (Industry participant 5).

A final benefit of structured activities was that they are perceived to be a successful means of engaging the local community, particularly parents, in schools. . . . In terms of the parents, they have closer links with the school, particularly if they’re the ones managing the compost system, or helping to revegetate an area of the school. And there’s that greater sense of connectedness between the parents and the school (Industry participant 5).

Practitioners and managers perceptions about hands-on contact with nature are illustrated in Figure 1. (ii) School participants As discussed, principals’ and teachers’ perceptions shared much in common, their comments implying that any activity with hands-on contact with nature was beneficial for children. School participants stated one of the main benefits from nature activities was an increase in children’s self-confidence through experiencing success. . . . the sense of responsibility . . . I think, that’s important. I think there’s a certain pride, a sense of ownership too. I know when we first started working on the Koori garden the Year 6 s really were thrilled to think they could come back and see their stepping stone that they’d made, and these plants [they’d planted] . . . they were all involved in the design of [the garden] as well [and] that sense of ownership is ongoing . . . and again . . . the feeling of success and confidence . . . (Principal, School 3).

Some school participants connected these experiences directly with children’s self-esteem. So a lot of the kids that . . . were the low achievers . . . who’ve got low self esteem problems, who come from disrupted families, or who just don’t feel great about their abilities in all kinds of ways . . . just blossomed. They took ownership of this little students’ garden we’ve got


531

Figure 1. Conceptual map of industry participants’ perceptions of unstructured and structured hands-on contact with nature and the perceived benefits for children’s mental, emotional and social health according to their roles as either practitioners or managers

down the end of the building here, and they nurtured it, and they were out there at lunch times, watering their plants. Oh, you couldn’t go near their garden! (Teacher, School 2).

Like industry participants, school participants also believed that activities involving hands-on contact with nature give children with different learning abilities or who may have behavioural difficulties, an opportunity to experience a sense of achievement. And a lot of kids . . . that are seen with behavioural problems in the classroom, you get them outside doing activities and they just shine (Teacher, School 5).

Importantly, this outcome was interpreted as resulting in “a level playing field” where all children involved in the activity had an equal chance of success – a situation that may be rare in the context of their normal academic learning environment. Gardening or outdoor education is just one [activity] where a child doesn’t necessarily have to have superb listening, language acquisition, reading, [or] maths. It’s a wonderful activity for a child to succeed in, and [these activities create] a level playing field (Principal, School 12).

HE 109,6

532

Again, similar to industry participants, some school participants recognised the link between mental and physical health, for example when children’s self-confidence is boosted from overcoming a physical challenge. Several school participants commented that because some children have limited opportunities to experience nature they can be reluctant to “get their hands dirty”. Hence, experiential activities involving nature were believed to provide important opportunities for children to be challenged in this way. . . . you get the kids out there for the first time . . . [and they] hardly want to touch the dirt, and they don’t want to get their hands dirty . . . But once [they] get their hands in the dirt and put a seedling in . . . then they don’t worry so much. Same with our worm farm [and] kids picking up worms . . . They go out there, and first of all they go, ‘Urrr, I’m not going to touch that’, but when you next see them . . . They love . . . it. And I think that’s almost therapeutic for them to be able to do that (Principal, School 10).

Further to this, enjoyment resulting in deeper engagement with school was a frequent benefit mentioned by school participants, either from the perspective that universally children enjoy outdoor experiences, or from the point of view that these activities provide them with an alternative learning environment to the classroom. The kids love it . . . there’s no doubt about that . . . and I don’t think any teacher needs to be convinced about what hands on-learning does for kids, how it engages kids. The engagement that the program has . . . brought about in the student learning in this school is fantastic, and that alone . . . is probably the most valuable thing that it has [done] (Principal, School 5).

Apart from enjoyment, the development of skills in care and nurturing of plants and animals were described by many school participants as important outcomes. One teacher described how he believed that these skills transfer to the care and nurturing of people. The idea of growing something and looking after it, or having rabbits in the classroom and looking after them, or the goldfish . . . Those ideas I believe are transferred [to people]. And kids who are happy to do those types of things are also happy to look after each other. So if you can instil the importance of looking after a plant or looking after an animal, then the idea of looking after each other and not putting each other down, and thinking of the feelings of other people, can be made that much easier as well (Teacher, School 11).

Participants also described connectedness to other people as a major outcome, particularly for middle- and upper-primary school children aged from around 8 to 12 years. Additionally, teachers and principals believed that activities that connect children with their school can result in students “at-risk” of becoming disengaged from school, continuing to be engaged with their learning and their school community. And again projects like this [are] . . . a way of helping kids remain engaged in schools. Because schools are often the last social bastion to help these kids . . . if [their] families have broken down. Something critical has happened in their lives and they’re not connected in the school . . . (Principal, School 11).

Related to this, teachers and principals described how they believed children obtained stress relief from having contact with plants, animals, or other elements of nature and that having access to quiet natural spaces in the school grounds had a calming effect. For many children sitting and patting an animal can make a significant difference to them either in terms of their capacity to come in here, but also for kids that lose it – I’m able to

watch the anger or anxiety dissipated by patting. So, it’s genuine, I can see it everyday with the kids (Principal, School 1).

Lastly, around one third of school participants believed that activities based around hands-on contact with nature allowed children to experience freedom and creativity, and that these activities also lend themselves to exploration and the opportunity for children to engage in play. . . . it’s an experience that a lot of kids don’t have. Watching a calf being born next door . . . finding out about the farmer’s anger when they’ve patted a horse they shouldn’t have patted. All that sort of stuff . . . Kids learn something about themselves when they go away on a camp . . . They learn some degree or capacity for a level of independence . . . it’s because they’re in a natural environment they learn about simply using it to explore and make play (Principal, School 1).

School participants perceptions about activities involving hands-on contact with nature are illustrated in Figure 2. Discussion The differences detected in the perceptions of industry and school participants about the benefits of children’s hands-on contact with nature demonstrate considerable overlap which can be explained by the application of some ecological theory. Kellert (2005, 2002) reflects on the role of experience and contact with nature in childhood development. He distinguished three kinds of contact children have with nature: (1) direct; (2) indirect; and (3) vicarious experiences (Kellert, 2005, 2002). “Direct” experiences are defined as actual physical contact with plants and animals and physically being in natural settings. However, Kellert (2002) restricts direct encounters to animals, plants and environments occurring mostly outside and independent of the human built environment, where organisms and ecosystems function without continuous human intervention and control. Furthermore, he considers direct contact with nature as an unplanned experience, for example, when a child engages in spontaneous play in their backyard, a neighbourhood park or an abandoned lot and they encounter native species of plants and animals (Kellert, 2002). Kellert (2002, p. 119) defines a child’s “indirect” experience of nature as involving actual physical contact with plants and animals but in more restricted, programmed and managed contexts where “. . . the experience of natural habitats and nonhuman creatures is typically the result of regulated and contrived human activity.” For example, included are experiences with animals, plants and habitats encountered in zoos, aquariums and botanical gardens, and domesticated species and habitats such as farm and companion animals, vegetable gardens and cultivated crops (Kellert, 2002). The final type of experience with nature described by Kellert (2002; 2005) is a “vicarious or symbolic” experience which “. . . does not involve contact with actual living organisms and environments but rather, with the image, representation, or metaphorical expression of nature” (Kellert, 2005, p. 66). Vicarious experiences have become more predominant in children’s lives through various means such as books and other print media, radio, television, film and computers (Kellert, 2002). Hence direct


533

HE 109,6

534

Figure 2. Conceptual map of school participants’ perceptions of activities with hands-on contact with nature and the perceived benefits for children’s mental, emotional and social health

and indirect experiences of nature are those experiences that involve hands-on contact with plants, animals and other elements of nature, while vicarious experiences do not (Kellert, 2002, 2005). The theory of biophilia argues that owing to our evolutionary history, where humans lived entirely in and were dependent on nature, people today still have an innate affinity for nature that is beneficial for health and wellbeing (Wilson, 1984; 2001). Early in human history there was an evolutionary advantage in knowing about the natural world, particularly information concerning plants and animals, and this knowledge contributed to survival (Kellert, 1997). Kellert (2002) suggests that according to biophilia, hands-on contact with nature becomes paramount in middle-childhood. As evidence Kellert (2002) discusses den construction, an activity particularly associated with this developmental stage (Kirkby, 1989; Kylin, 2003; Moore, 1986; Sobel, 1990; Sobel, 1993; Titman, 1994). By using their hands to construct secret hiding places out of natural elements outside of, but near to, the home, children

create and construct “quasi-habitations” – gaining autonomy and self-confidence in the process (Kellert, 2002). Direct and indirect experiences can be considered equivalent to the unstructured and structured types of contact described by industry participants in the present study. Direct experiences are equal to unstructured activities in nature, described by participants as facilitating children’s exploration, discovery of, and immersion in nature through which they negotiate their own identity and their place in the world. Indirect experiences are equal to structured hands-on activities in nature, which participants described as beneficial for meaningful learning, problem-solving skills, empowerment and connecting with local community members, teachers and other adults. Indirect activities occur in more programmed contexts (Kellert, 2002) which in the current context can be interpreted as the school environment. Although he argues that indirect and vicarious experiences of nature still play an important role, Kellert (2002) emphasises that it is children’s direct experience of nature in middle-childhood that has the most powerful effect on their psychosocial growth and development. Despite acknowledging that further study is required, Kellert (2002, p. 139) states: “. . . direct experience of nature plays a significant, vital and perhaps irreplaceable role in affective, cognitive and evaluative development.” Similarly, practitioners in the present study believed that unstructured activities were more beneficial than structured activities for children’s development and mental, emotional and social health. Both Kellert (2005, 2002) and the practitioners in this study intimate that children’s time is now more structured than in previous eras, and that opportunities for autonomous, private play in natural environments have diminished. Others have also expressed this concern (Louv, 2008; Moore and Wong, 1997; Nabhan and Trimble, 1994). Additional potentially interchangeable terms for structured and unstructured hands-on contact with nature can be found in other studies, although they are not necessarily used in reference to children. For example, Sempik et al. (2003) explored the use of gardening to promote health, wellbeing, and social inclusion among vulnerable adults. The authors constructed a model, based on biophilia, to illustrate the main activities, processes and outcomes of hands-on contact with nature through gardening. Similar to the distinction made in the present work between unstructured and structured hands-on contact with nature, the model distinguishes between quiet appreciation of nature (passive participation) and active engagement with it through organised gardening activities (active participation) (Sempik et al., 2003). Regardless of whether structured and unstructured activities are considered as direct and indirect experiences of nature, or as passive and active participation, it is argued here that not only are both activities highly beneficial for children’s mental, emotional and social health, but that the activities and their associated benefits are in fact concomitant and complementary to one another. It is interesting at this point to reflect on the ecological-evolutionary perspective of Heerwagen and Orians (2002), who predict age-related patterns of behavioural responses to the natural environment or environmental stimuli. They consider certain ecological needs or challenges children may encounter, including safety, foraging and feeding, and finding a place to live, and their influence at different stages of children’s development (Heerwagen and Orians, 2002). Heerwagen and Orians (2002) contemplate these challenges and predict at what developmental stage they would have most influence as evidenced by children’s behaviour. In middle-childhood, they suggest that as children develop their physical skills (enabling them to move further away from


535

HE 109,6

536

their home base) they would engage in greater exploration of their environment and participate in self-directed activities such as den construction. As evidence, they cite the work of Hart (1979), which demonstrates that den and tree-house construction is a preferred activity for children aged between seven and 11 years (Heerwagen and Orians, 2002). It appears therefore, that unstructured activities involving hands-on contact with nature may fulfil an ecological need of children during middle-childhood that is a natural part of their development. Where does this leave structured contact with nature, which managers and school participants perceived as equally, if not more beneficial, for children’s development and mental, emotional and social health? The answer is in the data. During this research, school participants (who teach children in middle-childhood ranging in age from five to 12 years of age) did not differentiate between unstructured and structured activities involving hands-on contact with nature. As explained earlier, this was because they considered all hands-on contact with nature beneficial for children. Contrary to this stance however, was the perception that different types of contact with nature were suitable at different stages of children’s development. School participants described simpler, less structured contact with nature as being most appropriate for younger primary-aged children and more complex, problem-solving activities with nature as appropriate for older primary-aged children. Based on this reasoning, which is consistent with Piagetian theory, unstructured and structured activities can be placed on a spectrum based on children’s developmental stage rather than being considered oppositional or discrete types. The concept of a spectrum also helps explain the views of managers and practitioners. It is likely that managers preferred structured activities because they were focussed on positive environmental outcomes and pro-environmental behaviour, whereas practitioners favoured unstructured activities because they were focussed on younger children and their development. In fact, one practitioner was as an early childhood environmental education consultant, and two other practitioners worked with children ranging in ages from one to eight years of age. The spectrum of activities can be combined with earlier diagrams depicting the perceived benefits of hands-on contact with nature to create a model. A model of activities involving hands-on contact with nature and the benefits to children’s mental, emotional and social health The model devised by Sempik et al. (2003) explaining the benefits of hands-on contact with nature for adults can be adapted to accommodate the findings of this study. It has been adapted for the perceived benefits of hands-on contact with nature and children’s mental, emotional and social health in Figure 3. The model depicts the influence of biophilia, or innate evolutionary factors (Sempik et al., 2003) on children’s interest in activities involving hands-on contact with nature. Based on the perceptions of the participants in this study, the model also incorporates all of the outcomes described for children’s mental, emotional and social health. Portrayed as a spectrum, hands-on contact with nature can occur at either extreme as either unstructured or structured activities, or alternatively, in various forms between these two types (Figure 3). Activities occurring at different points along the spectrum result in different, but often overlapping, benefits for children’s mental, emotional and social health (Figure 3). For example, outcomes such as stress relief, self-esteem, sensory engagement, physical


537

Figure 3. Hands-on contact with nature and children’s mental, emotional and social health – a model depicting the types of activities and outcomes (after Sempik et al., 2003)

activity, the accommodation of different learning styles and connectedness to others can result from activities occurring at any point along the spectrum. A limitation of the model is that it is based on the perceptions of adults. Also, as the study involved adult educators engaged in the promotion and day-to-day running of activities involving hands-on contact with nature, their perceptions of the benefits may be exaggerated. However, the model and associated findings could be tested empirically with an experiment or controlled study in future research involving data collected from children. Implications This research has shown principals, teachers and professionals from the environmental education sector perceive that hands-on contact with nature is important for children’s mental, emotional and social health on various dimensions. It also highlights the pivotal role that schools can play in providing children with access

HE 109,6

538

to nature. As the majority of opportunities for modern children to experience contact with nature appear to be occurring at school, the amount of access to nature that school settings provide is becoming increasingly important. Schools are in an ideal position to provide both unstructured and structured activities involving hands-on contact with nature. Unstructured activities could occur before and after school, as well as during morning tea or lunch breaks, on school grounds that have high amounts and diverse types, of vegetation and other natural features (e.g. animals, water features). Children would be able to use their imagination to discover and play alone, or with other children, in these environments which would be highly manipulable and reflect natural cycles (i.e. the seasons, growth, birth and death). Structured hands-on contact with nature is highly suited to the curriculum where nature can be incorporated into children’s daily lessons. Structured activities could occur indoors and outdoors (on the school grounds or in another natural area off-site), involve other children and teachers and/or other adults who could work together to solve local environmental issues or alternatively to create “green” spaces on the school grounds, such as gardens or habitat for wildlife. Adults largely control most aspects of children’s lives, and school settings are no different. If schools do not have “green” grounds, or the school philosophy does not value the environment, many children who live in urban areas may have limited opportunities to experience nature and may miss out on the potential benefits described in this research. With the likelihood of future research contributing to the growing evidence in this area, reconsideration could be given to the design of schools, early childhood centres and local neighbourhoods to ensure that children are provided with opportunities to access nature. In particular, it is recommended that school grounds are designed to maximise children’s contact with plants and animals. Conclusion This exploratory study has demonstrated that adults from the education sector perceive there are multiple benefits to children’s mental, emotional and social health from activities involving hands-on contact with nature at school. A valuable next step would be to take an experimental approach to measure effects on children’s mental, emotional and social health, building on the groundwork established here. Combined with the impetus of increasing mental health problems in children reported in the literature, it is evident that there is greater potential for activities involving hands-on contact with nature to be introduced into primary schools. Schools appear to be playing an increasingly important role in providing children with access to nature and are in an ideal position to provide activities incorporating both unstructured and structured elements. References Agar, M.H. (1999), “How to ask for a study in Qualitatisch”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 684-97. Capra, F. (1999), Ecoliteracy: The Challenge for Education in the Next Century, Center for Ecoliteracy, Berkeley, CA. Cramer, J.R. (2008), “Reviving the connection between children and nature: through service-learning restoration partnerships”, Native Plants Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 278-86. Frumkin, H. (2001), “Beyond toxicity human health and the natural environment”, American Journal of Preventative Medicine, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 234-40.

Green, V. (2004), “An exploration of school gardening and its relationship to holistic education – a major paper submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of master of science”, The Rural Extension Studies Program in The School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, The University of Guelph, Guelph. Hart, R. (1979), Children’s Experience of Place, Irvington Publishers, New York, NY. Hart, R. (1997), Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care, UNICEF and Earthscan, New York, NY. Health Council of the Netherlands (2004), “Nature and health – the influence of nature on social, psychological and physical well-being”, Health Council of the Netherlands and the Advisory Council for Research on Spatial Planning, Nature and the Environment (RMNO), The Hague. Heerwagen, J.H. and Orians, G.H. (2002), “The ecological world of children”, in Kahn, P.H.J. and Kellert, S.R. (Eds), Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Kellert, S.R. (1997), Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and Development, Island Press, Washington, DC. Kellert, S.R. (2002), “Experiencing nature: affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children”, in Kahn, P.H.J. and Kellert, S.R. (Eds), Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Kellert, S.R. (2005), Building for Life – Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection, Island Press, Washington, DC. Kirkby, M. (1989), “Nature as refuge in children’s environments”, Children’s Environments Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 7-12. Kylin, M. (2003), “Children’s dens”, Children, Youth and Environments (Electronic Version), Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-26. Louv, R. (2008), Last Child in the Woods – Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder, Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. Maller, C.J. and Townsend, M. (2006), “Children’s mental health and wellbeing and hands-on contact with nature: perceptions of principals and teachers”, International Journal of Learning, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 357-73. Maller, C.J., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P.B. and St Leger, L. (2006), “Healthy parks healthy people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations”, Health Promotion International, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 45-54. Montessori, M. (1967), The Discovery of the Child, Ballantine Books, New York, NY. Moore, R.C. (1986), Childhood’s Domain: Play and Place in Child Development, Croom Helm, London. Moore, R.C. (2000), “Childhood’s domain: play and place in child development”, Michigan Quarterly Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 477-81. Moore, R.C. and Wong, H.H. (1997), Natural Learning – Creating Environments for Rediscovering Nature’s Way of Teaching, MIG Communications, Berkeley, CA. Morse, J. and Field, P. (1995), Qualitative Research Methods for Health Professionals, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Morse, J. and Richards, L. (2002), ReadMe First for a User’s Guide to Qualitative Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Nabhan, G.P. and Trimble, S. (Eds) (1994), The Geography of Childhood: Why Children Need Wild Places, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.


539

HE 109,6

540

Powell, M. (2007), “The hidden curriculum of recess”, Children, Youth and Environments, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 86-106. Prosser, L., Townsend, M. and Staiger, P. (2008), “Older people’s relationships with companion animals: a pilot study”, Nursing Older People, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 29-32. Pyle, R.M. (2002), “Eden in a vacant lot: special places, species, and kids in the neighborhood of life”, in Kahn, P.H.J. and Kellert, S.R. (Eds), Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Rivkin, M. (1995), The Great Outdoors – Restoring Children’s Right to Play Outside, National Association for the Education of Young Children, Washington, DC. Rivkin, M. (1997), “The schoolyard habitat movement: what it is and why children need it”, Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 61-6. Rohde, C.L.E. and Kendle, A.D. (1994), “Report to English nature – human well-being, natural landscapes and wildlife in urban areas: a review”, Department of Horticulture and Landscape, University of Reading and the Research Institute for the Care of the Elderly, Bath. Sawyer, M.G., Arney, F.M., Baghurst, P.A., Clark, J.J., Graetz, B.W., Kosky, R.J., Nurcombe, B., Patton, G.C., Prior, M.R., Raphael, B., Rey, J.M., Whaites, L.C. and Zubrick, S.R. (2001), “The mental health of young people in Australia: key findings from the child and adolescent component of the national survey of mental health and well-being”, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 806-14. Sempik, J., Aldridge, J. and Becker, S. (2003), Social and Therapeutic Horticulture: Evidence and Messages from Research, Thrive and Centre for Child and Family Research, Loughborough University, Loughborough. Seymour, L. (2003), “English Nature research reports, number 533: nature and psychological well-being”, English Nature, Peterborough. Snape, D. and Spencer, L. (2003), “The foundations of qualitative research”, in Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (Eds), Qualitative Research Practice – A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, Sage Publications, London. Sobel, D. (1990), “A place in the world: adults’ memories of childhood’s special places”, Children’s Environments Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 5-12. Sobel, D. (1993), Children’s Special Places – Exploring the Role of Forts, Dens, and Bush Houses in Middle Childhood, Zephyr Press, Tuscon, AZ. Spradley, J.P. (1979), The Ethnographic Interview, Holt, Rienhart & Winston, New York, NY. Steiner, R. (1970), “Education and the science of spirit”, in Allen, P. (Ed.), Education as an Art, Rudolf Steiner Publications, New York, NY. Titman, W. (1994), Special Places, Special People: The Hidden Curriculum of School Grounds, World Wide Fund for Nature, Surrey. Weare, K. (2000), Promoting Mental, Emotional and Social Health – A Whole School Approach, Routledge, London and New York, NY. Wilson, E.O. (1984), Biophilia, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Wilson, E.O. (2001), “Nature matters”, American Journal of Preventative Medicine, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 241-2. Zubrick, S.R., Silburn, S.R., Burton, P. and Blair, E. (2000), “Mental health disorders in children and young people: scope, cause and prevention”, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 570-8.

Appendix Interview schedule for school participants Topic (A) introducing activities: 1.

Tell me a little about the nature-based or environmental education activities at your school?

2.

How were you involved in the introduction of the nature-based/env education activity at your school?

3.

For what purpose/purposes was the activity introduced?

4.

How was the activity introduced? E.g. was it an initiative of one person, or a group/committee? Or did it just evolve?

5.

Briefly, were there any enablers to the introduction of the activity? i.e. What brought about its introduction?

6.

Briefly, were there any barriers to overcome before introducing the activity? i.e. Any obstacles to overcome?

Topic (B) definitions/: 7.

What do you think are the key elements of a typical “environmental education activity”?

8.

What do you think, if any, are the main differences between “nature-based activities” and more typical “environmental education activities”?

9.

What does the mental health/wellbeing of children mean to you? What key words/phrases in terms of good mental health for children come to mind?

Topic (C) benefits/effects of activities: 10.

Could you describe the effects, if any, of these activities on children in terms of their mental health and wellbeing? Can you give examples?

11.

What sorts of changes (positive or negative) have you observed in the relationships between children involved in the activity since its introduction? Can you give an example?

12.

What sorts of changes (positive or negative) have you observed in the children’s relationship with teachers/staff involved in the activity since its introduction? Can you give an example?

13.

What sorts of changes (positive or negative) have you observed in the children’s overall behaviour since the introduction of the activity? Can you give an example?

14.

What sorts of changes (positive or negative) have you observed in the children’s attitude towards school since the introduction of the activity? Can you give an example?

15.

Could you describe the effects, if any, of these types of activities on teachers and other staff involved?


541

HE 109,6

542

Topic (D) personal contact/beliefs: 16.

What sort of contact with nature do you have personally with nature (for example gardening, spending time with animals, bushwalking, bird watching etc)? Please describe.

17.

How do you think this effects your health? In what way/s?

18.

What sort of contact with the natural environment did you have as a child?

19.

How do you think your own beliefs about nature influence your opinion of the benefits of nature-based activities at your school?

Are there any comments you would like to make? Interview schedule for industry participants Topic (A) definitions: 1.

What are the key elements of a nature-based activity such as . . . a kitchen garden?

2.

What do you think, if any, are the main differences between “nature-based activities” and more typical “environmental education activities”?

3.

What does the mental health/wellbeing of children mean to you? What key words/phrases in terms of good mental health for children come to mind?

Topic (B) extent: 4.

From your perspective describe current environmental education in Victorian primary schools?

5.

Why do you believe nature-based activities and environmental education activities are popular in primary schools?

6.

Overall, what do you think are the main type/most common form of on-site nature-based activities in primary schools (i.e. those activities conducted at the school)?

7.

Overall, what do you think are the main type/most common form of off-site nature-based activities in primary schools (i.e. external excursions, site visits)?

8.

What would you/your organisation like to achieve in terms of environmental education or nature-based activities for primary school children over the next 5-10 years?

9.

What would be some of the indicators of success, in terms of what you’ve just described?

Topic (C) introducing activities/support: 10.

For what purpose/s do you believe these types of activities are introduced? Why? Why not?

11.

What sorts of things result in a high level of up-take by schools of the types of activities your organisation offers? What brings about their introduction?

12.

What sorts of things result in a low level of up-take by schools of the types of activities your organisation offers? What prevents their introduction?

Topic (D) health: 13.

What sorts of health benefits do you believe there are from having contact with the natural environment? Please describe (briefly).

14.

Could you describe the effects, if any, of engaging hands-on with the natural environment on children’s mental health/psychological state?

15.

Could you describe the effects, if any, of these types of activities on teachers and other staff involved?

16.

How many times in the last fortnight would you have personally had contact with nature (for example gardening, spending time with animals, bushwalking, bird watching etc)? Please describe.

17.

How do you think this impacts on your health? In what way/s?

18.

How do you think your own beliefs about nature influence your opinion of the benefits of nature-based activities in primary schools?

Are there any other comments you would like to make? Thoughts you have?

About the author Cecily Jane Maller is a research fellow at the Centre for Design and the Global Cities Institute at RMIT University, Melbourne (Australia). Beginning with an undergraduate degree in environmental studies and completing her doctorate in public health, Cecily has a multidisciplinary background and is interested in the social dimensions of sustainability, in particular, the dynamics between people and their environments. Before joining RMIT University, Cecily was employed by various academic institutions and governments in Australia to conduct social science in the fields of health and natural resource management. Previously, Cecily has been employed in the Australian university sector, undertaking ecological and social research, as well as teaching undergraduates. Cecily Jane Maller can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints


543