Space, Place and Environment

544 Pages·7.501 MB·English

by  Karen Nairn, Peter Kraftl, Tracey Skelton (eds.)

Can School Gardens Deepen Children’s
Connection to Nature?
Susan J. Wake and Sally Birdsall
Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................... 2
2 ChildrenandNature,Participation,andLearning.......................................... 4
2.1 ChildrenandNature.................................................................... 5
2.2 TheRightsandBenefitsofChildren’sParticipation.................................. 6
3 SchoolGardens:ASystemicReviewandCritique......................................... 8
3.1 DifferentTimes,SimilarAgendas:ABriefHistoryofSchoolGardens............. 8
3.2 RationalesforContemporarySchoolGardens........................................ 10
3.3 ContemporarySchoolGardens:ANewParadigmoraFlashinthePan?........... 12
3.4 TheRoleofAdultsinGarden-BasedLearning....................................... 14
4 WhatSchoolGardensCanOffer:TheBenefitsofPartnerships............................ 16
5 Conclusion.................................................................................... 20
References........................................................................................ 21
Abstract
This chapter is a review of school gardens and their potential for deepening
children’s connection to nature. School gardens are currently experiencing a
resurgenceinpopularityinmanyWesterncountriesfollowingtheirdeclineafter
WWII. Rationales for contemporary school gardens are focused on issues that
today’schildrenface,suchasinflexibleeducationsystems,obesity,diminishing
experienceswithnature,andalackofphysicalactivity.Althoughlaudedbytheir
champions (e.g., researchers, educational and landscape professionals, celebri-
ties), the school garden remains a tenuous construct both as an entity and an
S.J.Wake(*)
DepartmentofLandscapeArchitecture,UnitecInstituteofTechnology,Auckland,NewZealand
e-mail:[email protected]
S.Birdsall
FacultyofEducationandSocialWork,TheUniversityofAuckland,Auckland,NewZealand
e-mail:[email protected]
#SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2015 1
K.Nairnetal.(eds.),Space,PlaceandEnvironment,GeographiesofChildrenand
YoungPeople3,DOI10.1007/978-981-4585-90-3_1-1
2 S.J.WakeandS.Birdsall
educationaltool.Thisisduetolackofconsistentempiricalevidenceabouttheir
role in learning, plus their reliance on teacher knowledge and commitment,
fundraisingpotential,andvolunteerassistance.
Yet school gardens can provide spaces for many experiences in nature
ranging from play, exercise, and socialization to learning in maths, science,
and environmental education. The focus of this chapter is examining their
potentialforenvironmentallearningandfosteringpositiveenvironmentalexpe-
riencesandattitudes.
Itisproposedthatmanycurrentschoolgardensmaybelimitedbothintheir
scopeandlevelsofchildren’sparticipation,especiallyinareassuchasplanning
anddesign.Itisrecommendedthatpartnershipsbetweenschoolsandtheirwider
communities (e.g., landscape architects) could result in more diverse school
garden models that go beyond “vege” gardens in contributing both to environ-
mental learning and promoting biodiversity. Empowering children through
inclusion within such partnerships can lead to transformative learning. This
type of learning could contribute to building resilient children who see them-
selvesasfutureguardiansoftheEarth.
Keywords
Schoolgardens•School-groundgreening•Children•Environmentaleducation•
Participation•Codesign
1 Introduction
Therehasbeenaresurgenceinthepopularityofschoolgardens,especiallyoverthe
last decade, representing different purposes including gardens for food, flowers,
native habitats, recycling, rainwater management, art, sustainable power genera-
tion,andpermaculture.Forexample,Fig.1showsasensorygardenwithvariedleaf
textures, scents, etc. These gardens represent opportunities for children to deepen
theirconnectiontonature.While“school-groundgreening”isagenerallyusedterm
(Dyment2005),othernamesarealsoused,forexample,“learnscapes”inAustralia
(e.g.,SkampandBergman2001)and“learninggardens” intheUSA(e.g.,Gaylie
2009; Williams and Brown 2012), although these have also been developed into
programsthatpromotegardensaslearningenvironments.
The creation and management of school gardens can be usefully informed by
research within many disciplines. This includes children’s geographies, which
represent children and young people’s lives, including their mobility, education,
participation, and spatial interactions with the wider world (Robson et al. 2013).
Theseauthorsnotethatchildren’sgeographiesarenowanenduringsubdiscipline,
informedbythesociologyofchildhoodorthenewsocialstudiesofchildhood.This
subdiscipline emerged in the 1990s and positioned children as active citizens and
childhoodasastateofbeingratherthanbecoming(HollowayandValentine2000),
which is the position of empowerment advocated within this chapter. Therefore,
CanSchoolGardensDeepenChildren´sConnectiontoNature? 3
Fig. 1 A school garden in Hamilton, New Zealand that encourages sensory engagement, e.g.
scentandtexture(Author’sphoto)
children’s geographies offer a multidisciplinary lens through which to combine
different perspectives of childhood, for example, the reasons and ramifications of
children’sdiminishing contact with nature, aswellastheir participationinschool
gardens. Such a lens can provide a valuable counterpoint to the often uncritical
literatureextollingthebenefitsofschoolgardens.
The premise of this chapter is that in order for school gardens to be enduring,
theyneedtobechild-centeredenvironmentsthatprovidevaluableresourcestothe
school and wider community. It will be argued that while school gardens provide
opportunities for learning about and connecting to nature, their full potential may
notberealizedbecauseofthewaystheyaretypicallycreatedandused.
Thischapterbeginswithadiscussionaboutchildrenbeingapartofsocietyand
abletoengageinpro-environmentaldecision-making.Itisarguedthattheyarenot
citizens-in-waitingfortheirturntoeffectchangethatcanleadtomoresustainable
societies; they can make a difference now. The importance of children having
experiences in nature in order to be able to make pro-environmental decisions is
explored, along with problems defining the term “nature.” It is also argued that
gardenscanofferopportunitiestomakeconnectionswithnaturethatcouldcounter
agrowingtrendtowardbiophobiainchildren.
Next,theoriginsofschoolgardensarediscussedalongwithreasonsfortheirrise
andfallinpopularityfromthenineteenthcenturytothepresentday.Rationalesfor
4 S.J.WakeandS.Birdsall
contemporaryschoolgardensareexplored,alongwiththeirpotentialsustainability
withinschoolcurriculums.
The chapter continues by investigating the role of adults in school gardens,
particularlythatofteachers,whoareidentifiedashavingthemostinfluenceonthe
successofsuchgardens.Itconcludeswithanargumentforthebenefitsofpartner-
shipsbetweenschoolsandtheircommunities,intermsofbothincreasingchildren’s
senseofagencyasenvironmentalguardiansandtheincreasedbiodiversityresulting
throughthecreationofurbangreencorridors.
2 Children and Nature, Participation, and Learning
On 14 August 2015, the Earth went into “environmental overdraft” for the year
(Aridi 2015). In exceeding the Earth’s annual capacity to provide resources and
environmental services earlier than ever before (a week earlier than in 2014), an
increasinglyshrillwarningisbeingsoundedthatpeoplemustchangetheirbehav-
ior. It is essential that this change includes children due to their role as future
decision-makers.However,inseekingtoempowerchildrenasfutureguardiansof
the environment, they need to be recognized as legitimate community members
with a role to play right now (Morgan 2009), something which Percy-Smith and
Burns(2013)suggestisstillfrequentlyoverlooked.Thisoversightisdespitemore
than20yearsofincreasingacknowledgmentwithinchildren’sgeographiesresearch
of children’s capability for actively shaping their environments (Robson
et al. 2013), as well as the widespread acceptance of childhood as a social con-
struction (Holloway and Valentine 2000). In fact, as Malone and Hartung (2010)
pointout,childrentodayhaveapowerfulcombinationofunprecedentedaccessto
global knowledge and technological skills that can surpass those of most adults.
They therefore have the potential to makethemselves heard and totakeactionon
issuestheychoose.Thissignalstheimportanceofadultsbeingbothrolemodelsand
keyfacilitatorsinchildren’senvironmentaljourneys.
Formaleducationhaslongbeenrecognizedasanimportantvehicleforenviron-
mentallearning,beginningwithearlyUnitedNations(UN)conferencesandagree-
ments,forexample,Agenda21,theworkingdocumentfromtheEarthSummitheld
in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (UNESCO 1992). This signaled a shift from environ-
mental education (EE) toward education for sustainability (EfS) or education for
sustainable development (ESD) and established the aphorism “think global, act
local”thathasunderpinnedtheUNDecadeofEducationforSustainableDevelop-
ment (DESD) (Morgan 2009). The DESD is significant for having promoted a
learningframeworkthathasencouragedunique“local”solutionswithrelevanceto
place and people (Morgan 2009). School gardens, through the opportunities they
provideforlocalenvironmentallearning,arepotentialsitesofplace-basedlearning.
ThisisdefinedbySmith(2007)tobeenvironmentallearningthatisgroundedinthe
localandthesocial,ideallyhavingrelevanceandinteractionwithcommunitiesin
whichtheyaresituated.
CanSchoolGardensDeepenChildren´sConnectiontoNature? 5
2.1 Children and Nature
At the heart of both EE and ESD are children having experiences in nature. Such
experiences are regarded as a foundation for the acquisition of environmental
knowledgeandacontributingfactortothedevelopmentofpositiveenvironmental
values and attitudes that foster development of pro-environmental behavior
(Bo¨geholz 2006). With this knowledge that experiences in nature are of seminal
importance, it is imperative, yet difficult, to define what “nature” is and what it
includes.Forexample,Bo¨geholz(2006)refersto“natureexperiences,”Fa¨gerstam
(2012) discusses “experiences in the natural world,” and Freeman and Tranter
(2011)speakabout“naturalspace.”
Thisvarietyoftermsillustratesthatnatureisacontestedconstructandoneused
inavarietyofways(Payne2014).“Nature”isusuallyviewedassomethingexternal
toandseparatefrompeopleandassomethingphysicalormaterial.However,itcan
alsobeexperienceddifferently,forexample,inareal/practicalway,throughstudy
(usually scientifically), or by being “saved” through a political/social process
(Payne2014).Furthermore,theterm“nature”impliesaduality,withnaturebeing
naturalthings,suchasariveroraforestasopposedtononnatural,artificialthings,
for example, a building. This duality means that our urban and domestic built
environments are not viewed as part of nature, reinforcing people’s separation
from it and reflecting Taylor’s (2013) assertion that nature is a “monolithic, self-
evidentidea”(p.4).
When studying 11–12-year-old children’s conceptions of nature, Payne (2014)
found that children viewed nature as an ideal, something external to them, and
“pure” and “raw” (p. 74) where, in all but one instance, humans had no part. He
argues that these conceptions contradict their direct, everyday experiences with
formsofnature,forexample,theirschoolgrounds.Coupledwiththeassertionmade
byBo¨geholz(2006)thatchildrenneedtoexperiencenaturetofeelaconnectionand
thus be motivated to care for their environment, it becomes evident that their
understandingandexperiencesofnatureneedtobeexpanded.
Taylor(2013)proposesabroaderconstructionofnature.Shearguesthatpeople
andtheiractionsareentangledinareciprocalmannerwiththeactionsofnonhuman
livingthings.Therefore,naturecanbeviewedasacomplexnexusof“humanand
non-human, living and inert, geographic and engineered, discursive and material
relations”(Taylor2013,p.70).Thiswiderconceptionofnaturecanthenbeseento
includemodifiedenvironments,suchasschoolgardens.
Even though it is widely accepted that having nature experiences is probably
essential for children’s well-being (Faber Taylor and Kuo 2006), research is
confirming anecdotal claims that successive generations of children are having
diminishing nature experiences, as expressed by phrases such as Kahn’s (2002)
“environmentalgenerational amnesia.” Forexample, Freeman and Tranter (2011)
statethat62%ofEnglishchildrensurveyed(n = 502)saidthattheyplayedinside
at home more than any other place and that 41 % preferred playing inside.
Furthermore, it is concerning that some researchers are reporting tendencies in
children toward what Orr (1994) described as “biophobia” (e.g., Kong 2000).
6 S.J.WakeandS.Birdsall
Confirming this, Fa¨gerstam’s (2012) study revealed that Australian high school
teachersfoundthattheirstudentswereuncomfortablelearninginanaturalsetting,
with one teacher describing students as “distant” from nature. By comparison,
Birdsall(2014)foundthat5-to6-year-oldNewZealandchildren’sexperiencesin
theirschoolgardennotonlyresultedinunderstandingsabouttheinterdependence
of flora, fauna, and people that were sophisticated for their age, but they also
expressedpositiveattitudestowardthefaunafoundthere.
In considering adults’ role as environmental role models, school gardens may
alsoprovideopportunitiesforparentsandchildrentospendmoretimetogetherin
nature.Whileschoolgroundshavetraditionallybeenpartofcommunities,overthe
last 20 years, this has changed (Witten et al. 2013). Witten et al. point out that
childrennolongeralwaysattendtheirlocalschoolsduetoavarietyofreasonssuch
aszoningchanges,parents’workplace locations,andschool closures.As aresult,
theyfoundthatchildren’sindependentmobilityhasdiminishedsignificantlycom-
paredtothechildhoodstheirparentsremember.Theauthorsofthischaptersuggest
thiscouldcontributetolesstimespentinteractingwithnaturesinceitisclearthat
childrenaretravelingfurthertoschoolandhavelessfreetimeandpermissiontogo
off on their own. School gardens could therefore encourage parental sharing in
children’s nature experiences both at school and through bringing ideas home. In
addition, school gardens could play a role in rebuilding the community focus of
schoolsresultinginparentsmeetingotherparentsandbuildingtrustthatmaylead
toincreasedindependentmobilityforchildren.Thiswouldhelptobuildavibrant
schoolcommunityandstrengthenconnectionsbetweenparentsandtheirchildren’s
learningaswellaschildren’sconnectionswithnature.
2.2 The Rights and Benefits of Children’s Participation
Inthe25-yearjourneytowardendorsingthetenetsoftheUNConventiononRights
of the Child (CRC) (UNHCHR 1989), children’s rights have been increasingly
emphasized,andthisincludeschildrenparticipatingindecision-making.Reidand
Nikel (2008) define participation as active involvement in a process of decision-
making; the fundamental requirement is for power sharing to occur, leading to
opportunities for transformational learning, a term defined by Sterling (2010,
p. 524) as an “intrinsic and life-changing inner process.” It is now known that
such participation builds “soft skills” such as increased self-confidence and lead-
ershipabilities,plusotherbenefits,forexample,astrengthenedsenseofcommunity
(SorrellandSorrell2005;WakeandEames2013).Whenembeddedwithinspecific
disciplines such as design, it can also lead to a multiplicity of more specialized
outcomes(DerrandRigoloninpress).
Oneofthemostwell-knownmodelsusedtoconsiderchildren’sparticipationis
Hart’s(1997)“ladderofparticipation.”Harthasalwaysemphasizedthatthismodel
was a way of representing the differing degrees to which adults enable children’s
agency in decision-making and involvement. He further stressed that it was not
implied that the eight levels should be sequentially reached or that the top rung
CanSchoolGardensDeepenChildren´sConnectiontoNature? 7
(child-initiated, shared decision-making with adults) was aspirational in every
situation. Despite this, the ladder model has frequently been misapplied as a
hierarchical measure of children’s participation (Malone and Hartung 2010).
According to Reid and Nikel (2008), perhaps the most useful role of the ladder
hasbeentheidentificationofthreelevelsof“nonparticipation”(i.e.,manipulation,
tokenism, decoration). In a different approach, Driskell (2002) distributed Hart’s
eightcategoriesofparticipationacrossagraphthatrepresentsincreasingdecision-
making and change-effect powers (vertical axis) and increasing community inter-
actionandcollaboration(horizontalaxis).Theresultisamoreencompassing,less
linear model, although, as Malone and Hartung (2010) point out, one of the
problems is the reliance on such models as tools rather than seeing them as
theoreticalframeworks.
Children’s participation and power sharing with adults are an intrinsic view of
education.Herechildrenarelearningtothinkcriticallyandreflexivelyaboutissues,
for example, envisaging a sustainable future and then working toward its realiza-
tion, adapting in the process to unknowns and uncertainties, which helps to build
resilientlearners(Sterling2010).AsSterlingpointsout,inthisway,thedirectionof
learningissetbychildren.Therefore,childrenhaveopportunitiestoparticipatein
authentic ways, defined as learning through real issues of personal relevance and
taking a role as active citizens (e.g., Chawla and Cushing 2007; Malone and
Hartung2010).
However, in many school garden situations, children are not given this agency
and instead follow adult agendas. In this regard, Malone and Hartung (2010)
proposethatonebarrierisadultresistancetotherequiredchangeinpowerrelation-
shipsbetweenchildrenandadults.Relatingtothis,theauthorsofthischapteralso
suggestthatadult-imposed inflexibilityregardingtime framesfor projectcomple-
tion is a further barrier that can preclude children’s involvement. In order to
developintoSterling’s(2010,p.515)“resilientlearner,”itisimportantforchildren
to engage politically (Chawla and Cushing 2007). Therefore, the perception that
children taking on political or decision-making roles is “robbing them of their
childhood”(MaloneandHartung2010,p.27)needstobechallenged.
Wake(2008)arguesthatgardensforchildrenshouldprioritizetheirneedsrather
thanbeingdominatedbyadults’agendas(e.g.,throughdesignormanagement).She
claimsthatsuchagendasdetermineboththeexpressionanduseofthegardenand,
as a corollary, influence the experiences children have in nature. Participatory
partnerships between adults and children, which start at the design phase, are
suggested as a way of balancing the geography of children’s gardens between all
stakeholders.
The next section will examine the background to school gardens and their
sustainability as a model by considering earlier eras when school gardens
blossomedandcomparingthemwithcontemporaryschoolgardens.
8 S.J.WakeandS.Birdsall
3 School Gardens: A Systemic Review and Critique
School gardens offer spaces for children’s activities that can be grouped into six
broadcategories:playandexercise,experiential(interactingwiththegarden,which
provides learning opportunities, e.g.,in science and maths), development of envi-
ronmental guardianship, learning about food origins and nutrition, socialization,
andvocationaltrainingthroughdevelopmentofgardeningskills.Thefocusofthis
chapter is on gardens for learning and development of positive attitudes toward
natureandoutdoorenvironments.
While it is argued thatschool gardens have potential for reconnecting children
withnature,aswellasprovidingopportunitiesforenvironmentallearningthatcan
lead to pro-environmental behavior, they are vulnerable on a number of levels.
These include the possibility of hijacking children’s learning potential through
adultdomination(nomatterhowwellintentioned),teachers’limitedgardenknowl-
edge,lackoftimeandcommitmentfromteachers,relianceonparentalsupport,and
the fact that gardens are not, so far, a permanent feature of curriculum learning.
Thesefactorsareinterrelatedandarediscussedinthissection.
3.1 Different Times, Similar Agendas: A Brief History of School
Gardens
School gardens, as part of a school’s curriculum, have enjoyed popularity before,
albeitinaverydifferentformat.InEurope,duringthe1800s,sandgardenswerea
more common interpretation (Shair 1999) than the vegetables, flowers, and fruits
that have become the standards within contemporary school gardens. Perhaps the
original “child’s garden” was Friedrich Froebel’s 1837 Prussian kindergarten
model for preschoolers; this was a metaphorical garden with Froebel referring to
“cultivating the garden of childhood” (as cited in May 2006, p. 248). Froebel’s
systemof“gifts”and“occupations,”focusingprescriptivelyonappropriatebehav-
ior,eventuallyfelloutoffavor,sowhilethenamesurvives,hisphilosophydiedout
(Shapiro1983).
Intheearlytwentiethcentury,gardeningandthebenefitsofoutdoorexposurefor
childrenwereagainembraced,thistimebyprogressivereformers.Forexample,the
McMillan sisters from industrial Bradford in Great Britain were concerned with
socialissuessuchastheplightoftheworkingclass,especiallychildrenwhowere
seenasinneedof“saving.”Theydevisedaradicaloutdoorschoolprogramcalled
the “Camp School” that focused on the health-giving properties of the outdoor
environment(McMillan1917).Oneofthesisterswrote:
ThisCampisthebiggestofall....Itistheopenspacethatmatters.Ourricketychildren,
our...deformedchildren,getbacktotheearthwithitsmagneticcurrents,andthefree
blowingwind...Toletthemliveatlastandhavethesightofpeopleplantinganddigging,
...togetthesethingswesacrificedeverythingelse.(pp.51–52)
CanSchoolGardensDeepenChildren´sConnectiontoNature? 9
InAmerica,inasimilarera,LibertyHydeBailey’s“Nature-StudyMovement”
alsoinfluencedchildren’slivesthroughanimperativeofencouragingconnections
withnature.Inthisinstance,hisagendawastoinfusetheirmindsratherthantheir
bodieswiththespiritofnature,inordertoleadtocontentmentwithrurallifeand
keep up production to fuel urban and industrial growth (Danbom 1979). The
movement was also overlaid with Bailey’s religious idealism that to be close to
naturewastobeclosetoGod.Bailey(1909)writes:
Nature-studyisarevoltfromtheteachingofformalscienceintheelementarygrades.(p.5)
Ittendscountry-ward.Godmadethecountry.(p.52)
Meanwhile, in the cities, nature-study advocates and progressive reformers
subverted Bailey’s Nature-Study Movement into the “American School Garden
Movement.”ThisattractedBureauofEducationfundingfrom1914to1920andled
tosome significant-sized gardensbeingestablished, although landscapearchitects
were largely uninvolved intheir design (Trelstad 1997). In the tussle between the
educationalaimsoftheNature-StudyMovementandthesocialcontrolfocusofthe
progressive reformers, the victors were generally the progressive reformers so,
accordingtoTrelstad(1997),schoolgardensbecameregardedas,“...aconvenient
meanstoachievemultiplesocialaims:citybeautification,thereductionofjuvenile
delinquency,improvedpublichealthandnutrition,Americanizationofimmigrants,
andthecreationofgoodworkersandcitizens”(p.164).
When America entered WWI, the program changed to the US School Garden
Army, which received federal funding and saw over 1.5 million students and
60,000 acres involved in school gardens for economy and patriotism (Shair
1999). Demobilization following the end of WWI heralded the inevitable end of
the American School Garden Movement; the sudden demise was blamed on the
withdrawaloffundingalongsideanumberofotherfactors.Forexample,Trelstad
(1997)citesincreasingsuburbanizationandgardensbecomingahome-basedfam-
ily activity, the rise ofassociations such as scouts for recreational social develop-
ment,therarityofteachersskilledingardening,andalackofprofessionalsupport
tointegrategardensmeaningfullyintocurriculumdocuments.
Historic school garden movements also flourished during this era in other
countries. In New Zealand, for example, gardening sought to prepare students for
traditionalgenderroles(i.e.,cutflowersforgirlsandfoodprovisionforboys)and
instilled economy through “growing your own” (Beaumont 2002), as well as
promoting native plants for conservation (Cockayne 1923). Nature-study classes
oftenbecameheavilyimbuedwithmorallessonsaboutcharacter,citizenship,and
work ethic (Beaumont 2002) that were expressed via regimented gardens and
behavior,asillustratedinFig.2.Whilethisfittedwiththesocioculturalcondition-
ing of the day, it is valuable to keep these agendas in mind when considering the
rationales behind the current school garden popularity, which is discussed in the
followingsection.Interestinschoolgardenswanedinpost-WWIINewZealandas,
10 S.J.WakeandS.Birdsall
Fig. 2 School gardening in early 20th century Waianiwa, New Zealand. Photographer: P.
Hazledine, Ref. 1/1-022125-G. With permission of Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington,
NewZealand
coupledwiththe“babyboom”puttingpressureonschoolrolls,theconvenienceof
asphalt, grass sports areas, and standardized play equipment began their stealthy
march toward the homogeneity of school grounds in 1960s–1970s New Zealand
society.
3.2 Rationales for Contemporary School Gardens
Contemporaryschoolgardens,withwhichchildreninteractonanumberoflevels,
have been proposed as a panacea for many adults’ concerns about modern-day
children, including isolation from cycles of nature, developing environmental
responsibility, healthy eating, and exercise outdoors. There appear to be five
dominant and overlapping discourses that represent key rationales for the current
inclusion of gardens in school grounds. Some of these are eerily similar to ratio-
nalesjustifyingtheincorporationofschoolgardensinpastyears.
Amajorrationaleisdissatisfactionwithsterile,uninspiring,grass,andconcrete-
dominatedschoolenvironments.Ironically,concreteandasphaltwerethematerials
that replaced the earlier-era school gardens, which were promoted as clean and
modern at the time (Beaumont 2002). In a contemporary about-face, current