Social Construction of Nature

Social nature, conservation and children 1

Social nature, conservation and children

Mary Schaeffer

Often, conservation studies are done with adults that deal with race, economic status,


geographical location, and many other issues that may influence the type of relationship one

might have with nature. Looking into many of these studies, it was common to see that children,

who are incredibly impressionable are not often included in the studies. With the rise of obesity,

emotional and cognitive developmental delays, an increase of depression and other mental illness

among children, it’s alarming that more studies are not being done that include children. Through

interaction, children can gain an understanding of conservation of the environment and

influenced provides a new perspective on the idea of social nature.

Through multiple studies, the topics social nature and conservation are accentuated

through sub topics such as inequality, economic status, race, urban vs. rural environments. The

issue of children and their relationship to nature and conservation will be investigated and how

these studies may benefit and possibly provide answers to the question introduced.

Studies done on children and their relationship with nature are important in order to

understand the development of social nature and provide answers to ways of introducing the

significance of environmental conservation. “Although environmental inequality researchers

have focused much attention on race and income-based environmental inequality, only a few

researchers have investigated environmental inequality as it relates to children and youth. This is

surprising because research suggests that children, especially young children, are more

susceptible than adults to the negative health effects of toxic pollution (Downey & Strife, 2009).

Many of the studies that were conducted looked into urban environments and the influence of a

child's surroundings on their development and relationship to the outdoors. Many studies claim

that exposure to green spaces and nature have, “cognitive, emotional, and physical benefits, such

as increased ability to concentrate, improved academic performance, reduced stress and

aggression levels, and reduced risk of obesity” (Downey & Strife, 2009 pp 100).


Social Nature is the relationship between humankind and nature in terms of geography.

The theory of Social Nature is important because connecting children to their surroundings can

impact their views on nature and its relationship with society. However, this is interesting

because the idea of social nature is constantly changing. Children are showing that they may be

misinformed about how humans interact with nature though and when asked about the

relationship, the results were interesting, “Thirty percent of children in Helsinki did not view

human beings as being part of nature.” (Kaivola, Laaksoharju, Rappe 2012).

Conservation traditionally was to “save the wildlife” and “go green” but now it means

much more. Conservation is influenced by social nature and we “save” what society deems

necessary. Economics, Politics, Science and Education are influential factors to conservation but

if our children are not going outside and being introduced to nature and understanding what

social nature is, how is the expectation for them to understand conservation valid? Exploring

different ideas and sub topics may help shed light to the situation and provide answers to the

question of conservation and how children understand the meaning.

By using the information gathered, an analysis will be performed on the situation of

children’s relationship with nature and the influence of social nature on their views as well as

their understanding of conservation. Studies containing information on children and their

connection with nature are examined and several questions will be asked; what is influencing

children and their connection to nature? How does this affect their understanding of

conservation? How does this influence their interaction with social nature? Can interaction with

nature, or society’s idea of nature help them with problems such as obesity and lack of

environmental knowledge? What is Nature Deficit Disorder and could it have to do with the lack

of understanding?


Because of Studies done in urban surroundings were the most common and race and

economic standing was observed and noted in all studies. Studies concluded that people who

lived in the city that were poor and nonwhite, had less access to green spaces and nature.

According to a study in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, only about 7.1% of the city is covered by canopy

and the distribution of the canopy is unevenly distributed among the population (Heynen,

Perkins, Roy, 2006). Those with higher incomes tended to have more canopy cover as opposed

to those who were poor. “As with other housing amenities, households with higher incomes tend

to have greater disposable resources that can be used for tree planting and maintenance.”

(Heynen, Perkins, Roy, 2006). This uneven distribution further supports the issue of the tragedy

of the commons in which the best interest of the canopy is supported by those who are able to

cover the cost of maintenance and those who are unable to cover the costs lose the benefit of

having forestry near them in the city. The economic disadvantage that those with lower incomes

not only affects the adults which are included in this study but the children that are not included

are also affected. The inability to provide a safe, clean, green space for children is harmful for

the development of a healthy relationship with nature.

Mobility is examined through these studies as well. Through these studies of mobility, in

an urban environment, children often deal with traffic, are not given the opportunity to walk

through the streets to their schools or to the local parks. (Charles, Louv 2009). In urban

environments, children are also affected by gangs and unsafe areas that have a lot of violence,

and because of this, the access to green spaces and local parks is limited or unavailable which

adds to stress and anxiety that families may feel. Rural children often have less independent

mobility because of the area that they're surrounded by and “Parents in rural Scotland describe

walking unaccompanied to school as part of children's learning process of becoming


independent; children themselves say it is part of their 'thinking' time” (Skelton, 2009).

One important aspect to be mentioned is the idea of social nature observed in several

articles. One in particular, Destabilizing Dualisms draws up information researched through

interviewing young adults (ages 13-18) about the town or city that they live in. “[Y]oung people

in both rural and urban contexts identify natural and built features as important elements of their

respective environments. Such connections between rural and urban in young people's

understandings of their environments remind us yet again of the artificiality of the rural/urban

divide” (McCormack, Nairn, Panelli, 2003). Through this study, interviews and photographs

taken by young people were conducted in two places in New Zealand: Dunedin which was more

“urban” and Alexandria, which was considered more “rural”. The study challenged the idea that

rural spaces were socially more inclusive and that urban spaces were usually more exclusive.

The study found that in both the urban and rural area, young people felt both included and

excluded, however, in Dunedin 56% of the interviewed people considered themselves to feel

included while in Alexandria, only 45% of young people felt inclusion. “Young people’s

experiences of exclusion in Alexandra challenge the idealization of rural communities as

inclusive and young people’s experiences of inclusion in Dunedin challenge the representation of

urban communities as alienating” (McCormack, Nairn, Panelli, 2003). This study is insightful

because, each group of participants not only challenged the standard ideas of urban vs. rural

space, they also identify features of nature via beaches, rivers, parks, lakes, etc. Even in

metropolitan areas, children that exposed to any form of green space and are able to “hang out”

there, are more likely to include nature into their lifestyles, based on this study. If these young

people between the ages of 13-18 are able to identify their place of belonging with some natural

elements, even if they live in the city, it’s possible that if kept up and accessible, children may be


able to feel included, even in the city. The social construct of alienation in the city is

disassembled and tested against when young people expressed their feelings of inclusion, which

may provide further insight in possible solutions of children’s relationship to nature.

(McCormack, Nairn, Panelli, 2003).

Several studies outside of the United States have shown the benefits of introducing nature

to children including one that was conducted in Helsinki, Finland. In this review, behaviors of

children between the ages of 7 and 12 were observed in the placement a garden setting. Thirty

percent of the children of Helsinki did not view human beings a part of nature and 36% of boys

expressed that plants were not essential for human life. This is interesting because this brings up

the idea of social nature and that humans are separate from nature, living in an urban area. This

study seems to confirm the idea that metropolitan areas are alienating from “nature”. This study

was conducted in an area called Kumpulan koulukasvitarha which is Finnish for “school

children’s garden of Kumpula”. This camp is located in the center of Helsinki, which is the

capital of Finland and hosts a summer camp for children while they’re on an eleven week

summer break from school.

The garden which was built in the early 1900’s has hosted several camps and is 11 acres.

The garden area includes areas of boulders and forestry that hosts many animals including foxes,

rabbits, hares, mice, pheasants, doves, hawks and several species of insect. During the study, the

researchers were very interested to see how the children would react to gardening, as they

seemed to express their disconnect to nature. The studies were conducted in 2008, 2009, and

2010 and through the studies, several similarities were noticed. First, the children began to better

their social skills, manners on how to behave and act around other people, friendships,

confidence, better work ethics, and regard for other living creatures. (Kaivola, Laaksoharju,


Rappe, 2012). Behaviors improved and children became more outgoing and helpful to each

other, they expressed pride in their work and gardening. The hopefulness expressed by the

researchers is that gardens can provide an opportunity for children to have contact with nature

and learn to have an appreciation and lessen the disconnect with nature. According to the

analysis, when introduced to the idea of gardening, children tended to show positive attitudes and

willingness to participate in the activity of gardening. “The children were excited about the

garden work, were enthusiastic and surprisingly persistent, and they even initiated projects

toward the end of the summer”. (Laaksoharju, Kaivola, Rappe, 2012).

A similar study, done in the city of Seattle, Washington investigates the possibility of

edible landscapes in a metropolitan setting. The study stems off urban greenery in Europe and

how the introduction of urban gardening is now beginning to influence places in the United

States including cities such as Baltimore, New York City, Philadelphia, and Charleston and now

in Seattle. In this article, the point of urban ecosystems are important because of sustainability.

“[I]n the past decade, advocates for urban agriculture have successfully argued in many U.S.

cities that food production is an important element of sustainable urban ecosystems. This raises

the possibility that treating urban forests as important for both their goods and their services

might also be desirable for achieving urban sustainability.” (McLain et. al 2012). Because about

12% of Seattle’s population falls under the poverty line and families with children face even

greater chances of being impoverished, it was stressed that sustainability was important for the

households that experienced food shortages in 2010. One meaningful point in this study is that,

“Seattle’s urban forest is heavily shaped by the city’s early investments in green space planning.

The first comprehensive proposal to manage a system of urban forests was put forth in 1892. In

1903, the city hired the Olmsted firm to design a network of treed boulevards, developed parks,


playgrounds, and greenbelts structured so that every resident would be located no more

than .8km (half a mile) from green space. The resulting park and boulevard system, much of

which was completed by 1914, is the heart of Seattle's public urban forest. This system, which is

known as the Olmsted Vision, sought to balance aesthetic and recreational values.” (McLain et.

al, 2012). The research suggests that through gathering and introducing new and sustainable

options, “growing your own” may be a viable option for those living in a downtown space.

This idea of urban gardening may help influence children in hunting and gathering

techniques that humans are distinctive in nature with. However, living in the city can bring up

many different ideas of children and how they can be involved in hunting and gathering, after all,

shouldn’t there be a childhood?

“When contemplating the ‘true nature’ of childhood, many of us might be tempted to

rehearse the Peter Pan trick of invoking Neverlands, that idealized and timeless childhood place

of perfect harmony as imagined by JM Barrie (1911) in Peter and Wendy and later popularized

as a tropical island natural paradise in Disney film animations” (Taylor, 2011). Taylor states that

the idea of a perfect nature in which there is harmony and nature is almost “perfect” for children

in nature is an adulterized fantasy. The article begins by looking into the ideas of French

philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his idea that childhood and nature are separate from

“[C]ivilization, ‘culture’ and ‘rational man’ to become the locus of essential goodness” (Taylor,

2011). His thesis on children and nature is that it is separate from adulthood and must be

nurtured in order for children to have connection with nature and continue having a childhood.

Rousseau looked on European adulthood as unnatural and in his words, “Everything good is as it

comes from the hands of the Author of Nature; but everything degenerates in the hands of man”

(Rousseau, 2003 [1762:1).


The author emphasizes this point by describing photographs of infants in “natural

settings” taken by Anne Geddes. These “adorable” pictures feature infants posing with flowers,

vegetables, leaves and other natural objects. Adults are not found in the pictures which reinforces

the idea that nature and childhood are connected and separate from the adult world. Taylor

explains that childhood is denaturalized with the social construction of nature and emphasizes

that human geography is now approached through nature as a social construct. This is important

in that it emphasizes the idea of social nature, the idea that humans are separate from nature and

that interaction of children and nature is even separated from adulthood and childhood. Several

views from different fields of geography are explained in the article; “cultural geographers are

not attempting to deny the reality of nature but to point to the difference between the actual non-

human physical world and our representations of it. Moreover, they emphasize that we cannot

step outside the cultural context in which we know it or represent it…. The economic

geographers comprise another school, which contends that ‘nature is increasingly being

reconstituted materially...as industry-led science and technology exert increasing control over it”

(Taylor, 2011). Childhood is compared to the conceptualized idea of nature and that because

both are similar in that they’re separate from humans and adulthood, the author makes an

argument that in order for “childhood” to exist, and we must deconstruct the social concept of

childhood itself and reduce the use of the label and separation of childhood nature. Taylor uses

Cronon’s quotes about nature and wild places to exemplify the separation of childhood and how

it can be compared to something pristine as nature by saying, “[W]ilderness has become ‘the

ultimate landscape of authenticity’ and thereby of moral authority. Again, in his words: ‘Much of

the moral authority that has made environmentalism so compelling as a popular movement flows

from its appeal to nature as a stable external source of nonhuman values against which human


actions can be judged without much ambiguity.’ (Taylor, 2011). Because childhood is

“innocent”, this comparison is brought on by the idea of “going back to childhood”. The author,

Taylor, argues that childhood can be reconceptualized as a hybrid of nature/cultural politics.

Taylor introduces the idea to conceptualize nature as neither “nature” or “culture” but a blend of

“nature-cultures” in which childhood is a blend of “relations between children and everyday

objects, information and communication technologies, reproductive technologies and

psychopharmaceuticals” (Taylor, 2011) as a way to conceptualize childhood as “complex

heterogeneous nature/culture assemblages”.

Children are going outside less and spending more time in front of a screen. Obesity,

depression and other physical, mental, and cognitive effects are beginning to appear in children’s

behaviors and health profiles. “Nature Deficit Disorder” is a term introduced by Richard Louv in

his book called Last child in the woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-deficit Disorder

that provides a description of children’s disconnect with nature and gives an umbrella term for

the lack of involvement with the outside.

For example, “nearly one third of children from six months to six years of age live in

households where the TV is on all or most of the time” (Charles, Louv 2009). Many of these

children are spending less time outside and the correlations between time outside and the

influence on children’s development and understanding is becoming more apparent. In 2002,

there was a study done in the UK and the “study discovered that the average eight-year old was

better able to identify characters from the Japanese card trading game Pokémon than native

species in the community where they lived” (Charles, Louv 2009). This is an example of how

media is now influencing children’s knowledge outside of the community rather than

environmental exposure by taking media and allowing children to be influenced by such a strong


medium.

Lack of environmental exposure is beginning to be looked into for being one of the

leading causes of obesity. Obesity is on the rise and with close to 20% of children in the US

obese in 2004 compared to about 4% in the 1960s, the lack of connection with the outdoors is

intriguing. One factor that may influence the lack of being outside could be the lack of mobility

and the slow disappearance of recess. Children are seeing less outdoor time due to more

structured activities and the push for strong academics that are often tied with sedentary

activities. Another influence could be the fear of “dangers” outside such as kidnapping, injuries,

illness, and higher volumes of traffic. This is preventing children from going outside by having

parents supervise or prohibit outdoor play.

In relation to urban children, one more study has explored the relationship between the

effects of trees on crime. This study was conducted in Portland, Oregon over a two year period

between 2005-2007. Because of the limited independent mobility among children, it was

interesting to look into how urban canopy may affect the rate of crime and possibly create a safer

environment. The researchers theorized that trees would possibly reduce crime by “signaling” to

criminals that the property is better cared for and subject to more “effective” authority than a

property with less vegetation. Studies have shown that trees have many benefits to urban areas

including, “moderating storm-water runoff, reducing heating and cooling costs and increasing

property values” (Donovan, Prestemon, 2012). The possibility that trees could reduce crime

maybe provide a sense of security for children and their families, as well as a form of “nature” in

children’s lives. Some things that were found in the research were that the type of vegetation

reduced the fear of crime or increased the fear. Those who had more disposable income tended to

live in “better” neighborhoods with maintained properties with vegetation and fences that may


have an impact on the deterrence of crime. Other impacts were location, street lamps, and the

probability of being observed. Those who lived in mature trees that offered shade or cover

tended to reduce the fear of crime, while bushes that obstructed views into homes tended to

increase the fear of committing crime. The findings were very modest, however,

vegetation/canopy have many benefits outside of the reduction of crime. Having trees in one’s

yard may deter crime but because the results were fairly insignificant, it’s stated that the other

benefits may outweigh not having canopy in one’s yard. This may be a factor in why children

have the ability to be more mobile in areas that have more canopy covering and because of the

possibility of cover and a source of security, this may determine how children interact with

nature in the city.

All of these studies and articles that were discussed had some similarities that

may relate to children and their relationship to nature and conservation. Safety and inclusion,

because most of these studies were located in urban locations, it’s important to address the issue

of safety and inclusion because children need to feel included in order for their development to

show success. Each study also indirectly connects to part of the Anthropocene and the interaction

of children will be the next generation in how the planet and our impact affects the world and all

other living beings. Many urban areas are home to lower income families that are often of non-

white origin and because of those two classifications, those children that come from those homes

are often without nature in their lives and are often confined in homes and have limited

independent mobility because of safety concerns, as noted in the studies. Conservation is

connected and observed in several studies that were reviewed, in that teaching children about

conservation through introduction of forestry and the outdoors may influence their relationship

with nature.


Several of the studies discuss how nature is beneficial to children, however, the shortfall

of research is disheartening in the area of political ecology. The article that involves gardening

and children provides insight by physically studying the way children react to nature and

conservation because it incorporated play into what could be considered “work”. The benefits

and positive behavioral changes that were observed can be a good threshold for those looking to

introduce children to nature. As children are being introduced to new forms of technology,

they’re losing their environmental influence, therefore the connection is not there. The research

being conducted on Seattle’s sustainability is an excellent source for those looking to introduce

nature and conservation into the classroom. Not only does it bring more trees, fruits, vegetables,

wildlife, and other vegetation into the area, it begins to plant the idea of conserving the area

around the children. Adults can introduce children to nature through means of planting small

gardens, or even possibly picking fruit off a nearby tree. Because of urban environments, this is a

challenging task but because of possible alienation or loss of understanding, it’s important that

something is done because children who “don’t think that plants are essential for human life” are

not only misinformed, they’re missing a piece of nature and understanding in their life.


Works Cited

Charles, Cheryl. and Louv, Richard. “Children’s Nature Deficit: What we know - and

don’t know”. Children & Nature Network. 1-32. September 2009. Print.

Donovan, Geoffrey H., and Jeffrey P. Prestemon. "The Effect of Trees on Crime in

Portland, Oregon." Environment and Behavior 3rd ser. 44.1 (2010): 4-30. Sage. Sage

Publications, 19 Oct. 2010. Web. 13 Oct. 2013.

Heynen, N. "The Political Ecology of Uneven Urban Green Space: The Impact of

Political Economy on Race and Ethnicity in Producing Environmental Inequality in

Milwaukee." Urban Affairs Review 42.1 (2006): 3-25. Print.

Laaksoharju, Taina, Erja Rappe, and Taina Kaivola. "Garden Affordances for Social

Learning, Play, and for Building Nature-child Relationship." Urban Forestry and Urban

Greening (2012): 195-203. Print.

McLain, Rebecca, Melissa Poe, Patrick T. Hurley, Joyce Lecompte-Mastenbrook, and

Marla R. Emery. "Producing Edible Landscapes in Seattle's Urban Forest." Urban

Forestry and Urban Greening (2012): 187-94. 10 Oct. 2013.


Nairn, Karen, Ruth Panelli, and Jaleh McCormack. "Destabilizing Dualisms: Young

People's Experiences of Rural and Urban Environments." Childhood 9th ser. 10.1 (2003):

9-42. 1 Feb. 2003. Accessed, 10 Oct. 2013.

Skelton, Tracey. "Children's Geographies/Geographies of Children: Play, Work,

Mobilities and Migration." Geography Compass 3.4 (2009): 1430-448. Print.

Strife, Susan, and Liam Downey. "Childhood Development and Access to Nature: A New

Direction for Environmental Inequality Research." Organization and Environment

(2009): 99-122. Sage. Sage, 2 Apr 2009. Accessed, 10 Oct. 2013.

Taylor, Affrica. "Reconceptualizing the 'nature' of Childhood." Childhood (2011): 420-33. Sage.

Sage Publications, 19 Aug. 2011. Accessed, 10 Oct. 2013.

Documents

Social Construction of Nature