The social dimensions of access to green space: the importance of childhood experience Catharine Ward Thompson Peter Aspinall, Simon Bell, Catherine Findlay

The social dimensions of access to green space: the importance of

childhood experience

Catharine Ward Thompson Peter Aspinall, Simon Bell, Catherine Findlay

Edinburgh College of Art/Heriot-Watt Universitywww.openspace.eca.ac.uk

The research centre for inclusive access to outdoor environments

Policy Context• Green open space recognised as contributing to

quality of urban environment and to human health and wellbeing (Kaplans, 1989, Berger 1996)

• Access to outdoor spaces important in everyday life - exercise, relaxation, social relationships, relief from stress, escape from home and work (Kweon et al, 1998, Macnaghten and Urry, 2000)

• UK govt recognises health problems associated with obesity and physical inactivity (Countryside Agency 2001, Physical Activity Task Force, 2002)

2 Green space and childhood experience: IAPS 2004

Context• Decrease in independent use of public space by

children (Hillman, Adams and Whitelegg, 1990)• Pattern of access to public space influenced by

locality, gender and ethnicity (Greenfield et al, 2000).

• Adventure and mystery in woods attract but also bring fear (Hart, 1979; Herzog and Miller, 1998)

• Teenage males (groups and individuals) make other anxious (Valentine 1996; Geason and Wilson, 2000; Tucker and Matthews 2001)

• Key groups affected by anxiety: children, women, ethnic minorities, teenagers (Burgess 1998)


The Research AimsTwo research projects:1. Social inclusion and local

woodland use in Central Scotland, for the Forestry Commission– How important is forest use to

local people? Which forests do they use (or abuse) and why?

2. Green space use and social value in the East Midlands, for English Nature– How does access to nature

contribute to social wellbeing?


Theoretical Framework Personal construct psychology (Kelly,

1955) as basis for exploring perceptionsPeople's engagement with place explored

in relation to:• physical qualities of place• activities and behaviours• perceptions and beliefs(after Canter 1977)

Facet Theory (Donald 1995) used to define research domains


The Research MethodsBased on a user-led response

Scoping: • Literature survey• Initial discussions with forestry/green space

professionals to identify case study locations

Data Collection: • Focus groups• Questionnaires (questionnaire ‘mapping

sentence’ based on focus group findings) - 7 point Likert scale

• Site-based observations


Data analysis Simple discourse analysis for focus groupsQuestionnaire results: • Kruskal-Wallis and Dunnett’s T3 tests for significance

in data patterns• Factor analysis• Logistic regressions - demographics as independent

variables, attitudinal data as dependent variables • Logistic regressions - demographics and attitudinal

data as independent variables, visitor/non-visitor as dependent variable

• AnswerTree (SPSS) - what best predicts frequency of visits?

On-site observations: • Physical/visual analysis by experts compared with

questionnaire respondents’ responses


What did you do when you were small?

“Collected conkers, look for fishing in the river; there’s hardly any fish there now” (teenager, Wishaw)

“I was always in Greenfield when I was a wee lassie, climbing the trees” (teenager, Alloa)

“We used to cook just at this little dip, and we used to play in it (Water of Leith) ... and we used to swim … it was very wild.” (adult, Corstorphine)


Elemental Experiences

“ “In the evening people often go for a walk ... But often they can’t because the parks are locked. They want to see the moonlight … the most wonderful things in nature are at dawn and dusk … magical things happen then” woman, Leicester


Elemental Experiences for Children

“Another family and we got together and we decided we would take them (the children) in the dark walking, and it was December…to make it feel how it was like when you were in the dark, there were no lights along the (disused) railway.” woman, Lennoxtown


Experiences for Children

“There is plenty for the kids to do…throwing stones in the river, climbing trees and making pirates boats out of trees that have slightly fallen down. (On) some of the dead trees, you can actually hit the stick and make what we call a music tree…get music out of it”

woman, Lennoxtown


Parents’ worries about safety

“It’s much more to do with the information they get now. I don’t think we are any worse really…It’s like children being abducted: thirty, forty years ago, you would never have heard of all that, but now…people don’t let their children go down the road by themselves…a lot of it is imagined, not imagined but we are aware of these things therefore parents are more cautious”

person over 60, Corstorphine


Teenagers’ good experiences“My brothers like to make dens with friends, up the

woods”

“I like the bit up the wood, by the quarry. You can sit up at the top …and see the whole of Edinburgh”


Teenagers’ bad experiences“Where I live…we have a forest

right next to us. Ten years ago it was quite a nice place to go for a walk but now …it’s quite nasty to walk through, cars burnt out, etc…”

“At the woods at Sauchie, folk take drugs down there…16- to 17-year-olds hiding in there. You can see that they’re dealing and that, so you don’t go in there, it wouldn’t be safe”.


Frequency (%) of Woodland visits in Central Scotland

(n = 339)Frequency of visits

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Daily Weekly Monthly Annually Not at all


Frequency of Childhood Visits in relation to Adult Visits - Scotland

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Regular Monthly Infrequently/not at all

Adult visits to woodlands

Regular

Monthly

Infrequently/not at all

Childhood visits:


Central Scotland: Summary of demographic factors which predict attitudinal responses


* P 0.05 ** P 0.01 *** P 0.001

Predictors and χ2 l evel o f significance

Attitudin al statement Childhoodvisit

frequency

Age Sex

Physical Features I visi /t wou ld visi t woodlan ds wher e signslead me t o thewoodlands

*** ***

I visi /t wou ld visi t woodlan ds thathaveparking

*

I visi /t wou ld visi t woodlan ds thathavediffer enttype s of trees

**

I visi /t wou ld visi t woodlan ds thathav e welldefin ed paths

*

I visi /t wou ld visi t woodlan ds thathav e areas of o penspace

*

Activites I visi /t wou ld visi t woodlan ds forspecialistoutdoor activities

*

I visi /t wou ld visi t woodlan ds to hav e afamily walk

** ***

I visi /t wou ld visi t woodlan ds to hav e picnics *** I visi /t wou ld visi t woodlan ds to g o walking on myown

*** ***

Perceptions I thi nk of woodland s a s scary *** I thi nk of woodland s a s hidi ng people *** I fe ar havin g anacci dentin woodlands ** I fee l at ho mei n a woodland *** I fee l vulnerabl e i n a woodland ** I thi nkther e is ` social sti gmaattache d tobein g alone i n a woodland

***

Scotland: attitudes to visiting woodlands alone, according to frequency of woodland

visits in childhood


"I visit woodlands to go walking on my own"

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

daily weekly monthly annually not at all

Frequency of woodland visits as a child

level of agreement

Scotland: demographic predictors of daily visitor vs. non-visitors of woodlands


B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp.(B)1.128 .365 9.536 1 .002 3.088.134 .602 .050 1 .823 1.144.950 .814 1.364 1 .243 2.586.170 .194 .768 1 .381 1.185-.115 .505 .052 1 .820 .892-.235 .243 .932 1 .334 .791.324 .664 .239 1 .625 1.383.074 .176 .179 1 .673 1.077

Visit as childLiving in area thenSpecial connectionAgeGenderLocationDog ownerOccupationConstant -4.641 2.565 3.275 1 .070 .010

PredictedDaily not at all

daily 23 10Observed

not at all 11 27

The model prediction was significant (χ2 = 23.4, df = 8, p = .003) with a classification rate of 71%.

Childhood experience and adult perceptions in the East Midlands

Perceptions according to frequency of childhood visits: "I visit green spaces within walking distance of my home"

"When in green spaces I feel more energetic" "I think green spaces can be magical places"

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

walk dist energetic magical

Level of agreement

DailyWeeklymonthlyYearlyNever


AnswerTree: demographic variables as predictors of frequency of woodland visits


Dependent variable:How often do you visit woodlands?

Frequently Infrequentlyor never

No FemaleMale

Yes No

Assumed dog ownership

How frequently did you visit as a child?

Gender

Yes

Under 55 55 or older

Age

Under 25 25 or older Under 35 35 or older

Age Age

Were you living in thisarea then?

Do you have anyspecial connectionto woodlands?

Yes No

AnswerTree: demographic variables as predictors of frequency of woodland visits


ActualDaily/weekly

Monthly/annually

Not at all Total

Predicted Daily/weekly 84 52 22 158Monthly/annually 38 96 25 159Not at all 2 4 8 14Total 124 152 55 331%accuracy 68% 63% 15%

Risk estimate 0.432024Standard error of risk estimate 0.0272273Overall % accuracy 57%

The overall accuracy of the decisional Answer Tree indicates 57% correct predictionbut this prediction for frequent and infrequent visitors is at 68% and 63%respectively.

Misclassification Matrix for AnswerTree (SPSS): Demographic variables as predictors of frequency of woodland visits

What are the motivations behind the use of local outdoor

areas by different people?

The central importance of childhood experience is the key finding Those who visited woodlands and green space often as children are more likely to go walking alone there as adults.

Those who visited green spaces frequently as children are more likely to associate them with feeling energetic, and with a sense of being ‘magical’


Documents

The social dimensions of access to green space: the importance of childhood experience Catharine Ward Thompson Peter Aspinall, Simon Bell, Catherine Findlay