This article was downloaded by: [Cambridge University Library]On: 29 March 2015, At: 16:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Environmental Education ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

The city snuffs out nature:young peoples conceptions of andrelationship with naturePam Pointonaa Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKPublished online: 13 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Pam Pointon (2014) The city snuffs out nature: young peoples conceptionsof and relationship with nature , Environmental Education Research, 20:6, 776-794, DOI:10.1080/13504622.2013.833595

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.833595

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

The city snuffs out nature: young peoples conceptions of andrelationship with nature

Pam Pointon*

Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

(Received 6 February 2012; accepted 14 June 2013)

This paper reports a study of 384 1314-year olds written responses to open-ended questions about their understanding of and relationship with nature.Using constant comparative method the responses were coded, categorised andthemed. Most students held scientic conceptions of nature (excluding humans)and a utilitarian relationship with nature, a predominantly anthroprocentricworldview. A small number held aesthetic conceptualisations and an intrinsicvalue relationship: an ecocentric worldview. A substantial number of studentshowever were neither anthroprocentric or ecocentric but rather expressed aconception of and relationship with nature which reected aspects of Bonnettshuman-related relationship (Bonnett, M. 2004. Retrieving Nature: Educationfor a Post-humanist Age. Oxford: Blackwell). The ndings from this studychallenge a simple binary approach in which students environmental world-views would be analysed as either predominantly anthroprocentric or ecocentric.Bonnetts human-related relationship to nature reects a more complex view ofthe world. Analysis revealed interesting differences, however, between studentsaccording to their urban/rural location, gender and school type.

Keywords: secondary students; nature; anthroprocentric; ecocentric;human-related; school differences

Introduction

This study arose from the recognition that little was known of adolescents concep-tions of, and relationship with nature, in England. It also stems from an interest inthe possible inuence of living in either a rural or urban context on conceptions ofand relationship with nature. This interest draws on the authors own experience ofworking in an inner city school with predominantly African Caribbean students.Geography eld trips to the countryside revealed how a walk through a eld oralong a beach were differently experienced by the teacher and some of the students.Previous experiences of visiting the English countryside made some black studentsfeel uncomfortable, being stared at and feeling out of place; for others disgust inwalking through elds of cowpats and fear of sheep presented barriers to enjoymentof the countryside. Similar experiences are reported by Neal and Ageyman (2006)who raise important social justice issues of access and lack of belonging in the ruralcontext felt by many black and Asian communities in the UK. Wals (1994a) andBixler and Floyd (1999) report urban students feelings of fear, anxiety and disgust

*Email: pcp21@cam.ac.uk

2013 Taylor & Francis

Environmental Education Research, 2014Vol. 20, No. 6, 776794, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.833595

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

on joining eldtrips in the countryside and these emotions creating barriers to theirlearning about wild land areas.

Importance of nature

Recent research in the United Kingdom and United States has reported a substantialreduction in childrens outdoor experience and consequent loss of direct connectionwith natural environments, regardless of locational context (Pyle 2002; Louv 2005;Natural England 2009). As a result, Louv suggests many children and young peopleare now suffering from nature decit disorder. Research shows direct experienceof nature is important in different ways: human physical health (Frumkin 2001);mental health (Faber Taylor and Kuo 2006); emotional well-being (Wilson 1984). Inthe United Kingdom, the importance of direct experience of nature has inuencedgovernment policy promoting increased outdoor learning (DfES 2006). Childrenthemselves recognise the importance of nature and animals for their own enjoymentand well-being (Barratt Hacking, Barratt, and Scott 2007) and childhood experiencesof nature, it is argued, are formative for developing a relationship with nature andenvironmental concern (Chawla 1998).

These concerns have not been lost on environmental educators who have arguedthe need for direct nature experience for acquiring knowledge about the natural worldas well as developing pro-environmental values, attitudes and behaviour (Bogeholz2006). For Palmer (1998), a main objective of environmental education should beeducating citizens about their relationship with Planet Earth a view supported byTakano (2004) who suggests an individuals identity is forged by their relationshipwith the environment and that this relationship is fundamental to personal growth,but this is not a common perspective in different worldviews in the west.

A focus on nature within environmental education discourse and pedagogy is notwithout its critics. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) prefers developingpolitical literacy in relation to environmental problem solving, and Huckle (2002)has been critical of primary school teaching that celebrates a nature separate fromsociety. However, although ESD has shifted emphasis from nature to societyfew environmental educators would argue that the understanding of and relationshipwith nature is unimportant. Indeed, Gough (1999, 356) suggests nature is a moredifcult concept than research about SDE would seem to suppose and might berather seen as an object of knowledge which is socially and culturallyconstructed. It is surprising then that Rickinson (2001) reports only a small numberof studies into students perception of nature (Wals 1994a; 1994b; Barron 1995;Bonnett and Williams 1998) and that even less is known about their environmentalunderstandings (Rickinson 2001). Several studies reveal that many young peopleleave humans out of their conception of the environment (Loughland et al. 2003;Shepardson 2005) and are unclear about the meaning of environment as immediate,local, international, global, animate, inanimate, natural or constructed, physical orsocial according to Stanistreet and Boyes (1996, 38).

There is relatively little research into perceptions of nature or environment bydiverse students (Barron 1995; Wals 1994a; 1994b; Williams and McCorie 1990).Wals suggests experience of nature can be inuential upon students perceptions ofnature and that not everyone sees nature in the same way. Similar experiencesmaybe mediated quite differently depending on ethnicity, gender, age and socialclass (1994b, 184). Payne (1998, 225) suggests the need for further research into

Environmental Education Research 777

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

conceptions of nature across a wide range of population variables (such as age,gender and cultural diversity) and locations (urban, rural and remote) andcomparative studies of how children socially construct nature.

Stables and Bishop (2001) argue that the environment can be interpreted as aform of text, whereby individuals and groups read the environment historicallyand aesthetically. They suggest that there are many correct and different ways ofunderstanding the environment and that different cultural and social groups almostinevitably have different views of the environment and of environmental issues.Thus, not only may different individuals and groups conceive of nature and theenvironment differently but Prosser and Trigwell (1999) suggest that the manner inwhich people report their experience or understanding of a phenomenon isassociated with the situation in which they nd themselves and on which they arefocusing. Students may therefore express different ideas about their relationship tonature in different contexts.

Environmental worldviews

Bonnett (2004) argues that central to environmental education, indeed all education,is the need to address what our attitude to nature should be,

If, as has been argued, our ideas of nature are fundamental in conditioning our outlookin this area, the task of clarifying our understanding of the concept would seem to be acritical rst step to an effective examination of environmental issues and to the propercharacterisation of environmental education. (28)

Analysis of our current conceptions reveals our current metaphysical assumptionsthe assumptions that most fundamentally shape our perceptions of and attitudestowards the world. Bonnett suggests our relationship to nature is fundamental to oursense of ourselves and that The way we regard and treat nature the whole thatsustains us and of which we are a part-says a lot about the sort of beings we are aswell as the sort of beings we regard everything else to be (2004, 130). There arevery different value orientations between viewing nature as a machine, an organismor creation of divine being or indeed a poem.

The world view and value system which forms the basis of present day Westernculture and inuences economic, social and political practices has its origins over300 years ago.

The medieval outlook changed radically in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.The notion of an organic, living, and spiritual universe was replaced by that of theworld as a machine, and the world-machine became the dominant metaphor of themodern era. (Capra 1982, 38)

This change in thinking about nature from nurturing mother to machine broughtabout a fundamental change in the humannature relationship.

The image of earth as a living organism and nurturing mother served as a cultural con-straint restricting the actions of human beings. One does not readily slay a mother, diginto her entrails for gold, or mutilate her body As long as the earth was consideredto be alive and sensitive, it could be considered a breach of ethical behaviour to carryout destructive acts against it. (Merchant 1980, 3)

778 P. Pointon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

This Cartesian view of the world, in which humans were separated from nature,sanctioned the domination and manipulation of nature. Modernity and the pursuitof economic progress based on limitless growth developed from the ScienticRevolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The dominant worldviewwhich evolved was essentially anthroprocentric in that nature was only valued as aresource for humans to exploit for their own well-being. Not until the 1960s wasthis view substantially challenged. Increasing awareness of environmental problemsand ecological understanding becoming more widespread (Carson 1962) led to theemergence of a counterculture in the United States and Europe in which ecocent-rism challenged the dominant worldview of anthroprocentrism. Ecocentrism viewsthe world as a dynamic, complex web of interrelationships of which humans arepart. Nature is valued for itself and the humannature relationship is holistic,harmonious and non-exploitative. Many environmentalists would argueanthroprocentrism is responsible for the environmental degradation which hasoccurred over the centuries and suggest there is a need for a paradigm shift to anecocentric worldview.

Bonnett, however, rejects both anthroprocentric and ecocentric worldviews andargues for a human-related relationship with Nature arguing that it is difcult todeny the special position of human beings as more inuential in the biotic commu-nity than any other species. Bonnetts human-related worldview preserves muchvalued by ecocentrism yet accommodates the special position of human beings ascentres of consciousness.

Bonnett argues for the necessity of conceiving of nature as the self-arising inwhich its sense of otherness and mystery, ultimately unknowable is recognised.

The present study focuses on 1314-year-old students conceptions of andrelationship to nature. While there has been a greater focus in the literature on youngchildrens experience and perception of nature and environment (Bonnett andWilliams 1998), there has been less focus on adolescents. Wals (1994a) importantfour year qualitative study into Detroit inner city and suburban adolescents experi-ences of nature was conducted almost 30 years ago.

More recent studies focusing solely on or including adolescents have examinedconceptions of environment (Loughland, Reid, and Petocz 2002; Loughland et al.2003; Shepardson 2005) or views on science and environmental issues (Littledyke2004). Some suggest that younger children and adults are interested in environmen-tal issues, but there is a dip in interest among adolescents. Others challenge thisview and suggest early adolescents are interested and concerned. This considerationforms the basis for the initial research question: What are young peoples conceptu-alisations of and relationship with nature?

The extent to which, and the way in which young people experience nature,may also be inuenced by their locational context. Williams and McCorries(1990) study suggests rural children have a higher degree of environmentalconsciousness, while Wals (1994a) found differences between inner city studentsand suburban students in how they experienced the countryside. This raises asecond research question: Does proximity to the countryside inuence onesrelationship to nature?

Environmental Education Research 779

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

Methodology

The sample consisted of 384 1314-year-old students from four schools: threeurban and one rural. Although the students were not asked where they lived,assumptions were made about their residential location based on the authorsknowledge of the schools and their catchment areas. The names of the schoolshave been changed for purposes of anonymity. Wheatelds High is a large ruralcomprehensive located in an area of intensive arable farming. St. Andrews andCity Road are inner city comprehensives (state schools) whose culturally diversestudents mostly live in areas of high density and economic deprivation. CamfordCollege, also in a city location, is a highly academic (selective) non-residentialboys independent school set in extensive grounds in an area of considerableafuence. While the sample does not attempt to be representative of Englishschools in general the schools were selected to reect cultural, socio-economic andurban-rural differences in England (Table 1).

The complexity of the concepts of nature and environment and the earlier incon-clusive research ndings about young peoples ideas about these concepts lay behindthe decision to ask open-ended questions about nature and environment. A similarapproach was adopted by Loughland, Reid, and Petocz (2002) in their large-scalestudy of Australian students environmental understanding. In the present study,students were asked about the importance of nature as a way of eliciting their rela-tionship with nature. They were asked:

(1) What do you understand by the term nature?(2) Is it important to you? Why/Why not?(3) What do you understand by the term environment?(4) Is it important to you? Why/Why not?

Sufcient space was left after each question for students to write severalsentences, which many of them did.

The written responses of 384 students were coded for content (ideas, concepts)with categories emerging from the data rather than a priori. Initially, the author anda colleague undertook the task of coding the responses independently: they thendiscussed responses that were coded differently to arrive at a shared understanding.By using this constant comparative method (Miles and Huberman 1994), similardata were grouped and conceptually labelled during this process of open coding.This iterative approach was valuable in highlighting the complexity of the conceptsand the inevitable subjectivity involved in interpreting more open-ended responsesas well as attempting to achieve intercoding and intracoding reliability. The conceptswere then categorised. Categories were then linked and organised by relationship

Table 1. Number of participants [n = 384].

School Boys Girls

Wheatelds 86 95St. Andrews 39 33City Road 35 39Camford 57 0Total 217 167

780 P. Pointon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

through the process of axial coding. Initially, the analysis looks at the responses ofthe group as a whole and then seeks to identify any differences across certain groups(gender, location and school type). Tables 2 and 3 summarise the emergingcategories and aspects.

Findings

Whilst students were asked about their conceptions of and relationship with natureand the environment, this paper focuses on their ideas about nature (including thenatural environment). Table 4 summarises the students responses, expressed aspercentage. The categories do not always total 100%, however, due to somestudents responses including elements of both categories or in a few cases becausetheir responses did not yield sufcient information to assist categorisation, forexample simple yes or no responses.

Table 2. Emerging categories of students conceptions of nature.

Concept Categories Aspects

Understandings of nature A Scientic A-1 Biotic [+/humans]A-2 AbioticA-3 Systemic

B Aesthetic B-1 BeautifulB-2 PowerfulB-3 Spiritual

Table 3. Emerging categories of students relationship with nature.

Theme Categories Aspects

Relationship with nature D Utilitarian D-1 ResourcesD-2 Reciprocity

E Intrinsically valued E-1 EmotionalE-2 RespectE-3 Moral

Table 4. Students conceptions of and relationship with nature [%; n = 384; B: boysG: girls].

Conceptualisation of nature Relationship with nature

Scientic Aesthetic Utilitarian Intrinsic value

Wheatelds: B 94 12 48 44G 90 14 45 60

St.Andrews: B 63 47 42 47G 56 47 62 54

City Road: B 80 23 71 20G 66 29 50 50

Camford: B 82 20 49 29Total 78 27 54 40

Environmental Education Research 781

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

Conceptions of nature

Analysis of the students responses showed qualitatively different conceptions ofnature. Students quotes are identied by school, gender and location using thefollowing abbreviations: W Wheatelds; SA St.Andrews; C City Road; Cf CamfordCollege; b boys g girls; r rural u urban.

Scientic

Over three quarters of the students held scientic conceptions of nature, in particularthe biotic, usually expressed as a list of examples with plants and animals beingthe most frequent response but also references to living things, anything that growsand green stuff. Responses ranged from the limited I just think of a tree to themore expansive trees, plants, animals, insects, sh, ponds, lakes, seas and earth as awhole and food chains too. The abiotic was less frequently included but alsousually expressed as a list: seas, deserts, rocks, rivers, oceans: occasionally, thebiotic and abiotic were combined as in Hills, valleys, oceans are just as much a partof nature as living things. Mentions of natural processes, other than growing, wererare and usually referred to volcanoes and earthquakes. Whilst awareness of ecosys-tems was evident in many responses, a more developed understanding of systemicinterrelationships was rare:

nature is the natural environment that we and everything else lives in, which is deli-cately balanced with a myriad of ecosystems and if one of them dies there are conse-quences throughout nature (Cf. u b)

Conceptualising nature (or environment) primarily in terms of the biotic echoes nd-ings of previous studies (Bonnett and Williams 1998, Loughland, Reid, and Petocz2002, Shepardson 2005).

Regardless of whether nature was described as a list of living things or as a morecomplex set of interrelationships, the absence of humans was the majority view.Most lists of the biotic either did not include humans or explicitly excluded them:

plants, wildlife and all things not human (W. r b)

nature is other living things (SA. u g)

For some students, this distinction between wild animals/ wildlife and animals wasimportant, since any relationship with humans made them less natural:

plants and animals not owned by anyone (W. r b)

the forests and wild creatures that live completely separate to us (C. u g)

Very few responses explicitly included humans in nature though this studentexpresses a view which neatly summarises a particular socio-cultural view of thehuman/nature relationship:

nature involves everything. Our actions are natural, as everything was brought aboutthrough natural causes. So everything is natural. The term has been coined to shield usfrom the rest of the earth. (Cf. u b)

782 P. Pointon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

This student recognises the nature/human divide but sees this as a deliberate socialconstruct. A small number of students dened nature as human nature, the waywe are:

nature is both the non-human world around us and it is a way to describe our naturalbehaviour. Ironically these two forces often clash. (Cf. u b)

The implication here is that human progress (itself a part of human nature)inevitably damages nature and nature responds forcefully.

Aesthetic

Whilst the dominant conception of nature was the biotic (usually excluding humans)other conceptions of nature as beautiful, powerful, delicate or in some sense spiri-tual, were evident [27%]. For some students, nature was primarily about the beautyof nature:

nature is what makes our over industrialised world beautiful, without it our worldwould be dull (W. r g)

nature is something beautiful and not harmful (C. u g)

This last student was also expressing a view shared by others concerning not onlybeauty but also nature as something pure and not harmful. Does this conceptionrelate to the students direct experiences of and feelings about nature or the advertis-ers inclusion of natural as a by-word for that which will not only be harmless butpositively good for us, hence nature for one student meant food, drink and hairproducts.

For some students, nature was predominantly delicate and fragile:

nature is very fragile-one mishap could set off a dangerous chain reaction (Cf. u b)

In contrast to natures fragility, a few students conceived nature as powerful andtherefore something to be feared not to be toyed with:

nature can get angry, nature can kill living things (Cf. u b)

nature is very powerful. The sea levels could rise and drown everyone. Volcanoescould erupt (C. u b)

This study was carried out shortly after the earthquake in Haiti which had consider-able news coverage in the United Kingdom. It is perhaps surprising therefore thatthere were relatively few direct references to the destructive power of nature.

Some students reect a more spiritual view of nature as an all-powerful other:

something we are all part of and as we do more harmful things to the earth nature isgoing to rebel back and destroy our civilisations with natural disasters (W. r g)

Environmental Education Research 783

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

Relationship with nature

Utilitarian

The majority [54%] of responses referred to the things nature provided which werenecessary for human survival:

Nature is extremely important to me. Without nature I will not be able to survive, I amvery dependent on it for food, oxygen, water, nutrients, heat and almost everything Iknow. (Cf. u b)

I understand that nature is what our species (humans) use to get to where we are rightnow. Nature is like a life jacket, we need nature to stay oating above water andwithout it we will drown. (SA. u b)

Perhaps it is not surprising that if the dominant view of nature is a scientic onethen the relationship with it will mostly be one where nature is seen primarily as aresource at the disposal of humankind.

Intrinsically valued

A substantial number of students however, either as an addition to a utilitarian viewor exclusively, focused on an emotional, respectful or moral relationship with nature.Some expressed a strong emotional relationship to nature, several declaring theirlove and for one it is the only real thing I like.

For some, this relationship was related to what they did in/with nature:

I think nature is important to me because Im an outdoor person and I love nature andif we keep abusing nature like we are then we wont have no nature left. (SA. u b)

a place to play or think and something to draw. (W. r g)

because I love growing plants. (C. u g)

For others, it was how it made them feel:

Nature is very inspirational and getting a bit of fresh air does good. Its also beautifuland awe- inspiring. Studying nature is also interesting. (SA. u g)

I feel I have a very strong connection to nature. It is very beautiful and tranquil and itis very connected to our souls. (Cf. u b)

For some (mostly rural girls), emotional attachments to animals were the reasonnature was important to them, for example the enjoyment of watching animals in thewild. For others, it was their relationship with their pets, as in the case of one girlfor whom wild open spaces were important to her because of the sense of freedom itafforded her dog.

A strong moral sense of duty towards nature was expressed by some students,reecting ecocentric values and the importance of reciprocity of care because it isthe right thing to do:

by mistreating it we are not only harming ourselves but other plants and animals(Cf. u b)

784 P. Pointon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

shouldnt destroy it, should take care of it. It saved us now we should save nature(W. r g)

Though others expressed the difculty of ecocentrism:

everything we use means that we are harming another living thing (SA. u g)

For several students, their relationship with nature was inuenced by religiousbeliefs:

what God has given us to look after and keep well and not to destroy. (SA. u b)

its almost a duty given to us as humans to protect nature (SA. u b)

There were, perhaps surprisingly, very few references to specic problems affectingnature which students were concerned about, though a strong sense of humanresponsibility emerged:

everything that should happen is because of nature and everything that happens to us,because of us, is our own fault (W. r g)

This represents a view of nature as a moral entity in which nature and everythingnatural are ultimately good.

Worldviews

Certain important relationships between the students conceptualisation of andrelationship with nature suggested students held broadly anthroprocentric, biocentricor human-related environmental worldviews. The limitations of the data (inparticular short written responses rather than interviews) precluded the possibility ofdeveloping grounded theory, however the relationships emerged from the data.Categorisation of those relationships is inuenced by Bonnetts theorisation ofhuman relationship to nature (Table 5).

Anthroprocentric

Most [78%] students conceptualised nature as living things without humans (implic-itly or explicitly) yet the majority were aware of the importance of nature to them

Table 5. Students worldviews [%].

Anthroprocentric Ecocentric Human-related

Wheatelds: B 48 2 42G 45 9 51

St. Andrews: B 42 8 39G 62 3 53

City Road: B 71 1 19G 50 7 43

Camford: B 49 5 24Total 50 5 38

Environmental Education Research 785

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

personally as something which provides them with the necessary things to live andwithout which they would not survive. It can be argued therefore that the majority[50%] of the students held an anthroprocentric view of nature. There was also arange of views from the small number of students who felt nature was completelyunimportant to them:

I will be dead before nature is messed up (W. r b)

because I like being on my PS3 or playing football, dont care about nature as I shootthings like foxes with my 12 bore (W. r b)

A few expressed a dilemma of the human/nature relationship, how survival forhumans inevitably affects nature:

we need to destroy it for humans to survive (C. u b)

the world we live in is important but its made for people to live in so you should beable to do what you want (W. r g)

Some welcoming the benets of modernity:

if the world was totally natural we wouldnt have the good lives we have now (SA. u g)

I want space for more technology and civilisation (C. u b)

Others, however, valued nature as the source of their existence:

if we ruin it we will suffer (C. u g)

its what sustains us-it has supported us for years and without it we would be lost(W. r g)

without Nature the natural balance would cease to exist, putting human life in jeopardy(C. u b)

This latter view, whilst essentially utilitarian does not preclude a conservationaryprotectionist attitude (for self-interest) and many would argue that knowledge ofhuman dependence on nature is very important for developing an environmentalethic. Indeed, some suggest this is the most effective guarantee for natures welfarein a world where human history has been mainly dominated by self-interest.

Ecocentric

An ecocentric view is a radically different perspective whereby there is no greatdivide between human and non-human life, no privileging of the human species.Humankind is intimately bound to the rest of nature both ecologically and morally.In some versions, for example, the Gaia hypothesis, the Earth is a living organismwith a global feedback mechanism that acts to create conditions best suited for lifeas a whole. A small number of students [5%] held aesthetic conceptions of natureand valued nature intrinsically, reecting an ecocentric perspective. A fundamentalequality between all species of animals and plants is central to an ecocentric view

786 P. Pointon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

and most students in this category described their relationship with nature as impor-tant because of their valuing of other living beings:

animals should have a habitat to live in otherwise its not fair because their habitat isbeing destroyed to make way for humans (W. r g)

nature is important otherwise my dogs wouldnt have the freedom they have. Animalsare just as important as us (W. r g)

Several students made reference to Mother Nature:

Very important cos nature can cause good things and bad things. Bad things happen whenwe mistrust Mother Nature so I do what I can to help nature and its ways (SA. u b)

These students conceive nature as a living conscious organism with its own moralstatus. A view, which would have been more commonly held in medievalpre-Enlightenment Europe, is now usually associated with a deep ecology world-view though certain traditional cultures (Aboriginal for example) would also sharethis view.

As we do more harmful things to earth nature is going to rebel back and destroy ourcivilisation with natural disasters (W. r g)

nature is crucial for the balance of life on earth if humans destroy a creatures environ-ment and causes their extinction this will affect the whole balance of the ecosystem(SA. u b)

Delicately balanced with myriad of ecosystems and if one dies there are consequencesthroughout nature (Cf. u b)

These conceptions of nature alone do not as such necessarily reect an ecocentricperspective; indeed, they could also be viewed as enlightened anthroprocentrism,only when there was also evidence of a relationship with nature reecting intrinsicvalue that responses were categorised as reecting an ecocentric perspective.

Human-related

There were a substantial number of students [38%] who although they held ananthroprocentric view in certain respects, for example recognising nature as a sourceof resources used by human beings for survival, also exhibited a human-related(after Bonnett 2004) view of nature. Such a view recognises the distinctive placehumans inhabit in the world, both a part of and yet separate from nature whilst alsorecognising: the essential otherness of nature; the integrity of nature; the continuityof nature and the intrinsic value of nature.

Otherness of nature. Bonnett argues that we benet from being in natures presencein part precisely because we recognise its otherness and the respect that is its due.

For some students, this respect and sense of otherness is rooted in their religiousbeliefs:

Nature is Gods creation-how earth was before us humans (SA. u b)

Environmental Education Research 787

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

its made by God-humans cant control an earthquake its only God that can controlearthquakes (SA. u g)

For others nature is to be respected for its self -authorship:

its happening on its own, no-one caused it to happen (SA. u b)

something no-one can ever make (SA. u b)

Integrity of nature. Nature as a spatially and temporally continuous whole wasrecognised by a minority of students:

I like the space and freedom of nature, everyone has a connection to nature becauseits how it was when the world began (W. r b)

nature was there before humans came and it will probably be there when we leave(SA. u g)

Continuity. Natures inescapability and unrepeatability was central to some studentsrelationship:

it cant not be important, we are part of it (W. r g)

nature is something original, its not man-made its something beautiful that was herebefore us (SA. u b)

Intrinsic value of nature. A considerable minority of students valued nature non-instrumentally, both for the pleasure or satisfaction it gives of itself and valuing it forits own sake independent of how it may serve or satisfy human beings. For these stu-dents natures beauty, integrity, diversity and autonomy gave it its inherent intrinsicvalue, and for some, this was independent of natures ability to sustain human needs.

Inuence of gender, location and school type

Gender

More girls, and especially rural girls, expressed an emotional attachment to animals,both wild and pets, and appreciated their beauty. Rural girls also expressed greatestconcern about nature and the need for a more caring relationship to it. Also moreboys than girls see themselves/humans as explicitly separate from nature. Barratt(2007, 215) suggests dominant discourses of rationality and masculinity place menabove non-human others, making it difcult to simultaneously perform male andexpress intimate interconnectedness with others/nature.

Loughland et al.s quantitative study (2003) found that gender was the secondmost important variable (the rst being age, with primary aged children being morelikely to hold a relation conception than high school students). Girls were 1.5 timesas likely as boys to have a relation conception of the environment rather than anobject conception. As Loughland et al. suggest gender differences may beexplained by girls being socialised into being more caring and nurturing than boys.Previous research shows girls to be more knowledgeable about the environment(Chawla 1998) and more environmentally aware, concerned and involved in envi-

788 P. Pointon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

ronmental action than boys (Connell et al. 1999, Chan 1996). In the present study, itwas mainly rural girls who were most likely to have an emotional attachment andcaring relationship with nature and this was usually related to their attachment toanimals.

Rural/urban

Whilst rural girls were more likely to express an aesthetic conception and intrinsi-cally value nature, rural boys were more likely than urban students (girls and boys)to view nature as unimportant to them. This is perhaps surprising, if as some haveargued, direct experience of nature is important for developing an attachment tonature. These ndings in contrast, lend support to two views. First, that a ruralcontext does not necessarily afford greater experience of nature, since for example,urban gardens may provide greater bio-diversity than intensively farmed country-side. Secondly, the possibility that it is more a question of what you do to/withnature, for example enjoying the presence of the urban fox as opposed to huntingthem or seeing them as a pest.

Interestingly students (especially boys) from St. Andrews expressed a more spiri-tual relationship with nature. St. Andrews is an inner city school but perhaps ofgreater signicance it is also a church school. Could the values of the school/churchbe inuencing the students conceptions of and relationship with nature?

School type

Camford College students exhibited more polarised views than other students.Whilst a higher percentage were more likely to conceptualise nature aestheticallythan the other urban schools and rural boys, there was also a substantial number forwhom nature was unimportant. Their conceptions were more likely to be morescientically focused with a more frequent view of nature as a complex web ofinterrelationships with possible negative feedbacks through the system. They were,however, less likely to explicitly or implicitly include humans as part of nature.

Loughland et al. (2003) found that an increased knowledge reduces the odds ofthe relational conception by a small but statistically signicant amount. Secondaryschool students were generally more knowledgeable about environmental issues butwere signicantly less likely to hold relational conceptions. They do not suggest thatstudents do not need environmental knowledge but rather that it might be beinglearned in such a way that relational concepts are not being developed. This is not anew nding (Hicks and Bord 2001). Does a strongly academic education emphasisea particularly objective scientic understanding of nature which also prevents a morerelational view being developed? Barratt (2007, 220) argues that academic knowl-edge plays a powerful role in privileging the intellect and marginalising emotion. Ifso, how does this account for those students who did express an aesthetic oremotional relationship with nature?

Locational context

The second research question aimed to investigate how proximity to the countrysideinuences ones relationship to nature. The ndings above suggest that youngpeoples experience of and relationship to nature may well be inuenced by their

Environmental Education Research 789

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

locational context, although this is not as straightforward as merely their proximityto the countryside. In this study, students from an inner city comprehensive weremore likely to conceptualise nature in aesthetic ways and value it intrinsically.However, the limitations of this study mean it is not possible to explore further whythis might be the case. Nevertheless, since the data strongly suggest locationalrelevance to attitudes, this would be a fruitful area for further research.

Discussion

Similarly to Loughland, Reid, and Petocz (2002) and Loughland et al. (2003)ndings, the majority of young people in this study see nature as essentially separatefrom themselves though connected by a utilitarian relationship. This perhaps reectsthe dominant western tradition of an anthroprocentric relationship to nature. Whilstworrying that so many do not recognise humans as part of nature, indicating a possi-ble lack of ecological understanding, it is reassuring that they acknowledge theirdependence on nature as source of sustenance. Indeed some have argued that byconnecting the long-term good of nature to the long-term good of humans, theappeal to human self-interest ensures the likelihood of environmentally friendlyaction. However, Bonnett argues such an approach is ultimately inadequate andspecically that limiting learning about nature/environment to science and geogra-phy in schools has perpetuated this nature as object perspective. Bonnett questionsthe preserve of these traditional subjects to teach about the environment whenhistorically many of their central motives were shaped in a cultural milieu preoccu-pied with subordinating and exploiting nature (2004, 125).

Bonnett suggests that our relationship to nature is fundamental to our sense ofourselves. He argues for a radical re-thinking of education whereby a right relation-ship with nature and sustainability as a frame of mind would underpin the wholeof the curriculum and is best construed as a way of teaching (2004, 141). Theapproach differs markedly from a view of environmental education as advocacywhich essentially seeks to transmit pro-environmental attitudes in the hope this willaffect individual behaviour. Sustainability as a frame of mind

would seek to encourage a personal interest in and love of nature, both through directexperience of aspects of nature in which sensuous knowledge could be experiencedand acquired, celebrated and reected upon, and through a more disinterested under-standing and appreciation. (145)

For Bonnett, alienation from nature and from oneself are highly interrelated and keyto our ability to knowingly despoil the environment. Bonnett suggests that part ofeducation for sustainability as a frame of mind will be to reconnect people with theirorigins and what sustains them and to develop their love of themselves.

Conclusion and suggestions for further research

This study has revealed a range of conceptions of and relationships with natureacross the sample as a whole and some interesting differences between groups ofstudents, raising some issues worthy of further research and implications for peda-gogy. Whilst the majority of respondents may be seen to exhibit an anthroprocentricperspective a substantial number of students revealed a human-related relationship

790 P. Pointon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

with nature, acknowledging in nature the source of their physical sustenance but alsowhat was important to their sense of themselves through a strong emotionalattachment to nature. The ndings raise questions about the aims of environmentaleducation/ESD and whether schools should place greater emphasis on the contribu-tion the arts, humanities and social sciences can make to developing young peoplesunderstanding of their relationship with nature. In particular, the analysis raisesquestions about the possible privileging of a traditional scientic approach to youngpeoples understanding of nature and the environment. It may be that the singlesurvey data source lent itself more to student responses reecting a predominantlyscientic view whereas a more multimodal approach might have opened up possi-bilities for aesthetic/perceptual or more ethical/political responses. The richness ofthe data drawn from a single source strongly suggests the value of future, moreextensive, investigation in this area.

Although the scientic view seemed to predominate, the analysis also lendssupport to a view of young people developing a kind of acquaintance with nature(Bonnett 2007). It might be expected that 1314-year olds, and especially inner citystudents living in densely populated areas with little access to local open spaces andfew opportunities to visit more natural areas in the countryside, would be more cyni-cal/less interested in nature. It is encouraging, therefore, that these young peoplegave such thoughtful responses to this survey, often expressing personal attachmentto nature, and in some cases, a strong pro-environmental ethic. A signicant ndingof this study is that those students who felt nature was very important to them,frequently expressing a moral relationship with nature, usually conceived nature interms of the aesthetic. Bonnett argues that development of the human spirit is centralto education and aesthetic appreciation is an important aspect of human spirit.Concern for the natural environment is to be viewed less as a consequence of thisdemand and more a condition of it. The aesthetic therefore has an important contri-bution to make in developing a right relationship to nature.

The limitations of data drawn solely from written responses to survey questionsare well documented and it could be argued that this method of elicitation, formalquestions [albeit open-ended] asked in a traditional classroom context are likely tolead to a predominance of answers reecting particular views about nature. Whilst adifferent research design would potentially have yielded richer understandings, thiswas intended as a probative study and as such has opened up some useful areas forfurther qualitative research for example into the role of aesthetics, the senses andemotions in young peoples conceptions of and relationship to nature. Further,signicant life experiences research might interrogate the emotional and interpre-tive aspects of nature experience and the formative importance of such experiencesin childhood in developing a relationship to nature and environmental concern(Chawla 1998, 1999).

Equally, it would be interesting to gain insight into what students bring to thelearning situation in terms of ideas, preferences, interests, value positions, emotionalconcerns and viewpoints (Rickenson, Lundholm, and Hopwood 2009, 98). It mayalso be useful to design research based on a more process-oriented approach thatcould explore in a more nuanced way the variability between learners and thecomplexity of their individual views (Rickenson, Lundholm, and Hopwood 2009).

The process of sifting and analysing the data also led to questions about howthese might have been interrogated within a more nuanced conceptual reference.This is, of course, the value of investigation the potential for suggesting different

Environmental Education Research 791

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

starting points. The ndings underline the importance of moving beyond a simplebinary approach which counterpoises anthropocentric or ecocentric views, towards amore complex interpretive frame. Bonnetts human-related view has been helpfulin interpreting the data gathered in this study, which suggests that an even widerframe of reference would illuminate similar data.

Finally, the study points to the value of investigations into young peoplesperceptions and experiences of nature being conducted in a variety of contexts, notonly in the United Kingdom. As Barratt (2007) argues, direct experiences in natureare not context free and individuals make different meanings from interactions withnatural elements and may experience them in different ways. The intriguing diver-sity of responses to the research questions, particularly in respect of gender and theapparently instrumental view of nature in more rural areas, points to the potentialvalue of research in more markedly different settings.

Notes on contributorPam Pointon is a lecturer in the Faculty of Education at the University of Cambridge, whereshe teaches primary geography and professional studies on the Early Years and Primary pre-service teacher education course. Her research interests include environmental learning andeducation for sustainability.

ReferencesBarratt, M. J. 2007. Homework and Fieldwork: Investigations into the Rhetoric-reality Gap

in Environmental Education Research and Pedagogy. Environmental EducationResearch 13 (2): 209223.

Barratt Hacking, E., R. Barratt, and W. Scott. 2007. Engaging Children: Research Issuesaround Participation and Environmental Learning. Environmental Education Research13 (4): 529544.

Barron, D. 1995. Gendering Environmental Education Reform: Identifying the ConstitutivePower of Environmental Discourses. Australian Journal of Environmental Education11: 107120.

Bixler, R. D., and M. F. Floyd. 1999. Hands on or Hands Off? Disgust Sensitivity and Pref-erence for Environmental Education Activities. Journal of Environmental Education 30(3): 411.

Bogeholz, S. 2006. Nature Experience and its Importance for Environmental Knowledge,Values and Action: Recent German Empirical Contributions. Environmental EducationResearch 12 (1): 6584.

Bonnett, M. 2004. Retrieving Nature: Education for a Post-humanist Age. Oxford:Blackwell.

Bonnett, M. 2007. Environmental Education and the Issue of Nature. Journal of Curricu-lum Studies 39 (6): 707721.

Bonnett, M., and J. Williams. 1998. Environmental Education and Primary Childrens Atti-tudes towards Nature and the Environment. Cambridge Journal of Education 28 (2):159175.

Capra, F. 1982. The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture. London: Collins.Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifin.Chan, K. K. W. 1996. Environmental Attitudes and Behaviour of Secondary School

Students in Hong Hong. The Environmentalist 16 (4): 297306.Chawla, L. 1998. Signicant Life Experiences Revisited: A Review of Research on Sources

of Environmental Sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Education 29 (3): 1121.Chawla, L. 1999. Research Methods to Investigate Signicant Life Experiences. Environ-

mental Education Research 4 (4): 383397.

792 P. Pointon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

Connell, S., J. Fien, H. Sykes, and D. Yencken. 1999. If it doesnt Directly Affect You,You dont Think about it: A Qualitative Study of Young Peoples Environmental Atti-tudes in Two Australian Cities. Environmental Education Research 5 (1): 95113.

DfES. 2006. Learning Outside the Classroom Manifesto. London: DfES.Faber Taylor, A., and F. E. Kuo. 2006. Is Contact with Nature Important for Healthy Child

Development? State of the Evidence. In Children and their Environments: Learning,Using and Designing Spaces, edited by Spencer, C. and M. Blades, 124140. Cambridge:Cambridem Cambridge University Press.

Frumkin, H. 2001. Beyond Toxicity: Human Health and the Natural Environment.American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20 (3): 234240.

Gough, S. 1999. Signicant Life Experiences (SLE) Research: A View from Somewhere.Enivironmental Education Research 5 (4): 353363.

Hicks, D., and A. Bord. 2001. Learning about Global Issues: Why Most Educators OnlyMake Things Worse. Environmental Education Research 7 (4): 413425.

Huckle, J. 2002. Educating for Sustainability: A Guide for Primary Schools. Birmingham:National Primary Trust.

Littledyke, M. 2004. Primary Childrens Views on Science and Environmental Issues:Examples of Environmental Cognition and Moral Development. Environmental Educa-tion Research 10 (2): 217235.

Loughland, T., A. Reid, and P. Petocz. 2002. Young Peoples Conceptions of Environment:A Phenomenographic Analysis. Environmental Education Research 8 (2): 187197.

Loughland, T., A. Reid, K. Walker, and P. Petocz. 2003. Factors Inuencing Young PeoplesConceptions of Environment. Environmental Education Research 9 (1): 319.

Louv, R. 2005. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-decit Disorder.Chapel Hill: Alonquin Books.

Merchant, C. 1980. The Death of Nature. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Miles, M. B., and M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook.

2nd ed. London: Sage.Natural England. 2009. Childhood and Nature: A Survey on Changing Relationships with

Nature across Generations. Warboys: England Marketing.Neal, S., and J. Agyeman. 2006. The New Countryside? Ethnicity, Nation and Exclusion in

Contemporary Rural Britain. Bristol: The Polity Press.Palmer, J. 1998. Environmental Education in the 21st Century: Theory, Practice, Progress

and Promise. London: Routledge.Payne, P. 1998. The Politics of Nature: Childrens Conceptions, Constructions and Values.

In Environmental Education for Sustainability, Good Environment and Good Life, editedby Ahlberg, M. and W. Filho, 209228. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Prosser, M., and P. Trigwell. 1999. Understanding Learning and Teaching. Buckingham:Society for Research in Higher Education, Open University Press.

Pyle, R. M. 2002. Eden in a Vacant Lot: Special Places, Species and Kids in the Neighbour-hood of Life. In Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural and EvolutionaryInvestigations, edited by Kahn, P. H. Jr and S. R. Kellert. Cambridge, MA: The MITPress.

Rickenson, M., C. Lundholm, and N. Hopwood. 2009. Environmental Learning: Insightsfrom Research into the Student Experience. London: Springer.

Rickinson, M. 2001. Learners and Learning in Environmental Education: A Critical Reviewof the Evidence. Environmental Education Research 7 (3): 207320.

Shepardson, D. P. 2005. Students Ideas: What is an Environment? Journal of Environmen-tal Education 36 (4): 4958.

Stables, A., and K. Bishop. 2001. Weak and Strong Conceptions of Environmental Literacy:Implications for Environmental Education. Environmental Education Research 7 (1):8997.

Stanistreet, M., and E. Boyes. 1996. Young peoples Ideas about Global EnvironmentalIssues. In Environmental Issues in Education, edited by Harris, G. and C. Blackwell,3752. London: Arena.

Takano, T. 2004. Meanings of Connection with the Environment: Findings from OutdoorEducational Programs in Scotland, Alaska and Nunavut. http: //www.latrobe.edu.au/oent/OE_conference_ 2004/papers/takano. pdf.

Environmental Education Research 793

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

Wals, A. E. J. 1994a. Pollution Stinks! Young Adolescents Perspectives of Nature and Envi-ronmental Issues with Implications for Education in Urban Settings. DeLier: AcademicBook Centre.

Wals, A. E. J. 1994b. Young Adolescents Perceptions and Experiences of Nature in theContext of Environmental Education. Childrens Environments 11 (3): 177193.

Williams, S., and R. McCrorie. 1990. The Analysis of Ecological Attitudes in Town andCountry. Journal of Environmental Management 31: 157162.

Wilson, E. O. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

794 P. Pointon

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

ambr

idge U

nivers

ity L

ibrary

] at 1

6:19 2

9 Marc

h 201

5

Abstract Introduction Importance of nature Environmental worldviews Methodology Findings Conceptions of nature Scientific Aesthetic

Relationship with nature Utilitarian Intrinsically valued

Worldviews Anthroprocentric Ecocentric Human-related

Influence of gender, location and school type Gender Rural/urban School type Locational context

Discussion Conclusion and suggestions for further researchNotes on contributorReferences