Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Perfectly simple, clear and concise, the statement that “we are all nature ” came from a seven-year-old girl, an ecocitizen . The simplicity of this statement may conceal some of the complexity of the relationship between humans and nature. Nevertheless, this is one of several quotes from children that show their ability to reflect upon this complex relationship.

The relationship between humans and the rest of nature has been studied from many angles, focusing on as varied topics as literature and other nature portraits (see the other chapters in this book) or the importance of nature for human welfare (e.g. Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Ewert et al. 2014). The child –nature relationship is a specific focus. Some argue that children are increasingly alienated and distant from nature (e.g. Sobel 1996; Louv 2009). This may be a challenge, since experiences in nature may affect the feeling of connection with nature (e.g. Chawla 2006; Schultz and Tabanico 2007) .

In the Nordic countries, nature-based activities are an important part of childhood, ranging from outdoor free play in wild places, to organized outdoor activities in educational settings (Fjørtoft 2001; Bentsen et al. 2009) . In Norway , the focus in education for sustainability has been on experiencing nature rather than on environmental issues (Heggen 2015, 2016). Moreover, nature-based activities are becoming increasingly important in pedagogical activities in other regions of the world (e.g. MacQuarrie et al. 2015; O’Brien 2009). This has led to an increasing pool of research on how play in nature affects children , with a particular focus on such issues as resilience (Sandseter and Kennair 2011), risky play (Sandseter 2009), modes of learning (Kellert 2002), motor development (Fjørtoft 2001) and communication and language development (O’Brien 2009; Klepsvik and Heggen 2015), as well as on the development of environmental attitudes (Chawla 2006) . The focus may also be on the role of the adults, on teacher–child interactions (e.g. Thulin and Pramling 2009) or on children as they play or act in nature (e.g. Wight et al. 2016).

In times of ecological challenges, the way we understand and value the natural environment is increasingly important. Education in early childhood for sustainability is needed to develop a sustainable community (Samuelsson 2011; Davis and Elliott 2014). However, the explicit inclusion of environmental issues in pedagogical activities with young children has been met with some reservation (Wals 2012a). A view of children as empowered citizens, ecocitizens, is increasingly influencing the view on education for sustainability (e.g. Davis and Elliott 2014).

Children’s understanding of the relationship between humans and the rest of nature is therefore pivotal. Our focus in this chapter is on examining children’s statements about the outdoor space they are in and their activities there, as well as about nature in general.

The Relationship Between Humans and the Rest of Nature

The statement in the heading indicates the need for a clarification of what nature is. Clarifying this is a daunting task, as nature is one of our most complex terms (Williams 1983). Humans are considered a part of nature, but nature may also be considered as separate from humans (Fletcher 2017).

The view that nature is distinct from humans may lead to the idea that it is something one goes (out) into. This view of nature includes the notion of a pristine wilderness , untouched by humans, or at least nature that resembles the untouched. Viewing nature as untouched by humans is challenging since human influence is evident in all areas of the earth (McKibben 1990) . Nevertheless, this romanticized view of nature often underlies arguments claiming that nature experiences are necessary in order to become environmentally responsible (e.g. Chawla 2006) . In pedagogical environmental activities, we often consider nature to be a solid arena with a variety of natural and cultural landscapes (Karlsen 2015).

Our immediate surroundings, such as the air, water, food and pets are natural entities. Given that we eat and breathe nature, are subject to the laws of nature, and are mutually dependent on nature, it seems logical that humans are part of nature . It is argued that this recognition, that humans are nature, is necessary if we are to develop a committing bond to nature (e.g. Dickinson 2013).

Human connections to nature have changed over time, and with them our worldviews and our perceptions of it. From the first humans to modern times, nature has come to be increasingly considered a commodity (Ewert et al. 2014). Vetlesen (2015) discusses modern society’s exploitation of nature and argues that we need an ecocentric perspective to achieve a sustainable society. He claims that, in order to change society, a change must be made from theorizing about nature to experiencing nature.

Experiences of Nature

There is a long-standing paradigm in environmental education that maintains that connection to nature will lead to pro-environmental behaviour (Carson 1956, 1965; Sobel 1996). Chawla (2006) found that environmentalists were motivated by early childhood experiences in nature. It has also been argued that such experiences are significant for the development of a connection to nature (Mayer and Frantz 2004; Schultz and Tabanico 2007), a sense of responsibility for nature (Cheng and Monroe 2012), children’s curiosity regarding natural phenomena (Gurholt and Sanderud 2016) and a general feeling of happiness (Zelenski and Nisbet 2014). This line of thought is often based on a nature–culture view of nature, possibly leading to a separation from nature (Dickinson 2013; Fletcher 2017), and the simple causality in understanding the relationship between nature experiences and environmental connectedness is currently being modified (Beery and Wolf-Watz 2014) . Another point for discussion is the fact that the quality of these nature encounters is rarely discussed; these encounters in childhood are mainly viewed as positive experiences, although the children are seldom asked what they think about these experiences (Dickinson 2013).

What Do Children Think About Nature?

We can divide research on what children think about environmental issues into three categories. The first consists of indexes developed to measure different aspects of environmental connection, such as the connectedness to nature scale or the implicit association test (Schultz and Tabanico 2007; Cheng and Monroe 2012). The second category consists of large-scale, quantitative studies, using a large numbers of interviews with children to survey their environmental understanding and investigate generalized patterns associated with particular age groups and cultures (Kahn 2002). The third category investigates further how children interpret their relationship with the environment through various qualitative methods, such as focus-group interviews , observation, video-films, photographs and narrative enquiries (Engdahl and Rabušicová 2011; Melhuus 2012; Fløttum et al. 2014; Jørgensen 2015; Gurholt and Sanderud 2016; Sjöblom and Wolff 2017).

To make progress towards a higher degree of sustainability, there is a need for a change in values and more reflexive citizens (Wals 2012b). Like Grindheim (2017), we consider children to be active citizens in their lives. In order to understand their role in the formation of a more sustainable community, therefore, it is necessary to study their communication, language and verbal statements. There is little existing research on the youngest children’s descriptions and conceptions of nature . Goga (2016) stresses that contemporary climate change depends on how the language and rhetoric affects the climate debate, and how language makes the world we live in perceptible. Thus, it is important to investigate children’s statements about nature and their views on their relationship with it.

Analytical Tool

In the research project “Nature in Children’s Literature : Landscapes and Beings—Fostering Ecocitizens (NaChiLit)”, we examine the relationship between humans and nature , framed in relation to the current ecological crisis. Inheriting this crisis, children and young adults will have to deal with it as they grow up. Their environmental awareness will be crucial to this task. In NaChiLit, the presentation of nature in literature is compared to the presentation of nature through children’s own words. The research group has developed the Nature in Culture Matrix (NatCul Matrix , see Chapter 1 in this volume and Fig. 16.1). The matrix is a coordinate system in which the horizontal axis extends from an anthropocentric horizon, a human -centred way of understanding nature, to an ecocentric , holistic way of thinking. The view that humans are distinct from nature may be interpreted as anthropocentrism , while ecocentrism often reflects a view that humans are natural beings. The vertical axis extends from a celebratory view of nature to a problematizing view of it, reflecting feelings regarding nature.

Fig. 16.1
figure 1

The NatCul Matrix used for the analysis of children’s expressions when they talk about nature and natural landscapes

Full size image

The NatCul Matrix has been used to investigate how nature is portrayed and understood in literary works (Birkeland 2016; Goga 2016), in scholarly discussions (Hallås et al. 2017), in the mass media (see Chapter 15 in this volume) and in digital texts (see Chapter 17 in this volume). As we have seen, children and young people’s own voices and reflections on nature are central in understanding the relationship between humans and nature. In this study, the research question is:

What do the children say when they talk about nature and natural landscapes, and how can we understand their statements?

Dialogues in Nature

To gain insight into children’s perspectives on nature , we talked with children . In order to contact those that were used to being in nature, we chose to visit a primary school and a pre-school that practised outdoor education .

To gain a first-hand understanding of what children say about nature and natural landscapes , we chose focus group interviews (Kvale 2007). Since we wanted to investigate what the children said about nature , we carried out the interviews in familiar natural areas. Group interviews can be positive in that informants can find support in each other’s statements, although they may also restrict each other (Frey and Fontana 2005). The interviews were semi-structured, based on three open questions: (1) Can you tell us about this place and the natural landscape here? (2) Can you tell us about what you are doing here? (3) Can you describe or tell us about nature? During the interview, the children participated in dialogues and verbalized their opinions, in accordance with the recommendations of Brenner (2006) and Kvale (2007).

The primary school used outdoor education as a working method, in accordance with Bentsen et al. (2009), and pupils were outdoors at least one day a week. The pre-school had a pedagogical focus on farming and outdoor activities (Lysklett and Berger 2017), and the children were outdoors all day three to five days a week, playing in nature . Both institutions were close to a city in the western part of Norway.

The participants in this study included ten of the oldest children from the pre-school, of five and six years of age, and fifteen from the first grade in the primary school , of six and seven years of age. Both genders were represented. This research complies with the requirements of the Norwegian Social Science Data Services. In accordance with Bell (2008), the children had the right to express their views about the research process. The children were orally informed, their participation was voluntary and they could withdraw from the study at any time. The teachers organized the children in groups. This resulted in group sizes in accordance with Malterud’s (2012) suggestion of 3–4 children of both genders as an appropriate focus-group size.

The dialogues took place on two one-day visits. The primary school used a cultural landscape as an outdoor classroom, and the pre-school used an old growth forest as a play and learning area. The pre-school and the school class was outside in the local environment near the institutions for the whole day.

The same procedures were followed in all of the interview situations. We sat outside in the nature areas, and to start with, we all introduced ourselves. One of the researchers took charge of the interview situation in the pre-school and the other researcher led the primary school interviews. Each interview lasted approximately 20 minutes and they were recorded digitally.

In the data analysis phase, the researchers transcribed the recorded material from the interviews , anonymizing the primary school, the pre-school and the children . By reading and rereading the transcripts we became familiar with the data. In the first analytical stage, the material was examined using a content-analysis approach (Mason 2006). We ran a word-frequency analysis in NVivo (2015) and a manual summative-content analysis. The second stage was a conventional content analysis with an inductive search to categorize the material (Hsieh and Shannon 2005). The researchers analysed the data individually in these first stages, but discussed the results frequently.

We continued our data analysis together in the third stage, using a flexible qualitative-content analysis (Cavanagh 1997). Our starting point was Fauskanger and Mosvold’s (2014) view that using a combination of different approaches one can gain positive experiences and richer insights from educational research. We undertook a thorough re-review and jointly tried the material in a theory-driven content analysis, exploring our material in light of the NatCul Matrix. In line with Hsieh and Shannon (2005), the coding categories in our theory-driven content analysis were developed based on the matrix. The four initial stages of the analyses familiarized us with the data. This underlay the final theoretical analysis detailed in this chapter.

Using the NatCul Matrix as an analytical tool, we interpreted the children’s statements to be either between the (1) anthropocentric and celebrating perspectives, (2) the anthropocentric and problematizing perspectives, (3) the ecocentric and celebrating perspective or (4) the ecocentric and problematizing perspective. Representative quotations for the various categories are presented in the next section.

Discussing Children’s Statements

The children’s statements were analysed using the NatCul Matrix. An anthropocentric view of nature is a human -centred understanding of nature (Quinn et al. 2015) . In this category, the children’s statements are human-centred and their own needs are important to them. We placed the children’s statements about their own play, socializing activities and their talk about physiological needs in the anthropocentric horizon.

The ecocentric view of nature is a holistic understanding of nature, in which all of nature is considered to be of equal value (Quinn et al. 2015). Statements about friendship and familiarity, mutual interdependencies and humans as nature have been categorized as belonging to the ecocentric horizon. This category also includes statements about whether something is part of nature or not.

A celebratory view of nature is an idyllic understanding of nature , dominated by the notion that there is a close relationship between children and nature (Goga 2016). The children’s expressions related to pleasure, family and home, an arena for play, and expressions like “cute”, “fun” and “nice” have been categorized as celebrating . In contrast, the problematizing view of nature is dominated by critical perspectives on the human –nature relationship (Goga 2016). Statements about objects that are not part of nature have been categorized as problematizing. This category also includes statements regarding what the children were afraid of in the nature area.

There were many anthropocentric and celebrating perspectives expressed, as the children seemed to enjoy themselves in the nature areas, and we interpreted expressions like “It is really fun to be here, very many places to play and to hide” as including both anthropocentric and celebrating perspectives. In the statements in which the children express both anthropocentric and celebrating perspectives, they highlight their own activities. One child told us that they love to play, have fun, to play hide and seek, play stiff witch and run in nature . Another child describes why she likes the old growth forest : “Yes, and my grandfather can make whistles with grasses and sticks”.

When asked what nature is, one of the children answered: “It is a place where we hike”, showing how he views the concept of nature as separate from human , and related to himself in an anthropocentric way. Another aspect of the nature experiences was related to their enjoyment when eating what they find in nature : “I love common sorrel, the best there is.”

The children describe different kinds of free play. The Nordic custom of playing in nature is well-known. When they describe their play in nature , they are in accordance with what Kellert (2002) describes as seeing the utilitarian value of nature. The children’s statements are clear: they play in nature and with nature. Playing in nature seems to be based on an anthropocentric view of nature, as the children do not consider themselves to be part of nature.

When the children describe collecting food to eat and sticks to make whistles, these activities are also associated with the utilitarian aspect. We also considered this as celebrating—what they eat and what they collect is connected to what they enjoy, in this case making whistles and eating tasty herbs. Krempig and Utsi (2017) have found that harvesting wild food is also a source of joy and excitement in other pre-schools.

The anthropocentric and problematizing perspectives show the children’s understanding of relationships in nature . One child said: “Nature is … If we did not have bushes, we could not live. Some bushes have berries.” Another child clearly informed us that “Or else, we can die. If we do not get enough air.” These statements show the children’s understanding of how humans depend on nature. The understanding of this complex dependence may not always be clear for the children, and they did not necessarily know how we are connected: “If we did not have insects we have no …”

Studies investigating connections with nature and environmental attitudes have found a correlation between these and experiences of nature (Chawla 2006; Schultz and Tabanico 2007). The concept of connectedness may be more important than the knowledge of the processes connecting us. We did not ask directly about human exploitation of nature, and the children did not mention it themselves. They expressed ecocentric and celebrating perspectives. Statements such as “Where we live, where the animals live” reveal the holistic understanding of ecocentrism. Some of the ecocentric statements were also celebrating . One child found some snails on the ground, picked up one and talked to it: “Hallo, little friend.” She explained, “Everybody is a family here.” In this, she showed both a celebrating and an ecocentric perspective. When a child explained “Nice air. I like the air here, a lot”, in answer to the question regarding nature in the area, we interpreted this as celebrating and ecocentric .

Sometimes, the celebrating perspective can be so overwhelming it completely outshines the fact that some things have annoying aspects. An example of this was one of the boys who, when asked what was nice with the area we were visiting, answered: “And, shall I tell you what else is nice here? Ok, stinging nettles and common vipers.” This is the only stinging plant in the area, and the only poisonous snake in Norway .

When discussing the snails, the children started a long conversation, and were more occupied with them than with the questions in our dialogue. They switched between anthropomorphic and descriptive ways of talking about the animals . In contrast to what has been found in literature , it was the children who introduced the anthropomorphic view (Thulin and Pramling 2009). These children let nature become an active partner in their play, an aspect Dickinson (2016) highlights in bridging the human –nature divide. A sense of oneness with nature (Cheng and Monroe 2012) was also evident when the children talked about both snails and snakes.

Only a few of the statements were ecocentric and problematizing. One girl explained to us that the plastic pearl she had found on the ground was not nature, and does not belong in nature: “Because it is not here in nature, it is inside somewhere. In a house.” The problematizing perspective in the situation with the pearls is linked to a division between what belongs in nature and what does not, not a reflection regarding the consequences. The children in our study may not have experienced those kinds of perspectives. It is not common to problematize environmental issues in early childhood, but rather to focus on experiencing nature (Wals 2012a; Heggen 2016). Samuelsson (2011) has shown that children are mature enough to handle environmental issues in early childhood, and both they and the environment benefit from dealing with such issues.

Another category of problematizing perspectives was related to the parts of nature that the children did not enjoy: “I do not like Iberian slugs” (a problematic, invasive species ). This expression has anthropocentric and problematizing aspects. Since the children’s play was careful and respectful, this may reflect ecocentric perspectives. The observations were not part of the research focus but contribute to a better understanding of these children’s relationship with nature . This observation is supported by what the children say: “I do not want to eat snails, but have them on my hands.”

Discussing the NatCul Matrix

As we have shown, the children’s statements are divided between anthropocentric , ecocentric, celebrating and problematizing. Along the celebrative/problematizing axis, the NatCul Matrix measures aspects of feelings that are important in establishing a connection with nature (Dickinson 2013).

Some of the children’s statements were objective, nearly scientific descriptions of nature. These statements are at the midpoint on the anthropocentric and ecocentric axis, and midway between a celebrating and a problematic nature view. Such descriptions of nature can include both perspectives regarding humans as part of nature and humans as separated from nature. We would suggest that these perspectives can be included at the centre of the NatCul Matrix , and we have called this position the description of nature. In the coordinate system, we place this at the origin. As we have seen, children can name many species and groups of species : common sorrel, stinging nettle and common viper, as well as less conspicuous species such as a group of lichens: Trollskjegg. The children told us what they observed, such as when they described the snails: “See black dots”, “This has a snail shell”, “This has no shell” or “This snail shell is brown”.

When the children were asked to talk more about what nature really is, two of the children answered: “Nature is, in a way, outside with many trees” and “Rocks can be nature”. It was sometimes clear that this question was tricky; one of the dialogues went as follows:

Boy A::

Ants, ants are nature.

Researcher::

Yes, are ants nature?

Girl::

I believe that ants, ants aren’t nature, but at least they walk in nature.

Researcher::

Maybe. Maybe they aren’t nature, but they walk in nature.

Boy B::

They have anthills in nature.

Two of the groups also tried to distinguish between domestic animals such as hens, dogs, rabbits and sheep (except for the dog, all these animals live in the pre-school ) as not being part of nature, while bears, deer, moose, lions and foxes were among the animals that were part of nature.

Children who spend a lot of time in nature can learn about it through direct experience (Kellert 2002; Karlsen 2015). Children playing in nature-like areas develop a scientific language, particularly related to the names of species (Wight et al. 2016). However, for them to learn species names and groups, this knowledge must be introduced to them (Lynngård 2015). When the children in our study described the species to each other, they highlighted differences. Thus, the children communicated in similar ways to those included in variation theory, a pedagogical method considered to be efficient in outdoor educational settings (Gustavsson and Pramling 2014). However, naming in itself may not result in a deeper understanding of the processes in nature (Dickinson 2016).

The majority of the children’s statements describing nature contained factual knowledge about its basic elements. The children in our study were outside in natural areas regularly, which may have influenced their knowledge and the concepts they referred to when talking about nature, as found in the study by Wight et al. (2016).

Views of Nature in the Statements

The aim of the study was to explore what children say when they talk about nature and nature areas. We employed the NatCul Matrix as an analytical tool to understand the children’s statements.

When analysing our dialogues with the young children using the NatCul Matrix , we found that the non-descriptive statements were equally distributed between the anthropocentric and ecocentric horizons. This is in contrast to Kahn’s (2002) findings with regard to children and young adults, which indicated a vast majority of anthropocentric rather than biocentric reasoning. He argues that the ability to employ biocentric reasoning develops with age and experience. The discrepancy between our study results and Kahn’s can be due to differences in focus. Kahn’s (2002) questions were directly linked to environmental problems like pollution. We asked the children to describe nature and the nature area they were in. This may explain why our research shows more ecocentric perspectives. Despite the limited number of children participating in our study , we suggest that asking children about nature, rather than about environmental problems, results in a better understanding of children’s anthropocentric and ecocentric perspectives.

Using the NatCul Matrix as an analytical tool helped us discover the relationships between the anthropocentric and ecocentric perspectives in the children’s statements. It also helped to highlight the different concepts of nature the children used. However, as we have shown, the children used analytical concepts when they described nature . Through naming, distinguishing between groups and separating nature and not-nature, they displayed ecological knowledge. These are important aspects in their ecocitizenship. We would suggest that, when using the NatCul Matrix , it is useful to include descriptions of nature as an analytical factor.

The complexity of the nature concept was evident in many ways when the children explained what nature was. Sometimes, they talk about it as being outdoors , and having trees, indicating a view in which nature is separate from humans. This is further supported by the view that farm animals are not part of nature, while wild animals are. The children had varied concepts of nature, as shown by the quote from our title: “We are all nature”. This suggests that humans are part of nature. In the dialogues, the children showed both these perspectives, depending on the topic of conversation. Thus, it seemed as though the children , in some regards, operated with two concepts of nature, with humans both being separated from it and part of it. Further research should include studies of whether young children use different concepts of nature in different contexts.