/EC-NES_Final_Report_2010-4 by Children & Nature Network

Children and Nature Network   Project Grow Outside    American beliefs associated with encouraging  children’s nature experience opportunities  Development and Application of the EC‐NES Scale

18 June 2010  Prepared for:

Children and Nature Network  Prepared by:  John Fraser, PhD, AIA  Director, ILI New York  Joe E. Heimlich, PhD  Director, ILI Ohio  Victor Yocco,  Research Associate

Institute for Learning Innovation 3168 Braverton St., Suite 280, Edgewater, MD 21037 t: 410-956-5144 f: 410-956-5144 www.ilinet.org Understanding, fostering and promoting lifelong learning

This survey instrument and the associated methods for data collection and analysis are copyright  Institute  for  Learning  Innovation.  This  instrument  was  developed  for  the  Children  and  Nature  Network  (C&NN),  www.childrenandnature.org,  through  funding  provided  by  the  W.  K.  Kellogg  Foundation.  Researchers,  evaluators,  academics  and  those  interested  in  fostering  childhood  nature experiences are encouraged to use this instrument in its entirety to explore the changing  attitudes and beliefs related to supporting increased access to nature by children. The copyright  holders offer this instrument without charge on the condition that all reports credit the original  copyright  holders  and  the  Children  &  Nature  Network,  and  that  no  changes  are  made  to  the  instrument or data collection procedures outlined herein.    Copyright © 2010 Institute for Learning Innovation  Institute for Learning Innovation  3168 Braverton St., Suite 280  Edgewater, MD 20137  ILI Reports: #20100226    Recommended citation:     Fraser, J. Heimlich, J. E. &Yocco, V. (2010). Report Number20100226: American beliefs  associated  with  increasing  children’s  opportunities  for  experiences  in  nature.    Edgewater, MD: Institute for Learning Innovation.

Acknowledgements:   The  data  used  in  the  development  of  the  Encouraging  Children’s  Nature  Experiences  Scale  (EC‐NES)  was  collected  by  over  150  C&NN  volunteers  from  across the USA in communities large and small. Their efforts helped to ensure  that the diversity of life in America today was taken into account, and that the  items  used  in  the  scales  could  account  for  this  variation.  The  authors  and  sponsors wish to thank these volunteers for their commitment to this project  and  the  time  they  gave  to  help  advance  the  movement  on  behalf  of  children  everywhere.

About the Institute for Learning Innovation:  Established in 1986 as an independent non‐governmental not‐for‐profit learning research and development  organization,  the  Institute  for  Learning  Innovation  is  dedicated  to  changing  the  world  of  education  and  learning by understanding, facilitating, advocating and communicating about free‐choice learning across the  life span. The Institute provides leadership in this area by collaborating with a variety of free‐choice learning  institutions  such  as  museums,  other  cultural  institutions,  public  television  stations,  libraries,  hospitals,  community‐based organizations such as scouts and the YWCA, scientific societies and humanities councils,  as  well  as  schools  and  universities.  These  collaborations  strive  to  advance  understanding,  facilitate  and  improve  the  learning  potential  of  these  organizations  by  incorporating  free‐choice  learning  principles  in  their work.

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

Executive Summary  National Attitudes  This study of American adults’ attitudes towards children’s experiences in nature was based on survey  data from 2,138 people who participated in an independently commissioned, online consumer survey in  February 2010.     The Encouraging Children’s Nature Experiences Scale (EC‐NES) was created to assess adult attitudes and  beliefs surrounding encouragement of children’s nature experiences. While a great deal of empirical  research has already been undertaken to demonstrate the value and impact of these experiences, not  all of the research has been adopted by the public. The EC‐NES scale was designed as a benchmarking  tool to assess beliefs about the value of these experiences in four domains:   •

General social acceptance of types of benefits that accrue for children when they are in nature,  referred to as “normative beliefs” measured as: Healthiness; Cognitive/emotional Growth;  Perceived Need; Emotional Well‐being; Enhanced Skills; and Appreciation of Nature.

•

Adult control beliefs, or the belief that actions by participants will promote or restrict children’s  opportunities for nature experience and measured with two scales: Adult Priorities and Need for  Child Safety.

•

Adult behavioral beliefs, or the beliefs that specific adult behaviors will encourage or discourage  children’s nature experiences, measured as: Storytelling and Adult Effort/Risk.  and

•

Intentionality measured as a commitment to participate in activities that increase children’s  opportunities for nature experiences.

The EC‐NES scale was developed based on factor analysis of responses to 169 items representing results  of empirical research on the value of children’s nature experiences, organized into the core domains  that have been demonstrated as predictive of behavior according to Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior  (Ajzen 1991).   The demographic data were collected in order to analyze for race, ethnic, education and income  variations, although the sample itself over‐represented the white/Caucasian populations. This variation  was attributed to, in part, the desire to collect data from six focal states where the Children and Nature  Network has focused efforts. Analysis revealed only minor variations in American attitudes based on  race/ethnicity.  Overview of Results:  •

American adults generally believe that childhood experiences in nature are important for all  children, and very strongly support the claim that they personally intend to support children in  having these experiences.

•

Normative Beliefs: Adults generally believe that all nature experiences benefit children, and  tend to believe more strongly in the contribution of nature experiences to physical  development, socialization, and appreciation of nature than they believe in the contribution to  mental and emotional well‐being.

•

Control Beliefs: Adults very strongly support children’s experiences with nature but have great  concern over the safety of children in certain environments. While they support nature  experiences in general, the adults are very concerned about children’s safety in wild places,

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

3                                                                 June 2010

especially areas described as woods, waterways such as creeks and ponds, or open fields and  hills. These concerns limit adults’ willingness to allow children to participate in unsupervised  play or free exploration even if the adults had these experiences when they were children.   •

Behavioral Beliefs: Adults are willing to make the effort to encourage children to have nature  experiences in spite of the perceived risk of injury to these children, but do not appear to model  these behaviors through personal storytelling or mentoring behavior based on their own  experiences.

Demographic Variations:  •

Parents with children in their home are more likely to support all beliefs associated with  encouraging children’s nature experiences outside the home, with females agreeing more  strongly than males with all concepts.

•

Minority communities, including African American, Latino and Asian/Pacific Islander, rate the  importance of nature experiences for their children at a lower level than Caucasian/White  Americans, but there is still general agreement that these experiences are a necessary part of  child development. American Indian/First Nations peoples tend to support these concepts more  strongly than all of the other ethnic groups.

•

Some adults believe that nature is quite far from their homes, even though they claim to live in  small towns or relatively undeveloped parts of America. Fully 16% of respondents believe that  “nature” is more than 30 minutes from their residence. This perception of the “nature of  nature” may lead people to believe that some nature is not worthy for their children’s activities  and may be a perceptual barrier that can be easily overcome.

•

Adults with higher incomes and higher levels of academic achievement are also more likely to  agree more strongly that nature experiences are important for children.

Conclusions:  •

Although Americans appear to be well‐intentioned about supporting children’s nature contact,  there are important deficits in beliefs around the benefits of nature experiences that may pose a  limit on whether they are willing to act on these beliefs. These external factors may be  overcome through efforts of a national campaign targeted at redressing these beliefs.

•

Helping adults learn that their mentoring activities, such as personal storytelling about their  positive nature experiences as children, may increase the likelihood that children will desire to  have nature experiences.

•

Because adults are extremely concerned about the risks to children associated with free‐flowing  streams, woods, mountains and wild nature, a two‐pronged approach around talking about the  value of more proximate nature experiences is advised. The first prong might address the value  of free‐play in green spaces and planned nature places to increase adults’ support for children’s  nature contact. A secondary effort focusing on the safety of accompanied experiences to more  wild nature areas may be more acceptable to the majority of Americans.

•

Lastly, helping to leverage American Indian/First Nations people’s stronger support for the value  of children’s nature experiences may offer an opportunity for links to an American land ethic  that can increase the appeal of children’s nature experiences for all Americans.

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

Table of Contents  Executive Summary................................................................................................................. 3  National Attitudes........................................................................................................................... 3  Overview of Results:........................................................................................................................ 3  Demographic Variations: ................................................................................................................ 4  Conclusions: .................................................................................................................................... 4  Introduction............................................................................................................................ 7  Method................................................................................................................................... 8  Operational Definitions for the Constructs: ....................................................................................9  Healthiness...................................................................................................................................... 9  Cognitive and Emotional Growth .................................................................................................... 9  Emotional Well‐being.................................................................................................................... 10  Enhanced Skills.............................................................................................................................. 10  Appreciation of Nature.................................................................................................................. 11  Priority........................................................................................................................................... 11  Safety ............................................................................................................................................ 12  Storytelling .................................................................................................................................... 12  Effort/Risk ..................................................................................................................................... 13  Intentionality................................................................................................................................. 13  Scale Validity and Reliability ........................................................................................................ 14  Findings ................................................................................................................................ 16  Beliefs in the Value of Childhood Nature Experiences................................................................... 16  Variations in Beliefs by Demographic Variables............................................................................ 18  Secondary Factor Analysis............................................................................................................. 23  Assessment of Age, Income, Education and State of Residence ................................................... 25  Discussion and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 28  Normative Beliefs:......................................................................................................................... 28  Control Beliefs: .............................................................................................................................. 28  Behavioral Beliefs:......................................................................................................................... 29  Perceived Distance to Nature........................................................................................................ 30  Parenthood, Nature and the Difference between Women and Men ............................................ 30  Educational Achievement, Income and Culture ............................................................................ 31  Age ................................................................................................................................................ 32  Public Policy .................................................................................................................................. 32  Limitations of this study ................................................................................................................ 32  Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 33  Appendix A: .......................................................................................................................... 34  Encouraging Children’s Nature Experiences Scale [EC‐NES]........................................................... 34  Appendix B: .......................................................................................................................... 41  Descriptive Statistics .................................................................................................................... 41

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

5                                                                 June 2010

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

Introduction  The Children & Nature Network (C&NN) Project Grow Outside is a three‐year campaign to accelerate the  effectiveness of the children and nature movement. The goal of the campaign is to facilitate social  change to enhance children and youth health and well‐being by re‐connecting them to the natural world  in their everyday lives. C&NN will accomplish this goal by using the existing knowledge base and  network to develop and distribute the tools necessary to turn awareness into action, and build a  framework for sustainable systemic change at the local, national, and international level. The ultimate  goal is deep cultural change, evident in the “third ring” of engagement identified as self‐activated and  socially‐networked participation by individuals, families, and communities. The primary aim of the  project is to expand C&NN’s ability to promote fundamental individual and institutional change and  provide resources for building awareness, sharing information, implementing strategic initiatives,  identifying and disseminating best practices, and filling the gaps in research.  In the past few decades, a substantive body of literature has indicated that nature experiences are an  important part of the developmental process for children but studies of childhood activity increasingly  show that children have less and less time outdoors in nature. While there may be many causes for this  nature deficit, adult mentoring and priorities surrounding children’s nature experiences may have a  direct impact on whether children are encouraged to spend time outdoors.    In fall of 2009, the Institute for Learning Innovation (ILI) was commissioned by C&NN to develop a  national benchmarking survey to measure how adults perceive the value of children’s nature contact  experiences, and how those beliefs and values support children’s opportunities to have such  experiences. The resulting survey instrument and the results reported here outline how current beliefs  may influence the likelihood of success for the children and nature movement, areas for focus by  proponents of children’s nature experiences to help advance the movement, and where adult beliefs  and behaviors may be acting in opposition to the goals of enhancing children’s lives through contact  with nature.  The psychometric instrument used for this study was aimed at assessing adult beliefs about children and  nature experiences. It probed the values around a core set of constructs derived from the children and  nature literature, organized those constructs into a set of factors based on the well‐proven theory of  planned behavior, and then measured how Americans support these beliefs through responses to a set  of agreement/disagreement ranking scales. The survey also collected demographic data to determine  whether specific factors were related to the psychometric measures.  These data were particularly important for benchmarking against current and changed attitudes within  members of the general public in American society, for members of socially influential organizations,  among pre/post program participants, and other vectors where social change may be fostered. The final  “master” EC‐NES questionnaire has been demonstrated to be a reliable instrument that can be deployed  every five years to track the state of change in social discourse to determine the overall effectiveness of  the children and nature movement in American society, to measure where values have changed and to  compare and map how these national level data are represented in communities across the nation and  potentially other parts of the world.

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

7                                                                 June 2010

Method  In order to develop a reliable set of scales, the ILI team undertook a two‐phase development process.  The first phase consisted of an expert review of the constructs (that is, factors that predict types of  beliefs) developed from a broad range of theoretical frameworks and research findings that describe the  value of nature experiences to children, and whether a proposed set of items accurately reflected the  factors in question. The second phase consisted of a field test of the items nominated for the item bank  in order for the research team to identify the most suitable items for internal consistency within the  factor. These data were then used to arrive at a final instrument that was deployed through a national  consumer poll of 2,138 people from across the USA.  To ensure internal consistency across items, the item banks were developed for each construct based on  the theoretical underpinnings from the literature and existing scales. The expert panel of five  representatives from the academic community supporting the Children and Nature Network considered  whether the items represented the constructs based on the research, and identified any factors or item  dimensions that were missing. These constructs were then organized within the Theory of Planned  Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) in order to determine the likelihood of adults’ willingness to support children’s  nature experiences. The items within the constructs are all tested and analyzed against and with all  other items in the construct.  This is done to identify those items that are the strongest predictors of the  construct.  The final set of constructs used in the survey were:  Normative Beliefs: values that adults generally believe to be true across their community, or  self‐evident truths. In this case, what adults believe children derive as benefits from their  experiences in nature settings.  Healthiness  Cognitive/Emotional Growth  Emotional Well‐being  Enhanced Skills   Appreciation of Nature  Control Beliefs: beliefs that actions are within the control of the research participant and  capable of resulting in an intended outcome. In this case, how much adults prioritize these  experiences as important for child development, and how the risks associated with that  contact might prevent adults from encouraging children to spend time exploring nature.  Priority  Child Safety  Behavioral Beliefs: beliefs that specific behaviors will result in a desired outcome.  In this case,  the sense of risk associated with children’s experiences in nature and these adults’ beliefs  that their activities and telling stories about nature might establish norms and priorities for  the children in their lives.  Storytelling  Effort/Risk  and  Intentionality: the intention to engage in behaviors that a perons believes will achieve the  desired result of encouraging children’s nature experience based on Ajzen’s  recommendations for framing intentionality.

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

Operational Definitions for the Constructs:  The following outlines the specific construct domains and the research or theory on which those  constructs are built:  Healthiness  Research has suggested a number of physical and developmental benefits children receive from  spending time in nature. It has been suggested that engaging in play in nature allows children to  explore their creativity at multiple levels of development. Children who engage in play outdoors are  more likely to engage in vigorous physical activity which has numerous health benefits and is  strongly recommended by health professionals. Simply having nature nearby has been shown to  improve recovery from injuries, increase children’s levels of happiness, and reduce the occurrence  of diseases such as asthma and myopia. This scale measured adults’ attitudes toward these benefits  to children spending time in nature.  Key readings:  Fjortoft, I. (2000). The Natural Environment as a Playground for Children: The Impact of Outdoor  Play Activities in Pre‐Primary School Children. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48, 83‐97.  Kellert, S. &Derr, V. (1998). National study of outdoor wilderness experience. Washington, DC:  Island Press.  Lovasi, G. S., Quinn, J. W., Neckerman, K. M., Perzanowski, M. S., & Rundle, A. (2008). Children  living in areas with more street trees have lower prevalence of asthma. Journal of  Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(7), 647‐649.  Rose, K. A., Morgan, I. G., Ip, J., Kifley, A., Huynh, S., Smith, W., et al. (2008). Outdoor activity  reduces the prevalence of myopia in children. Ophthalmology, 115(8), 1279‐1285.  Ulrich, R. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 224 420‐ 421.

Cognitive and Emotional Growth

Research indicates that children who have nature experiences demonstrate more advanced  cognitive and emotional development. It has been suggested that affinity for nature may be  genetically encoded, but this rudimentary understanding requires experience to fully develop.  Researchers have established links between types of nature experiences including skills in  categorization, classification, learning through observation, interpretation, inference, and  prediction. This scale focuses on adult beliefs about the cognitive and emotional dimensions of  learning that are supported by nature experiences including: learning through direct contact; self‐ directed learning; systems learning; emotional development; and thinking, remembering, and  problem solving.  Key readings:  Burdette, H. & Whitaker, R.(2005). Resurrecting free play in young children: Looking beyond  fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent  Medicine.159:46‐50.  Grahn, P., Martensson, F.,Lindblad, B., Nilsson, P., and Ekma, A. (1997). Outdoors at daycare.  City  and Country, 145.  Kellert, S. (2005). Nature and childhood. Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the  Human‐Nature Connection. Washington. D.C.: Island Press.

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

9                                                                 June 2010

Kellert, S. (2002). Experiencing Nature: Affective, Cognitive, and Evaluative Development.  Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations.  Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.  Taylor,A., F.,Wiley, A.,Kuo, F. E. & Sullivan,W. C. (1998). Growing up in the inner city:  Greenspaces as places to grow. Environment & Behavior, 30(1), 3‐27.  Wells, N. (2000). At Home with Nature: Effects of 'Greenness' on Children's Cognitive  Functioning. Environment and Behavior, 32, 775‐795.

Emotional Well‐being  The factors measured in this scale include a number of benefits to playing in nature that have been  identified by researchers. Mental benefits that children may experience from playing in nature  include increased confidence, self‐esteem, and independence. Research suggests that children gain  an awareness of their self and a greater sense of what they can control by playing in nature. Adult  attitudes towards children developing a sense of belonging and a sense of community were also  measured in this scale. Finally, an extensive amount of research has reported on the benefits of  outdoor play in fighting the problem of childhood obesity. Adult attitudes toward this were  measured in this scale as well.  Key readings:  Bell, S., Hamilton, V., Montarzino, A., Rothnie, H., Travlou, P., &Alves, S. (2008). Greenspace and  quality of life: A critical literature review. Greenspace Scotland.   Barros, R. M., Silver, E. J., & Stein, R. E. K. (2009). School recess and group classroom behavior.  Pediatrics, 123(2), 431‐436.  Cleland, V., Crawford, D., Baur, L. A., Hume, C., Timperio, A., & Salmon, J. (2008). A prospective  examination of children's time spent outdoors, objectively measured physical activity and  overweight. International Journal of Obesity, 32(11), 1685‐1693.  Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). “The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and  maintaining strong parent‐child bonds.” Pediatrics, 119(1), 182‐191.  Potwarka, L. R., Kaczynski, A. T., & Flack, A. L. (2008). Places to play: association of park space and  facilities with healthy weight status among children. Journal of Community Health, 33(5),  344‐350.   Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan  W. C. (2001).  Coping with ADD: The surprising connection to  Green Play Settings, Environment and Behavior 33(1), 54‐77.

Enhanced Skills  Research has linked time spent in nature with increased strength, reduced stress, and improved  socialization skills. Many of these skills come through unstructured group play in which the children  make the rules and resolve the conflicts. This scale focused on adult beliefs regarding specific skills  children gain by time spend playing in nature. These included physical strength and coordination  for physical benefits. Social benefits included increased learning to play with others, cooperation,  and reduced stress.   Key readings:  American Institutes of Research (2005).Effects of outdoor education programs for children in  California. Palo Alto, CA.  Kellert, S. (1996). The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society. Washington, D.C.:  Island Press.  Little, H. & Wyver, S. (2008). Outdoor play ‐ does avoiding the risks reduce the benefits?  Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(2), 33‐40.

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

O'Dea, J. (2003). Why do kids eat healthful food? Perceived benefits of and barriers to healthful  eating and physical activity among children and adolescents. Journal of the American Dietetic  Association.103(4), 497‐501.  Ulrich, R., Simons, Losito, et al. 1991 Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban  environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1991, 11, 201‐230.

Appreciation of Nature  Research with those who have a high degree of concern for nature has linked this concern to early  childhood experiences in nature. This construct represents adults’ views on the role that nature  plays in developing relationships with nature including: appreciation of natural processes;  interrelationships between organisms; care for wild animals; self‐directed development of moral  values; and the concept that learning itself is enhanced by experiences in the natural world. This  construct spans the range of topics from ecoliteracy (or environmental literacy) to concepts of  moral/systems knowledge and its role in place attachment.  Key readings:

AIR 2005, American Institutes for Research. (2005).Effects of outdoor education programs for  children in California.  Chawla, L. (1998). Research methods to investigate significant life experiences: Review and  recommendations. Environmental Education Research 4 (4): 383‐397.  Chawla, L. (2006). "Learning to Love the Natural World Enough to Protect It," Barn2 57‐58.  Finger, M. (1993). Environmental adult learning in Switzerland. Occasional Papers Series No.2,  Center for Adult Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.  Finger, M. (1994). From kinship to action? Exploring the relationships between environmental    experiences, learning, and behavior. Journal of Social Issues 50 (3):141‐160.  Sia, A., Hungerford, H. & Tomera, A. (1985/86).Selected predictors of responsible environmental  behavior. Journal of Environmental Education 17 (2):31‐40.  Sivek, D. & Hungerford, H. (1989/90). Predictors of responsible behavior in members of three  Wisconsin conservation organizations. Journal of Environmental Education 21 (2):35‐40.  Sobel, D. (2005). Beyond Ecophobia: Reclaiming the Heart in Nature Education. The Orion Society,  Great Barrington, MA.  Sobel, D. (2008). Childhood and Nature. Stenhouse Publishers. Portland, ME.  Tanner, T. (Ed.) 1998. Special issue on significant life experiences research. Environmental  Education Research 4 (4).  Tanner, T. (Ed.) (1999). Special section on significant life experiences research. Environmental  Education Research 5 (2).  Turner, W. R., Nakamura, T., & Dinetti, M. (2004). Global Urbanization and the Separation of  Humans from Nature. Bioscience, 54(6), 585‐590

Priority  Adults typically influence or control how children spend their time. Therefore what adults see as  the priority for children to spend their time doing will be reflected in what adults allow children to  do. Research suggests that adults may feel children do not respect property or nature, and that  children left outdoors unsupervised will engage in behaviors destructive to property. Research has  also suggested adults judge other’s parenting abilities by how clean their children are. Studies  indicate that many adults feel children do not need to spend a large quantity of time outdoors, and  that time spent engaging in structured extracurricular activities is time better spent than  unsupervised time outdoors. If adult priorities lie with keeping children supervised, clean, and in  indoor learning situations, this is a barrier to children engaging in outdoor play.

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

11                                                                 June 2010

Key readings:  Dwyer, G. M., Higgs, J., Hardy, L. L., & Baur, L. A. (2008). What do parents and preschool staff tell  us about young children's physical activity: A qualitative study. International Journal of  Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5(11).  Hofferth, S. & Sandberg, J. (2001). Changes in American Children’s Time, 1981‐1997. In S.L.  Hofferth& T.J. Owens (Eds.), Children at the Millennium: Where Have We Come From, Where  Are We Going? (pp. 1‐7). New York: JAI, 2001.  Lacy, L. (2007). Playday 2007, Our Streets Too! London: Children’s Play Council.  Lester, S., & Maudsley, M. (2006). Play, naturally: A review of  children's natural play. London:  Children's Play Council.

Safety  The perception of safety has been identified as a key factor in parents allowing children to play in a  variety of settings. Research suggests that parents’ decisions on where to let their children play are  strongly influenced by the parents’ comfort level with that setting. If parents are not comfortable in  nature, they will in turn not be comfortable allowing their child in nature. The perceived availability  of safe places to play outdoors also influences parents’ decisions on where their child can play. This  scale also covers the perception that bad people are more likely to frequent outdoor areas where  children are known to play. In addition to the items tested for this construct, two external scales  were used to assess perceptions of safety based on studies conducted in the United Kingdom.  These scales assessed places for childhood free‐play experiences that adults may have had when  they were children and these same adults’ willingness to allow children similar opportunities today.   Key readings:  Carver, A., Timperio, A., & Crawford, D. (2008). “Playing it safe: The influence of neighbourhood  safety on children's physical activity ‐ A review.” Health & Place, 14(2), 217‐227.  Gleave J. (2008). Risk and play, a literature review. London: Children’s Play Council.  Sallis, McKenzie, Elder, Broyles, and Nader. (1997). Factors Parents Use in Selecting Play Spaces  for Young Children. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 151(4):414‐417.  Lacy, L. (2007). Playday 2007, Our Streets Too! London: Children’s Play Council.  Valentine, G. (2004). Public Space and the Culture of Childhood. Ashgate Publishing, Surrey,  United Kingdom.

Storytelling  Cultures have long shared traditions and passed along values through storytelling. Storytelling is a  way for adults to pass on their experiences to children as well. Researchers have also discussed the  ability for storytelling to influence children’s behavior. This scale measured adults’ attitudes toward  and participation in telling, hearing, and reading stories about nature. Researchers have discussed  the importance of storytelling as an avenue for humans to know nature and to understand the role  nature plays in one’s life, leading to the belief that adult storytelling will be critical to children  developing positive attitudes towards nature.  Key readings:  Cronon, W. (1992). A place for stories: Nature, history, and narrative. The Journal of American  History, 78(4), 1347‐1376.  Colpitts, G. (2002). Game in the garden: A human history of wildlife in Western Canada to 1940.  Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: UBC Press.

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

Fawcett, L.(2000). Ethical imagining: Ecofeminist possibilities and environmental learning.   Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 5, 134‐147.  Fawcett, L. (2002). Children’s wild animal stories: questioning inter‐species bonds, Canadian  Journal of Environmental Education, 7(2), 125–139.  Zerner, C. (1996). Telling stories about biological diversity. In: Brush SB, Stabinsky D (eds) Valuing  local knowledge: indigenous people and intellectual property rights. Washington, D.C.: Island  Press.

Effort/Risk  This scale focuses on adults’ beliefs regarding the support for children’s nature experiences. While  adults may believe children learn through nature experiences, their perceptions of control often  lead to a feeling that allowing children to play unsupervised in nature will lead to negative  outcomes for the child. Similarly adults may need to see allowing children to play in nature  modeled by schools and day care, relying on these institutions to provide guidance in how they  allow their children to spend time. Other concepts that are found in the literature deemed to be  out of the direct control of parents include children being exposed to germs that cause sickness and  the costs associated with a potential injury incurred through outdoor play.  Key readings:  Bell, A. & Dyment, J. (2006). Grounds for action: Promoting physical activity through  schoolground greening in Canada. Toronto, ON: Evergreen.  Churchman, A. (2003). Is There a Place for Children in the City. Journal of Urban Design, 8 (2), 99‐ 111.  Clements, R. (2004). An Investigation of the State of Outdoor Play. Contemporary Issues in Early  Childhood, 5(1) 68‐80.  Parsad, B. & Lewis, L. (2005). Calories In, Calories Out: Food and Exercise in Public Elementary  Schools, 2005 (NCES 2006‐057). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National  Center for Education Statistics, 2006.  U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2003).Physical Activity Levels Among Children  Aged 9 to 13 Years—United States, 2002.MMWR Weekly; 52(33):785‐88.

Intentionality  This scale measured participants’ expressed intent to engage in a number of activities related to  influencing children’s nature behaviors and attitudes, and the participants’ likelihood to engage in  activities promoting children’s access to nature. Measuring intent is looked at as a proxy  measurement for actual behavior; therefore, this scale provides us with a forecast of the behaviors  participants may engage in in the future. Activities that have been identified by researchers as  having a critical influence on children spending time in nature include taking children to nature  places to play, providing children with the opportunity to be outdoors, and teaching children  respect for nature and property.   Key readings:  Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision  Processes, 50(2), 179‐211.  Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall.  Armitage, C. J. & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behavior, a Meta‐analytical  Review.British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471‐499.  Sheeran, P., Conner, M., &Norman, P. (2001). Can the theory of planned behavior explain  patterns of health behavior change? Health Psychology 20(1), 12‐19.

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

13                                                                 June 2010

These constructs were organized within a framework to establish how each aspect of the belief  structures might support or limit an intention or actual behavior that supports children’s nature  experiences as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Relationship of constructs to the support for children’s nature contact experiences.

Scale Validity and Reliability  Based on the literature, ILI developed a set of 169 possible items that could represent these constructs  as potential items for a final measurement tool. ILI staff and C&NN volunteers tested these 169  individual items in communities across the USA during December 2009 and January 2010. The items  used to create the final scales were pilot tested together based on their relationship to the factors  making up the construct covered by each scale. Eight groups of items were pilot tested and then  examined by the researchers. The large number of items tested allowed for researchers to eliminate  many of the items, creating scales with high reliability in terms of the relationship between the items.  Each group of items was subjected to the following statistical analysis: basic descriptive (mean, median,  standard deviation, and standard error), correlation between items, exploratory factor analysis, and  scale reliability.  Correlations were examined first to eliminate items that were very highly correlated (i.e., >.850). The  justification for this is that items with very high correlations suggest that items are too strongly related,

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

participants are interpreting the items very similarly and therefore a response to one of the correlated  items can be viewed as a similar response to the others. In looking at the groups of items that were  related and highly correlated, the item that had the strongest correlations with the largest number of  items was kept. The items it was most strongly correlated with were eliminated.   The next step involved eliminating items with very low correlation for this study. There were a large  number of potential items for each scale that were correlated between .500 and .800, therefore the  researchers chose .500 as a cut off point for what would be considered very low. Items that had all or a  majority of low correlations were eliminated. The justification for this is that the items that were mid‐ range (0.500‐0.800) in their correlation would interact well together and the statistics suggest  participants’ responses on these items were related, which is a validation of the theory that underlies  the construct covered by each scale. Low correlation for an item between all or most of the other items  suggests that the item was not as effective at representing the factor it was hypothesized to measure.  The exploratory factor analysis results were consulted following the elimination of items based on  correlation. Each group of items initially generated multiple factors. This was expected as each of the  constructs we are measuring contains a number of factors within them. The next step was to determine  which items would be used to best represent each factor within the construct. The items that remained  were examined by factor using both statistical strength and discussion between the researchers.  Statistical strength was determined based on a comparison of the means, standard deviation, and  standard error of the mean for each item, by factor. Items were ranked based on strength with weaker  items being eliminated. If there were no items that were clearly weaker based on statistical strength,  the researchers engaged in a dialogue in which they described the factor that the items were designed  to measure, read the items out loud, and discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the wording of the  item. If necessary, the comments given by those who pilot tested the items were consulted as well.  Discussion occurred until an agreement on moving forward with or without the item was made. If there  were truly no distinguishable differences based on strength or researcher discussion then the item was  kept and included in the scale reliability analysis.  The scale reliability analysis was the final step used for creating each scale. The items that had been  vetted through to this step were transferred to a unique database in SPSS and run through a scale  reliability analysis. The results of the reliability analysis were examined to determine the level of  reliability of the items used in a scale (based on Cronbach’s Alpha) and the predicted level of reliability if  any of the item(s) were to be removed. Items that increased or did not decrease reliability (based on  their removal) were removed if other items in the scale accounted for the aspect they measured. All  final scales had a Cronbach’s Alpha of at least .757; exceeding the minimum required .700 for use in  research.  The final items for all constructs were randomly organized into the final single scale. Analysis maintains  each item representing the construct, but the total number of items was averaged in a final unified scale  to represent the construct including aspects that were removed because they are predicted by the items  remaining. Confirmatory factor analysis, reliability comparisons with the constructed scale reliability,  and classic test analysis (Kappa distance measures) all confirmed the reliability in the pilot test against  the final survey results.  Following reliability and validity testing of the instrument, ILI commissioned an online consumer survey  (N=2,138) from a commercial vendor to determine American attitudes toward children and nature.  Findings from this survey are considered reliable with a 2.1% margin of error for the American  population.

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

15                                                                 June 2010

Findings  Beliefs in the Value of Childhood Nature Experiences  The survey results demonstrated general support for all constructs associated with encouraging  children’s nature experiences as illustrated in Table 1.    Table 1: Summated scale descriptive statistics. Total N=2138  Scale

S.E.  Mean

Scale  SD

Healthiness

Scale    5.86

Scale  Reliability  Pre

.023

1.08

.958

.971

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.26

.025

1.13

.884

.938

Emotional Well‐being

5.56

.024

1.11

.922

.956

Enhanced Skills

5.65

.024

1.09

.898

.949

Appreciation of Nature

5.85

.023

1.09

.909

.956

Priority*

6.30

.025

1.15

.798

.941

Child Safety*

4.90

.024

1.10

.860

.862

Storytelling

5.07

.031

1.42

.916

.922

Effort/Risk*

5.85

.024

1.09

.757

.833

Intentionality

6.11

.023

1.08

.905

.952

Scale

Reliability  Post

Normative Beliefs:  These data demonstrate that Americans generally hold normative beliefs that experiences in nature  help childhood development. The findings from the C&NN benchmarking study indicate that Americans  believe that spending time in nature facilitates children’s appreciation of nature and that these  experiences also contribute to a child’s healthiness including physical fitness, happiness, creativity, and  reduced incidence of conditions like asthma and myopia (mean = 5.86). To only a slightly lesser extent,  they also believe that children’s outdoor nature experiences support increased confidence, self‐esteem,  and independence defined as emotional well‐being (mean = 5.56) and similarly enhanced skills such as  learning to cooperate, manage stress and develop stronger relationships (mean = 5.65). In general, they  agree, but at lower levels than some of the other constructs, that spending time in nature facilitates  children’s cognitive and emotional development (mean = 5.26).   Control Beliefs:  Participants in this survey reflected a pronounced agreement that spending time in nature should be a  high priority for encouraging children’s outdoor activities, after normalizing the data by reverse coding  items that were negatively worded. These same participants also expressed a slight preference for the  safety concerns that might limit their willingness to support children’s free‐play in nature. That is,  participants seemed to agree that safety issues play a role in their decision to allow children to play  outdoors. Data for the safety scale were also normalized by reverse coding the items that were  negatively worded in the scale.   Behavioral Beliefs:  The findings from the C&NN benchmarking study reflect a preference against the barriers identified by  the effort/risk scale that assessed the perceived relationship between encouraging children’s outdoor  Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

activity and the potential risk these children might face when in nature. That is, participants do not  agree with the concept that they would let things like potential injury or lack of modeling behavior by  schools prevent them from supporting children spending time in nature. The higher mean (mean = 5.85)  reflects a reverse coded result and demonstrates stronger amount of disagreement with the items  worded as barriers on the survey. But again, this effort/risk trade‐off is mitigated by their beliefs in  modeling behaviors as illustrated by their near neutral to slight agreement with statements related to  storytelling. These data do not suggest high level of participant engagement with storytelling or reading  about nature and animals, or that participants feel it is important for children to hear these stories  (mean = 5.07).  Intention:  Finally, these participants’ responses reflect pronounced preference for the intention to support  children’s nature contact experiences. Data suggest participants intend to engage in the activities  identified by the researchers to promote children having access to nature with an overall mean for items  of 6.11 with a standard deviation of 1.08. However, as illustrated in Table 2 and in the behavior and  control beliefs, concerns for safety and type of nature place have a direct impact on whether these  adults will actually support these behaviors in practice.    Table 2: Comparison of where participants were allowed to play as children and where they would  allow their children to play (in percent of total).  When you were a child, where  were you allowed to play  unsupervised?

Location

N=2138

In which of these places would you  allow your child age 7‐11 to play  unsupervised?

Total Yes

Total No

Total Yes

Total No

At home or friend’s home

89.9

10.1

84.2

15.8

Indoor activity area

75.0

25.0

75.6

24.4

School playground

82.0

18.0

68.4

31.6

Indoor after school club

55.4

44.6

72.1

27.9

Indoor sports center

48.6

51.4

62.2

37.8

In the streets near my home

73.7

26.3

46.3

53.7

Garden

76.4

23.6

73.8

26.2

School playing fields

80.9

19.1

67.4

32.6

Outdoor adventure playground

63.3

36.7

58.6

41.4

Woods

66.5

33.5

40.5

59.5

Scrubland/fields/farmland

64.1

35.9

52.9

47.1

Riverside/creekside/pond

59.2

40.8

34.7

65.3

Mountains/grassy hills/other wild places

63.0

37.0

45.7

54.3

Table 2 indicates a significant variation between types of experiences adults may have had as children  that they believed were permitted by their parents and their perception of these same places as safe for  children today. Woods, creeks/rivers/ponds, and “wild places” are considered significantly less safe,  whereas these same adults were significantly more likely to want children to play in indoor places even  though they did not have these same experiences as children. These data suggest that the type of  accessible nature is considered challenging and may limit willingness to support children’s opportunities  to explore these nature places. That is, if adults view woods or creeks as unsafe play areas, children will  not be allowed to play in these areas regardless of their availability.

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

17                                                                 June 2010

Variations in Beliefs by Demographic Variables  The greatest variations predicting agreement with the beliefs were participants’ sex, followed closely by  the presence of a child in the household, and then having been a parent or guardian at some point in life  (Table 3). Further analysis indicated that sex was the primary predictive variable. However, all three of  these variables are related, suggesting that the support for childhood nature experiences is more likely  to be supported by mothers, but messages targeting parents and grandparents will most likely reach a  highly receptive audience.    Table 3. Summated scale   by gender, parental status and presence of a child in the home.

Sex

Parent or  guardian

Male

Female

Yes

Child living at  home  Yes

981

1148

1479

659

745

1393

Scale                                                                 %

45.9

53.7

69.2

30.8

34.8

65.2

Healthiness

5.73

5.97

5.95

5.66

5.87

5.85

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.12

5.38

5.33

5.11

5.27

5.26

Emotional Well‐being

5.47

5.63

5.64

5.38

5.53

5.57

Enhanced Skills

5.51

5.77

5.72

5.49

5.63

5.66

Appreciation of Nature

5.67

6.01

4.99

4.70

5.86

5.85

Priority*

6.10

6.48

6.45

5.98

6.33

6.29

Child Safety*

4.85

4.94

4.99

4.70

4.86

4.92

Storytelling

4.85

5.25

5.28

4.59

5.28

4.96

Effort/Risk*

5.64

6.03

6.00

5.51

5.92

5.82

Intentionality

5.94

6.26

6.25

5.80

6.16

6.09

Race/ethnicity appeared to also be a significant predictor of belief in the constructs surrounding the  value of childhood nature experiences (Table 4). These questions were structured to allow participants  to select all affiliations that they felt applied. Of the respondents, 112 indicated Latino heritage, with 61  choosing not to select a racial affiliation while the rest indicated one or more racial heritage. These  results demonstrated that racial heritage did predict beliefs. For those with Caucasian/White heritage,  there was a preference to select higher agreement ratings with the values and belief statements. While  the Asian/Pacific Islander populations, other, and Latino communities generally had lower agreement  with the value of childhood nature experiences as normative beliefs, there was still general agreement  supporting the construct with the notable exception of concern for safety. African Americans were  notably lower in their agreement about the value of nature experiences for supporting  cognitive/emotional development and were also distinctly concerned with their children’s safety. It was  noted that American Indians/First Nations were more likely to support the value of nature for helping  children across all constructs and noting a significantly higher degree of priority for these experiences in  their children’s lives. With only 33 respondents, these data suggest a pattern but caution should be used  in this interpretation as generalizable across all First Nations/American Indian peoples because this  population is heterogeneous in their beliefs and values.

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

Table 4: Summated scale   by race/ethnicity1  American  Indian/First  Nations

Asian/Pacific  Islander

Black/African  American

Other

Spanish,  Hispanic  Latino

White/  Caucasian

112

1860

Scale                          %

1.5

3.3

5.2

2.9

5.2

87.0

Healthiness

5.89

5.86

5.64

5.63

5.66

5.89

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.07

5.26

4.98

5.31

5.00

5.29

Emotional Well‐being

5.54

5.64

5.43

5.27

5.29

5.58

Enhanced Skills

5.61

5.63

5.51

5.50

5.44

5.68

Appreciation of Nature

5.91

5.86

5.69

5.56

5.86

5.88

Priority*

6.46

5.68

5.95

6.16

6.36

Child Safety*

5.05

4.27

5.69

4.60

4.54

4.96

Storytelling

5.38

4.93

4.99

4.87

4.89

5.09

Effort/Risk*

5.91

5.23

4.42

5.67

5.72

5.90

Intentionality

6.15

6.02

5.96

5.83

5.97

6.15

To further explore demographic variation in beliefs, we examined whether race and cultural heritage  had any relationship to nature play opportunities offered to adults when they were children and  whether these experiences translated into a higher likelihood to allow children the opportunity for free  exploration of nature today. The results (Table 5) demonstrated that race and cultural heritage were  predictive of access to all types of nature play places with White/Caucasian and American Indian/First  Nations people having more access than other race/cultural groups. The percentage willing to allow  children these opportunities today, however, did not vary. Of all those who had personal opportunities  for nature play as children in wooded areas, near creeks and streams, or mountains and wild places,  only 62% would allow their children the same opportunities today. On all other criteria, adults were as  likely to allow children to have the same access. Asian and Pacific Islander adults in this sample were  more likely to allow children to have the types of experiences that they had as children than all other  groups, but the magnitude of this difference was small.

It is important to note that the response rates for minority populations represented in this survey have a lower  predictive strength than the total American population.  As noted above, the American Indian/First Nations  results can only be considered anecdotal but highlight the need for more research to determine accurate beliefs  for these peoples.  Similarly, while the other minority communities had greater representation in the survey data  and can be inferred to broadly represent their communities, the margin of error for these data would  individually be considered accurate with a margin of error of plus or minus 9.26% at the 95% level of confidence,  and for non‐white/Caucasian minorities in general excluding American Indians/First Nations, within plus or  minus 5.19% at the 95% level of confidence.

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

19                                                                 June 2010

Table 5: Where adults played and where they would allow children to play by race

American  Indian/  First  Nations

Asian/  Pacific  Islander

Black/  African  American

Other

Spanish  Hispanic  Latino

White/  Caucasian

112

1860

Location

1.5

3.3

5.2

2.9

5.2

87.0

Allowed as child

90.9

93.0

84.8

86.9

87.5

90.3

Would allow child

84.8

91.5

82.1

83.6

84.4

Allowed as child

75.8

78.9

82.1

80.3

78.6

74.5

Would allow child

78.8

73.2

82.0

83.0

75.6

Allowed as child

75.8

85.9

84.8

73.8

82.1

82.0

Would allow child

66.7

78.9

75.0

62.3

67.9

67.8

Allowed as child

54.5

71.8

63.4

60.7

55.1

54.1

Would allow child

72.7

78.9

78.6

73.8

67.0

71.8

Allowed as child

48.5

56.3

58.9

55.7

57.1

47.7

Would allow child

60.6

66.2

71.4

62.3

66.1

61.4

Allowed as child

72.7

76.1

63.4

72.1

73.2

74.5

Would allow child

45.5

53.5

42.9

47.5

47.3

46.2

Allowed as child

78.8

71.8

65.2

67.2

73.2

78.0

Would allow child

81.8

80.3

64.3

62.3

66.1

75.0

Allowed as child

81.8

84.5

80.4

73.8

75.9

80.9

Would allow child

66.7

69.0

71.4

60.7

63.4

67.1

Allowed as child

75.8

59.2

67.9

60.7

70.5

63.2

Would allow child

54.5

62.0

64.3

47.5

53.6

58.4

Allowed as child

69.7

42.3

42.9

45.9

48.2

69.7

Would allow child

39.4

25.4

20.5

27.9

24.1

42.8

Allowed as child

69.7

39.4

41.1

49.2

50.9

67.1

Would allow child

57.6

39.4

33.0

37.7

39.3

55.5

Allowed as child

54.5

40.8

43.8

47.5

43.8

61.5

Would allow child

33.3

26.8

25.0

23.0

20.5

36.0

Allowed as child

60.6

45.1

43.8

44.3

50.0

65.7

Would allow child

48.5

33.8

20.4

32.8

33.0

47.7

At home or friend’s home  Indoor activity area  School playground  Indoor after school club  Indoor sports center  In the streets near my home  Garden  School playing fields  Outdoor adventure  playground  Woods  Shrubland/fields/farmland  Riverside/creekside/pond  Mountains/grassy hills/other  wild places

Note: Value based on percent of total.

Surprisingly, Americans were very consistent in their agreement with the belief statements whether  they lived in cities, suburbs or towns over 5,000 people (Table 6).  However, those living in very small  towns less than 5,000 people and those living in rural areas were more willing to strongly agree with the  beliefs statements related to nature experiences at all levels. While these data are significant and  indicate a weighted opinion, the data indicate that this agreement is a matter of degree rather than  conflicting beliefs.

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

Table 6: Summated scale   by location type of current residence

Large  city  250,000+

City  100,000‐ 249,000

City  50,000‐ 99,999

Small city  25,000‐  49,999

Town  10,000‐ 24,999

Town  5,000‐ 9,999

Town  under  5,000

Farm/  rural  area

153

178

214

457

310

258

309

259

Scale                        %

21.4

14.5

12.1

14.5

12.1

7.2

8.3

10.0

Healthiness

5.89

5.79

5.75

5.84

5.80

5.75

6.02

6.08

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.26

5.18

5.21

5.25

5.26

5.32

5.51

Emotional Well‐being

5.57

5.46

5.47

5.57

5.48

5.53

5.69

5.78

Enhanced Skills

5.66

5.61

5.50

5.64

5.60

5.58

5.76

5.88

Appreciation of Nature

5.87

5.78

5.67

5.84

5.81

6.01

6.07

Priority*

6.26

6.23

6.20

6.22

6.39

6.42

6.46

Child Safety*

4.82

4.84

4.82

4.88

4.91

4.85

5.10

5.14

Storytelling

5.04

4.95

4.91

5.01

5.11

5.16

5.24

5.31

Effort/Risk*

5.84

5.80

5.69

5.81

5.88

6.03

6.02

Intentionality

6.12

6.03

5.94

6.07

6.11

6.16

6.29

6.31

We further explored whether location of residence also predicted willingness to allow children to have  the opportunity to explore nature places that adults had when they were children. Unlike the  race/ethnicity variables found to have a direct relationship to willingness to allow access, place of  residence did not predict any significant variation in the data (Appendix B, Table B.8).  Location of residence, however, is a statistical fact, whereas the perception of how close nature might  be may not correlate to the actual size of a town. For example, urban New York has nearly 25% of the  city devoted to public open‐space and large parks in the center of town, while some small towns do not  have any public open‐space. When asked “how far nature was from home,” the results were still  somewhat surprising (Table 7).  16% of respondents felt that the closest nature place suitable for  children’s play was at least 30 minutes from their home, while 40% believed that nature was at least 15  minutes from their home. These data did not correlate with the data regarding size of town, income or  any other demographic variable. This state of mind regarding the proximity to acceptable nature, or the  “nature of nature,” did emerge as an important predictor for general beliefs. It was found that those  who perceive nature to be just outside their door are more likely to agree more strongly with the value  of nature experiences than those who believe that nature is distant from where they live.  It is important  to note that perception may not necessarily be factually true but it is important to note that some urban  areas are, in fact, quite distant from planted spaces or green areas that allow children access. Therefore,  these results may be a combination of perception and real access acting in concert to produce a feeling  of isolation from nature that translates into lower beliefs that nature is of value to children.

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

21                                                                 June 2010

Table 7: Summated scale   by how far are you from nature

Just  outside

5 minute  walk

15  minute  walk

15  minutes  by car

30  minutes  by car

30  minutes  by bus

1  hour

90+  minutes

569

355

320

544

215

Scale    %

26.6

16.6

15.0

25.4

10.1

0.5

3.1

2.7

Healthiness

6.09

5.83

5.78

5.85

5.77

6.11

5.61

4.91

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.47

5.21

5.23

5.16

5.31

5.09

4.54

Emotional Well‐being

5.77

5.55

5.51

5.45

5.72

5.46

4.78

Enhanced Skills

5.91

5.64

5.57

5.59

5.53

5.74

5.46

4.81

Appreciation of Nature

6.08

5.81

5.80

5.83

5.76

5.97

5.63

4.89

Priority*

6.49

6.25

6.19

6.32

6.36

6.11

6.01

5.36

Child Safety*

5.17

4.95

4.82

4.85

4.70

3.91

4.56

4.21

Storytelling

5.36

5.03

5.08

5.03

4.87

5.36

4.50

4.06

Effort/Risk*

6.04

5.84

5.76

5.85

5.86

5.33

5.53

5.05

Intentionality

6.33

6.10

6.02

6.13

6.04

6.29

5.80

5.09

Interestingly, the perception of how close nature is to home was found to be predictive of beliefs and  also related to experiences these adults had as children. It appeared that those participants who felt  that nature was further away from their home were less likely to report that they were allowed to play  independently as children in nature and wild places, and, in some cases, any place at all where they  were allowed free play. While these experiences were no more likely to predict their willingness to allow  children opportunities for free play, it did indicate that they may not have a point of reference for those  experiences (Table 8).

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

Table 8: What were you allowed to do and what would you allow a child to do by how far from nature  Just  outside

5 min  walk

569

355

320

544

215

Location

26.6

16.6

15.0

25.4

10.1

0.5

3.1

2.7

At home or friend’s  home

Allowed as child

91.6

91.5

88.4

91.7

86.0

90.9

86.4

70.7

Would allow child

87.3

84.8

85.6

83.6

83.3

72.7

78.8

58.6

Allowed as child

72.4

77.7

76.6

76.3

74.4

72.7

80.3

60.3

Would allow child

76.8

75.5

75.0

74.4

78.1

81.8

78.8

65.5

Allowed as child

79.6

81.7

84.4

85.5

80.5

90.9

83.3

65.5

Would allow child

67.0

73.8

70.9

65.6

68.8

54.5

72.7

58.6

Allowed as child

51.0

60.3

55.7

54.9

54.5

51.5

44.8

Would allow child

69.9

76.1

74.7

71.7

73.5

63.6

68.2

58.6

Allowed as child

45.2

52.7

53.8

48.7

44.7

63.6

50.0

37.9

Would allow child

61.0

64.5

67.5

59.4

63.3

72.7

60.6

51.7

Allowed as child

71.4

77.7

75.0

74.4

75.3

63.6

75.8

51.7

Would allow child

46.4

53.0

47.8

43.0

44.7

45.5

48.5

31.0

Allowed as child

80.7

76.1

81.3

74.1

73.0

72.7

50.0

Would allow child

80.0

76.1

76.9

69.9

67.0

72.7

69.7

50.0

Allowed as child

78.7

83.1

83.8

82.9

78.1

81.8

77.3

67.2

Would allow child

67.5

71.3

68.8

64.9

69.3

54.5

66.7

53.4

Allowed as child

61.5

70.1

66.9

64.0

59.1

45.5

51.5

46.6

Would allow child

59.9

59.7

62.8

55.3

57.7

63.6

62.1

43.1

Allowed as child

75.4

67.6

64.1

66.7

60.9

45.5

47.0

31.0

Would allow child

54.1

39.7

36.6

35.8

31.2

27.3

34.8

20.7

Shrubland/fields/

Allowed as child

72.6

69.0

62.8

60.1

59.1

36.4

45.5

41.4

farmland

Would allow child

66.1

52.4

52.5

46.5

47.4

18.2

39.4

32.8

Riverside/  creekside/pond

Allowed as child

65.9

60.3

59.4

58.8

54.0

36.4

39.4

36.2

Would allow child

40.1

38.9

32.8

31.6

26.5

27.3

36.4

25.9

Mountains/ grassy hills/  other wild places

Allowed as child

70.5

65.6

64.4

60.7

54.9

54.5

43.9

41.4

Would allow child

57.1

46.2

43.4

39.9

37.7

54.5

47.0

25.9

Indoor activity area  School playground  Indoor after school club  Indoor sports center  In the streets near my  home  Garden  School playing fields  Outdoor adventure  playground  Woods

15 min  15 min  30 min  30 min  walk  by car  by car  by bus  11

1  hour

90+  min

Secondary Factor Analysis  The summated scales were put through a secondary Exploratory Factor Analysis to determine whether  the subscales were consistent with the Theory of Planned Behavior structure, and to determine if the  variance within the dataset could be explained. This analysis revealed two clear factors with one item  (scale) crossing the two discrete factors (Table 9). The first factor is comprised of the Normative Beliefs  scales (Healthiness, Cognitive/Emotional Growth, Emotional Well‐being, Enhanced Skills, and  Appreciation of Nature), the Storytelling scale, and the Intentionality scale. The second factor was  comprised of the Control scales (Priority and Child Safety) and the Effort/Risk scale. These relationships  appeared both logical and appropriate since the child‐centric Normative Belief Scales support  intentionality as would the positive mentoring behaviors associated with storytelling behavioral beliefs.  The control beliefs and mitigating behavioral belief factor of adult effort/risk represent potential barriers  to the behaviors being studied that would support encouraging children to spend time in nature.  American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

23                                                                 June 2010

Table 9: Factor loadings from principal component analysis

Component Loading Scores

Factor

Component 1

Component 2

Healthiness

.897

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

.761

Emotional Well‐being

.882

Enhanced Skills

.898

Appreciation of Nature

.905

Priority*

.626

.639

.741

Child Safety*  Storytelling

.648

Effort/Risk*

.706

.853

Intentionality

Following identification of these discrete factors, regression analysis against proximity to nature  revealed that both combined factors were significant, and the child‐centric scale (component 1)  remained negligible in amount of variance explained (Tables 10 and 11) with 4.0% variance explained for  the child‐centric scales but a slightly higher 17.5% variance explained by the parental control scales. This  would suggest that proximity to nature and parental control factors have a linear relationship and that  adults’ perception of the importance of being in nature and their proximity to nature has a weak but  significant predictive relationship. Logically, beliefs and values about child development and nature have  a negligible but consistent (statistically significant) predictive relationship.  Table 10: Results of regression analysis on proximity to nature predicting Normative Beliefs Scales,  Storytelling, and Intentionality  Type III Sum of  Squares

Mean Square

Sig

86.335ª

12.334

13.59

.000

14085.741

15531.275

.000

86.335

12.334

13.599

.000

Error

1931.756

2130

.907

Total

69618.388

2138

Corrected Total

2018.090

2137

Source  Corrected Model  Intercept  Proximity to nature

a. R Squared=.043 (Adjusted R Squared=.040)

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

Table 11: Results of Regression Analysis for Proximity to Nature, Normative Beliefs, Storytelling and  Intentionality on Priority, Child Safety, Effort/Risk  Source

Type III Sum of  Squares

Corrected  Model

358.508ª

Intercept

642.867

Normative Beliefs/  Storytelling/Intentionality

280.789

Proximity to nature

29.964

Mean Square

Sig

44.814

57.644

.000

642.867

826.927

.000

280.789

361.183

.000

4.281

5.506

.000

Error

1655.121

.777

Total

71123.372

2129

Corrected Total

2013.629

2138

a. R Squared=.178 (Adjusted R Squared=.175)

Assessment of Age, Income, Education and State of Residence  As expected, income and education had a minor but significant impact on beliefs with those in  increasingly higher income brackets or having higher levels of academic achievement being more likely  to support all beliefs and intentions. These variations (as illustrated in Appendix B, Tables B.7 and B.8)  were not substantial in magnitude even though there is a clear pattern.  Not surprisingly, age had an impact on beliefs, with younger participants aged 18 – 33 years agreeing  less strongly and agreement increasing consistently through to participants aged 65‐73 (Table 12 and  Table 13).   Table 12: Values by Generation

Age Group  18‐33 Years

34‐45 Years

46‐55 Years

56‐64 Years

65‐73 Years

74+ Years

470

604

432

253

180

199

Scale                         %

28.3

20.2

11.8

8.4

9.3

Healthiness

5.59

6.33

6.46

6.5

6.61

6.41

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.04

5.25

5.3

5.38

5.55

5.31

Emotional Well‐being

5.35

5.55

5.57

5.69

5.81

5.66

Enhanced Skills

5.44

5.66

5.64

5.73

5.91

5.79

Appreciation of Nature

5.64

5.8

5.92

5.96

6.13

5.98

Priority*

5.86

6.33

6.46

6.5

6.61

6.41

Child Safety*

4.62

4.85

5.05

5.08

5.1

4.99

Storytelling

4.96

5.01

5.13

5.08

5.22

5.2

Effort/Risk*

5.54

5.83

5.98

6.05

6.11

5.9

Intentionality

5.81

6.11

6.18

6.23

6.38

6.29

Notes:    (1) Values based on responses to a 7 pointLikert‐type scale with 1 representing strongly disagree and 7 representing strongly agree.   (2)* Designates scale contains items that were reverse coded.   (3)With the exception of the storytelling scale, all scales were significantly different between age groups at p=.000

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

25                                                                 June 2010

Table 13:  Age Distribution in Survey and Summary Response  Generation Name

Birth Years

Age in 2009

American  Population

Americans  Online

Survey  Participants

Summated  Response

Gen Y (Millennials)

Born 1977‐1990

Ages 18‐32

26%

30%

22.0%

470

5.39

Gen X Born

Born 1965‐1976

Ages 33‐44

20%

23%

28.3%

604

5.67

Younger Boomers

Born 1955‐1964

Ages 45‐54

20%

22%

20.2%

432

5.77

Older Boomers

Born 1946‐1954

Ages 55‐63

13%

11.8%

253

5.82

Silent Generation

Born 1937‐1945

Ages 64‐72

8.4%

180

5.94

G.I. Generation*

Born 1936 or earlier

Age 73+

9.3%

199

5.79

Source: Pew Internet & American Life Project December 2008 survey. N=2,253 total adults, margin of error is ±2%. N=1,650

These data appear to align with Erik Erikson’s research on social concerns through the life‐cycle.2  Erikson’s research showed that greater focus on others and leaving a healthier society are more  pronounced with age. These factors did not correlate to any other distinction in the data.  The survey did explore whether choice of news station had an impact on beliefs (Table B.6). While these  data did show variation beyond random chance due to the large sample size, the magnitude of that  variation was insignificant and did not reflect any substantial reason to believe that any particular  political viewpoint had any lower or higher belief in the value of nature experiences for children.  We also explored whether state of residence had an impact on beliefs and intentions and discovered a  few notable variations (Summary Table 14). California residents were less likely to tell stories about their  nature experiences than other Americans, while Colorado residents tended to agree more strongly with  the priority for encouraging nature experiences, believe their efforts outweighed the risks to children,  and more strongly agreed that children develop enhanced skills, healthiness, and emotional well‐being  from having nature experiences. Florida residents, on the other hand, were more inhibited in their  willingness to allow children to explore nature experiences because of safety concerns while Michigan  residents were the opposite and less concerned about safety. Results from New Hampshire, Texas, Ohio  and New Mexico were not significantly different from the national data.

Erikson, E. H. (1985). Childhood and Society. (3rd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.  Erikson, E. H., & Erikson, J. M. (1997). The Life Cycle Completed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc.

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

Table 13: Summated Scale   by selected state  CO

Total  Scale

CA  Scale

Scale                                 N

2138

164

Scale    79

Healthiness

5.86

5.78

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.26

5.29

Emotional Well‐being

5.56

Enhanced Skills

5.65

Appreciation of Nature  Priority

FL  Scale

MI  Scale

109

125

6.22

5.81

5.51

5.29

5.17

5.61

5.82

5.50

5.61

5.86

5.58

5.85

6.08

6.30

6.28

6.57

Child Safety*

4.90

4.80

Storytelling

5.07

Effort/Risk*

5.85

Intentionality

6.11

NM  Scale

OH  Scale

148

162

5.85

5.82

5.77

5.86

5.30

5.05

5.18

5.28

5.42

5.61

5.50

5.45

5.60

5.67

5.70

5.57

5.62

5.69

5.86

5.88

5.85

5.67

5.83

5.87

6.10

6.31

6.23

6.34

6.35

6.36

5.25

4.66

5.11

5.00

5.01

4.86

4.91

4.78

5.24

4.98

5.09

5.23

4.85

5.11

5.16

5.79

6.08

5.79

5.88

5.82

5.94

5.83

5.90

6.08

6.31

6.01

6.19

6.00

6.05

6.16

Scale

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

27                                                                 June 2010

Discussion and Recommendations  These data illustrate that Americans believe nature experiences are an important part of childhood  development and generally claim that they intend to encourage children to have these experiences. As  expected, these beliefs tended to receive stronger support from women than men and from parents  than those who have never had children. And perhaps not surprisingly, those with higher levels of  academic accomplishment support these beliefs more strongly. Concern for children’s safety in nature  places and the perception that nature is not near to one’s home are two barriers that predict lower  levels of intention to help children experience nature. It was also revealed that beliefs about the value of  nature experiences for childhood development appear to be weakening with each succeeding  generation. Adults who were not allowed to have nature experiences when they were children were less  likely to support beliefs that nature is an important part of childhood and were also less likely to allow  children these opportunities to play in more natural areas other than public parks. Variation in  responses based on ethnicity suggests that family heritage and culture may have a direct impact on  these beliefs.   On the surface, these results appear to suggest that adults support beliefs related to encouraging  children to have nature experiences, but there are patterns emerging in these data that are worthy of  concern. The following section discusses possible factors that may have influenced these results, action  steps for those who seek to better understand these relationships, and recommendations that may help  to overcome these perceived barriers to encouraging children’s nature experiences.  Normative Beliefs:  In general, the concept of nature experiences helping children develop was well supported, but the  support was associated more closely with physical skills improvement, coordination and fitness and the  appreciation of nature than the more emotional and cognitive benefits that children accrue. While the  magnitude of this difference was relatively low, this difference should not be discounted because these  areas of development are of particular concern for children who live in at‐risk communities.   Recommendations:  1. 2.

In general, focusing on the cognitive and emotional benefits of outdoor nature for cognitive  development and increased opportunity for success in formal education could help to  expand the overall beliefs in the value of nature.     We note that these dimensions of the normative beliefs scales were consistently lower  whenever demographic variables also predicted lower scores. Targeting public information  campaigns about the benefits of nature experiences toward communities and groups that  have lower than average educational achievement and economic levels, young adults and  minority communities may help to redress appreciation of these values as part of the overall  American discourse.

Control Beliefs:  The responses to the control belief dimensions of the survey indicate that there is a strong emphasis for  adults to encourage children to spend time outdoors, but this priority is challenged by their concerns for  child safety. The responses to the questions about where adults were allowed to play as children further  demonstrated a possible reason for that trepidation. These data suggest that near two‐thirds of  American adults feel they were allowed to play in wooded areas, near streams, or other relatively  “natural” or wild areas, but less than half were willing to allow their children these same experiences.   Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

Furthermore, those who did not have those experiences were even more likely to have a higher  resistance to allowing children to play in those areas. It would seem that nature play is no longer a  tradition in America.  Given that these results suggested that American adults are more likely to  encourage the children in their lives to play in organized play spaces, indoors and in gardens, there is an  even higher likelihood that nature experiences will continue to diminish over time.   Recommendations:   1.

2. 3. 4.

Creating opportunities for adults to learn how to facilitate children’s nature experiences in  more wild places, by discussing practical pre‐arming strategies to help them mentor their  children in safe play, may increase the likelihood that adults are more willing to trust their  children.   Assessing reports on the danger in the woods from “bad people” or other possible  concealed threats in nature places to report practically on the risk children will face if they  are unaccompanied may demystify the sense of risk.  Promoting safe and accessible “wild places for kids” may increase the appeal of these places  to children and help shape a new normative belief about these places that will reduce  parents’ control beliefs that limit their willingness to allow children to play in nature places.   Focusing messaging strategies about nature play using terms like natural and park  rather  than the loaded terms of streams, woods or wild places, may seem less threatening and  increase the likelihood that adults will lower their concern about safety risks outweighing  the benefits that will accrue to children.  Establishing campaigns to help garden, park and school yard managers to create more  “wild” nature experience places in supervised areas may help to create bridge experiences  that expose children to nature and increase the likelihood that they will in turn be more  likely to encourage their own children to gain more experiences in nature.

Behavioral Beliefs:  Perhaps the most interesting results were the responses to the behavioral belief statements. These  results suggest that adults do try to encourage children to experience nature in spite of the potential  risks they face or the safety concerns that adults have. However, adults are not very likely to tell stories  about their experiences in nature or about nature in general. The survey focused on storytelling because  it has been suggested that parents’ narratives about their own childhood shape the world and norms in  a child’s life. The research on which this aspect of the scale was based derives primarily from cultural  anthropology and environmental education rather than developmental psychology. We speculate that  storytelling is an indicator for types of mentoring activities that adults use to engage children in their  social world. From a developmental psychology perspective, it is well established that fairytales,  television, and stories from family members help shape a child’s understanding of the hierarchy,  complexity and social norms that will shape their futures. Again, given that most adults were not  allowed to have solitary nature experiences when they were children, they are less likely to encourage  such exploration in their children, and if they don’t create these stories, the separation of nature from  society can only continue to grow. Helping adults to understand the importance of sharing positive  personal stories about nature may help stem the growing sense of separation people have from nature.  Recommendations:  1.  Creating materials may help adults recall, structure and tell stories to children about their  experiences in nature may help interested adults accomplish this simple task.  2.  Joining with reading, writing and literacy programs to highlight adults’ personal experiences  in nature may help children to draw these stories out in their parents. An example might be  a writing exercise where children ask their parents to relate a story about their time in  nature as children, and then write that story together.  American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

29                                                                 June 2010

3.  Promoting further research into the psychological value of adult storytelling about nature  may help advance knowledge for advocates supporting children’s nature play.   4.   Identifying specific recommended children’s reading resources to support positive nature  experiences may help parents and care givers make good choices.

Perceived Distance to Nature  Of greatest interest to the researchers in this study was the predictive strength of the perceived  distance to nature. In developing the scale, it was acknowledged that the most elusive concept was the  “nature of nature” in American discourse. It is known that there are a variety of well‐researched  theories on how the perception of nature informs behavior and belief. For the purposes of this study,  however, we reduced this dimension to a single scale that sought to understand what people believed  the “distance to appropriate nature” was. We speculated at the time that the degree of urbanity could  be an impact and, as mentioned earlier, that some cities may be considered more “nature‐like” than  developed sub‐divisions. We were surprised to see the predictive strength of this scale (explaining 17%  of the variance in parental control scales), given that there was no relationship between perceived  distance to nature and the size of community in which someone lived. These results demonstrate that  the perception of what nature is appropriate for children may be a structural limitation for some people  and may directly impact their willingness to encourage children’s nature play. This rough scale merely  indicates a potentially rich source of new research into how Americans perceive their separation from  nature and how those discourses are shaping the communities where we raise our children.  It is important to note in these interpretations, and as noted in the findings, that we cannot confirm  whether anything natural is, in fact, the distance claimed by our participants. But given the lack of  correlation with urbanity, this distance may be perceived as, or may in fact represent, small areas  without trees, grass or other natural features. These may exist in communities of all scales, from small  towns to metropolitan areas. Further geographic study of these questions is certainly warranted, not  only to identify the zones, but also to confirm whether those living in those areas believe they are  disconnected from nature and whether their beliefs about the value of nature experiences for children  correspond with these results.   Recommendations:  1.  Developing targeted media communications that link the value of nature experiences for  children with a story that “nature is all around you” may help those who feel nature is near  but not close enough to feel they can surmount the travel barrier for their children. In this  case, focusing on urban nature (e.g., the resilience of plants, the ubiquity of birds) may help  adults recognize beneficial play places for children that they may have overlooked.   2.  Identifying pilot “disconnected island communities” in order to understand their cultural  narratives around children’s nature play, their beliefs and the perceived barriers they may  have surrounding encouraging children’s nature play are all warranted.  3.   Further mixed‐methods research to determine the discourses that inform perceived distance  to nature is warranted to guide future communications.

Parenthood, Nature and the Difference between Women and Men  Perhaps it should not have come as a surprise that mothers were more likely than fathers to support  children’s nature experiences, that parents in general are more supportive than other adults, and that  women are more likely to believe that nature is valuable to children. This divide in beliefs may have  some basis in the stereotypes around “traditional family values” where women are characterized as  nurturing children’s independent play, while men are often stereotyped as competitors who may see  unstructured play as less valuable than organized activity. This speculation, however, does little to  explain why sex has an impact on beliefs. These data do suggest that the children and nature movement  Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

appears to be highly appealing to families and the social norms associated with encouraging children to  play in nature all bode well for the movement.  In spite of adults’ varied experiences with nature in the  past, most parents in this study were more likely to prioritize nature and feel that the benefits slightly  outweigh the risks.   We also speculate that the majority of outdoor adventurers highlighted in the press tend to fall into the  stereotypical “male loner” like Bear Grylls, while iconic women in the wild nature media field tend  toward Jane Goodall’s family nurturing character. These stereotypes may have some traction when the  participants in this survey were considering what they (as a man or woman) consider a nature  experience and where they perceived risk. We cannot determine from these data if fathers also believe  they have a higher degree of responsibility as protectors of their children, and therefore might be likely  to perceive risks to be more threatening than mothers. Further qualitative and quantitative evaluation  of the survey instrument to clarify whether there are sex differences in how the statements about  nature are interpreted in terms of risk may help to refine further interpretation of these data.  Recommendations:  1.  Developing programs aimed at mothers and “Mr. Mom’s” may have a higher likelihood of  success than those that aim at the traditional father or adults in general.   2.  Developing targeted communications toward fathers as mentors of strong healthy children  may help redress the perceived risks.  3.   Reviewing risk perception, masculinity and feminist studies on issues of risk perception,  parenthood and sex‐based stereotyping may provide more insights into these data.

Educational Achievement, Income and Culture  As noted in the findings, educational achievement and income all have a linear relationship to  supporting children’s nature experiences; the higher education or income, the more likely someone is to  support all aspects of the EC‐NES scale. Culture, on the other hand, as operationalized in this survey as  race or Hispanic heritage, appears to have a moderating impact on beliefs about nature experiences,  both positive and negative. We infer from these data that cultural stories and practices are as likely to  impact beliefs as any public value and acknowledge that America blends many cultures into a rough  scale that cannot truly represent the diversity of its people. These data merely suggest that those in the  low income/low education communities are also likely more at risk for not helping their children achieve  their potential because they may not place emphasis on what children gain from having time in nature.  We do not suggest that race or ethnicity alone should be used to assess a specific community. These  data suggest that local cultural factors may be at play, and that some values surrounding nature  experiences are deep‐seated within a cultural community.  We believe that anthropological study of  community cultures may be more useful for understanding how nature experiences are characterized in  low‐income/low academic achievement communities to identify the specific barriers that prevent  children from having opportunities with nature.  Recommendations:  1.  Low income and low academic achievement communities should be considered a priority for  the children and nature movement. Investment in programs aimed at understanding cultural  barriers and aid in mentoring/modeling behaviors for children and their caregivers in these  communities are likely to help increase the opportunities for children in these communities.  2.  Identifying positive cultural stories about the value of nature for children may help shift  normative beliefs in society. For example, traditional stories about the positive value of  nature from Africa and Latin America may aid in establishing models and recovering stories  that may have been suppressed as these communities became part of American society.

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

31                                                                 June 2010

3.   Replicating this study with substantially larger sample sizes using a mixed‐methods approach  with specific targeted sub‐populations that are culturally coherent and at the same  economic and educational strata in American society may illuminate more nuances about  the barriers to believing that nature experiences can help children develop more fully.

Age  The responses based on age indicate that values and beliefs concerning children and nature are more  strongly held by those in older generations (Table 14). It is important to note that beliefs and values that  are commonly held among a generation can be an artifact of aging but can also be a function of the  social conditions surrounding that generation’s specific experiences as they came of age. These results  can account for greater support of the beliefs and values of the children and nature movement by age,  but cannot be inferred to be solely a function of aging. Demographic changes associated with urban  expansion, increased population in cities, the social narratives surrounding the return to the earth  movement that shaped the seventies consciousness, the republican retrenchment of the ‘80s, the  polarization of political values in the ‘90s, and the entry into the war years of the first decade of the 21st  century are all social changes that have had an incredible impact on how beliefs and values are  supported. These data suggest that the children and nature movement is ideally placed for support from  the older demographic, but also demonstrates reason for concern about the future of the movement.  Recommendations:  1.  To assess the possible risk or durability of the movement, further mixed‐methods research  into how values about children’s nature experiences were developed by each generation,  how their developmental experiences impacted those values, and how these values are  attached to other concerns will help with interpretation of these results.   2.  Developing programs that target older adults in mentoring youth experiences should be well  received and can be easily implemented and will find a supportive self‐motivated audience.  3.   Focused programs for Gen X and Gen Y women during their parenting years may help reduce  resistance because women with children in their households are more likely to support  beliefs that nature experiences are valuable for their children.

Public Policy  These data demonstrate the views of the American population. We cannot infer that these values are  consistent for the Americans specifically charged with shaping the cities where children are raised, nor  those who promote learning, health and well‐being strategies in those communities. Determining the  values and beliefs within organizations, such as urban planners, architects, developers, the health care  professions, the education community and media professionals will help to identify possible action steps  that may help redress concerns about perceived separation from nature, and how the nature that is  around people can be used by children.   Limitations of this study  The data collected for this study represents a first baseline assessment of adult perceptions regarding  their willingness to support children’s outdoor activity.  It does not address other non‐nature related  experiences that may also support childhood development or the potential trade‐offs that adults might  make when choosing to support any type of experience.  Further comparative research based on these  instruments may help to determine whether other developmental experiences are similarly supported  or ranked at a higher or lower importance than nature contact.   While it might be surmised that these  results were more positive than anticipated, the variation in responses based on demographic, regional,  and economic differences suggest that Americans value nature experiences differently.

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

We caution that average values represented in these results are internally relative to what these scales  measure. As noted and where possible, affirmatively written statements were used when there was no  variation with a negatively worded statement assessing the same construct. It is possible that supporting  nature contact in a survey is a socially acceptable response that does not represent actual behavior.   This study assessed attitudes and confirmed that nature contact is perceived as valuable for children,  not any specific behavior.  We do not conclude that nature experiences are more or less valuable than  any other experience and caution against any inference that we imply such a conclusion.   We also note that the results may indicate a generally positive perception toward supporting nature  experiences, but draw attention to the comparison between what people are allowing their children to  do and their perceptions about supporting children’s experience.   The instrument developed for this  study can support future exploration with small groups and national benchmarking studies, with a  specific focus on how narratives associated with dimensions such as priority and safety may change over  time, and what impact such narratives have on actual encouragement.   Although the results may  appear, at first pass, to be generally positive, most responses still remain only marginally beyond neutral  and certainly have the capacity to change within any one of the dimensions reported here.

Conclusion  Americans have the best of intentions to support children’s nature contact, but face a variety of belief  and control barriers that limit their ability to support these intentions. One of the greatest barriers  emerging from these results is the perception that nature is far away and difficult to access, followed  closely by a concern for children’s safety in nature places, and the general lack in belief that telling  stories about nature experiences can help encourage children to see nature as an important part of their  lives. These deficits may pose a limit on whether they are willing to act on these beliefs, but all of these  external factors can be easily overcome through efforts of a targeted national campaign.  Americans who have not achieved high levels of educational achievement, low‐income families, and, to  some extent, minority communities are least likely to support the value of nature experiences for  children. Focusing efforts on these historically disadvantaged communities can go a long way toward  creating opportunities for children that do not require additional assets or means to experience nature.  In particular, these diverse communities may benefit from learning how to act as mentors through  personal storytelling with a resulting increase in the likelihood that children will desire to have nature  experiences, and will gain an educational and physical advantage that may help them in the long term.  Of greatest concern in these results were the findings that adults are extremely concerned about the  risks to children associated with free‐flowing streams, woods, mountains and wild nature. A two‐ pronged approach around talking about the value of more proximate nature experiences is advised. The  first prong might address the value of free‐play in green spaces and planned nature places to increase  support for nature contact without the use of “high‐risk” words. A secondary effort focusing on the  safety of accompanied experiences with mentors or other significant adults to more wild nature areas  may be more acceptable to the majority of Americans and may help to increase acceptance of the  research that suggests the importance of nature in healthy development of children.  Lastly, two communities appear to be natural supporters for the movement: American Indian/First  Nations peoples and older Americans more strongly support the value of nature experiences for  children’s well‐being. These two communities have substantial legacy concerns for the shaping of  America and offer an opportunity for links to an American land ethic that can increase the appeal of  children’s nature experiences for all Americans.

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

33                                                                 June 2010

Appendix A:  Encouraging Children’s Nature Experiences Scale [EC‐NES]  Fraser, Heimlich &Yocco (2010)   © Institute for Learning Innovation (2010)        1)   Please select the category that includes the year you were born:  __1993 – 2009  __1977 – 1992   __1965 – 1976   __1955 – 1964   __1946 – 1954   __1937 – 1945   __Born 1936 or earlier    2)   In which state/province is your home ______?      3)   Which television network do you rely on as your primary source for TV news? (Select one)  __ABC  __CBS  __CW  __FOX  __NBC  __PBS  __Cable news stations (e.g. CNN, MSNBC, etc.)  __Other, please specify _____________________      4)   Have you watched at least one television show about nature from beginning to end in the past  two years?  __Yes  __No      5)   Have you visited a national, state, or regional nature park in the past two years?  __Yes  __No

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

6)   For the following statements, please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each one.    If you strongly disagree with the statement, you’d circle a 1.  If you strongly agree with the  statement, you’d circle a 7.  If you are somewhere in between you would circle a 3, 4, or 5.

Strongly  agree

Strongly  disagree

All children learn from nature whenever they are outdoors  Being in nature helps children learn how things work  Being in a nature setting helps a child develop emotionally  Free play outdoors helps children learn self control  Children develop good memory skills by being in nature  Children develop their thinking ability by being in nature  Playing outdoors helps children learn to solve problems  Children learn how to learn by themselves when they play in nature

1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1

2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2

3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3

4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4

5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5

6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6

7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7

7)  For the following statements, please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each one.  If you strongly disagree with the statement, you’d circle a 1.  If you strongly agree with the  statement, you’d circle a 7.  If you are somewhere in between you would circle a 3, 4, or 5.  Strongly  disagree

Strongly  agree

The costs of a child being hurt outdoors exceed the benefits  It is difficult to get children to play outdoors  If day care providers don’t take kids outside, why should I  Schools don’t care about kids being outside, so why should I  Children don’t get a lot of benefit from being in nature  Being outside can expose a child to bad germs and disease

1  1  1  1  1  1

2  2  2  2  2  2

3  3  3  3  3  3

4  4  4  4  4  4

5  5  5  5  5  5

6  6  6  6  6  6

7  7  7  7  7  7

8)  For the following statements, please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each one.    If you strongly disagree with the statement, you’d circle a 1.  If you strongly agree with the  statement, you’d circle a 7.  If you are somewhere in between you would circle a 3, 4, or 5.  Strongly  disagree

Strongly  agree

I don’t feel comfortable in nature  Playgrounds are safer for children than natural areas  It is a challenge to find a safe place to take children to play in nature  It is a challenge to find a safe place to take children to play outdoors  Children need to be supervised at all times when they play outdoors  The costs of a child being hurt outdoors exceed the benefits  I am concerned about a child getting hurt when they play outdoors  I am concerned about a child getting hurt when they play in nature  Bad people can take advantage of children when they play in nature

1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1

2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2

3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3

4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4

5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5

6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6

7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

35                                                                 June 2010

9)  For the following statements, please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each one.    If you strongly disagree with the statement, you’d circle a 1.  If you strongly agree with the  statement, you’d circle a 7.  If you are somewhere in between you would circle a 3, 4, or 5.

Strongly  disagree

Children don’t really need to be outdoors  Children don’t really need to be in nature  There is nothing to learn from playing outside that can’t be taught in school  The effort to have children in nature is not worth the benefits

1  1  1  1

Strongly  agree

2  2  2  2

3  3  3  3

4  4  4  4

5  5  5  5

6  6  6  6

7  7  7  7

10) For the following statements, please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each one.    If you strongly disagree with the statement, you’d circle a 1.  If you strongly agree with the  statement, you’d circle a 7.  If you are somewhere in between you would circle a 3, 4, or 5.  Strongly  disagree

Strongly  agree

Free‐play in a natural area helps a child become more creative  Child’s play in a natural area is important in helping a child develop  Children are healthier when they play in nature  Playing in nature is important for a child’s physical health  Free‐play in natural settings encourages vigorous activity for children  Free‐play in nature is important for a child’s physical well‐being  Vigorous activity in natural settings is good for children  Physical fitness is an important benefit of children playing in nature  Playing in nature has a positive impact on a child’s mental health  Seeing trees and plants has a positive impact on a child’s mental health

1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1

2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2

3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3

4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4  4

5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5  5

6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6  6

7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7

11) For the following statements, please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each one.    If you strongly disagree with the statement, you’d circle a 1.  If you strongly agree with the  statement, you’d circle a 7.  If you are somewhere in between you would circle a 3, 4, or 5.    Strongly  disagree

Strongly  agree

Children build confidence in themselves when they are allowed to play in nature  Children build their self‐esteem when they are allowed to play by themselves in  nature  Free‐play in nature helps a child become more independent  Free‐play in natural areas gives a child a greater sense of what they can control  Children improve their ability to concentrate when they can play in nature  Children would be less obese if they played in nature more often  Playing in a natural area contributes to a sense of belonging  Playing in natural areas helps connect children to their community  Playing in natural areas helps children build an awareness of their own abilities

1  1

2  2

3  3

4  4

5  5

6  6

7  7

1  1  1  1  1  1  1

2  2  2  2  2  2  2

3  3  3  3  3  3  3

4  4  4  4  4  4  4

5  5  5  5  5  5  5

6  6  6  6  6  6  6

7  7  7  7  7  7  7

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

12) For the following statements, please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each one.    If you strongly disagree with the statement, you’d circle a 1.  If you strongly agree with the  statement, you’d circle a 7.  If you are somewhere in between you would circle a 3, 4, or 5.    Strongly  disagree

Strongly  agree

Playing in natural areas helps children develop better coordination  The skills a child gains from playing in a natural area are unique  Playing in nature helps children develop physical strength  Free‐play in natural settings is important for children learning to play with others  Children learn about how society works when they play with other children in  natural areas  Cooperation is an important ability learned by children when they play together in  nature

1  1  1  1  1

2  2  2  2  2

3  3  3  3  3

4  4  4  4  4

5  5  5  5  5

6  6  6  6  6

7  7  7  7  7

13) For the following statements, please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each one.    If you strongly disagree with the statement, you’d circle a 1.  If you strongly agree with the  statement, you’d circle a 7.  If you are somewhere in between you would circle a 3, 4, or 5.    Strongly  disagree

Strongly  agree

I will make sure the children in my life have opportunities to play outdoors  I will take children to nature places where they can play  I will try to help children learn to be good members of society  I will make sure the children in my life respect private property  I will make sure the children in my life learn to take care of nature  I will advocate for protecting the natural areas in our community

1  1  1  1  1  1

2  2  2  2  2  2

3  3  3  3  3  3

4  4  4  4  4  4

5  5  5  5  5  5

6  6  6  6  6  6

7  7  7  7  7  7

14) For the following statements, please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each one.    If you strongly disagree with the statement, you’d circle a 1.  If you strongly agree with the  statement, you’d circle a 7.  If you are somewhere in between you would circle a 3, 4, or 5.    Strongly  disagree

Strongly  agree

I tell stories about my personal experiences with nature  I tell stories about nature to build family bonds  I share stories about nature with children  I think it is important for children to hear stories about nature  I read fictional stories about nature to children  I read fictional stories about animals to children

1  1  1  1  1  1

2  2  2  2  2  2

3  3  3  3  3  3

4  4  4  4  4  4

5  5  5  5  5  5

6  6  6  6  6  6

7  7  7  7  7  7

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

37                                                                 June 2010

15) For the following statements, please rate how strongly you agree or disagree with each one.    If you strongly disagree with the statement, you’d circle a 1.  If you strongly agree with the  statement, you’d circle a 7.  If you are somewhere in between you would circle a 3, 4, or 5.    Strongly

Strongly

disagree  agree    By being outdoors, children learn to appreciate what nature provides  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Nature helps children to learn about their role in the “circle of life”  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  By being outdoors, children learn about how nature works  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Nature experiences help children learn to care about wild animals  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Being in nature helps children develop their own values  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Children learn about their world better by being outdoors  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Children learn to care for nature when they play outdoors  1  2  3  4  5  6  7      16) How far from your home is the closest nature place that you think is appropriate for children’s  play? (Select One)  __Just outside our door  __5 minute walk  __15 minute walk  __15 minutes by car  __30 minutes by car  __30 minutes by bus (don’t have a car)  __1 hour (any type of transportation)  __More than 90 minutes to get to nature from where I live    17) Please provide a brief description of the nature place that best fits the place you described in the  previous question:         18)  When you were a child, which of these places were you allowed to play unsupervised?  (Choose all  that apply)    Yes  No  At home or my friends home indoors  ___  ___  Indoor activity area  ___  ___  School playground  ___  ___  Indoor after school club  ___  ___  Indoor sports center  ___  ___  In the streets near my home  ___  ___  Garden  ___  ___  School playing fields  ___  ___  Outdoor adventure playground  ___  ___  Woods  ___  ___  Shrubland/fields/farmland  ___  ___  Riverside/creekside/pond  ___  ___  Mountains/grassy hills/other wild spaces  ___  ___  Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

19) In which of these places would you allow your child aged 7‐11 to play unsupervised?    (Choose all that apply)    Yes  No  At home or my friend’s home indoors  ___  ___  Indoor activity area  ___  ___  School playground  ___  ___  Indoor after school club  ___  ___  Indoor sports center  ___  ___  In the streets near my home  ___  ___  Garden  ___  ___  School playing fields  ___  ___  Outdoor adventure playground  ___  ___  Woods  ___  ___  Shrubland/fields/farmland  ___  ___  Riverside/creekside/pond  ___  ___  Mountains/grassy hills/other wild spaces  ___  ___

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

39                                                                 June 2010

Please tell us some more about yourself:    20) Are you Spanish/Hispanic/Latino?  ___No, not Spanish/Hispanic/Latino  ___Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano  ___Yes, Puerto Rican  ___Yes, Cuban  ___Yes, Other Spanish/Hispanic/Latino  ___Prefer not to answer     21) Which of the following best describes your family heritage?  (select all that apply)  ___White/Caucasian  ___Black/African American  ___American Indian/First Nations  ___Asian/Pacific Islander  ___Other  ___Prefer not to answer    22) What is your highest level of academic achievement?  ___Some high school   ___High school diploma/GED  ___Some college  ___Undergraduate degree  ___Some post‐graduate studies  ___Post‐graduate degree    23) Are you now, or have you been a parent/guardian of children?  Yes      No      24) Do you have a child under 17 who lives in your household?  Yes      No      25) Which of the following best represents your household income last year before taxes?  ___Less than $25,000  ___$25,000‐$34,999  ___$35,000‐$49,999  ___$50,000‐$74,999  ___$75,000‐$99,999  ___$100,000‐149,000  ___$150,000‐199,000  ___$200,000 or more    26) Are you?   ___Male  ___Female   ___Prefer not to answer      Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

Appendix B:  Descriptive Statistics

Table B.1: Frequency and percent of participants by age group, sex, and parental status

Total  (N=2138)

Age Group  18‐33  Years

34‐45  Years

46‐55  Years

Sex

56‐64  Years

65‐73  Years

74+  Years

Parent/guardian

Child at  home  Yes

Male

Female

Yes

Frequency

470

604

432

253

180

199

981

1148

1479

745

Percent

22.0

28.3

20.2

11.8

8.4

9.3

45.9

53.7

69.2

34.8

Note: For sex, percent does not equal 100 due to 0.4% of participantspreferring not to answer.  The estimated intersex and transgender  population in America may be as high as 1:500 and would be consistent with these responses.

Table B.2: Frequency and percent of participants by residence/community size  How would you describe your current residence or community

Suburb

(N=2138)

City  250,000+

City  100,000‐ 249,000

City  50,000‐ 99,999

Small city  25,000‐ 49,999

Town  10,000‐ 24,999

Town  5,000‐ 9,999

Town  under  5,000

Farm/ rural  area

Yes

Frequency

457

310

258

309

259

153

178

214

1145

Percent

21.4

14.5

12.1

14.5

12.1

7.2

8.3

10.0

53.6

Total

Table B.3: Percent and frequency of participants by income  Total  (N=2138)

Income  Under  $25,000

$25,000‐ $34,999

$35,000‐ $49,999

$50,000‐ $74,999

$75,000‐ $99,999

$100,000‐ $149,999

$150,000‐ $200,000

$200,000 +

Frequency

332

242

327

447

279

190

Percent

15.5

11.3

15.3

20.9

13.0

8.9

2.1

1.6

Note: percent does not equal 100 because 11.4% of respondentschose “Prefer not to answer.”  These responses are consistent with other  consumer surveys, but the distribution of all respondents did represent a normal distribution and consistent with recent census data.

Table B.4: Percent and frequency of participants by education, park visitorship, and watching a nature  show in the past two years  Education  Total

H.S.  diploma/

Leisure Learning

College  degree

Some post‐ graduate  studies

Post‐ graduate  degree

Visited  parks

Watch  nature  shows

(N=2138)

Some  H.S.

GED

Some  college

Frequency

414

708

528

141

281

1193

1570

Percent

3.1

19.4

33.1

24.7

6.6

13.1

55.8

73.4

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

41                                                                 June 2010

Table B.5: Summated scale   by age group

18‐33 Years

34‐45 Years

46‐55 Years

56‐64 Years

65‐73 Years

74+ Years

470

604

432

253

180

199

22.0

28.3

20.2

11.8

8.4

9.3

Healthiness

5.59

6.33

6.46

6.50

6.61

6.41

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.04

5.25

5.30

5.38

5.55

5.31

Emotional Well‐being

5.35

5.55

5.57

5.69

5.81

5.66

Enhanced Skills

5.44

5.66

5.64

5.73

5.91

5.79

Appreciation of Nature

5.64

5.80

5.92

5.96

6.13

5.98

Priority*

5.86

6.33

6.46

6.50

6.61

6.41

Child Safety*

4.62

4.85

5.05

5.08

5.10

4.99

Storytelling

4.96

5.01

5.13

5.08

5.22

5.20

Effort/Risk*

5.54

5.83

5.98

6.05

6.11

5.90

Intentionality

5.81

6.11

6.18

6.23

6.38

6.29

Scale

Note:    (1) Values based on responses to a 7 point Likert‐type scale with 1 representing strongly disagree and 7 representing strongly agree.   (2)* Designates scale contains items that were reverse coded   (3)  With the exception of the storytelling scale, all scale  ’s were significantly different between age groups at p=.000

Table B.6: Summated scale   choice of television network as a source for news

ABC, CBS, NBC

FOX

Cable News

Other (incl PBS & CW)

1125

452

355

206

Scale                                            %

52.6

21.1

16.6

9.6

Healthiness

5.89

5.86

5.71

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.34

5.17

5.24

5.06

Emotional Well‐being

5.63

5.50

5.52

5.38

Enhanced Skills

5.72

5.60

5.59

5.44

Appreciation of Nature

5.92

5.80

5.81

5.66

Priority*

6.30

6.27

6.37

6.26

Child Safety*

4.91

4.89

4.86

4.93

Storytelling

5.14

5.08

4.95

4.83

Effort/Risk*

5.86

5.85

5.91

5.74

Intentionality

6.13

6.08

6.13

6.04

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

Table B.7: Summated scale   by income

$75,000 $100,000 $150,000‐ ‐ ‐ $200,000  $99,999  $149,999

$200,00 0 or  more

Under  $25,000

$25,000‐ $34,999

$35,000‐ $49,999

$50,000‐ $74,999

332

242

327

447

279

Scale                   %

15.5

11.3

15.3

20.9

13.0

8.9

2.1

1.6

Healthiness

5.90

5.79

5.81

5.85

5.90

6.04

5.61

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.32

5.27

5.20

5.21

5.28

5.43

5.66

5.16

Emotional Well‐ being

5.63

5.50

5.53

5.54

5.60

5.72

5.92

5.33

Enhanced Skills

5,76

5.59

5.65

5.59

5.71

5.79

5.94

5.26

Appreciation of Nature

5.91

5.83

5.88

5.82

5.83

6.00

6.05

5.56

Priority*

6.15

6.21

6.25

6.39

6.37

6.47

6.45

6.03

Child Safety*

4.76

4.71

4.88

4.97

4.98

5.03

5.31

4.74

Storytelling

5.00

5.11

5.12

5.02

5.12

5.26

5.17

5.20

Effort/Risk*

5.68

5.79

5.83

5.94

5.92

5.95

6.13

5.67

Intentionality

6.05

6.01

6.16

6.09

6.17

6.29

6.22

6.07

190

Table B.8: Summated scale   by education     Some H.S.

H.S.  diploma/  GED

Some  college

Undergraduate  degree

Some post‐ graduate  studies

Post‐ graduate  degree

414

708

528

141

281

Scale                     %

3.1

19.4

33.1

24.7

6.6

13.1

Healthiness

5.55

5.74

5.91

5.85

5.92

5.98

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

4.81

5.21

5.26

5.22

5.34

5.49

Emotional Well‐being

5.21

5.49

5.59

5.50

5.67

5.70

Enhanced Skills

5.45

5.58

5.68

5.59

5.77

5.76

Appreciation of Nature

5.58

5.79

5.91

5.76

5.88

6.01

Priority*

5.83

6.13

6.37

6.30

6.45

6.43

Child Safety*

4.63

4.68

4.95

4.90

5.09

5.06

Storytelling

4.70

5.10

5.06

4.96

5.31

5.21

Effort/Risk*

5.48

5.69

5.88

5.91

6.01

5.93

Intentionality

5.64

6.01

6.19

6.02

6.26

6.30

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

43                                                                 June 2010

Table B.9: What were you allowed to do and what would you allow a child to do by describe your  residence

Large city  250,000 +

City  100,000‐ 249,000

City  50,000‐ 99,999

Small  city  25,000 ‐  49,999

Town  10,000‐ 24,999

Town  5,000‐ 9,999

Town  under  5,000

Farm rural area

457

310

258

309

259

153

178

214

Location

21.4

14.5

12.1

14.5

12.1

7.2

8.3

10.0

At home or  friends home

Allowed as child

91.0

88.0

90.9

87.6

92.2

88.8

88.3

Would allow child

83.2

85.2

82.9

83.5

84.6

81.0

86.0

87.9

Indoor activity  area

Allowed as child

79.6

78.1

72.5

76.1

71.8

72.5

70.1

Would allow child

77.2

79.4

74.8

73.1

74.1

71.2

75.3

76.6

School  playground

Allowed as child

83.6

87.7

82.2

80.6

81.1

79.7

78.1

78.5

Would allow child

73.5

73.2

67.1

66.3

64.1

60.1

69.7

65.4

Indoor after  school club

Allowed as child

62.6

59.7

53.1

54.7

61.4

52.3

45.5

40.7

Would allow child

74.4

77.7

66.7

73.8

74.5

68.6

66.9

66.8

Indoor sports  center

Allowed as child

56.9

55.8

42.6

45.0

47.1

46.4

42.7

41.1

Would allow child

66.7

66.5

58.5

63.4

59.5

58.8

59.6

56.5

Allowed as child  In the streets  near my home  Would allow child

77.5

76.8

72.9

73.5

74.9

69.3

74.7

63.6

50.5

45.2

46.1

44.0

51.4

38.6

45.5

42.5

Allowed as child

76.8

81.3

77.1

70.6

78.4

70.6

79.2

75.7

Would allow child

73.1

75.5

77.5

68.6

76.1

68.0

75.3

76.2

School playing  fields

Allowed as child

83.2

85.5

79.1

79.6

79.9

75.8

83.7

75.7

Would allow child

71.3

73.9

65.1

62.1

66.0

64.7

64.0

65.9

Outdoor  adventure  playground

Allowed as child

67.4

65.8

64.0

60.8

63.3

60.1

62.4

57.0

Would allow child

62.8

60.3

51.9

55.3

57.5

57.3

62.6

Allowed as child

61.5

62.6

60.5

69.3

68.0

69.9

74.2

75.7

Would allow child

36.5

37.4

33.7

37.2

42.9

43.8

44.4

57.9

Shrubland/  fields/farm

Allowed as child

58.0

61.3

62.8

61.8

66.4

64.1

74.7

74.8

Would allow child

46.4

52.9

50.4

49.2

51.0

50.3

60.1

73.8

Riverside/  creekside/  pond

Allowed as child

55.4

61.0

54.7

57.6

62.9

60.1

64.0

63.6

Would allow child

36.1

34.2

31.4

34.3

29.7

32.7

41.0

39.3

Mountains/  grassy hills/  wild places

Allowed as child

62.8

60.6

58.1

62.8

66.4

62.7

67.4

65.4

Would allow child

45.5

43.2

40.3

43.7

44.0

45.1

48.9

59.3

Garden

Woods

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

Table B.10:

Comparison between selected state   and total

Scale                                   N=

Total  Scale    2138

CA  Scale    164

Healthiness

5.86

Cognitive/Emotional Growth  Emotional Well‐being

CO  Scale    79

FL  Scale    109

MI  Scale    125

5.78

6.22

5.81

5.26

5.29

5.51

5.56

5.61

5.82

Enhanced Skills

5.65

5.61

Appreciation of Nature

5.85

Priority*

6.30

Child Safety*

4.90

Storytelling  Effort/Risk*  Intentionality

Scale    85

OH  Scale    148

5.81

5.85

5.82

5.77

5.86

5.29

5.17

5.30

5.05

5.18

5.28

5.50

5.42

5.61

5.50

5.45

5.60

5.86

5.58

5.67

5.70

5.57

5.62

5.69

6.08

5.86

5.88

5.85

5.67

5.83

5.87

6.28

6.57

6.10

6.31

6.23

6.34

6.35

6.36

4.80

5.25

4.66

5.11

5.00

5.01

4.86

4.91

5.07

4.78

5.24

4.98

5.09

5.23

4.85

5.11

5.16

5.85

5.79

6.08

5.79

5.88

5.82

5.94

5.83

5.90

6.11

6.08

6.31

6.01

6.19

6.00

6.05

6.16

Scale

Scale    162

Table B.11 (N=164)

Summated Scale Mean Comparison, Total Mean (N=2138) to State of California Mean  CA  S.E.  Mean

CA Scale    164

.023

1.08

5.78

.088

1.12

.025

1.13

5.29

.089

1.13

5.56

.024

1.11

5.61

.085

1.10

5.65

.024

1.09

5.61

.086

1.10

Appreciation of Nature

5.85

.023

1.09

5.85

.082

1.05

Priority*

6.30

.025

1.15

6.28

.092

1.17

Child Safety*

4.90

.024

1.10

4.80

.082

1.05

Storytelling

5.07

.031

1.42

4.78

.112

1.43

Effort/Risk

5.85

.024

1.09

5.79

.080

1.03

Intentionality

6.11

.023

1.08

6.08

.082

1.05

Total  Scale

Total S.E.  Mean

Total  Scale SD

Scale N=

2138

Healthiness

5.86

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.26

Emotional Well‐being  Enhanced Skills

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

45                                                                 June 2010

Table B.12:  (N=79)

Summated Scale Mean Comparison, Total Mean (N=2138) to State of Colorado Mean  CO

S.E.  Mean

1.08

6.22

.096

0.85

1.13

5.51

.136

1.21

.024

1.11

5.82

.115

1.03

.024

1.09

5.86

.103

0.91

5.85

.023

1.09

6.08

.125

1.11

6.30

.025

1.15

6.57

.097

0.87

Child Safety*

4.90

.024

1.10

5.25

.109

0.97

Storytelling

5.07

.031

1.42

5.24

.178

1.58

Effort/Risk*

5.85

.024

1.09

6.08

.107

0.95

Intentionality

6.11

.023

1.08

6.31

.126

1.12

Total  Scale

Total S.E.  Mean

Total  Scale SD

Scale                                                                    N=

2138

Healthiness

5.86

.023

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.26

.025

Emotional Well‐being

5.56

Enhanced Skills

5.65

Appreciation of Nature  Priority*

Scale

Notes:    (1) Values based on responses to a 7 pointLikert‐type scale with 1 representing strongly disagree and 7 representing strongly agree.   (2)* Designates scale contains items that were reverse coded.     Priority   differences statistically significant, t(78)=2.76, p.=.007  Healthiness   differences statistically significant, t(78)=3.80, p.=.000  Effort/Risk   differences statistically significant t(78)=2.19, p=.032   Enhanced Skills   differences statistically significant t(78)=2.00, p.=.049  Emotional Well‐being   differences statistically significant t(78)=2.25, p.=.027

Table B.13:  Summated Scale Mean Comparison, Total Mean (N=2138) to State of Florida Mean  (N=109)  Total  Scale

Total S.E.  Mean

Total  Scale SD

Scale                                                           N=

2138

Healthiness

5.86

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.26

Emotional Well‐being  Enhanced Skills

FLS.E.  Mean

FL  SD

FL Scale    109

.023

1.08

5.81

.104

1.08

.025

1.13

5.29

.110

1.15

5.56

.024

1.11

5.50

.111

1.16

5.65

.024

1.09

5.58

.114

1.19

Appreciation of Nature

5.85

.023

1.09

5.86

.107

1.10

Priority*

6.30

.025

1.15

6.10

.125

1.31

Child Safety*

4.90

.024

1.10

4.66

.105

1.10

Storytelling

5.07

.031

1.42

4.98

.143

1.49

Effort/Risk*

5.85

.024

1.09

5.79

.107

1.13

Intentionality

6.11

.023

1.08

6.01

.108

1.12

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

Table B.14:  (N=125)

Summated Scale Mean Comparison, Total Mean (N=2138) to State of Michigan Mean

Total   Scale

Total   S.E.  Mean

Total  Scale SD

MI   Scale

MI  S.E.  Mean

Scale                                                            N=

2138

125

Healthiness

5.86

.023

1.08

5.81

.090

1.00

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.26

.025

1.13

5.17

.088

0.99

Emotional Well‐being

5.56

.024

1.11

5.42

.096

1.08

Enhanced Skills

5.65

.024

1.09

5.67

.075

.836

Appreciation of Nature

5.85

.023

1.09

5.88

.080

0.90

Priority*

6.30

.025

1.15

6.31

.100

1.11

Child Safety*

4.90

.024

1.10

5.11

.104

1.16

Storytelling

5.07

.031

1.42

5.09

.121

1.36

Effort/Risk*

5.85

.024

1.09

5.88

.097

1.08

Intentionality

6.11

.023

1.08

6.19

.081

0.91

Table B.15:  Summated Scale Mean Comparison, Total Mean (N=2138) to State of New Hampshire  Mean (N=88)  Total   Scale

Total   S.E.  Mean

Total  Scale SD

Scale                                                             N=

2138

NHScale   88

NH  S.E.  Mean

Healthiness

5.86

.023

1.08

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.26

.025

1.13

5.85

.124

1.16

5.30

.122

1.14

Emotional Well‐being

5.56

.024

Enhanced Skills

5.65

.024

1.11

5.61

.120

1.13

1.09

5.70

.113

1.06

Appreciation of Nature

5.85

Priority*

6.30

.023

1.09

5.85

.120

1.12

.025

1.15

6.23

.134

1.26

Child Safety*

4.90

.024

1.10

5.00

.109

1.03

Storytelling

5.07

.031

1.42

5.23

.139

5.23

Effort/Risk*

5.85

.024

1.09

5.82

.120

1.13

Intentionality

6.11

.023

1.08

6.00

.122

1.14

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

47                                                                 June 2010

Table B.16:  Summated Scale Mean Comparison, Total Mean (N=2138) to State of New Mexico Mean  (N=85)  Total  Scale

Total   S.E.  Mean

Total  Scale SD

NM  Scale

NM  S.E.  Mean

Scale                                                             N=

2138

Healthiness

5.86

.023

1.08

5.82

.124

1.14

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.26

.025

1.13

5.05

.151

1.39

Emotional Well‐being

5.56

.024

1.11

5.50

.137

1.27

Enhanced Skills

5.65

.024

1.09

5.57

.136

1.25

Appreciation of Nature

5.85

.023

1.09

5.67

.143

1.32

Priority*

6.30

.025

1.15

6.34

.132

1.22

Child Safety*

4.90

.024

1.10

5.01

.117

1.08

Storytelling

5.07

.031

1.42

4.85

.162

1.49

Effort/Risk*

5.85

.024

1.09

5.94

.114

1.06

Intentionality

6.11

.023

1.08

6.05

.120

1.10

Table B.17:  Summated Scale Mean Comparison, Total Mean (N=2138) to State of Ohio Mean   (N=164)  Total  Scale

Total   S.E.  Mean

Total  Scale SD

OH   Scale

OH  S.E.  Mean

Scale                                                             N=

2138

148

Healthiness

5.86

.023

1.08

5.77

.100

1.23

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.26

.025

1.13

5.18

.090

1.09

Emotional Well‐being

5.56

.024

1.11

5.45

.100

1.21

Enhanced Skills

5.65

.024

1.09

5.62

.094

1.14

Appreciation of Nature

5.85

.023

1.09

5.83

.095

1.16

Priority*

6.30

.025

1.15

6.35

.093

1.13

Child Safety*

4.90

.024

1.10

4.86

.077

0.94

Storytelling

5.07

.031

1.42

5.11

.120

1.46

Effort/Risk*

5.85

.024

1.09

5.83

.084

1.02

Intentionality

6.11

.023

1.08

6.05

.102

1.25

Institute for Learning Innovation

Results of the 2010 C&NN EC‐NES National Survey

Table B.18:   (N=162)

Summated Scale Mean Comparison, Total Mean (N=2138) to State of Texas Mean  TX

Scale

Total  Scale

Total S.E.  Mean

Total  Scale SD

Scale                                                             N=

2138

162

Healthiness

5.86

.023

1.08

5.86

.081

1.03

Cognitive/Emotional Growth

5.26

.025

1.13

5.28

.083

1.05

Emotional Well‐being

5.56

.024

1.11

5.60

.081

1.03

Enhanced Skills

5.65

.024

1.09

5.69

.086

1.09

Appreciation of Nature

5.85

.023

1.09

5.87

.085

1.08

Priority*

6.30

.025

1.15

6.36

.079

1.01

Child Safety*

4.90

.024

1.10

4.91

.085

1.08

Storytelling

5.07

.031

1.42

5.16

.109

1.39

Effort/Risk*

5.85

.024

1.09

5.90

.084

1.06

Intentionality

6.11

.023

1.08

6.16

.080

1.02

S.E.  Mean

American Attitudes Toward Children’s Nature Experiences

49                                                                 June 2010