Research Note: The Not-So-Great Outdoors? The Findings of a UK Study of Children's Perspectives on Outdoor Recreation

Abstract

Children, Youth and Environments 20(2), 2010 Research Note: The Not-So-Great Outdoors? The Findings of a UK Study of Children’s Perspectives on Outdoor Recreation Debbie Pearlman Hougie Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences University of Hertfordshire, UK Citation: Hougie, Debbie Pearlman (2010). “Research Note: The Not-So-Great Outdoors? The Findings of a UK Study of Children’s Perspectives on Outdoor Recreation.” Children, Youth and Environments 20(2): 219-222. Over the past three decades, a sizable body of evidence has been produced showing that children benefit from contact with outdoor environments. Sallis et al. (2000) noted that time spent outdoors is one of the most consistent predictors of children’s levels of physical activity. Bingley and Milligan (2004) reported that exposure to a range of natural spaces had positive effects on psychological health. O’Brien and Murray (2007) discussed how natural places provide diverse and endless sources of inspiration for engaging senses and emotions. Through formative experiences of nature children develop attachments that embed themselves in the adult memory and effect their perceptions in later life (Sebba 1991; Ward Thompson et al. 2008). However, there is concern that a variety of factors are leading to diminishing opportunities for childhood engagement with the outdoors. Perhaps the most debated is the perceived risks of such environments. Valentine (2004) found that parents fear that their children may be abducted or involved in road traffic accidents. Gill (2007) believes that risk aversion is a powerful societal force that is being played out in the media. It has been reported that these issues are exacerbated by affluence. Malone (2007) suggested that middle-class parents are more anxious about their children and thus “bubble wrap” them against risk. These affluent, risk-averse, paranoid parents (Furedi 2001) are negating risk by cosseting their children indoors, allowing them to watch TV and play on computer games. Thus, the children’s lives are highly adult-organized, controlled and spatially restricted (Pain 2006).© 2010 Children, Youth and Environments The Not-So-Great Outdoors? The Findings of a UK Study of Children’s Perspectives... 220 This research note reports the findings of a case study in an independent school1 in Hertfordshire, UK, which considered children’s perspectives on outdoor recreation. While generalizations could not be drawn from the results because of the study’s preliminary nature, the results did highlight issues of interest to those delivering outdoor recreation initiatives. The sample focused on affluent middle-class children (n=53) and mothers (n=8). This may seem a luxury when inequalities persist elsewhere in society (Power 2003) but it is the middle classes that are the main participants in outdoor recreation in the UK (Natural England 2005). Also, it is the children of the affluent who may at some point hold positions of influence in society (Luthar and Luttendresse 2005) in relation to land management policy making. If children do not have outdoor experiences in their formative years, there is a possibility that the policy agenda could be tainted with apathy and disinterest. The study found that the children were aware to some degree of the pleasures and benefits of outdoor recreation, liking cycling and visits to a local farm attraction. They felt that the outdoors gave them freedom as it is a place with big open spaces (although all their experiences were supervised). Some liked natural elements, indeed one girl wrote “I like to sit and make daisy chains.” The children realized the health benefits of the outdoors and that it had a restorative element. They felt that walking in the countryside should be enlivened by going to magical and exciting places, exploring, getting lost and having adventures. Countryside walking without purpose, reward (usually of an edible variety) or a fun element (such as taking a dog, a ball or a friend) was considered boring. They aspired to undertake more traditional outdoor activities such as playing in woods, messing around in streams and building dens but they were prevented from doing so by their parents who felt such activities were too dangerous. The mothers interviewed in the study were more comfortable taking their children to sanitized, safe sites. Not having financial constraints allowed them to choose this...