Renaturing Science: The Role of Childhoodnature in Science for the Anthropocene

Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

This chapter proposes that there is a need to examine childhoodnature experiences and the way in which these might be influential in shaping an agenda for science and science education in the Anthropocene. A renaturing of science places a much greater emphasis on, and recognition of, the interdependency and relational nature of the natural world in which humans are inextricably embedded and suggests the need for the development of a strong ecological identity (Thomashow, Ecological identity: Becoming a reflective environmentalist. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996). This suggests that there is a need for increased availability of childhoodnature experiences and a focus on the quality of those experiences, as well as the need to explore further lifelong opportunities for developing innate biophilic (Wilson, Biophilia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1984) tendencies. The chapter examines the childhoodnature experiences of beginning undergraduate university students and how these influence their current relationship to the natural world. Literature suggests that the strength of a person’s nature relatedness can have an impact on the way they view the natural world and can, subsequently, influence the actions they take toward that natural world. This chapter describes a mixed-methods approach used to examine beginning university students’ childhoodnature experiences and how those experiences may have influenced their sense of nature connectedness. Data gathered indicates that there are statistically significant correlations between childhoodnature experiences and current sense of nature connectedness, although the qualitative data suggests that the form of those experiences may be of critical importance. Evidence from the study presented here suggests that exposure to childhoodnature, while necessary, is not sufficient in itself, and further research is required into the nature and quality of childhoodnature experiences. This concurs with previous studies, e.g., Vadala, Bixler, and James (J Environ Educ 39:3–18, 2007), which found that it was the particular qualities of the childhoodnature experience that appeared to play a significant part in shaping future interests, attitudes, and values.

Keywords

Nature connectedness Childhood experiences Ecological identity Higher education Biophilia 

References

  1. Amrine, F. (1998). The metamorphosis of the scientist. In D. Seamon & A. Zajonc (Eds.), Goethe’s way of science (pp. 33–54). New York, NY: The State University of New York.Google Scholar
  2. Atchley, R. A., Strayer, D. L., & Atchley, P. (2012). Creativity in the wild: Improving creative reasoning through immersion in natural settings. PLoS One, 7(12), 11–13.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bateson, G. (2002). Mind and nature. A necessary Unity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bateson, G. (2011). An ecology of mind: A daughter’s portrait of Gregory Bateson. Impact Media Group. http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/emind.html
  6. Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207–1212.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. London, England/New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  8. Bortoft, H. (1996). The wholeness of nature: Goethe’s way toward a science of conscious participation in nature. Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bortoft, H. (2012). Taking appearance seriously. The dynamic way of seeing in Goethe and European thought. Edinburgh, UK: Floris Books.Google Scholar
  10. Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The relationship between nature connectedness and happiness: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(September), 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chawla, L. (2007). Childhood experiences associated with care for the natural world: A theoretical framework for empirical results. Children Youth and Environments, 17(4), 144–170.Google Scholar
  12. Clayton, S., & Opotow, S. (2003). In S. Clayton & S. Opotow (Eds.), Identity and the natural environment. The psychological significance of nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Crutzen, P. J., & Stoermer, E. F. (2000). The “Anthropocene”, IGBP Newsleter, 41. Retrieved from http://www.igbp.net/download/18.316f18321323470177580001401/1376383088452/NL41.pdf
  15. DeLuca, K. M. (2005). Thinking with Heidegger: Rethinking environmental theory and practice. Ethics and the Environment, 10(1), 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dickinson, E. (2013). The misdiagnosis: Rethinking “nature-deficit disorder”. Environmental Communication, 7(3), 315–335.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2013.802704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunlap, R. E., Liere, K. D., Van Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Einstein, A. (1949). Why socialism? Retrieved December 21, 2017, from https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ellis, E. C., Kaplan, J. O., Fuller, D. Q., Vavrus, S., Klein Goldewijk, K., & Verburg, P. H. (2013). Used planet: A global history. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(20), 7978–7985.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217241110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fawcett, R., & Gullone, E. (2001). Cute and cuddly and a whole lot more? A call for empirical investigation into the therapeutic benefits of human – Animal interaction for children. Behaviour Change, 18(2), 124–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Folke, C., Jansson, Å., Rockström, J., Olsson, P., Carpenter, S. R., Stuart Chapin, F., … & Westley, F. (2011). Reconnecting to the biosphere. Ambio, 40(7), 719–738.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739–755.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodwin, B. (1994). How the leopard changed its spots. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Grønhøj, A., & Thøgersen, J. (2009). Like father, like son? Intergenerational transmission of values, attitudes, and behaviours in the environmental domain. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 414–421. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodwin, B. (2000). Out of control into participation. Emergence, 2(4), 40–49.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327000EM0204_06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gray, D., & Colucci-Gray, L. (2014). Globalisation and the Anthropocene: The reconfiguration of science education for a sustainable future. Sisyphus Journal of Education, 2(3), 14–31. Retrieved from http://revistas.rcaap.pt/sisyphus/article/download/6543/4983.Google Scholar
  27. Hartig, T., Mitchell, R., de Vries, S., & Frumkin, H. (2014). Nature and health. Annual Review of Public Health, 35, 207–228.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hofstra, N., & Huisingh, D. (2014). Eco-innovations characterized: A taxonomic classification of relationships between humans and nature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66, 459–468.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hunt, A., Burt, J., & Stewart, D. (2015). Monitor of engagement with the natural environment: a pilot for an indicator of visits to the natural environment by children – interim findings from Year 1 (March 2013 to February 2014). Natural England Commissioned Reports, NECR166.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, D. R. (2013). “The biophilic university”: A de-familiarizing organizational metaphor for ecological sustainability? Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 148–165.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Joye, Y., & de Block, A. (2011). “Nature and I are two”: A critical examination of the biophilia hypothesis. Environmental Values, 20(2011), 189–215.  https://doi.org/10.3197/096327111X12997574391724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaplan, S. (1992). The restorative environment: Nature and human experience. In D. Relf (Ed.), The role of horticulture in human well-being and social development (pp. 134–142). Portland, OR: Timber Press. Retrieved from http://www.mairibudreau.com/uploads/1/2/2/4/12240077/nature_and_the_human_experience_the_restorative_environmnetkaplan-1992.pdf.Google Scholar
  33. Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(1995), 169–182.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaplan, S. (2000). Human nature and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 491–508.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kaplan, S. (2001). Meditation, restoration, and the management of mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33, 480–506.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., … & Svedin, U. (2000). Sustainability science. Sciences, 292(5517), 641–642.Google Scholar
  37. Kellert, S. R. (1993). The biological basis for human values of nature. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 42–69). Washington DC: Shearwater Books.Google Scholar
  38. Kellert, S. R. (1997). Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kellert, S. R., & Haven, N. (2008). 462 Human Ecology | Biophilia, 462–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL/London, England: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Aggression and violence in the inner city: Effects of environment via. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 543–571.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods. London, England: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
  43. Lubchenco, J. (1998). Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science, 279(5350), 491–497.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5350.491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McNerney, S. (2011). A brief guide to embodied cognition: Why you are not your brain. Scientific American, (Nov. 4.), 2011–2013.Google Scholar
  45. Merleau-ponty, M. (2004). The world of perception. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Newton, J. (2007). Wellbeing and the natural environment: A brief overview of the evidence. … Report to DEFRA. www.surrey.ac.uk/ , 1–53. Retrieved from http://www.fondazionesvilupposostenibile.it/documents/Riferimenti/NEWTON Wellbeing and Nature 07.pdf.
  48. Nisbet, E. K. (2014). Canadians connect with nature and increase their well-being results of the 2014 30×30 nature challenge. Retrieved from http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/DSF 30x30 report.pdf.
  49. Nisbet, E. K., Zelenski, J. M., & Murphy, S. A. (2009). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals’ connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916508318748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Orr, D. W. (1993). Love it or lose it: The coming biophilia revolution. In S. Kellert & E. O. Wilson (Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 415–440). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  51. Pierotti, R., & Wildcat, D. (2000). Traditional ecological knowledge: The third alternative (commentary). Ecological Applications, 10(5), 1333–1340. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2641289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Raven, P. H. (2002). Science, sustainability, and the human prospect. Science, 297, 954–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Restall, B., & Conrad, E. (2015). A literature review of connectedness to nature and its potential for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.05.022.
  54. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., … & Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475.  https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. RSPB. (2013). Connecting with nature. Retrieved from https://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/connecting-with-nature_tcm9-354603.pdf.
  56. Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2013). Personally Relevant Climate Change: The Role of Place Attachment and Local Versus Global Message Framing in Engagement. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 60–85. http://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511421196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Slaughter, R. A. (2012). Welcome to the Anthropocene. Futures, 44(2), 119–126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2011.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Solé, R. V., & Goodwin, B. C. (2000). Signs of life: How complexity pervades biology. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  59. Sosu, E. M., McWilliam, A., & Gray, D. S. (2008). The complexities of teachers’ commitment to environmental education – A mixed methods approach.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807313163.
  60. Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81–98.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Steffen, W., Crutzen, J., & McNeill, J. R. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio, 36(8), 614–621.  https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[614:TAAHNO]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., … & Sorlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855–1259855.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Steffen, W., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P., Jäger, J., Matson, P. A., Moore, III, B., … Wasson, R. (2004a). Global change and the earth system. A planet under pressure. Katalog BPS (Vol. XXXIII).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.20.
  64. Steffen, W., Sanderson, P. D., Tyson, J. Jäger, P. A., Matson, B, Moore, III F. Oldfield, K, Richardson, H. J., Schellnhuber, B. L., Turner, II R. J., Wasson, W. A., Steffen, W., Sanderson, A., Tyson, P., Jäger, J., Matson, P., … & Wasson, R. (2004b). Global change and the earth system an overview of global change and its consequences for human societies. Global-regional linkages in the earth system synthesises current knowledge of regional-global linkages to demonstrate that change on a regional scale can enhance understanding of global-scale environmental changes. Retrieved from www.igbp.kva.se.
  65. Taylor, A. F., & Kuo, F. E. (2006). Is contact with nature important for healthy childhood development? In Children and their environment: Learning, using and designing spaces. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Taylor, A. F., & Kuo, F. E. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12(August), 402–409.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054708323000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Thomashow, M. (1996). Ecological identity: Becoming a reflective environmentalist. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. a., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201–230.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80184-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vadala, C. E., Bixler, R. D., & James, J. J. (2007). Childhood play and environmental interests: Panacea or snake oil? The Journal of Environmental Education, 39(1), 3–18.  https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEE.39.1.3-18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vining, J., Merrick, M. S., & Price, E. A. (2008). The distinction between humans and nature: Human perceptions of connectedness to nature and elements of the natural and unnatural. Human Ecology Review, 15(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  71. Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A. K., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Can nature make us more caring? Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1315–1329.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209341649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wells, N. M. (2000). At home with nature: Effects of “greenness” on children’s cognitive functioning. Environment and Behavior, 32, 775–795.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wells, N. M., & Lekies, K. S. (2006). Nature and the life course: Pathways from childhoodnature experiences to adult environmentalism. Children, Youth and Environments, 16(1). Retrieved from http://www.outdoorfoundation.org/pdf/NatureAndTheLifeCourse.pdf.
  74. Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Wilson, E. O. (2001). Nature matters. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20(3), 241–242.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00318-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Worthy, K. (2013). Invisible nature: Healing the destructive divide between people and the environment. New York, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  2. 2.University of StrathclydeGlasgowUK

Section editors and affiliations

  • Amy Cutter-Mackenzie
    • 1
  • Karen Malone
    • 2
  • Marianne Krasny
    • 3
  • Hilary Whitehouse
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Education, Gold Coast CampusSouthern Cross UniversityGold CoastAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Educational ResearchWestern Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA
  4. 4.James Cook UniversityCairnsAustralia

Personalised recommendations