Children's Visions of Nature and Learning About Nature in and out of School

This paper involves groups of children (aged 5–10) in discussing what nature is in their urban communities and how they learn about it. Children attend four urban and semi-urban Portuguese schools with different environmental pedagogies: Waldorf, forest school and eco-school. Previous studies of children’s conceptions of nature have mainly addressed environmental understanding as an individual dimension, even if acknowledging the situated nature of children’s knowledge and experience.

Environmental Education Research
ISSN: 1350-4622 (Print) 1469-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandf
‘I saw a magical garden with flowers th
could not damage!’: children’s visions o
and of learning about nature in and out
Clementina Rios & Isabel Menezes
To cite this article: Clementina Rios & Isabel Menezes (2017): ‘I saw a magica
flowers that people could not damage!’: children’s visions of nature and of learn
and out of school, Environmental Education Research, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1325450
Published online: 08 May 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

EnvironmEntal Education rEsEarch, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2017.1325450
‘I saw a magical garden with flowers that people could n
damage!’: children’s visions of nature and of learning ab
nature in and out of school
Clementina Rios and Isabel Menezes
Faculty of Psychology and Education sciences, ciiE - centre for research and intervention in Educat
Porto, Porto, Portugal
ABSTRACT
This paper involves groups of children (aged 5–10) in discussing what nature
is in their urban communities and how they learn about it. Children attend
four urban and semi-urban Portuguese schools with different environmental
pedagogies: Waldorf, forest school and eco-school. Previous studies of
children’s conceptions of nature have mainly addressed environmental
understanding as an individual dimension, even if acknowledging the
situated nature of children’s knowledge and experience. In this study we
draw on previous research, using focus groups as participatory methods that
allow children to interact with their peers while expressing their visions and
feelings about a topic. Group discussions show that children have a strong
emotional connection with nature that generates a strongly protective
disposition. Daily experiences in schools, families, and local communities
but also the media reinforce this concern, and make children aware of a
series of environmental problems, for which they either refer to existing
rules or imagine creative solutions. On the whole, this research shows that
children have a say in these matters and should therefore be involved
in environmental debates and action – but also that a political ecology
perspective seems to be absent from their school learning experiences.
Introduction
Children in urban environments are frequently kept apart from nature and isolated from the d
the outside world: traffic, violence, strangers, rain and cold. There is a decline in outdoor gam
out-of-school, and urban spaces rarely have green areas where children can freely experience
contact with nature (Malone 2007; Wilson 1996). Even if fallacious, a vision of the ‘outside world
tially dangerous is frequent, and keeping children inside is seen as protective and risk-free (Ad
Savahl 2015; Duhn 2012). Yet, childhood environmental experiences are central for their know
the local community with ‘very important aspects of learning including psychological, social, c
physical and environmental’ (Malone 2007, 523). While scarce, some research with children sh
their representations of the community include both the built and the natural environment (Ad
and Savahl 2015; Dockett, Kearney, and Perry 2012; Machemer, Bruch, and Kuipers 2008; Poo
2002), while research with adolescents confirms that sense of community is an important pred
social and civic engagement and participation, and therefore positively related with youth citiz
ARTICLE HISTORY
received 15 april 2016
accepted 18 april 2017
KEYWORDS
children; citizenship; nature;
environmental education;
pedagogies
© 2017 informa uK limited, trading as taylor & Francis Group
CONTACTisabel menezes [e-mail]

2 C. RIOS AND I. MENEZES
(Albanesi, Cicognani, and Zani 2007; Ferreira, Coimbra, and Menezes 2012). We can therefore
if growing up in a world where the ‘green’ – the woods, the forests, the ‘wild’ nature – is viewe
tant, exotic and even dangerous (Adams and Savahl 2015) has implications for the developme
sense of belonging and the capacity to emotionally connect with the larger global community.
is of particular significance if we consider the challenges of environmental issues that are at th
of citizenship today – leading Latour to call for a political ecology that will ‘welcome nonhuman
politics’ (2004, 226). While research shows that ‘children have significant concerns for their lo
ronment and a sense of injustice that their experience is not systematically considered’ (Hack
and Barratt 2007, 532), it is difficult to predict if this engagement will persist in the face of a g
detachment and isolation from nature.
Education for environmental sustainability
The emphasis on sustainable development is, ‘a key issue for the educational system
(Hedefalk, Almqvist, and Östman 2015, 975), including the years of pre-school and elementar
even if not always contemplating the need to articulate environmental issues with the politica
civic dimensions of children’s lives. In their review, Hedefalk, Almqvist, and Östman (2015) con
teachers see this as an opportunity to promote children’s knowledge, behaviours and critical t
while favouring participatory and practical approaches that involve direct contact with nature
engagement with real-life problems; other promising approaches consider children’s fiction (F
and O’Toole 2016), arts (Burke and Cutter-Mackenzie 2010) and places (Duhn 2012).
There is also growing recognition that ‘environmental learning’ can occur in formal and info
contexts and that ‘it is possible to distinguish between environmental learning that is intended
planned and that which is not, such as learning that occurs naturally as a child explores their o
environment’ (Hacking, Scott, and Barratt 2007, 535). This calls again our attention to the sign
of local communities as locus of belonging and participation. This is not a new topic in pedago
as John Dewey has long stressed how ‘genuine education comes about through experience’ ev
‘experience and education cannot be directly equated to each other’ ([1938]1997, 25). In a re
on education in various countries, Malone (2008) explores outdoor learning in the local commu
(schools ground, natural parks, art galleries) to conclude that children involved in learning out
the classroom show gains in terms of cognitive, physical, emotional, social and personal skills,
thus suggesting that outdoor learning contributes to the development of the whole chi
In another project focused in the context of landscapes in five European countries, Nilsson and
(2001) recognize this holistic potential and argue for the promotion of three different
twined dimensions: ‘heart – values, attitudes and personal qualities’, ‘hands – skills for life’, an
increasing knowledge’ (10–11).
On a similar trend, Williams and Brown (2012) advocate for the creation of school g
might ‘provide vibrant and meaningful learning sites to engage with the ideas and practices o
tainability’ (x). In the US, Pierce (2015) uses actor-network theory as a guiding model for using
gardens with pupils, teachers and communities. He considers that school gardens can
alternative model for learning about plants and human relations with them’ (463) by bridging
and communities and promoting an eco-literacy that integrates a political dimension. This is, a
an essential element for a critical ecopedagogy since, in spite of the emphasis on the ‘intercon
and reciprocity’ (Gruenewald 2003, 34) with non-human spaces and beings, there might be a
using school gardens as yet another controlled, walled experience of ‘nature’.
The work of Änggård (2010), based on an ethnography in a Swedish preschool, shows how,
the child’s point of view, ‘nature’ can have different meanings:
as a classroom where children learn about nature in different ways; (…) as a home – a peaceful place in whi
eat, sleep, socialize and play; (…) [and] as an enchanted world – a fairyland populated by fairy figures and a
with human traits. (10)

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 3
This study reminds us that we have to acknowledge children as active agents in learning (C
2005; Ferreira 2010; James and Prout 1990) – instead of mere recipients of the adults’ pedago
tions and outcomes. Hacking, Scott, and Barratt (2007) advocate the right of children to be inv
decisions regarding environmental problems, and suggest that children research their local co
ties, share ideas about what they have found and contribute to problem-solving both in the pre
the future. Isabel Menezes also defends that environmental education should avoid the impos
meaning-making frameworks, but instead create opportunities for pupils to develop more inte
complex and flexible visions of the self and the world that are decisive for their action-in-conte
The recognition of children’s agency also has significant epistemological consequences for e
mental research and point to the need to actually involve children in discussing their views on
environmental problems and possible solutions (Caiman and Lundegård 2014; Mackey 2012).
paper, our goal is to explore children’s perspectives on what, where and how they learn about
and what environmental problems they recognize in their urban communities, as well
solutions. Previous studies on children’s conceptions of nature have mainly used interviews, d
or observations to grasp children’s understandings (e.g. Aguirre-Bielschowsky, Freeman, and V
Caiman and Lundegård 2014; Mackey 2012; Myers, Saunders, and Garrett 2004), but have no
children in group discussions regarding how they learn about nature and whether these exper
foster their environmental awareness and agency.
Methodology
Context
In Portugal, the Directorate General for Education (DGE) defines ‘environmental educatio
tainability’ as a domain of citizenship education with particular relevance for contemporary so
Citizenship education should be infused across the curriculum (e.g. subjects, activities and pro
from pre-school to secondary education (Decree-Law No. 139/2012, of 5 July, with the amendm
introduced by Decree-Law No. 91/2013, of 10 July). Nevertheless, besides these general recom
tions there are no specific mandatory guidelines for schools – even if environmental education
school, and particularly in pre-school and primary school, has been essential for the growing a
ness of environmental problems and the transformation of actual behaviours in the society as
(Guerra, Schmidt, and Nave 2008). In fact, pre-school and primary school teachers and childre
been influential in encouraging the sorting of waste and recycling as family habits.
The schools involved in this research were intentionally selected as being representative of
pedagogical approaches regarding education, specifically environmental education. To ensure
dentiality all schools were renamed. With one exception, detailed below, most children in thes
are from Portuguese background.
The ‘Green Kindergarten’ (Green-K) is a public pre-school in a residential area on the outski
large city, which was established as an eco-school in 2009. The eco-schools program is an inte
project of the Foundation for Environmental Education that supports schools in developing env
mental education involving not only curricular but also co-curricular activities and schools interfa
the community. Green-K is also involved in the environmental program promoted by SUMA, a
company in the field of waste collection, urban cleaning, and waste treatment management. T
addressed by the school include water, residues and energies and involve not only in-class ac
with the children and their parents, but also outdoor activities in the school’s garden and vege
garden. The school is actively involved in the collection of waste materials for recycling.
The ‘Blue Sea College’ (Blue Sea-C) is a private kindergarten and primary school, relatively
Green-K. It is also an eco-school but only since 2015, following the guidelines of these schools
bilingual (Portuguese and English) school. The school’s educational project revolves around ‘hu
people and cultures’, and has a strong environmental focus that includes approaching local an
environmental issues mainly in-class (e.g. global warming).

4 C. RIOS AND I. MENEZES
The ‘Tree School’ (Tree-S) is a private kindergarten situated in a nearby forest area close to
city. It presents itself as valuing outdoor education and project-based pedagogy, and assumes
models of environmental education: the forest school and Waldorf schools. The children at this
are from a multicultural background, with children from different European backgrounds
Spanish, German). The school’s pedagogy values children’s autonomy and freedom as well as
riential learning. The classrooms are small, but the outdoor space is very large with trees (pine
trees), vegetable garden, and animals (rabbits, chickens …). There are waterproof clothes and
available for all children, so that they can go outside and play even if it’s raining.
The ‘Woods School’ (Woods-S) is situated in a village in a semi urban area and works under
of homeschooling; parents have established an association that runs the project in the ground
an old public primary school with the daily coordination of a mother who manages a diversifie
file of weekly activities performed by volunteer teachers and school employees. The school’s m
vegetarian and the main pedagogical inspiration comes from Krishnamurti and Waldorf. The p
have high levels of environmental awareness and commitment, and the school’s goal is to pro
the integral development of the child through a variety of daily activities that involve
theatre, and music. Daily the children go to walk on the nearby wood in silence – this activity
the ‘silent walk’ [in English].
Data collection
In each school, we conducted a focus group with volunteer children, with the goal to empower
speak out in their own words and encouraging them to voice opinions (Cohen, Manion, and Mo
2007). Focus groups have the advantage of reproducing ‘a group dynamic that is particularly f
the child who attends educational settings (…) [promoting] a safe environment through the pr
of peers (…) [and] a balance of power between adults and children’ (Dias and Menezes 2014,
Moreover, in topics with obvious social and political relevance, such as the environment, the u
focus groups seems particularly appropriate.
Ethical issues were central in this study, and permissions were obtained from the school bo
education professionals, as well as the parents and the children themselves. The groups were
and videotaped, and the videos were later destroyed as negotiated with parents, after the tra
of the focus groups. The names of children mentioned in this paper are fictional. A total of 31
participated in the groups, with an age range from 4 to 10 years old; there were 14 girls and 1
most children were 5 years old, and the older group came from the Woods-S where the age ra
from 6 to 10 years.
In order to foster children’s expression, the first author presented herself as a researcher w
to know about children’s views about nature. The introduction of the focus group used guided
to stimulate children’s imagination, combined with relaxation and a background music of a ge
breeze to suggest a place outdoors. The instruction included the following:
Now, we are all going to travel to a place in nature that we know or would like to know. … Let us close our e
we want, and put our hands on our tummy and inflate it like a balloon, very gently. … [changing from we to
Now, imagine yourself outdoors and start exploring this place … you see many things … what sounds do yo
… What do you like most about this place? Is something bothering you? … What are you doing there? … Now
come back: open your eyes, stretch your arms and legs … Tell me, what did you imagine?
As the children evoked their imagined experiences, the researcher initially explored their vi
nature and their awareness of environmental problems and possible solutions, and then proce
with a discussion about their learning experiences about nature, in and out-of-school. I
the children were asked to draw their views of the main topics discussed in the group. The goa
to involve children in the definition of the main categories that emerged from the discussion; s
children focused on the imagery exercise, others on their favorite theme from the discussion.
explained individually to the researcher what their drawings meant and the researcher registe
views that were later used for the definition of the system of categories.

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 5
Data analysis
After the transcription of the focus groups, we performed a thematic analysis that explicitly co
inductive and deductive approaches, so that the categories were both ‘data and theory-driven
and Clarke 2006, 18), and took into account how children themselves have interpreted the ma
of the discussion. In the first phase we did a repeated reading of our data, actively searching f
ings. Secondly, we coded the material. In the third phase we collected themes and sub-theme
were revised, in order to ‘form a coherent pattern’ (20) in the fourth phase, and named and de
a few interactions in the fifth phase. Finally, a report was produced (sixth phase), with excerpt
‘capture the essence of the point’ (23).
Results
Images of nature
When describing what they saw in their imagery exercise, children referred to animals, plants a
that ranged from the wild to the familiar, and to mythical figures. Mostly, the co-actors of the
scenes were animals and plants. There were plenty of references to flowers and butterflies, bu
specific animals, including some that were absent, as in this discussion in the Blue Sea-C:
Antonio (5 years):I was in a beach in the Algarve.
Interviewer: Do you like to go there?
Antonio (5 years):Yes, every day when I go to the beach (…). We go by boat and then I ask my mommy to eat
Interviewer: And you like to sail in the boat?
Antonio (5 years):I like to see the waves and to sail, but I do not see sharks!
Bruno (5 years):The shark would eat you. There are no sharks there, Antonio!
Lucas (5 years):There are sharks in the oceanarium.
In some cases, animals are seen almost as peers, as in Bruno’s account of crabs keeping hi
in the beach. As such, animals appear to be an essential element of nature, either because th
dangerous, but also because they are interesting and have clever behaviours, as shown in the in
between the older children at the Woods-S:
Roberto (9 years):I imagined I was in the Amazon …
Interviewer: Have you ever been there?
Roberto (9 years):No, but I would like it very much, and Mariana knows why!
Mariana (10 years):I … I do not want to be eaten by a boa or a panther! Neither to be bitten by p
mosquitoes!
Roberto (9 years):But it’s not because of that! I am talking about flying serpents that fly from the trees and fa
on top of animals and people. I would like to see them. These serpents have to make many
mathematical calculation as they have to compute at what speed people or animals are pass
by and they have to calculate when to throw themselves over them. If the person is running
it must be more difficult for them to calculate.
Andre (8 years):If the person is running, the serpents have to calculate at what speed they are running. To th
over the person and get her.
Ricardo (7 years):But the serpent can fall on the ground.
Lia (8 years):And then what happens?
Andre (8 years):It dies …
Roberto (9 years)No … that does not happen.

6 C. RIOS AND I. MENEZES
(Laughs).
The places they ‘went to’ during the imagery include both familiar and distant natural conte
are mentions to the school grounds, to the zoo or the oceanarium, but also to gardens and for
their community. As expected, children do not limit their visions of nature to their immediate
ings (e.g. Aguirre-Bielschowsky, Freeman, and Vass 2012), and refer also to more distant plac
the beach, natural parks or the tropical forest and even, in the case of 6 year-old Dinis, ‘for me
is things about space … stars, planets … and the Earth’. However, in some cases, anything gre
count as nature as these children from the Green-K reveal:
David (5 years):I was in a football pitch, with fresh grass, it was very cool and it was not dirty … everything w
clean.
Francisco (5 years):I was also in a pitch with clean and wet grass … because this way players could score mor
goals.
Luis (5 years):I was also on a football pitch trying to catch a ball, I was playing football.
Another example comes from Rute’s definition of nature that, as the following interaction sh
prevails in spite of other children’s objections. It is important to note that Rute’s kindergarten,
a vegetable garden and that she particularly likes going there to pick vegetables for the schoo
Rute (5 years):Nature is soup.
Interviewer: Can you tell us why Rute?
Rute (5 years):Because it has grass.
Maria (5 years):It’s not grass, it’s spinach!
Ruben (4 years):It’s nettles!
Rute (5 years):No, that stings. It’s green beans.
[other children start giving examples of vegetables used for cooking soup]
Rute(5 years):And we can also have one little carrot and grass. Because grass is good for your health and so
flowers.
(Laughs).
Dinis (6 years):I prefer soup with carrots.
In many cases, nature is the outdoor place where you can play with devices such as slides,
swings or bicycles. Imagining yourself ‘being in the nature’ involves ‘riding a bike by the sea’
5 years) or picturing a playground where you have access to constructed play sets as with this
from the Green-K:
Rita (5 years):I was in a park [in Portuguese, you can use the same word for playground and park], with slide
and bars.
Interviewer: Did that park have nature?
Rita (5 years):Yes, it had flowers, and grass and plants.
Miriam (6 years):I imagined I was in a very cool house. It had flowers in the ceiling, it had flowerpots and it a
had flowers in vases.
Joana (5 years):I imagined I was on the park with grass, trees, and swings … I was riding a swing …
Alice (5 years):I was also on a park with many flowers and grass, it had two swings and a tunnel.
However, while being in nature children recognize that they can do many things, as this gro
their experience in a public park near the Tree-S:
Marta (5 years):Yes, Monserrate has a castle and a lake with fishes. There is a fish that is very big and long …
very brown. We give him small pieces of bread to eat and he likes it.

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 7
Lucas (5 years):Me and Dinis and Andre climbed a very big tree … it had many branches and giant roots … a
we climbed all the way to the top. Then we lie on a branch that is like this … [he makes the ge
with his arm, meaning that the branch is horizontal].
Interviewer: And what else did you do?
Ana (6 years):In Monserrate we do picnics … we sleep on the grass, we run.
Rute (5 years):We run, we jump, we step on the grass, we climb up the trees …
Pia (4 years):I like to play there with my friend.
Marta (5 years):We play the princesses.
Nevertheless, being outdoors also implies being careful ‘not to hurt yourself’ (Maria, 6 years
to hurt the plants or the animals because ‘if you step on a flower, it dies’ (Bruno, 5 years).
The presence of magic or mythical figures is also central, suggesting continuity between th
world and fairyland. This magic has, however, a clear protective or caring goal. Raquel (5 year
‘little fairies (…) that made dresses, took care of the garden, planted seeds and watered the p
For Maria, from Blue Sea-C, the role of magic is protecting nature:
Maria (5 years):I saw flowers, bees and a garden.
Interviewer: Do you enjoy being in that garden?
Maria (5 years):Yes, but it was a magical garden.
Interviewer: Why was it magical?
Maria (5 years):Because it had many butterflies and some special flowers that I could not pick.
Interviewer: And why not?
Maria (5 years):So that people could not damage nature.
This protective disposition is no doubt related to the observation of several environmental p
that children witness directly in their walks in the community (littering is the most mentioned e
either with their family and the school. They also appear attentive to problems mentioned in t
in children’s TV programs. And not only are they aware that there are laws that forbid littering
they have learned about separating waste and recycling in school, but also they can imagine c
solutions to problems, such as marine pollution as this group from Blue Sea-C:
Interviewer: And what do you think happens to the sea animals?
Several children:They get sick … really sick … they eat the garbage.
Isabel (5 years):… and they die if they eat garbage.
Bruno (5 years):And how can you do to save them?
Paulo (5 years):They have to make a barracks underwater.
Interviewer: You would do a barracks under the water to clean the sea?
Several children:Yes … yes …
Paulo (5 years):With equipment, some fins and a pair of glasses. Like divers.
On the whole, this diversity of topics was also present in the drawings children made to sum
the group discussions, with the playground and the garden emerging as the most frequent pla
interest. If we look at other commonalities in the discussions, there was a tendency for the ex
of a significant emotional connection with nature, even if ambivalent feelings (enjoyment/calm
danger) also emerge. This generated mainly a protective disposition towards nature, either pe
by children themselves, significant others or magical figures and features in nature itself. Cari
and taking care of nature appears clearly as a moral imperative, with strong criticism regardin
actions that result in menacing nature and animals.

8 C. RIOS AND I. MENEZES
Learning about nature
Many children refer to learning experiences within families. Children from the Green-K talk of
cant daily experiences of taking care of nature with parents and grandparents and Francisco (
describes how he and his mom reused materials for his Carnival prop:
Francisco (5 years):To make the sword of my Carnival’s costume, I transformed something old into something
new. The costume did not have a sword, I made it.
Interviewer: Did you make the sword with reused materials?
Francisco (5 years):Yes, with rubber bands, with paper, with a bag, my mother used a piece from the butter pac
and put it on plastic paper and glued everything. And now I have a sword.
As expected, schools also emerge as a significant context for learning about nature, and he
of experiences emerge. In some cases, as in Woods-S, there are daily routines to promote com
with nature, with an emotional focus:
Mariana (10 years):Every day, we go out for a walk, whether it is raining or sunny We go to a forest over ther
Andre (8 years):It’s the silent walk.
Mariana (10 years):And we talk as we go and come back in silence. But today, I, Lia and Ricardo went in silen
and returned talking.
Lia (8 years):We switched. (…)
Interviewer: But why do you do that in silence? Can you explain that to me?
Lia (8 years):Not to waste energy.
Mariana (10 years):To be in contact with nature.
Andre (8 years):When I do the silent walk I stay focused.
Mariana (10 years):And you can better observe around you everything that goes on in nature.
At Tree-S, children also demonstrate the emotional significance of experiential activities tha
a direct contact with nature, as Rute (5 years) mentions their daily visits ‘to the trees outside,
up and down and picking the oranges’.
In fact, the schools’ major contribution appears to be fostering the knowledge and practice
ronmental activities: expressions like ‘I know’ and ‘in school, we learn …’ are frequent, sugges
main cognitive focus of learning. This can involve study visits, but appears to be clearly infuse
curricula. For instance, at Green-K:
Cristiano (5 years):We bring bottle caps and corks.
Joana (5 years):And cereal boxes to make school projects.
Miguel (5 years):I’ve learned in school that we should use things three times. Reuse things. (…)
Joana (5 years):I throw the garbage into the recycling bin.
Cristiano (5 years):And we have to put the garbage in the right recycling bin.
Interviewer: And tell me … do you know what they are?
All the children:I know all of them! Me too …
Interviewer: Then tell me …All the children [using the Portuguese popular names for the different bins] – Pap
glass, plastic and metal, batteries, electrical appliances …
Maria (6 years):And the Wippy [to collect used clothing].
Generally, children mainly recognize learning about nature in the family context, in
through the media, in this case TV, with references to advertising and children’s programs. It i
ticularly interesting to notice, however, that while references to learning with families seem to

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 9
mainly action and caring about nature, schools focus more on cognitive dimensions than on aff
components of learning, with education about the environment clearly prevailing over educati
the environment. The affective and experiential emphasis only emerges in the schools where
native environmental educational models prevail. Nevertheless, in all cases there are no refer
to pedagogical experiences that involve children in approaching the civic or political dimensio
environmental learning.
Discussion and implications
Overall, our data echoes existing research in the field (e.g. Adams and Savahl 2015, 2016; Än
Bonnett and Williams 1998; Stokas et al. 2016) as children express positive emotions towards
knowledge and awareness of environmental problems in their mostly urban communities and
and meaningful experiences of interaction with and within natural environments that appear t
a caring and protective attitude towards nature. Even if our data comes from a multiple-case s
a limited number of participants it is nevertheless interesting to note that the emotional and e
ential components of learning, two strongly interrelated dimensions, seem to be less relevant
schools with a more traditional approach to environmental education. These schools are repre
of the ‘cognitive knowing’ focus’ (Nazir and Pedretti 2015) of environmental education that pr
Portuguese pre-schools and primary schools. The emphasis on emotional and experiential lear
more significant in the two schools, both private, that implement alternative eco-pedagogies.
all four schools seem to foster the children’s sense of belonging and emotional commitment th
important components of sense of community, the promotion of inclusion with the natural env
ment seems to be recognized only by schools with a focus on eco-pedagogies. In all cases, ho
acknowledging children’s agency and capacity to influence decisions – another significant com
of a sense of community – seems less evident in the children’s accounts of their experiences. T
suggests that more has to be done to recognize children’s right to have a say regarding enviro
problems and to foster their empowerment in promoting the sustainable development of their
munities – an essential element, as Paulo Freire argued, of ‘any educational practice of radica
or liberating character.’ (2000, s/p).
For most children nature in urban areas is associated with a playground, a finding that reson
other studies (e.g. Stokas et al. 2016). Children report outdoor experiences mainly in these con
reinforcing the idea that current rearing practices are provoking a detachment and isolation from
spaces that runs the risk of generating an artificial cognitive representation of the natural wor
1996), like when a child appears to value what is missing in his/her experiences – sharks, for in
much as what is actually there (the sea, the waves). Another consequence is the apparent sig
of episodes vicariously experienced, either from the media or in the lives of significant others.
Therefore, it appears that Krasny and Tidball (2009) call for a civic ecology approach that in
citizens, in cooperation with organized groups and governmental bodies, in restoring nature in
through hands-on community projects, makes particular sense here. The participatory and int
tional elements of these approaches have the potential to favor significant experiences with h
and non-humans that involve relations with a diversity of ‘others’ in terms not only of biodiver
different species), but also from a social perspective (e.g. social class, ethnicity, expertise) tha
personal, community and socio-ecological benefits (Hinchliffe and Whatmore 2006; Jagger, Sp
and Inwood 2016; Krasny and Tidball 2009).
However, a final note is necessary regarding an obvious ambivalence: while at the level of e
tional policy environmental education is frequently conceived as a dimension of citizenship ed
a civic-political dimension seems to be absent from the discourses of the children. This can be
of the a-political tendency in the education of small children, viewed as innocent beings for wh
politics is too complicated and conflictive. Therefore a call for a political environmental educat
also a call for ‘rethinking childhood’ (Duhn 2012, 21). Obviously, children have been historical
as ignored citizens (Bath and Karlsson 2016), while more and more educationalists advocate t

10 C. RIOS AND I. MENEZES
to view children as citizens here and now (Biesta and Lawy 2006; Dias 2012; Ferreira 2010; M
2009; Ribeiro, Caetano, and Menezes 2016; Sarmento et al. 2009). As defended by Hacking, B
Scott, a committed environmental citizenship implies ‘overlaps between environmental educa
zenship education, and political education, [and that educational institutions and communities]
opportunities for promoting children’s participation as environmental stakeholders’ (2007, 534
challenge is therefore to overcome the tendency of contemporary societies, as Hannah Arend
say, to exclude children ‘from our world and leave them to their own devices’ (Arendt [1954] 1
denying their potentially central role in ‘the task of renewing a common world’ (196).
On the other hand, our research also suggests that there is no sign of granting an expansio
zenship and politics to nonhumans by advocating for ‘a more than human condition’ (Asdal, D
and Hinchliffe 2016). We seem to be facing two potentially oppressive dichotomies – children
humans vs. nonhumans – that undermine the transformative potential of these pedagogies. T
implies exploring ways to meaningfully include children’s visions, concerns and ideas as we
directly engage them with the nonhumans around them (Jagger, Sperling, and Inwood 2016; K
and Tidball 2009; see also Rautio, this issue) – and if there is a clear potential in the
approaches mentioned above, their relational and participatory elements are not inevitable re
for solving these dichotomies. Promoting a political ecoliteracy (Gruenewald 2003; Pierce 2015)
on having children critically examine how decisions about their communities implicate on the
and sustainability not only of the natural environment but also of democracy itself, and this im
creating school and community spaces where this political (inter)action – between children an
between humans and non-humans – is put into practice.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank José Pedro Amorim, Teresa Silva Dias and Tiago Neves for their useful comments an
regarding this research.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Clementina Rios is a kindergarten teacher since 2002 with a particular interest in environmental education in
forms. She finished a Master in Education Sciences at the University of Porto with a research that involves child
cussing nature and their learning about nature in and out-of-schools.
Isabel Menezes is a Professor of Education Sciences at the University of Porto where she coordinates researc
education in formal and non-formal education contexts and the civic and political participation of children, you
and adults, especially in risk of exclusion (based on gender, sexual orientation, disability, literacy). She is inter
relations between research and intervention, education and politics, and participation and psychological and so
empowerment.
ORCID
Isabel Menezeshttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-9063-3773
References
Adams, S., and S. Savahl. 2015. “Children's Perceptions of the Natural Environment: A South African P
Children’s Geographies 13 (2): 196–211.
Adams, S., and S. Savahl. 2016. “Children’s Discourses of Natural Spaces: Considerations for Children’s Subjectiv
Child Indicators Research. doi:10.1007/s12187-016-9374-2.

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 11
Aguirre-Bielschowsky, I., C. Freeman, and E. Vass. 2012. “Influences on Children’s Environmental Cognition: A
Analysis of New Zealand and Mexico.” Environmental Education Research 18 (1): 91–115.
Albanesi, C., E. Cicognani, and B. Zani. 2007. “Sense of Community, Civic Engagement and Social Well-Being in
Adolescents.” Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 17: 387–406.
Änggård, E. 2010. “Making Use of ‘Nature’ in an Outdoor Preschool: Classroom, Home and Fairyland.” Children
Environments 20 (1): 4–25.
Arendt, H. [1954] 1961. “The Crisis in Education.” In Between past and Future: Six Exercises in Political Though
H. Arendt, pp. 173–196. New York: The Viking Press.
Asdal K., Druglitrø T., and Hinchliffe S. J. 2016. “Introduction: The ‘More-than-Human’ Condition. Sentie
and Version of Biopolitics.” In Humans, Animals and Biopolitics: The More-than-Human Condition, edited by K
T. Druglitrø and S. J. Hinchliffe, pp. 1–29. Abingdon, Routledge.
Bath, C., and R. Karlsson. 2016. “The Ignored Citizen: Young Children’s Subjectivities in Swedish and English Ea
Education Settings.” Childhood, 1–12. doi:10.1177/0907568216631025.
Biesta, G. J. J., and R. Lawy. 2006. “From Teaching Citizenship to Learning Democracy: Overcoming Ind
Research, Policy and Practice.” Cambridge Journal of Education 36 (1): 63–79.
Bonnett, M., and J. Williams. 1998. “Environmental Education and Primary Children's Attitudes towards Nature
Environment.” Cambridge Journal of Education 28 (2): 159–174.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3
Burke, G., and A. Cutter-Mackenzie. 2010. “What’s There, What If, What Then, and What Can We Do? An Immer
Embodied Experience of Environment and Place through Children’s Literature.” Environmental Educat
16 (3-4): 311–330.
Caiman, C., and I. Lundegård. 2014. “Pre-School Children’s Agency in Learning for Sustainable Development.”
Education Research 20 (4): 437–459.
Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2007. Research Methods in Education. Oxon: Routledge.
Corsaro, W. A. 2005. The Sociology of Childhood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. [1938] 1997. Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone.
Dias, T. S. 2012. “Como Pensam ‘Elas’ a Organização Das Sociedades E O Exercício Da Cidadania? Do Desenvo
Do Pensamento Político À Vivência Da Cidadania Participada Em Contexto Escolar No Pré-Escolar E Ensino Bá
PhD diss., University of Porto.
Dias, T. S., and I. Menezes. 2014. “Children and Adolescents as Political Actors: Collective Visions of Politics an
Journal of Moral Education 43 (3): 250–268.
Dockett, S., E. Kearney, and B. Perry. 2012. “Recognising Young Children’s Understandings and Experiences of
International Journal of Early Childhood 44: 287–305.
Duhn, I. 2012. “Making ‘Place’ for Ecological Sustainability in Early Childhood Education.” Environmental Educa
18 (1): 19–29.
Ferreira, M. 2010. “‘- Ela É a Nossa Prisioneira!’: Questões Teóricas, Epistemológicas E Ético-Metodológi
Dos Processos De Obtenção Da Permissão Das Crianças Pequenas Numa Pesquisa Etnográfica.” Revista Refl
18 (2): 151–182.
Ferreira, P. D., J. L. Coimbra, and I. Menezes. 2012. “‘Diversity within Diversity’ – Exploring Connections betwee
Participation and Citizenship.” Journal of Social Science Education 11 (3): 120–134.
Freestone, M., and J. M. O’Toole. 2016. “The Impact of Childhood Reading on the Development of Environmenta
Environmental Education Research 22 (4): 504–517.
Freire, P. 2000. Pedagogia Da Indignação: Cartas Pedagógicas E Outros Escritos. São Paulo: Editora UNESP.
Gruenewald, D. A. 2003. “At Home with the Other: Reclaiming the Ecological Roots of Development a
The Journal of Environmental Education 35 (1): 33–43.
Guerra, J., L. Schmidt, and J. G. Nave. 2008. “Educação Ambiental Em Portugal: Fomentando Uma Cidadania Re
Accessed March 29 2016. http://www.aps.pt/vicongresso/pdfs/681.pdf
Hacking, E. B., W. Scott, and R. Barratt. 2007. “Children’s Research into Their Local Environment: Steve
Possibilities for the Curriculum.” Environmental Education Research 13 (2): 225–244.
Hedefalk, M., J. Almqvist, and L. Östman. 2015. “Education for Sustainable Development in Early Childhood Edu
A Review of the Research Literature.” Environmental Education Research 21 (7): 975–990.
Hinchliffe, S., and S. Whatmore. 2006. “Living Cities: Towards a Politics of Conviviality.” Science as Culture 15
Jagger, S., E. Sperling, and H. Inwood. 2016. “What’s Growing on Here? Garden-Based Pedagogy in a Concrete
Environmental Education Research 22 (2): 271–287.
James, A., and A. Prout. 1990. Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: New Directions in the Sociological Stu
Oxford: Routledge.
Krasny, M. E., and K. G. Tidball. 2009. “Community Gardens as Contexts for Science, Stewardship, and Civic Ac
Cities and the Environment 2 (1): article 8, 18. http://escholarship.bc.edu/cate/vol2/iss1/8
Latour, B. 2004. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer
Machemer, P. L., S. P. Bruch, and R. Kuipers. 2008. “Comparing Rural and Urban Children’s Perceptions of an Ide
Journal of Planning Education and Research 28: 143–160.

12 C. RIOS AND I. MENEZES
Mackey, G. 2012. “To Know, to Decide, to Act: The Young Child’s Right to Participate in Action for the
Environmental Education Research 18 (4): 473–484.
Malone, K. 2007. “The Bubble‐Wrap Generation: Children Growing up in Walled Gardens.” Environmental Educa
13 (4): 513–527.
Malone, K. 2008. “Every Experience Matters: An Evidence Based Research Report on the Role of Learn
Classroom for Children’s Whole Development from Birth to Eighteen Years.” Report commissioned by Farmin
Countryside Education for UK Department Children, School and Families, Wollongong, Australia. Accessed De
28 2015. http://www.face-online.org.uk/docman/news/every-experience-matters/download
McCowan, T. 2009. Rethinking Citizenship Education: A Curriculum for Participatory Democracy. London: Conti
Menezes, I. 2004. “Ambiente E Transversalização Curricular: Potencialidades E Limites Da Educação Ambiental
Educação, Sociedade & Culturas 21: 130–150.
Myers Jr., O. E., C. D. Saunders, and E. Garrett. 2004. “What Do Children Think Animals Need? Develo
Environmental Education Research 10 (4): 545–562.
Nazir, J., and E. Pedretti. 2015. “Educators’ Perceptions of Bringing Students to Environmental Consciou
Engaging Outdoor Experiences.” Environmental Education Research 22 (2): 288–304.
Nilsson, A.-C., and M. Hensler, eds. 2001. Outdoor Education: Authentic Learning in the Context of Landscapes.
Co-Operation Project Supported by the European Union. Kisa: Kinda Education Center.
Pierce, C. 2015. “Against Neoliberal Pedagogies of Plants and People: Mapping Actor Networks of Biocapital in
Gardens.” Environmental Education Research 21 (3): 460–477.
Pooley, J. A., L. T. Pike, N. M. Drew, and L. Breen. 2002. “Inferring Australian Children's Sense of Community: A
Exploration.” Community, Work & Family 5 (1): 5–22.
Ribeiro, A. B., A. Caetano, and I. Menezes. 2016. “Citizenship Education, Educational Policies and NGOs.” Britis
Research Journal 42 (4): 543–728.
Sarmento, T., F. I. Ferreira, P. Silva, and R. Madeira. 2009. Infância, Família E Comunidade: As Crianças Como A
Porto: Porto Editora.
Stokas, D., E. Strezou, G. Malandrakis, and P. Papadopoulou. 2016. “Greek Primary School Children’s Represen
the Urban Environment as Seen through Their Drawings.” Environmental Education Research. doi:10.1080/1
2016.1219316.
Williams, D., and J. D. Brown. 2012. Learning Gardens and Sustainability Education: Bringing Schools and Comm
New York: Routledge.
Wilson, R. A. 1996. “The Development of the Ecological Self.” Early Childhood Education Journal 24 (2): 121–12