Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Youth Design Participation To Support Ecological Literacy
Youth Design Participation To Support Ecological Literacy
Youth Design Participation To Support Ecological Literacy
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Cincinnati is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Children, Youth and Environments
Nancy D. Rottle
Julie M. Johnson
Department of Landscape Architecture
University of Washington
Abstract
Childhood experiences in nature have been found to hold myriad developmental
values, yet opportunities for such experiences have diminished greatly. If children
are to regain these values, firsthand experiences to learn from and care about and
for such natural places are essential. Such experiences, and the resulting
knowledge, caring and competence to act, serve as the foundation of what David
Orr defines as "ecological literacy." A meaningful context for such experiences and
literacy building is that of formal education, where youth may undertake hands-on
studies outdoors. These studies could occur in nearby open space, such as urban
parks, provided the parks were appropriately designed. This paper describes
youths’ participation in design charrettes for a park’s “outdoor learning laboratory,”
reflects on the process and outcomes, and suggests potentials to support ecological
literacy through both the charrette process and the designed learning environment.
Introduction
Fifty years ago, Rachel Carson ruminated on the value of childhood exploration of
the natural world in her book, The Sense of Wonder. Among her reflections, she
stated: “Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength
that will endure as long as life lasts….There is something infinitely healing in the
repeated refrains of nature” (1956, 88-89). These ideas have been affirmed by the
extensive research of Stephen and Rachel Kaplan on people’s responses to nature
(1989). Richard Louv has explored the importance of nature in children’s lives in
Childhood’s Future (1990) and Last Child in the Woods (2005). In this most recent
book, he recounts studies indicating that ADHD-diagnosed children who have
experiences with green spaces show increased attention. Yale professor Stephen
Kellert emphasizes the benefits of contact with nature for the cognitive, affective,
and moral development of children and youth. He concludes that contact with
nature produces the “greatest maturational benefits when it occurs in stable,
accessible, and culturally relevant social and physical environments” (2005, 88).
Yet for all the acknowledged benefits, experiences in nature are rapidly
disappearing from children’s and youths’ daily lives in the United States. Increasing
urbanization and societal changes have altered where and how children and youth
spend their time. Robert Michael Pyle is concerned that the loss of personal
intimacy with the living world amounts to an “extinction of experience” and a
subsequent lack of relationship with nature. Without such personal contact, we not
only miss nature’s innate therapeutic benefits but also awareness, appreciation and
the will to preserve local habitat. “What is the extinction of the condor to a child
who has never known a wren?” (1993, 145-47).
Like Pyle, David Orr identifies childhood as a critical time to inspire what he
describes as “ecological literacy,” stating that it “is driven by the sense of wonder,
the sheer delight in being alive in a beautiful, mysterious, bountiful world” (1992,
86). Orr describes the basis of ecological literacy as having three components: “the
knowledge necessary to comprehend interrelatedness, … an attitude of care or
stewardship,…[and] the practical competence required to act on the basis of
knowledge and feeling” (1992, 92). He underscores the importance of such literacy
for building a more sustainable future; however, the means with which to develop
ecological literacy is threatened. He asserts: “Ecological literacy is becoming more
difficult, I believe, not because there are fewer books about nature, but because
there is less opportunity for the direct experience of it….A sense of place requires
more direct contact with the natural aspects of a place, with soil, landscape, and
wildlife” (1992, 88-89). Orr notes the importance of experiences in nature being
informed by a teacher or mentor. The value of an adult mentor or teacher is
validated by Louise Chawla’s research on environmentalists’ significant childhood
experiences (1999).
Clearly, nature experiences are needed in childhood both for their therapeutic
values and as a keystone of ecological learning that builds ecological literacy.
Accessible natural places, time in these places, and people who can mentor in such
places are needed to make these experiences most beneficial. In the context of
children’s lives today, schools hold tremendous potential to provide such positive
experiences. The school site and/or nearby parks and open space can effectively
serve as the context, especially when they are designed to optimally support place-
based learning and linked with school curricula.
Yet, urban parks designed for environmental learning are uncommon, and a paucity
of literature exists to guide their development. We set out to address this void,
using several methods of study. Recognizing a possible opportunity for authentic
youth participation—the need for which has been well documented by Roger Hart
(1997) and others—we engaged youth from a targeted user group in a participatory
design activity for a local park slated for redesign. We suspected that involvement
from youth in designing an environmental learning park would serve not only to
inform designers, but would also promote in young people the knowledge, caring
and competency that are the hallmarks of ecological literacy. This paper tells the
story of the design charrettes (workshops) we conducted with two sixth-grade
science classes, reflects on that process, outlines what we learned about designing
environmental learning parks, and suggests a role that participatory design
processes may play in developing ecological literacy.
Program goals had been developed through a study of the district’s educational
needs, in response to the opportunities afforded by the park as it now exists and
anticipating the construction of new habitats in its redesign. In addition, educators
felt the park offered interdisciplinary learning opportunities, and pilot program
directors consequently incorporated a service-learning component into the pilot
program. Goals of the science and service-learning curriculum were that the
students:
The pilot program involved classes from two Seattle schools with high percentages
of minority and low-income students. Each class spent three field days at the park,
spread across each season of the school year. Teachers and Earthcorps interns led
After serving on the steering committee that informed the planning of MOLL, the
authors of this paper identified research opportunities related to this pilot program.
Our research had two primary goals: first, to provide insights for the redesign of
the park’s habitat components, so that these areas might optimally function as an
outdoor learning laboratory to support ecological learning; and second, to begin
articulating general design principles for environmental learning parks that support
the development of children’s and youths’ ecological learning and literacy. We
undertook a literature review of precedents and theory to inform this context. Site-
based research methods included observation of students on their field
investigation days and interviews with field leaders and teachers. Following the
three days of the on-site program, we conducted design charrettes with two classes
of students from one of the schools. The design charrettes were intended to solicit
the students' ideas on how to make the park best support ecological learning. Since
youth were not directly involved in the design process, we believed this aspect of
the research would provide a unique and valuable set of insights for park staff and
the park designers, drawn directly from the students’ experiences at Magnuson
Park. We also anticipated that the charrettes would reinforce and extend students'
learning, and while the research was not designed to test this hypothesis, the
participatory experience yielded educational insights that we discuss below.
Then students were asked what these ideas might look like. Small photographs of
particular design elements (e.g., a footbridge) were provided as additional “idea
cards” for students to use as they desired, and they were encouraged to draw
pictures on blank cards to illustrate their mental images. Finally, each student was
asked to help prioritize which three of their group's ideas seemed most important
by putting sticker dots next to those three. Each group shared their favorite items
with the rest of the class.
The students quickly grasped the idea that environments could be created that
afforded better habitat for animals as well as for their studies; these included both
habitat restoration (e.g., “less invasive plants,” trees, fish and frog ponds, and
wetlands) and “houses” for animals. The students also gave numerous ideas for
how to make it easier and more comfortable for them to engage in outdoor
learning: benches and bathrooms topped the list, with several groups noting the
need for picnic tables, shelter, and food. More unique suggestions included an
observation tower, treehouse, bird blind, platforms, and bridges to observe wildlife;
cameras and more “quadrats” 2 for study; and “wood to build bird houses, bee hives
2
Students had used 1-meter square "quadrat" frames to define an area for their field
investigations
and ant farms.” Several groups proposed a science lab and indoor science learning
facilities. The most frequently stated ideas fell into the categories shown on Table
1.
• Animal houses
such as birdhouses, butterfly center, snake house
• Animal habitats
including pond, native plants, trees, river
• Animals
notably birds, bugs, bats, and small animals
• Recreational facilities
such as football, basketball, baseball, walking and bike trails, maze
• Classroom facilities
given, and brought some of their own, model making materials to create their
preferred habitat types and program elements. They worked together to represent
elements from their posters that would be placed within the habitats, paths that
would connect the habitat areas, and other ideas that emerged through the creative
process (Figures 4-7).
Figures 4-6. The model-making activity was divided into four steps: a)
deciding upon the habitats they would include in their
learning park; b) drawing habitats and built elements on the
cardboard base c) constructing their park elements and d)
presenting their model to the class. Students also consulted
their idea posters from Session 1 to stimulate model-making
ideas (Photos: Nancy Rottle and Jennifer Low)
The students’ ten models presented ideas for an array of habitats. All contained a
water body or wetland. The most common habitat areas that students elected to
create were cover types of forest and grass area, and topographic features of hills
and flat land. The models contained a wide range of different program elements to
support environmental learning. Consistent with the idea generation exercise in
Session 1, bathrooms and benches were most common, bridges were second, and
greenhouses and basketball courts third. The ideas broke out into categories of
park amenities, habitat observation, recreational facilities, and built indoor facilities.
Frequencies of the ideas represented on the models are shown on Table 2.
HABITAT
Indoor facilities
Green House 3 Snake House 1
Community Center/ 2 Butterfly House 1
Teen Center
Restaurant 1 Bed + Breakfast 1
Library 1 Water Fountains 1
Science Lab 1
The majority of students’ responses regarding the charrettes fell into three
categories:
Habitat
A third of the students, mostly boys, said that the most important idea was about
some type of habitat, and their subjects of study centered on the relationship
between animals and plants or between animals and habitat: “The important idea
was the forest because it’s a great habitat for lots of animals…we would study what
different animals live there and how they would live there,” and “My most important
idea is a frog pond and a fish pond…we would study the temperature of the two and
the frogs and the fish.”
Charrette Process
Several students—almost all girls—wrote about the charrette process (e.g.,
“mapping our ideas and putting them together”; “putting the stickies on the paper”)
and identified what they would learn through the process (e.g., “science, math, art,
measuring”; “to use all ideas that come to you”). One student wrote that the most
important part was
working together and each of us doing our part and coming up with ponds and
other things that make a good habitat….We would study an area that we
planned to turn from a bad habitat to a good habitat to see if it could be done
and to make the park a better place.
Interestingly, students’ reflections about the best place for learning at Magnuson
Park—based on their field experiences there—didn’t correlate highly with their
favorite charrette ideas. Popular “best learning places” were the blackberry bush
areas that students cleared and mulched and the planting areas where the service
learning projects occurred, yet these areas needing repair weren’t often in the
models or cited as students’ favorite charrette ideas. These results may indicate
that the design process is not conducive to suggesting “messy” or degraded
environments where active service learning can occur, yet students valued these
types of places for their learning.
“food court”) went further afield. Our adapted instructions asking the second cohort
(the female group) to pick out their best ideas to add to their group’s list may
account for the fact that these lists were more related to environmental learning, or
park care, than those from the first cohort (the male group).
The Model session (Session 2) showed fewer and more practical ideas, and may
have been limited by what the students felt they could construct on their group
models. However, the models showed topographical forms, which were absent from
the idea lists, and were more explicit about habitats (which may have been a result
of defining habitats as the first model-building step). The models also began to
demonstrate spatial relationships between facilities and the environment, for
instance, a bridge over a pond, a tower and treehouse.
We found that for the Idea and Model sessions, it was effective to have small
groups of four to six students with adults facilitating the process. It was also
valuable to have a very clear introduction and instructions to set behavior
expectations for the new activity. We found that breaking up the session into short
segments, typically 20 minutes maximum, held the students’ attention and
circumvented off-track activity, although we did feel that the model making session
could have gone longer than one hour. The teacher noted that showing students an
example landscape model was helpful, and that we might have showed others as
well to give the students more familiarity with the design process and products.
We also recognized the critical importance of the students’ prior experience with the
park for providing concrete memories on which to conceptualize and build, and for
developing an appreciation for the objectives of an environmental learning park.
The teacher suggested that we might have held the charrette between the second
and third visits, rather than at the end of the year, so the students could revisit
Magnuson Park and envision how their ideas could be applied to the site.
• Most models contained some kind of space conducive to play—a grassy field,
kite hill, dog park, and/or basketball court. We might interpret this to say
that play is still an important part of a field trip, even for middle schoolers,
and that even a small space for warming up and taking a break from
immersion in habitat and science study would make the experience more
positively memorable.
• Changes in topography, views and structures that alter perspective may add
contrast, drama and adventure, thereby yielding positive and memorable
experiences for youth.
• While design charrettes can be informative, they provide only part of the
lessons that students can offer park designers. As noted above, when we
asked the students to describe the best place for learning at Magnuson Park,
one of the most common responses was “the blackberry bushes,” which is
where most of the active restoration activities took place. Students linked
their science learning to the restoration activity; this active endeavor was
memorable, repeated, and may have helped students to feel they were
making a difference. Recognizing the inherent learning in the habitat
Caring
Numerous postcard responses regarding what students felt was important in their
charrette ideas referred to helping animals or their habitat, demonstrating the
empathy required for ecoliteracy (Orr 1992). In addition, the students seemed to
enjoy the charrette experience, and responses on the postcards were generally
positive. One response to the “most important idea” question was “that it was nice
that we all have a nice time doing it with you,” and on another “It was fun and
learning-ful.” Having such positive experiences to support outdoor learning may
enhance caring about the environment.
Knowing
The numerous references to habitat in the reflective postcards suggest that the
model-building may have reinforced the cognitive lessons from the site visits. The
conceptual connection between habitat and animals is an example of
interrelatedness and an essential foundation in environmental education. Promoting
this type of understanding through the act of collaborative design may therefore
contribute to building of youths' knowledge.
Competence
The experience may have helped the students to feel more competent in creating or
restoring habitat, evidenced by end-of-the-year evaluations that the MOLL program
administered to the two participating schools. On a question that asked the
students to describe the steps needed to turn a parking lot into a small natural
area, the students from the school that participated in the charrettes did
significantly better than those with only the field experience, and they improved
substantially from the pre-test. Whereas in the pretest less than 25 percent of the
students even tried to answer this question, 90 percent made an attempt for the
post-test. A third described this process sufficiently for evaluators to rate the
degree of process description as “somewhat” or “well.” For example, one student
wrote: “First, get a plan. Next hire the people. Then get started. Block off the
people from getting into the parking lot. Take off the part of the lot you are getting
rid of. Put soil down. Grow Plants. Put benches or chair and you are set.” In
contrast, only 7 percent from the “control” school that participated only in the field
experience could describe the process, and only 60 percent of this group made an
effort to do so. Engaging students in the design of their environment may help to
awaken students' awareness of and confidence in their own abilities. This notion is
supported by some of the responses on the reflective postcards, such as “The most
important idea I learn [sic] is that I know the model I made will be something I like
at the park.”
With young people’s voices at the table, more opportunities for useful, safe,
comfortable and inspiring experiences with nature may occur, affording this
population the connection with nature that scholars have identified as important to
their cognitive, affective, and moral development. And, if some of the sixth-graders’
insights are incorporated at Magnuson Park, they may get to experience the built
outcomes of their own insights.
Acknowledgements
The research team included University of Washington Landscape Architecture faculty Nancy
Rottle and Julie Johnson, and Landscape Architecture students Jennifer Low, Clayton
Beaudoin, and Garrett Devier. A group of students from Landscape Architecture and from
the Community, Environment and Planning Program generously helped facilitate small
groups for the youth design charrettes. We are particularly grateful for the support of the
Mary Gates Research Training Grant that Jennifer Low received and enabled her to play a
key role in the research.
References
Carson, Rachel (1956). The Sense of Wonder. New York: Harper & Row.
Chawla, Louise (1999). “Life Paths into Effective Environmental Action.” The
Journal of Environmental Education 31(1): 15-26.
Kearney, Anne R. and Stephen Kaplan (1997). “Toward a Methodology for the
Measurement of Knowledge Structures of Ordinary People: The Conceptual Content
Cognitive Map (3CM).” Environment and Behavior 29(5): 579-617.
Kellert, Stephen (2005). Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the
Human-Nature Connection. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
----- (2005). The Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit
Disorder. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.
Micic, Shawna Marie (2001). Testing New Methods for Improving the
Effectiveness of Collaborative and Participatory Design and Planning Processes:
Conceptual Content Cognitive Map (3CM). Master of Landscape Architecture Thesis,
University of Washington.
Pyle, Robert Michael (1993). The Thunder Tree: Lessons from an Urban
Wildland. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.