Inger Lerstrup
D E PA RT M E N T O F G E O S C I E N C E S A N D
N AT U R A L R E S O U RC E M A N A G E M E N T
university of copenhagen
Green Settings for Children in Preschools
Inger Lerstrup
Green Settings for Children in Preschools
Affordance-based Considerations for Design and Management
2
Title:
Green Settings for Children in Preschools
Affordance-based Considerations for Design and Management
Title in Danish:
Grønne omgivelser til børn i børnehave
Affordances som grundlag for design og forvaltning
Author:
Inger Lerstrup
Citation:
Lerstrup, I (2016): Green Settings for Children in Preschools.
Affordance-based Considerations for Design and Management.
PhD Thesis April 2016. Department of Geosciences and Natural
Resource Management, Univesisity of Copenhagen,
Frederiksberg. 172 pp.
Publisher:
Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management
Univesisity of Copenhagen
Rolighedsvej 23
DK-1958 Frederiksberg C
+45 353 31500
[email protected], www.ig.dk
Subject description:
Green Space Management
Academic advisor:
Cecil Konijnendijk van den Bosch
Submitted:
Approved:
April 2016
May 2016
Grade:
Ph.D.
3
For all the grown ups
spending time with children
in green settings
4
Abstract
This Danish study investigates the relationship between children in preschool (age range 36.5 years) and the outdoor environments they use. Of concern is how outdoor settings can
best be shaped in relation to the interests and needs of children in preschool. Preschool
refers to institutional care before, and different from, formal schooling.
The main aim of the study is to describe and analyse the outdoor features of
significance for preschool children’s activities and of importance for design and
management of green settings for preschools. The intent is to facilitate transfer of
knowledge from preschools to planner and managers of green settings such as woodland,
parks and green lots, but also playgrounds.
The central concept in this study is affordances, here defined as the meaningful
action possibilities of the environment. The concept of affordances is chosen for the
analysis, since it combines three important points when studying areas for children: the
persons, the settings, and the activities in focus.
In Denmark some preschool groups choose to spend considerable time in natural or
semi-natural areas. In this study they are called outdoor preschools (an umbrella term for
forest preschools, bus preschools, nature preschools, commuter preschools, and traditional
preschools with a green outdoor practice). The areas in use include public accessible forest,
woodlands, parks, meadows and beaches, but also green lots at own disposal. Outdoor
preschools often make use of specific ‘forest sites’: selected sites in green settings identified
by names. The feature and characteristics of the places used as forest sites have not, until
now, been investigated.
The study consists of four sub-studies mainly inspired by ethnographic methods. In
the first sub-study, children from two preschools were observed during time for ‘free play’
in their usual outdoor settings: a traditional playground and a number of forest sites.
Children were utterly active in both settings and their activities and the features they used
were noted. After the observation period, themes in observations were found. Then the
observations were investigated to see how well they fitted into Harry Heft’s functional
taxonomy for children’s outdoor environments (Heft 1988). After consulting the theoretical
framework of affordances coined by James Gibson (1979), a classification of outdoor
features adjusted for children in preschool was proposed. The classification contains 10
classes: open ground, sloping terrain, shielded places, rigid fixtures, moving fixtures, loose
objects, loose material, water, creatures, and fire. Based on the observations, distinctive and
attractive key activities were connected to each class as an integrated part of the taxonomy.
Apart from space and abundance, the characteristics of importance within each class seemed
to be variation and uniqueness, sizes and gradation, and novelty (Paper 1).
Often the same kind of activities went on in the observed playground and forest
settings. Manufactured features and forest features were present in both settings and
contributed in different ways. In both settings, children seemed to prefer features with not
fully explored action possibilities, whether manufactured or ‘natural’ (Paper 2).
In the second sub-study, observations in the forest were continued in all seasons.
Ditches were described in more detail as an example of a modest human-made feature with
rich affordances, also during the winter (Paper 3). Observations were supplemented with
interviews with children and staff about their use, choices and preferences of forest sites.
5
Within a year 27 forest sites were in use, and 15 of these were described, sketched and
analysed as part of the investigation. Most forest sites were situated in glades at the
intersection between different types of planting, by forest edges or in open pillar halls. All
sites offered varied affordances. Not all forest sites had water at the site, but most often
water was within easy reach. Three forest sites had areas for bonfires.
Staff valued varied terrain and fixtures for moving and climbing, open ground for
group activities, places to hide, and areas to explore, but at the same time a certain degree of
overview. Distance to the home base was also of importance in the daily choice of forest
site. Children knew many forest sites and their answers especially emphasized the
importance of loose objects (Paper 4).
The third sub-study was a screening of outdoor preschools in Denmark about facts
and experiences related to the use of green settings. The answers show a wide range of ways
to practise outdoor stays in green settings (Appendix A).
The fourth sub-study included visits to ten outdoor preschools of different types in
various Danish landscapes and interviews with preschool teachers in order to compare the
results found so far with a broader reality (Appendix B).
In the discussion the following themes are touched upon: the concepts of ecological
psychology, the proposed classification of outdoor features, affordances of manufactured
and forest features, differences and variation, novelty and change, abundance and space,
boundaries, possibilities to modify, the question of risk, and how far it is reasonable to
generalize.
The main conclusion is that children are attracted to features with changing and not
fully explores action possibilities. The classification can be used to get an overview of
features in a setting. Forest features may be worth considering in outdoor areas for children,
while they can offer variation and gradation, and especially change leading to continually
new affordances. The dynamic aspect corresponds to the fact that children constantly grow,
develop and learn.
The thesis concludes with suggestions for affordance-based planning and
management of green settings for children in preschool.
6
Sammendrag
Dette danske studie undersøger forholdet mellem børn i børnehave (3-6,5 år) og deres
udendørs omgivelser. Det handler om, hvordan uderum til børn i børnehave kan udformes i
forhold til deres interesser og behov.
Hovedformålet med studiet er at beskrive og analysere udendørs elementer, der er af
betydning for børns aktiviteter og af vigtighed ved udformning of forvaltning af grønne
områder til børnehaver. Det er hensigten at lette overførsel af viden fra børnehaver til
planlæggere, landskabsarkitekter og forvaltere af grønne omgivelser til børnehaver - skove,
parker og naturgrunde, men også legepladser.
Det centrale begreb i studiet er affordances, som vi ikke har et godt ord for på dansk.
Det er her defineret som de meningsfulde handlingsmuligheder i omgivelserne. Affordancebegrebet er valgt til analysen, fordi det kombinerer tre vigtige faktorer i studiet af områder
for børn: Børnene, omgivelserne og de aktiviteter, der er i fokus.
Nogle børnehaver i Danmark opholder sig meget i naturen eller i naturlignende
områder. Her kaldes de udebørnehaver (en samlebetegnelse for skovbørnehaver,
busbørnehaver, naturbørnehaver, udflytterbørnehaver og grupper i almindelige børnehaver
med skovpraksis). De bruger offentligt tilgængelige skove, parker, enge og strande, eller
naturgrunde, som de råder over. Udebørnehaver bruger ofte særlige ‘skovsteder’: specielt
udvalgte steder i det grønne, der har et navn. Skovstedernes indhold og karakter er ikke
tidligere undersøgt nærmere.
Studiet består af fire delundersøgelser, som hovedsagelig trækker på antropologisk
metode. I den første delundersøgelse er børn fra to børnehaver observeret under ‘fri leg’ i
deres sædvanlige udendørs rammer: en almindelig legeplads og en række skovsteder.
Børnene var meget aktive begge steder, og aktiviteter og elementer i brug blev registreret.
Efter observationsperioden blev der fundet temaer i observationerne. Herefter blev
det undersøgt, hvordan observationerne passede til Harry Hefts funktionelle klassifikation af
børns udendørs omgivelser. Efter at have konsulteret den teoretiske ramme for affordances
skabt af James Gibson (1979) foreslås en klassifikation af udendørs elementer tilpasset
børnehavebørn. Klassifikationen indeholder 10 klasser: Åbne områder, skråt terræn,
skærmede steder, stabile dele, bevægelige dele, løsdele, smulder, vand, dyr og ild. Ud fra
observationerne blev der til hver klasse knyttet særlige og attraktive nøgle-aktiviteter som en
del af klassifikationen. Bortset fra plads og rigelighed lod det til, at de vigtigste egenskaber
indenfor hver klasse var variation og særegenhed, størrelser og graduering samt nyheder
(Paper 1).
De samme aktiviteter foregik ofte på legepladsen og i skoven. Der var
menneskeskabte elementer og skovelementer begge steder, og de bidrog med noget
forskelligt. Børn så ud til at foretrække elementer med ikke fuldt udforskede
handlingsmuligheder, hvad enten de var menneskeskabte eller naturlige (Paper 2).
I den næste delundersøgelse fortsatte observationerne i skoven året rundt. Grøfter
blev beskrevet nærmere som et eksempel på et simpelt, menneskeskabt skovelement med
rige affordances, også om vinteren (Paper 3).
Observationerne blev suppleret af interviews med børn og voksne om brug, valg og
præferencer i forhold til skovsteder. I løbet af året blev 27 skovsteder benyttet, og 15 af
disse blev beskrevet, skitseret og analyseret som led i undersøgelsen. De fleste skovsteder lå
7
i lysninger mellem forskellige slags bevoksning, ved skovbryn eller i åbne søjlehaller. Alle
skovsteder bød på varierede affordances. Ikke alle skovsteder havde vand på selve
skovstedet, men ofte i umiddelbar nærhed. Tre skovsteder havde bålsteder.
De ansatte værdsatte varieret terræn og elementer til bevægelse og klatring, åbne
områder til gruppeaktiviteter, gemmesteder og områder egnet til at gå på opdagelse i for
børnene, men samtidig også mulighed for et vist overblik. Afstand til hjemmebasen var også
af betydning i det daglige valg af skovsted. Børnene kendte mange skovsteder og deres svar
understregede især betydningen af løsdele (Paper 4).
Det tredje delstudium var en spørgeskemaundersøgelse sendt til udebørnehaver i
Danmark om fakta og erfaringer i forhold til brug af grønne omgivelser. Svarene viste en
bred vifte af praksisser for udeliv i grønne omgivelser (Appendix A).
Den fjerde delundersøgelse omfattede besøg i 10 udebørnehaver af forskellig type i
forskellige danske landskaber samt interviews med pædagoger med det formål at afprøve de
foreløbige resultater (Appendix B).
I diskussionen behandles temaer som brugbarhed af begreber fra øko-psykologi,
klassifikation af udendørs elementer, menneskeskabte elementer og skovelementer, forskelle
og variation, nyheder og forandring, rigelighed og plads, grænser, muligheder for at ændre,
spørgsmålet om risiko samt hvor vidt det er rimeligt at generalisere.
Hovedkonklusionen er, at børn bliver tiltrukket af elementer der giver skiftende og
ikke fuldt udforskede handlingsmuligheder. Klassifikationen kan bruges til at få et overblik
over elementer på et udeområde. Skovelementer er værd at overveje på udeområder til børn,
da de kan tilbyde rigelighed, variation og graduering, men især forandring, der løbende
giver nye affordances. Det dynamiske aspekt svarer godt til, at børn hele tiden vokser,
udvikler sig og lærer.
Afhandlingen slutter med forslag til udformning og forvaltning af grønne omgivelser
til børn i børnehave med henblik på affordances
8
Foreword, April 2016
Something changes, when you bring a group of children into the forest. What is actually
happening? Of what sort is the relation between children and setting? What is the difference
between playgrounds and forests for ‘preschoolers’? Might there be something to learn in
the forest in relation to planning and management of green spaces, woodland and
playgrounds for children in preschool?
My interest was to know more about the important considerations when shaping
outdoor settings for children in preschools, and I wanted to consult the primary users:
children and staff members in preschools. I have tried to enter the preschool world with an
open mind and process the data in a way suitable for answering this question. My aim has
been to report my work truthfully and make the process, from the findings to the results, as
transparent as possible.
The study cuts across the traditional boundaries between landscape architecture and
planning, education, and health. The goal is most closely connected to health design
according to the definition of health in the constitution of the World Health Organisation as
‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of
disease or infirmity’ (WHO 1946). Most children in preschools would probably equate this
state with ‘play’.
The trip has been joyful, but also frustrating, because I was tempted to follow too
many alluring paths through unexplored territories. I have received, and am grateful for, the
help and inspiration from all the investigated preschools, my family and friends, my peers,
and especially my courageous, clever, and cheerful supervisor: Cecil Konijnendijk van den
Bosch.
Situating the researcher
I draw on experiences from childhood to
grandmother-hood. With my father being
an engineer, polyhistorian and inventor I
grew up with science, technology, proverbs
and mythology. With my mother born on a
farm and interested in art I grew up with
stories, songs, gardening and a habit of
recirculating everything. I never attended
preschool but was heavily spoilt and corrected simultaneously as
the youngest of many sisters. Playing in the outskirts of
Copenhagen gave affection for nature as well as culture. I became
a teenager in 1968, was educated as an agronomist - and my
working experiences are in teaching, consulting, editing, and
research, but also in various other fields including preschools. I am
now living in a residential neighbourhood near a forest. Over the
years my children attended four preschools, two of them outdoor
preschools.
9
CONTENTS
Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Sammendrag ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
Foreword, April 2016 ....................................................................................................................................... 8
List of papers .................................................................................................................................................. 11
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 13
Urbanization and green spaces ....................................................................................................................... 13
Governance of green spaces and woodland .................................................................................................... 13
Children and green spaces .............................................................................................................................. 14
Preschools in a Danish context ....................................................................................................................... 14
Outdoor preschools, a historical overview ..................................................................................................... 15
The physical environment in preschools ........................................................................................................ 16
Impact of stays in green settings ..................................................................................................................... 17
Impact of different green space layouts .......................................................................................................... 19
Children’s view on outdoor settings ............................................................................................................... 19
Research aim and research questions ............................................................................................................. 20
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .......................................................................... 22
The concept of ecology ................................................................................................................................... 22
Environmental and ecological psychology ..................................................................................................... 22
The concept of affordances ............................................................................................................................. 24
Affordances and affording features as defined in this study .......................................................................... 26
Settings and behaviour settings ...................................................................................................................... 26
Play and activities ........................................................................................................................................... 27
Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................... 28
A cross-disciplinary framework ..................................................................................................................... 29
3. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS .............................................................. 30
Phenomenological approach ........................................................................................................................... 30
Ethnographic field work ................................................................................................................................. 31
Case studies as a methodology ....................................................................................................................... 32
Reliability ....................................................................................................................................................... 32
Selection of cases ............................................................................................................................................ 33
Sub-study 1. Fieldwork in playground and forest settings ............................................................................. 34
Sub-study 2. Year-round investigations in the forest ..................................................................................... 36
Sub-study 3. Screening of outdoor preschools ............................................................................................... 37
Sub-study 4. Visits to outdoor preschools and interviews with staff members .............................................. 38
Reflections on methods................................................................................................................................... 38
Ethical questions ............................................................................................................................................. 39
4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 40
Paper 1. Revisiting Heft’s functional taxonomy............................................................................................. 40
Paper 2. Affordances of playground and forest settings ................................................................................. 41
Paper 3. Affordances of ditches ...................................................................................................................... 43
Paper 4. Characteristics of forest sites ............................................................................................................ 43
Sub-studies 3 and 4. Corroborating the results ............................................................................................... 44
10
5. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 45
Basic assumptions in ecological psychology .................................................................................................. 45
Classification of outdoor settings ................................................................................................................... 47
Manufactured and forest features ................................................................................................................... 48
Differences, variation and gradation............................................................................................................... 49
Novelty and change ........................................................................................................................................ 50
Abundance and space ..................................................................................................................................... 51
Flexible boundaries and different sites ........................................................................................................... 51
Arranging and modifying the setting .............................................................................................................. 52
Considering risk .............................................................................................................................................. 53
Meaning layers and generalization ................................................................................................................. 54
6. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES ............................................................. 56
Affording features ........................................................................................................................................... 56
Green settings used by preschools .................................................................................................................. 56
Affordance-based design for preschool outdoor settings ............................................................................... 57
Suggestions derived from the study ................................................................................................................ 58
Vision about the classification as a tool ......................................................................................................... 59
New questions concerning preschools and green settings .............................................................................. 60
Final remarks .................................................................................................................................................. 61
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 62
PAPER 1. AFFORDANCES OF OUTDOOR SETTINGS FOR CHILDREN IN
PRESCHOOL: REVISITING HEFT’S FUNCTIONAL TAXONOMY ....................... 68
PAPER 2 ................................................................................................................. 69
PAPER 3. AFFORDANCES OF DITCHES FOR CHILDREN IN PRESCHOOL .... 70
PAPER 4. CHARACTERISTICS OF FOREST SITES USED BY A DANISH
FOREST PRESCHOOL .......................................................................................... 71
APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................... 73
APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................... 87
APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................... 96
11
List of papers
Paper 1: Affordances of Outdoor Settings for Children in Preschool: Revisiting Heft’s
Functional Taxonomy
Lerstrup, I. and van den Bosch, C. C. K.
Accepted by Landscape Research
Paper 2: Title and abstract will be included, when accepted
Lerstrup, I. and van den Bosch, C. C. K.
Paper 3: Affordances of Ditches for Children in Preschool
Lerstrup, I. and Møller, M. S.
Accepted by Children, Youth and Environment.
Paper 4: Characteristics of Forest Sites used by a Danish Forest Preschool
Lerstrup, I. and Refshauge, A. D.
Accepted by Urban Forstry & Urban Greening
12
13
1. Introduction
This PhD-study has been carried out within the field of landscape architecture, which is
concerned with design of outdoor areas, but also with their planning, management and
increasingly also governance. Landscape architecture plays an important role in shaping
public as well as private spaces at the local, national and even international level.
In relation to children, the choices made by architects and landscape architects
influence conditions in private as well as public spaces, e.g. for moving, sharing, being
disturbed or creating own spaces. Children share many spaces with other age groups, but are
the main users of schoolyards and playgrounds.
Urbanization and green spaces
Since 2008 more than 50% of the world population lives in cities (UN 2008) and
urbanization will continue during the coming decades (UN 2014). These figures are based
on national statistics and the definition of cities is not always agreed upon; nevertheless
there is a worldwide trend of people moving from rural areas to more densely populated
areas and from smaller towns to bigger cities. With the rising population in cities and
overall, space has become limited, and in many countries city planners strive for
densification to prevent sprawl. This intensifies the pressure on open spaces in and around
cities. This is problematic, not in the least because of the many benefits these spaces provide
to urban communities (Konijnendijk et al. 2013).
The goods and services provided by ecosystems, including green spaces, have been
conceptualised as ‘ecosystem services’ (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). These
can be categorized into so-called provisioning, supporting, regulating and cultural services.
In the case of urban and urban-near green spaces, the regulating and cultural ecosystem
services have been stressed as being the most important, with the former including for
example storm water regulation and cooling, and the latter providing opportunities for
outdoor recreation and for activities supporting social cohesion (Konijnendijk et al. 2013).
Ecosystem services are not always compatible and different communities and individuals
have different preferences about which services to prioritise – and to plan, design and
manage for. Thus landscape architects, planners, green space managers and others face the
challenge of finding optimal ways of balancing different interests, while also providing
sustainable and resilient green spaces.
Governance of green spaces and woodland
The perspective and ‘language’ related to taking care of publicly accessible green spaces and
woodland has changed over the last years from focusing on management and maintenance to
a governance perspective which reflects the greater awareness of the multiple uses and users
with multiple wishes, experiences and values (Nielsen et al. 2013). The challenges for
landscape governance are to draw strength from such a plurality by creating appropriate
social frameworks that can recognize, negotiate and combine competing claims and wishes
(Williams 2014). “Planning practice can be understood as a collaborative effort to work
within and across various experiential, scientific, and normative conceptions of place – a
task that acknowledges the diverse positioning of concepts, approaches, and observers.”
14
(ibid. p. 81). In order to negotiate, you need the voices of stakeholders to represent the
different interests.
Children and green spaces
Children are an important user group to be considered in the planning, design and
management of green spaces and green settings in general. Richard Louv and others have
stressed the importance of outdoor spaces and outdoor play for children’s health, learning,
development of competences, connection to and care for nature and spiritual development
(Carr and Luken 2014; Louv 2008). Local parks and other green spaces are often very
important for children, as especially young children are less mobile than teenagers and
adults. Moreover, many children do not have access to private gardens. Preschool children
are completely dependent on adults taking them along to green spaces. On weekdays these
adults will often be the staff members of various day care institutions.
However, children seldom have a voice when it comes to design and management of
green spaces. This counts for children in general, but specifically for children below school
age. To my knowledge, the interests of children in preschool are seldom considered in green
space planning, neither directly nor indirectly through the preschool staff.
Preschools in a Danish context
In Denmark most children below school age are taken care of on a daily basis in children’s
institutions. Around the world these institutions have many names, including day care
centres, nursery schools, preschools and kindergartens. In this study ‘preschool’ denotes a
care taking initiative on weekdays for children between 3 to 5.5-6.5 years of age; not to
make these a part of the school, but to illustrate that it is a phase before and different from
more formal schooling. For many years preschool was called ‘børnehave’ in Denmark,
directly translated as ‘children’s garden’, and it still is in everyday language, but now the
government only uses the word ‘day offer’ referring to institutional daily care from birth to
adulthood other than school (Ministeriet for Børn 2007). There is a trend towards combined
centres for children from birth to school age, but still children are often separated behind the
walls with the dividing line at about three years. In addition, many preschools have a special
schedule during one or more days a week for children in their last period in preschool.
Preschools in Denmark are municipal, semi-private or private, with municipal
preschools being the majority. The aim of the preschools is stated in the departmental order
connected to the national law covering all kinds of institutions for children: ‘Children in
preschool should have a physical, psychological and aesthetic children’s environment that
enhances wellbeing, health, development and learning’ (Ministeriet for Børn 2007, § 7,1).
Each year every preschool has to elaborate and hand in to the municipality a description of
goals, educational methods and activities within six learning themes: general personal
development, social competences, development of language, body and movement, nature
and natural phenomena, and cultural expressions and values. Otherwise there is freedom in
choice of educational methods.
In Denmark the number of children in preschool went up for many years until it
stabilized in 2008 around 97% (Danmarks_Statistik 2013). The opening hours of preschools
15
are usually 5 days a week, 10-12 hours a day, and on average children attend preschool for
7.5 hours a day.
Part of the time in preschool is spent outdoors. In Denmark most preschools seem to
have a habit of staying outdoors for at least 1.5 hours a day during the winter and for longer
during the spring, summer, and autumn. This span of time is usually spent on a playground,
supplemented with more or less frequent trips outside the fence. Most preschools have
smaller or larger playgrounds of their own and their sizes vary considerably. Only a few
preschools, mainly in Copenhagen, do not have a playground of their own, but they have
access to public playgrounds and parks (Baunsgaard 2015). A set of recommendations for
day care expressed in a number of quality measures for children’s institutions in EU
mentions a minimum of 6 m2 outdoor space/child (Kirkeby et al. 2013). In Denmark no
standards exist for the number of hours spent outdoors or the size and content of outdoor
settings for children in preschool. There was, previously, a footnote in the building code
recommending 10 m2 /child in preschool, but at some point in the eighties this footnote
disappeared (Baunsgaard 2015).
Outdoor preschools, a historical overview
In Denmark and Northern Europe at large, preschools where children stay in natural or seminatural settings for several hours daily or frequently have existed for long (Bentsen et al.
2009). They bear many names such as forest preschools, nature preschools, bus preschools
and commuter preschools; in this study they are referred to as outdoor preschools. The first
forest preschool is ascribed to a lady in Holte, a city north of Copenhagen, back in 1952
(ibid.). She initially went for a walk in the forest every morning with her own children. Then
peers came along, and at a point it was formalised as the first ‘wandering preschool’. The
idea started spreading; in the beginning only as a part-time initiative. Exactly when the first
full-day forest preschool was opened is not known; a comprehensive history of forest
preschools in Denmark is yet to be written. In 1953 Margrethe Jensen and Sister Mary
working in two different preschools in the centre of Copenhagen initiated the first commuter
preschool where groups of children commuted every day to a site about 20 km north of
Copenhagen. Space was tight and they wanted to offer children from the inner city of
Copenhagen healthy surroundings in nature (Legepladsen 2012). Both ideas spread to other
parts of the country and a whole range of various outdoor initiatives evolved, especially in
the 1980s and 1990s. Some preschools had a bus at their disposal and were sometimes called
‘bus preschools’. In some places the bus was furnished with small tables, kitchen and toilet.
All along preschools were also established on former farms. Seen from the municipalities’
point of view, many of these outdoor initiatives were regarded as quick and cheap ways to
make up for lacking seats for preschool children.
The promoters of these initiatives were parents, preschool teachers or municipalities,
often in a joint initiative (Author, unpublished information). Preschools were organized as
private, municipal or semi-private in various forms. They were not based on a specific
pioneer or educational thinker and they were never organised in a common organisation
(ibid.). Some of these initiatives have disappeared, some have merged with other preschools,
and in some cases forest groups have been established in traditional preschools.
16
The desire to stay outdoors in green settings daily, or at least frequently, runs against
the general trend of modern Western society where more and more time is spent indoors and
where even traditional outdoor jobs like fishing, farming and construction happen from
shielded boats, tractors and cranes (Gulløv 2003). Even preschool children spend more time
indoors, often watching some type of screen (Hastrup 2007).
The Danish outdoor preschools can be characterized as grass root initiatives, and
children are taken care of by ordinarily educated preschool teachers with no formal outdoor
education. The outdoor education of the staff is through learning-by-doing and learning from
experienced colleagues supplemented by shorter courses. The green settings used include
public forest, woodland, parks, meadows, beaches and other natural or semi-natural settings,
but also large private lots (Author, unpublished information).
Today, in 2015, a whole palette of different outdoor initiatives exist in Denmark, but
still with no formal organisations and no knowledge about how many or where. The number
of outdoor preschools in Denmark is not registered, but in 2003 the Nature council estimated
the number to be approximately 500, about 10 % of all Danish preschools (Ejbye-Ernst
2012). No fixed vocabulary exists about the different ways of practising outdoor stays in
natural settings. The outdoor preschool types mentioned are not well defined and the terms
are just slowly entering the Danish dictionaries. There are no standards in relation to how
often, for how long, or in what types of areas the outdoor stays take place. With so many
different initiatives it is not easy to talk about one Danish forest school approach as it is
sometimes presented (Williams-Siegfredsen 2012).
Meanwhile the ideas about daily outdoor stays in green settings have been emerging
in, or spreading to, other countries. The first outdoor preschool in Sweden opened in 1985
(Lysklett 2013), and a forest kindergarten based on the Danish model opened in Flensburg,
Germany in 1993. In 2015 there are 1,500 forest preschools or forest groups in Germany
according to their organisation (Bundesband der Natur und Waldkindergärten in Deutchland
2015). According to the same source there are now forest preschools in Austria, the Czech
Republic, Norway, Spain, as well as South Korea and Japan. In addition, I am personally
aware of forest preschools in Italy, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Iceland, Canada and the
US.
The physical environment in preschools
The surroundings chosen for children are an important indication of a society or
community’s opinions on childhood, upbringing and education. It is a kind of laboratory for
adult ideas about the good childhood as shown in an analysis of Danish architecture for
children including playgrounds throughout the last three centuries (de Coninck-Smith and
Bygholm 2011). When women entered the work force in bigger numbers in the 20th century,
a multitude of preschools were built and still are being built, most often surrounded by a
fenced playground. In Denmark the names for institutional care illustrate some of the ideas
when translated directly. What started as ‘cradle-rooms’ and ‘children-gardens’ for
preschool children and ‘leisure time homes’ for after-school institutions, all signalling the
idea of a substitute for a home or a garden, are now simply called ‘children‘s institutions’
and ‘school-leisure-arrangements’.
17
The first Danish playground was established in Copenhagen in 1876-79 and in 1891
the Danish Playground Association was founded (de Coninck-Smith and Bygholm 2011).
Danish playgrounds are still called ‘playgrounds’, but new terms have emerged such as
‘playscape’. In North Carolina, USA, the areas around day care centres have, since 2007,
officially been called Outdoor Learning Environments (Moore and Cosco 2014).
The outdoor environment in preschools is generally perceived as less restricted than
the indoor environment. In an ethnographic study, the indoor room in a preschool in New
Zealand was described as encompassing: a room of ‘look what I have made’, stability,
control, and with a high degree of physical contact such as sitting on the lap. The outdoor
environment was described as open: a room of ‘see me’, change, and freedom where staff
felt more free to engage in and contribute to activities with the children (Stephenson 2002).
Impact of stays in green settings
It is a general assumption that green settings improve children’s health and learning, and this
is also widely supported by research (Chawla 2015; Gill 2014; Louv 2008). The following is
a short presentation of research on the impact of outdoor stays in green settings for
preschool children.
Several studies have looked into the positive impacts of preschool children spending
time in natural settings as part of their schooling. Sick leave was found to be lower in
preschools with rich green settings compared to paved settings in Sweden (Grahn et al.
1997) and in outdoor preschools compared to traditional preschools in Denmark (Krøigård
1996; Vigsø and Nielsen 2006). In Norway illness was found to be at the same level in
outdoor preschools compared to traditional preschools when compared during winter
months (Moen et al. 2007). Sickness was assessed as days with absence from preschool and
may be blurred by the fact that parents might be less inclined to send a child who is frail to
an outdoor preschool than to a traditional preschool.
Stays in natural settings were found to give better gross motor skills to preschool
children in Norway, Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark (Fjørtoft 2001; Kiener 2004a;
Lettieri 2004; Scholz and Krombholz 2006; Vigsø and Nielsen 2006). It was noted that
preschools with daily stays in natural settings had a higher rate of improvement than
preschools with one day a week in natural settings and preschools visiting natural settings
once in a while (Kiener 2004a). In some studies fine motor skills were found to be better in
outdoor groups (Vigsø and Nielsen 2006) and in others to be equally good (Berg 2004;
Kiener 2004a; Lettieri 2004; Sandseter 2009a; Scholz and Krombholz 2006). In contrast, in
a study from Norway with pre- and post-measurements of combined fine and gross motor
skills, the initial scores were for the most part better in outdoor preschools compared to
traditional preschools, but this levelled out over a period of seven months (Berg 2004),
probably because of general development.
Creativity evaluated as the number of ideas (‘Ideenflussigkeit’) and the variety of
ideas (‘Ideenflexibilität’) was found to be better in first grade in school for children from a
forest preschool group compared to children from traditional preschools in Switzerland in
tests where creativity was connected to the handling of objects for solving a problem
(Lettieri 2004). In tests concerning creative ways of walking/running, drawing and reading
18
images, differences were not significant. Later the test was repeated with a larger number of
children, and children from forest preschools were found to be significantly better in all
categories compared to children staying in the forest for only one day a week or just
occasionally (Kiener 2004a).
From a gender perspective, a natural setting was observed to offer good possibilities
for promoting gender equality in play, since the green settings were not gender coded
(Änggård 2011). The favourite family-play facilitated both old and new gender positions.
Physical play and role play such as animal play was gender neutral; only so called
superhero-play was gendered.
A number of other benefits of preschool access to natural settings have been reported
such as fewer conflicts, more regard for others, better attention, less restlessness (Grahn et
al. 1997), improved self-determination, better problem solving, and more self-regulation
The setting also seems to play a role as an outset for child initiated interactions with staff
members (O’Brien and Murray 2007; Waters and Maynard 2010). As the ultimate test of the
outdoor concept, first grade teachers in Germany were asked to rate the skills of children in
two studies (Gorges 1999; Häfner 2003). In both studies the children from outdoor
preschools performed as well or better than children from traditional preschools.
When comparing risk taking in a preschool with a rich natural area and a traditional
preschool, the frequency of risk taking behaviour was found to be the same, but the features
for risky and thrilling play were in bigger scales in the natural environment (Sandseter
2009a). However, nothing indicates that the level and seriousness of accidents is bigger in
outdoor preschools, but this issue is not fully investigated. Outdoor preschools have existed
for more than 30 years in Denmark without mortal accidents, but children very seldom die in
any kinds of preschool (Laursen 2013). Of all mortal accidents from 1975 - 2009 for
children 3-6 excluding road accidents, less than 1% was acquainted with trees, whereas 20%
were related to water. Accidents in preschools are registered, but outdoor preschools are not
registered separately. In 2009, 11.000 children aged 3-6 from preschools were treated at
casualty departments; in 41% of the cases it was noted that the accident happened on the
playground, hereof one third in connection to play equipment as swings, play houses, glides
and climbing structures. Approximately 400 children aged 3-6 were injured in natural
settings between 9 AM to -15 PM on weekdays, but this also included children on holidays
and children in traditional preschool visiting natural settings (ibid.).
Few critical voices about children’s stays in green settings have been heard and only
in passing. Krøigård (1996) in an evaluation of a bus project in Denmark noted that the
conflict level seemed lower, but also mentioned that activities at a distance looking like
exciting ways of playing could be situations calling for adult response and supervision.
Krøigård (1996) stated that many children achieved very good motor competences, but for
some this was not automatic: a few held a very low motoric profile and avoided climbing in
trees or jumping ditches if they were left to themselves. Along the same line, Krøigård noted
that children were not apt at leaving a play situation to ask about natural phenomena, but
when situations were created for shared observations and dialogue, they learned a lot
(Krøigård 1996).
19
Impact of different green space layouts
Although research has been done on the impact of green settings on preschool children,
rather little is known about how the green setting should be chosen or designed in order to
obtain the benefits. By analysing data from the Geographic Information System (GIS) in
Norway, a correlation was found between play type such as functional play, construction
play, and symbolic play, and landscape elements such as type and density of vegetation,
slopes, and roughness of slopes (Fjørtoft and Sageie 2000).
In Sweden, a tool called Outdoor Play Environment Categories (OPEC) was
developed based on video tracking of children on large vegetated playgrounds. OPEC has
three levels based on the total size of the playground, the amount of trees, shrubs and hilly
terrain, and the integration of vegetation and manufactured play equipment (Mårtensson et
al. 2009). In a study using this tool, problems with inattention, hyper-activity and
impulsivity rated by preschool staff in 11 preschools were higher in low OPEC settings
(Mårtensson et al. 2009). In another study with nine preschool settings, children were leaner,
slept longer and wellbeing evaluated by parents was higher in preschools with high OPEC
scores. Their mid-morning level of cortisol in saliva was likewise higher, and it was highest
in the single outdoor preschool participating in the study. This was surprising, since a high
level of cortisol is interpreted as a sign of stress in adults and green settings are generally
regarded as stress reducing. For children the correlation between level of cortisol and stress
is not an established fact, and the researchers suggest that the high level of cortisol may be
connected to the high activity level (Söderström et al. 2013). In the same nine preschools the
level of physical activity and duration of outdoor stay in areas protected from the sun was
found to be higher in the high-OPEC outdoor playgrounds (Boldemann et al. 2011).
Research in the US found that the level of physical activity was highest in diverse
settings with curved and looped pathways for wheeled toys connecting a variety of subsettings with a variety of manufactured and natural features (Cosco 2006). In another study,
the activity level in different zones was mapped and compared in two play settings. The
number of children and the amount of physical activity was highest on looped pathways
compared to a linear pathway, mainly due to vehicles, and physical activity was higher on
hard surfaces compared to sand (Cosco et al. 2010).
Children’s view on outdoor settings
Children’s opinions about outdoor settings, green settings and stays in green settings are not
well documented. Group interviews with 421children aged 6-11 from two small towns in
Sweden about public playgrounds revealed that playgrounds were perceived as fun, but also
sometimes problematic and boring (Jansson 2008). When possible, adjacent green settings
were valued for den building, secrets, and tree climbing. Even a small overgrown strip of
land was mentioned as valuable for certain games as for instance adding challenge and
excitement when playing tag. Children expressed that playgrounds had been more fun when
they were younger and expressed frustration when play equipment was removed for safety
reasons, but at the same time the older children were concerned about safety for the younger
(ibid.).
20
In the existing Danish reports about outdoor preschools, it has been mentioned that
children in commuter preschools would rather stay at the home institution (Dot 1995; Gulløv
1998). This can be interpreted in several ways; in a preschool with one week in the city,
alternating with one week commuting to a house in the forest shared with others it was
suggested that children might feel more ownership to the home institution (Dot 1995).
Children’s view may also be studied by observing children’s choices. In an
observational study, also in Sweden, it was found that some places in a large natural setting
were favoured for versatile play and these places were described as ‘distinct forms in
ambiguous environments’ (Mårtensson 2004, p. 127). Also in Sweden, Jansson found that
novelty and uniqueness in play equipment was important when children from preschool and
primary school were asked about their favourite public playground, whereas the most visited
playgrounds were characterized by location close to schools and dwellings with traditional
play equipment surrounded by vegetation (Jansson 2010). A study in Norway found that
children in preschool were attracted by features that offered risky and thrilling play
involving great heights, high speed, dangerous tools, dangerous elements, getting lost, and
rough and tumble activities (Sandseter 2009b). In the previously mentioned study from
Norway, Fjørtoft and Sageie (2000) remarked that children used specific core areas more
frequently and that these areas were often named. The division of the area of study was
coarse and they suggested that, “Perhaps, the scale should be more function-related and
linked to points and special features in the playscape, for example, a special feature, a
climbing tree or a sliding slope.” (ibid. p. 94).
Research aim and research questions
If a municipality planner, a park manager or a forester would like to consider outdoor stays
in green settings by preschools and wants to take this user group into account, what is then
of importance? As mentioned earlier, outdoor preschools in Denmark do not belong to a
common organization, and therefore there is no central body to ask about experiences and
expectations.
In this study children accustomed to the outdoors are regarded as experts concerning
the use of outdoor settings. Preschool staff members are the key persons in relation to preschool children’s outdoor stay: they have everyday experiences about children and settings
and they identify, choose, and shape the outdoor areas of stay and decide whom to bring,
how often, and for how long. The present study is based on the assumption that the
experiences from forest preschools and outdoor preschools about how the shape of green
settings support and restrict children’s activities are valuable for planning and managing
green spaces and woodlands for this group. The main aim of this study is to describe and
analyse the outdoor features of significance for preschool children’s activities and of
importance for design and management of green settings for preschools.
21
Research questions
When referring to affordances1 as the meaningful action possibilities of the environment, the
key research questions were expressed as follows:
1. Which terms are appropriate for analysing and understanding affordances of
outdoor settings for children in preschools? (Paper 1)
2. What are the similarities and differences between activities of playground and forest
settings for children in a preschool context? What are the important characteristics
of affording features for children in preschool? (Paper 2)
3. What are the affordances of forest features for children in preschool? (Exemplified
by the ditch in Paper 3)
4. What are the characteristics of forest sites and features used and valued by children
and staff in preschool, exemplified by the study of a specific Danish forest
preschool? (Paper 4)
1
The concept of affordances will be discussed in detail in the chapter Theoretical Framework.
22
2. Theoretical framework
Prior to the fieldwork I had not settled on a specific way of understanding the relationship
between humans and the environment, specifically children and green settings. The search
for a way to analyse and conceptualize the observations led to the scholarly discipline of
ecological psychology (Heft 2001). In this chapter the theoretical framework of the study
and the central definitions will be outlined.
The concept of ecology
Ecology is defined as ‘the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms to one
another and to their physical surroundings’ (Dictionary 2004). The ecological way of
conceptualizing the environment is based on two important points. The first is to view the
world as an ecosystem consisting of a multitude of intertwined events with feedback
mechanisms regulating the processes in a number of sub-systems, which are considerably
stable for a period of time, but also apt to development and change (Heft 2012). The second
point is that the subsystems belong to different levels nested in a hierarchic system. Within
each sub-system the on-going tuning and re-tuning of processes is intense, but these
processes also work between different hierarchic layers. Examples are cells in organs in
bodies in dwellings in environments, or children in families in neighbourhoods in societies.
There is an analogy to actions nested in activities and activities nested in events, again
nested in other events at higher levels or of longer duration (ibid.).
These two points meet in the view that multiple processes and interchanges of energy
and messages are on-going and deeply intertwined into the substance of life wherein humans
are but a single ‘organ’ within an intricate and intriguing system (ibid.). It is hard to find an
appropriate illustration; it is not a net or a web, because nets and webs require lines or ropes
of some similarity to be linked in nodes. Imagining a living body is maybe the most
appropriate way to visualize an ecosystem in development, but functioning and selfregulating for a period of time (ibid.).
Organisms rely on, and are adapted to, the environment: their eco-niche (J. J. Gibson
1979), which is a specific set of conditions in an environment of importance to their living.
At the same time organisms are often shaping and modifying their settings to meet their
needs and interests; this is called ‘niche construction’ (Odling-Smee et al. 2003). The niche
construction may at the same time change the conditions for other similar organisms or other
species and support or restrict their possibilities.
Environmental and ecological psychology
Consulting the Oxford Dictionary, environment is defined in to ways as: ‘The surroundings
or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates’, and: ‘The natural world,
as a whole or in a particular geographical area, especially as affected by human activity’
(Dictionary 2004).
Environment in the first sense is either conceptualized as the surroundings for
humans focusing on natural and built surroundings - or as the conditions for humans,
including both material and social terms. Environment in the second sense is the natural
23
environment, often called ‘nature’, and the focus is the impact of humans, human
institutions and societies on the non-built surroundings.
The field of environmental psychology is concerned with the influences of the
environment on humans and of humans on the environment. It covers diverse questions
mirroring the different definitions of environment previously mentioned such as work place
conditions, fear of crime, healing gardens and conservation behaviour. The
conceptualizations of the relationship between humans and the environment in
environmental psychology are based on a number of philosophical views and have led to
many sub-disciplines, most often resting on an interactional worldview (Heft 2012).
According to the interactional worldview, humans are stable and independent entities
reacting with other stable entities of the environment along cause-effect lines (Figure 1). The
entities and the stimulus-response functions may be many, but actions are seen as causal.
The units of interest are the humans and the environments as separate entities, and the
system is seen as closed.
leads to action
causes an action
is stable
Figure 1. Example of the interactional worldview: the setting causes action. Based on (Heft 2012)
Another field, which primarily evolved out of studies of perception, is ecological
psychology. Ecological psychology is based on a specific philosophy or worldview
concerning the relationship between humans and the environment: the transactional
worldview (Heft 2012). According to the transactional worldview, humans are developing
entities with intentions interacting with other entities in a way that is only partly predictable.
Furthermore, the humans and the environment change and are changed all along (Figure 2).
affords meaningful action possibilities
affords different actions
and person develop in the process
is not affording (anymore)
Figure 2. Example of the transactional worldview: the setting may offer meaningful action
possibilities. Based on (Heft 2012)
24
Actions are ‘tuned’ and ‘re-tuned’ in an on-going stream in relation to changing
competences and a changing environment; the entities are developing and are at the same
time part of other systems. The units of interest are the dynamic person-environment
systems, and the boundaries of these systems are not fixed; they change according to
actions. The systems are viewed as open. Actions are nested into other actions, and they
depend on the previous histories of the persons and of the settings, influenced by society and
culture (Heft 2012).
James Gibson, a highly influential scholar in the field of ecological psychology,
considered perception from the stance of an active perceiver. For example, the visual
perceptual system includes the eyes and optical tract to the brain and movements of the eyes,
head, and entire body in the detection of information (Gibson 1979). Gibson viewed
perception as intentional and proposed that perceivers detect features of the environment
that have value for them as active living beings. He expressed the point that the value and
meaning of an environment may be directly perceived: “Perhaps the composition and layout
of surfaces constitute what they afford. If so, to perceive them is to perceive what they
afford. This is a radical hypothesis, for it implies that the ‘values’ and ‘meanings’ of things
in the environment can be directly perceived” (ibid., p. 127).
The ecological approach as explained by Gibson is holistic. There is no fixed
boundary between the human and the environment; when we use tools, we extend our body
and our reach, and when we wear clothes the boundary is at the surface of the clothes, but
tools and clothes are part of the environment when not in use (ibid., p. 41). There is no
division between the natural world and the artificial world. When we build roads or bridges,
plant and harvest, the setting is modified, but there is only one world to perceive (ibid p.,
130). There is no such thing as mind and body considered separately, a human is an
integrated whole, and perceiving the self and the world happens at the same time; the
continuous act of perception involves co-perceiving of the self (ibid., p. 240). Furthermore,
there is no division between perceiving and knowing; perceiving is one form of knowing
among others. There is no clear division between memories, perceptions, hallucinations, and
daydreaming; they are all integrated in the perceptual system. This perceptual system can
work detached from sensory stimulation, but only the existing world can be scrutinized:
when moving you can investigate the object and detect something new, such as the hidden
side of an object, a different sound from an orchestra, the smell if you get closer, or the
sense of touch over a surface.
The concept of affordances
In an attempt to describe what animate beings, including humans, perceive when looking
and moving around, Gibson introduced and coined the concept of affordances:
“The affordances of the environment are what it affords the animal, what it provides or
furnishes, either for good or ill. The verb to afford is found in the dictionary, but the noun
affordance is not. I have made it up. I mean by it something that refers to both the
environment and the animal in a way that no existing term does. It implies the
complementarity of the animal and the environment.” (ibid. p. 127, original italics).
25
Gibson also referred to affordances as ‘properties taken with reference to the
observer’ (ibid., p. 143). The theory of affordances states that what is first and foremost
perceived in an environment is what it affords: “The medium, substances, surfaces, objects,
places and other animals have affordances for a given animal. They offer benefits and
injury, life and death. This is why they need to be perceived. The possibilities of the
environment and the way of life of the animal go together inseparably” (ibid., p. 143).
In sum, Gibson’s affordances are environmentally based possibilities that are
relational and of value, they exist and are based in the material world, and they are directly
perceivable in the course of action. Gibson added that affordances are often general for a
species of living beings.
That affordances are perceived directly with no need for concepts make affordances
immediate, but not fixed: perception of possibilities happens in the course of action and
develops over time. Perception of affordances relies on the existing physical environment
but also on the perceptual system being attuned to information of a certain sort. According
to Gibson this attuning is a sensitizing that develops with practice (ibid., p. 254).
After a long career of researching children and learning, Eleanor Gibson (2001)
stated it like this: “Perceiving an affordance entails detecting the relation between the
organism’s power of control and some offering of the environment (i.e., perceiving that that
resource or support for action has utility for this person, child, or animal).” (Eleanor Gibson
2000, p. 295). She added that such a relation is seldom perceived automatically but is picked
up in the course of action. Using an example of a child experiencing that a slope of more
than 10° cannot be descended upright, but has to be coped with by sitting and sliding, she
added that, “such learning can be referred to as discovering meaning and is perceived
accordingly.” (Eleanor Gibson 2000, p. 295). Possibilities for action may be perceived
immediately, discovered in the course of action, or pointed to by others in action, literally by
hand, by direction of look or by words (Heft 2012). This makes affordances dependent not
only on the person and the physical setting, but also on the actions going on and the
company, all changing with time.
The concept of affordances and its definition and scope is debated, not in the least
because the concept is so rich and difficult to operationalize. What was the content of ‘what’
when Gibson stated that ‘the affordances of the environment are what it affords the animal’
as mentioned earlier? The possible interpretations are many. Various explanations and
definitions occur in the literature. Heft introduced the following definition in his work about
children’s outdoor environments: “Affordances... refer to functional significances of
environmental features for an individual.” (Heft 1988, p. 29). In later writings Heft referred
to affordances as “perceptible properties of the environment that have functional
significance for an individual” (Heft 2010, p. 18), while also stating that affordances are
“properties of the environment that are both objectively real and psychologically significant”
(ibid, p. 19). More recently Heft stated, “affordances refer to the environmental properties
that are significant because of the actions they make possible or limit for an individual.”
(Heft 2013b, p. 164).
26
Chemero (2003) defined affordances as “… relations between the abilities of
organisms and features of the environment” (p. 189). Moore (2014) used the following
explanation: “Affordance can be described as a quality of an object, or an environment,
which allows an individual to perform an action” (p. 24).
The above statements of Heft, Chemero and More are not in contradiction with J. J.
Gibson, but focus on different aspects of the term, whether the interest is the activities made
possible, the abilities or intentions of the person, the functional properties, or the qualities of
objects and places. The concept of affordances is a philosophical concept that opens for new
ways of thinking and understanding the relationship between beings and environments. This
creative power of concepts may explain the appeal of the concept of affordances and also
why so many definitions are at play. At the same time it underlines the need for clarification
when using the term.
Affordances and affording features as defined in this study
The concept of affordances as developed by Gibson (1979) has the advantage of taking the
user’s size and abilities, perceptions and interests into account. In my study, affordances
refer to the action possibilities constituted by the environment that are perceptible and of
value for a being. In short: Affordances are the meaningful action possibilities of the
environment (Box 1). Meaningful simply means perceptible and of significance for
someone, that is, worth doing or avoiding. Actions cover all bodily actions such as moving
one’s body, limbs, head, hands, lips or eyes, for example when observing. This definition
emphasizes an important point in Gibson’s thinking: the intertwining of intentions,
perceptions and actions. Using words such as ‘possibilities’ and ‘meaningful’ underlines the
dynamic and personal character of the concept. Gibson (1979) described the features in the
environment that offer perceptible action possibilities for humans under the headlines:
places, objects, substances, surfaces, events, other beings and human displays. In the
following these features will be referred to as affording features, however, humans and
human displays are not considered in this study.
Gibson’s understanding of events involves perceptible changes in places, objects,
and substances. Events can either be changes of placement or form such as translocations,
deformations and modifications; changes in texture and colour such as ripening or oxidation;
or changes in existence such as coming into or out of existence by for example evaporation
or decay. Smaller and shorter events are nested into bigger and longer events. Gibson was
aware of the importance of changes or disturbances in the environment and stated, “they are
what we are visually most sensitive to, all of us, animals, babies, men, women and
moviegoers.” (ibid., p. 110).
Settings and behaviour settings
A setting in this study refers to the physical environment of an area. ‘Green settings’ are
defined as settings commonly perceived as dominated by biological and chemical forces due
to living organisms and weather. Green settings include natural, semi-natural and cultivated
areas such as forest, woodland, beach, farmland, park and garden. Though they are not all
‘green’ this expression is chosen to avoid the dichotomies of natural/cultural and
27
authentic/artificial. ‘Green spaces’ refer to green settings in an otherwise urbanized
environment. ‘Forest’ is the indigenous vegetation in Denmark, though all present forests
and woodlands are more or less cultivated. In this study forest also refers to areas of a size
and with vegetation giving a child the feeling of being in ‘free nature’. ‘Forest features’ refer
to features such as creatures, plants, plant parts, saw dust, ditches, hills, soil, sand, stones
and water bodies that are not or only subtly manufactured. This expression in chosen instead
of ‘natural features’ in order to keep clear of the connotations to pure, authentic and good.
The boundary between ‘forest features’ and ‘manufactured feauture’ is not sharp.
Comprehensive and close studies of behaviour in an everyday context convinced
Barker (1968) that behaviour is often more closely connected to a specific setting and time
than to the individual person. For this reason Barker invented the notion of ‘behaviour
settings’. A behaviour setting consists of one or more standing pattern of behaviour
connected to a milieu. ‘Milieu’ refers to a complex of time, places and things. The milieu
surrounds the pattern of behaviour, and the behaviour inside the boundaries of a behaviour
setting is more interdependent than dependent on behaviour outside the setting (ibid.).
Barker found an, often tacit, understanding of what attending a specific behaviour
setting required. This was often a set of unwritten rules restricting some actions and at the
same time supporting joint actions that otherwise would not have been possible for the
participants, for instance playing a basketball match or performing a church service. The
action possibilities of a behaviour setting not only rely on the physical shape of the setting,
but also on the adhered-to and agreed-on set of norms and restrictions on behaviour and
agreement about the relevant time span.
The outdoor area of a preschool is a behaviour setting during school hours. When a
child enters this area, certain behaviour occurs and a certain set of rules are adhered to
facilitating specific actions. Nested in this setting are a number of sub-settings with more
specific behaviours and rules for each setting, such as the sand pit, the tarmac on the
playground, or the circle of children made when carving in the forest. The activities in a
group are not just a sum of single individual activities; something else can happen in a
group. The concept of behaviour settings is the reason for using the expression ‘for children
in preschool’ instead of ‘for preschool children’. The latter designates an age, the former
designates the behaviour setting wherein this study is situated, namely the settings used by
preschools in school hours.
Play and activities
If you ask children in preschool what they like to do or what they have done today, the most
common answer will be ‘play’ or ‘play with my friends’. Play and the reasons for play have
been described and categorized in many ways, often as opposed to purpose, necessity, work,
duty and hardship. Brian Sutton-Smith, often regarded as the ‘nestor’ of play research, listed
the many rhetorics of play including animal play and child play (Sutton-Smith 1997). He
declares, “in short we do not know why children play, even if they cannot help it.” (ibid.,
p.49). He stresses that individuals show great variation in play, as for most other abilities,
but he considers play a universal human trait because it is one of the major forms of prelinguistic communication in animals. Sutton-Smith is not sure whether play serves any
28
specific purpose connected to development and progress, since it is found in all age groups.
This does not contradict the idea that play experiences may occasionally trickle down and
enhance progress in academic, social, moral, physical and cognitive skills. He points out that
play is joyful and of social value to those who are successful in their play. It also enables
play with others, increases happiness, and often results in friendship. Sutton-Smith suggests
that play with its quirky shifts, redundancy and flexibility is an activity that secures and
reinforces biological and cultural variability in order to keep many evolutionary possibilities
open for an unknown future. Sutton-Smith is not connected to the discipline of ecological
psychology, but his view on children’s activities and play is in accordance with the
ecological concept of evolution. As Heft states, “Variation is essential in the stability and
longevity of natural systems and the novelties that can arise through variation are the
forward edge of development at all levels of nature.” (Heft 2013 a, p. 165).
Within preschools the term ‘free play’ is commonly used, but as several studies have
pointed out, children’s play is not ‘free’ in the individual sense of the word, since peers also
influence what is possible and acceptable (Gulløv 1998; Højlund 2002). ‘Free play’ is
characterized by the fact that staff members do not direct the activities and only interfere if
they are called upon or find it necessary.
In this study ‘free play’ is understood as child-initiated activities. The term
‘activities’ is used about children’s play and on-going actions and have been chosen for its
inclusiveness. The word is used in plural to distinguish it from the more narrow ‘activity’ in
singular, which is often understood as brisk physical activity.
Definitions
An overview of the definitions used in this study is provided in Box 1.
Box 1. Definitions of central concepts used in the present study
Actions
Movements of body, limbs, head, eyes
Activities
On-going actions such as moving, handling, modifying, talking and
observing
Affordances
The meaningful action possibilities of the environment
Affording feature
The specific feature that affords meaningful activities
Behaviour setting
A defined setting and time with specific, often tacitly, agreed upon
patterns of behaviour
Child-initiated
Not directed or interfered by staff
Creature
An animal, as distinct from a human being
Ecology
The branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms to one
another and to their physical surroundings
Environment
The physical and social context
Feature
Place, object, substance or event
29
Fixture
Fixed object, natural or manufactured
Forest feature
Outdoor features, that are not or only subtly manufactured such as
plants, creatures, ditches, saw dust, water bodies
Forest
Woodland, here also referring to areas of a size and with vegetation
giving a child the feeling of ‘free nature’
Forest preschool
Preschool where stays in forest sites play an essential role in daily life
Forest site
Site in public accessible green setting used for preschool stays, often
named
Free play
Child-initiated activities
Green settings
Outdoor settings where forest features are perceived as dominant;
including natural, semi-natural and cultivated areas
Green spaces
Green settings in an otherwise urbanized environment
Natural area
Area of land where human influence is not obvious
Outdoor preschool
Umbrella term for preschool groups staying in public or private green
settings such as nature preschools, bus preschools, commuter
preschools and ‘forest groups’ in traditional preschools
Playground
Areas planned and designed for children’s play, mainly with
manufactured play equipment
Preschool
Institutionalized day care for groups of children (approx. 3-6.5 years)
Semi-natural area
Extensively cultivated area
Setting
The physical environment of an area, manufactured as well as ‘natural’
Shielded Place
Place or structure where children can be fully or partly shielded from
view and interference
A cross-disciplinary framework
Gibson’s concept of affordances illuminates the close relationship between
environment, persons and actions. To sum up, the concept of affordances reckons the mutual
on-going tuning and re-tuning character of what is going on between children and setting
(Gibson 1979). Eleanor Gibson points out the importance of action and discovery for the
detection of affordances (Eleanor Gibson 2000). Heft (2012) emphasizes the personal level
and adds how other humans influence the perception of affordances by pointing, either
literally, with words or by actions. Barker (1968) explains how we socially restrict some
actions and make possible others within a frame of time and place, and Sutton-Smith (1997)
suggests that play is an evolutionarily evolved activity to secure variability and keep
possibilities open.
These theories and perspectives constitute the cross-disciplinary framework for the
inductive and exploratory research approach chosen and described in the following chapter.
30
3. Research design and methods
This chapter describes the research approach and methods. The study is explorative and
qualitative, that is, inductive and based on observations and interpretations of cases (Grimen
and Ingstad 2007). The approach has been to stay curious and open minded in relation to
what happens and what could happen in outdoor settings, in relation to research methods
and conventions, and regarding the ways in which things are and can be expressed.
Phenomenology, ethnographic fieldwork and case studies will be briefly introduced,
followed by a paragraph on reliability. Then the methods used in each of the four substudies will be described, followed by reflections on the methods chosen and ethical
questions raised by the study.
Phenomenological approach
Of concern to phenomenology are the experiencing subjects, the experiencing body in the
world and how the world presents itself in consciousness of the subject. The aim is to reveal
a subject-matter on its own terms as far as possible (Larkin et al. 2006). Phenomenological
analysis can be described as discovering or clarifying the meanings of phenomena from
lived experiences in a search for a fulfilling expression of the life world of the subjects
(Giorgi 2012). This is often done by a systematic analysis of interviews about experiences or
by examining and analysing one’s own experiences.
Human perception is viewed as prior to thinking, reflecting and making concepts. All
knowledge and thinking is experienced in bodies situated in time and place. This does not
devaluate thinking, but claims that our spoken truths are situated, temporary and influenced
by time, place, culture, mind-set and worldview. When research is based in phenomenology
it is seen as important to strive for a clear division between the expressions of people and the
interpretation of these expressions by the researcher (Giorgi 2012). The aim is to reproduce
the answers as objective as possible, and postpone the interpretations as long as possible in
the analytic process. One of the key notions in phenomenology is open-mindedness.
To study young children’s experiences of settings is a challenge, since their language
skills differ from those of adults. The words and terms of the spoken language and the
language skills and level of reflection will always limit the generating of knowledge from
interviews, and this applies especially to children.
In this study the activities were seen as the children’s non-verbal statements about
the meaningful action possibilities in outdoor settings, that is, the affordances. Observations
of children cannot show how the world presents itself in their consciousness, but the acts of
children show the results of how the world is perceived. The items and places in use were
obviously the features perceived as affording, i.e. the affording features. Observing children
is to listen to their non-verbal language and to use this as a basis for description. In this
description, interpretation cannot be avoided, but then, interpretation can never be avoided:
as soon as language is involved, you move from the direct perception to some kind of
interpretation based on the categories of language.
In interviews, the researcher makes the first sorting decisions: Everything you do not
ask about disappears in the dark. Then the interviewee makes the first interpretation and the
31
researcher makes the second. In comparison, when observing children, the researcher
likewise carries out the first sorting by focusing on specific situations: what you do not
observe disappears in the dark. When listening to children’s non-verbal language, the
observer jumps directly to the second interpretation. In both cases, the results are highly
dependent on the skills and attitude of the researcher.
In this study the experiencing children, their relationship to the settings and the
meaningful features in those settings are in focus.
Ethnographic field work
In ethnography the classical question is ‘what’s going on out there?’ with the aim to report
from a foreign world to a known world. The focus is how living in the foreign world
happens, accepting that life is rich and that we can only capture a small part of it (Hastrup
2004). An important point is ‘being there’, ideally for a long time, to experience the same
conditions as your study objects, looking in the same directions in search of patterns in
actions, priorities and understandings (Gulløv and Højlund 2003). It is important to find and
keep the right position or distance to make it possible to be a participant as well as an
observer. It is an advantage if you know as much as possible about the field beforehand,
being aware of your preconceptions and being open for surprises. Ethnographic fieldwork
makes use of many methods such as observations, interviews, noting down, counting, taking
photos, video recording and mapping.
This study uses fieldwork as a tool inspired by ethnography with the aim to inform
planning and management of outdoor settings. The observations of children in their
everyday settings are regarded as the main source of information, and the interviews with
children and staff members are considered as a supplement to the observations. It differs
from traditional ethnographic fieldwork in the interest and analysis; in ethnography the
results would be compared with the corpus of ethnographic knowledge about the culture of
this specific group:
“What seems clear is that knowledge must be organized information; in the case of
anthropology it concerns the organized information about ways of living in the world
and modes of attending to the world. The organization implies that knowledge is both
reductive and selective... To investigate a particular idea of knowledge, we must,
therefore, not only look at the object of interest but also the mode of that interest, that
is the particular way of attending to the object and of organizing the information as
knowledge...This implies that knowing is a matter of perspective; there is no
knowledge without someone who knows in a particular way. Knowledge, therefore, is
a social phenomenon rather than simply a substance. To maintain scholarly authority
one must be able to account for the particular mode of interest that gives direction
and shape to knowledge.” (Hastrup 2004)(Hastrup 2004)(Hastrup 2004, pp. 455-56).
In this study the particular mode of interest is the wish to understand the relationship
between children’s activities and environmental features from children’s point of view with
the aim to inform planning and managing of outdoor areas for children in preschool.
32
Case studies as a methodology
The use of case studies belongs to what is usually called qualitative research methods as
opposed to a quantitative approach based on counting and measuring specific information in
numerous cases. Case studies often consist of a large quantity of qualitative observations.
According to Flyvbjerg (2004), the general opinion is that case studies are best suited for the
building of a hypothesis later to be tested ‘for real’. Case studies are regarded as prone to
researcher bias often affirming the researchers hypothesis and are thus not seen as
appropriate for generalizations, for theory building, or for developing propositions
(Flyvbjerg 2004). However, Flyvbjerg states that the case study approach provides or even
forces the researcher to explore, test, understand, and adapt his or her understanding against
reality through the whole period of collecting the data and can be well suited for testing
candidate hypothesis. Flyvbjerg furthermore points to the fact that a representative case is
often not as rich in information as the carefully chosen atypical or extreme case that may
reveal more basic mechanisms or even clarify deeper causes of a problem.
Generalizing is always a risky business, whether based on case studies or on broader
surveys. As Flyvbjerg states: "it should be mentioned that formal generalization, be it on the
basis of large samples or single cases, is considerably overrated as the main source of
scientific progress." (ibid., p. 10 ) On the other hand, this is what planners and designers
have to do if they want to plan for others. Closely studied cases may cast light on
assumptions about how things work, and the results may be useful as examples or in theory
building, even though they are preliminary.
Case studies are hard to summarize without losing colour, texture and depth. In this
study this is partly countered by links to short video sequences. This is not validating the
statements posed, since video recording and editing is biased from the very start, but used as
a way to illustrate the kind of empirical data the argumentation is built upon.
Reliability
In phenomenology it is an aim to bracket your preconceptions in an attempt to make the
results less biased. This is a noble aim but not at all uncomplicated. As soon as one uses
words about something, one makes choices regarding categories. In this way, observational
studies rely not only on the observation skills of the researcher, but also on language
abilities. Words and terms are closely connected to mind-set and assumptions of the
researcher about children, childhood, preschools and environment to mention a few. Even
when aiming for unbiased observation, the choice of events to videotape, the distillation of
the material, the descriptions of actions and events and eventually the analysis and
categorizations are all influenced by the worldview of the researcher.
Actually, these limitations count for quantitative research as well. As soon as you
chose terms and categories and which factors to keep stable to be able to concentrate on the
rest, choices according to worldview are taken.
The question of reliability may be handled by honesty and transparency, but for
instance a worldview is not simple to account for. My outset is that children are as different
as humans in general: unique examples of the mix of inheritance and environment, biology
and individual and collective histories. Childhood is on the one hand conceptual, constructed
33
and a result of socio-cultural processes, on the other hand it is materially based in small
bodies, cells, transpiration and biological terms such as growth and development. Children
in preschool share the fate of being small, being in rapid development, and being assigned to
adult decisions and care. In this way they live in a foreign world, often long since left and
forgotten by grown-ups.
In ethnography the reliability rests in an obligation to be true to the world being
studied and to the epistemological premises of ethnography that knowledge is relational. But
even if the results depend on a narrative, it is not so that anything goes. As Hastrup states it,
“Not all stories make sense, because the social ‘facts’ – such as they are – do not connect in
any number of ways; anthropology is ‘realist’ in the sense of having to take perceived
realities seriously” (Hastrup 2004, p. 469).
In case studies reliability may be strengthened by feedback from the informants, by
having other researchers go through the empirical material, by comparing the results from
different analytical perspectives, or by triangulating with for example official documents
(Tanggaard and Brinkmann 2015). Due to resource limitations this strengthening of the
reliability has only been possible to a limited degree in this study.
Situating the cases as well as the researcher is also important for the reliability of the
findings. The situating of the cases will now be presented; concerning the situating of the
researcher, see the Foreword.
Selection of cases
In order to get an idea of the relationship between children and settings and possible ways to
describe this relationship, I engaged in closer observations of children’s activities in two
different types of preschools for a period of two months (Sub-study 1). A forest preschool
was picked as an ‘extreme case’ making use of more than 25 named places in a large forest,
here referred to as forest sites. This case could offer rich information in relation to what
preschool children might perceive as affording features in green settings. A traditional
preschool situated nearby with a playground was chosen because children were recruited
from the same middle class area in Sorø: a small town in the Western part of Zealand,
Denmark. I knew both preschool leaders briefly beforehand so access was easy. Both
preschools followed a common curriculum and were not profiled in relation to specific
educational theories or lines.
To qualify the understanding of the relationship between children and green settings,
the observations continued in the forest preschool and covered all seasons (Sub-study 2). In
order to situate the case study in the wider outdoor preschool landscape, a web-based
screening of outdoor preschools in Denmark was performed (Sub-study 3). This was
supplemented with 1-2 days visits to 10 outdoor preschools in different parts of Denmark. In
order to see an array of oudoor preschools, the preschools were chosen to be of different
types and located in different Danish landscapes (Sub-study 4). The relations between the
sub-studies and the papers are shown in Figure 3.
34
Sub-study 1
Fieldwork in preschools:
playground + forest settings
Paper 1 and 2
Sub-study 3
Screening of
outdoor preschools
Appendix A
Sub-study 2
Fieldwork in forest
in all seasons
Paper 3 and 4
Sub-study 4
Visits and interviews
in outdoor preschools
Appendix B
Figure 3. Relation between sub-studies and papers
Sub-study 1. Fieldwork in playground and forest settings
Children’s activities and use of features were observed on a traditional playground
(Appendix C, Map 1) and at a number of forest sites (Example in Appendix C, Map 2). The
observations took place as follows:
Two groups of 28 and 21 children from the same middle class area in Sorø, Denmark
attending a traditional preschool and a forest preschool respectively, were observed in the
outdoor environments they were used to in order to investigate setting-child relationships.
The focus of the observations was on child-initiated activities involving features in the
outdoor settings (playground, forest sites). Children were observed during time allocated for
‘free play’. This was not to disregard the importance of staff-initiated activities, but because
it was assumed that observations of children in time for ‘free play’ would offer more
information about affordances. Focus was on all kinds of activities where the setting seemed
to be of significance for the activities. The affording features for groups of preschoolers
were interpreted as the features in use in the setting within a given time frame. The
playground and the forest settings were chosen in order to observe the activities and the
features in use in two different kinds of settings. The playground and forest were compared
to cast light on the specific qualities of each.
Observations were made during 12 visits in each group in winter/early spring. The
winter season was chosen to avoid the vacation-like atmosphere in the other seasons. The
groups were observed in the setting they were accustomed to: the playground and 10 sites in
the forest respectively. The playground group was additionally observed twice in green
settings: in the forest and on a fenced nature playground.
35
The method of observation was participatory observation with the limitations and
possibilities of being an atypical adult (Gulløv and Højlund 2003). The sites were sketched
with signatures for districts, edges and landmarks (Lynch 1960) and with notes about ground
cover and used features. Activities and used features were registered in field notes and by
hand held video recordings. Activities were described in everyday terms; features were
described with words for playground equipment and words from forestry and landscape
architecture. Observations included the level of physical activity, minor accidents, and
conflicts. The observations were supplemented with informal talks with children and staff.
The video angle was mostly from adult height to get an overview of activities and
follow the direction of children’s movements and attention. Standing made it clear that I was
not an ordinary participant. The children knew that I had a special purpose for being there.
Sometimes they performed for me, invited me into a game or asked me to stop shooting, but
they soon realized I was neither a playmate nor a member of staff. As a child remarked:
‘You are always happy, you never scold’. Another said: ‘Please go get an adult, we’re in
trouble’. I probably did not see the absolutely secret games. However, I often got a glance
and then children continued their activities while they knew I would not disturb. It was my
clear impression that the children didn’t mind my presence. I did intervene a few times to
prevent accidents when no ‘real adults’ were nearby. Once in a while I took a break, went
beyond the role, answered questions, looked at treasures and had some fun. Short semistructured interviews in situ about the value of free play, the staff role and the opinions on
the settings were carried out with all staff members at the end of the period.
The activities and features used were seen as children’s answers to the question:
‘what are the meaningful action possibilities of this setting?’ Interpretation of the non-verbal
answers of the children and analysis of the answers were inspired by the principles in
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Larkin et al. 2006), where you read and reread
and view and review your material, look for themes and try to identify things that matter to
the participants (Fig 4).
Then the findings were analysed according to Hefts preliminary functional taxonomy
for children’s outdoor environments (Heft 1988). Adjustments of the classification for
children in preschool were made and new practical names proposed. Key activities distinct
for each class and attractive for children were pointed out and the characteristics of the used
features were described (Figure 5). Similarities and differences in activities and used
features on playground and in forest sites were then identified and the specific contribution
of manufactured and forest features pointed out (Figure 5).
36
Viewing/reading and re-viewing/re-reading
videos and fieldnotes
Finding daily themes in meaningful
activities and used features
Finding themes across days
and settings
Characteristics of
used features
Figure 4. Basic analytic steps in fieldwork
Comparing observations
with Heft's taxonomy
Comparing playground
and forest
Adjusting
classification
Paper 1
Manufactured
vs. forest
features
Paper 2
Fig 5. Further analytic steps in sub-study 1, Paper 1 and 2
Sub-study 2. Year-round investigations in the forest
The observations were continued throughout a full year in the forest group, but at a lower
frequency. The aim was to further investigate the impact of weather and seasons on
affordances. This was done during 12 additional visits in spring, summer and autumn at 8
different sites. According to Kvale (2008), the right number of interviews is achieved when
there is enough material to answer your question. While the observations were regarded as a
question to the children about their perception of the setting, this is also relevant for the
number of visits. After 12 observation days on the playground, activities and features in this
setting were well know compared to activities and features in the forest, since each forest
site was only visited once or twice. Twelve additional observation days in the forest in all
seasons were carried out to get a better understanding of the forest settings.
37
Children were interviewed about which forest sites they knew, their favourite forest
sites and their activities in the forest. Members of staff were interviewed about the ideal site,
their favourite sites and their general choices of forest sites. This was supplemented with
informal talks about the choice of sites on the observation days. Staff made a list of the
forest sites used within the year of observation.
Observations were analysed as in Sub-study 1 (Figure 4) and arranged according to
the ten adjusted classes; now focusing on the affordances of the forest alone. A modest
forest feature, the ditch, with unexploited potentials in relation to green space and
playground planning and design was chosen for closer analysis (Figure 6).
The interviews with children and staff were transcribed and summarized. Facts about
sites were gathered and connected to staff choices and statements about good sites. The
statements about meaningful activities and features of staff and children, verbal as well as
non-verbal, were then organized according to the classification developed in Sub-study 1
(Figure 6).
Zooming in on ditches in
field notes and videos
Organizing facts about
sites and choices
Differentiating
beween types
Organizing
statements
Paper 3
Paper 4
Fig 6. Further analytic steps in sub-study 2, Paper 3 and 4
Sub-study 3. Screening of outdoor preschools
To situate the studied forest school in the preschool landscape in Denmark, a online survey
was conducted among staff members in preschools all over Denmark presumed to have an
outdoor practice. The aim was to get more general knowledge about goals and practices in
outdoor preschools. The survey was emailed to 353 preschools. The contact information was
searched for on the web and on the websites of the 98 municipalities in Denmark, but most
often the websites were not informative about outdoor preschools. Then the municipalities
were called and asked about their knowledge of preschools where outdoor stays in green
settings were an essential part of daily life.
The questions were quantitative concerning facts such as preschool type, number of
children and staff, group selection, outdoor time, kind of green settings in use, distance to
green settings, means of transport, but also qualitative concerning goals for stays in green
settings and wishes for the settings. The respondents could choose to answer some or all
questions and 178 responded (50%) (Appendix C, Map 3). The answers were studied and
summarized.
38
Sub-study 4. Visits to outdoor preschools and interviews with staff members
Visits of 1-2 days were made to 10 outdoor preschools chosen to be of different types and
situated in different landscapes in Denmark. The selection included forest preschools, nature
preschools, bus preschools and commuter preschools with different outdoor practices. The
forest sites were located on moraine, glacial plains, and coastal dunes. The goal of the visits
was to experience whether results from Subs-studies 1 and 2 could be supported or seriously
questioned by a broader reality.
During the visits, children’s activities were observed in the outdoor settings and field
notes were made. The sites were sketched and affording features noted. Semi-structured
interviews were conducted with one or more members of staff about practices, educational
goals and sites. The interviews were performed in situ and when possible; sometimes in a
hut or shelter, sometimes on a walk or at the forest sites. Field notes, sketches and
transcribed interviews were used for corroborating the classification of outdoor features
proposed in Paper 1.
Reflections on methods
This paragraph will mention some of the limitations of this study. Ethnographic studies
usually aim at detailed knowledge about a specific group situated in time and space, seen
from another place, “not to tell the world as it is (which is impossible) but to interpret it and
suggest possible (theoretical) connections within this world as perceived and inferred from
being in touch with a world that cannot be taken for granted – unlike the home world. By
definition, ‘the home world’ is where frames and events are seamlessly and imperceptibly
fused.” (Hastrup 2004). To use ethnographic methods in a study aimed at planning and
design for other groups in other circumstances rests on a presumption about similarity to
some level between the groups, (see the paragraph about generalizations in the discussion).
To study children and staff used to stays in green settings was a choice, based on the
assumption that they have expert knowledge in the field of green settings for children. They
most certainly have, but whether this knowledge is transferable to other preschools is worth
questioning. It rests on the idea that children and staff in preschools to some degree share
interests and preferences in the outdoors, and this is probably only partially true.
Generalizing about causal relationships in open, living systems like preschools will
always be a risky business (Biesta 2010). Taking the situatedness of events seriously implies
that observations can tell something about what has happened, but cannot lead to predictions
about what will happen in this or other contexts. Still, these observations may be inspiring
and lead to concepts and other tools usable in more or less similar contexts, here preschools
and preschool outdoor areas in general. In a future-oriented discipline such as landscape
architecture, visions about what will happen and what may happen in the future can be
qualified by knowledge about what has happened before.
What you see and record and later describe in words and terms is highly influenced
by your observational, verbal, and narrative skills. Furthermore, comparing observations
from a playground and a forest may be biased, since it is easier to observe activities and
features in the open and fenced area of the playground than in the more dense and spacious
area in the forest. Many actions probably went on unobserved and unrecorded, and more so
39
in the denser forest than at the more open playground. The use of video recording is also
selective, but gives the chance to return to situations, test your narratives and detect more
that you did in real-time.
To try to grasp what is happening in a preschool group is a complex task; so many
individuals doing so many things at the same time is overwhelming and hard to describe.
Several researchers observing, recording, viewing the films and discussing the
interpretations could have qualified the results, but more researchers in the field might also
have brought more disturbance.
In this study, children were described as a group. This is on purpose, since what
happens in a group may differ from what happens for isolated children. But to treat and talk
about children as a mass is a simplification; children were indeed different in ages and sizes,
abilities and competences, and also in interests, temperaments and spirits. When I write
‘children did...’ it might be a few, some, most, or all children and for various periods of
time. The account is a list of observed and thereby possible behaviours. This list can be
relevant if you design for varied behaviour, contrary to designing for a specific behavioural
outcome as for instance physical activity.
Ethical questions
In Sub-study 1 and 2, permission was obtained from the leaders of the preschools to
participate in everyday life for a period of time. Parents gave written permission for my
presence and use of observations and video sequences for research and education. Individual
respondents from all sub-studies are anonymous in the text. Links to video clips can be
found in the papers, but are otherwise not accessible.
In Sub-study 4, preschool leaders allowed photo shooting and video recording for
registration and remembrance under the condition that I would ask for permission if some of
the material should be published.
You cannot be part of a setting without influencing it. Though adults have a more
powerful position than children, I did not have the feeling that my presence seriously
disturbed or changed the events for neither children nor staff. The staff knew that my
interest was in children and setting, not in staff attitudes and roles.
The question about ethics in a wider sense acknowledging that the view of children
presented and the knowledge gained may be used in governance of preschools was
considered as suggested by Kampmann (2003). I can hardly imagine that the results of this
work can be used in a negative way for children and staff in preschools.
40
4. Results
This chapter briefly presents the results of the four individual papers (Papers 1- 4) and of the
additional findings (Appendix A and B).
Paper 1. Revisiting Heft’s functional taxonomy
Which terms are appropriate for analysing and understanding affordances of outdoor
settings for children in preschools?
This study observed activities and outdoor features used by children in two Danish
preschools in playground and forest settings respectively in order to investigate the
affordances of the settings. Affordances refer to the meaningful action possibilities of the
environment and underline the unity of person, environment, and action.
The themes found in observations of activities and used features in playground and
forest settings showed a good fit with Heft’s taxonomy of outdoor environments for
children. The features within each class seemed to be of importance in both groups of
children within the possibilities of the settings. As stated by Heft (1988) the classes were not
exclusive; more than one class afforded some activities, and some activities relied on
features from two or more classes. Based on the observations of children’s activities, two of
Heft’s functional classes were included in other classes and two classes were added. After
consulting Gibson’s original work on affordances (Gibson, 1979), new practical names
intended for planners and managers were proposed for the classes, ending up with the
following 10 classes: open ground, sloping terrain, shielded places, rigid fixtures, moving
fixtures, loose objects, loose material, water, creatures, and fire (links to video clips for
each class in Paper 1, Table 2). Key activities distinctive for each class and attractive for
preschoolers were pointed out as an integrated part of the classification (Table 1). The
classes were created for the sake of getting an overview; not to suggest in any way that
features from the classes should be kept apart in different sub-settings.
Within each class the following characteristics seemed to be of importance: variation
and uniqueness, sizes and gradation, and novelty and change. Incorporation of features from
all 10 classes where challenges fit the developing abilities and interests of preschool children
in amounts making them available for all children in a preschool group could be a way of
creating settings rich in affordances for children in preschool.
It should be emphasized that features may offer possibilities for actions, but this does
not inevitably lead to actions; the relationship between settings and activities is not a simple
causal relationship. Time for discovery and exploration or introduction by peers or staff
members may be needed for discovering meaningful action possibilities of environmental
features.
The classification of outdoor features for preschool might be used to get an overview
of existing features and as a starting point in planning, design and managing playgrounds as
well as common green spaces and woodland with focus on children in preschool, but only at
a basic level.
41
When focusing on pre-schoolers’ institutional outdoor settings, this study supports
the idea that the affordance concept is valuable, insisting on the intimate, on-going and
developing user-environment-activity relationship.
Table 1. Classification of outdoor features for children in preschool with outset in the concept of
affordances
Affording
features
(Gibson, 1979)
Places
(Immobile)
Classes in Heft’s functional
taxonomy of children’s outdoor
environment (Heft, 1988)
Flat, relatively smooth surface
Classes of outdoor
features for children
in preschool
1. Open ground
Relatively smooth slope
2. Sloping terrain
Shelter
3. Shielded places
Key
activities1
Run, drive,
walk
Roll, slide,
clamber
Hide, as
frame
Aperture
Attached
Objects,
(Immobile,
countable)
Detached
Objects
(Movable,
countable)
Substances
(Movable,
not countable)
Attached object
4. Rigid fixtures
Climb,
balance,
jump
Non-rigid attached object
5. Moving fixtures
Graspable/
detached object
6. Loose objects
Mouldable material
7. Loose material
Water
8. Water
Swing, sway,
seesaw, spin
Arrange,
modify, as
tools, props,
treasures
Dig, move,
mould, smear
Pour, mix,
splash, float
Look for,
handle, care
Feed, look
after, sit by
Climbable object
Events
(Changes)
9. Creatures
10. Fire
1
Key activities = distinctive and attractive activities in each class.
Paper 2. Affordances of playground and forest settings
What are the similarities and differences between activities of playground and forest settings
for children in a preschool context? What are the important characteristics of affording
features for children in preschool?
This study compared activities and outdoor features used by children in two Danish
preschools in playground and forest settings respectively by applying the affordance
42
framework. The observations of activities and features on playground and in forest were
reviewed and structured for playground and forest settings in relation to the adjusted
taxonomy of outdoor features for children in preschool. Many activities were of the same
kind in both settings, but differed in variation, scale and frequency (links to video-clips for
each class in each setting in Paper 2, Table 2). Running and sand activities were more
common on the playground and driving happened exclusively here. Climbing, swaying and
activities with creatures, water, and ice were more common and seemed to be more varied
and on greater scales in the forest setting, and activities with running water and fire
happened exclusively here. Arranging objects and using them as tools, props, and treasures
were seen in both settings. In the forest objects were also modified by use of sharp tools and
by crushing, breaking and chewing.
It was obvious that the children in both settings exploited and enjoyed features
offering not yet fully explored action possibilities.
Differences in activities were also influenced by different rules and permission in the
settings, especially in relation to climbing heights, modifying of loose objects and tidying
up.
The playground studied was 760 m2 equal to 27 m2 per child (with a group size of 28
children), while the area in use at the forest sites varied from approx. 600 m2 - 1,600 m2
equal to 29-76 m2 per child (with a group size of 21 children). The difference was even more
impressive when considering that the forest group within a year visited 27 different sites and
even increased the area in use by making adventure trips to adjacent places.
Manufactured features and forest features were present in both kinds of settings, but
in different selections and amounts. Many pieces of play equipment on the playground
seemed to mimic valued features in the forest, such as slides for sloping ground and wood
structures for climbing, and some of the constructed features in the forest were known from
the playground such as swings. This called for considerations about the affordances of
manufactured versus forest features in order to take advantage of both. Manufactured
features were most often uniform, durable and stable; forest features were most often varied
and gradated in sizes, forms, materials and sensory qualities and were more often changing
and modifiable. Manufactured features facilitated fast movements by vehicles, swings and
rope for swings; quick constructions by milk crates, planed boards and string; and modifying
by plastic tools and sharp tools. Forest features facilitated varied and gradated movements in
various terrain and vegetation, handling and modifications of abundant and self-renewing
objects, and new experiences due to the season, weather, growth and decay. Events such as
emerging creatures and fire contributed to change and constituted further outsets for
conversation.
By an intentional effort, some of the features observed as affording for children in
this study, forest as well as manufactured, may be incorporated or enhanced in playgrounds,
green spaces and woodland. Combined with allowance for handling and modifying, this
might lead to continually affording outdoor settings for children in preschool with their
differing and developing abilities and competences.
43
Paper 3. Affordances of ditches
What are the affordances of ditches for children in preschool?
Based on observations in a forest preschool in all season, ditches were chosen for
closer description as a simple and neglected feature in outdoor areas for preschool children.
Ditches are hollows in the landscape with a direction and dug by humans.
Ditches were attractive and used in many activities by preschool children (Paper 3,
Figure 1-6; links to video clips in Paper 3, Table 1). The children glided in, investigated,
clambered up from, jumped over, and followed ditches. The observed forest ditches varied
in shape, depth, and width, gradient of slope, ground material, and ground cover and owned
the qualities often found in forest features: variation and gradation in forms and sizes, and
change caused by seasonal change of water level and plant cover. Bridges made the ditches
even more attractive as places for balancing, gatherings, fishing, and looking out, whether
the bridge was a fallen tree, a bridge made of branches by the children or a bridge
constructed by the staff. Water in the ditch increased the possibilities and added thrill when
passing. Adjacent affording features like trees growing in the ditch or vegetation on the sides
and temporary swings and tracks of rope over the ditch also increased the possibilities.
Changes due to weather, season and modifications made by children as well as staff
ensured continuous interest. It was the impression that having a good time, improving skills
and obtaining preparedness for new situations was going on simultaneously by the ditches.
Even rather small areas may lead to intense and joyful activities if they are rich in
affordances for children. Based on the observations, it was suggested to consider varied
ditches in green spaces, woodland and playgrounds, and to support and allow for
manipulation and modification of ditches and other features such as loose objects, soil and
water. This might well increase the meaningful action possibilities of the setting: the
affordances for children in preschool.
Paper 4. Characteristics of forest sites
What are the characteristics of forest sites and features used and valued by children and
staff in preschool, exemplified by the study of a specific Danish forest preschool?
This study provides detailed knowledge about the characteristics of used forest sites
in a Danish forest preschool, the staff reasons to choose specific sites, and features of value
for children and staff, coincident as well as non-coincident. In one year, the preschool group
in focus stayed at 27 different forest sites. Short distance to the site and interesting areas to
explore close-by were valued. The sites were located at least 100 m from deep water bodies
with steep sides, roads, and railroad tracks. The daily choice of site rested on many
considerations concerning the features at each site, the possibilities offered by season and
weather, and the actual group or children and staff. Children and staff valued many of the
same sites.
Most of the 15 forest sites observed during school hours were glades or forest edges,
often situated at the intersection between different plantings, pillar halls, or small glades in
tall evergreens. Most of the sites had many, varied and closely situated features from the
following eight (out of a total of ten) classes of outdoor features for preschool children: open
ground, sloping terrain, shielded places, rigid fixtures, moving fixtures, loose objects, loose
44
material and creatures. Features from the two remaining classes, water and fire, were
valued, but only present at some sites (links to video clips for each class in Paper 4, Table
3).
Children and staff valued features from all ten classes of outdoor features. When
asked, children especially emphasized the significance of varied and abundant loose objects
including specific plant parts. Shielded places were only seen as attractive to a limited
degree by staff, since overview was appreciated. Otherwise risk was not a big issue in the
choice of forest sites and fencing was not asked for.
The experiences of the studied forest preschool highlighted the value of having a
number of different sites in relation to topography, vegetation and animal life and with
abundant and varied loose objects and material; some sites with and some without access to
shallow water. This offered rich possibilities for staff to choose sites according to weather,
season, educational aims, and need for action possibilities and surveillance, at the same time
enhancing the variety of affordances for children. For practical reasons, most sites should
preferably be situated close to the preschool buildings.
Sub-studies 3 and 4. Corroborating the results
Data from sub-studies 3 and 4 were not processed into papers, but some of the data are
included.
Selected figures from Sub-study 3 are presented in a preliminary version in
Appendix A. The study showed that outdoor stays are performed in many different ways in
Denmark. The main findings of interest for planers and managers were that transport time
was usually less than half an hour each way whether by foot, train or bus, that most groups
staying in green settings consisted of 25 children or less, and that some groups were of
mixed ages, others divided by age. The reason to stay in green settings were connected to
features as space, fresh air, tranquility, time; natural features as varied terrain, varied ground
surfaces, vegetation with climbing trees, hiding places, materials, creatures, soil, mud, water
and fire; and natural phenomena as weather and seasons. Furthermore green settings were
regarded as suited for play, development and all kinds of learning and as healthy places for
children and staff.
Selected findings from Sub-study 4 are presented in a preliminary version in
Appendix B. The study confirmed the impression of multiple ways to perform outdoor stay,
varied green settings in use and varied attitudes in relation to rules in the green settings.
Children performed many of the activities formerly observed and were attracted to many of
the same outdoor features. What differed was the variation and amount of features in each
class. The classification of outdoor features for children in preschool proved to be useful to
get an overview of the affordances of the settings and to suggest further initiatives to
enhance affordances for children in preschool. The staff attitudes differed in relation to rules
for vegetation, tools, creatures and fire. It was a common experience of preschool staff that
the number of accidents were low compared to conventional playgrounds. The opinion on
potentially risky features was that it is better for children to approach them, learn about them
and know them than to be kept away.
45
5. Discussion
The answers to the four research questions are discussed in Papers 1- 4. In this chapter
themes across the papers will be discussed.
The first topic is to what extent the observations were in accordance with
assumptions from ecological psychology. The next paragraph focuses on the proposed
classification and how a meaningful outdoor environment for children can be described.
This is followed by a discussion of the properties of manufactured features and forest feature
and important qualities as: differences, variation and gradation; novelty and change;
abundance, space and boundaries. Then follow discussions about the possibilities for
modifying the setting and about risk. The chapter ends with reflections on methodology and
generalization.
Basic assumptions in ecological psychology
The relationship between children and setting can be conceived in different ways with
different implications for design and management. In the following it will be examined to
what extent the observations of children in playground and forest settings were in
accordance with four assumptions in ecological psychology mentioned in the theoretical
framework: 1) there is only one world, 2) the boundaries between person and environment
are not always at the surface of the skin, 3) body and mind are not separate units and, maybe
of most importance, 4) children and setting co-develop and get adapted to each other.
The observations confirmed that the boundaries between natural and manufactured
features did not seem to be important for the children. They gladly climbed all kinds of
fixtures, picked up bones as well as litter, and as gladly glided on play equipment as on
slopes in the forest as described in Paper 2.
The boundaries between child and environment were not fixed to the skin. In
swinging and swaying, seesawing and spinning, the movement of the child and the structure
was one. Limbs were extended by use of tools, throwing or driving in vehicles. Furthermore,
clothes were moving along as a part of the body, an extra skin. When children climbed
during the winter they had to take the size of their boots into account. They had to obtain the
competences and strength to move in the ‘winter body’ with its extra weight. No child
would prefer to move around clad as a ‘Michelin Man’, but if a tree or a log were
sufficiently appealing, the child would struggle to cope. From a staff viewpoint this added to
strength and competences.
The split between body and mind also seemed artificial. When children jumped a
ditch, all capabilities were at work simultaneously, mental as well as physical, and in the act
children seemed to perceive the environment as well as themselves, their body, their
competencies and their feelings. When they decided to balance along a log or build a bridge
it was impossible to distinguish the mental from the physical challenges, the experience, the
experiences and the learning: activities and learning seemed to go together. The detection of
affordances in actions or by observing peers, the perception-action cycles and the tuning and
re-tuning of actions were easily observed.
46
In both settings it was obvious how children changed the setting to fit needs and
interests, constructed places, arranged objects to climb, jump and balance, and modified
objects and substances. It was also obvious how children got accustomed to control features
as vehicles, swings, tools and surfaces with different ground layers and how they got
adapted to the setting in the way they moved and exploited the possibilities of the setting.
This illustrates the intertwining of the setting and children’s activities and learning.
In her research in perceptual learning, Eleanor Gibson (2000) observed how small
children have an inner urge to explore the environment. This exploring follows a perceptionaction cycle where the setting is explored searching for ways to control what happens, as
well as different kinds of structures such as causal relationships and invariants across time
and settings. Activities are performed and refined, and the actions get more economic and
appropriate each time. Simultaneously children learn about the environment including the
others, and themselves (ibid.). This is a very close description of what I observed on the
playground as well as in the forest. Exploring and performing were supplemented by the
activities that Chawla and Heft (2002) called ‘productive activities’, but which I would
rather call ‘changing’, ‘ inventive’, ‘modifying’ or ‘creative activities’. When activities or
movements were trained and refined, new ways of doing things were invented all along as
also described by Andersen et al. (2005). Likewise, objects and structures were created,
arranged, modified, destroyed and rearranged, with seemingly the same satisfaction. This
cycle or helix of repetition with small changes, continually tuning and re-tuning is illustrated
in a simple form below as observed in this study (Figure 7).
Figure 7. The cycle of trying, training, performing, creating, and continuing to new cycles as
observed in this study.
47
Our environment is for a large part shaped by humans and often transmits intentions
and messages from humans as described by Heft (2001). The message is clear and has a
human sender when the handle on the gate is too high to be reached by children. When the
swing calls for swinging the designer probably intended for this to be so, but you may ask
who the sender is when the swaying branch calls for swaying? Gibson’s original suggestions
concerning the verb for the function of the environment was offering and he also used the
words inviting and demanding. Other words could be suggested such as requesting,
tempting, encouraging, asking for, calling for or nudging. These expressions give the setting
a voice, as if it has intentions. This seems to be how settings are often experienced, as a
personal request or call with a more or less clear message. It counts in general whether the
space is actually designed with a particular message in mind or not. Entrances are
experienced as welcoming, sofas as tempting, lines as demanding, apples and cafes as
alluring, plazas as friendly, glades as inviting, and forests as calming or threatening. The
observed settings seemed to be perceived as a playmate, as having agency. Children were
inspired by the setting itself and the setting seemed to offer new suggestion in the course of
action. Children were obviously at the same time inspired by others and the way they
interacted with the setting. This emphasizes the complex influences of setting, company and
activity culture in perception of affordances.
Classification of outdoor settings
The observations made on the playground and in the forest pointed at activities, features,
and characteristics of significance for children in preschools. The findings supported the
statements about specific and distinct features and places being of special interest for
children (Fjørtoft and Sageie 2000; Mårtensson 2004), and this was true on the playground
as well as in the forest.
The ten classes of outdoor features is an attempt to find a practical set of terms for
outdoor settings valued by children. An affordance-based classification is based on the view
of somebody, here the children. The classes were made in order to get an overview; not to
suggest that features from the classes should not be mixed, rather on the contrary. The new
classes proposed were fire and creatures. While creatures are without doubt environmental
features offering children distinctive and attractive activities, it may be discussed whether
the class ‘fire’ belongs to a classification of outdoor features for children in preschool, as it
relies on adult initiatives. An argument is that fire is almost solely connected to the outdoors,
at least in a Danish context. When it occurs indoors it is mostly in a wood burner and out of
reach for children.
The level of description her chosen is class of feature and key activities. As
mentioned in Paper 1, Herrington and Lesmeister (2006) from Canada structured their data
according to 7 physical dimensions. Woolley and Lowe (2012) from England used 5 play
types, 12 physical characteristics of setting and 5 characteristics of places. Moore (2014)
from USA used 19 activity settings to structure knowledge about nature play spaces and
Petersen (2014) from Denmark found that 8 kinds of places were of special interest.
It is obviously the same phenomena that have been studied and many observations
from these studies are recognizable. One exception is the need for a clear hierarchy of
48
pathways mentioned by several researchers (Herrington and Lesmeister 2006; Moore 2014).
According to my observations, the paths simply evolved between affording features in the
forest, and on the playground driving in all kinds of patterns was enjoyed in the extensive
area covered with tarmac. Established paths may be useful if you want to direct movements,
for instance for protecting vegetation or preventing collisions, but it seemed as if children
had no problem in making the paths themselves.
The classification here proposed is indeed simple and down to earth as intended in
order to make it easily applicable as a tools for design and management. In Papers 2 and 4
and in Sub-study 4, the classification proved to be useful as a way to structure observations
and statements about activities and features in outdoor settings. In order to be fruitful for
design and management, the key activities mentioned for each class have to be combined
with knowledge about children’s sizes, abilities and rapid growth, development and
learning.
The concept of affordances, though based in a material reality, has a fleeting
character because it is personal, continually developing, and because it partly relies on
sensitizing and on the company. The advantage is that this unsteadiness is recognized and
put up front. ‘Functional’ sounds more causal and linear and does not indicate that it is
volatile. To design for functions regarded as a number of specific actions by children sound
like designing a machine with a predictable output. In contrast, designing for affordances as
a number of imagined meaningful action possibilities for children is like designing a
workshop. In this way the affordance concept may lead to design and management of varied,
ambiguous and open-ended settings that comply with children as they grow, develop, and
learn.
Taxonomies are usually regarded as fixed and universal, but affordances are situated,
relational and individual; the convergent point of many stories: of the child, the peers, the
staff, the setting embedded in culture and society (Heft 2012). It may seem contradictory to
make a classification based on affordances, but classifications are as such apt to
development and change. The classification of outdoor features for children in preschool
here proposed should be regarded as a temporary tool open for improvements, changes or
replacement.
Manufactured and forest features
The differences found between the playground and the forest in this study could be boiled
down to the playground being a fenced area of considerable stability and the forest being a
flexible and changing area with instability as described in Paper 2. This is, of course, a crude
simplification. Green settings may be uniform and dull as mentioned in Paper 2 and
manufactured equipment can be made with varied and gradated proportions, forms and
colours and with moving structures. Settings are how we choose to make them. Still, It is
hard to compete with the living environment when it comes to the characteristics ‘variety’
and especially ‘change’ as also stated by Wohlwill (1983). To make changing, instable and
decaying play equipment that will rot and break and where carving and sawing is allowed is
neither likely nor desirable. For growing, living, dying and decaying features, variation and
change come ‘naturally’.
49
Manufactured as well as forest features were found in both settings and, as
previously mentioned, children did not discriminate between them. This exemplifies
Gibson’s point that we live in one world more or less modified by humans, not a ‘natural’ or
an ‘artificial’ world (Gibson 1979). It also fits the notion of ‘and-scapes’ inspired by
Japanese philosophy, where the dichotomies nature/culture and person/environment is
replaced by a unitary approach focused on relationships between humans, animals,
vegetation, minerals and water (Prominski 2014).
Instead of focusing on the dichotomy playground versus forest or manufactured
versus forest features, it might be valuable to focus on the characteristics and qualities of the
attractive features.
Differences, variation and gradation
Turning to the characteristics of affording features, it was obvious that children were very
observant of differences as described in all 4 papers. Special places, odd objects and even
the smallest differences in otherwise known objects or phenomena were discovered, taken
interest in, investigated and experimented with. Also differences in sizes were detected and
enjoyed; the smallest creatures, the tallest tree, the longest branch and the largest stump
were especially attractive. The variation and gradation made it possible to find exactly the
right tree to climb, the right place to jump the ditch or the right board to build a slide.
In psychology, the theory of flow was developed when studying autotelic activities,
which are intrinsic motivated enjoyable activities, among high performing professionals
(Csikszentmihalyi 1975). Flow was described as an absorbed and joyful state of mind that is
most likely to turn up when the challenge has the right level in relation to the skills of a
person. If a challenge is too high it will cause anxiety and fear; if it is too low it will cause
boredom. It was also suggested that clear goals and clear feedback on progress was
important for achieving the state of flow (ibid.).
The observed children most often seemed to be in a state of joyful absorption, in
flow. This might be the result of the fact that features were varied and gradated making it
possible to find the right level of challenges. But in opposition to Csikszentmihalyi, it did
not seem necessary with clear goals and feedback, at least not from the staff. Children
seemed to know what they wanted to try and do in the setting; it was as if the goals and
feedback were present in the setting itself, often in combination with the peers.
The state of joyful absorption was not only seen in connection to challenges, but also
to the presence of interesting objects to pick up. The joy of picking up stones was formerly
described as an autotelic activity among children (Rautio 2013) and all kinds of other
objects could be mentioned in the same line such as sticks, leaves, fruit and animal residues.
What was approached, climbed, picked up and talked about was often something special,
odd, beautiful, reminding of something or usable as tool or material. What many of these
features had in common was to be different and here again, variation seems to be an
important impulse for action. Furthermore, interesting features of the setting were often the
outset for talking and reflecting. This was also reported from a study in Wales with children
from 4-7 where two thirds of all interactions with teachers directly or indirectly took outset
50
in the setting when visiting a park with varied topography and vegetation, but also with litter
(Waters and Maynard 2010).
The importance of variation has for long been recognized for children as expressed
in the theory of loose parts: “In any environment, both the degree of inventions and
creativity, and the possibility of discovery, are directly proportional to the number and kind
of variables in it” (Nicholson 1972, p. 6). Nicholson’s understanding of variables was
inclusive: “materials and shapes; smells and other physical phenomena, such as electricity,
magnetism and gravity; media such as gases and fluids; sounds, music, motion; chemical
interactions, cooking and fire; and other humans, and animals, plants, words, concepts and
ideas.” (Nicholson 1972, p. 5).
Novelty and change
Novelty is a quality connected to change. Both forest and playground changed due to
seasons and weather; traditional playground also have their seasons as already described by
Rasmussen (2005), but the changes in the forest were more profound and growth and decay
more common. In the winter the changes were mostly connected to precipitations and the
presence of varied terrain providing places for water, ice and snow, and to wind felled trees.
Felling also created change in form of interesting objects such as logs, bunches of branches
and sawdust left by the forest workers.
Changes due to residues from creatures such as bones, tracks, feathers, half eaten
cones and animal turds were common all year. In the summer the observations showed that
emerging small creatures and plant parts offered many new possibilities for activities as also
stated by others (af Klintberg 2012; Moore 1993).
Based on a life-long research interest in play plants, the Danish ethno-botanist
Brøndegaard (1960) made this poetic description of the relationship between plant parts and
children more than 50 years ago:
“Various parts of our plants are used in a number of highly different games, during which a
sense of beauty as well as inventiveness is developed. Children are instinctive nature lovers;
the colourful flowers and strange looking plant parts attract them with an irresistible force.
And the inborn urge of most children to experiment cannot find a better place to unfold than
with the many and varied products of the wild and cultivated flora.” (Brøndegaard 1960, p.
11).
Brøndegaard remarked that activities with plants follow the seasons in a specific and
recurring pattern and that these patterns are stable throughout generations and across borders
in Europe and sometimes even around the world. Playing with plant parts also expresses a
culture passed on by peers and staff, and some plant names can be traced back to their
connection with play. Reflecting on the specific plants chosen for play he stated that,
”Actually one could say that all or, at any rate, most of our most frequently occurring plant
species, wild as well as ‘tame’, in one way or another and under the right circumstances can
be used in children’s play. However, the children themselves are critical in their selection
from the mass of material so that some species and families can be said to be favourites.”
(Brøndegaard 1960, p. 11).
51
Varied topography, different biotopes and local plants appropriate for play can
probably increase variation and change and make green settings more affording for children
in preschool.
Abundance and space
Abundance seemed to play a role in two ways, as abundance of objects and material and in
relation to space. Apart from the sheer joy of abundant snow, flowers or leaves it was
important that there was enough for all children of for instance water, climbing and
swinging features.
The amount of space pre child is probably important for freedom of choice, space for
affording features and the impact of wear and tear of vegetation. This raises the issue of
sufficient space per child. As mentioned in Paper 2, the available space was considerably
larger and as a consequence the affordances were more varied for the forest group than for
the playground group. Space may not be a quality in itself, but lack of space makes the wear
and tear more intense and necessitates more rules in relation to use of the setting to prevent
conflicts. Not surprisingly, space was mentioned as one of the main reasons for stays in
green settings in the screening (Appendix A).
As discussed in Paper 2, minimum standards for space per child may not necessarily
lead to better settings for children, since space is not synonymous with affording space.
Furthermore standards are often low; in the examples mentioned in Paper 2 they range from
6 to 14 m2 per child (Herrington and Lesmeister 2006; Kirkeby et al. 2013). Furthermore,
standards once decided on tend to be seen as sufficient.
Space and square metres are important, but is not identical with the perception of
space (Heft 2013a). This makes it possible to design for the feeling of space, often
connected to the vistas and occlusion of sight. Knowledge about the eye levels of children
can be of help in planning for the feeling of space, at the same time considering the staff
wishes for surveillance as described in Paper 3.
Flexible boundaries and different sites
A trend in the USA is to establish ‘outdoor class rooms’ (Dennis Jr et al. 2014) and to
naturalize preschool playgrounds for the sake of children’s health and learning (Moore and
Cosco 2014). This leads to playgrounds with more vegetation and animal life. A related
trend is to make ‘nature play and learning places’ (Moore 2014) where areas are fenced in
and constructed specifically for children and families, as for instance a piece of land with an
artificial stream at the edge of a nature conservation area (Carr and Luken 2014). The
entrance and the fence are regarded as important - this is in fact ‘a garden’ or a ‘yard’ - both
words originating from words for fencing. In former times areas were often fenced to protect
crops and keep out animals of cultivated areas; now they are fenced to keep children in,
protect ‘nature’ and keep out human cultural products as dwellings and roads.
Many of the outdoor features included in ‘outdoor class rooms’ and ‘nature play and
learning places’ are the same as those observed in the forest settings studied. The difference
is that the public areas are most often not fenced and have many other purposes and users. In
woodlands as well as green spaces children may meet other visitors, have a chat, see or hear
52
the forest worker or park caretaker in action, benefit from the changes they offer by felling
and chopping up trees and keeping the parks, and find left behind treasures such as litter.
These meetings and findings offer many opportunities for reflection. The children will get to
know that the visited area has other users, many dwellers and a life and story of its own.
Using public accessible spaces with no fencing and no fixed boundaries has many
implications for preschool staff. They most often have to cover a distance and to bring along
what is needed. They have to secure that children are not lost and work for internalizing the
invisible boundaries as mentioned in Paper 4. They have to consider risk. At the same time,
children and staff share the trip, share experiences, and share the conditions of the day in
relation to weather and season. This constitutes possibilities for talking, discussing and
reflecting.
In the studied forest fencing did not restrict the children’s view. Their movements
were only restricted by the rule that they should be able to see a staff member, not the other
way around, as described in Paper 4. An educational advantage of this is that the boundaries
are flexible according to the location of the staff members and the season and can be
customized to the actual group of children. If new experiences or challenges are needed,
staff members or the preschool group can move, and if the season or weather offers
interesting possibilities, they can be explored. O. Jones (2000a) described children as
opportunists in the positive sense that they are experts in detecting and enjoying the passing
opportunities for new and interesting activities. In outdoor preschools, the staff members
could be included in this characteristic of being opportunistic in their way of exploiting the
educational possibilities offered by weather and season in their choice of the forest site of
the day as described in Paper 4.
The possibility to choose between different sites for stay can make it possible to take
different children or groups of children and staff members into consideration and offers an
opportunity to exert professional judgment in relation to the choice of outdoor area for stay.
Arranging and modifying the setting
One of the profound differences observed between the playground and the forest observed in
study 1 was the children’s possibilities to change the setting. In both settings objects and
materials were arranged and rearranged and used as props and tools in long sequences. In
the forest objects were furthermore modified by tools such as sticks, saws and sheath knifes
as well as by legs, hands and teeth. This difference was probably due to at least three factors:
the presence of sharp tools in the forest, the abundances of organic, self-renewing objects in
the forest and the expectation not to destroy objects on the playground.
Another difference was that objects and materials in the playground were part of
several set-ups everyday and had to be tidied up daily as described in Paper 2. In the forest
the constructions could be left at the end of the day and be continued next time the site was
approached. This was probably a question of space per child. The less space, the more need
for ‘order’.
If children are regarded as active beings, adapting and adapting to the setting, it
seems contra-intuitive to make a fixed and finished setting for children where modifying is
53
not allowed. Taking the concept of affordances seriously would be to offer children
changing and changeable settings.
When designing of managing outdoor areas for preschools, the area could be looked
at as a ‘text’ instead of a ‘work’ (Barthes 1979). According to Barthes a ‘text’ is a living,
changing collection of words with no copyright. A ‘work’ is like a finished book put on a
shelf with an author and copyright, which is not to be changed. Where a traditional park
could be considered a ‘work’, although with a more changing content of vegetation, it may
still be designed and kept in a specified form. Likewise, a natural area is often considered as
a ‘work’ of nature not to be changed. A green setting in use by preschools could instead be
regarded as a ‘text’, as a living, changing piece of land, an area in flux and in accordance
with its users, underlining the dynamics of children and landscapes. The setting might be a
more or less varied and interesting terrain from the beginning, but the use of the area and the
modifications done could be entrusted to the users. Still, the managers could be adding to
‘the text’ by leaving felled or fallen trees, leaves, cut off and other organic leftovers from
elsewhere to facilitate the creation and reshaping of structures.
Considering risk
Some choices about children’s outdoor settings are matters of balancing opposing interests
of children and staff between thrilling experiments and safety, between shielded places and
staff surveillance, between flexible borders compared to the safety in fencing, all touched
upon in Paper 3 and 4. The staff members have to be aware of where the children are and to
know the mood in the small groups dispersed in the area. A certain degree of visibility is
sought after, and in unfenced areas, a certain distance to dangerous places is a must.
It was obvious that the children met instability and surprises in the ever changing,
growing and decaying forest. The newcomers stumbled easily, but quickly seemed to build
up a mental and physical preparedness for surprising events. It didn’t bother the children
much when something unpredictable happened; they even seemed to seek out and enjoy
these challenges.
To meet and cope with the varied, flexible, unstable and changing features of the
forest seemed to enhance preparedness for new and unexpected situations that might
otherwise constitute a risk. This calls for an assertive approach in relation to rules and
restrictions that now tend to make children’s outdoor areas predictable and dull. A locally
based, sensible approach where designers, managers and users involved try to distinguish
between risk and hazards in each setting and weigh risk up against play and learning value
may be a solution as described for public play settings by Ball et al. (2008).
If a site is made into a playground or in other ways is furnished for children, it is
covered by the playground safety regulations. The introduction to the EEC standards for
playgrounds states that the aim is to prevent disabilities and death, still accepting swelling
and bruises and occasionally a broken arm or leg for the reason of play and social,
intellectual and physical development (EEC 2008). The actual standards and the way they
are interpreted are often much more strict in relation to play equipment. The rigid
interpretations of these standards are probably based on fear. From my own experience I
know that it is more demanding and evokes more fear to take care of other people’s children
54
whom you do not know so well. With children of your own, and to some degree with
children with whom you have a non-professional relationship such as family and
neighbours, you are more apt to make judgements and take the risks you find appropriate;
you act and take responsibilities based on confidence, not according to rules and regulations.
When should a green setting be looked at as a playground? Paradoxes are hidden
here. A tree is not a piece of play equipment, but if you cut the trees to be fit for climbing,
what then? A log and a branch used as seesaw are not regarded as play equipment, but what
about a log and a board? And what if you drive a nail into the board to make it more stable?
When a preschool group makes a trip, the staff has to adhere to the municipal rules
for preschool trips. Settings not furnished for children and settings passed on the way are not
covered by the playground standards. In this way many outdoor preschools operate in the
‘grey zone’ when it comes to playground standards. Visiting unfenced settings calls for the
personal judgment of staff in relation to the setting, the actual group of children, the play
and learning values, the risk, and the benefits of coping with and obtaining preparedness for
unforeseen events. To be able to stay in all the settings not covered by the safety standards
for playgrounds, which is most of the world, gives the staff more choices and a great
freedom. At the move it gives the staff a big responsibility.
Serious accidents in preschools are seldom in Denmark, but when they occur, the
municipality may be sued, since they have the overall responsibilities for all preschools,
including the private and semiprivate preschools. If the staff has acted carelessly, the leader
may be held responsible, but never the preschool teachers (Baunsgaard 2015). In practice
they are the ones to make the day-to-day decisions about reasonable risks, but the formal
responsibility is carried collectively. This, of course, demands a high degree of confidence
in the staff, especially when they are often out of sight of their leader and colleagues in the
‘deep dark forest’.
Meaning layers and generalization
Generalizations about what will work in an open system are always worth questioning
Biesta (2010). Basing a classification on observations during two winter months and
pointing at specific activities as key activities are jumping right into generalizations. As it
turned out, observations throughout a year in the forest did not add many new activities to
the classification; what was observed was rather refined and enhanced skills and excellence
in the activities. What may be more questionable is to base a classification with key
activities on observations in only two groups of children. This calls for reflections about the
basis on which generalizations are claimed.
When a feature or place is taken into use, it is supposed to be affording, but the
child’s perception of why it is meaningful may be interpreted in many ways. When
considering if features observed as affording in this study may be generalized as being
‘affording for children in preschool’, the meaning layers described by Williams (2014) may
be consulted. According to Williams, the meaning of place can be connected to 4 meaning
layers: an inherent meaning layer which is reckoned to be universal and based on the
character of our body and perceptual systems, an instrumental meaning layer connected to
specific utilitarian functions relevant for humans such as eating and drinking, action and
55
rest, but chosen individually and still connected to specific and necessary features, a sociocultural meaning layer socially and symbolically constructed within culture and society, and
an identity expressive meaning layer connected to personal memories and experiences.
The following example shows the complexity when interpreting children’s activites.
A child is jumping a ditch. This action may for instance be carried out 1) to explore how
things look from the other side, to perform jumping (inherent meaning layer), 2) to reach a
place with attractive mud or fruit or dens, to try out a new stick as jumping pole
(instrumental meaning layer), 3) to be accepted as a good jumper, to follow a friend, to flee
from an follower (socio-cultural meaning layer), or 4) to be courageous and feel thrill, to
conquer a challenge, to experience the sheer joy of flying through the air like a bird (identity
expressive meaning layer).
Activities and affording features at the first layer are universally predictable to some
level for most children; at the second meaning layer they are locally predictable to some
level when you know the society and culture; at the third layer you have to know the society
and culture and the specific group and on fourth layer to know the person and his/her
history. Still ‘to some level’ indicates that there is room left for surprises - specific incidents
in history and time. The third and fourth meaning layers call for humility in relation to
design of meaningful settings To experience a setting as meaningful is an on-going and
creative phenomenon and builds on much more than the outline of the setting.
The ditch is affording, it constitutes a meaningful action possibility since it is
jumped, but the actual meaning and meaning layer may be hard to pinpoint for an observer.
An idea about which meaning layers are at play in a specific situation may be a clue in
relation to how far it is reasonable to generalize.
56
6. Conclusions and perspectives
This chapter contains a brief conclusion, considerations about affordance-based design,
suggestions for planners derived from the study and visions of the classification as a tool.
New questions for future research are provided and final remarks given.
Affording features
The main aim of this study was to describe and analyse the outdoor features of significance
for preschool children’s activities and of importance for design and management of green
settings for preschools. The classification of outdoor features for children in preschool here
presented is claimed to be a practical tool for communication and understanding among the
different stakeholders of children’s outdoor areas.
Children in preschool were observed in their usual outdoor settings, playground and
forest, to make it possible to zoom in on the features that supported the meaningful action
possibilities of the settings: the affordances for children. The study resulted in an
affordance-based classification of outdoor features for children in preschools consisting of
10 classes: open ground, sloping terrain, shielded places, rigid fixtures, moving fixtures,
loose objects, loose material, water, creatures, and fire. The classes were non-exclusive;
features in one class could afford many different activities, and some activities relied on
features from two or more classes. Still, some activities were observed to be recurring,
attractive and distinctive for each class, here referred to as key activities. The key activities
constitute part of the classification, since descriptions of affordances rely on three factors:
the persons, the features and the activities. Children benefitted from areas where
combinations of features were possible and allowed thereby enhancing the affordances.
The affording features varied with abilities and interests and changed with age and
experiences. Children seemed to seek out or create features that provided new and different
action possibilities: the moving and unstable, the loose and modifiable, the new and
unknown. The most attractive features within each class were observed to be different, novel
and modifiable pointing to the importance of variation, gradation and change. The main
result of the observations was that features with not fully explored action possibilities are
affording for children.
Affording features could be forest features as well as manufactured features; both
contribute to the affordances of the settings. Manufactured features such as well-designed
tools and loose objects were of value, since they facilitated changing and modifying the
setting. Varied and changing forest features such as vegetation and creatures were of value,
since they delivered continually new and varied settings and material to explore and modify.
Green settings used by preschools
The description of used sites can be inspirational for development of sites for preschools,
especially in public accessible green settings.
Screening of outdoor preschools in Denmark showed that outdoor stays in green
settings are performed in many ways. Some preschools mainly stayed in a natural or seminatural lot at own disposal, some preschools stayed at forest sites in public accessible green
settings as parks, woodland and beaches, and many preschools did both. Some outdoor
57
preschools used one or a few forest sites; others used many forest sites, the average was 8
sites.
Visits in ten preschools showed that the green lots at own disposal were of the forest
edge or glade type with open areas, singular shrubs and trees and more dense areas of trees
and shrubs. The green lots often had a number of built structures such as sheds, climbing
structures and swings, and water bodies were not present. The preschools staying at forest
sites in public accessible areas often used forest sites in glades or by forest edges, but also
sites with water bodies, at beaches, in pillar halls or dense forest.
The close study of a specific forest preschool showed the benefits of having a
number of forest sites at disposal. The forest sites differed in topography and vegetation and
made it possible to choose the most appropriate site in relation to the opportunities offered
by weather and season.
Affordance-based design for preschool outdoor settings
Design with affordances in mind is planning for possible events for children and groups of
children, realizing that we can never fully predict what is going to happen in open, living
systems. What we can do is intend for and make likely actions that we imagine are possible
for, perceptible by, and meaningful for children in the actual context. In order to do so with
success, we need to know as much as possible about the children and their on-going
relationship with the setting including changes in the setting as well as children’s
development over time and in context.
According to the observations in this study, children in general like to explore, try
things out, try and try again, build up competences and mastery, find treasures, make
changes and inventions, and have a good time. Settings that support these activities will be
meaningful settings.
This study has shown that spacious, varied and gradated environments offer children
many action possibilities; spacious, varied and changing environments offer continuous new
action possibilities, also when children grow and develop. If the hallmark of humans is that
they are active, developing, adapted and adapting to the setting, it seems contra-intuitive to
offer a fixed and finished setting for children. Taking the concept of affordances seriously
implies planning and managing for changing and changeable settings.
New action possibilities for children can be offered by various initiatives by e.g.,
staying in new places or habitually replacing some of the loose objects present, but will in
many cases be most easily obtained in varied natural or naturalized environments. In the
same move children will get first hand knowledge of the living, growing, dying and
decaying aspects of the world.
Affordance-based design is concerned with action possibilities of a setting and
knowledge about the users and the socio-cultural context. So are other concepts of design;
the contribution of affordance thinking is to broaden the view from functions to meaningful
actions and to acknowledge the situated, complex, intertwined and developing character of
children’s relationships with settings. It was evident from the observations that behaviour is
highly dependent on company, role models and permission; in preschool it is not a settingchild function but a situated setting-child-peers-staff-relationship.
58
Suggestions derived from the study
The following considerations for planning, design and management are based on results
from the four papers and information from sub-studies 3 and 4 (Appendices A and B).
Paper 1: For planning and design of affording outdoor settings for children, outdoor
features can be arranged in 10 classes, each able to support activities of interest for children
in preschools. Each class is specified with distinctive activities attractive for preschoolers
(Video examples in Paper 1, Table 2). Scanning the area for each class, with the key
activities and preschoolers in mind, is a way to overview to which degree the affording
features from each class are available.
Within each class the features can be checked for important characteristics such as
variation, gradation, abundance and change. Variation and gradation in form, sizes,
materials and textures should comply with the various sizes, interests and abilities of
children. Abundance should ensure that many children get a chance to participate. Change
should secure inspiration as children grow, develop and learn.
Paper 2: From the children’s point of view it seems to be less important whether features
are manufactured or natural, but the distinction can be practical, since the contributions to
affordances often differ. Children are attracted to features with not yet fully explored action
possibilities (Video examples in Paper 2, Table 2). The most attractive features are different,
odd, distinct or new. This points to varied topography with possibilities for water to pool,
varied vegetation that changes throughout the seasons and produces different and abundant
plant parts and habitats that attract animals, supplemented with manufactured play
equipment. If users are many and space scarce, it is especially important to choose hardy,
fast-growing species Adding loose objects from elsewhere can enhance novelty and change.
Permission is important for the activities: to be allowed to build, change, dig, hack,
break, taste, eat, carve, saw, smash and crumble. If possible, permission to leave places,
structures and objects for later return is also an advantage.
Space is also important. If space is scarce, the task is to use topography and
vegetation to make the area feel more spacious.
Paper 3: Ditches, with their multifarious and dynamic affordances, are simple forest
features worth considering when designing outdoor areas for children in preschool. If space
allows, one could consider a winding and forking ditch or a network of ditches varying in
width, depth, angle of slope and vegetation along the sides. This is one way to ‘fold’ the
landscape, increase the surface area and especially make it feel bigger. A ditch can offer
many different activities (Video examples in Paper 3, Table 1). Children’s eye level at this
age can be considered in relation to hiding and depth (Paper 3, Box 1). To consider the
interests of preschool groups is to make possible activities and alterations made by
preschoolers. If possible, leave a lot of branches and other organic residue such as boards
and logs nearby and supplement with more when possible. Leading rainwater from for
instance roofs to ditches enhances action possibilities and thrill. Changes throughout the
season can be emphasised by choosing varied plant species and this might attract even more
59
diverse plants and small creatures.
Paper 4: The forest sites should be situated at some distance from dangerous elements such
as streets, railways and deep water with steep sides. The distance from green settings to the
preschool buildings is important; up to 500 m seems to be tolerable.
Glades and forest edges are attractive, as are open pillar halls for hot days and small
glades in evergreens for rainy days. A forest site should be rich in affording outdoor
features, preferably from many classes (Video examples in Paper 4, Table 3). Water is a
‘plus’, but it should preferably be shallow and at some distance from the forest sites to make
it a choice for the staff. A certain degree of surveillance is important for staff. Children like
to hide, and the interests of children and staff can be met by considering the height and
depth of vegetation and topography in relation to eye levels of children. The selection of
plant species should be varied and considered in relation to provision of abundant and
interesting plant parts changing throughout the season. Organic residue should preferably
not be tidied up, but rather supplemented from nearby areas. Closely located sites with
different features are convenient for adventure trips with smaller groups of children.
Sub-studies 3 and 4: Some further suggestions can be offered based on the information
from sub-studies 3 and 4 provided in the appendices. The screening indicated that the main
preschool user group at the moment contains less than 25 children, most often aged 3, 4 and
5 years. Based on the responses, the suggestion is to design for the feeling of space and
calm; for varied possibilities and challenges to move, handle and sense; and for the
experiences of natural features, weather and season. The prerequisites for this are spacious
and varied settings with a rich content of features changing through the seasons: varied
topography with varied vegetation, water bodies and rich biotopes with animal life. Water
bodies should be included with care, since water is the most feared feature.
The list of general forest features observed during the visits may be consulted when
designing or renovating green settings for children in preschools in forest and parks as well
as in green lots (Appendix B, Table B2, column 2). Green lots at own disposal offer the
possibilities to add a number of features (Appendix B, Table B2, column 3). When staying
in public accessible areas, the staff will often bring along selected items to supplement the
existing features, and if possible, some of these can be provided on site to relieve the staff
(Appendix B, Table B2, column 4).
Vision about the classification as a tool
The classification of outdoor features for children in preschool is intended to function as a
tool for practitioners, who want to increase affordances for children in preschool defined as
the meaningful action possibilities of the setting. The following describes how it could be
carried out. The classification could be used in a first evaluation of a setting in relation to
affordances for preschoolers. Visiting the setting, preferably with the presence of children,
could give a hint of existing action possibilities. Signs of use, wear and tear could also be
noted and staff consulted about areas frequently or seldom used and about the presence of
creatures in different seasons. Features in each class could be considered and discussed with
60
the stakeholders in relation to amount, variation and gradation in forms, materials and sizes,
the possibilities for changes; combined with knowledge about the children, their sizes and
abilities, remembering their rapid development. The classification might also be used as an
outset for planning, design and management of new green spaces, woodlands and
playgrounds for preschools.
Use of the classification may point to a number of initiatives increasing the
affordances. Affording features are not necessarily expensive; simple and cheap measures
may enhance affordances considerably. The classification takes outset in affordances for
children, but may also be relevant in discussions with staff members related to educational
goals or work conditions.
New questions concerning preschools and green settings
An important topic in green space management is the daily influence of the children on the
setting: the wear and tear, how to make the vegetation and topography durable and still
allow for modifications. Other topics of interest are which plant species to use locally, how
to get plants established in an area already in use, and how quickly to turn for example
abandoned lots into ‘pocket forests’ with varied forest features for children in preschools.
Much is already known, but these questions deserve more attention in relation to preschools,
not the least in urban green spaces.
In this study affordances for children were in focus. However, the staff members are
at the same time the gatekeepers of outdoor settings, safeguards of the children’s wellbeing
and learning, facilitators, role models and targets for interest and affection from the children.
Outdoor settings may benefit children, but to obtain the benefits the settings must also be
accessible, affording for, and prioritized by the staff. Of this reason these questions are of
importance: What are the perceived barriers for stays in outdoor settings? How do we make
safe access routes? How can cooperation between preschool staff and managers be
improved?
Other questions of relevance for the work conditions for preschool staff could be:
How do we best shape playgrounds, green spaces and woodlands that staff can relate to and
be fond of, that support their educational goals, their roles, interests and health, and offers
the best opportunities for their core tasks?
In the future it would be interesting to corroborate the finding and the functionality
of the adjusted taxonomy in preschool outdoor settings in other societies, cultures and
landscapes. As a side line activity I would like to investigate plants for play and to adjust the
ethno-botanic work of the Danish researcher V. J. Brøndegaard (1919 - 2014) for use in
preschool. Another fascinating topic for further study is the outdoor preschool activity
cultures including the song games, rhymes and stories used to frame and support the outdoor
stays.
The outdoor preschool praxis in Denmark is rich and multifarious. The fact that
outdoor preschools do not belong to a common organization or follow a specific theoretical
line may reflect the fact that they are bottom up initiatives. Outdoor preschools emerged in
Denmark several decades back and have differentiated in rich and diverse ways. If
61
somebody wants to study different approaches to outdoor preschool stays, Denmark would
be a good choice.
Final remarks
Children’s spaces have always been contested areas and expressions of adult dreams about
childhood and education. Children interact with the world. The world we choose for them
and let them investigate is the world they will get to know. During the course of time they
will know the setting in terms of its qualities, possibilities and limitations. The question is
which environment we, as a society, want children to get to know and how much space and
how rich a setting we are willing to spend resources on. I believe we can do better in relation
to the settings we currently offer most preschool children.
Providing varied and inspiring settings and improving the working conditions for
preschool staff could be a good start. If varied green settings suited for preschool children
and preschools are made available, this may enhance outdoor stays, increase the actual
amount of space per child, and encourage experiences with the varied and changing living
environment. Based on my work in this study, I advocate awareness of affording features
and available outdoor space in proximity to where our children stay when we go to work.
At a time with growing pressure on urban space, we might improve the possibilities
for sharing the open spaces available, also with preschools. In the best of all worlds, green
space mangers would take contact to the local preschools and include them in place-based
governance. Until then, the observations in this study may serve as examples of ‘children’s
voices’ and inspire affordance-based considerations in design and management of green
settings.
Sharing of accessible public green spaces and woodlands and welcoming preschools
and their activities is one measure; establishing ‘pocket forests’ on abandoned lots when
parks or woodlands are out of reach is another; making playgrounds more affording is a
third. Alternatively, where this is not possible, we could increase funding for trips to green
settings further away on a regular basis.
Personally I have no doubt that spacious and varied green spaces and woodland with
selected manufactured features, as well as spacious playgrounds with rich forest features
have the potential to enhance joy, health, and learning for children in preschools, while at
the same time increasing the cultural ecosystem services of private as well as public green
settings. Let us aim at affording outdoor settings for all children in preschool, that is:
spacious settings with meaningful and continually, not yet fully explored action possibilities.
62
References
af Klintberg, B (2012), 'Barnelekar i växstriket', RIG - kulturhistorisk tidsskrift, 95 (3).
Andersen, Peter Ø f, et al. (2005), Rend og hop : om kroppen i legen (Kbh.: BUPL) 76 sider,
illustreret i farver.
Änggård, Eva (2011), 'Children's gendered and non-gendered play in natural spaces', Children Youth
and Environments, 21 (2), 5-33.
Ball, David, Gill, Tim, and Spiegal, Bernard (2008), Managing risk in play provision:
Implementation guide (London, GB: Department for Children, Schools and Families).
Barker, Roger Garlock (1968), Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for studying the
environment of human behavior (Stanford University Press).
Barthes, Roland (1979), 'From Work to Text', in Josué V. Harari (ed.), Textual strategies :
perspectives in post-structuralist criticism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press), 73-81.
Baunsgaard, Per (2015), 'Personal communcation', (Work condition speialist, BUPL, National
Union of Educators of Children and Youth (apart frok school teachers)).
Bentsen, Peter, Andkjær, Søren, and Ejbye-Ernst, Niels (2009), Friluftsliv : natur, samfund og
pædagogik (Kbh.: Munksgaard Danmark) 218 sider, illustreret.
Berg, Anne (2004), 'Friluftsbarnehagen–en motorikkfabrikk', (En rapport. DMMH, Trondheim).
Biesta, Gert JJ (2010), 'Why ‘what works’ still won’t work: From evidence-based education to valuebased education', Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29 (5), 491-503.
Boldemann, Cecilia, et al. (2011), 'Preschool outdoor play environment may combine promotion of
children's physical activity and sun protection. Further evidence from Southern Sweden and
North Carolina', Science & sports, 26 (2), 72-82.
Brøndegaard, V. J. (1960), 'Danske Børnelege med Blomster og andre Plantedele', Sprog og Kultur,
11-76.
Bundesband der Natur und Waldkindergärten in Deutchland, Bundesband
<http://bvnw.de/?page_id=8281>, accessed 3.4.15.
Carr, Victoria and Luken, Eleanor (2014), 'Playscapes: a pedagogical paradigm for play and
learning', International Journal of Play, 3 (1), 69-83.
Chawla, Louise (2015), 'Benefits of Nature Contact for Children', Journal of Planning Literature,
0885412215595441.
Chawla, Louise and Heft, Harry (2002), 'Children's Competence and the Ecology of Communities: A
Functional Approach to the Evaluation of Participation', Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 22 (1-2), 201-16.
Cosco, Nilda G. (2006), 'Motivation to move: Physical activity affordances in preschool play areas',
Doctoral Thesis (Heriot Watt University).
63
Cosco, Nilda G., Moore, Robin C., and Islam, Mohammed Z. (2010), 'Behavior mapping: a method
for linking preschool physical activity and outdoor design', Med Sci Sports Exerc, 42 (3),
513-19.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975), Beyond Boredom and Anxiety (San Francisco: Josey–Bass).
Danmarks_Statistik (2015), 'Andel af børn i dagtilbud 1998 - 2013',
<http://www.bupl.dk/presse/statistik_om_boern_og_paedagoger/antal_boern_i_institution_2007__2013?opendocument>, accessed 03.01.2015.
de Coninck-Smith, Ning and Bygholm, Jens (2011), Barndom og arkitektur: rum til danske børn
igennem 300 år (Klim).
Dennis Jr, Samuel F., Wells, Alexandra, and Bishop, Candace (2014), 'A Post-Occupancy Study of
Nature-Based Outdoor Classrooms in Early Childhood Education', Children Youth and
Environments, 24 (2), 35-52.
Dictionary, Oxford English (2004), 'Oxford English dictionary online', Mount Royal College Lib.,
Calgary, 14.
Dot, Hanne (1995), By- og mudderkultur (Kbh.: Børn & Unge) 128 sider, illustreret.
EEC (2008), 'European Standard DS/EN 1176'.
Ejbye-Ernst, Niels (2012), Pædagogers formidling af naturen i naturbørnehaver : Ph.d. afhandling
(Kbh.: Aarhus Universitet, Institut for Uddannelse og Pædagogik) 309 sider, illustreret i
farver.
Fjørtoft, Ingunn (2001), 'The Natural Environment as a Playground for Children: The Impact of
Outdoor Play Activities in Pre-Primary School Children', Early Childhood Education
Journal, 29 (2), 111-17.
Fjørtoft, Ingunn and Sageie, Jostein (2000), 'The natural environment as a playground for children:
Landscape description and analyses of a natural playscape', Landscape and Urban Planning,
48 (1–2), 83-97.
Flyvbjerg, Bent (2004), 'Five misunderstandings about case-study research', Sosiologisk tidsskrift, 2,
117-43.
Gibson, Eleanor J. (2000), 'Perceptual Learning in Development: Some Basic Concepts', Ecological
Psychology, 12 (4), 295-302.
Gibson, James J. (1979), The ecological approach to visual perception (Houghton Mifflin).
Gill, Tim (2014), 'The Benefits of Children's Engagement with Nature: A Systematic Literature
Review', Children Youth and Environments, 24 (2), 10-34.
Giorgi, Amedeo (2012), 'The descriptive phenomenological psychological method', Journal of
Phenomenological Psychology, 43 (1), 3-12.
Gorges, Roland (1999), 'Vernachlässigt der Waldkindergarten die Schulfähigkeit? ', KiTa-aktuell
(Baden-Württemberg) .), 113-17.
Grahn, Patrick, et al. (1997), Ute på dagis, hur använder barn daghemsgården?, utformningen av
daghemsgården och dess betydelse för lek, motorik och koncentrationsförmåga (Stad og
land, 145; Alnarp: Movium) 111s., illustreret.
64
Grimen, Harald and Ingstad, Benedicte (2007), 'Qualitative Reseach', in Petter Laake, Haakon Breien
Benestad, and Bjørn Reino Olsen (eds.), Research Methodology in the Medical and
Biological Scences (Academic Press), 281-309.
Gulløv, Eva (1998), Børn i fokus : et antropologisk studie af betydningsdannelse blandt
børnehavebørn (Ph.D.-række, 9; Kbh.: Institut for Antropologi, Københavns Universitet)
183 s.
--- (2003), Creating a natural place for children: an ethnographic study of Danish kindergartens, in
Children's Places: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (London: Routledge) 16.
Gulløv, Eva and Højlund, Susanne (2003), Feltarbejde blandt børn: metodologi og etik i etnografisk
børneforskning (Gyldendal Uddannelse).
Häfner, Peter (2003), 'Natur-und Waldkindergärten in Deutschland: eine Alternative zum
Regelkindergarten in der vorschulischen Erziehung', (Universität Heidelbert, DE).
Hastrup, Kirsten (2004), 'Getting it right Knowledge and evidence in anthropology', Anthropological
Theory, 4 (4), 455-72.
--- (2007), 'Viden om verden : en grundbog i antropologisk analyse', (Kbh.: Danmarks
Blindebibliotek).
Heft, Harry (1988), 'Affordances of Children's Environments: A functional Approach to
Environmental Design', Childrens Environmental Quarterly, 15 (3), 29-37.
--- (2001), Ecological psychology in context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the legacy of
William James's radical empiricism (L. Erlbaum Mahwah, NJ).
--- (2012), 'Foundation of an Ecological Approach to Psychology', in Susan D. Clayton (ed.), The
Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (Oxford University Press),
11-40.
--- (2013a), 'Environment, cognition, and culture: Reconsidering the cognitive map', Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 33 (0), 14-25.
--- (2013b), 'An ecological approach to psychology', Review of General Psychology, 17 (2), 162-67.
Herrington, Susan and Lesmeister, Chandra (2006), 'The design of landscapes at child-care centres:
Seven Cs', Landscape Research, 31 (1), 63-82.
Højlund, Susanne (2002), Barndomskonstruktioner : på feltarbejde i skole, SFO og på sygehus
(Carpe; Kbh.: Gyldendal Uddannelse) 292 sider.
Jansson, Märit (2008), 'Children's perspectives on public playgrounds in two Swedish communities',
Children Youth and Environments, 18 (2), 88-109.
--- (2010), 'Attractive playgrounds: some factors affecting user interest and visiting patterns',
Landscape Research, 35 (1), 63-81.
Jones, O. (2000), Melting geography: Purity, disorder, childhood and space (Children’s
Geographies: playing, living, learning; London: Routledge) 19.
Kampmann, Jan (2003), 'Etiske overvejelser i etnografisk børneforskning', in Eva Gulløv and
Susanne Højlund (eds.), Feltarbejde blandt børn: metodologi og etik i etnografisk
børneforskning (Gyldendal Uddannelse), 167-83.
65
Kiener, Sarah (2004), 'Fördert das Spielen in der Natur die Entwicklung der Motorik und Kreativität
von Kindergartenkindern?', Zusammenfassung der Lizenziatsarbeit (Universität Fribourg
(CH)).
Kirkeby, Inge Mette, Gammelby, Marie Louise, and Elle, Susanne Dyhring (2013), SBI 2013:11 Plads til trivsel og udvikling (København: Statens Byggeforskningsinstitut) 80 sider.
Konijnendijk, Cecil Cornelis, et al. (2013), 'Benefits of urban parks: a systematic review. A report
for IPFRA', (Copenhagen and Alnarp: IFPRA), 41.
Krøigård, Kirsten (1996), Businstitutioner: Børns trivsel og sundhed i to busprojekter i Herning
Kommune (Herning: Herning Kommune) 135.
Kvale, Steinar (2008), Doing interviews (Sage).
Larkin, Michael, Watts, Simon, and Clifton, Elizabeth (2006), 'Giving voice and making sense in
interpretative phenomenological analysis', Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 10220.
Laursen, Bjarne (2013), 'Personal communication', (Mail correspondance about accidents for
children aged 3-6 from 1976 to 2009 edn.; Senior Researcher on Child and Adolescent
Health. National Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark).
Legepladsen (2012), 'Udflytterbørnehave i 60 år', Legepladsen, 4.
Lettieri, Raimondo (2004), 'Evaluationsbericht des ersten öffentlichen Waldkindergartens in der
Schweiz', Was Kinder beweglich macht. Wahrnehmungs-und Bewegungsförderung im
Kindergarten. (Verlag Pestalozzianum), 76-83.
Louv, Richard X. (2008), Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder
(Algonquin Books).
Lynch, Kevin (1960), The image of the city (11 MIT press).
Lysklett, Olav B (2013), Ute hele uka: natur-og friluftsbarnehagen (Universitetsforlaget).
Mårtensson, Fredrika (2004), Landskapet i leken (464; Alnarp: Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences) 151.
Mårtensson, Fredrika, et al. (2009), 'Outdoor environmental assessment of attention promoting
settings for preschool children', Health & Place, 15 (4), 1149-57.
Ministeriet for Børn, Ligestilling, Integration og Sociale Forhold (2007), 'Lov om dag-, fritids- og
klubtilbud m.v. til børn og unge (dagtilbudsloven)', (Schultz lovbibliotek, 11; Albertslund:
Schultz Information).
Moen, Kari H., et al. (2007), 'Preschool children's sickness absenteeism from Norwegian regular and
outdoor day care centres: A comparative study', Scandinavian journal of public health, 35
(5), 490-96.
Moore, Robin C (1993), Plants for Play: A Plant Selection Guide for Children's Outdoor
Environments (Berkeley, USA: MIG Communications).
--- (2014), Nature Play & Learning Places. Creating and managing places where children engage
with nature. (Version 1.5 edn.; Raleigh, NC: Natural Learning Initiative: Natural Learning
Initiative and National Wildlife Federation) 169.
66
Moore, Robin C and Cosco, Nilda (2014), 'Growing Up Green: Naturalization as a Health Promotion
Strategy in Early Childhood Outdoor Learning Environments', Children Youth and
Environments, 24 (2), 168-91.
Nicholson, Simon (1972), 'The Theory of Loose Parts, An important principle for design
methodology.', Studies in Design Education Craft & Technology, 4 (2), 5-14.
Nielsen, Anders Busse, et al. (2013), 'Municipal woodland in Denmark: resources, governance and
management', Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 28 (1), 49-63.
O’Brien, Liz and Murray, Richard (2007), 'Forest School and its impacts on young children: Case
studies in Britain', Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6 (4), 249-65.
Odling-Smee, F John, Laland, Kevin N, and Feldman, Marcus W (2003), Niche construction: the
neglected process in evolution (Princeton University Press).
Petersen, Lise Specht (2014), 'Legepladsens betydning for legen: Sammenhænge mellem leg og
arkitektur', PhD Thesis (University of Soufthern Denmark, Department of Sports Science
and Clinical Biomechanics).
Prominski, Martin (2014), 'Andscapes: Concepts of nature and culture for landscape architecture in
the ‘Anthropocene’', Journal of Landscape Architecture, 9 (1), 6-19.
Rasmussen, Kim (2005), 'Legeplads og kropslig udfoldelse', in Anders W Cristensen and Annette
Wiborg (eds.), Rend og hop: om kroppen i legen (Kbh.: BUPL).
Rautio, Pauliina (2013), 'Children who carry stones in their pockets: on autotelic material practices in
everyday life', Children's Geographies, 11 (4), 394-408.
Sandseter, Ellen Beate Hansen (2009a), 'Characteristics of risky play', Journal of Adventure
Education & Outdoor Learning, 9 (1), 3-21.
--- (2009b), 'Affordances for Risky Play in Preschool: The Importance of Features in the Play
Environment', Early Childhood Education Journal, 36 (5), 439-46.
Scholz, Uta and Krombholz, Heinz (2006), 'Untersuchung zur körperlichen Leistungsfähigkeit von
Kindern aus Waldkindergärten und Regelkindergärten', Zeitschrift für Motopädagogik und
Mototherapie, 17.
Söderström, M., et al. (2013), 'The quality of the outdoor environment influences childrens health -a cross-sectional study of preschools', Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992), 102 (1), 83.
Stephenson, Alison (2002), 'Opening up the outdoors: Exploring the relationship between the indoor
and outdoor environments of a centre', European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal, 10 (1), 29-38.
Sutton-Smith, Brian (1997), The ambiguity of play (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press) x,
276 p.
Tanggaard, Lene and Brinkmann, Svend (2015), 'Kvaliet i kvalitetive metoder', 521-32.
UN (2008), State of the World's Cities 2008-2009: Harmonious Cities (Earthscan).
--- (2014), World Urbanization Prospects (New York).
Vigsø, Bent and Nielsen, Vita (2006), Børn & udeliv, eds Bent Vigsø, et al. (Esbjerg: CVU Vest
Press) 142 sider, illustreret.
67
Waters, Jane and Maynard, Trisha (2010), 'What's so interesting outside? A study of child‐initiated
interaction with teachers in the natural outdoor environment', European Early Childhood
Education Research Journal, 18 (4), 473-83.
WHO 'Constitution of the World Health Organization', <http://www.who.int/about/mission/en/>,
accessed.
Williams, Daniel R. (2014), 'Making sense of ‘place’: Reflections on pluralism and positionality in
place research', Landscape and Urban Planning, 131, 74-82.
Williams-Siegfredsen, Jane (2012), 'Understanding the Danish forest school approach', David
Fulton.
Wohlwill, Joachim F. (1983), 'The concept of nature', Behavior and the natural environment
(Springer), 5-37.
Woolley, Helen and Lowe, Alison (2012), 'Exploring the Relationship between Design Approach
and Play Value of Outdoor Play Spaces', Landscape Research, 38 (1), 53-74.
68
Paper 1. Affordances of Outdoor Settings for
Children in Preschool: Revisiting Heft’s Functional
Taxonomy
‘Functional possibilities of environmental features that exist at one time in life
may not exist at a later age, and conversely, new affordances emerge
throughout development as maturation and experiences interact to expand the
individual’s behavioral repertoire.’ (Heft, 1988, p. 37).
Abstract
Heft’s functional taxonomy for children’s outdoor environment based on the concept
of affordances was applied and investigated in a Danish preschool context.
Affordances here refer to the meaningful action possibilities of the environment. Two
groups of children (3 to 6 years) enrolled in preschool were observed during times for
‘free play’ in their usual outdoor settings: traditional playground and forest (12 visits
respectively). Modified classes of outdoor features are suggested along with new
practical class names: open ground, sloping terrain, shielded places, rigid fixtures,
moving fixtures, loose objects, loose material, water, creatures, and fire. Each class is
specified by distinctive and attractive key activities found by observation. Examining
each class indicated that important characteristics apart from availability were
variation, sizes, and novelty. The concept of affordances emphasizes the on-going
user-environment-activity relationship important for planning with children in mind,
but clarification is needed when using the term.
69
Paper 2.
Title and abstract to come when accepted
70
Paper 3. Affordances of Ditches for Children in
Preschool
"It is seldom that a few square yards of land can be to so much joy for people
as in a preschool yard with its very intense social environment with so much
activity going on." (Mårtensson 2004, 132).
Abstract
This study aims to forward understanding of affordances of ditches in a Danish preschool
context. Affordances are defined as: the meaningful action possibilities of the environment.
A group of 21 children aged approx. 3-6.5 accompanied by 2-3 staff members walked to
various sites in the forest and stayed for 2-5 hours on a daily basis. The first author observed
activities and used features at 15 different forest sites during all seasons, following an
ethnography-inspired approach. Zooming in on sloping terrain, affordances of ditches were
chosen for further description. Ditches offered varied and changing action possibilities for
preschool children. The possible incorporation of this previously unrecognized design
element by planners and managers of green spaces and playgrounds for children in preschool
is discussed.
71
Paper 4. Characteristics of Forest Sites used by a Danish
Forest Preschool
Abstract
Outdoor stays in green settings are regarded as beneficial for preschoolers, but not much
is known about the characteristics of the sites that are chosen and used by outdoor
preschools, the so-called ‘forest sites’. Therefore, this paper investigates the
characteristics and use of forest sites in a Danish forest preschool and the activities and
features in use during time for child-initiated activities.
Staff and children (approx. 3-6.5 years) walked to a forest site and stayed for 2-5
hours on a daily basis. Fifteen forest sites were observed in school hours at 24 stays
during one year. This was supplemented by short interviews and informal talks with
children and staff to learn more about the forest sites. The findings were organised
according to the following ten classes of outdoor features: Open Ground, Sloping
Terrain, Shielded Places, Rigid Fixtures, Moving Fixtures, Loose Objects, Loose
Material, Water, Creatures and Fire.
Most forest sites were glades or pillar halls, often situated at the intersection
between different plantings. Staff avoided locations near deep water bodies with steep
sides, but at most sites open water was either available at the site or nearby. The daily
choice of forest site was connected to the location and features of the site, as well as the
weather and season, the actual group of children, and the level of staffing. Children and
staff opinion on sites often coincided. Children used features from all classes, but ‘loose
objects’ were most often referred to in the interviews. Children as well as staff valued
‘shielded places’, but for staff this was only to a certain degree, since surveillance was
important.
It is suggested that the results, although derived from a single case, may inspire
design and management of green spaces and forest in relation to preschools.
72
73
Appendix A
Sub-study 3. Screening of outdoor preschools
Goal and areas of interest
The screening of outdoor preschools in Denmark was made in order to get a more general
impression of practises and goals in relation to green settings. The outdoor preschools are not
organized in a shared organization and their practises have not been surveyed. A selection of
answers of relevance for design and management of green settings for preschool stays will be
presented in this Appendix. The areas of interest are: 1) Ways in which preschool stays in
green settings are practised; 2) the settings in use; and 3) the main reasons for preschool stays
in green outdoor settings.
Method
The survey contained quantitative as well as qualitative questions. The questions concerned
facts about the preschool, type, children, groups, outdoor time, distance to green settings,
transport, forest sites, green lots, staff, rules, accidents, and history. An overview of the
survey is provided in Appendix C.
The web-based survey was mailed to 353 preschools presumed to practise outdoor
stays in green settings on a regular basis with all or a subgroup of children in the preschool.
The contact information was found by searching the web, on municipal homepages and by
calling the municipalities when information did not appear on the homepage.
Respondents could answer the questions they regarded as relevant for the preschool
they represented. This was chosen to avoid the irritation when there is no ‘right’ box to tick
while it may result in less answers, or even worse, imprecise answers (Hansen et al.
2011). The intention was to strengthen the quality of the data, even if it may have lead to a
bias in relation to who answered which questions.
The number of answers was 178, which corresponds to a response rate of 50%. You
have to consider the possibility of a systematic bias in the answers due to who responded and
who did not, but I have no reason to believe that this was the case. I have later occasionally
met some of those who did not respond and they mentioned other reasons; they told me that
they were busy doing other things, that they tried to avoid time by the screen, or that the
survey had probably disappeared in all the surveys you get these days.
The qualitative answers were summarized one by one. Before making sums and
averages of the quantitative answers, the numbers were cleansed for the answers showing that
the question had not been comprehended.
Methodological limitations
The way the screening was made did not result in an overview of all existing outdoor
preschools and outdoor practises in Denmark. The survey had too many questions and in less
explorative studies in the future, fewer questions would be preferable. This could limit the
information gathered, but might increase the answering rate thereby making up for this
disadvantage.
74
Practising outdoor stays
Main figures about practising outdoor stays are listed (Table A1) and explained subsequently.
Table A1. Main responses on outdoor preschool practices
Question / topic
Answers
Preschool types, number
Forest preschool: 41%
Nature preschool: 26%
Commuter preschool: 18 %
Bus preschool: 6%
Other green preschools: 8%
No: 71%
Yes: 29%
> 75% of all weekdays: 76%
50-75% of all weekdays: 15%
< 50 % of all weekdays: 10%
Winter: 4:08 (5:46)
Spring and autumn: 4:29 (6:18)
Summer: 5:13 (7:03)
Children: 5958
Staff: 699
Girls: 45%
Boys: 55 %
2 years: 32 %
3 years: 91 %
4 years: 90 %
5 years: 87 %
6 years: 27 %
5-14 children: 22%
15-24 children: 56%
25- 34 children: 13%
35 children and more: 9 %
Age-integrated groups: 67%
Age-divided groups: 33%
All groups benefitted equally 47%
The youngest: 3%
The ‘in betweens’: 13%
The oldest: 37%
Female: 76%
Male: 24%
No: 74%
Yes: 26%
Specific educational line or
theorists
Frequency of stay in green
settings
Daily hours outdoors, in
green settings and in total,
average
Children and staff involved
in green stays, number1
Children
s gender
Share of the groups where
the age was represented
Group sizes in green settings
Group selection
Age group benefitting the
most according to staff
Staff gender
Staff includes members with
‘green’ education
Respondents,
number
154
167
131
96
143
105
119
135
136
138
137
105
110
75
Any specific requirements
for outdoor preschool staff
No: 77%
Yes: 23 %
104
1
The numbers do not reflect the staff/child ratio in green settings, since specific staff members in some
preschools took the children to green settings in turn
Preschool types
In the answers 65 preschools characterized themselves as forest preschools or forest groups,
38 as nature preschools or nature groups, 26 as commuter preschools or commuter groups, 10
as bus preschools or bus groups, 2 as preschools or groups with a green profile, and 11 as
other kinds of outdoor preschools. Most of the preschools in the last group were groups with
several kinds of green practices. The main place of stay was either 1) at forest sites, which are
specific and often named places in green settings accessible for the public such as forest,
meadow, beach or park, or 2) on green lots, which are natural or naturalized lots at disposal
for the preschool such as a specific piece of land in a forest or a large garden.
The tendencies in relation to main place for stay were:
• Most but not all bus preschools mainly used forest sites
• Four out of five forest preschools mainly used forest sites
• Half of the nature preschools mainly used forest sites, the other half green lots
• Three out of four commuter preschools mainly used green lots
Since the types of preschools did not correspond with distinct practices in relation to kind of
setting mainly used, the types were not used to divide the answers. All answers were treated
as one group of preschools with experiences in use of green settings.
Preschool educational line
The majority of outdoor preschools do not follow a specific pedagogy or educational line but
are inspired by many different educational lines or thinkers. A minority of 29% mentions
specific areas of interest or specific thinkers.
A few, 4%, mention nature and outdoor life in passing and not in connection to any
specific theory or thinker.
The educational theorists and concepts mentioned are Vygotski (nearest zone of
development), Daniel Stern (infant development psychology) and Rudolf Steiner
(Anthroposophy), Firenze method (related to Reggio Emilia) and Howard Gardner (multiple
intelligences).
The areas of interest most often mentioned are ‘relationships’, ‘appreciative
communication’ and ‘inclusion’. The researchers and concepts mentioned here are Berit Bae
(appreciative communication), ICPD (International Child Development Program, empathic
communication), Marte Meo (outset in positive interactions), Pär Nygren (care), Susan Hart
(emotional development), and Frans Ørsted Andersen (Flow, positive psychology).
Another area of interest is the motoric development and the inspirators mentioned are
Astrid Gössel (music and movement) and Lise Ahlmann (play, movement and development).
Documentation and certification programmes are also mentioned such as DAP
(documentation of pedagogical curricula), and Citta Slow Certification (sustainable lifestyle).
76
Nature pedagogics is mentioned twice and outdoor pedagogics once together with
inclusion, appreciative pedagogics, motoric development and ICDP. Another four mention
nature together with motoric development, as inspiration from Green Seedlings (material from
the Danish Outdoor Council), seasonal festivals (Steiner), and the idea ‘from earth to table’.
Days and daily times spent in green settings
Most answers were from preschools using green settings often. More than 78% of the outdoor
preschools stated that all children went to green settings more that 75% of all weekdays.
For the rest, stays in green settings were either limited to some days for the whole
group or taken in turns by different groups of children with different intervals (Table A2). The
length of the period in green settings varied from 1 or 2 days to 1 year (Table A2, column 1)
and the period at home from 1 day to 2 years (Table A2, column 2). The ‘green stay-home
stay’ cycle varied from 1 week to 3 years (Table A2, column 3). The frequency of days with
green stay for the single child varied considerably (Table A2, last column). To make the
picture even more diverse, some preschools had one practice with the youngest group and
another with the older children or followed one practice in summer and another in winter.
Table A2. Ways to organize the number of days in green settings
Length of period
in green setting
1 year
2-3 months
1 month
1 month
2 weeks
2 weeks
1 week
1 week
1 week
4 days
4 days
3 days
(not Dec. and Jan.)
3 or 1 day (4)
2 or 1 day
Length of period
in home institution
2 years
1.3 or 2,5 years
1 month
2 months
2 weeks
6 weeks
1 week
2 weeks
3 weeks
1 day
1 week 1 day
2 days
(+ Dec. and Jan.)
2 or 4 days
3 or 4 days
Length of cycle
3 years
1.5 or 3years
2 months
3 months
1 month
2 months
2 weeks
3 weeks
4 weeks
1 week
2 weeks
1 week
% of weekdays
in green settings
33
8/17
50
33
50
25
50
33
25
80
40
60
1 week
1 week
20/60
20-40
The daily duration of stay in green settings varied a lot between preschools and
between seasons. The average hours were 4.5 in winter, 5.8 in spring and autumn and 7.4 in
summer. One preschool stayed outdoors for 10-10.5 hours year round. The question about
average duration of stay in different seasons is hard to answer and the numbers should only be
read as tendencies.
Questions were posed if the preschools wanted the same, more or less days in green
settings and the same, longer or shorter days in green settings, and 132 answered these
77
questions. Nobody wished for fewer or shorter days; the majority was content, but 28%
wanted longer days in green settings. 18% wanted more days in green settings, which
corresponds to the majority of those staying in green settings in turns.
Children: number, age and gender
The total number of girls and boys staying regularly in green settings represented in the
survey was 5754. Most of these were boys (55%, vs. 45% girls). Most groups contained
children in the ages 3, 4 and 5. Other ages were also represented; 31 % of the groups
contained 2-year old children and 26 % contained 6-year old children.
Children: group size
The majority of the groups included less than 25 children. On average the groups staying in
green settings counted 22.0 children, accompanied by 3.2 staff members.
Children: group selection
The selection of children in the groups that went to green settings differed. The question about
group selection was answered with further comments by 45 preschools; many of them
explained how and why they had made their choice.
Two thirds of the groups stayed in green settings in age-integrated groups, while one
third worked in groups divided according to age. This division was either in three or in two
age groups: the oldest third and the rest, the youngest third and the rest, or half-half. In some
places only one age group went to green settings and in some preschools the groups varied
according to children’s needs or the activities offered, e.g., the length of the trip planned for.
The comments revealed that often group selection was flexible; on some days or in
some seasons the groups were age integrated, on other days or in other seasons age-divided.
The comments also showed another kind of flexibility: some groups had recently changed to
age-integrated groups for educational reasons, others had recently changed to age-divided
groups for (other?) educational reasons, and yet others were age-integrated because the age
distribution in the group was uneven.
When asked about which of three age groups would benefit the most, if only one
group had the chance to stay in green settings, about every other answered that no specific age
group benefitted the most because stays in green settings were beneficial for ALL ages. Of
those who pointed at one age group, all age groups were preferred, but most pointed at the
oldest. Keywords for pointing at the specific age group:
• The youngest: because they sense so much and have so much joy and will then get
accustomed to green settings at an early age.
• The middle age group: Because they are so curious and can cope with more.
• The oldest: Because they are up to even more, physically, mentally and cognitive, and
need the challenges and the experiences.
Some refused to answer the ‘silly question’: If they were forced to pick only one third of the
children for stay in green settings, they would either take the three age groups in shifts or they
would take one third of the age integrated group in turns.
Gender of staff
The percentage of male staff was 24%. According to BUPL, the Danish organisation of
78
pedagogical staff, the average percentage of male preschool teachers is 6.3 % in preschools
(3-6.5 years) and 6.9 % in age-integrated institutions (0.5 - 6.5 years) (BUPL 2015). The
proportion of male staff without pedagogical education is not known and might be higher.
Thus the survey findings may indicate that the outdoor preschool concept is more attractive
for male staff than the traditional concept.
‘Green’ education of staff
When asked about green education, 74% of staff had no specific education in nature or nature
pedagogics, while 26% had either working experiences as farmer, forester, forest worker or
horticulturalist, had been scouts or hunters, were educated as biologist, teachers specialised in
biology or nature consultants, or had followed shorter courses about nature, outdoor life,
bonfire food or outdoor activities for children.
When asked if they knew enough about nature, 77% answered yes and commented
that if they needed information, they would find it. A few asked for more knowledge,
especially about the educational possibilities in nature for preschool children.
Requirements for staff in outdoor preschools
When asked if it takes something special to work in green settings, 24% answered no. The
question was answered by 102. For the rest, the most often mentioned issue was to cherish
outdoor life and to be able to endure it. The next issue was to have a relation to nature, to be
interested in nature, like it or love it. The third issue was knowledge about nature, but as
previously mentioned, it was often claimed that knowledge about nature is something you can
get ‘along the way’ if you have the interest. Curiosity was mentioned many times; it was
important to be able to discover nature together with children. It was important to be
spontaneous, creative and flexible in relation to the opportunities and limitations set by
weather and seasons in order to catch the moment and use the opportunities offered. It was
also important to have overview in unfenced areas, to be courageous and have confidence in
children and allow them to try out many things.
Lastly it was mentioned that in some cases it is necessary to have a driver’s license for
car or for bus.
79
Green settings in use
The main figures about the green settings in use are listed in Table A3 and explained
subsequently.
Table A3. Main responses on green settings in use
Question/topic
Answers
Means of transportation
Distance to green settings
Walking, by bus, by train
0 - 50 km
Median 450 m
Average 5,6 km,
0 - 5 min: 28%
6 - 15 min: 27%
16 - 30 min: 36%
>30 min: 9%
Yes: 77%
No: 23%
Public accessible green settings: 61%
Green lots at disposal: 38%
1-2 forest sites: 25%
3-6 forest sites: 29%
7-10 forest sites: 27%
>11 forest sites: 19%
Woodland: 5.2
Beach, dune or heath: 1.8
Mown grass: 1.0
No conflicts: 83%
Minor conflicts: 17%
Duration of transport each
way, % of answers
Places to avoid
Type of green setting used,
% of answers
Number of forest sites in
use, % of answers
Number of forest sites of
different types, average
Conflicts with other users
of green settings
Answers,
total number
125
74
75
65
122
59
50
71
Distance and transport
Some outdoor preschools were situated right in the forest while others walked to the green
setting or had to use transport. The distance to the nearest appropriate green setting varied
from 0 to 50 km and was covered by foot, by bus, or by train. The median distance was 500 m
and it was most common to walk. The time spent one way varied from 0 to 55 minutes with
an average of 17 minutes. Most preschools used less than half an hour each way, whether by
foot, by bus or by train.
80
Places to avoid
A minority of 25 % answered that no places were so dangerous they should be avoided. The
mentioned features to avoid are listed and the percentage of the number answers mentioning
this feature (Table A4). Places with water features were by far the most often avoided.
Table A4. Places and features to avoid mentioned by staff members
Features to
avoid
Specifications
Number of
answers about
the feature
Places to avoid Yes
46
Water
Rivers with strong currents, brooks,
40
lakes, dams, water pits, wetland,
bogs, deep ditches, deep water pits,
deep water after rainfall
Vegetation
Windfalls, hangers, places with
11
poisonous, burning or stinging
species
Terrain
Steep slopes, cliffs
7
Weather
Forest in storm and the day after
7
depending
storm, ice or glaze in winter
features
Animals
Fields with billy-goats, roe-bucks,
5
wasp nests, soil wasps (?), places
with many wood ticks
Built features
Wells on fields, electric fence,
4
railroad crossings
87%
24%
15%
15%
11%
8%
The answers were often connected to statements about surveillance and learning:
“With adult surveillance there are no places to avoid. Without surveillance the children are not
allowed to play by deep brooks or by the sea. ” (Staff member from nature preschool)
“No places have to be avoided, but care has to be taken and children have to learn how to go about
lakes, streams and moors. ” (Staff member from commuter preschool)
Type of settings in use
Of the preschools, 61% mainly stayed at sites in public accessible green settings, here called
forest sites. Green settings included forests, parks, meadows, beaches, heathlands and parks.
In Denmark this also include private forests, where the public are allowed from sunrise to
sunset.
The remaining 39% mainly stayed at natural or naturalized plot at their disposal, here
called green lots. Of these lots, 31% were fenced on all sides and the rest were more or less
open. Of the preschools mainly staying at green lots, 78% answered that they also went
outside the green lot to forests and other green settings.
81
Number and type of forest sites
Forest sites were defined as a known place in forest or other kinds of nature where you come
again and again, often named. Some preschools used the same one site; others used many
different sites; the number varied from 1 to 40 with a median of 6. The average number of
forest sites was 8,0; on average 5.2 forest sites were in forest, 1.8 forest sites were in other
kinds of nature as for instance beach, dunes or heath, and 1.0 forest sites were more intensely
maintained as for instance parks, football fields or nature playgrounds.
Facilities at forest sites
The question about available facilities at forest sites was answered by 64 respondents. The
majority of preschools, 78%, had access to sites with areas for bonfire, either on the ground or
in a fire hut. Some kind of shelter was also common, either as a roof, a tepee, a straw bale hut
or a hut with walls on some or all sides. Swings and structures for climbing were also
common.
Some groups always brought a trailer, some never did, and others brought it
occasionally. First aid kits and mobile phones were brought by all and water by almost all.
Some had access to sites with compost toilets, but the large majority did without and brought
the necessities such as a folding spade, toilet paper, plastic gloves or disinfection and so on. A
few brought a toilet seat to put on the ground.
The features that were mentioned as missing and wished for was of the same kinds:
areas for bonfire, fire huts, shelters, compost toilets and water for drinking as well as for water
activities.
Besides food and drink, examples of items brought were waterproof seats, tarpaulins,
dry clothes and remedies for igniting a fire, knifes, shovels, saws, scissors, axes, rope, string,
steel wire, buckets, magnifying glass, nets and jars for fishing, bags for materials, handbooks
and other educational tools as pencils, paper, games, word cards and songbooks.
Facilities on green lots
The question about available facilities at green lots was answered by 40 respondents. The
most common facilities were likewise areas for bonfire; more than 50 % had a fire hut.
Different kinds of shelters and simple buildings were also present, such as play houses, straw
bale huts, shelters, wooden huts, fire huts, pavilions with a wood stove, camper trailers, scout
huts, old railway waggons and old farm buildings.
Different outdoor workshops were mentioned, such as shelters with tools, a shelter
with a carpenter bench, a drawing shelter and a workshop wagon. Sub-settings for specific
activities were also mentioned such as football fields, lanes for bicycles and moon cars, and
water tracks. Almost all sites had swings and some had slides, old ships, towers, balance
structures, somersault-bars and other climbing structures, climbing trees and picnic tables.
Only a few had compost toilets, probably because many of the green lots were adjacent to a
building with toilet and water.
Quite a few had domestic animals as rabbits, chicken and birds and the necessary pens
and huts. Vegetable gardens and glasshouses were also mentioned.
Again many of the same features were mentioned in relation to what was missing and
wished for: shelters, fire huts, outdoor kitchen, football field and hills, more climbing
82
structures and tall climbing trees, swings and suspension bridges, places for water game and
outdoor water taps.
Conflicts with other users
Out of 71 respondents, 17% mentioned conflicts with other users, often followed by the
comment that it would be more correct to call it small discussions or irritating incidents, and
that local solutions were found in dialogue with other user groups.
The conflicts were connected to traffic of mountain bikers and horsemen on narrow
paths and to loose dogs. Hunters of different kinds were also mentioned.
Other examples mentioned were tourists spending the night in shelters, bottles and
cans from visitors, horse droppings and dog excrement. Vandalism had happened at a site
near a public beach and owners of summer cottages had complained because the bus blocked
to the path to the beach.
Another type of conflict was connected to approval to use the area for stay. In one
incident the national Nature Agency had summoned the forest preschool because they used a
scout house in an area reserved for occasional use, not for daily use. In another case the
preschool got approval from the national Nature Agency, but it turned out that the area was
preserved and a clause about some old oak trees had been overlooked. A hiker complained
and got his right so the outdoor preschool had to give up leasing the area.
One preschool expressed the wish for rules about private forests to be adjusted, since
there was a specific area they wanted to use but were not allowed to.
Reasons for outdoor stays in green settings
In the survey, 109 responded to the open question: What, in your opinion, are the most
important reasons for stay in green settings with children? The answers were about features
and benefits for children, but also about the benefits for the educational work done by staff
members and about personal benefits.
Reasons for stays in green settings related to children
The reasons for stay were either expressed as features existing in the setting, as something
children could experience here and now or as something children could gain in the longer run:
experiences and learning. Some answers were as short as ‘the freedom and the possibilities’ or
‘fresh air, nature and lots of space’, but others contained longer stories.
The most often mentioned reasons were nature, space, fresh air and possibilities for
movements and sensations. Reading through the answers about nature exposed a division
between nature perceived as a possibility for here and now experiences (‘oplevelser’) and
nature as a possibility of obtaining experience and knowledge (‘viden, forståelse, kendskab,
kundskab’).
83
Table A5. Main reasons for outdoor stays in green settings related to children
Characteristics of green settings
Space (39)
Fresh air (29)
Room, high to the ceiling/walls (26)
No noise, calm (22)
Time/no disturbances (15)
Room (13)
Possibilitie (33)
Challenges (17)
Nature (77) such as:
Hills, steep slopes, hilly terrain
Forest, trees, climbing trees, big stones,
hiding places, varied forest floor,
plants, grass, sticks, needles
Mud, dams, water pits
Small, creatures: frogs, tadpoles, rain
worms, insects, creep and crawl
Materials (6)
Fire (3)
Weather and seasons (15)
Life and death, change (5)
Experiences and experience in green settings
(Oplevelser og erfaring)
Good health (16)
Freedom (7)
Development (36)
Play (29)
Learning (26)
Nature:
Nature knowledge, knowing, understanding, insight,
experience (erfaring), words and terms (39)
Nature experiences (oplevelser) (25)
Nature relation, respect, responsibility, solidarity,
care, empathy (14)
Bodily:
Motor skills, strength (26)
Senses, sensation (22)
Mental:
Creativity, fantasy (37)
Absorption (22)
Joy and wonder (14)
Attention, concentration (11)
Inspiration, stimulation (9)
Curiosity (8)
Self-reliance, personal development, feeling of self (8)
Courage (2)
Beauty (1)
Social:
Few conflicts (19)
‘The social’ (10)
Sense of community (8)
Good relations (6)
Privacy (1)
Necessity (1)
Certain words and metaphors were widely used; one of them was ‘fresh air’ which
literally is the quality of air in green settings, but often refers to good health and absence of
84
sickness. Another was ‘high to the ceiling and far to the walls’ which literally concerns
metres, square metres and cubic metres, but at the same time is a metaphor for physical and
mental spaciousness and room for moving and development (‘udfoldelse’). Space was often
mentioned in connection with few conflicts, less noise, places to be quiet or absorbed and
nooks and hiding places where children could be on their own, either alone or with peers.
The reasons for stay in green settings related to children are tentatively listed
according to features, experiences, and experience/other gains in Table A5. The split between
nature, body, mental and social experiences and experience is artificial, but used here to
obtain an overview. The following citation illustrates the perception of advantages for
preschool children of stays in green settings:
“What children need: first to develop gross motor skills; wild play; active outdoor life offers better
possibilities for stimulating the overall development; challenge of creativity, inventiveness; the active
children will to a higher degree be seen as curious children using their energy without being
annoying, they feel less wrong and less in opposition to adults; stimulating of attention, curiosity,
thirst for knowledge and urge to experiment; fewer conflicts and more victories and successes; fewer
commands and corrections; direct experiences through the senses which is of decisive significance for
creation of experience and understanding of the surrounding world. Personal experiences where all
senses are in use will seldom be forgotten.” (Staff member in nature preschool)
Reasons for stasy in green settings related to educational work and job satisfaction
Most staff members answered on behalf of the children and their activities, but interwoven
were the benefits for the educational work with children and the personal benefits for staff.
The following short citations illustrate this:
“Nature does something good to humans” (Staff member in commuter preschool)
“This is also my own joy as an adult, to have the chance to work with children in a commuter
preschool and be outdoors every day” (Staff member in commuter preschool)
“Few days with sickness for children and adults. Everybody gets a relation to nature - and takes care
of nature.” (Staff member in nature preschool)
“Possibilities for undisturbed play and absorption for children as well as adults.” (Staff member in
forest preschool)
“Time for absorption, peace for work.” (Staff member in forest preschool)
“Sense of community. Adults that only have to be together with children: No breaks, no telephone
calls, no 'just have to', practical tasks and the like.” (Staff member in forest preschool)
“To be, less stress” (Staff member in nature preschool)
“Better health for children and staff. Job satisfaction and thriving.” (Staff member in commuter
preschool)
“Less days with sickness, more job satisfaction and ‘joie de vivre” (Staff member in bus preschool)
85
According to staff members working in this field, the reasons for staying in green settings
seemed to be a fruitful mix of benefits for children, educational benefits and personal staff
benefits. The following citation illustrates the perception of combined advantages for
preschool children, the educational possibilities and the job satisfaction:
“Because it is totally amazing – to have time for the absorption needed to lie flat on ones stomach and
observe an earthworm, crawling up from its tube, along the surface and into a new tube, while we talk
about worms and are just totally motionless - to see the children develop from having a hard time
getting up after a fall, because they are afraid of taking hold of the grass to the day they are smeared
in mud from top to toe, because they ‘take on sun protection’ - to see the children use their strength
and obtain their own bodily experiences with the hilly terrain, the good climbing tree, the steep slope,
to carve with the knife and have a cut, carry firewood - build a fire and be allowed to ignite it - pass
on knowledge about animals, plants, wind and weather to children and see how they take it in an
remember it - to have extensive space around you - to follow the seasons closely and with your own
body, for example when we lean against the wind without falling on the behind - to pass on to children
something I love.” (Staff member in forest preschool)
References
BUPL (2015), 'BUPL's medlemmer fordelt på køn og type arbejdsplads',
<http://www.bupl.dk/presse/statistik_om_boern_og_paedagoger/medlemmer_fordelt_paa_koen_og_typ
e_arbejdsplads?opendocument> 1. 4. 2015.
Hansen, Møller, et al. (2011), Spørgeskemaer i virkeligheden (Samfundslitteratur).
86
87
Appendix B
Sub-study 4. Visits to outdoor preschools
Goal
The visits to outdoor preschools were made in order to expand the experiences from a single
forest preschool to a number of outdoor preschools. The visits were a chance for trying the
adjusted taxonomy presented in Paper 1 as a tool for getting an overview of existing
affordances and affording features and to elaborate on some of the questions about outdoor
preschool practices raised by the survey. The visits had the following main aims: 1) to
corroborate the results of study 1 and 2 about affordances and affording features in outdoor
settings; 2) to see the more green settings in use; and 3) to notice differences in staff practices
and attitudes in relation to the settings.
Method
The visits were planned to take place mainly during times for free play outdoors. During the
visits, children’s activities were observed in the outdoor settings and field notes were made.
The sites were sketched and affording features noted. Photos and video recordings were made
when permitted. The field notes, photos and recordings were analysed and observations
organized according to 10 classes of outdoor features.
Interviews were conducted with one or more members of staff. The interviews were
semi-structured, performed and recorded in situ and when possible; sometimes in a hut or
shelter, sometimes on a walk or at the forest sites. One interview in each preschool was
regarded as the main interview. The interviewees of the main interviews had from 1 to 25
years of work experiences in green settings adding up to a total of 115 years. The interviews
were recorded, transcribed and coded according to the main questions (Appendix C).
Preschools selection
The ten outdoor preschools were chosen to be different and to be located in different
landscapes in Denmark (Table B1). They were located in moraine landscapes or in the flat
plains of sediments from ice glacier melting water. Some were located inland, some were
located near the beach. The sites used were woodlands, beaches and parks, and sites of stay
were green lots or forest sites or both. The preschool buildings were situated in the forest, in
walking distance or in driving distances and the means of transport were by foot or by bus. A
bus company was hired to drive morning and evening or they had a bus at their own disposal.
The outdoor stay was performed in various ways in relation to frequency and length of
outdoor stay; in some preschools all children stayed in green settings every day, in some cases
groups alternated to go to green settings and in one case the green group was a specific group
within the preschool where the rest of the children stayed at the home base except for one
week each year. In most places it was an age-integrated group, in two cases the group was age
divided. In most preschools, the staff followed the group, in one preschool the staff were
always outdoors, but the groups of children alternated.
88
Corroboration of findings in sub-studies 1-3
The visits supported the findings in Sub-study 3 that the practices and settings for outdoor
preschools vary and are mixed in many ways (Table B1). The visits supported the findings
from sub-studies 1 and 2 about the outdoor features of significance for children. Many of the
activities observed in study 1 and 2 were observed to be similar across the visited settings.
Most of the features used were the same although the amount of features in each class and the
variation within the classes differed.
Use of the adjusted classification
The affordances of outdoor settings could easily be overviewed by use of the 10 classes of
outdoor features described in Paper 1. All classes seemed to be of significance to children, but
features in some classes proved to be less interesting to register for comparisons of green
settings; for instance loose parts in a beech forest were much the same in all beech plantings;
what differed were the biotopes and tools present. For creatures a single visit was not sufficient
to note their appearance and it might be more relevant to register the biotopes present and the
initiatives taken to enhance animal life.
Settings in use
The green settings in use proved to be situated in topographically interesting areas, even in the
flat part of Denmark: in one case it was an old riverbed with an adjacent burial mound from the
ice age, in the other case it was a forest surrounded by ditches and near the huge dunes by the
sea. The green lots were often open areas with singular trees and shrubs bordered by dense
plantings. Water bodies were not present at the green lots except in water puddles. Water
barrels catching the rain from roofs also occurred. The forest sites used by preschools staying in
public accessible areas were glades, forest edges, sites with water bodies, in pillar halls, dense
forest or open areas such as beaches.
Differences in the settings
The visits made to outdoor preschools of various kinds supported the findings from Sub-study
3 that settings and practices of outdoor preschools vary and are mixed in many ways. In most of
the visited settings, features from all 10 classes were in use, but not all settings contained water
features or areas for fire.
The amount of manufactured features differed. At the forest sites the noted features
were gravel roads, dens, bridges, swings and fire huts. In the green lots the features were
shelters, sheds and small houses, sheds or boxes for tools and sheds with workshops such as a
carpenter’s bench. Inventive moving features such as various swinging arrangements, round
logs and broad boards for seesawing and obstacle courses were also found in green lots. In
some cases traditional play features were also present such as sand pits and manufactured
swings with fall ground.
Likewise the amount of prefabricated toys differed. In the preschools staying at forest
sites, the children usually did not use prefabricated toys, but in one preschool, plastic utensils
were brought back and forth in the bus. The green lots contained different amounts of
traditional play equipment, plastic utensils and sometimes milk crates.
89
The amount of, and access to tools differed. In most of the visited preschools, sheath
knifes were commonly used - in some places they were freely accessible by all children, in
others only for children of a certain age. Hand shovels and saws were common and in one case
even axes were accessible for all children.
Water features were not present at the green lots except for puddles and in some cases
where rainwater was collected in a barrel. At the forest sites, water was often present at some,
but not all sites, either shallow water or water gradually getting deep as lakes and beaches.
Creatures were present according to the habitat. At some of the green lots, animals were
fed and compost heaps made. Some preschools hosted domestic animals.
Areas for bonfires were very common in the green lots, either on the ground, raised on a
‘fire bed’ or built into an outdoor kitchen. Some areas for bonfire were under open sky and
others were in fire huts; some settings contained both. The bonfire areas at forest sites were
most often stones on the ground or fire huts.
Outdoor features in use in green settings
The 10 classes of outdoor features proved to be a handy tool for analysing, suggesting and
discussing possible ways of enhancing the affordances for preschool children in each setting.
Forest features generally observed during the ten visits could be listed according to the ten
classes (Table B2, column 2). Staying at green lots offered the possibilities to add a number of
features (Table B2, column 3). Staying in public accessible areas most often increased the
variation and change in forest features, but hindered extensive constructions. In such settings,
the staff often brought along selected items in backpacks or a small cart to supplement the
existing features (Table B2, column 4).
Rules and practices
Rules and practices of importance for planning and management were connected to the places
and features to avoid, practices about vegetation, the rules about tools and fire, and how to
handle small creatures and dead animals.
Places and features to avoid
The places and features avoided were the same as observed and mentioned in sub-studies 1-3:
deep water, rivers, swampy areas and roads with traffic. Tools were not regarded as dangerous
as long as simple rules were upheld; the bruises were just of another kind than at the
playground.
It was a common attitude towards potentially dangerous features that it was better for
children to approach them and know them than to keep them away. Preschools went to rivers,
lakes and oceans and children learned which precautions had to be taken.
It was obvious that the differences in amount of potentially dangerous features were
connected to the different practices on green lots and in other areas. If children stayed at a
green lot, they knew the boundaries and within these boundaries they were allowed to move
freely and to some degree unattended. This meant that features within the boundary or fence
had to be relatively safe. At the forest sites, children were still free to move, but had to be able
to see a staff member. Correspondingly the staff members moved around and had to be aware
of where the children were. This closer surveillance made the demands on the setting less strict.
When at trips to nearby areas, the children and staff were even closer and because of this more
90
potentially dangerous features could be approached. This tendency is supported by the fact that
green lots for preschools are visited by playground inspectors and have to adhere to the
playground safety rules. Forests, parks and other public accessible green settings are covered
by different and less strict sets of rules.
The visited preschools had experienced only a few minor accidents. It was the general
opinion that green settings were less dangerous that traditional playgrounds. In one of the
commuter preschools staying at a green lot, the features regarded as the most dangerous were
actually the milk crates.
Rules about vegetation
Rules regarding tree climbing differed; in most cases children were free to climb as far as they
dared. If they got stuck they could usually be talked down. Some staff members restricted the
height of climbing to 3 or 4 meters. A staff member mentioned that she had problems with
heights and that one of her colleagues had problems with water, which she was relaxed about.
So the secret was to know each other well and give a hint such as ‘you take this one’ in order
not to restrict children.
Children were usually allowed to handle all plants in the settings, but taught about the
poisonous plants and which plants to stay away from. Children were in many cases allowed to
taste everything, but were shown which plants and fruit not to eat. In most cases fungi were
also collected and eaten, but this depended on the actual staff; in one case staff did not feel safe
about the species and had the rule not to collect mushrooms.
At the green lots the staff most often set the rules for manipulating and modifying. At
the forest sites, it was a question of agreement with the owner or the manager about the area for
stays and the modifications allowed. Most often dry wood was used for modification and fresh
wood was used when it was left behind or delivered by the foresters or land managers. In one
case the preschool had a certain area where they were allowed to fell and cut down as they
wanted.
Tools and rules about tools
The access and rules about use of sharp tools differed. In some case all children had free access
to sheath knifes, in others children under a certain age were only permitted to use table knifes
and saws. In some cases children had to sit in certain ways or in certain places when using
sheath knifes and staff had to be present, in others they only had to use the knifes in the
direction away from the body. Staff more often performed activities like making firewood,
preparing plant beds, repairing sheds.
Rules about fire
Fire was generally not regarded as dangerous, but staff presence was necessary. In some
preschools children were only allowed to watch the fire while it was only for the staff to ignite
and care for it. In others children were allowed to light the fire, feed it, poke in it with sticks
and rearrange the burning pieces of wood. In some areas fire was only allowed during the
winter half-year.
Handling of animals
In some preschools dead animals were buried by performing rituals like at human burials.
When partly eaten animals were found and the talk touched on ‘why’ this was passed over
91
lightly, maybe with a sentence like ‘the fox also has fox cubs to feed’. In other preschools dead
animals were dried, put into formalin, dissected or buried for later studies of skeletons.
In one case a group of hunters had their hunters’ lunch with beer and schnapps in the
preschool fire hut in agreement with the preschool, while the children enjoyed their meal
outdoors. Afterwards the game was presented and all children were invited to go closer, touch
and try to disembowel a hare. Some children went all in and dug their hands into the guts,
others stayed in safe distance holding hands with a peer or staff member.
Rules about roaming
In the preschools with green lots, the children were allowed to move either to the fence or to a
known border such as a stone dike or a gravel road. This implied a freedom to roam within the
boundaries. For the preschools in public green spaces and woodland, the freedom to roam was
connected to the location of the staff. The boundaries were invisible and flexible as long as a
staff member was within sight. When on the way or on adventure trips the children and staff
members were even closer together. In the first case the freedom to take initiatives unknown by
staff seemed bigger than in the latter cases, but at the same time the contact between staff and
children seemed less frequent though this might be a coincidence.
Educational line
In spite of the differences, it was the impression that the visited outdoor preschools shared an
educational line. The preschools considered themselves to be outdoor preschool initiatives, but
when asked, they did not follow any specific educational thinkers or any specific outdoor
learning plan. Several referred to the 6 learning themes that all preschools in Denmark have to
follow. The books, ‘Sug i mage og livskvalitet’ writen by a Norwegian professor in sport and
games (Breivik 2001) and ‘Sanseintegration hos børn’ (translated from ‘Sensory integration
and the child’) by Ayres (2007) were mentioned, as well as Danish books about outdoor
activities for children such as ‘Børn, dyr og natur Leicht Madsen (1985) and ‘Børn, friluftsliv
og natur’ Holberg (2007).
A meaningful job
Staff members expressed that the green settings offered the best possible frames for a
meaningful job. In comparison, stays at playgrounds were regarded as dull. The interviews
revealed that most staff members had a deep affection for green settings and for staying in
green settings with children. Added to this were the personal nature experiences as mentioned
in the following quotation:
“This summer we stayed at a field, and suddenly hundreds and hundreds of butterflies took off,
butterflies were all over. The children could just reach out and catch them and look at them. It only
happened this one day, and it was also a peak experience for me.” (Staff member in preschool staying
at a green lot and at forest sites)
The personal satisfaction of stays in green settings seemed to be persistent as expressed in this
citation from a staff member with over 25 years of working experience in an outdoor preschool:
“Adventure trips with a small group in some areas, where there is also something new for me, can be
absolutely marvellous, completely adventurous sometimes. What I really love, more than many other
thing, is for instance, to go fishing with a small group of children when the frogs have laid their eggs or
92
are about to do it; such a whole morning with lunch bags in the forest with nets and the anemones have
started to bloom and the sun shines and the frogs croak, it is just completely marvellous, completely
marvellous.” (Staff member in preschool staying at green lot and at forest sites)
References
Ayres, Anna Jean (2007), Sanseintegration hos børn (Sensory integration and the child).
Breivik, Gunnar (2001), Sug i magen og livskvalitet (Oslo: Tiden) 159 sider.
Holberg, Steffen (2007), Børn, friluftsliv & natur : en brugsbog i naturpædagogik (Kbh.: Børn & Unge)
Leicht Madsen, Bent (1985), Børn, dyr & natur.
93
Table B1. Information about the ten outdoor preschools visited during the study
Type of preschool
1.
Commuter
preschool
Main
green setting
Forest sites
Landscape
Moraine
Beach
2. Forest preschool
Forest sites
3. Traditional preschool
Forest sites
4. Nature/Forest
preschool
Green lot and forest
sites
5. Forest preschool
Green lot and forest
sites
6. Bus preschool
Green lot and forest
sites
Moraine
7. Forest group in
traditional preschool
Green lot and forest
sites
Moraine
Sand dunes
Beach
8. Nature preschool
Green lot
Moraine
Moraine
Moraine
Glacial
plane
Moraine
Location and transport
Commute from inner city to forest park near beach
with small house and garden/playground. Walk to
forest sites 4 times a week.
Walk to forest sites in public forest from small
preschool house with playground by forest edge.
Walk to forest sites in public forest from preschool
premises with large playground in residential area.
Stay in rented large old fenced farm garden with huts
and small rooms in farmhouse. Walk to forest sites in
public forest three times a week.
Number and selection of children
70 children. 1 group of 17 with the
oldest, 3 age-integrated groups of 17.
By bus to unfenced forested lot with fire hut, small
room, toilets and storage in old stable in the midst of
public forest. Walk in forest 2-3 times a week.
Go by own bus furnished as house from traditional
preschool buildings to various places in nature, often
unfenced green lot in the midst of public forest near
fiord.
Go by own bus to several places, most often to an
unfenced green lot by a nature centre with domestic
animals and a rook shared with other preschools, by
farmland, forest, dunes and beach.
28 children. Age integrated group. Part
of town preschool with one group in
town.
48 children. 3 age divided groups. Use
the bus one week in turn.
Green lot with forest, meadow, huts, fire hut,
adjacent to preschool premises. Weekly trip to
adjacent public forest.
42 children. 2 age-integrated groups of
21.
60 children. 3 age integrated groups of
20
28 children. 3 age divided groups
90 children. Age divided groups of 15,
sometimes gender divided. Groups
chosen by staff in traditional
preschool. Specific staff connected to
the bus, not to the group.
50 children. 3 age divided groups of
12-15. Age divided green lot.
Green stay
100%
95%
40%
(2 days a week)
100 %
100%
33%
(1 week every
third week)
8-17%
(Daily in 2-3
months, once or
twice in 3 years)
100%
94
9. Commuter preschool
Green lot
Moraine
10. Forest preschool
Green lot
Glacial
plane
Commute from inner city to green lot with forest,
mown grass and small house, fenced on 3 sides.
Occasional trips to adjacent public forest.
Commute from inner city to green lot with forest,
meadow, fire hut, sheds, in the midst of farmland by
river. Room and toilet in stable nearby. Occasional
trips to public forest in walking distance.
25 children. Age integrated groups.
Part of city preschool with other
groups staying in the city.
46 children. 2 age-integrated groups of
23 use the green lot in turn.
100%
40%
1. Bon Sai, Gentofte 2. Skovhuset, Sorø 3. Magdalenehaven, Sorø 4. Abbetved Børnegård, Kirke Såby 5. Skovtrolden, Bedsted 6. Marollebo, Nykøbing Mors. 7.
Bakkegården, Esbjerg 8. Skørbæk Ejdrup Friskole og Naturbørnehave, Nibe 9. Frederiksberg Folkebørnehave 10. Herning Valgmenighedsbørnehave
Table B2. General forest features in green settings and additional features on green lots and in forest sites
Classes of
outdoor features
General forest features in all kinds of
green settings for children in preschool
Additional outdoor features possible on
green lots
1. Open ground
Glades, forest edges, meadows, mown
grass, paths
Hillocks, hills, dikes, hollows, a winding
ditch of different depth and breath
Dens and evergreens or dense, fast
growing, hardy vegetation such as
willow, shrubs, tall grasses
(Vehicles)
Key activities1
Run, drive, walk
2. Sloping terrain
Roll, slide, clamber
3. Shielded places
Hide, as frame
4. Rigid fixtures
Climb, balance, jump
Climbing trees, fallen trees, logs, stumps,
boulders, bridges
Additional features to bring
along to forest sites in public
green spaces and woodland
Boards for making slopes.
All kinds of huts, tepees, sheds, shelters,
simple houses, compost toilets, wood sheds,
tool sheds. Shrubs, grass mats, pieces of
cloth
Picnic tables
Tarpaulins
95
5. Moving fixtures Flexible trees, swinging and swaying
Swing, sway, seesaw,
branches, logs and branches for seesaws,
spin
trees for swings, hammocks and rope
tracks, branch bunches
6. Loose objects
Branches, spruce stems, species
Arrange, modify, as
producing different and abundant sticks,
tools, props, treasures
bark, leaves, flowers, berries, cones,
acorn, mushrooms, wood pieces, organic
cut off and left over from green
caretakers, stones and pebbles
7. Loose material Different kinds of soil and sand, decaying
Dig, move, mould,
wood, saw dust, moss, leaves, small
smear
grained plant parts
8. Water
Water in different places: brooks, ditches,
Pour, mix, splash, float shallow lakes, puddles
9. Creatures
Look for, handle, care
10. Fire
Feed, look after, sit by
1
Habitats: Decaying wood, logs and
stones, food plants, damp areas
Areas for bonfire such as a circle of
stones on the ground, a fire hut
Stationary swings, boards for seesaws, old
mattress for jumping
Rope for rope tracks and
swings, hammocks
Wood pales, old Christmas trees, planed
boards, tubes, plastic and iron tools,
vehicles, wheel barrows, balls
Hand shovels, saws, sheath
knives, table knives, string,
steel wire, containers, bags,
hand books2, educational
material, backpack or trolley3
Sand, gravel, piles of bark chips, seashells
Rain water barrel, rainwater jars, water
tracks, gutters, less permeable areas for
puddles, water faucet
Compost, bird table, bird bath, domestic
animals
Elevated area for fire, fire jar, iron barrel,
part of an outdoor kitchen, kitchen utensils
Bottles of water
Magnifying glasses, containers,
nets
Firewood and matches,
cooking utensils, axes
Key activities = distinctive and attractive activities for each class, a part of the classification.
Handbooks about trees, plants, creatures, feathers, eggshells, animal tracks, stones, den building.
3
Staff: backpacks or trolley with mobile phone, first aid, seats, spade (toilet seat) or bucket with hole and plastic bags, toilet paper, disinfection, dry clothes, plastic bags
for the inside of wet boots. Each child: small backpack with food, drink, rainwear, dry woollen socks, dry mittens
2
96
Appendix C
Map 1
Map 1. Sketch of playground
The conifers are transparent to show the play equipment underneath.
97
Map 2
Map 2. Sketch of forest site
The section is approximately at children's eye level (average 95 cm) except for named features and the
conifers.
Map 3
Map 3. Survey: Answering outdoor preschools
Commuting preschools are marked at the home base or meeting point.
99
Questionnaire, screening
Spørgeskema til grønne børnehaver i Danmark
Udsendt ultimo 2011, svarfrist primo 2012
Fakta, BH
Er spørgeskemaet kommet det rette sted hen?
– Ja, vi er grønne, men vi har andre grunde til ikke at
svare (skriv venligst hvilke)
Arbejder børnehaven ud fra en bestemt pædagogik?
– Ja, vi er inspireret af en eller få pædagogiske
retninger eller tænkere (Angiv venligst hvilke)
Hvordan er børnehaven organiseret?
- Anden organisering (angiv venligst hvilken)
Hvor stor er børnehaven?
- Antal børnehavepladser i alt
Hvordan er normeringen i hele børnehaven? (antal børn
pr fuldtidsansat)
Hvor mange timer er hele børnehaven åben om ugen?
BH-type
Hvordan vil du karakterisere jeres børnehave/grønne
gruppe?
(skov, bus, udflytter, gård, natur, grøn profil)
- Anden slags grøn børnehave (angiv venligst hvilken)
Grønne børn
Hvilken del af børnehaven udgør de grønne børn?
- Hvis børnene i grupperne veksler, så beskriv gerne,
hvordan grupperne bliver dannet
Hvor selvstændig er den grønne
børnehave/satellit/afdeling/gruppe?
- Vi har eget hus
- Vi har egen leder
- Vi har egen økonomi
- Vi har egen venteliste
- Vi har egen hjemmeside
- Nævn evt andre udtryk for selvstændighed
Hvor mange grønne børn er der i børnehaven?
- Antal grønne børn i alt
- Antal piger
- Antal drenge
- Antal tosprogede
Hvordan er normeringen for de grønne, hvis man
sammenligner med tilsvarende grupper/børnehaver i
kommunen?
- Evt. kommentarer til normeringen
Hvilken alder har de grønne børn, fx lige efter
sommerferien? Sæt hak ved alle de aldre, børnene har
på det tidspunkt.
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
Må der være blebørn i den grønne gruppe?
- Ja (angiv venligst hvor mange, når der er flest)
Hvordan er aldersfordelingen i de grønne grupper?
- Evt. kommentar til alderssammensætning
Hvis du var i en børnehave med 3 aldersopdelte stuer,
og det kun var muligt at lade 1 stue bruge det grønne,
hvilken gruppe ville du så vælge?
- Begrund gerne dit valg
Grupper
I hvor mange grupper færdes børnene i det grønne?
En gruppe er de børn og voksne, der opholder sig i
samme område i det grønne. (Hvis 2 grupper eller
stuer fx går til forskellige skovsteder eller opholder sig
hver for sig på naturgrunden, er svaret 2. Hvis alle
opholder sig på naturgrunden sammen og deler voksne,
er svaret 1)
- Antal grønne grupper
Hvor store er de grønne grupper almindeligvis?
- Antal børn
- Antal voksne
- Antal voksne, minimum
Hvad synes du er den idéelle gruppestørrelse i det
grønne
- Antal børn
- Antal voksne
Skolegruppe
Har I skolegruppe med de største?
Hvor ofte er skolegruppen for sig selv i løbet af et år?
- Antal måneden om året
Hvor ofte er skolegruppen for sig selv i løbet af et år?
- Antal dage om ugen
Hvor opholder I jer, når skolegruppen er for sig selv?
Grønne dage
Hvor mange procent af årets børnehave-dage opholder
det enkelte grønne barn sig i det grønne?
- Procent dage i det grønne, cirka
Af hvilke grunde er I ikke i det grønne visse dage?
Intervaller
Er der faste intervaller for det enkelte barn mellem dage
i det grønne og dage hjemme i børnehaven? (fx
hjemme hveranden fredag, afsted hver tredje uge eller
bestemte måneder)
Hvordan er intervallerne for det enkelte barn? (Tæl kun
børnehavedage, ikke lørdag og søndag)
- Antal dage i det grønne
- Antal dage hjemme
Hvad synes du, er det ideelle forhold mellem dage i det
grønne og dage hjemme i børnehaven? (Tæl kun
børnehavedage, ikke lørdag og søndag)
- Antal dage i det grønne
- Antal dage hjemme
- Ved ikke
100
Grøn tid
Forestil dig en sommerdag (maj, juni, juli, august)
Hvordan bruges tiden en almindelig dag?
- Tid udendørs i alt, minutter
- Tid i det grønne, minutter
Forestil dig en efterårsdag eller forårsdag (september,
oktober eller marts, april)
Hvordan bruges tiden en almindelig dag?
- Tid udendørs i alt, minutter
- Tid i det grønne, minutter
Forestil dig en vinterdag (november, december, januar,
februar)
Hvordan bruges tiden en almindelig dag?
- Tid udendørs i alt, minutter
- Tid i det grønne, minutter
Hvor foregår jeres voksen-igangsatte pædagogiske
aktiviteter? Hvordan kunne du ønske dig antallet af
grønne dage? Hvordan kunne du ønske dig antallet af
grønne dage?
- Evt. kommentar til antal dage i det grønne
Hvordan kunne du ønske dig den daglige tid det
grønne?
- Evt. Kommentar til tid i det grønne
Hvad ser du som de største forhindringer for at være
mere i det grønne?
Transport
Hvordan kommer I almindeligvis hen til det grønne?
- Andet (angiv venligst hvordan)
Hvor langt er der fra det sted, hvor børnene møder ind
(hjemme), til jeres nærmeste grønne område?
- Afstand i meter, cirka (1 km = 1.000 meter)
Hvor lang tid tager det jer at komme hjemmefra og hen
til det grønnel? (Det sted, hvor børnene ikke længere
behøver at holde i hånd)
- Gennemsnitlig tid i minutter, cirka
Hvor lang tid tager det at komme hjemmefra helt hen til
det sted i det grønne, hvor I vil opholde jer? (Kun
aktuelt, hvis I opholder jer forskellige steder)
- Gennemsnitlig tid i minutter, cirka
- Minutter til det nærmeste sted, cirka
- Minutter til det sted, der ligger længst væk, cirka
Formål
Hvad er efter din mening de vigtigste grunde til at
opholde sig i det grønne med børnene? (Brug gerne
stikord)
FORGRENING:
SPOR 1
Sted, skoven
Hvordan er det grønne område, I bruger i dagligdagen?
NB! Børnehaver, der svarer naturgrund, bliver senere
spurgt, om de OGSÅ har en skovpraksi - Skriv evt en
note, hvis I har grupper af begge slags
Hvad hedder skoven og hvem er skovens ejer?
- Navn på skov
- Navn på skovens ejer
Hvor stor en del af skoven må I bruge?
- Areal, hektar cirka
Hvad betaler I for at bruge skoven?
- Kr. årligt Har i kontrakt med skoven?
Et skovsted er et kendt sted i skov eller anden natur,
hvor man kommer igen og igen. Skovsteder har ofte
navne. Her kommer 4 spørgsmål om jeres skovsteder.
- Hvor mange skovsteder har I?
- Hvor mange dage årligt bruger I jeres mest brugte
skovsted?
- Hvor mange af jeres skovsteder er anden natur end
skov? (fx strand/klit/hede)
- Hvor mange af jeres skovsteder bliver passet og
plejet? (fx park/fodboldbane/naturlegeplads)
Hvilke faciliteter bruger I i skoven?
- Bålhytte
- Halmhytte
- Tipi
- Halvtag
- Faste gynger
- Bålsteder
- Multlokum
- Andet (angiv venligst hvad)
Hvor stort er omfanget cirka af overdækning i skoven ?
(fx halvtag, bålhus, tipi eller halmhytte)
- Antal steder med overdækning
- Overdækket areal, antal m2 i alt
- Antal børnepladser i alt
Er der noget, I mangler i skoven?
Hvor mange procent af jeres grønne dage har I
trækvogn med?
- Procent dage med vogn, cirka
Hvad har I altid med i skoven?
- Vand
- Mobiltelefon
- Førstehjælps-sager
- Skiftetøj
- WC-brædt Hvad har I altid med i skoven?
- Desinfektion
- Andet (angiv venligst hvad)
Har I haft konflikter med andre brugere af skoven?
- Ja, skriv gerne med hvem, og hvad det gik ud på
Ville du foretrække, at børnehaven lå på en stor
naturgrund
SPOR 2
Sted, Naturgrund
Hvor stor er naturgrunden, og hvordan er den indrettet?
- Hele grundens areal, i alt m2
- Legeplads (legeredeskaber, sandkasse), antal m2
cirka
- Have-område (klippet græs, urtehave, bede), antal m2
cirka
- Natur/skov-område, antal m2 cirka
Er naturgrunden indhegnet?
Hvordan vurderer du grundens størrelse i forhold til
jeres børnetal?
Tænk på en almindelig dag, hvor alle er ude. Hvordan
oplever du i grove træk, at børnene bruger de
forskellige områder?
101
- Legepladsen (legeredeskaber, sandkasse), procent
børn
- Have-området (klippet græs, urtehave, bede), procent
børn
- Natur/skov-området, procent børn
Hvilke faciliteter er der på grunden?
- Bålhytte
- Halmhytte
- Tipi
- Halvtag
- Faste gynger
- Bålsteder
- Multlokum
- Andet (angiv venligst)
- Andet (angiv venligst)
Hvor stort er omfanget af overdækning ude på
grunden? (fx halvtag, bålhus, tipi eller halmhytte)
- Antal steder med overdækning
- Overdækket areal, antal m2 i alt
- Antal børnepladser i alt
Er der noget, I mangler på naturgrunden?
FORGRENIG SAMLES:
Hvor langt er der fra naturgrunden til skov eller anden
offentlig natur?
- Afstand i meter (1 km = 1000 m)
Har I en fast praksis, hvor grupper af børn går i skoven
udenfor naturgrunden? (i lighed med skovbørnehaver)
Ville du foretrække, at børnehaven lå ved en skov, I
kunne gå ud i hver dag? (det gør den allerede, alle)
Regler
Hvilket af følgende må jeres børn IKKE i naturen? Sæt
hak ved det, der altid eller for det meste gælder
- a. Plukke blomster
- b. Slå brændenælder
- c. Slå bregner
- d. Knække levende grene
- e. Samle svampe
- f. Samle mos
- g. Fange dyr
- h. Undersøge smådyr, så de tager skade
- i. Kaste sten og grene i åer og grøfter
- k. Tage ting med hjem
- l. Smage på alt uden at spise det
- m. Andet (nævn venligst hvad)
- m. Andet (nævn venligst hvad)
Evt andre kommentarer til natur-regler
Hvilke regler er krav fra skovens/grundens ejer? (Brug
bogstaver fra listen, fx b,h, j)
Ulykker
Hvilke steder i det grønne anser I for så farlige, at de
skal undgås?
Hvis du tænker 3 år tilbage, hvor mange ulykker kan du
så huske, som førte til lægebesøg?
- Antal ulykker indendøre
- Antal ulykker i det grønne
- Antal ulykker på legepladsen (området med
legeredskaber og sandkasse)
Grønne vokne
Hvor mange voksne arbejder i den grønne børnehave
eller -gruppe?
- Antal kvinder
- Antal mænd
Kræver det noget specielt at arbejde med børn i det
grønne?
- Ja, skriv venligst hvad
Har nogen i personalet grøn
uddannelse/efteruddannelse? (fx gartner, biolog,
naturvejleder)
- Skriv evt. hvilke uddannelser, det drejer sig om
Har personalet tilstrækkelig naturfaglig viden til
hverdagen i det grønne?
- Angiv gerne hvilken viden der er brug for
Udvikling
Hvordan har udviklingen været siden
kommunesammenlægning 2007?
- Angiv evt hvor mange pladser, der er oprettet/nedlagt
Hvor ser du de største forhindringer for oprettelse af
flere grønne børnehavepladser?
Historie
Hvornår er den grønne børnehave/gruppe oprettet?
- Årstal
Hvem tog i sin tid initiativ til oprettelsen?
- Andre, skriv venligst hvem
Diverse
Her kan du svare på noget af det, jeg burde have spurgt
om! Fx om, hvad det er, skov og natur KAN i forhold til
børn, hvad det grønne betyder for personalet, hvilke
steder, børnene vælger, hvilke løsdele, de bruger, hvad
der udmærker jeres bedste sted, hvad I kunne ønske
blev undersøgt nærmere etc
Kontakt
Hvem besvarer denne undersøgelse? (Lad navnefeltet
stå tomt, hvis besvarelsen skal være anonym)
- Stilling Hvem besvarer denne undersøgelse? (Lad
navnefeltet stå tomt, hvis besvarelsen skal være
anonym)
- For- og efternavn
Hvordan er det evt. bedst at kontakte jer? (Lad feltet stå
tomt, hvis I ikke vil kontaktes)
- Ugedag
- Tidspunkt
- Tlf nr
Ønsker I et link til jeres hjemmeside på
www.skovtid.dk?
- Ja tak (angiv venligst linket her)
Vil I deltage i lodtrækningen om besøg af en
fagperson? Fx en rebmester, kunstner, naturvejleder
eller lignende. Vinderen får direkte besked.
102
Questions, vistits
Feltarbejde
Besøg i ude-børnehaver 2012-13
INTERVIEW
OBSERVATION
Hvad får børnene ud af det grønne
Er der ulemper ved det for børn
Aktiviteter
Hvad foregår hvor?
Er der børn, det ikke passer til
Er der børn, der har særlig gavn af det
Skitse, mål, retning
Ruminddeling, bund
Topografi
Planter/biotoper
Hvordan er jeres rolle i skoven ift. LP
Er der ulemper for jer ansatte
Får I noget ud af det selv
Hvad skal I kunne
Er der viden, I mangler
Er der en skovhandleplan/-pædagogik
Visioner, ønsker, drømme
Evt
Hvad er vigtigste ved et godt skovsted
Vælger I sted efter vejr, alder, køn, dyr
Hvad er vigtigst/mest brugt på grunden
Hvilke planter er vigtigst/bruges mest
NB! Alder, uddannelse, erfaring
Fixtures
Fluctures
Løsdele
Smulder
Vand
Dyr
Ild
Evt
Overdækning
Wc + hygiejne
FAKTA
Antal, grupper etc
Rytme
Kultur
Steder, høre om dem
103
Inger Lerstrup
Inger Lerstrup
PhD
April
2015
PhDThesis
Thesis
April
2016
Green Settings for Children in Preschools
university of copenhagen
rolighedsvej 23
dk-1958 Frederiksberg
tlf +45 35 33 15 00
[email protected]
www.ign.ku.dk
Green Settings for Children in Preschools
department of geosciences and
natural resource management