The Educational Values of Trees and Forests
Terry L. Sharik and Stacey Frisk
Department of Environment and Society
College of Natural Resources
Utah State University
Logan, UT 84322-5215
Presented at
Seventh Biennial Conference on University Education in Natural Resources
Corvallis, OR
March 14, 2008
Context
When we think about the benefits provided by forests and trees,
we tend not to think about how they contribute to enhanced
learning ability, despite the mounting evidence (MEA 2005: Table
1).
Table 1. Services provided by ecosystems to the benefit of people (MEA 2005).
Provisioning Services (products obtained)
Food
Fiber
Fuel
Genetic resources
Biochemicals, natural medicines, pharmaceuticals
Ornamental resources
Fresh water
Regulating Services (regulation of ecosystem processes)
Air quality regulation
Climate regulation
Water regulation
Erosion regulation
Water purification
Disease regulation
Pest regulation
Pollination
Natural Hazard Regulation
Cultural Services (non-material benefits)
Cultural diversity
Spiritual and religious values
Knowledge systems
Educational values
Inspiration
Aesthetic values
Social relations
Sense of place
Cultural heritage values
Recreation and ecotourism
Supporting Services (necessary for the production of all other services)
Soil formation
Photosynthesis
Primary production
Nutrient cycling
Water cycling
_________________________________________________________________
Objective
To review the literature on this topic with the intent of stimulating
further research on the educational values of trees and forests
and fostering the application of this knowledge in the learning
environment.
Approach
Complexities of the learning process
Links of this process to nature, including ways of interacting with
nature
Role of trees and forests
Conclusions
Complexities of the Learning Process
Three Major Modes of Learning (Kellert 2002)
1. Affective or Emotional
Focuses on the formation of emotional and feeling capacities.
Typically precedes cognition or intellect as a basis for maturation
and learning.
2. Cognitive or Intellectual
Stresses the formation of thinking and problem-solving skills.
3. Evaluative
Emphasizes the creation of values, beliefs, and moral perspectives.
Emerges from a synthesis of affective and cognitive perceptions and
understandings.
(Additional References: Iozzi 1989a, 1989b)
Affective or Emotional Mode
There is some evidence that contact with the natural world,
especially during middle childhood (ages 6-12), is important in a
person’s emotional responsiveness and receptivity.
Seems to be due to its “dynamic, varied, often unique,
surprising, and adventurous character.”
Elicits such responses as satisfaction, delight, joy, excitement,
and curiosity.
(References: Cornell 1977, Cobb 1977, Kellert 1985, Kellert 1996, Derr 2001,
Ratanopojnard 2001, Sabal 1993)
Interactions with natural settings reduce stress or elicit positive
feelings and thereby enhance cognitive functioning, creativity,
and performance, especially regarding higher order tasks.
(References: Olmsted 1865, Kaplan and Talbot 1983, Isen et al. 1985, Kaplan
and Kaplan 1989, Isen 1990, Hartig et al. 1991, Ulrich et al. 1991a, Ulrich
1993, Kaplan 1995, Wells 2000, Wells and Evans 2003, Am. Institutes for
Research 2005)
Attention Restoration Theory has been utilized to explain the
restorative aspects of contact with nature following a period of
directed or forced, focused attention and associated mental
fatigue (Kaplan 1995).
There is both psychological and physiological evidence for
the restorative value of nature.
Results in cognitive clarity and reflection, thereby enhancing
creativity.
(Additional References: Ulrich 1981, Ulrich and Simmons 1986, Ulrich et al.
1991b, Chang and Pergn 1998, Chang and Uan 1999, Hartig et al. 2003, Hammitt
2007)
Cognitive or Intellectual Mode
Evidence that experiential contact with nature can have a
positive impact on cognitive development comes from a number
of sources.
Bloom et al.’s (1956) taxonomy of cognition has been used to
frame this relationship (Table 2).
(Additional References: Altman and Wohwill 1978, Ulrich 1993, Kahn 1999,
Ratanapojnard 2001, Kellert 1997, Kellert 2002, Burdette and Whitaker 2005,
Taylor and Kew 2006)
Table 2. Enhancement of various elements in Bloom et al.’s (1956) taxonomy of
cognition by various forms of interaction or contact with nature (after Kellert 1997).
Name of Cognitive
Ability
Definition
Enhancing Activity
in Nature
Knowledge
Acquisition
Assembling facts and Identifying and
figures
classifying various
aspects of the natural
world
Comprehension
Interpreting and
understanding
empirical realities
Application
Putting knowledge to Distinguishing one
use in various
environmental feature
situations
from another
Translating specific
knowledge of nature
into categories of
related functions and
processes
Analysis
Teasing apart
elements or patterns
nested within an
overall structure
Dissecting elements
in nature
Synthesis
Integrating
Integrating elements
distinctive elements and processes in
into an overall whole nature
Evaluation
Discerning worth
and importance
Judging the relative
significance of
particular aspects of
the natural world
Burrowing from the work of Mednick (1962), it has been argued
that higher order cognitive functioning, which involves integration
or association of diverse and seemingly unrelated information or
concepts in novel ways, is likely enhanced by exposure to nature
(Ulrich 1993).
Evaluative Mode
Kellert (1996) formulated nine values of the natural world that
contribute significantly to human well-being (Table 3).
Name of
Value
Definition of
Value
Benefits
Stage of
Prominent
Development
(yrs.)*
Dominionistic Urge to master Safety and protection;
and control
independence and autonomy; the
nature
urge to explore and confront the
unknown; and willingness to take
risks, be resourceful, and show
courage
3-6
Negativistic
3-6
Avoidance,
fear, and
rejection of
nature
Avoiding harm and injury;
minimizing risk and uncertainty;
and respect and awe for nature
through recognizing its power to
humble and destroy
Utilitarian
Material and
commodity
attraction of
the natural
world
Physical and material security;
self-confidence and self-esteem
through demonstrating craft and
skill in nature; and recognition
of human physical dependence
on natural systems and
processes
3-6
Aesthetic
Physical
attraction and
appeal of
nature
Perceiving order and
organization; developing ideas
of harmony, balance, and
symmetry; and evoking and
stimulating curiosity,
imagination, and discovery
6-12
Humanistic
Strong affection
and emotional
attachment to
nature
Developing intimacy,
companionship, trust, and
capacities for social
relationship and affiliation;
and enhancing selfconfidence and self-esteem
through giving, receiving,
and sharing affection
6-12
Symbolic
Nature’s role in
shaping and
assisting human
communication
and thought
Classifying and labeling
abilities; language
acquisition and counting;
resolution of difficult aspects
of psychosocial development
through story and fantasy;
and enhanced
communication and
discourse through the use of
imagery and symbol
6-12
Scientific
Empirical and
systematic
study and
understanding
of nature
Moralistic Ethical and
spiritual
affinity for
nature
Intellectual competence;
critical thinking; problemsolving abilities; enhanced
capacities for empirical
observation and analysis;
and respect and
appreciation for natural
process and diversity
Sense of underlying
meaning, order, and
purpose; the inclination to
protect and treat nature
with kindness and respect;
and enhanced sociability
from shared moral and
spiritual conviction
6-12,
13-17
13-17
Naturalistic
Desire for close
contact and
immersion in
nature
Inclination for exploration, discovery,
curiosity, inquisitiveness, and
imagination; enhanced self-confidence
and self-esteem by demonstrating
competence and adaptability in nature;
and greater calm and coping capacities
through heightened temporal awareness
and spatial involvement
13-17
Those that contribute most strongly to
the development of learning skills
include the naturalistic and scientific,
and to a lesser extent the symbolic, the
latter mostly through the development
of language skills.
Gardner’s (1999) inclusion of naturalist intelligence among the
(ten) multiple intelligences he formulated to represent the entire
spectrum of human cognition lends support to the importance of
the naturalist perspective as a fundamental way of learning.
Ways of Interacting with Nature Can Make a Difference
Three ways in which (young) people’s experience of
nature occurs (Kellert 1996, 2005)
Direct
Actual physical contact with nature in a spontaneous and
unstructured way, including play
Indirect
Actual physical contact with nature, but more structured
and planned.
e.g., zoos, arboreta, botanical gardens, science museums,
and nature centers; contacts with domesticated plants and
animals; [outdoor lab instruction ? (TLS)]
Vicarious or symbolic
--Representations or depicted scenes of nature
--Principally through the mass media (classroom? TLS)
Considerable conceptual and empirical support for the argument
that direct experience of nature plays a significant role in
affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in humans that
is not replaced by indirect and vicarious experiences, which are
on the rise.
Attributed to diversity and variability in space and time of
the natural world, together with its unpredictiveness and
challenges.
(References: Searles 1959, Kaplan and Talbot 1983, Moore 1986, Kaplan
and Kaplan 1989, Sebba 1991, Pyle 1993, Sobel 1993, Nabhan and Trible
1994, Kellert 1996, Kellert 2005, Burdette and Walker 2005)
Considerable evidence that children (and adults) are spending
increasingly less and less time experiencing high quality natural
environments.
Due to a number of factors, including habitat destruction,
species loss, environmental contamination, natural
resource depletion, urban sprawl, human population
growth, “videophilia,” and fear of violence.
(References: Barney et al. 1980, Wilcox et al. 1991, Groombridge 1992, Wilson
1992, Myers 1994, Heywood 1995, Savage 1995, Kellert 2002, Pergams and
Zaradic 2008)
Parental concern for the health and safety of their children, in turn
related to increased violence in our society, real and imagined, is
an increasingly important factor.
Louv (2005) labeled the health syndrome associated with
this diminished experience of nature in children today as
“nature-deficit disorder” as a way of creating heightened
awareness of the problem.
Has had a major impact on the development of impending
federal legislation on “no child left inside.”
(Additional References: Clements 2004, Karstan 2005, Farmer 2005, Veitch et
al. 2006, Jackson and Tester 2008).
Key point concerning children’s direct contact with nature is that
it be ongoing and highly accessible, which in turn implies that it
be “nearby.”
Has important implications for regional and urban
planning.
(References: Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Sobel 1993, Kaplan et al. 1998, Wells
2000, Kellert 2002, Taylor et al. 2002, Wells and Evans 2003, Bell and
Dyment 2006)
Contributions of Trees and Forests to Learning
The first scholarly treatment of the origins of the fundamental
relationship between trees and people was that of the
psychologist J. O. Quanz (1897).
Created the term “dendro-psychoses” to represent this
relationship.
Provided several lines of biological and psychological
evidence of an adaptive nature to support the argument that the
earliest humans dwelled in trees.
Examples of psychological evidence included the fear of wild
animals, thunder and lightning, high winds, and falling; “hide and
seek” games; rocking babies to sleep.
Considerable evidence that trees have played a central
role in everyday life throughout human history, including:
Source of food and shade
Safe sleeping and eating places
Vantage points for surveying the landscape
Escape from predators
Provision of shelter, weapons, tools, and medicine
Inspiration (TLS)
(References: Bourliere 1963, Lee 1979, Isaac 1983, Shipman 1986,
Heerwagen and Orians (1993).
Orians (1980) hypothesized that tree forms that were most
important in the survival of early humans in African savannas
should be most preferred by humans today from the standpoint of
aesthetics.
Referred specifically to the “acacia” form, with canopies broader than
tall, trunks terminating and branching considerably below half the
height of the tree, small leaves, and layered branching.
Argued that such trees are easy to climb and their canopies
offered greater protection from sun or rain.
Hypothesis was tested on preferences of Americans for trees
cultivated in Japanese gardens and for various dimensions of the
dominant East African tree, Acacia tortilis.
Hypothesis was not rejected.
(Additional References: Orians 1986, Heerwagen and Orians 1993)
Preference for the acacia tree form over other tree forms was
subsequently investigated by utilizing college students from all
major continents except Antarctica.
In all cases, students preferred the acacia form over other
forms (eucalyptus, oak, conifer, and palm).
Moreover, they tended to prefer the most common tree
experienced in their respective childhoods more so than
students who grew up with other tree forms as most
common, indicating that experience also shapes one’s
preferences of tree form.
(References: Sommer and Summit 1996, Sommer 1997)
At the stand or landscape level, the evidence suggests that
people prefer natural environments over built environments and
savanna-type natural environments over other natural
environments (Kahn 1999).
Young children (age 8-11 years) from the eastern U.S.
preferred East African savannas over mixed hardwood
forest (their home environment), boreal forest, rain forest,
and desert, while older children showed an equal
preference for savannas and mixed hardwood forest.
Suggests the influence of both genetics and environment
(familiarity) in such preferences.
(Additional Reference: Balling and Falk 1982)
Preference for the savanna-like environment seems to be the
result of being able to acquire new information (mystery) without
becoming disoriented or lost (legibility).
May help explain the appeal for closed-canopy forest
stands that have been thinned or for urban or suburban
open spaces that are planted with scattered trees in a
grassy matrix, i.e., are park-like.
May also help explain the tendency of European settlers in
North America to open up forested landscapes and plant
trees in prairie landscapes.
(References: Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Kaplan 1992)
Conclusions
The development of learning skills, especially in children, and the
realization of creativity and productivity in adults, seem to be
enhanced significantly by direct and informal contact on a regular
basis with natural settings, especially those that are savanna- or
park-like.
These findings may have important implications for the teaching
and learning process in our society.
In particular, the notion of less structured and more
emotions- or value-laden environments for learning
seem to run counter to traditional institutional
approaches.
Contact Information
[email protected]
[email protected]
List of References Regarding the Educational Values of Trees and Forests
Terry L. Sharik
Last Updated on February 27, 2008)
American Institutes for Research. 2005. Effects of outdoor education programs for children in California. American Institutes for Research: Palo
Alto, CA.
Altman, I. and J. Wohlwill (eds.). 1978. Children and the environment. Plenum Press: New York.
Appleton, J. 1990. The symbolism of habitat. University of Washington Press: Seattle.
Barkow, J., L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby (eds.). 1992. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford
University Press: Oxford.
Barney, G. (ed.). Global 2000 report. Council on Environmental Quality: Washington, D. C.
Bell, Anne C. and J. E. Dyment. 2006. Grounds for action: Promoting physical activity through school ground greening in Canada. Evergreen:
Toronto, ON.
Bettelheim, B. 1977. The uses of enchantment: The meaning and importance of fairy tales. Vintage Books: New York.
Bloom, B. S., M. B., Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: The
classification of educational goals—cognitive domain. Longman: New York.
Bourleire, F. 1963. Observations of the ecology of some large African mammals. In F. C. Howell and F. Bourliere (eds.). African ecology and
human evolution. Aldine: Chicago.
Burdette, H. L. and R. C. Whitaker. 2005. Resurrecting free play in young children: Looking beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation,
and affect. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 159: 46-50.
Chang, C. Y. and Perng, J. L. 1998. Effect of landscape on psychological and physical responses. Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture 9: 78376.
Chang, C. Y. and Uan, L. L. 1999. Influences of landscape types on recovery of concentration and EMG. Journal of Landscape Planning 7: 122.
Chawla, L. 1994. In the first century of places: Nature, poetry, and childhood memory. State University of New York Press: Albany, NY.
Chawla, L. 2002. Spots of time: Manifold ways of being in nature in childhood. pp. 199-225 In P. Kahn, and S. R. Kellert. (eds.).
2002. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Clements, R. 2004. An investigation of the state of outdoor play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 5: 68-80.
Cobb, E. 1977. The ecology of imagination in childhood. Columbia University Press: New York.
Coley, J. D., G. E. A. Solomon, and P. Shafto. 2002. The development of folk biology: A cognitive science perspective on children’s
understanding of the biological world. Pp. 65-91 In Kahn, P. and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). 2002. Children and nature: Psychological,
sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Cornell, j. 1979. Sharing nature with children. Dawn: Nevada City, CA.
Diamond, J. 1993. New Guineans and their natural world. Pp. 251-271 In S. R. Kellert and E. O. Wilson (eds.). The biophilia
hypothesis. Island Press/Shearwater Books: Washington, D. C.
Derr, V. 2001. Growing up in the Hispano homeland: The interplay of nature, family, culture, and community in shaping children’s
experiences and sense of place. Doctoral dissertation. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University: New Haven.
Driver, B. et al.1987. Wilderness benefits: A state-of-the-knowledge review. In R. C. Lucas (ed.). Proceedings of the National
Wilderness Research Conference. General Technical Report INT-220. U.S. Forest Service: Fort Collins, CO.
Eagles, P. J. and S. Muffitt. 1990. An analysis of children’s attitudes toward animals. J. Environmental Education 21: 41-44.
Engel, S. 1995. The stories children tell: Making sense of the narratives of childhood. Freeman: New York.
Erikson, E. 1968. Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton: New York.
Ewart, A. 1989. Outdoor adventure pursuits: Foundations, models and theories. Publishing Horizons: Scottsdale, AZ.
Farmer, C. 2005. Home Office citizenship survey: Top level findings from the children and young people survey. Home Office and
the Department for Education and Skills: London, England.
Fjørtoft, I. 2004. Landscape as playscape: The effects of natural environments on children’s play and motor development. Children, Youth and
Environments 14: 21-44.
Gardner, H. 1999. Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Basic Books: New York.
Gibson, J. J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton-Mifflin: Boston.
Goldsmity, E. 1993. The way: An ecology world-view. Shambala: Boston.
Groombridge, B. (ed.). 1992. Global biodiversity. Chapman and Hall: London.
Hammitt, W. E. 2007. The mental restorativeness of outdoor recreation environments. Annals of Leisure and Recreation Research. In review.
Han, Ke-Tsung. 2003. A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landscape and Urban
Planning 64: 209-232.
Hart, R. 1979. Children’s experience of place. Irvington Publishers: New York.
Hartig, T., M. Mang, and G. W. Evans. 1991. Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and behavior. 23: 3-26.
Hartig, T., G. W. Evans, L. D. Jamner, D. S. Davis, and T. Gärling. 2003. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 23: 109-123.
Heerwagen, J. H. and G. H. Orians. 1993. Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. Pp. 138-172 In S. R. Kellert and E. O. Wilson (eds.). The
biophilia hypothesis. Island Press/Shearwater Books: Washington, D. C.
Heywood, V. 1995. Global biodiversity assessment. United Nations Environment Program/Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Huttenmoser, M. 1995. Children and their living surroundings: Empirical investigations into the significance of living surroundings for the
everyday life and development of children. Children’s Environments Quarterly 12: 403-413.
Iozzi, L. A. 1989a. What research says to the educator. Part I. Environmental education and the affective domain. J. Environmental
Education20: 3-9.
Iozzi., L. A. 1989b. What research says to the educator. Part 2. Environmental education and the affective domain. J. Environmental
Education 20: 6-13.
Isaac, G. 1983. Bones in contention: Competing explanations for the juxtaposition of Early Pleistocene artifacts and faunal remains.
In J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson. Animals and archeology, Part I: Hunters and their prey. B.A.R. International Series: Oxford.
Jackson, R. J. J. and J. Tester. 2008. Environment shapes health, including children’s mental health. Journal American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 47: 129-131.
Kahn, P. H., Jr. 1999. The human relationship with nature: Development and culture. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kahn, P. H., Jr. 2002. Children’s affiliations with nature: Structure, development, and the problem of environmental generational
amnesia. pp. 93-116 In Kahn, P. and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). 2002. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and
evolutionary investigations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kahn, P. and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). 2002. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations.. MIT
Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kanner, A. D., T. Roszak, and M. E. Gomes. 1995. Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind. Sierra Club Books: San
Francisco
Kaplan, S. 1992. Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge-using organism. pp. 581-598 In J. H. Barkow, L.
Cosmides, and j. Tooby (eds.). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press:
New York.
Kaplan, S. 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrated framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15:
169-182.
Kaplan, S. and R. Kaplan. 1982. Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. Praeger Publishers: New York.
Kaplan, S. and J. Talbot. 1983. Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. In I. Altman and J. Wohlwill (eds.). Behavior
and the natural environment. Plenum Press: New York.
Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan. 2002. Adolescents and the natural environment: A time out? pp. 227-257 In Kahn, P. and S. R. Kellert.
(eds.). 2002. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations.. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan, and R. L. Ryan. 1998. With people in mind: Design and management for everyday nature. Island Press:
Washington, D. C.
Karstan, L. 2005. It all used to be better? Different generations on continuity and change in urban children’s use of space.
Children’s Geographies 3: 275-290.
Kellert, S. R. 1985. Attitudes toward animals: Age-related development among children. J. Environmental Education 16: 29-39.
Kellert, S. R. 1996. The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
Kellert, S. R. 1997. Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Island Press/Shearwater Books:
Washington, D. C.
Kellert, S. R. 2002. Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. pp. 117-151 In P. Kahn and
S. R. Kellert. (eds.). Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kellert, S. R. 2005. Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature connection. Island Press: Washington, D. C.
Kellert, S. R. and V. Derr. 1998. National study of outdoor wilderness experience. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies,
Yale University: New Haven.
Kellert, S. R. and M. O. Westervelt. 1983. Children’s attitudes, knowledge and behaviors toward animals (Phase 5). U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service: Washington, D. C.
Kellert, S. R. and E. O. Wilson (eds.). 1999. The human relationship with nature. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kirby, M. A. 1989. Nature as refuge in children’s environments. Children’s Environments Quarterly 6: 7-12.
Krathwohl, D. R., B. S. Bloom, and B. B. Masia. 1964. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.
Handbook II: Affective domain. Longman: New York.
Lawrence, E. A. 1993. The sacred bee, the filth pig, and the bat out of hell: Animal symbolism as cognitive biophilia. pp. 301-341
In S. R. Kellert and E. O. Wilson (eds.). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
Lee, R. B. 1979. The !Kung San: Men, women, and work in a foraging society. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Lickona, T. 1991. Educating for character. Bantam Books: New York.
Lieberman, G. A. and L. L. Hoody. 1998. Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning. SEER:
Poway, CA.
Louv, R. . 2005. Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill, NC.
Lumsden, D. and E. O. Wilson. 1983. The relation between biological and cultural evolution. J. Biological Structure 8: 343-359.
Machado, A. , O. Lourenco, and F. J. Silva. 2000. Facts, concepts, and theories: The shape of psychology’s epistemic triangle. Behavior and
Philosophy 28: 1-40.
Maker, C. J. 1982. Teaching models of the gifted. Pro-ed: Austin.
Mednick, S. A. 1962. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review 69: 220-232.
Metzner, R. 1993. Spirit, self, and nature: Essays in green psychology. Green Earth: El Verno, CA.
Meyers, N. 1994. Global biodiversity II: Losses. In G. Meffe and C. Carrolls (eds.) . Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer: Sunderland,
OH.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press: Washington, D. C.
Moore, R. C. 1986. Childhood’s domain: Play and space in child development. Croom Helm: London.
Moore, R. C. 1993. Plants for play: A plant selection guide for children’s outdoor environments. MIG Communications: Berkeley, CA.
Moore, R. C. 1997. The need for nature: A childhood right. Social Justice 24: 203.
Moore, R. C. and H. H. Wong. 1997. Natural learning: The life history of an environmental schoolyard: Creating environments for rediscovering
nature’s way of teaching. MIG Communications: Berkeley, CA.
Nabhan, G. P. and S. St. Antoine. 1993. The loss of floral and faunal story: The extinction of experience. pp. 229-250 In S. R. Kellert and E. O.
Wilson (eds.). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
Nabhan, G. P. and S. A. Trimble. 1994. The geography of childhood: Why children need wild places. Beacon Press, Concord Library: Boston.
Nicholson. S. 1971. How not to cheat children: The theory of loose parts. Landscape Architecture 62: 30-34.
Orians, G. H. 1980. Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. In J. S. Lockard (ed.). The evolution of
human social behavior. Elsevier: New York.
Orians, G. H. 1986. An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In E. C. Penning-Rowsell and D. Lowenthal.
Allen and Unwin: London.
Orians, G. H. and J. H. Heerwagen. 1992. Evolved responses to landscapes. pp. 555-579 In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and j.
Tooby (eds.). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press: New York.
Olmsted, F. L. 1865. Preliminary report upon the Yosemite and Big Tree Grove. Report to the congress of the state of California.
Reprinted in V. P. Ranney, G. J. Rauluk, and D., F. Hoffman (eds.). 1990. The Papers of Frederick Law Olmsted, vol. V: The
California frontier, 1863-1865. John Hopkins Press: Baltimore.
Orr, D. W. 1992. Ecological literacy: Education and transition to a postmodern world. State University of New York Press: Albany,
NY.
Pergams, O. R. W. and P. A. Zaradic. 2008. Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation.
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.o709893105.
Piaget, J. 1969. The child’s conception of the world. Littlefield, Adams: Totowa, NJ.
Pyle, R. M. 1993. The thunder tree: Lessons from an urban wildland. Houghton Mifflin: Boston.
Quantz, J. O. 1897/98. Dendro-psychoses. Am. J. Psychology 9: 449-506.
Quammen. D. 1985. Natural acts: A sidelong view of science and nature. Avon Books: New York.
Ratanapojnard, S. 2001. Community-oriented biodiversity environmental education: Its effects on knowledge, values, and behavior
among rural fifth-and sixth-grade students in northeastern Thailand. Doctoral dissertation, School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies, Yale University: New Haven.
Roszak, T. 1992. The view of the earth: An exploration of ecopsychology. Simon and Schuster: New York.
Savage, J. 1995. Systematics and the biodiversity crisis. BioScience 45: 673-679.
Searles, H. F. 1959. The nonhuman environment. International Universities Press: New York.
Sebba, R. 1991. The landscapes of childhood: The reflections of childhood’s environment in adult memories and in children’s
attitudes. Environment and Behavior 23: 395-422.
Shepard, P. 1978. Thinking animals: Animals and the development of human intelligence. Viking Press: New York.
Shepard, P. 1996. The others: How animals made us human. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
Shepard, P. 1982. Nature and madness. Sierra Book Clubs: San Francisco.
Shipman, P. 1986. Scavenging or hunting in early hominids: Theoretical framework and tests. American Anthropologist 88: 27-40.
Sobel, D. 1993. Children’s special places: Exploring the role of forts, dens, and bush houses in middle childhood. Zephyr Press:
Tucson.
Sobel, D. 1996. Place-based education: Connecting classrooms and communities. The Orion Society and the Myrin Institute:
Great Barrington, MA.
Sommer, R. 1997. Further cross-national studies of tree form preference. Ecol. Psychol. 9: 153-160.
Sommer, R. 2001. The dendro-psychoses of J. O. Quantz. J. Arboriculture 27: 40-43.
Sommer, R. and J. Summit. 1996. Cross-national rankings of tree shape. Ecol. Psychol. 8: 327-341.
Sommer, R. , F. Learey, J. Summit, and M. Tirrell. 1994. Social benefits of resident involvement in tree planting: Comparison with
developer-planted trees. J. Arboriculture 20: 323-328.
State Education and Environment Roundtable (SEER). 2005. California Student Assessment Project Phase Two: The effects of
environmental-based education on student achievement. SEER: Poway, CA.
Taylor, A. F. and F. E. Kuo. 2006. Is contact with nature important for healthy child development? State of the evidence. pp. 124140 In C. Spencer and M. Blades (ed.). Children and Their Environments : Learning, Using, and Designing Space. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Taylor, A. F., F. E. Kuo, and W. C. Sullivan. 2002. View of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 22: 46-63.
Thomashow, C. 2002. Adolescents and ecological integrity. pp. 259-278 In P. Kahn and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). Children and nature:
Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Ulrich, R. S. 1979. Visual landscapes and psychological well being. Landscape Research 4: 17-23.
Ulrich, R. S. 1981. Natural versus urban scenes: Some psycho–physiological effects. Environmental Behavior 13: 523-556.
Ulrich, R. S. 1993. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. pp. 73-137 In S. R. Kellert and E. O. Wilson. The biophilia
hypothesis. Island Press/Sherwater Books”: Washington, D. C.
Ulrich, R. S. and Simons. 1986. Recovery from stress during exposure to everyday outdoor environments. pp. 115-122 In J. W.
Wineman and C. Zimring (eds.). Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research
Association, April, 1986. EDRA: Washington, DC.
Ulrich, R. S., R. Simons, B. D. Losito, E. Fiorito, M. A. Miles, and M. Zelson. 1991a. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and
urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 11: 201-230.
Ulrich, R. S., U. Dimbeg, and B. L. Driver. 1991b. Psychophysiological indicators of leisure benefits. pp. 73-89 In B. L. Driver, P. J.
Brown, and G. L. Peterson (eds.). Benefits of Leisure. Venture Publishing: State College, PA.
Veitch, J., S. Bagley, K. Ball, and J. Solomon. 2006. Where do children usually play? A qualitative study of parents’ perceptions of
influences on children’s active free play. Health and Place 12: 383-393.
Wells, N. M. 2000. At home with nature: Effects of greenness on children’s cognitive functioning. Environment and Behavior 32:
775-795.
Wells, N. M. and G. Evans. 2003. Nearby nature: A buffer of life stress among rural children. Environment and Behavior 35: 311330.
Whittaker, R. H. 1970. Communities and ecosystems. Macmillan: New York.
Wilcov, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States.
Bioscience 48: 607-615.
Williams, G. C. and R. M. Nesse. 1991. The dawn of Darwinian medicine. Quarterly Review of Biology 66: 1-21.
Wilson, E. O. 1984. Biophilia. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Wilson, E. O. 1992. The diversity of life. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Wilson, E. O. 1993. Biophilia and the conservation ethic. pp. 31-41 In S. R. Kellert and E. O. Wilson (eds.). The biophilia
hypothesis. Island Press: Washington, D.C.