Growing nature connection through greening schoolyards: preschool teachers’ response to ecosystem services innovations

ABSTRACT

This article reports how Swedish teachers’ aims and practices were modified by an ecosystem services development project that introduced insect hotels, bird boxes and planting to ten preschool yards. Teachers’ understanding of ecosystem services, human–nature relationships and the impact of these on nature connectedness showed that their conceptualisations of human–nature relationships were shifting and complex, reflecting overlapping ideas about what schoolyard ecosystem services might mean to/for young children and how children’s connection with nature might best be supported. The findings suggest creating pockets of urban nature in schoolyards is a useful strategy to unpack some of this complexity through direct experience of ecosystems encouraging interest in, concern for and understanding of our mutuality with nature.

KEYWORDS:

• Environmental education
• schoolyard development
• ecosystem services
• nature connectedness
• human–nature relations

Introduction

Climate change and loss of biodiversity represent huge contemporary challenges from both ecological, health and wellbeing perspectives, yet access to, knowledge about and care for the natural world has been diminishing through increasing urbanisation worldwide, particularly for children in lower socioeconomic groups (Chawla 2015; Friedman et al. 2021). As part of creating more sustainable urban environments, greening schoolyards can offer a place where young people can experience, understand, and develop connections with organisms and ecosystems (Van Dijk-Wesselius et al. 2018; Baró et al. 2021). The promotion of ecosystem services within school grounds could potentially level up access to nature and provide a rich learning environment for education about sustainability and climate change. Indeed, a recently proposed UK government strategy (DfE 2021) includes developing green infrastructure in school grounds together with a knowledge-based science curriculum to teach children about human impacts on nature. This article reports on a combined development and research project in Swedish preschool yards, which enhanced ecosystem services (ES), through introducing increased vegetation, bird boxes and bug hotels (Almers et al. 2020), thus providing useful insight into how schoolyard-based ecosystem service initiatives influence and support pedagogical opportunities for teachers in sustainability. It explores preschool teachers’ views on these changes, with regard to promoting nature connectedness (Lumber, Richardson, and Sheffield 2017), using the lens of human–nature relationships (Braito et al. 2017).

Literature review

Ecosystem services

Ecosystem services (ES) have been defined as ‘the benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems’ (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [MEA] 2005). However, although the concept has gained traction in research, policy formation and practice, it has also received criticism regarding environmental ethics and the human–nature relationship, noting that ES is anthropocentric in focusing on economic utilitarian values to humankind rather than nature’s intrinsic worth (Schröter et al. 2014). However, Jax et al. (2013) argue that ES demonstrates how human well-being depends upon nature and that nature’s intrinsic values overlap with economic aspects necessary for a good life.

A related criticism argues ES presents humans and ecosystems as separate entities, potentially promoting an exploitative consumerist relationship (Schröter et al. 2014). Concern has been expressed that the ES framework ‘imposes a duality between aspects of the ecosystem and the cultural system and promotes an acultural and decontextualized understanding of the types of benefits provided by ecosystems’ (Raymond, Giusti, and Barthel 2018, 779). However, binary distinctions fail to acknowledge the complexity of human–nature relationships and others contend that ES offer a method of exploration and illustration of how humanity is dependent upon nature, providing a means of reconnecting society with nature (Schröter et al. 2014).

Human–nature relationships

Individuals often hold several different relationships with nature simultaneously, and these correlate with environmental behaviour (Braito et al. 2017). In order to describe individuals’ different relationships with nature many different typologies have been proposed (Flint et al. 2013). Braito et al. (2017) developed earlier typologies of human–nature relationships adding three more categories, User, Nature Distant Guardian and Apathy to Master, Steward, Partner, Participant. According to Braito et al. (2017), Master implies humans’ right to alter nature; Steward indicates human responsibility to protect nature; Partner means humans and nature are of equal value; Participant implies feeling part of nature. The three new categories respond to growing urbanisation in that User indicates nature is seen primarily as a provider for products and services for humans; Nature Distant Guardian introduces an awareness of people’s increasing disconnect from direct nature experiences, substituted by virtual or managed engagement through media, pets and house plants; Apathy means nature does not play a role in daily life.

Developing nature connectedness and pro-environmental attitudes

Some commentators have argued for developmental stages in human–nature relationships (e.g. Kellert 2002; Davis, Rea, and Waite 2006); the latter proposing that children aged 0–6 years demonstrate innate aesthetic, naturalistic, humanistic and moralistic values and learn negativistic and symbolic values through adults’ mediation of risk and language. Spending time outdoors in childhood is believed to contribute to the development of ‘environmental interest, concern or action’ (Chawla and Cushing 2007, 440), including environmentalism (Wells and Lekies 2006) and connectedness to nature (Lumber, Richardson, and Sheffield 2017). Hedefalk, Almqvist, and Östman (2015) remark that, despite little supporting evidence, it is frequently assumed that environmental knowledge in children leads to pro-environmental behaviour. However, Lumber, Richardson, and Sheffield (2017) have argued that pathways to nature connectedness should include feelings as well as knowledge. A lack of, and need for, critical discussion of human–nature relations in preschool to address the pressing challenges of sustainability has been identified (Ärlemalm-Hagsér 2013; Elliott and Young 2016).

Aim and research questions

In order to interpret how schoolyard development and other inputs through the project affected possibilities for education about the natural world and sustainability, we explored preschool teachers’ views on ES-enhancing initiatives in their schoolyards, considering:

• What themes emerge from teachers’ reflection on the schoolyard project?

• What approaches to the relationship between humans and nature are visible in the teachers’ reasoning?

• What are the teachers’ views of how the schoolyard project affects their own and children's connectedness to nature?

Methodology

Context

The development project Multi-functional Urban Outdoor Settings and the Promotion of Health and Ecosystem Services: An Investigation of Collaborative Processes, involved ten preschools in Jönköping County, Sweden, the Jönköping County regional health department, researchers from Jönköping University, the Riksbyggen property management company, and other stakeholders during 2017. Project stages are presented below to contextualise the interviews that form the basis for this article:

1. Two researchers met with preschool teachers to discuss developing their schoolyards, providing this definition of ES ‘the benefits people obtain from ecosystems’ (MEA 2005), and giving examples, such as insects’ role in fruit production through pollination, formation of soil through worms and woodlice, UV protection through trees and bushes, and enhancing opportunities for play.

2. A member of Riksbyggen property management company then led workshops with each preschool to map existing and potential ES in the schoolyard using an ES-tool (Naturvårdsverket 2015, 52–56) developed for mapping for real estate development. Between one and three teachers from each preschool, one or two researchers (PA and/or EA), and in three cases, representatives from other stakeholders (a municipality, a property-owner, and a biosphere reserve) attended. Mapping was based on teachers’ knowledge of existing conditions (participants completing a form before the workshop), with further contributions from Riksbyggen staff, researchers, and other stakeholders. After the workshop, each preschool received a document describing their current ES and potential improvements.

3. Four inspirational activities with external experts on physical activity, UV-protection, forest gardening and permaculture, and relaxation were offered over one year. Teachers also shared their experiences, plans and progress at these events.

Ethical aspects

Preschool leaders were informed about and chose to participate in the wider project. Teachers then volunteered to take part in recorded interviews about their perceptions of the project with the understanding they could choose not to participate at any time. In each preschool, between one and three teachers participated, all females. Names of preschools and teachers were altered to maintain confidentiality.

Data collection

Eight interviews by researchers (PA and EA) with 19 teachers from nine preschools form the basis of this study: Ant (3); Bear (1); Cat (3); Dog (2); Elk (2); Goose (2); Horse (4); Ibis (1); Jackal (1). Generally, those who participated in interviews were those most involved in the development project. Each interview lasted about 80 min and took place 7–9 months after the project began.

To encourage sharing of stories, interviews were semi-structured and narrative (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009). Teachers were asked to explain their interpretation of ES. Our interview guide included: ‘What are the preschool’s aims with the project?’; ‘In what ways, if any, have these aims changed since the start of the development project?’; ‘What activities and practices involving children have developed or changed?’; ‘What kind of problems have the teachers encountered?’; and ‘How do you talk with the children about this?’. We followed up questions to clarify points and elicit examples.

Data analysis

Verbatim transcripts constituted primary data, which were initially analysed through inductive qualitative content analysis (Patton 2002) to identify themes. The themes presented here illustrate what aspects of ES related to nature connectedness were mentioned by teachers. Accounts describing other aspects such as physical activity and general play were excluded from this analysis. A summary of theme prevalence is shown in Table 1 on a three-grade scale: not mentioned (empty space); mentioned briefly (single asterisk); spontaneously expounded upon (two asterisks) during the interview, as an indication of the importance attached to them.

Table 1. Prevalence of themes related to ES innovations in preschools with relation to nature connectedness in teacher interviews.

Themes related to ES innovations	Ant	Bear	Cat	Ibis/ Lizard	Elk	Dog	Goose	Horse	Number of interviews
Organisms	*	*	*	**	**	*	**	*	8
Ecosystems			**	**	*	*	**	*	6
Foods	**	*				*	*		4
Gardening	*	*	*	**	**	*	**		7
Caring for nature	*	*			**		**	**	5
Preventing entomophobia				**		*	*		3
Sensory/aesthetic experiences	*		*		*		*	*	5

Note: Occurrence of themes: not mentioned (empty space); briefly mentioned (single asterisk); spontaneously expounded upon (two asterisks).

As a second stage analysis, expressions of human–nature relationships that appeared in the data were identified, according to underlying implicit values, following Braito et al.’s (2017) human–nature relationship categories.

Finally, a lens regarding the development of nature connectedness (Lumber, Richardson, and Sheffield 2017) was applied to theorise the contribution that emergent themes from teachers’ response to strengthening of ES in schoolyards might make to pathways to nature connection.

Results

Aspects of ecosystem service innovations with potential to increase nature connectedness

Our initial analysis shown in Table 1 indicates that the most widespread and expounded upon themes concerned organisms, ecosystems, and gardening.

Experiencing and understanding organisms

In all eight interviews, teachers mentioned how the project had already contributed to children’s interest in, and knowledge about organisms. At Goose, teacher L said the children enjoyed digging for insects and worms. They were contemplating devoting a small plot for children to dig as much as they like, because otherwise ‘they dig everywhere’ (L, Goose). Children’s interest in bugs had contributed to Goose teachers’ plans to visit nearby forests more often. Forest visits had become ‘totally different than they used to be’ with children more observant of ‘small details’ in nature, and the teachers themselves, ‘look(ing) at nature in a new way’ (M, Goose). Installing bird feeders just outside the entrance of the preschool last winter raised children’s interest in birds, and ‘eventually (the children) were pretending they were birds […] and they had nestlings and everything’ (L, Goose). At Lizard, teacher R said the children could observe birds eating the windfall in the schoolyard, which enabled them ‘to get [an understanding of] the whole life cycle’.

Ecosystems

Six preschool interviews mentioned situations where children learned about ecosystems, including pollination, food chains, and nutrient cycling. One teacher at Cat described a child’s comment about their insect hotel’s pollination effect on strawberries they had planted:

When she saw the strawberries, she said: ‘Look, now they’ve been here.'

It was so nice, she thought about the insect hotel when she saw the strawberries. (F, Cat)

The interviews showed that teachers felt ES innovations had affected not only the children’s learning and interests, but also their own thinking and practice around the natural environment. Teacher F at Cat commented that it was preferable to use an ‘everyday situation’, whereby leaves previously removed by the caretaker were now collected and composted by the teachers and children, in teaching ‘how leaves decay and become soil’. ‘The children will learn more as well,’ added teacher G, with teacher E agreeing, ‘Yes, they will both learn and see the entire process.’

Teacher F (Cat) said she had become more interested in addressing ‘the ecological system’ in her teaching: ‘I don’t recall thinking about the whole ecosystem before. For me it was more of a sudden insight that, yes, THIS is what it is REALLY about!’ The teachers at Goose said the purpose of the development project had changed considerably from the start, when they just wanted to get ideas regarding how to change a schoolyard that was ‘a little boring’; whereas now, they ‘think this is really about nature and how to involve the children in it’ (L, Goose). She added the project had opened her eyes to ‘what values we have’ in the schoolyard. Teacher M (Goose) said it is important to ‘grow the children’s interest [in nature]’ for the ‘future of the planet’. She expected it would make children think differently when they grow up, because ‘everything starts when they are young’.

A knock-on effect to families’ attitudes was suggested. For example, the caretaker at Cat had warned that parents might object to planting fruit trees, since windfalls could attract wasps, but teacher F responded:

But we shall bring up at the meeting with the parents that we will plant more fruit trees for children to get an understanding of the whole food chain and to be able to pick fruit and to understand [the connections] in a natural way.

Gardening

Teachers in all eight interviews had involved children in gardening. At Ibis, teacher S said the children were extremely engrossed in creating a mini forest garden. ‘They thought everything connected to the mini forest garden was fun; digging, planting, watering, and to see the plants grow.’

Foods

In four preschools, teachers talked about the importance of teaching children about foods, principally ‘that one can eat certain plants but not others’ (B, Ant) with the children then telling each other about what can and cannot be eaten. Teacher B added that it is good the children learn ‘that not everything needs to come from the store’ and that they witness ‘how it grows and that the plants need watering’. At Goose, teacher L described the children’s eagerness to know when the apples in the yard were ripe enough to be picked.

The next most discussed aspect was caring for nature, mentioned in five interviews, and expounded upon in three.

Caring for nature

Teachers discussed how the ES project had supported children’s participation in care for nature/specific organisms. Teacher D (Bear) noted that now ‘the children shall take part in how one takes care of nature’ and commented ‘We did not think so much about that in the beginning’.

Teacher K (Elk) mentioned reinforcing how important it was to return captured woodlice and earthworms to their habitat after they had been studied, not to destroy spiders’ webs, and not to ‘trample on a bumble bee or cut an earth worm with the spade’. Teacher L (Goose) remarked that the children are now more ‘kind’ to bugs they meet outside. ‘Many say, “No, don’t kill them, we like them here” and that they will take care of them.’ Teacher M (Goose) added the children’s care about ‘small [animals]’ is ‘something new’. However, when they speak to the children about insects, they try not to emphasise the caring aspect too much, ‘because then they would like to bring them home (L, Goose)’.

Discussing providing food for the birds in winter with the children, Teacher L (Goose) said they debated whether only ‘small and cute’ birds should be fed, or large ones as well. Together, they decided that birds of all sizes were welcome at the feeder. Teacher L attributed this decision to talking about how everyone should be involved in activities. Teacher M (Goose) pointed out it was important for teachers to serve as role models to teach children ‘to take care of our earth, in the long term’.

Teacher R described the effect of vandalism (an apple tree was damaged and strawberry plants pulled up) at Lizard on the children is that they ‘will never, ever, break an apple tree […] because they will remember how sad they became’.

The last two themes, preventing entomophobia and sensory/aesthetic experiences were less prevalent in the interviews.

Preventing entomophobia

In three interviews, teachers mentioned helping children not to be afraid of bugs. Several children at Dog were afraid of wasps having been stung last autumn, but Teacher I (Dog) said they had run a project to get children ‘closer to insects’. Teacher R (Lizard) said many children aged 3–6 years were previously ‘very afraid of everything from ladybirds to ants, flies and bees’ but she had arranged for children to photograph bumble bees sitting on flowers. The children found this ‘very exciting’ and became interested in insects, going on to ‘draw insects and make research about what they are doing during the winter’. She said, ‘they who used to scream out loud’ at the sight of an insect no longer expressed fear.

Teachers at Goose had asked the children what they knew and thought about insects. ‘You could hear from the answers that, yes, insects are good if you like them, if they don’t bite and sting and so on’ (L, Goose). Teacher L went on to explain how one teacher had sewn dolls representing four kinds of insects (housefly, beetle, dragonfly, and honeybee) and a bat. The dolls were given human names and characteristics, and the children asked to imagine the doll-animals could talk to them. They also read from a factual book about the housefly, ‘to give the children a little more insight why they are as they are’. This would ‘at least [make the children] look upon the animals with more sympathy’. She said the children found it ‘very exciting’ that houseflies ‘spit on their food before they suck it in’ and that ‘the girls [houseflies] are larger than the boys’.

Teacher M (Goose) noted that it was more difficult to affect the fear of insects of children under three, as they did not get ‘involved’ in the same manner as older children.

Sensory and aesthetic experiences

Sensory and aesthetic experiences, mentioned in five interviews, included tasting vegetables and fruit, smelling herbs, touching plant leaves, and admiring the beauty of a dead dragonfly. Teacher K (Cat) indicated children with visual impairments especially benefitted from the sensory and olfactory sensations provided by vegetation.

Human–nature relationships and interpretations of the ecosystem service concept

The human–nature relationship categories proposed by Braito et al. (2017): Master, Steward, Partner, Participant, User, Apathy, Nature Distant Guardian were employed to examine teacher comments. Of these seven categories, all were present in our data, but most prevalent were Steward, Partner, Participant and User. Five interviews displayed several different human–nature relationships, sometimes within a single quote, whereas in three, a singular theme was discernable.

Steward – care for nature

This was the most common among the human–nature relationships apparent, represented in six interviews. For example, teacher O (Horse) shared how they had begun working with nature as a topic, ‘That was really when we began helping nature here at the preschool’.

Teacher N (Horse) summarised ES as different ways of helping nature.

Because that (helping nature) is something the children are used to. How we can help nature in different ways. And that is not far away from calling it an ecosystem service.

Teacher A (Ant) explained her interpretation of ES as ‘How we take care of [nature]’. These quotes portray nature and humans as separate entities.

Partner – collaboration with nature

In contrast, Teacher J’s (Elk) explanation for protecting insects recognises non-human rights.

And I feel more that we need to protect them, because they are also important, and they have the right to be here. We have not talked about that they are important for us, but that it is important that they also can be here.

User – human benefits

When teachers were asked how they described the purpose of the insect hotel, teacher F (Cat) said she explained:

We want to get on well here and we want the flies, bumblebees, bees, and such to get on well here too. And if we are going to start growing plants, we must get them [the insects] here so that they help us with this. As our small coworkers.

Teacher S (Ibis) similarly expressed a similar utilitarian view telling children ‘that we have to care about our insects’, since they are needed ‘in the making of food’.

However, teacher J’s (Elk) explanation of ES combined partner and user categories:

If we make a butterfly garden, then it is of course for the insects to be there. So that they can pollinate for us to get fruit and berries. But I also think that I do it for the animals, and sort of protect their world, that they have the same right to live as us. It is not our planet.

This comment also echoes a dimension less visible in the data, being part of nature.

Participant – being part of nature

This category, which appeared in only two interviews, is illustrated by teacher R’s description of changes since the development project started:

I think we look at it with new eyes … think about it in a new way. The benefit of changing the yard is not only for the children, it is for the whole world really. It gets so big suddenly … that … yes, it really makes a difference if we make an insect hotel, plant flowers and fruit trees. And it feels nice. (R, Lizard)

Assuming teacher R includes the non-human world in ‘the whole world’, this quote can be interpreted as an integrated view of humankind and nature.

Teachers at Horse were planning to establish a mini-forest garden in the schoolyard, with plants that supported each other in different ways, which teacher N explained fitted with their talk about interdependence, of ‘belonging to a system’. She said they are very intrigued by how different parts of ‘nature are communicating with each other’ and how ‘everything in nature is connected’.

Apathy – indifference to nature

An initial lack of interest in bringing nature into their practice was evident in several teachers’ comments. For example, at Bear, one teacher admitted they did not think so much about involving children in care for nature at the start of the project, but this attitude was dispelled by their participation.

Nature distant guardian – artificial engagement

This dimension, despite the urban context of the preschools, was not visible except in a comment that some children would treat creatures as pets if the teachers emphasised care for them too much (Goose).

Discussion

Human–nature relationships and environmental education

In their paper criticising ‘mainstream’ Western environmental education, Nelson, Pacini-Ketchabaw, and Nxumalo (2018, 5) posed the question, ‘How might pedagogical practices move away from positioning plants, animals, and landscape forms as static resources for human benefit?’ From this perspective, developing an outdoor learning project around ES, a concept tainted with anthropocentric values, may appear counterintuitive, potentially encouraging utilitarian and dualistic views. The teachers’ narratives mostly reflected a dualistic view of human–nature relationships in ‘helping nature’, but occasionally a more holistic interdependent view appeared. Caring for approaches may extend from teachers’ expectation that children should care for and include others, as Noddings (2003) writes,

Human life and animal life depend upon plant life. The instrumental ought to arise, then, with dramatic force when we ask whether we should protect and enhance plant life. But, of course, we are not limited to or even primarily interested in the instrumental ought. We are interested in the possibility of a relation, of caring and being cared-for. (159)

Several authors (e.g. Elliott and Young 2016; Kopnina et al. 2018; Nelson, Pacini-Ketchabaw, and Nxumalo 2018) have argued that environmental education in early years is dominated by a ‘nature by default paradigm’ (Elliott and Young 2016, 58) that frequently fails to strengthen children’s participation and agency (Ärlemalm-Hagsér 2013, 36) for the environment and reinforces human–nature dualisms. In our data, we saw examples in teachers’ accounts of children being actively involved in environmental practices, but fewer suggesting appreciation of being embedded within nature.

However, although the MEA (2005) definition of ES was the project’s nominal framework, eco-centric values were communicated by leaders of the inspiration workshops and the researchers through further exposition and exemplification of ES emphasising complex relationships between humans and nature. In addition, when applied, ES revealed diverse and complex culture-nature interrelationships, and may therefore help to ‘reconnect society and nature’ (Schröter et al. 2014, 515).

Development of nature connectedness

It was clear from the data that the project had stimulated reflection and teachers’ ideas and teaching had shifted during the year. Teachers had altered their personal perspectives on human–nature relationships and discovered unnoticed or previously unavailable learning opportunities in their schoolyards, changing their practices in response to the new outdoor learning environments. Lumber, Richardson, and Sheffield (2017, 21) suggest that ‘contact, meaning, emotional attachment, or a compassionate relationship with nature that includes engaging with natures' beauty’ are important components to foster nature connectedness. In the teachers’ narratives, certain pathways to nature connectedness appear to have been stimulated by ES-promoting activities. We now explore how these important components intersect with teachers’ views and practice.

Contact

Enhancing preschool outdoor learning environments with natural features through ecosystem services innovations offers opportunities for direct participation in food production (Murakami, Su-Russell, and Manfra 2018), connection with the land and an understanding of where foods come from. Teachers in several preschools described children’s enjoyment and eagerness to participate in gardening activities, noting how they talked with each other and their parents about what plants are edible or not, and recognised productive interactions between insects and plants. Teachers considered the project had contributed to children’s experience and understanding of ecological relationships such as life cycles, food chains and pollination.

Beauty

Teachers in four preschools mentioned aesthetic and sensory experiences in relation to the outdoor activities, which may support affective relationships with the non-human world and lead to greater connection with nature (Lumber, Richardson, and Sheffield 2017; Murakami, Su-Russell, and Manfra 2018), but the value of aesthetic/sensory aspects of the ES innovations was not discussed extensively except in relation to the value of increased vegetation for sensory and olfactory stimulation for visually impaired children. However, aesthetic judgements vis a vis small and large birds also informed children’s debates about which species should be allowed to visit bird feeders, and a sense of children’s visceral engagement underpinned many described activities, such as digging in the earth.

Meaning

Some teachers commented that children not only demonstrated stewardship towards non-human nature but also began to appreciate relational aspects, such as care for other people should be extended to care for non-humans, that all creatures and plants have rights and an appreciation of links in food chains. One teacher remarked that she had not thought about ecosystems before, and her involvement had led to an epiphany about our interconnection with the world. Another suggested although their initial impetus for the project had been creating a cosmetic change to the schoolyard to add interest, it had fundamentally affected her thinking and practices.

Emotion

Children’s positive affect about outdoor activities was widely acknowledged by teachers but defusing negative emotional associations with nature by addressing entomophobia, ‘the irrational or unreasonable fear of insects’ (Hardy 1988, 64), was also mentioned in three interviews. This also appeared to foster nature connection. Lemelin (2013) suggests an increasing degree of entomophobia in Western society may originate in a general disconnection from the natural world. In Lizard, children observing and photographing bumble bees combined with explanation and exploratory activities with insects helped reduce entomophobia. This illustrates the role of adults in guiding encounters with organisms that might otherwise be shunned by children (Boileau and Russell 2018; Edwards, Moore, and Cutter-Mackenzie 2012), increasing their factual knowledge of other species and the power of emotion in mediating nature connectedness (Lumber, Richardson, and Sheffield 2017).

Compassion

In most of the interviews, teachers emphasised how they encouraged the children to care about nature, insects, and plants, and how the children responded accordingly, by ‘being kind’ to insects and other bugs. Tam, Lee, and Chao (2013) present experimental evidence that anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. However, while making wasps out of wool and clay and ‘human’ insect-dolls may befriend children to insects, it may not overcome potential ‘confusion of natural scientific knowledge or arrogant mirroring of human self in the nonhuman world’ (Rautio 2013, 450).

Elliott and Young (2016, 61) suggest a ‘relational pedagogy [..] to realign humans as part of nature’. Kopnina et al. (2018), for example, encouraged children to perform dances to identify with bees, and in our study, children were described imagining themselves birds with nestlings, indicating empathic and embodied connection with creatures. Askerlund and Almers (2016) propose that to better grasp insects’ role in production of fruits and berries, children could work as pollinators with small paint brushes. In these examples, it is children that are ‘becoming’ non-human, embodying accurate scientific aspects of other species and not fostering care by imposing anthropomorphic characteristics on creatures.

Nature connectedness and pro-environmental behaviour

Although there is strong support for positive nature experiences in childhood leading to environmental interest, concern, and action (e.g. Chawla and Cushing 2007; Wells and Lekies 2006), the connection between caring for animals and plants in early years and the development of pro-environmental behaviour is less clear since ‘We cannot assume that caring for species leads to caring for ecosystems’ (Vining 2003, 96). Elliott (2017, 13) argues that in early years, ‘sustainability is assumed to be about caring for nature without deeper and critical questioning’. Such criticality requires the ability not only to have empathy for the non-human world but also to be able to appreciate other ways of being and relating. Taylor (2017, 1453) concludes that ‘[a]lthough well meaning, [stewardship approaches] do not lead us towards radically rethinking ourselves, our place and our agency in the world’. Kopnina et al. (2018) suggest that care for nature in some contexts could even reinforce separation of humans from nature.

The theme ‘Caring for nature’ was most common in interviews in the present study, but we found a few examples of developing children’s criticality and agency in relation to environmental sustainability, such as debating feeding rights of birds and evaluating insects, moving beyond valuing only the cute or useful. The extent of their involvement was limited however, according to children’s testimony (Almers et al. 2020). Nevertheless, the richer natural environment in their schoolyards had shifted teachers’ own understanding, stimulated children’s curiosity and made both adults and children more observant and appreciative of non-humans sharing their surroundings. One teacher suggested increasing children’s interest in nature would ‘make them think differently’ as adults. Shifts in adult views and practice over the year-long project suggest continued contact with nature is likely to have positive impacts on children’s nature connection and understanding of human–nature relationships.

Conclusions

Although the schoolyard development project was centred around enhancing ES, accounts of human–nature relationships that appeared in the data were predominately Steward, Partner and Participant categories, despite the User definition of ES being presented at the inauguration of the project. It may be that eco-centric values are deeply rooted because of humans’ intrinsic longing to care (Noddings 2003). Furthermore, the communication of human–nature relationships and ES in this project’s delivery was not anthropocentric. Therefore, the applied schoolyard ES innovations did not promote unilateral utility of nature for humans, but rather stimulated multifaceted views of human–nature relations, including mutuality and interdependence.

Many teachers reported witnessing an increased interest in nature by the children and testified to having revised their own philosophy of teaching outdoors and the development of the schoolyard. These findings confirm the importance of ongoing opportunities for teachers and children to experience and learn from and about nature, since the greatest challenge may be that human impact and reliance within nature are overlooked. Teacher education has an important role in meeting this challenge through enabling greater meaning, compassion, and knowledge regarding nature in educational establishments.

This project has shown that an ES focus can provide a powerful reminder that humanity’s existence depends upon the well-being of other organisms with which we share the planet. Educational projects centred around strengthening urban ES in schoolyards can thus provide numerous productive possibilities to teach and learn about our mutual interdependence with nature, as practical involvement stimulates greater awareness of multiple moral and philosophical relationships with non-human nature and rich opportunities to teach about sustainability. In particular, these insights can help UK schools to address a forthcoming requirement to teach about these issues through developing their natural infrastructure and science curriculum (DfE 2021).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the preschool teachers who participated in this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Formas, a Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning [2016-20101].