‘It’s not for people like (them)’: structural and cultural barriers to children and young people engaging with nature outside schooling

ABSTRACT

The UK Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) commissioned research into provision of opportunities that support children and young people’s (CYP) engagement with natural environments outside school time to identify whether CYP from disadvantaged backgrounds access the opportunities available, the challenges to do so, and how provision might be optimised to improve engagement. We used mixed methods, including document review, interviews with national stakeholders, survey of local provision and local case studies with provider interviews and focus groups with CYP. We identified four categories of engagement: outdoor learning; play; improving the natural environment; sports and exercise, and three main provider types: environmental organizations; community groups; and adventure and residential education providers. Using conceptual frames of habitus and ‘nature capital’, we reflect on barriers that currently limit inclusive youth engagement with nature outside schooltime and suggest implications for the design of future opportunities.

KEYWORDS:

• Natural environment
• engagement
• children and young people
• barriers
• leisure
• nature connectedness
• inequalities

Introduction

Despite a growing research and policy interest in the benefits of natural environments for human health and wellbeing, children now spend considerably less time in natural environments than previous generations. For example, children aged 8–16 years in the UK spent close to thirty minutes less time each day in outdoor play in 2015 compared to 1975 (Mullan, 2018). Since 2013/14, the proportion of children spending time outside without adults has declined, especially in lower socio-economic groups (MENE, 2020). Nowadays, children from higher socioeconomic groups are also more likely to engage in supervised activities than unstructured play, and changing lifestyles, prioritization of limited leisure time and safety concerns within families have combined to privilege children’s free time indoors rather than in natural places (Mullan, 2018). The number of children visiting green spaces in England has halved in a generation (Her Majesty’s Government (HMG), 2011). Similar reductions in nature-based leisure time have been noted across other societies (United Nations (UN), 2018).

Research has also shown that there are marked inequalities in relation to children’s engagement with the natural environment (MENE, 2020; Roberts, 2008; Strife & Downey, 2009; Warren, Roberts, Breunig, & Alvarez, 2014). CYP from families on low income, minority ethnic backgrounds, refugee families, and children with disabilities are at particular risk of exclusion from nature-based activity (Her Majesty’s Government (HMG), 2011), whether through the lack of availability of nearby nature or through cultural barriers to using it. Given the evidence for beneficial effects from time spent in nature (Becker et al., 2017; Frumkin et al., 2017; White et al., 2019), there is a social justice imperative to understand obstructions to universal access and to develop more inclusive opportunities to improve engagement with the natural environment for the health and wellbeing of children and young people (CYP) from disadvantaged backgrounds.

In its 25 Year Environment Plan (HMG, 2018), the UK Government set out a commitment to connect people with the environment and a priority to encourage children to be close to nature, both in and out of school, particularly in areas with high levels of deprivation. The underlying assumption is that unless children learn to love nature then the environment will not be valued and nurtured (Lumber, Richardson, Sheffield, & Bastian, 2017). This article concerns commissioned research into provision of opportunities that support CYP’s engagement with the natural environment outside of schooling in England. The purpose of the research was to identify whether CYP from disadvantaged backgrounds access the opportunities available, what are the associated challenges, and how services might be improved. We conducted fieldwork between May 2019 and March 2020 with activity providers, children, and young people. Further details can be found in the final report (Husain, Forsyth, Piggott, Scandone, & AlBakri, 2021). This article considers how intersecting structural, cultural, and individual factors limit CYP’s engagement with nature during their out-of-school time. We focus particularly on the barriers and challenges for CYP from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our research looked at ‘disadvantage’ in general as interpreted by stakeholders and providers of outdoor activities. This paper examines these issues from this perspective, including issues for non-white, mostly Black Asian and Minority ethnic (BAME) children and young people, for low-income families, and children with a disability or other reasons for having trouble in accessing opportunities to engage in outdoor activities. Disadvantage is rarely one-dimensional, and we are pragmatic (like our respondents) about how we use the term in relation to access to nature. In the following section, we describe conceptual tools used in this paper to explore how ‘nature capital’, resources at people’s disposal related to engaging with nature, might be distributed more equally to overcome perceived impediments to accessing the benefits for people and places that might otherwise accrue.

Children, young people, and nature

The voice of young people is often absent in matters related to them (Clark & Moss, 2011); their understandings of and connections to place tend to be overlooked (Jack, 2010). Others argue that while such connections and meanings for young people are often strong (Quinn, 2010), they may be wide of or even clash with dominant discourses and power in places (Waite, 2015).

A similar disjunct has been noted in relation to out-of-school science learning. Dawson (2014) notes how people from low-income, minority ethnic groups experience exclusion from museums and science centres. In her study with four focus groups drawn from diverse ethnic backgrounds, visit observations and interviews, she found that institutional assumptions about scientific knowledge, language and affordability reinforced prior impressions that these places were ‘not for us’. Unfortunately, assumptions made about barriers and simplistic solutions can reinforce and maintain cycles of social exclusion and nonparticipation. Gender, ethnicity, class, and age intersect with other cultural and structural issues in mediating how such experiences are perceived (ibid). Although social interaction and dialogue may be promoted to encourage enquiry learning and build on existing funds of knowledge (Archer, Dawson, Seakins, & Wong, 2016; Seaman, Beightol, Shirilla, & Crawford, 2010), persons in authority may nevertheless limit the extent to which other voices are heard due to issues of language and legitimation of knowledge (Warren et al., 2014). This raises the question of how such cycles of exclusion might be interrupted. Archer and colleagues (2016, p. 6) suggest that building ‘science capital’, ‘the social, cultural, economic or symbolic resources related to science that people have at their disposal’, through partnership working between museums and schools might help to bridge such gaps.

Ivana (2017, p. 57) points out ‘Social space is not occupied, but made … through engaging in social relations, understanding them, managing the other’s evaluations and expectations in relation to them, estimating relational closeness, assuming an image about the broader social field a person and his/her contacts are part of and considering the links oneself and others have woven within that field’. She argues that there is an ‘inextricable unity between structures and lived social relations and their meaning’. Whilst acknowledging subjectivity and resistance, this conceptualisation appears to float free of material places.

The ‘natural environment’ comprises many material sites that are culturally shaped and themselves shape cultures. Working with Bourdieusian ideas of ‘habitus’ in how cultural practices develop, Waite suggests that places themselves are redolent with a ‘cultural density’ that permits greater or lesser freedom to interpret them, according to how rigidly norms have been established within them and the extent to which they align or clash with individual habitus (Waite, 2013, 2015; Waite & Quay, 2018). Through habitus, an individual has a sense of ‘what is normal for people like me’; as Archer et al. (2016, p. 5) explain, it comprises ‘a set of dispositions that frame ways of thinking, feeling and being and which thus guide current and future actions and possibilities’. Habitus and the field can affect the freedom of ‘others’ to engage with activities that may be suffused with normative ways of being and create a sense that a place or activity is not right for them. Definition of habitus as ‘socialised subjectivity’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 126) makes clear that it is generated within a context of relational structural inequalities (of class, gender, ethnicity, (dis)ability etc.). Habitus incorporates and reflects these structural inequalities by integrating past and present and individual and collective experiences (including inequalities of participation in education, nature etc.) contribute to their reproduction intergenerationally.

Uniting materiality and culture, ‘cultureplace’ (Quay, 2017) regards place and culture as inescapably fused within phenomenological experience thereby acknowledging the subjective and combining social and material space in understandings of the ‘field’, extending Ivana’s (2017) structural and social unity of experience. Greater understanding of diverse cultureplaces represented within current provision for outdoor activities for CYP and the dominant discourses that shape possibilities is fundamental to creating experiences congruent with young people’s understandings and needs and improving the suitability and hence uptake of provision.

At a collective level, organizations themselves create an ‘institutional habitus’ (Reay, 1998). In the outdoor sector, we suggest this becomes established over years of practices and beliefs linked to how work is undertaken, including reproduction of gender, class and how knowledge about and skills associated with the natural world are valorised. The institutional habitus of the outdoor sector, what might be termed ‘nature capital’ within organizations providing outdoor activities or access to natural environments, acts in combination with the cultural density of traditional sites for engagement with nature, such as residential centres or national parks that themselves carry traditions of practice. These constitute powerful forces that differentially mediate the experience for young people from diverse backgrounds. Where norms run counter to young people’s culture, this disjunct may make it less likely that engagement will be sparked or continue in the longer term.

Drawing on these theoretical perspectives has helped us interpret the data generated, but no one overarching theory was used to frame the research. The research was commissioned to be applied in its aims and scope within an interpretivist paradigm. We explain our methods in the next section.

Methods

We intended the research design to capture the complexity of influences on CYP participation in natural environment activities at the local level through area-based case-studies. Methods for data collection (e.g. questionnaire and topic guide development) were informed by existing research on CYP engagement with nature and related barriers and enablers for disadvantaged groups. We included both quantitative and qualitative approaches. We carried out these mixed methods in stages to build and enrich insights gathered. The sequential stages were:

• Document review and web-based research, based on an initial list provided by expert contacts, to inform the design of research tools (April 2019 and July 2019).

• Twenty-five interviews with national stakeholders (NS) (May-June 2019).

• Survey of local provision (August 2019).

• In-depth local studies comprising 13 interviews with 11 providers and seven focus groups (FG) with CYP, organized with the help of local providers (LP). Local providers were organizations of a variety of types that offered nature-based activities.

The quantitative element comprised a survey of local providers of outdoor activities for CYP in eight case study areas. The survey included a range of questions about the provider’s main aims and activities, sources of funding, socio-demographic characteristics of CYP taking part, perceived barriers to engagement for CYP from disadvantaged backgrounds, perceived barriers to engaging these CYP for the organisation, and any strategies used to facilitate participation.

For the qualitative part of the research, we recorded national stakeholder (NS) and local provider (LP) interviews and CYP focus groups with participants’ consent. We used a framework approach for our data management and analysis (Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls, & Ormston, 2013), whereby data were summarised in a matrix according to pre-established and emergent themes and by participant, with verbatim quotes included to illustrate key points.

Ethical considerations

The ethical protocol followed NatCen¹‘s ethical code of conduct, conforming with Social Research Association and Market Research Council guidelines. We informed potential participants about the nature and purpose of the study and they could choose whether to take part in initial or subsequent stages of research. Young people were recruited through local providers, and each received a £15 shopping voucher as thanks. We also obtained parental permission for children under 13 to take part. A disadvantage of this pragmatic recruitment method was that we did not obtain views from young people who had not engaged with provision for outdoor activities and therefore miss an important voice in identifying barriers. A community-based project with ample time for recruitment and trust building would help to include these perspectives but was not feasible in this study.

Sampling

We used an iterative purposive sampling process, building a sample of providers through desk research and snowballing to gain perspectives at national and local level. Nationally, we carried out 25 interviews with key stakeholders from a list of contacts provided by the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and snowballing. We selected geographically dispersed urban and rural environments within Local Authority Districts² characterized by high levels of disadvantage (according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation³) with disparate levels of ethnicity to maximize learning about access to nature for CYP. In each region, we identified 25–50 organizations through desk research and national stakeholders’ suggestions, for an online survey with an anticipated return of 20 per region (160 in total). These are referred to as ‘local providers’ (LP) and include environmental organizations such as Wildlife Trusts and national parks; community groups, such as youth clubs; and independent adventure and residential education providers. Although this process accessed a range of views, clearly the small sample in each cannot necessarily speak for these regions or other ‘disadvantaged’ groups. We received only 82 survey responses, possibly because of weak infrastructure in some areas and seasonal variation in activity and staffing levels. We selected four areas (indicated by asterisks in Table 1) for further study, including interviews with providers and focus groups with young people, documented by field notes and audio recording. Photographs and children’s drawings were used as stimuli for discussion.

Table 1. Area sampling and response rates.

Local Authority District	Region of England	Local environment	% of White British	% of Ethnic Minorities	Local providers identified	Survey response rate	Interviews & focus groups
Sunderland	North	Small city/town, coastal	95%	5%	40	25%	n/a
Plymouth*	South West	Small town/city, coastal, near National Park	93%	7%	52	23%	4 Int 2 FG
Blackburn with Darwen	North West	Small town/city, inland, near AONB	67%	33%	48	15%	n/a
Sandwell*	West Midlands	Small town/city, inland	66%	34%	37	32%	4 Int 2 FG
Blackpool*	North West	Small town, coastal	94%	6%	28	25%	1 Int 1FG
Bradford	Yorkshire & the Humber	Urban, inland	64%	36%	34	32%	n/a
Hastings	South East	Small town, coastal	89%	11%	24	21%	n/a
Hackney*	London	Urban inner-city area, inland	36%	64%	56	32%	4 Int 2FG

Areas asterisked were selected for in-depth research to capture a range of contexts. (Int = interview; FG = focus group)

To keep the survey at a reasonable length to encourage its completion, we chose not to collect information about the sociodemographic profile of survey respondents . The focus groups included CYP of different ages, race/ethnicity, and gender, and from low-income families. Focus group participants ranged in age between 8 and twenty years. One of the groups included children with learning difficulties.

Our sampling approach to case study areas, LPs and CYP was explicitly aimed at ensuring this diversity by using Indices of Multiple Deprivation and ethnic composition to select case study sites. We recruited CYP via the local providers and they were given information leaflets outlining the aims of the research and the voluntary nature of participation. We sought parental permission to take part in the focus groups for all children aged 13 or under in line with our ethical guidelines. We included a permission slip for parents to complete and sign in the information leaflets for this age group. Parents returned slips to the local providers, which were then collected by the research team.

We explained to the local providers setting up focus groups on our behalf that we were especially interested in the views of CYP from backgrounds described above, but we didn’t consider it sensitive to ask CYP for this information directly. Status of disadvantage was inferred from sampling areas, instructions to organisations that helped convene focus groups, and comments of children, young people and staff.

Analysis

The research team included white British/Other and non-white British sharing interests in research on ethnic inequalities. We recorded and professionally transcribed stakeholder and local provider interviews and CYP focus groups with participants’ consent. Analysis was conducted collaboratively providing a range of perspectives in the interpretation of data. We analysed the qualitative data thematically using Framework in NVivo to identify and compare meanings across and between participant groups. Reluctant to make assumptions about terms in our study (Dawson, 2014), our analysis was underpinned by grounded definitions of disadvantage and the natural environment.

We used SPSS for descriptive analysis of the survey including crosstabulations. We summarised data in a matrix according to pre-established and emerging themes and by participant, with verbatim quotes included to illustrate key points (Ritchie et al., 2013). We conducted our analysis thematically, across participants and participant groups, and by case-study area. This allowed us to map the full range of views and experiences and to identify commonalities and differences across participants and study areas. Further details of the analysis process are available in the report (Husain et al., 2021).

Before we turn to our main findings, we explain how, while ‘disadvantage‘ and ‘natural environment’ wording was used in the commissioning tender for this research, we were reluctant to assume definitions of these slippery terms, preferring to elicit meanings from participants, which we share below.

Disadvantage

National stakeholders understood disadvantage as a complex multi-faceted concept, experienced in a range of different ways related to individual circumstances. Definitions of disadvantage were not limited to low-income.

When I say, ‘disadvantaged backgrounds’, that’s all sorts of things. So, it’s not just from a financial point of view. It’s mental health issues, disabilities, behaviour requirements, bereavement groups and children at risk of exclusion from school. (National Stakeholder_11)

Financial disadvantage was seen to affect young people’s ability to access environments due to participation costs, but gender, age, disability, mental health, race and limited access to nature were also mentioned.

According to most providers, disadvantage impacted on an individual’s ability to access or participate in some aspect of society/life. One provider expressed this as lacking a set of ‘tools’; some organizations recognised the need for extra support.

CYP who need support to access activities or opportunities that other young children take for granted or don’t require support to do. (National Stakeholder_23)

Some commented on structural causes of disadvantage:

People who would have less access through societal structures to things that promote their well-being, for example, or a good education or adequate income. Equally, they would be people who, for similar structural reasons, were perhaps less listened to. (National Stakeholder_1)

Several preferred alternative terms, such as ‘inclusion’ and ‘injustice’ to explain the circumstances of groups they work with. One disability charity stated their aim was to support anyone who would benefit from their work.

We focus on people who can get a therapeutic output or outcome from our activity. So that doesn’t necessarily require disadvantage. (National Stakeholder_13)

In practice, measures of disadvantage used by providers included publicly available data, such as the Index of Multiple Deprivation, and other proxy measures of income gathered by schools, such as the Pupil Premium.⁴ Others developed measures of disadvantage about access to green spaces, using Ordnance Survey data. Requirements of funding streams influenced providers’ definitions.

The different funding we get can be very specific. So, we’ll get something that is only targeted at looked-after children,⁵ say. We might access a grant and then their definition of disadvantage is obviously they want children who are looked after by the local authority (National Stakeholder_15)

We did not ask young people to define disadvantage, but their implicit views extrapolated from comments about engagement included financial, material, geographical and individual issues.

The natural environment

Initially, we adopted a broad definition of natural environment including gardens and parks, but this conceptualization was refined through discussion with natural environment stakeholders and in focus groups with CYP.

Young people tended to describe nature as separate from humans and the built environment. This view was related to concern about the impact of humans on the natural environment, such as littering and pollution. Some included allotments and parks that were intended to protect and enhance the natural environment. However, those living in urban areas said they preferred ‘wild’ environments in comparison to parks managed by humans.

They’re just harder to get to but are nicer. (Focus Group_4, urban, inner-city)

A few expressed nuanced evaluations, seeing neither urban nor natural areas as fundamentally ‘bad’ and considering access to both important.

CYP mentioned other more-than-human inhabitants of natural environments, such as birds and insects:

It’s relaxing if you’re in like a park or something because you can hear the birds singing. (Focus Group_5, urban, inner-city)

They linked relaxation with fresh air and having space to move around and said they felt calmer when in nature and able to reflect and enjoy positive memories. CYP reported spending time in natural environments as an escape from other places, such as their urban neighbourhood or school. They emphasised the difference between their everyday environments and nature in relation to noise, air quality, and appearance. They described the contrast as ‘being on a different planet’ (Focus Group_2, small town/city, inland).

Some young people appreciated our interdependence with nature. Trees, flowers and grass were particularly important for children, both aesthetically and in recognition of their role in creating fresh air.

You shouldn’t destroy nature because if we didn’t have trees, we wouldn’t be able to breathe. (Focus Group_1, small town/city, coastal)

Some young people felt that bad weather, mud and dirt, and insects as well as actions that ‘ruin’ nature, such as littering, vandalism, and pollution, to detract from nature’s benefits. The response of these English young people from urban and rural contexts largely echo findings in the US about urban youth’s views of nature (Wilhelm & Schneider, 2005).

National stakeholders included broad ideas of nature as open space, wilderness, and countryside without humans, as well as less traditionally ‘natural’ areas in urban green space.

It could include a wall of a building that a bird has nested in inner-city London or going as big as National Parks. (National Stakeholder_22)

In some instances, their definition of the natural environment had adapted to socio-cultural change or financial constraints. One organization founded to help people ‘escape’ cities and experience nature now included urban green spaces in their work.

Providers’ definitions of the natural environment were also fundamentally shaped by their organization’s focus. Organizations offering expeditions and residential trips highlighted the experiential affordances of rivers, mountains and lakes for young people to escape from their usual urban and screen-heavy lifestyles; while those focused on the relationship between people and the environment tended to position communities as an integral part of the environment, with local green spaces representing an important element of community infrastructure for wellbeing. Those working to conserve the natural environment emphasised the importance of the environment as a habitat for biodiversity. One view was that urban parks could be important wildlife corridors but were not as valuable as protected areas.

In summary, the scale of how nature described seemed to differ; organizational adult views were predominately at a macro level while CYP focused on micro-level, experiential and sensory aspects. The ‘nature capital’ they describe has strong experiential, subjective and affective qualities. We cannot tell from our data whether this is also true for those who have had little or no exposure to nature, although some research suggests that children with less familiarity may characterise nature more negatively (Cheng & Monroe, 2012; Wilhelm & Schneider, 2005).

Results

As we have already seen in the emergent definitions of key terms, perspectives both coincide and differ between the two principal sources of data: providers and young consumers of outdoor activities outside of schooling, which impacts how current provision may not meet the needs of all CYP. We turn now to consider themes that emerged through the research, synthesising key messages through the different sources, which are identified after each comment. The first section of our findings relates to the types of engagement reported and the methods used by providers of outdoor activities for CYP during out of school time.

Types of engagement

From our survey and provider interview data, four overlapping categories of engagement emerged:

Outdoor learning included stimulation of learning about the natural environment and development of skills associated with the outdoors, such as ‘countryside ranger’ clubs in national parks, and ‘forest school’ sessions in woodland. Frequently, they offered one-off summer courses in adventure education, like hiking and gorge-scrambling, to develop life skills, such as resilience and collaboration. Discovery learning was often reported as a method to draw attention to environmental features. Exploring and discovering wildlife was a highly popular activity.

Improving the natural environment involved young people in practical physical tasks to protect or improve the environment. National providers often offered planting trees, cleaning up local green spaces or beaches, and habitat preservation as community engagement or social action projects in green spaces local to those taking part. For older CYP, vocational training activities with varying degrees of structure from formal apprenticeship programmes to short-term practical skills courses were available.

Play-based natural environment activities were generally for children under 12, often with families, and were either regular play schemes at consistent sites or occasional ‘pop-up’ play activities in different local parks. Providers described the latter as effective in encouraging families to use local spaces and value the community’s natural environment. They valued sensory-focused play for work with younger children, and those with disabilities (such as sight or hearing impairments). Creative and natural play were the most popular activities (76% of respondents said CYP took part in these).

Sports and exercise were another popular approach, including football, cricket, horse riding, sailing, cycling, and walking. Providers offering a sport activity used either self-guided resources such as marked trails, or structured club-based sessions to learn and practise new skills. Competitions between clubs were thought to encourage sustained engagement. Some providers fostered further sustainability by training young people to become instructors.

Some providers, particularly community centres and youth hubs in deprived areas, presented a choice of diverse activities. Generally, a sporting focus did not emphasise environmental issues, but there were a few examples, such as apprentice canoeing activity instructors mentioning their appreciation of the canal and the importance of younger children being exposed to the outdoors, so they will treat it with respect as adults.

Pedagogical methods

Group or club-based formats were widely employed to deliver activities (85.2% of respondents), sometimes tailored to different ages. In line with Mullan’s (2018) observation of high contemporary levels of supervision of children’s out-of-home time, activities tended to be either fully supervised by staff or volunteers (66.67%) or partly supervised and partly youth-led (27.16%). Modes of delivery included:

Supervised

Two thirds of local providers (66.7%) offered activities which were supervised by staff including trained youth workers, project officers, volunteers, environmental experts, and park rangers. Examples included forest school sessions, ranger clubs and sports such as horse riding and sailing. Staff, and occasionally family members, usually supervised activities for younger children (8–12 years).

Facilitated

Some providers guided activities, helping to build local relationships. One example involved supporting young people to maintain their local parks within already established community groups, so that engagement could continue beyond a programme’s limit.

We’re facilitating that interaction until there’s a point in which it tips to become a viable relationship just between the two groups. (National Stakeholder_17)

Self-led

Planned by providers, these activities did not require staff to be present, but were done independently alone, with family or alongside peers. Resources included maps for walking trails and materials for community projects. Providers considered it a low-cost option to set tasks and challenges for young people, sometimes supported by online resources and tools.

Young people as decision makers

Some providers recognised the importance of co-design and giving young people a stronger voice in designing and delivering activities. Examples of formal roles included running activities, membership of youth boards and forums and mentoring.

We try to get the older kids to mentor the younger kids so the adults can take a step back (Local Provider_9, urban, inner-city)

Intersecting impediments to engagement

Having briefly described the current offer, in the following sections, we share comments, identifying sources, to illustrate intersecting structural, cultural and individual barriers. We begin by explaining some of the financial considerations for CYP from areas of disadvantage.

Financial constraints

Structural inequalities of income impacted heavily; the cost of activities and transport ranked as the most significant barrier by 60% of providers. Young people also stated costs could prevent participation or steer them to choose low-cost options.

If I want to do something … somewhere outside but it cost money, so then I couldn’t do it because my parents were like, ‘Well, if we pay for that, we won’t be able to pay the bills’. (Focus Group_3, small town/city, inland)

Local providers deemed middle-class families more likely to take up membership offers; such commitment was risky if families were unfamiliar with the activity and uncertain whether their children would pursue it. Even minimal charges could be limiting.

For a reasonable proportion of the young people we work with, even paying £1 for a session can be quite restrictive … activities are not high priority for finance for a lot of the families we work with. (Local Provider_6, urban, inner-city)

Hidden additional costs

Providing transport money, specialist equipment, food, and laundering clothes were associated costs that discouraged some participation.

[This mother] says that the reason she couldn’t let her children go to the park was because she could only afford to do the laundry once a week, so she couldn’t let them get dirty, and that’s something I’ve never ever had to think about! (National Stakeholder_1)

Not only were actual costs for transport considered a ‘very important’ obstruction by 60% of providers, but participants could also lose valuable earning time to ‘get there’. Poor rural public transport contributed to long journey times. Taken together, these costs made it very challenging accessing activities in remote locations, such as national parks, forests, and reserves.

Organizational and sectoral constraints

In this section, we explore some sectoral factors that may impede access, which encompass financial, cultural and communication difficulties for organizations.

F u nding

Lack of funding for organizations themselves was another systemic barrier affecting organizations’ ability to engage CYP from disadvantaged backgrounds. A striking 95.5% of providers responding to our survey considered this barrier ‘very important’ or ‘fairly important’. Firstly, funding cuts in the youth sector had restricted local provision and partnerships for engagement via youth groups and community organizations, according to national stakeholders. Secondly, they had impacted staffing through reduced recruitment and capacity to apply for funding (according to 80.6% of organizations). While volunteers were used where possible, this was less common in areas with high levels of deprivation, where unpaid work was unsustainable.

It’s not for (them)

Cultural assumptions were common in survey responses. Providers were aware that current activities might not cater for different cultures and religions. This was partly due to a lack of diversity in staff but also because activities often did not take account of cultural norms. Examples of Muslim children who may not be allowed to go on overnight trips without a chaperone, and inflexibility in managing groups with specific catering requirements were given. This appeared to stem from entrenched assumptions about what engagement with nature should include. National and local providers commented that certain ways of engaging with nature are a white British thing to do, especially learning about the natural environment as opposed to being in nature to do other activities, such as sports or picnics. A lack of congruence with the everyday experience of CYP from disadvantaged backgrounds perhaps created a clash with the cultural density of programme expectations (Waite, 2015).

I think if you’re talking about BAME communities in particular, there’s also cultural relevance. If I am a first-generation immigrant and I have come from the Indian subcontinent, where walking is associated with poverty, why on Earth would I want to go walking? I’ve escaped that. (Local Provider_13, city, coastal)

CYP from low income and/or minority ethnic backgrounds were often invisible in natural environment activity promotion.

People think it’s not for me because the people they see being outside and doing the nature activities on the pictures that come up on Facebook, they’re not poor and they’re not black and you can tell that pretty quickly. (Local Provider_8, urban, inner-city)

There was a lack of diversity amongst staff, particularly in the adventure education and environmental sector relative to local community-focused providers (Warren et al., 2014). A lack of representation within organizations affected staff and volunteer recruitment as well as direct engagement with young people from non-British white male backgrounds.

Providers also mentioned several ways in which societal judgements might impede uptake of activities. Some thought the view ‘it’s not good to be dirty, but we have to be clean or be seen to be civilised’ affected young people from disadvantaged backgrounds most. For example, parents might be deemed negligent (NSPCC, n.d) if their children were allowed to play outside alone.

There is a feeling that if I let my kids be outside, I’m being a bad parent. I should be having them sit at home doing their homework keeping quiet, not to get into trouble. (Local Provider_8, urban, inner-city)

Based on providers’ experience, these views perhaps also reflect institutional habitus that creates a cultural density unconducive to engagement by certain groups. As Warren, Roberts, Breunig and Alvarez (2014) notes in relation to outdoor education in the US, white privilege creates the context of what and who is included, despite histories of close relationships with nature within other ethnic groups.

Age appropriate

The dominant institutional habitus of outdoor sector organizations tended to shape the provision offered; both organizations and CYP felt that a lack of relevance to CYP of different ages affected participation.

They don’t see their peers doing this stuff and so that’s the reason why they’re not doing it … Particularly for a teenager that’s a massive barrier, if it’s not seen as cool because your friends aren’t doing it. (National Stakeholder_18)

When I’ve never gone camping and everything, I didn’t want to go because I feel like there would be no one my age and it would just be little kids and stuff. (Focus Group_5, urban, inner-city)

How activities are framed

Organizations were unsure whether ‘changing the world’ was uppermost in the minds and lives of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. This assumption about those experiencing disadvantage illustrates how ‘nature capital’ was deemed to reside with the white, middle class leaders of outdoor activities. In fact, studies in the US have shown that minority ethnic groups express high levels of concern for environmental issues (Bonta & Jordan, 2008). National stakeholders suggested more emphasis should be placed on how participation in activities can develop transferable skills. Being mindful of what is in it for the young person was considered critical but requires clear understanding of what is valued by youth.

It’s how we frame those things, and I guess not push the social issues that young people are being confronted with aside in order to present the environment as being the most important thing in the world. (National Stakeholder_22)

An alternative approach was to focus more on love of and connection to the natural environment, which might align better with CYP’s existing ‘nature capital’.

I remember a useful study [around] rebranding biodiversity and the natural environment … and focusing much more on the love and the connection of the natural environment with people, so it has a personal connection than just talking about a threat. (National Stakeholder_4)

Knowing what is available

Cultural deterrents were exacerbated by low levels of awareness of available provision, considered ‘very important’ or ‘fairly important’ by 85.5% of organizations. Providers and CYP agreed there was poor information about and signposting to existing organizations and activities.

I haven’t seen advertisements anywhere for kayaking. If somebody hasn’t heard about kayaking, you won’t be motivated to get into it unless you have someone who’s already kayaking to make you come along. (Focus Group_4, urban, inner-city)

CYP and organizations also concurred that the method of delivering information was critical for uptake. Activities outside CYP’s usual experience may not be perceived as relevant unless the invitation to participate came from people that reflect their own lives. CYP were more likely to participate if they had heard of it through someone they knew or who was already taking part. The lack of diversity in organizations’ membership, staffing, and in the wider environmental sector contributed to mismatch.

The conservation sector is very middle-class and very white and thinking about the type of people who typically run weekend programmes, they tend to reflect that as well. (National Stakeholder_22)

Respondents considered that some activities, such as guiding, scouting, and walking, were predominately white middle-class young people or older age group pursuits.

Place constraints

We now move onto some emergent spatial place-based issues that appear to get in the way of CYP taking up opportunities to spend time in natural environments outside schooling.

Unknown territories

A majority (85.5% of providers) considered ‘Fear of the unknown/lack of familiarity’ a ‘very important’ or ‘fairly important’ barrier. CYP’s willingness to take part depended on their prior exposure to the natural environment. There was some evidence from focus groups that CYP who were involved with nature early, perhaps through parents and/or older siblings’ interests or living in rural areas, were more willing to engage when older. However, other factors underpinning unfamiliarity with natural environments at an individual level included young people having no suitable green space near them; being unaware of its potential benefits for wellbeing; finding it uninteresting; and preferring indoor screen-based activity, especially in poor weather.

Availability of public green spaces

Organizations highlighted that urban dwellers on low incomes often have very limited neighbourhood public green spaces. For example, residential development may have encroached on urban green space.

There was a green park I used to go to and when I went back a year ago there were just flats everywhere. (Local Provider_8, urban, inner-city)

Private ownership and legal restrictions to use of land can also constrain access.

In England there are restrictions on the use of rivers. So, when [young people] go kayaking, nobody can use the water because of the landowners. They own the riverbank and the riverbed. (Local Provider_6, urban, inner-city)

Even in public green spaces, such as community gardens in urban contexts, children’s perception that these spaces were ‘not for them’ were reinforced by adult-imposed rules about their use.

No ballgames signs were designed to tell kids they shouldn’t be kicking a ball against that wall for 15 hours. That’s not what it tells communities. No ballgames signs give licence to the busybodies who don’t like kids on estates to shout and call the police if they see a child outside without an adult. (Local Provider_8, urban, inner-city)

Risky places

CYP were aware that urban green spaces may not attain the bucolic ideal of ‘natural environment’. Providers affirmed a view that the quality of public urban green spaces was declining.

This time of the year, our parks are not well lit, so you go into a park and it’s dark, they don’t feel safe because of that. (Local Provider_4, small town/city, inland)

CYP’s personal knowledge of urban green spaces might also prompt reluctance by parents and children to visit them.

Some of the issues that came out [in the youth forum] was a fear of safety, knife crime, some of these were issues that people don’t access their local parks because of a local gang that’s in there for example. (Local Provider_4, small town/city, inland)

However, more remote and pristine natural environments might also be perceived as dangerous due to a lack of experience.

You have to have specialist gear to go out there because it’s dangerous. It’s dangerous and there are wild animals. (Local Provider_13, small town/city, coastal)

Individual constraints

Finally, we consider how individual issues can shape how structural and cultural factors influence the uptake of outdoor activities.

Additional needs

Providers referred to national statistics about the higher prevalence of mental health issues among young people from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. They suggested that the more time CYP spent indoors, the less likely they would be to take part in natural environment activities, due to a diminished sense of confidence, a view echoed by some young people.

People that have mental illness feel like they can’t socialise with people because it’s getting in their way. (Focus Group_4, urban, inner-city)

Providers acknowledged limited opportunities for children with additional needs to take part in the activities. Some barriers were material. Activity centres were not always equipped to meet needs associated with physical disabilities and visual impairments. In some cases, activities themselves were not designed inclusively. For example, crowded places and loud noises can be disturbing for some CYP; some may struggle with the pace of activities. These difficulties were exacerbated if information about accessibility and the nature of activities were not clearly communicated.

Some providers also suggested children with a disability may not feel accepted, creating a social barrier to their participation, noting:

We spend most of our time teaching children with a disability how to interact and engage with other people. We should be spending that time teaching other people how to engage and interact with a child with a disability or with a specific need. (Local Provider_5, small town/city, inland)

Some providers felt parents of children with a disability may worry that their child might get stared at or told off in public spaces. Cultural density about what is the norm acts to exclude those not conforming, with dominant discourses determining what is acceptable.

Transgenerational transmission

Lack of exposure seemed to be reproduced across generations as 89.8% of organizations identified low level parental engagement as a ‘very important’ or ‘fairly important’ barrier.

If your family is disadvantaged and hasn’t really accessed the outdoor space before … then we see that going cross generation … there’s no understanding of the benefits of being in the outdoors. (Local Provider_6, urban, inner-city)

However, this is not simply a cultural issue as structural, material, and economic constraints also apply for many families.

Having a say

As others have noted (Clark & Moss, 2011), CYP continue to be excluded from much decision making that concerns them. National stakeholders recognised that CYP were not given much say in how they engaged.

[CYP] can feel slightly paternalized in terms of, ‘Well, actually where is the freedom to innovate, to be ourselves, to try different things?’ (National Stakeholder_4)

CYP from disadvantaged backgrounds might feel always at the receiving end of programmes and initiatives and may resent the imposition.

I think to be honest a lot of time they get tired of being told what they need and what they want. (National Stakeholder_16)

In one focus group, CYP confirmed how having freedom to decide motivated their continuing engagement.

[Those who run the activities] don’t say, ‘Do this’, they ask, they put on a range of things to do. (Focus Group_3, small town/city, inland)

Nevertheless, having a voice could not remove some of the external pressures that prevented some engagement. Other competing priorities such as school performance, work commitments and seeking work were recognised as tangible barriers for some, reflecting how impediments intersect.

We’ve had kids sat in the parks doing their homework before they can come and join in on the session. There’s a lot more, not strain as such, but there is a lot more pressure on children. (Local Provider_3, small town/city, inland)

Exploring implications through cultural lenses

In order to explore opportunities for more inclusive provision, we now discuss these results in terms of understandings of nature and disadvantage; how institutional habitus of different organizations shapes the offer and cultural norms influence how it is received; and what activities and natural environments appear to be valued by young people. To help this reflection, we draw on conceptual tools discussed earlier.

Understandings of disadvantage and nature

First, we reflect upon the way in which key terms were described by participants. Disadvantage as defined by providers, discloses institutional habitus in that those unable or unwilling to engage are seen to ‘lack the tools to do so’. Reay (1998) conceptualises institutional habitus as gendered, racialized and classed. Here, nature engagement is seen as controlled principally by white middle-class able-bodied males, excluding those lacking social capital in terms of class, ethnicity and physical ability. However, drawing on ways that the natural environment are defined, it becomes clear that a dearth of ‘nature capital’, accepted methods of understanding of and engagement with nature, is also implied. For providers, disadvantaged groups have no intergenerational traditions of spending time in nature, or at least not in the ways that are promulgated by many organizations. Picnics and sports are mentioned but appear not fully valued by staff. In Kelley, Pendras and Minnella’s (2012) study of urban nature they found young people’s use of built environment spaces transformed concrete landscapes into quasi-nature through the types of activity prompted by them, so that urban youth might feel nature in less traditionally ‘natural’ spaces. Greater attention to what nature ‘feels like’ to CYP from disadvantaged backgrounds might help to tailor programmes more effectively. Hierarchies of status of ‘nature capital’ amongst organizations/activities appear reflected in and reproduced through their membership. For example, in comparison with local community groups that are more inclusive of young people from low-income and minority ethnic backgrounds and represent a variety of interests and motivations, higher status appears accorded by the outdoor sector to uniformed groups, such as scouts and guides with largely white middle class membership, and to conservation groups making ‘valid’ contributions to nature. Observation of spatial uses of urban green space could explore CYP’s concepts of nature from a more phenomenological perspective and include those who do not take part in conventional activities. This might counterbalance some indications of paternalism in that those not engaging are sometimes depicted as recalcitrant in not taking part in nature-based activities deemed good for them.

Offer and experience

Our results reveal some tensions between how provision is currently offered and how it is experienced. Experience of the natural world can seem like being ‘on another planet’ as the difference to everyday experience for CYP from disadvantaged backgrounds is so marked. This gap is evident even though the young people providing comments are ones who do engage with nature. The concept of habitus may help explain how providers and CYP are viewing their worlds and the projection of (mis)understandings from strongly embedded cultural densities. Despite intentions and rhetoric about inclusive practice, accepted ways of being in nature and of what counts as engagement with nature are so entrenched that it is difficult for some providers to reach out to communities with different habitus. Equally, the sort of activities offered may not be attractive or even comprehensible from alternative worldviews of CYP experiencing disadvantage. The outdoor sector has diverse aims but the key policy driver here is for CYP to develop a connection to the natural environment, or to learn to love nature. When conceptualisations of the natural environment and what it is to love it differ so markedly, it is difficult to assess what successful engagement might look like.

The means by which connection might be achieved varies according to organizational aims. For some, knowledge about nature is privileged and rewarded; others emphasize the skills, both practical and personal, that can be achieved through participation; environmental action or community projects may be the focus for others. As in Dawson’s (2014) work, the assumptions made by staff are shaped by strong institutional habitus within their organizations. Warren, Roberts, Breunig and Alvarez (2014, p. 91) caution: ‘Too often well-intentioned people and organizations position themselves as knowing more about what communities want and need more than the communities themselves’. Our research has helped to make assumptions more visible, which in turn creates opportunities for critical review of attitudes, practice, and policy. For example, it seems that community-based organizations may gain greater appreciation of young people’s perspectives on how they might engage with nature. Through being more representative of and working within those communities, staff may share collective habitus or have developed effective methods of listening and integrating community views into their practice. Although staff in adventure education and environmentally focused organizations and national stakeholders are conscious and considerate of structural and cultural restraining factors, Dawson (2014) cautions that this may mask symbolic violence, whereby segregation and domination are implicit in the exclusions and advantages inherent in systems. People experiencing disadvantage are often positioned as ‘hard to reach’ which shifts the problem of engagement as residing with them rather than with existing practices and system. Rahm and Ash (2008, p. 60) suggest in relation to informal science learning, ‘many ethnically and linguistically diverse youth from low-income backgrounds are positioned as “problems” by the [science education] system, which then results in the positioning of self as outsiders.’ CYP from disadvantaged backgrounds may take on others’ beliefs about their lack of nature capital and concur that nature is not for them, creating cycles of exclusion through learned responses.

However, changing systems to become more inclusive is not a simple matter. As Roberts (2008, p. 1) observes and we see in our data; ‘While the “why” behind [redressing exclusion] is important and has become more commonly accepted among conservation leaders and land management agencies, the “how-to” is often less understood and, at times, more challenging to implement.’

Although financial constraints were one of the top reasons given for low participation rates, and certainly, cost may prevent low-income families from participating, when entrance fees for some museums were withdrawn in the UK, visitor rates increased largely through generating more visits by the sections of society that were already well represented (Dawson, 2014). Archer et al. (2016) suggest that informal science education needs to draw out and build upon existing funds of knowledge and habitus in order to better meet the needs of non-traditional participants. The same effort to build understanding and relationships is necessary for a shared basis of nature capital to flourish and increase participation in a range of nature-based activity, grounded in young people’s interests and values.

The strength and endurance of institutional habitus is fundamental to blocking or facilitating change and requires attention at all levels of organizations for transformation into more inclusive provision. So, slow-burn and low-cost solutions may be most effective and sustainable. For example, appointing members of Boards of Trustees from a range of backgrounds, seconding staff to community groups and vice versa, and setting up apprenticeships for young people from areas of high multiple deprivation would enable experiential learning across communities and a meeting of minds to allow cross-cultural meaning making across more diverse sections of society. These actions might help to redress current imbalances in the profiles of recruitment, staffing and participation. Such measures are also more sustainable longer-term solutions in comparison to short term incentivization schemes that tend to atrophy once money runs out. Being sustainable and low-cost is particularly apposite in the light of COVID-19 pressures on economies, inequalities and health and wellbeing. Policy drivers in the midst and wake of COVID-19 could, for example, support the redirection of funding towards environmental apprenticeships for unemployed youth and social prescribing of nature-based activities for young people’s mental and physical health damaged by social isolation measures (MyPlace, n.d.).

What young people value

Many CYP in the focus groups were attuned to the detail of rich biodiversity in natural environments and found spending time there relaxing, albeit their enjoyment was tempered by aversion to mud and bad weather. But they also recognized the differences between what nature was accessible to them and what was out of their reach due to costs, both direct and hidden. Colonization of local greenspace by crime and drug use posed a barrier to enjoyment by others. However, community groups appeared able to work with the realities of local lived experience to improve nearby nature and re-open spaces.

The view that these young people lack nature capital is challenged by the microscopic attention to fellow inhabitants of the natural world and their concern about things that ‘ruin nature’ evident in the focus groups. They value nature for its flora and fauna, although some see humans as apart from nature, in line with findings by Bonnett and Williams (1998). It may be that the cultural density of institutional messages about caring for the planet and the risks to the environment from human activities perpetuates the view that we can somehow act on rather than with the environment.

It was also important for CYP that they had a say in what ways they engaged with nature, so that programmes were more congruent with their interests and abilities and presented a range of options. Sensitivity to existing interests is even more pertinent to cater for the needs of CYP not currently involved with outdoor activity organizations. Young people seem to value the opportunity to choose how they interact with the environment. Roberts (2009) noted a similar frustration for young people in Eco-Clubs in India, where they feared that adults would not listen to them and they would not have the resources to implement projects that were important to them.

Community-based research would help to identify where specific groups of CYP’s interests lie and what additional barriers may prevent uptake. Quinn’s (2013) research with young people in jobs without training in the southwest of England showed that nature was valued and significant in their lives, possibly through representing freedom, balance and capabilities that were less available in their formal education, opening new learning worlds. She notes, however, fragility and continuing inequalities within these opportunities.

Conclusions

In conclusion, helping children to learn to love nature is an underlying common aspiration of the various organizations offering engagement with the natural environment. However, several issues currently appear to impede universal access. The following actions might help address these barriers.

Research and communication

A further study eliciting voices of young people not currently engaged with provision for nature-based activities would help to round out the opinions of those who are engaged, despite the challenges they have shared in this research. Nature is commonly viewed as something outside of us and that its protection is important for the ecosystem services it provides for humans. New materialist thinkers in contrast point out that we are part of nature and that places and things have agency that should be attended to. This worldview has implications for not only how ‘engagement’ is understood but also how it might be promoted (Waite, Husain, Scandone, Forsyth, & Piggott, in press). Shifting from anthropocentric thinking around relations between children and nature prompts different methodologies (Goodenough, Waite, & Wright, 2020) and calls for additional research to include this important perspective.

On a practical and policy level, programmes should be planned with communities, not for them. This requires partnerships between providers and community-based groups to build trust and understanding of how local people interpret and value nature, the challenges that they face and how limited funds should be prioritized and directed.

Inclusivity

Financial constraints on visiting ‘nicer’ remote nature noted in this study and the poor quality of nearby nature in communities in areas of high multiple deprivation signal a need to balance inequalities in access to green space. Roberts (2008, p. 95) notes that despite overwhelming support by racially diverse and low-income communities for conservation measures, a study in California found ‘poorer communities have less than their fair share of parks and recreation opportunities’. Improving the quality of nearby nature can also act as a steppingstone to taking part in more remote activities. Without the opportunity to experience nature locally early in life, positive attitudes towards it are unlikely to develop.

Entry points to engagement are also important. Archer et al. (2016) recommend initial orientation to help untypical participants to make the most of activities. Some organizations use taster sessions but these need to be carefully tailored so that they include a broad range of culturally and age-appropriate activities and invite dialogue about nature capital so that subsequent sessions take account of existing interests and concerns.

Seaman et al (2010, p. 21) suggest that contact theory, whereby time spent in diverse communities supports experiential diversity learning, can offer productive ways to make outdoor activities more inclusive. Four conditions of interdependence, supportive norms, association, and equal status are considered essential, but the authors caution that ‘even if contact conditions are deliberately structured into a program from the point of view of its designer, participants might still experience program conditions in heterogeneous ways’, which leads us back to our earlier advocacy of community involvement in communication and design of programmes, taking account of the refraction of structural and cultural issues through individual habitus.

More critically, contact theory may have vital implications for promoting representation of different communities within organizations to effect culture change towards embedded inclusive policy and practice. The lack of representation of marginalized groups within provider organizations at all levels is highly significant in limiting inclusivity. It is insufficient to offer schemes for disadvantaged groups if institutional habitus is such that inequalities in legitimated nature capital persist.

F u n ding

Since funding was identified as a major issue for organizations and potential participants, an audit of representation, practices, and assumptions to direct funding to where the most difference can be made would help to maximize impact with limited finances. This might include examining mission statements, staffing and existing and potential stakeholders, and participation rates. It could question existing methods of communication and consultation with different groups to evaluate how well underrepresented groups are understood and included, establish the extent of partnership working with communities and increase diverse representation within boards, staff, apprenticeships and volunteers. To end on a positive and hopeful note, sometimes such constraints on funding can sharpen a sense of values and priorities and mean that transformations become more embedded and sustained in the longer term (Waite, Passy, Gilchrist, Hunt, & Blackwell, 2016).

Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest

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

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the staff and children and young people who took part in our research.

Additional information

Funding

The research by NatCen was commissioned by the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs, who gave permission for the publication of this article and a chapter arising from the research.

Notes on contributors

Sue Waite

Sue Waite is visiting Associate Professor at Jönköping University, Sweden and former Reader in Outdoor Learning at the University of Plymouth, UK. She has researched and published widely regarding outdoor learning and health and wellbeing benefits from nature and is a member of Natural England’s Strategic Research Group on Connecting People with Nature.

Notes

1. NatCen is the National Centre for Social Research.

2. Local Authority areas are a level of subnational division of England used for the purposes of local government.

3. The Index of Multiple Deprivation is a widely used dataset within the UK to classify the relative deprivation (essentially a measure of poverty) of small areas. Multiple components of deprivation are weighted with different strengths and compiled into a single score of deprivation.

4. Pupil Premium is a sum of money given to schools each year by the UK Government to improve the attainment of children from low income families.

5. Looked after children is a term used in the UK to describe children who have been in the care of their local authority for more than 24 hours.