‘There's only so much money hot dog sales can bring in’: The intersection of green school grounds and socio-economic status

Abstract

In the interest of enhancing children's environments, many school grounds around the world are being ‘greened’ as asphalt and manicured grass are replaced with a diversity of elements and spaces, such as trees, shrubs, gardens, art, and gathering areas. Despite a growing body of research from a number of disciplines that is exploring the potential of these spaces, very little is known about how issues of socio-economic status (SES) influence school ground greening initiatives. In this paper, I explore what (if any) relationship exists between school ground greening and SES in a Canadian school board where approximately 20% of more than 500 schools have begun the greening process. A mixed methods approach was used: (1) 149 questionnaires were completed by administrators, teachers, and parents associated with 45 school ground greening initiatives; and (2) 21 follow-up interviews were conducted with administrators, teachers and parents at five greening projects across a range of SESs. Three significant, and arguably troubling, patterns emerged as a function of socio-economic status of the school community. Participants associated with schools across a range of SESs had different: (1) perceptions as to the importance/adequacy of green school grounds; (2) access to adult support; and (3) access to funding. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords:

• Green school grounds
• socio-economic status
• class
• children's play spaces
• environmental education

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge support from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Evergreen. I am also thankful for the helpful feedback from Claire Freeman and two anonymous reviewers.

Notes

1. A number of terms have been used to describe changes occurring on school grounds, including ‘school ground gardening’, ‘school ground naturalization’, ‘school ground restoration’, and ‘school ground greening’. While there are important differences between each term, and while each term is itself somewhat contested, for the purpose of this paper, ‘school ground greening’ will be used to describe collaborative efforts to improve school grounds. (For a more detailed explanation of the differences between each term, see Houghton, 2003.)

2. Of course it is difficult to isolate issues related to SES from other variables that influence greening initiatives, such as gender and ethnicity.

3. While students are often involved in certain aspects of school ground greening (see Mannion, 2003; Dyment, 2004), this paper reports on adult perceptions of these spaces.

4. This list of schools was generated when the school board was preparing a document related to school ground greening, at which time all schools in the board were asked to indicate if they had a greening project.

5. In circumstances where the original questionnaire respondent was unable to participate in the follow-up interview, a replacement interviewee (with a similar role) was sought.

6. The socio-economic ranges (0 = highest; 1 = lowest) included in these analyses are the extreme ‘thirds’: High (0–0.33) and Low (0.66–1).

7. Like others who have used questionnaires, I felt, at times, ‘restricted by both questions and methods [that were] incapable of understanding the complexity’ (Hart and Nolan, 1999, p. 25). I was relieved to complement my findings from the questionnaires with case study interviews because they allowed me to ask more questions about teacher involvement in the greening initiatives. The apparent contradictions between the questionnaires and the case studies certainly reinforced the value of having a mixed methods approach.

8. Of course additional factors, beyond SES, have limited the amount of urban nature that young people (irrespective of class) can access. Factors such as increased urbanization, increased fears about child safety, and decreasing natural outdoor spaces have all contributed to young people having less access to outdoor natural spaces (see Rivkin, 1995; Cunningham and Jones, 1996; Herrington and Studtmann, 1998; Malone, 2001; Tranter and Pawson, 2001; Tranter and Malone, 2004).

9. I am moderately troubled by some of these claims (Coley et al., 1997) and wish to clarify that I am not arguing that it is acceptable that schools in lower SES communities should only have meager changes. They should not be satisfied with only slight changes. Such an assertion would, of course, on my part, feel somewhat patronizing. Ideally, issues of class would not assume a role in greening initiatives.

10. Of course exceptions to this pattern certainly exist and some very heartening stories of school grounds (and other urban enhancements) in lower SES communities have been profiled (Trust for Public Land, 1995; Centre for Ecoliteracy, 1999; Martil-de Castro, 1999).

11. I wish to acknowledge that this excellent question was raised by one of the anonymous reviewers of this paper.