The Educational Values of Trees and Forests

The Educational Values of Trees and Forests
Terry L. Sharik
Departments of WildlandResources
and
Environment and Society
College of Natural Resources
Utah State University
Logan, UT 84322-5215
February, 2009
T. L. Sharik Mar 2009
1

Context
When we think about the benefits provided by trees and forests, we tend not to think about how they contribute to enhanced learning ability, despite the mounting evidence (MEA 2005).
2

3
Linkages between ecosystemservices and human well-being (MEA 2005).

S
Conceptual framework of interactions between biodiversity, ecosystem services, human well-being, and drivers of change (MEA 2005).
4

Provisioning Services
Products obtained
•
Food
•F
iber
•
Fuel
•
Genetic resources
•
Biochemicals, natural medicines, pharmaceuticals
•
Ornamental resources
•
Fresh water
5

Regulating Services
Regulation of ecosystem processes
•
Air quality regulation
•
Climate regulation
•
Water regulation
•
Erosion regulation
•
Water purification
•
Disease regulation
•
Pest regulation
•
Pollination
•
Natural Hazard Regulation
6

Supporting Services
Necessary for the production of all other services
•
Soil formation
•
Photosynthesis
•
Primary production
•
Nutrient cycling
•
Water cycling
7

Cultural Services
Non-material benefits
•
Cultural diversity
•
Spiritual and religious values
•
Knowledge systems
•
Educational values
•
Inspiration
•
Aesthetic values
•
Social relations
•
Sense of place
•
Cultural heritage values
•
Recreation and ecotourism
8

Objective
To review the literature on this topic with the intent of stimulating further research on the educational values of trees and forests, and fostering the application of this knowledge in the learning environment relative to natural resource/ecosystem management.
9

Approach
•
Complexities of the learning process
•
Links of this process to nature, including ways of interacting with nature
•
Role of trees and forests
•
Conclusions
10

COMPLEXITIES OF THE LEARNING PROCESS
11

Mediating Systems in Human Behavior (modified from Rue 2005)
•
Molecular
•
Neural
•
Reflex
•
Perceptual
•
Physiological
•
Learning/Memory
•
Emotional
•
Cognitive
•
Symbolic
EnvironmentEcosystems
12

Learning/Memory Systems(Rue 2005)
•
Experiential promotion of changes in neural structures that conserve the effects of experience across time.
•
Virtually all higher behavioral functions depend on neural systems modulated by learning.
–
Object recognition
–
Concept formation
–
Emotional experience
–
Anticipation
–
Planning
–
Problem-solving
–
Comparing and contrasting
–
Decision-making
–
Language use
13

Three Major Modes of Learning(Kellert 2002)
1. Affective or Emotional
–
Focuses on the formation of emotional and feeling capacities.
–
Typically precedes cognition or intellect as a basis for maturation and learning.
2. Cognitive or Intellectual
–
Stresses the formation of thinking and problem-solving skills.
3. Evaluative
–
Emphasizes the creation of values, beliefs, and moral perspectives.
–
Emerges from a synthesis of affective and cognitive perceptions and understandings.
Additional References: Iozzi1989a, 1989b
14

Three Major Modes of Learning (Kellert 2002)
3. Evaluative
15

Emotional Systems(Rue 2005)
A temporary subjective feeling that arises during the process of determining the narrative meaning of an event, i.e. during a period of cognitive appraisal.
16

Emotional Systems(Rue 2005)
SECONDARYPresuppose minimal self-conceptinterestanxietyfrustration/ consternationaffectiongratitudesympathyresentmentcontemptPresuppose explicit self-concepthatredoutrageshameguiltenvyjealousypridegriefresignationadmirationwondercompassionalienationhumilityamusementPRIMARYfear disgustangerdesirehappinesssadnessTERTIARYlove? agape"aesthetic emotions" hopenostalgiafago(Ifalukia) Laiya(India and Nepal) "religious emotions"
17

Affective or Emotional ModeKellert(2002)
•
There is some evidence that contact with the natural world, especially during middle childhood (ages 6-12), is important in a person’s emotional responsiveness and receptivity.
•
Seems to be due to its “dynamic, varied, often unique, surprising, and adventurous character.”
•
Elicits such responses as satisfaction, delight, joy, excitement, and curiosity.
References: Cornell 1977, Cobb 1977, Kellert1985, Kellert1996, Derr2001, Ratanopojnard2001, Sabal1993
18

•
Interactions with natural settings reduce stressor elicit positive feelings and thereby enhance cognitive functioning, creativity, and performance, especially regarding higher order tasks.
References: Olmsted 1865, Kaplan and Talbot 1983, Isenet al. 1985, Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Isen1990, Hartiget al. 1991, Ulrich et al. 1991a, Ulrich 1993, Kaplan 1995, Wells 2000, Wells and Evans 2003, Am. Institutes for Research 2005
19

•
Attention Restoration Theory has been utilized to explain the restorative aspects of contact with nature following a period of directed or forced, focused attention and associated mental fatigue (Kaplan 1995).
•
There is both psychological and physiological evidence for the restorative value of nature.
•
Results in cognitive clarity and reflection, thereby enhancing creativity.
Additional References: Ulrich 1981, Ulrich and Simmons 1986, Ulrich et al. 1991b, Chang and Pergn1998, Chang and Uan1999, Hartiget al. 2003, Hammitt2007, Chang et al. 2008.
20

Three Major Modes of Learning (Kellert 2002)
3. Evaluative
21

Cognitive Systems(Rue 2005)
•
Internal representations of external affairs
•
Ability to assimilate a diversity of information and process it in new ways
•
Performing a wide range of operations on a wide range of mental objects (including perceptions, memory images, and concepts)
•
Process of:
–
Encoding information representing the external world and the organism’s vital interests
–
Integrating these two forms of information to devise appropriate behaviors
•
Operators on mental objects include:
–
Reality (facts)
–
Valance (values)
–
Executive (outcomes)
22

Cognitive or Intellectual ModeKellert(2002)
•
Evidence that experiential contact with nature can have a positive impact on cognitive development comes from a number of sources.
•
Bloom et al.’s (1956) taxonomy of cognition has been used to frame this relationship (Table 2).
Additional References: Altman and Wohwill1978, Ulrich 1993, Kahn 1999, Ratanapojnard2001, Kellert1997, Kellert2002, Burdette and Whitaker 2005, Taylor and Kew 2006
23

Cognitive or Intellectual Mode
Name of Cognitive Ability
Definition
Enhancing Activity in Nature
Knowledge Acquisition
Assembling facts and figures
Identifying and classifying various aspects of the natural world
Comprehension
Interpreting and understanding empirical realities
Translating specific knowledge of nature into categories of related functions and processes
Application
Putting knowledge to use in various situations
Distinguishing one environmental feature from another
24

Name of Cognitive Ability
Definition
Enhancing Activity in Nature
Analysis
Teasing apart elements or patterns nested within an overall structure
Dissecting elements in nature
Synthesis
Integrating distinctive elements into an overall whole
Integrating elements and processes in nature
Evaluation
Discerning worth and importance
Judging the relative significance of particular aspects of the natural world
25

•
Borrowing from the work of Mednick(1962), it has been argued that higher order cognitive functioning, which involves integration or association of diverse and seemingly unrelated information or concepts in novel ways, is likely enhanced by exposure to nature (Ulrich 1993).
26

Three Major Modes of Learning(Kellert 2002)
3. Evaluative
27

Evaluative Mode
•
Kellert(1996) formulated nine values of the natural world that contribute significantly to human well-being (Table 3).
28

Name of Value
Definition of Value
Benefits
Stage of Prominent Development (yrs.)*
Dominionistic
Urge to master and control nature
Safety and protection; independence and autonomy; the urge to explore and confront the unknown; and willingness to take risks, be resourceful, and show courage
3-6
Negativistic
Avoidance, fear, and rejection of nature
Avoiding harm and injury; minimizing risk and uncertainty; and respect and awe for nature through recognizing its power to humble and destroy
3-6
*The three age classes correspond to early, middle, and late (adolescent) childhood, respectively.
29

Name of Value
Definition of Value
Benefits
Utilitarian
Material and commodity attraction of the natural world
Physical and material security; self-confidence and self-esteem through demonstrating craft and skill in nature; and recognition of human physical dependence on natural systems and processes
3-6
Aesthetic
Physical attraction and appeal of nature
Perceiving order and organization; developing ideas of harmony, balance, and symmetry; and evoking and stimulating curiosity, imagination, and discovery
6-12
30

Name of Value
Definition of Value
Benefits
Humanistic
Strong affection and emotional attachment to nature
Developing intimacy, companionship, trust, and capacities for social relationship and affiliation; and enhancing self-confidence and self-esteem through giving, receiving, and sharing affection
6-12
Symbolic
Nature’s role in shaping and assisting human communication and thought
Classifying and labeling abilities; language acquisition and counting; resolution of difficult aspects of psychosocial development through story and fantasy; and enhanced communication and discourse through the use of imagery and symbol
6-12
31

Name of Value
Definition of Value
Benefits
Scientific
Empirical and systematic study and understanding of nature
Intellectual competence; critical thinking; problem-solving abilities; enhanced capacities for empirical observation and analysis; and respect and appreciation for natural process and diversity
6-12, 13-17
Moralistic
Ethical and spiritual affinity for nature
Sense of underlying meaning, order, and purpose; the inclination to protect and treat nature with kindness and respect; and enhanced sociability from shared moral and spiritual conviction
13-17
32

Name of Value
Definition of Value
Benefits
Naturalistic
Desire for close contact and immersion in nature
Inclination for exploration, discovery, curiosity, inquisitiveness, and imagination; enhanced self- confidence and self-esteem by demonstrating competence and adaptability in nature; and greater calm and coping capacities through heightened temporal awareness and spatial involvement
13-17
33

Most Important Values to Learning
Those that contribute most strongly to the development of learning skills include the aesthetic, naturalistic, and scientific,and to a lesser extent the symbolic−the latter mostly through the development of language skills.
34

Multiple Intelligences(Gardner 1999)
•
Linguistic
•
Logical-mathematical
•
Spatial
•
Bodily-kinesthetic
•
Musical intelligence
•
Interpersonal
•
Intrapersonal
•
Naturalist
35

Importance of Naturalist Perspective
Gardner’s (1999) inclusion of naturalist intelligenceamong the eight multiple intelligences he formulated to represent the entire spectrum of human cognition lends support to the importance of the naturalist perspective as a fundamental way of learning.
36

WAYS OF INTERACTING WITH NATURE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE
37

Three ways in which (young) people’s experience of nature occurs(Kellert 1996, 2005)
•
Direct
–Actual physical contact with nature in a spontaneous and unstructured way, including play
•
Indirect
–Actual physical contact with nature, but more structured and planned.e.g., zoos, arboreta, botanical gardens, science museums, and nature centers; contacts with domesticated plants and animals; [outdoor lab instruction ? (TLS)]
•
Vicarious or symbolic
–
Representations or depicted scenes of nature
–
Principally through the mass media (classroom? TLS)
38

Direct Experience of Nature
•
Considerable conceptual and empirical support for the argument that direct experienceof nature plays a significant role in affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in humans that is not replaced by indirect and vicarious experiences, which are on the rise.
•
Attributed to diversityand variabilityin space and time of the natural world, together with its unpredictivenessand challenges.
References: Searles1959, Kaplan and Talbot 1983, Moore 1986, Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Sebba1991, Pyle 1993, Sobel1993, Nabhanand Trible1994, Kellert1996, Kellert2005, Burdette and Walker 2005
39

Reduced Contact with Nature
Considerable evidence that children (and adults) are spending increasingly less and less time experiencing high quality natural environments.
–Due to a number of factors, including habitat destruction, species loss, environmental contamination, natural resource depletion, urban sprawl, human population growth, “videophilia,” and fear of violence.
References: Barney et al. 1980, Wilcox et al. 1991, Groombridge1992, Wilson 1992, Myers 1994, Heywood 1995, Savage 1995, Kellert2002, Pergamsand Zaradic2008
40

Reduced Contact with Nature
Parental concern for the health and safety of their children, in turn related to increased violence in our society, real and imagined, is an increasingly important factor.
41

Nature-Deficit Disorder
•
Louv(2005)labeled the health syndrome associated with this diminished experience of nature in children today as “nature-deficit disorder” as a way of creating heightened awareness of the problem.
•
Has had a major impact on the development of impending federal legislation on “no child left inside.”
Additional References: Clements 2004, Karstan2005, Farmer 2005, Veitchet al. 2006, Jackson and Tester 2008
42

Nearby Nature
•
Key point concerning children’s direct contact with nature is that it be ongoing and highly accessible, which in turn implies that it be “nearby.”
•
Has important implications for regional and urban planning.
References: Quantz1897, Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Sobel1993, Kaplan et al. 1998, Wells 2000, Kellert2002, Taylor et al. 2002, Wells and Evans 2003, Bell and Dyment2006
43

CONTRIBUTIONS OF TREES AND FORESTS TO LEARNING
44

Dendro-Psychoses
•
The first scholarly treatment of the origins of the fundamental relationship between trees and peoplewas that of the psychologist J. O. Quantz(1897).
–
Created the term “dendro-psychoses” to represent this relationship.
–
Provided several lines of biological and psychological evidence of an adaptive nature to support the argument that the earliest humans dwelled in trees.
–
Examplesof psychological evidence included the fear of wild animals, thunder and lightning, high winds, and falling; “hide and seek” games; rocking babies to sleep.
45

A Central Role
There is considerable evidence that trees have played a central role in everyday life throughout human history, including:
•
Source of food and shade
•
Safe sleeping and eating places
•
Vantage points for surveying the landscape
•
Escape from predators
•
Provision of shelter, weapons, tools, and medicine
•
Inspiration (TLS)
References: Bourliere1963, Lee 1979, Isaac 1983, Shipman 1986, Heerwagenand Orians(1993).
46

Perception
ƒ
Process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information (Wickipedia2008)
ƒ
Information enhancers integrate active sense data with memory to produce a coherent perception (Rue 2005)
47

Tree Forms
A
B
C
48

Tree Forms
Reference: Sommerand Summit 1996
A
C
D
E
B
49

Tree Forms
Orians(1980) hypothesized that tree forms that were most important in the survival of early humans in African savannas should be most preferred by humans today from the standpoint of aesthetics.
Additional References: Orians1986, Heerwagenand Orians1993
–
Referred specifically to the “acacia” form, with canopies broader than tall, trunks terminating and branching considerably below half the height of the tree, small leaves, and layered branching.
–
Argued that such trees are easy to climb and their canopies offered greater protection from sun or rain.
–
Hypothesis was tested on preferences of Americans for trees cultivated in Japanese gardens and for various dimensions of the dominant East African tree, Acacia tortilis.
•
Hypothesis was not rejected.
50

Acacia Tree Form
Preference for the acacia tree form over other tree forms was subsequently investigated by utilizing college students from all major continents except Antarctica.
References: Sommerand Summit 1996, Sommer1997
51

Tree Forms
Reference: Sommerand Summit 1996
eucalyptus
conifer
palm
acacia
oak
52

Tree Forms
Sommerand Summint(1996)
53

Acacia Tree Form
–
In all cases, students preferred the acacia form over other forms (eucalyptus, oak, conifer, and palm).
–
Moreover, they tended to prefer the most common tree experienced in their respective childhoods more so than students who grew up with other tree forms as most common, indicating that experience also shapes one’s preferences of tree form.
54

LANDSCAPE-LEVEL PREFERENCES
55

Landscape-Level Preferences
C
E
D
A
B
56

•
At the stand or landscape level, the evidence suggests that people prefer naturalenvironments over built environments and savanna-type natural environments over other natural environments (Ulrich 1986, Kahn 1999).
57

Balling, Falk. Mean Preference Scores for Each Biome Under Both “Live” and “Visit” Instructions (1982).
Balling, Falk. Mean Preference Scores for Each Biome as a Function of Age Group (1982).
58

Landscape-Level Preferences(Balling and Falk 1982)
–
Young children(age 8-11 years) from the eastern U.S. preferred East African savannas over mixed hardwood forest (their home environment), boreal forest, rain forest, and desert, while older childrenshowed an equal preference for savannas and mixed hardwood forest.
–
Suggests the influence of both geneticsand environment (familiarity) in such preferences.
59

Savanna-like Environments
•
Preference for the savanna-like environment seems to be the result of being able to acquire new information (mystery) without becoming disoriented or lost (legibility).
References: Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Kaplan 1992
60

•
May help explain the appeal for closed-canopy forest stands that have been thinned or for urban or suburban open spaces that are planted with scattered trees in a grassy matrix, i.e., are park-like.
61

•
May also help explain the tendency of European settlers in North America to open up forested landscapes and plant trees in prairie landscapes. (Orians1980)
62

Ecological vs. Scenic Aesthetics(Gobster1999)
ECOLOGICAL
“…preference for maintaining and restoring the ecological structure and function of ecosystems and for preserving and enhancing the health and diversity of native species and ecological communities.”
SCENIC
“…aperceptual, affective reaction to the landscape: preference for ‘scenic beauty’ or ‘visual quality’.”
63

Ecological vs. Scenic Aesthetics(Gobster1999)
•F
ire
•
Dead and down wood
•
Forest fragmentation
64

CONCLUSIONS
65

Conclusions
•
The development of learning skills, especially in children, and the realization of creativity and productivity in adults, seem to be enhanced significantly by direct and informal contact on a regular basis with natural settings, especially those that are savanna-or park-like.
•
These findings may have important implications for the teaching and learning process in our society.
•
In particular, the notion of less structured and more emotions-or value-laden environments for learning seem to run counter to traditional institutional approaches.
66

Conclusions
•
Visual preferences for trees and forests may reflect adaptive behaviors in the early evolution of humans and conflictwith the development of an ecological aesthetic, which may seem “counter-instinctive” or “counter-intuitive.”
–
Can learning/education remove this disconnect? (“education of the emotions”)
–
The theory of visible stewardship (Sheppard 2001), which emphasizes caring for and attachment to a particular landscape, suggests it will be challenging.
67

Conclusions
•
It is natural that we should learn from nature.
68

Contact Information
Terry.Sharik@usu.edu
69

Altman, I. and J. Wohlwill(eds.). 1978. Children and the environment. Plenum Press: NewYork.
American Institutes for Research. 2005. Effects of outdoor education programs for children in California. American Institutesfor Research: Palo Alto, CA.
Appleton, J. 1990. The symbolism of habitat. University of Washington Press: Seattle.
Balling, J. D. and J. H. Falk. 1982. The development of visual preference for natural environments. Environment and Behavior14: 5-28.
Barkow, J., L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby(eds.). 1992. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Barney, G. O. (ed.). Global 2000 report. Council on Environmental Quality: Washington, D. C.
Bell, Anne C. and J. E. Dyment. 2006. Grounds for action: Promoting physical activity through school ground greening in Canada. Evergreen: Toronto, ON.
Bettelheim, B. 1977. The uses of enchantment: The meaning and importance of fairy tales. Vintage Books: New York.
Bloom, B. S., M. B., Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: The classification of educational goals—cognitive domain. Longman: New York.
Bourleire, F. 1963. Observations of the ecology of some large African mammals. pp. 43-54 In F. C. Howell and F. Bourliere(eds.). African ecology and human evolution. Aldine: Chicago.
Burdette, H. L. and R. C. Whitaker. 2005. Resurrecting free play in young children: Looking beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 159: 46-50.
Pertinent References
70

Chang, C. Y., W. E. Hammitt, P. K. Chen, L. Machnik, and W. C. Su. 2008. Psychophysiologicalresponses and restorative values of natural environments in Taiwan. Landscape and Urban Planning 85: 79-84.
Chang, C. Y. and Perng, J. L. 1998. Effect of landscape on psychological and physical responses. Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture 9: 783-76.
Chang, C. Y. and Uan, L. L. 1999. Influences of landscape types on recovery of concentration and EMG. Journal of Landscape Planning 7: 1-22.
Chawla, L. 1994. In the first century of places: Nature, poetry, and childhood memory. State University of New York Press: Albany, NY.
Chawla, L. 2002. Spots of time: Manifold ways of being in nature in childhood. pp. 199-225 In P. Kahn, and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). 2002. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Clements, R. 2004. An investigation of the state of outdoor play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 5: 68-80.
Cobb, E. 1977. The ecology of imagination in childhood. Columbia University Press: New York.
Coley, J. D., G. E. A. Solomon, and P. Shafto. 2002. The development of folk biology: A cognitive science perspective on children’s understanding of the biological world. pp. 65-91 In Kahn, P. and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
71

Cornell, J. 1979. Sharing nature with children. Dawn: Nevada City, CA.
Derr, V. 2001. Growing up in the Hispano homeland: The interplay of nature, family, culture, and community in shaping children’s experiences and sense of place. Doctoral dissertation. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University: New Haven.
Diamond, J. 1993. New Guineans and their natural world. Pp. 251-271 In S. R. Kellertand E. O. Wilson (eds.). The biophiliahypothesis. Island Press/Shearwater Books: Washington, D. C.
Driver, B. L. 1996. Benefits driven management of natural areas. Natural Areas Journal, 16, 94-99.
Driver, B. L., Nash, R., & Haas, G. (1987). Wilderness benefits: A state-of-knowledge review. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, state-of-knowledge, future directions, Ogden, UT.
Eagles, P. J. and S. Muffitt. 1990. An analysis of children’s attitudes toward animals. J. Environmental Education 21: 41-44.
Engel, S. 1995. The stories children tell: Making sense of the narratives of childhood. Freeman: New York.
Erikson, E. 1968. Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton: New York.
Ewert, A. 1989. Outdoor adventure pursuits: Foundations, models and theories. Publishing Horizons: Scottsdale, AZ.
Farmer, C. 2005. Home Office citizenship survey: Top level findings from the children and young people survey. Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills: London, England.
Fjørtoft, I. 2004. Landscape as playscape: The effects of natural environments on children’s play and motor development. Children, Youth and Environments 14: 21-44.
72

Gardner, H. 1999. Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21stcentury. Basic Books: New York.
Gibson, J. J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton-Mifflin: Boston, MA.
Gobster, P.H. 1999. An ecological aesthetic consideration for forest landscape management. Landscape Journal. 18(1):54-64.
Goldsmity, E. 1993. The way: An ecology world-view. Shambala: Boston.
Groombridge, B. (ed.). 1992. Global biodiversity. Chapman and Hall: London.
Hammitt, W. E. 2007. The mental restorativenessof outdoor recreation environments. Annals of Leisure and Recreation Research. In review.
Han, Ke-Tsung. 2003. A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landscape and Urban Planning 64: 209-232.
Hart, R. 1979. Children’s experience of place. Irvington Publishers: New York.
Hartig, T., M. Mang, and G. W. Evans. 1991. Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and behavior. 23: 3-26.
Hartig, T., K. Korpela, G. W. Evans, T. Garlinget al. 1997. A measure of restorative quality in environments. ScandanavianHousing and Planning research 14: 175-195.
Hartig, T. and H. Staats. 2006. The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology 26: 215-226.
Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Garling, T. 2003. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23:109-123.
Heerwagen, J. H. and G. H. Orians. 1993. Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. Pp. 138-172 In S. R. Kellertand E. O. Wilson (eds.). The biophiliahypothesis. Island Press/Shearwater Books: Washington, D. C.
73

Heywood, V. 1995. Global biodiversity assessment. United Nations Environment Program/Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Iozzi, L. A. 1989a. What research says to the educator. Part I. Environmental education and the affective domain. J. Environmental Education20: 3-9.
Iozzi., L. A. 1989b. What research says to the educator. Part 2. Environmental education and the affective domain. J. Environmental Education 20: 6-13.
Isaac, G. 1983. Bones in contention: Competing explanations for the juxtaposition of Early Pleistocene artifacts and faunal remains. In J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson. Animals and archeology, Part I: Hunters and their prey. B.A.R. International Series: Oxford.
Isen, A. M., T. E. Nygren, and F. G. Ashby. 1985. The influence of positive affect on perceived utility of gains and losses. Bulletin PsychonomicSociety 23: 301.
Isen. A. M. 1990. Adaptation –sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, and the variety of lessons to be learned. Motivation and Emotion 14: 295-302.
Jackson, R. J. J. and J. Tester. 2008. Environment shapes health, including children’s mental health. Journal American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 47: 129-131.
Kahn, P. H., Jr. 1999. The human relationship with nature: Development and culture. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kahn, P. H., Jr. 2002. Children’s affiliations with nature: Structure, development, and the problem of environmental generational amnesia. pp. 93-116 In Kahn, P. and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). 2002. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
74

Kahn, P. and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). 2002. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations.. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kanner, A. D., T. Roszak, and M. E. Gomes. 1995. Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind. Sierra Club Books: San Francisco
Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan. 1989. The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan. 2002. Adolescents and the natural environment: A time out? pp. 227-257 In Kahn, P. and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). 2002. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations.. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan, and R. L. Ryan. 1998. With people in mind: Design and management for everyday nature. Island Press: Washington, D. C.
Kaplan, S. 1987. Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior. 19:1(3-32).
Kaplan, S. 1992. Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge-using organism. pp. 581-598 In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby(eds.). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press: New York.
Kaplan, S. 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169-182.
Kaplan, S. 2002. Some hidden benefits of the urban forest. p. 29 In: C. C. Konijnenkijk, N. E. Koch, K.. H. Hoyer, and J. SchipperijnJ. (eds.). Forestry Serving Urbanized Societies. Proceedings of the IUFRO European Regional Conference, 27-30 August 2002, Copenhagen. Hoerscholm, Denmark: Skov& Landskab. (Abstract)
75

Kaplan, S. and R. Kaplan. 1982. Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. PraegerPublishers: New York.
Kaplan, S. and J. Talbot. 1983. Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. In I. Altman and J. Wohlwill(eds.). Behavior and the natural environment. Plenum Press: New York.
Karstan, L. 2005. It all used to be better? Different generations on continuity and change in urban children’s use of space. Children’s Geographies 3: 275-290.
Kellert, S. R. 1985. Attitudes toward animals: Age-related development among children. J. Environmental Education 16: 29-39.
Kellert, S. R. 1996. The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
Kellert, S. R. 1997. Kinship to mastery: Biophiliain human evolution and development. Island Press/Shearwater Books: Washington, D. C.
Kellert, S. R. 2002. Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. pp. 117-151 In P. Kahn and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kellert, S. R. 2005. Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature connection. Island Press: Washington, D. C.
Kellert, S. R. and V. Derr. 1998. National study of outdoor wilderness experience. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University: New Haven.
Kellert, S. R. and M. O. Westervelt. 1983. Children’s attitudes, knowledge and behaviors toward animals (Phase 5). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, D. C.
Kellert, S. R. and E. O. Wilson (eds.). 1999. The human relationship with nature. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
76

Kirby, M. A. 1989. Nature as refuge in children’s environments. Children’s Environments Quarterly 6: 7-12.
Lawrence, E. A. 1993. The sacred bee, the filth pig, and the bat out of hell: Animal symbolism as cognitive biophilia. pp. 301-341 In S. R. Kellertand E. O. Wilson (eds.). The biophiliahypothesis. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
Lee, R. B. 1979. The !Kung San: Men, women, and work in a foraging society. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Lickona, T. 1991. Educating for character. Bantam Books: New York.
Lieberman, G. A. and L. L. Hoody. 1998. Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning. SEER: Poway, CA.
Louv, R. 2005. Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill, NC.
Lumsden, D. and E. O. Wilson. 1983. The relation between biological and cultural evolution. J. Biological Structure 8: 343-359.
Maker, C. J. 1982. Teaching models of the gifted. Pro-ed: Austin.
Mednick, S. A. 1962. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review 69: 220-232.
Metzner, R. 1993. Spirit, self, and nature: Essays in green psychology. Green Earth: El Verno, CA.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
77

Moore, R. C. 1986. Childhood’s domain: Play and space in child development. CroomHelm: London.
Moore, R. C. 1993. Plants for play: A plant selection guide for children’s outdoor environments. MIG Communications: Berkeley, CA.
Moore, R. C. 1997. The need for nature: A childhood right. Social Justice 24: 203.
Moore, R. C. and H. H. Wong. 1997. Natural learning: The life history of an environmental schoolyard: Creating environments for rediscovering nature’s way of teaching. MIG Communications: Berkeley, CA.
Myers, N. 1994. Global biodiversity II: Losses. In G. Meffeand C. Carrolls(eds.) . Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer: Sunderland, OH.
Nabhan, G. P. and S. St. Antoine. 1993. The loss of floral and faunal story: The extinction of experience. pp. 229-250 In S. R. Kellertand E. O. Wilson (eds.). The biophiliahypothesis. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
Nabhan, G. P. and S. A. Trimble. 1994. The geography of childhood: Why children need wild places. Beacon Press, Concord Library: Boston.
Nicholson. S. 1971. How not to cheat children: The theory of loose parts. Landscape Architecture 62: 30-34.
Olmsted, F. L. 1865. Preliminary report upon the Yosemite and Big Tree Grove. Report to the congress of the state of California. Reprinted in V. P. Ranney, G. J. Rauluk, and D., F. Hoffman (eds.). 1990. The Papers of Frederick Law Olmsted, vol. V: The California frontier, 1863-1865. John Hopkins Press: Baltimore.
Orians, G. H. 1980. Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. In J. S. Lockard(ed.). The evolution of human social behavior. Elsevier: New York.
78

Orians, G. H. 1986. An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In E. C. Penning-Rowselland D. Lowenthal. Allen and Unwin: London.
Orians, G. H. and J. H. Heerwagen. 1992. Evolved responses to landscapes. pp. 555-579 In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby(eds.). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press: New York.
Orr, D. W. 1992. Ecological literacy: Education and transition to a postmodern world. State University of New York Press: Albany, NY.
Pergams, O. R. W. and P. A. Zaradic. 2008. Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.o709893105.
Piaget, J. 1969. The child’s conception of the world. Littlefield, Adams: Totowa, NJ.
Pyle, R. M. 1993. The thunder tree: Lessons from an urban wildland. Houghton Mifflin: Boston.
Quammen. D. 1985. Natural acts: A sidelong view of science and nature. Avon Books: New York.
Quantz, J. O. 1897. Dendro-psychoses. Am. J. Psychology 9: 449-506.
Ratanapojnard, S. 2001. Community-oriented biodiversity environmental education: Its effects on knowledge, values, and behavior among rural fifth-and sixth-grade students in northeastern Thailand. Doctoral dissertation, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University: New Haven.
Roszak, T. 1992. The view of the earth: An exploration of ecopsychology. Simon and Schuster: New York.
Rue, L. 2005. Religion is not about God: How spiritual traditions nurture our biological nature and what to expect when they fail. Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ.
79

Savage, J. 1995. Systematicsand the biodiversity crisis. BioScience45: 673-679.
Searles, H. F. 1959. The nonhuman environment. International Universities Press: New York.
Sebba, R. 1991. The landscapes of childhood: The reflections of childhood’s environment in adult memories and in children’s attitudes. Environment and Behavior 23: 395-422.
Shepard, P. 1978. Thinking animals: Animals and the development of human intelligence. Viking Press: New York.
Shepard, P. 1982. Nature and madness. Sierra Book Clubs: San Francisco.
Shepard, P. 1996. The others: How animals made us human. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
Sheppard, S. R. J. 2001 Beyond visual resource management: Emerging theories of an ecological aesthetic and visible stewardship. pp. 149-172 InS. R. J. Sheppard and H. W. Harshaw(eds.). Forests and landscapes: linking ecology, sustainability, and aesthetics. CABI Publications: New York.
Shipman, P. 1986. Scavenging or hunting in early hominids: Theoretical framework and tests. American Anthropologist 88: 27-40.
Sobel, D. 1993. Children’s special places: Exploring the role of forts, dens, and bush houses in middle childhood. Zephyr Press: Tucson.
Sobel, D. 1996. Place-based education: Connecting classrooms and communities. The Orion Society and the MyrinInstitute: Great Barrington, MA.
Sommer, R, F. Learey, J. Summit, and M. Tirrell. 1994. Social benefits of resident involvement in tree planting: Comparison with developer-planted trees. J. Arboriculture 20: 323-328.
Sommer, R. 1997. Further cross-national studies of tree form preference. Ecol. Psychol. 9: 153-160.
Sommer, R. 2001. The dendro-psychoses of J. O. Quantz. J. Arboriculture 27: 40-43.
80

Sommer, R. and J. Summit. 1996. Cross-national rankings of tree shape. Ecol. Psychol. 8: 327-341.
Staats, H. 2003. Guest editor's introduction: restorative environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 103- 107.
Staats, H.andT. Hartig. 2004. Alone or with a friend: a social context for psychological restoration and environmental preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 199-211.
State Education and Environment Roundtable (SEER). 2005. California Student Assessment Project Phase Two: The effects of environmental-based education on student achievement. SEER: Poway, CA.
Summit, J. and R. Sommer. 1999. Further studies of preferred tree shapes. Environment and Behavior 31: 550-576.
Taylor, A. F. and F. E. Kuo. 2006. Is contact with nature important for healthy child development? State of the evidence. pp. 124-140 In C. Spencer and M. Blades (eds.). Children and their environments: Learning, using, and designing space. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Taylor, A. F., F. E. Kuo, and W. C. Sullivan. 2002. View of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children. Journal of Environmental Psychology 22: 46-63.
Thomashow, C. 2002. Adolescents and ecological integrity. pp. 259-278 In P. Kahn and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Ulrich, R. S. 1979. Visual landscapes and psychological well being. Landscape Research 4: 17-23.
Ulrich, R. S. 1981. Natural versus urban scenes: Some psycho–physiological effects. Environment and Behavior 13: 523-556.
Ulrich, R. S. 1986. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning 13: 29-44.
81

Ulrich, R. S. 1993. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. pp. 73-137 In S. R. Kellertand E. O. Wilson. The biophiliahypothesis. Island Press/SherwaterBooks: Washington, D. C.
Ulrich, R. S. and Simons. 1986. Recovery from stress during exposure to everyday outdoor environments. pp. 115- 122 In J. W. Winemanand C. Zimring(eds.). Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, April, 1986. EDRA: Washington, DC.
Ulrich, R. S., R. Simons, B. D. Losito, E. Fiorito, M. A. Miles, and M. Zelson. 1991a. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 11: 201-230.
Ulrich, R. S., U. Dimbeg, and B. L. Driver. 1991b. Psychophysiologicalindicators of leisure benefits. pp. 73-89 In B. L. Driver, P. J. Brown, and G. L. Peterson (eds.). Benefits of Leisure. Venture Publishing: State College, PA.
Veitch, J., S. Bagley, K. Ball, and J. Solomon. 2006. Where do children usually play? A qualitative study of parents’ perceptions of influences on children’s active free play. Health and Place 12: 383-393.
Wells, N. M. 2000. At home with nature: Effects of greenness on children’s cognitive functioning. Environment and Behavior 32: 775-795.
Wells, N. M. and G. Evans. 2003. Nearby nature: A buffer of life stress among rural children. Environment and Behavior 35: 311-330.
Whittaker, R. H. 1970. Communities and ecosystems. Macmillan: New York.
82

Wilcov, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48: 607-615.
Williams, G. C. and R. M. Nesse. 1991. The dawn of Darwinian medicine. Quarterly Review of Biology 66: 1-21.
Wilson, E. O. 1984. Biophilia. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Wilson, E. O. 1992. The diversity of life. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Wilson, E. O. 1993. Biophiliaand the conservation ethic. pp. 31-41 In S. R. Kellertand E. O. Wilson (eds.). The biophiliahypothesis. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
83

The Educational Values of Trees and Forests

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to The Educational Values of Trees and Forests

Similar to The Educational Values of Trees and Forests (20)

More from School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens

More from School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Educational Values of Trees and Forests