When Nature Nurtures Children: Nature as a Containing and Holding Space

This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 30 March 2015, At: 11:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Children's GeographiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cchg20

When nature nurtures children: natureas a containing and holding spaceShawn Renee Hordyka, Marion Duludeb & Mary Shema

a Social Work, McGill University, 3506 University St, Montreal,Quebec, Canada H3 V 1C2b Environmental Sciences, Université du Québec à Montréal,Montréal, Québec, Canada H2X 3Y7Published online: 06 Jun 2014.

To cite this article: Shawn Renee Hordyk, Marion Dulude & Mary Shem (2014): When naturenurtures children: nature as a containing and holding space, Children's Geographies, DOI:10.1080/14733285.2014.923814

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2014.923814

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

When nature nurtures children: nature as a containing and holding space

Shawn Renee Hordyka*, Marion Duludeb and Mary Shema

aSocial Work, McGill University, 3506 University St, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3 V 1C2; bEnvironmentalSciences, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada H2X 3Y7

(Received 20 August 2013; final version received 9 May 2014)

Contemporary theories of childhood recognize children as experts in their own lives,individuals whose perspectives are worthy of study. Immigrant and refugee children ridingwaves of historical, geographical, political, cultural and familial changes are likewiserecognized as ‘socially competent actors’, anchored in part by their capacity to expresspersonal interests and to form opinions. In a Montreal-based 2012 phenomenological study,19 of these socially competent actors representing 5 continents were invited to share theirperspectives concerning the role of the natural world in their socio-cultural adaptationprocess. Data provided information concerning children’s lived experiences of nature.Research findings provided strong evidence that children entered into relationship withnature. Within this relationship, nature nurtured children by providing a space not unlikethat of Winnicott’s ‘holding’ or Bion’s ‘containment’.

Keywords: nature; children; adaptation; Winnicott’s holding; Bion’s containment

Introduction

Upon their arrival in a host country, immigrant and refugee children are confronted with a ratherintimidating ‘to do’ list. They must negotiate a new set of languages, foods, social spaces, phys-ical geographies and education systems while simultaneously adjusting to new family and/orcommunity constellations. They also face the more abstract challenge of adjusting to a host coun-try’s norms and expectations concerning childhood (Ensor and Gozdiak 2010). Children encoun-tering such adversities who have already internalized a secure attachment relationship with areliable caregiver and who possess adequate intelligence and malleability to respond to environ-mental demands are well positioned to develop resilience capacities (Masten 2001). This resili-ence potential is further enhanced when immigrant children maintain a sense of connectionwith the cultural-historical values, relationships and traditions originating in their homecountry (Suárez-Orozco 2000). Successful immigrant adaptation can be measured by children’semotional well-being and their inclusion in healthy social networks (Beiser et al. 2011). Rela-tional attachments that nurture children’s developing identities encourage children to make adap-tive choices in which the negotiation of a new culture can proceed fairly harmoniously.

In the context of Montreal, efforts to promote children’s adaptation are largely based inschool, religious communities and community centres. Within these local contexts, a smallnumber of resettlement initiatives have included nature-based activities in their offerings to

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Children’s Geographies, 2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2014.923814

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

children and families. This 2012 study explored one such community initiative working to bridgeparents, children and teachers in immigrant welcome classes. Results indicated that the naturalenvironment was a factor in the adaptation process of Montreal immigrant children. Specifically,the natural world functioned as a source of relational attachment. Nature nurtured children in theirpsychological, socio-cultural and physical adaptation processes. Nature functioned as a place ofholding (Winnicott 1965) in which children were invited to become engaged with all five sensesand to ‘let go’. In addition, nature served as a container (Bion 1963) for unintegrated agitation andanger. Children could express difficult emotions in the context of nature and have some distancefrom these feelings until they could once again reintegrate them and move more deeply intorelationship with self and others. Child participants released themselves physically and emotion-ally to the hold of the natural world. As a result: (1) children became more relaxed in their ownbodies; (2) mutual experiences of exploration and discovery led to a sharing of competencieswhich bypassed linguistic and cultural barriers; (3) spontaneous physical interactions allowedfor rapidly formed friendships and (4) conflict resolution was physically integrated, not onlyintellectualized.

Holding and containment in parent–child attachment

Developmental theorists agree that infants and children need the secure base of reliable and lovingcare to survive and to thrive (Bowlby 1988). Western models of child development understand theprimary caregiver(s) to be the infant’s first ‘environment’, a belief that anthropologists have foundto be shared across cultures (Fontanel and d’Harcourt 1998). Winnicott (1967) used the term‘holding’ to describe a specific phase in an infant’s development in which the primary caregiverphysically holds the infant for extended periods of time. The receptivity, empathy and love of thecaregiver promote growth and foster attachment. Winnicott also described this holding as aprocess that evolves; the older the child, the wider the holding environment becomes as othersin the family and community also become engaged with the child.

With ‘good enough’ emotional and physical holding, periodic caregiver failures can beabsorbed with little difficulty (Winnicott 1965). The young child begins to feel separateness, tohave a personal existence, and thereby experiences a ‘continuity of being’ (Winnicott 1960), inwhich the self is experienced as an agentic being with individual strengths and capacities. Inthe absence of a secure good enough hold, the young child is over-exposed to stressors and‘impingements’ (Winnicott 1960) coming from the caregiver or wider environment, and conse-quently experiences overwhelming states of alienation and anxiety. In the absence of this security,trust in others and confidence in self is compromised. The young child’s experience of selfbecomes fragmented by reactive and distressing emotions. The child is thus unable to form acoherent and continuous self-identity.

The initial, extended periods of physical holding eventually recede. If the caregiver remainsemotionally present with the child in the time of physical absence, the child becomes increasinglyable to tolerate physical separations without being overwhelmed by feelings of distress. To bridgethese gaps of physical contact, the child draws on the transitional object (Winnicott 1953). Chil-dren attach to a physical object that is reminiscent of the caregiver, bridging the gap until theireventual return.

Where Winnicott emphasized the importance of the caregiver’s hold of the child, Bion (1963)emphasized the caregiver’s containment in child development. The metaphor of ‘container’ sig-nifies the caregiver’s role in containing the emotions of children that are often perceived as nega-tive such as frustration, anger, fear or sadness. Unable to express these emotions verbally, thechild communicates them through cries and/or acting out behaviours. The caregiver then actsas recipient for the overwhelming and disowned ‘bad feelings’ that the child finds intolerable

2 S.R. Hordyk et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

(Bion 1963, 90). The caregiver receives these feelings, often in an unconscious process of com-munication, responding to them with caring words and gestures rather than reacting with hostility.By way of this process, these feelings so difficult to tolerate become ‘modified’ by the primarycaregiver (Bion 1963, 90). The child gradually becomes capable of differentiating one feelingfrom another (e.g. fear from anger) and learns that these feelings are manageable. The child isconsequently able to accept these feelings within him/herself.

As psychoanalysts, Winnicott and Bion believed that children and adults continue to seekholding and containment from caregivers or caregiver substitutes throughout their lives. This isespecially true for individuals who did not adequately receive this as infants and young children.Results of this study suggest that the natural world at times functions as one of these caregiversubstitutes.

Nature and child development

Children’s physical–biological environments are essential to their developmental process (HealthCouncil of the Netherlands 2004; Heerwagen and Orians 2002), specifically their value in provid-ing stimuli and motivation for growth (Kellert 2002). Researchers are identifying a relationalspace between children and nature. Children have an ‘affinity towards nature’ (Kals, Schumacher,and Montada 1999), a ‘nature connection’ (Cheng and Monroe 2012; Hinds and Sparks 2008).Taguchi (2011) has described the encounter between children and their natural environment as‘inter-relations that emerge in-between’ children and nature (38), a reciprocal relationshipwhere each is altered in some way. Rautio (2013) challenges notions of a hierarchical interactionor a causative relationship in which the child is the sole initiator, suggesting that both nature andchild are active in the engagement.

The natural world has been demonstrated to act as a buffer for children against life’s stressors(Caspi et al. 2000; Wells and Evans 2003) and to aid in the development of resilience capacities(Corraliza, Collado, and Bethelmy 2011; Ungar and Liebenberg 2008). Forest schools in whichchildren take their studies into the outdoors have been found to improve confidence, social skills,language and communication, motivation, concentration, physical skills, leadership skills and toincrease confidence in interactions with the natural world (O’Brien and Murray 2007; Ridgers,Knowles, and Sayers 2012). In addition, environmental competencies are enhanced throughoutdoor play and learning experiences (Bixler, Floyd, and Hammitt 2002). Youth themselveshave offered hypotheses concerning nature’s potential positive impacts, stating that sharedoutdoor activities facilitate relationship building as social hierarchies are more fluid. They alsodescribe fewer noise distractions impinging on their learning in a forest setting (Mygind 2009).Researchers have added to this, suggesting that ‘intuitive and embodied’ experiences in naturethat reduce children’s anxiety and allow for creative and expansive free play (Skår and Krogh2009, 351). Furthermore, children become increasingly rooted in their own sense of identity,which has been strengthened and further defined by the nature encounter (Clayton 2003).

Though several explanatory theories have emerged to explain the impact of nature on humanhealth and well-being, three are referred to most prominently in the literature. Stress RecoveryTheory posits that throughout the millennia, humans have developed an automatic, calming,parasympathetic relaxation response to non-threatening natural environments (Ulrich et al.1991, 207–208). Attention Restoration Theory maintains that the mind returns to a state of cog-nitive restoration when exposed to or immersed in nature (Kaplan 1995). Biophilia suggests thathumans have a natural affiliation towards nature with an ‘innate tendency to focus on life andlifelike process’ (Wilson 1984, 1). Biophilia has received significant attention by researchersand theorists seeking to define the impact of nature on child development (Kahn and Kellert2002) as it recognizes the ‘innate’ and ‘intuitive’ movements between children and nature.

Children’s Geographies 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

This study sought to further elucidate the phenomenological encounter between children andnature. Nature itself has come under scrutiny in childhood studies as scholars are challenging thedualistic notions of nature/biology and social/cultural that have dominated discourse concerningchildren development. Taylor (2011) advocates for an ontological understanding of children andnature in which neither is perceived as mutually exclusive categories. She urges a focus on the‘rich tapestries of children’s real lives’ (431), lives that include both the human and non-human. Cobb offered that children and nature are continuities. Children have a ‘necessaryrelationship to the natural world – the satisfaction of a cosmic sense’ (Mead 1977, 20). Theirability to access this emerges from a profound, perceptual continuity with nature (Cobb 1959,544), a continuity that Cobb attributed to the shared origins between human and non-humanforms of life. Abram (1996) emphasized a ‘perceptual reciprocity’ with nature. Dependent onsensory experience, this reciprocity becomes inhibited by reductionist written representationsof nature where nature is perceived as inert or passive, thus denying its capacity to ‘activelyengage us’ (56). To remain consistent with the drawings and definitions of nature provided bychildren in this study, I define physical nature to include all material components of thecosmos (Simmons 2008). This includes not only flora and fauna, but also geographical features,aromas, sounds and tastes, that which is felt (Kelley, Pendras, and Minnella 2012) and not onlythat which is seen. Ontological definitions of nature have not been pre-defined, however, as anobjective of this study was to discover the meaning that children assigned to nature.

Research design

This phenomenological study followed 18 Montreal immigrant children from 5 continentsenrolled in week-long outdoor summer camps. Children were recruited to the camps throughschool aides located in Montreal’s immigrant ‘welcome classes’ and via public announcements.Five weeks of research took place in a community garden camp set on the property of a downtownuniversity campus. Gardens grew on small portions of land and within containers. The gardenswere located in a courtyard between five campus buildings totalling about one square acre inspace. The sixth week of camp research took place with children registered in an urban parksummer camp. This 500-acre park was situated on a hill overlooking the city and includedforests, a pond, a marsh, well-groomed walkways and large grassy areas.

Fourteen participants had been born outside of Canada. Four participants had been born inCanada but had spent a significant portion of their lives in their parent’s country of origin withtwo about to return permanently. These transnational children spontaneously referred to thiscountry, not Canada, as mon pays, my country. Data collection consisted of gathering children’sdrawings and photos, informal conversations, semi-structured interviews and of field notes madeby the researcher and camp facilitators. Drawings were solicited in the garden camp when partici-pants made container gardens, making a picture of nature on the corrugated insert as well as theoutside of the pail. Informal conversations took place while walking, waiting, planting, drawingand exploring. Children were offered digital cameras to share during the botanical garden hikeand invited to take pictures of whatever they wished. On Friday, once a relationship hadalready been established, children were invited to participate in semi-structured interviewseither alone or with peers. Data collection in the urban park camp consisted of the same exercises,though woven into this camp’s routine and activities.

A thematic analysis using Atlas ti software was used to code drawings, photos and transcriptsof observations, field notes and semi-structured interviews. The child citations in this article havebeen translated from the original French. Consistent with camp practices in which children wereassigned nature names, nature-based pseudonyms have been used to represent the children in thisarticle.

4 S.R. Hordyk et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

Findings

Most children in this study perceived the natural world as an active, intentional and nurturingpresence in their lives. By examining children’s phenomenological experience through the lensof attachment theory, we will deepen our understanding of the impact of nature on human devel-opment, health and well-being. The findings are outlined in the following three sections: chil-dren’s relational approach to nature; nature as holding and nature as containing.

Children’s relational approaches to nature

When given the opportunity to explore and invited to engage with each of their five senses, itbecame clear that the natural world was a relational presence for this group of immigrant children,reflective of nature affinity (Kals, Schumacher, and Montada 1999) and nature connection (Chengand Monroe 2012; Hinds and Sparks 2008) in spite of difficult moments. This was evidenced indrawings, photos, interviews and observations. Children had conversations with nature, spoke ofnature as friend, felt ambivalent about different aspects of nature, received emotional and physicalnourishment from nature and responded to nature’s presence with caring gestures.

Conversations and friendships

Children participating in this study spoke to plants and animals and many offered spontaneousexpressions of care and relationship. One such example came from Bluebird, a child whooffered that she was not afraid of stating that she ‘had been born in nature’ in her homecountry, an allusion to the ‘perceptual continuity’ spoken of by Cobb (1959). In Montreal, shelived in a one-bedroom apartment with her mother. Throughout the week of park camp, shecould be seen spontaneously offering hugs to trees, each trunk that she chose just fitting the cir-cumference of her arms.

According to her mother, Bluebird had experienced significant loss in moving to Canada,leaving behind her father as well as her grandparents, the latter who had been primary caregivers.Her feelings of loss were expressed in the context of a spontaneous conversation concerning theloss of a pet fish that Bluebird described as having been a friend. She had been able to speak to itwhen she had problems and shared that she felt deep sadness when it died. She noted that onecould speak to nature in all languages. Rabbit was also vocal in her expressions of relatednessto nature. She was overheard reassuring a tree, ‘I still love you’ then added, ‘the poor trees areold’. When asked if the trees responded to her she replied that yes, ‘they love me too’, indicativeof a perceptual reciprocity (Abram 1996) and interrelationship (Rautio 2013; Taguchi 2011) withnature.

This reciprocal relationship was also noted in the discourse of eight-year-old Wolf. Havinglived in several countries and preparing for another move, she explained that she found friendshipin nature. She had difficulty making friends at school. Wolf expressed boredom with trees andflowers stating that she much preferred birds, insects and other animals, for one could touchthem. ‘With animals, once they get used to me, I can become their friends.’ All animals? ‘Yes.’When asked if she thought that nature spoke to us she responded, ‘Yes, you can imagine in yourhead that you are in the sky and nature speaks, the wind blows and the grass speaks.’

Ambivalence

For some children, a relational response to nature included ambivalent reactions. Nature was not autopian ideal waiting to be experienced by children (Taylor 2011). Some children had come from

Children’s Geographies 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

countries in which human and animal predators made walks in a forest dangerous past-times.Others had never touched slimy, dirty or prickly plants and animals and did not enjoy theirfirst contact. Interestingly however, children persisted in negotiating their discomfort and distress.

On his first day of camp, Heron had made it clear that he preferred a sports camp to the gardencamp. He was by no means alone among children. Many had expressed initial reservations withthe garden camp. However, the post-rain abundance of snails on our forest hike conqueredHeron’s reservations. Though initially he would not touch them, with a little mentoring fromhis peers, he placed the snails on his palm and tolerated their slimy excretions. His wide smiledemonstrated his joy of seeing them exit their shells and crawl on his hands. He scouredleaves and trunks for more. Later, when it was time to shift activities, he carefully returnedthem to their leaves, making soft kissing sounds as he laid them down. From this moment on,his interest in the garden camp centred on his discovery of creeping and crawling creatures.

Initial ambivalence was also expressed by 10-year-old Lemon Balm who stated that she dis-liked sitting on the ground and scrunched her face at the sensation of dirt and mud. Within acouple of days, however, she too was plopping herself on the grass without hesitation and wasseen slowly letting the dirt slide through her fingers as she added handfuls of soil into hergarden. On one group walk, she proudly demonstrated a tiny toad that she had managed tocatch after spotting it in the grass below and managed to catch.

Caring responses to nature

Norton-Smith (2010) writes of cultures in which children’s maturity was measured, not by thecapacity for rational thought, but by demonstrations of moral and social respect and equalityfor all life forms. This moral and respectful response to nature was evident in child participantsas they responded to nature with words and gestures of care. Dragonfly and her mother lived in aone-bedroom apartment overlooking a six-lane freeway passing through the city. She had a neigh-bour who had introduced her to the nature off of their back balcony. When asked if she had naturenear her home, she spoke of woodpeckers, chickadees and finches. She also expressed her desireto protect trees damaged by what she deemed to be two major threats: graffiti artists andwoodpeckers.

Participants also demonstrated spontaneous and concrete gestures in caring for nature such aswhen three boys united together to create a garden-made concoction to remove a harmful insectfrom fruit trees. Other gestures included waiting for approaching ducks with seed in hand(Figure 1); the creation of a home, motel and restaurant for snails created out of leaves andtree bark; acorns left at the base of a tree as squirrel feed; and homes of grass, flowers, feathersand dirt constructed in plastic insect containers. Their occupants included moths, butterflies, bees,wasps, worms and other small forms of life. Finch, who normally had difficulty sitting quietly forany length of time, spent 25 minutes with Shooting Star at the ponds as they each tried to coax aninjured duck towards the food in their hands.

One morning a warbler was found under a window ledge, completely immobile. The groupresponded by creating a grass nest into which the dazed creature was carefully placed. Aftermany well wishes, the group dispersed to give the bird space. Upon their return, the nest wasempty.

Camp facilitators also inspired caring gestures towards nature. Children in the park camp dis-couraged the public from feeding an already overabundant squirrel and raccoon populationthrough a cease and desist song taught by their educators. Seed bombs created in the gardencamp (a flower and vegetable seed mix encased in soil and clay) were thrown into urban areaswhere little vegetation existed. Another popular activity, hand-feeding birds, required the mostactive children to sit still for a minimum of 15 minutes. They spread out along a trail or pond

6 S.R. Hordyk et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

edge, hand extended, waiting for birds to approach them. Surprisingly, given the focus that thisrequired, all children but Cicada were able to engage in this activity. At least half were rewardedby the birds for their efforts.

Protective stances were manifested in children’s reprimands to each other as they attempted toprotect plants from being stepped on or butterflies and frogs improperly handled. One argumentbetween six kids about whether they should toy with a caterpillar that had fallen to the ground orrestore it to its perch on a tree trunk was evenly divided along gender lines. Girls wanted to protectit, worried that it would be harmed if handled; boys sought to play with it. This was the onlyexample where a gender division concerning animal care was observed.

Some, in observing children’s affective and caring responses to nature, speak of an ‘environ-mental identity’, an identity that manifests through the conservation and preservation of nature(Asah, Bengston, and Westphal 2012; Kals and Ittner 2003). Others interpret this response as amanifestation of children’s evolutionary affiliation to nature, or ‘biophilia’ (Kahn 1997). Stillothers attribute this interaction to anthropomorphic tendencies in children (Byrne, Grace, andHanley 2009).

However, when we explore the nuances of these child–nature interactions or child–child inter-actions in the context of nature, it becomes clear that children’s response to nature can also beunderstood from the perspective of child development as related to attachment needs. Childrenresponded to nature as a holding presence in which they visibly relaxed and playfully let go. Chil-dren also responded to nature as a containing presence in the face of overwhelming and difficultemotions.

Nature holding

Nature holding: a welcoming presence

One means through which to understand the meaning that children attribute to their environmentsis to attune to sensory-embodied experiences and the accompanying emotions (Bartos 2013).Within the context of this study, children appeared to relax emotionally and physically in bothsocial and solitary activities in nature with nature appearing to serve as a buffer (Caspi et al.

Figure 1. Feeding the ducks.

Children’s Geographies 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

2000; Wells and Evans 2003) against stress. At a social level, children shared challenges and dis-coveries. Expansive play (Skår and Krogh 2009), the spontaneous moments of laughter, delight,satisfaction and physical proximity helped children to overcome initial guardedness. When insolitude, children’s postures and expressions also relaxed. Children sprawled themselves on theground spending lengthy periods of time observing minute insects. They quieted themselves inresponse to slight movements in the weeds or branches. They took time planting their gardens,enjoying the sensation of soft, moist dirt. In the context of this physiological encounter withthe natural world, muscles relaxed, breath deepened and restless movements stilled.

Fox, Dragonfly and Wolf had immediately recognized each other upon their arrival at camp,having been in the same school three years prior. Another common factor between them: each ofthese girls had spent a significant portion of their lives in other countries. Within moments, the joyof mutual recognition gave way to conflict and competition. Spats over who got to hold the mag-nifying glass, the insect container and the wheelbarrow reigned. Each would withdraw into herrespective corner, one eye focused on the others. This conflict appeared to be overriding theirability to fully participate at camp.

Sensory immersion in nature appeared be the agent of transformation on the fourth day whenFox, Wolf and Dragonfly quietly spread out on a forest trail, sitting, seed in hand, waiting to attracthungry birds. Their bodies had become still, voices silent and senses acutely aware as eachattempted to detect the movement of birds around them. This silence lasted about 20 minutesand when free play resumed, the three girls entered into co-operative play for the first time thatweek. Perhaps reflecting on the sensory ‘hold’ they had just experienced, they co-created anoutdoor, shared imaginary home. An hour later, they exited the gardens singing, dancing andtalking together, likely symbolizing of the ‘perception of welcome’ (Beiser et al. 2011) theyhad just experienced in nature and now offered to each other. This transformation extendedinto the following day when Fox arrived, visibly relaxed, singing to herself while drawing inthe midst of the group of children, no longer distant from them. Wolf spent the day running tocatch insects and laughed without reservation, a contrast to her previous reserved stance. Dragon-fly also appeared reflective and calm, humming to herself as she drew. She later invited Fox tomake an insect home with her.

Behavioural changes attributed to nature were markedly present in nine-year-old Blue Jay, achild registered for two weeks of camp. Having lived for three years in Quebec, she had a fluentcommand of French and English, yet her voice was barely audible. She wore a pink baseball captucked low over eyes already protected from view by long strands of hair. Her comfort zone wason the group’s fringe, observing the others. One day, an unexpected heavy rain interrupted theafternoon’s activities. Rather than going indoors, the camp leader challenged kids to a rain-soaked combination of tag woven into hide and seek, an invitation to which Blue Jay responded,first with a question as to whether she had heard this correctly, then a wide smile. Once in the rain,the reserved look on her face was replaced by a look of delight. She released herself to the rainrunning in its downpour and hiding under large squash leaves with a joy that had not been presentin the earlier games.

The following day, she arrived with hat once again tucked over eyes, hair covering her face.This time a walk in the woods served as a catalyst for transformation. She had an eye for seeingsmall forms of nature that others did not detect. Over the course of the afternoon, her voiceassumed volume and clarity as she shared her findings and hypotheses with peers and camp facil-itators. Soon, she voluntarily joined in-group play (Figure 2). During the next two weeks, she pro-gressively inhabited her own body and voice, gradually sharing her own competencies andofferings. Rather than shrinking away, she began to stand up for her rights in social conflict.She brought an insect net to share with the others and participated in the hunt. Camp closedon Friday with a joint parent–child circle discussion concerning what children had experienced.

8 S.R. Hordyk et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

Blue Jay was the only child without a caregiver present. Unlike the previous week where absenceof parents in the closing ceremony had caused her to remain silent and to physically back away,she now spoke before her peers and their parents clearly and without hesitation.

Clearly, the camp had provided opportunity for Blue Jay to realize her own personal and socialcapital (Beiser et al. 2011) as she shared prior knowledge and established her own expertiseamong peers. Thus, through the development of a ‘nature identity’ (Clayton 2003) Blue Jayhad begun to realize herself and had also become part of the group. Rather than remaining inan anxious reactive state, Blue Jay was free to express who she was.

Nature holding: a constant and shared sensory presence

Relationships in both the garden and park camp formed around mutual ‘ah ha!’ moments wherethe excitement of the discovery either diminished or eliminated social and linguistic barriers thathad existed moments prior. A walking-stick on the arm of a camp counsellor, a hunt for animaltracks in the mud, a turtle disguised in the reeds, a tiny toad camouflaged by grass, ripeberries, the taste of a mint leaf, a nasturtium flower or fresh honey; shared moments of pleasureand displeasure often ended with a newly formed duo or trio wandering off together.

Shooting Star arrived to her first day of camp with a sullen if not hostile look on her face,choosing to remain on the fringe of the group. Social insecurities were written all over herbody. During the opening activities, it became apparent that she had not developed some ofthe basic social skills necessary in relationship-building. She alternated between withdrawaland over-excitation, at times hitting kids when she liked them. Nature intervened during agroup scavenger hunt when Shooting Star stumbled upon an admiral butterfly bathing in thesun. As she jumped up and down, hands flailing in the air, she yelled for the others to join her,simultaneously commanding them to not get too close and scare it away. Surprisingly theothers listened. They formed a semi-circle, leaving space for her and the butterfly. When ShootingStar realized that she had thereby given herself sole responsibility to respond, she momentarilybecame anxious. Her words and gestures were an excited and nervous ‘What do I do?’

As the butterfly paused in the sun, Shooting Star took the plastic potting container that she hadin her hand, approached ever so carefully, turned it upside down and trapped the butterfly inside.Without a word, the three observers swiftly and quietly moved in. One pulled out a piece of paperto slide under the container. Another lifted the whole package, keeping paper against container.The third opened the insect container so that it could be placed inside. Energies then explodedas the team ran to share this find with other kids. Shooting Star was part of the group. Her physical

Figure 2. Group climbing fallen tree.

Children’s Geographies 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

gestures became less extreme over time. Much to her credit, she responded to direct and indirectsocialization cues offered by her peers during shared gardening activities and by the end of theweek, her hitting had stopped. In this example, a butterfly appeared with impeccable timing,appearing unfazed by the agitated movements of a child. Is this butterfly what Plumwood(2002) would refer to as ‘potentially agentic?’ To what degree might the butterfly have beenactive in this encounter? Children’s views on questions such as this varied.

Not only did nature provided a hold for Shooting Star, but shared sensory-based discoveriesprovided an avenue for peers to accept, model and integrate Shooting Star into a peer group.Nature contact developed the social and communication skills needed for her to adapt in hersocial environment, an experience consistent with studies conducted in forest school contexts(O’Brien and Murray 2007; Ridgers, Knowles, and Sayers 2012). Her mother later stated thatthis acceptance by peers was a rare experience for her.

Nature physically holding

Nature served as a symbolic place of physical holding for Fox. At nine years of age, she had spentmost of her life in Canada and was two weeks away from moving back to North Africa where herfather resided. Her brother, seven-year-old Cicada, would accompany her. Her mother wouldremain in Canada. Fox wanted to be sure, ‘double sure’ she said, that I wrote down ‘ROOTS’when I asked her what she thought nature was, perhaps a reflection of what she was looking for.

Her nature drawing included a keyhole. She described that when peered through, it revealedthat which is far from us, an indicator that the future and/or distant places were on Fox’s mind.While her brother manifested high levels of distress through aggressive and provocative beha-viours throughout the week of camp, Fox could frequently be seen alone, drawing pictures offlowers and leaves. To Fox, the relational and physical care of nature was inseparable, much asin the case of any caregiving relationship:

I adore nature;’ nature’1 is beautiful in my eyes. ‘Nature’ gives us food to eat. ‘Nature’ is easy toget along with. When we hear the leaves move in the air, the birds that sing, the bumblebees thatgo ‘buzzzzz’ (voice drifting into silence)… . I adore nature because tomatoes, they give me food ifI am hungry. I want to eat them all…When I move, the wind will help me. Nature will give mefood to eat… I don’t like (winter) because we can’t eat things in nature… I like nature because‘nature’ is easy to get along with. ‘Nature’ does good things. I dream of having a garden close tomy home.

Fox described her desire to fill her home garden with varieties of fruits and vegetables andemphasized that the demands of school do not give her enough time to be outdoors. She statedthat she would prefer to be in nature, to speak of her sad feelings to nature and to eat whatnature had to give her.

Specific sensory experiences in nature also served as a ‘transitional object’, a term Winnicott(1953) has coined to describe children’s use of objects to maintain attachments to caregivers in theface of their absence. Aspects of the natural environment appeared to function as transitionalobjects that maintained connectedness between children and the absent caregiver or country oforigin, linking participants to places and people they hoped or expected to see again. Medicinalplants inspired Yarrow to speak at length about her grandmother. The smell of the dirt after a rainanimated Cardinal to speak of rains in West Africa. Bees and honey brought Stevia to speak of hismemory of wild hives in Chile. The song of cicadas brought Swan and Gopher to speak of thissame sound in their home country. As already noted in adult immigrant populations (Rishbeth andFinney 2006; Twiss et al. 2003), this study found that children too draw on nature to bridge gapsbetween home and host country.

10 S.R. Hordyk et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

Finally, the physical hold of nature was present when children wandered. As childrenobserved a spider weave a web, a turtle sunbathe on a log or a marmot take a stroll, theyentered states of relaxed and heightened attunement. Even large groups consistently shiftedfrom noisy activity to almost absolute silence when observing an animal that they did not wantto see flee from them. Each week, children in the garden camp were invited to spread outalong a trail and engage in a bird feeding activity. As they sat silently awaiting birds to approachthe seeds in their extended hand, their body movements slowed and conversation ceased. Someobserved the insects on the ground. After a period of time, some ever so carefully approached thebirds, food in hand. This activity which one might imagine would be boring for the participantswas often referred to as one of the day’s highlights, suggesting that children enjoyed this experi-ence of relaxing into the sensory experience of nature’s hold.

These illustrations of nature’s hold depended on children’s experience of nature as a non-threatening presence. Children’s experience of nature’s containing capacities, however, includednature in benign, active and as well as threatening forms.

Nature containing

Nature as container for conflict

Bion’s (1963) description of containment, the process in which unpleasant feelings such asaggression are contained by the caregiver and thus made tolerable for the child, was evidencedthrough children’s contact with nature. The role of the garden camp facilitators was instrumentalhere. Facilitators provided a routine which included a set sharing circle time at the beginning andend of each day. As children spoke of their memories of the day in the sharing circle, a moreabstract emotional space was created to contain the day’s experiences before children partedways. Facilitators also provided containment through consistent limits and boundaries in responseto children’s acting out behaviours. What made the nature camps unique as a container for chil-dren’s emotion as opposed to an indoor setting was that the natural world became a non-reactivephysical recipient for children’s emotion. This was evident when they aggressively threw sticksand angrily kicked stones into the woods. The fact that these emotions diminished suggests thatchildren experienced nature as containing the emotions in some way. These moments contrastedthe rare instances when a child destroyed plants in anger. Neither body language nor emotionaland verbal expression indicated that acts of destruction to nature served to contain difficultemotion.

In the following example, the natural world served to reflect children’s agitation to them, thenacted as a literal recipient of vulnerable feelings underlying fear and aggression. Thus, nature wasan active component in conflict resolution.

On a particularly hot and humid July day, three 8–9-year-old boys fought. Hostile and com-petitive reactions gave way to angry outbursts and tears. Comments made to each other concern-ing differences in skin colour and physical size became a source of tension. Attempts on the partof facilitators to encourage dialogue or distract them from their disputes appeared fruitless. Finch,the youngest of these children, became easily overwhelmed by strong emotions of helplessness,anxiety and frustration. He was smaller than the others, though equally agile. Surprisingly it waswasp catching, a high adrenaline activity with manageable risks, that became a catalyst forchange. An outdoor dripping water tap attracted wasps collecting mud for their nests. Finchand his two companions would approach, and then with a quick flick of the lid contain thewasps in the insect catcher. Repeating this activity with his peers appeared to have the effectof reducing Finch’s outbursts. Hollering, jumping and running wildly in their quest, the boysclearly viewed the wasps as unpredictable and reactive, traits they did not appear to be aware

Children’s Geographies 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

of in themselves. These ‘bad’ wasps could be mastered. It appeared as though nature reflectedback their own state of being and their capturing of wasps metaphorically represented a containerfor disowned aggression.

The re-integration of these emotions was evident, not only in the fact that the conflictdecreased through the wasp catching, but also during sand play midweek. The group hadstopped in a small playground on the way back from a visit to the beehives to release somepent-up energy. Spontaneously the three boys, joined by another, congregated under the slide.Finch watched from above as they sat in a circle in the sand below using their hands to digtheir own hole. As they dug, the conversation topic drifted to stories of bullying that two ofthe immigrant boys had experienced while in school that past year. Each boy responded to theother with empathizing comments. As they each spoke of their own feelings of anger and help-lessness, they, without conscious agreement, began to create underground tunnels linking theirthree holes. While digging into the earth’s surface, they simultaneously dug deep beneath thesurface tensions that had been keeping them at odds all week and spoke of their own vulnerablemoments. Sand became a container for conflict resolution. On the way home, the trio that hadpreviously been in such conflict engaged in play in which they all covered their faces with thesame colour of dusty earth.

This vignette sheds new on the ‘hybrid identity’ of children (Prout 2005), recognizing them asboth biological and cultural beings. Nature was inherent to the biological and socio-cultural devel-opment of these boys. The texture and colour of the sand, the action of digging into the earth ofrubbing their faces, each made way for the boy’s emotional expression and dialogue. Abram(1996) wrote that the mind ‘is instilled and provoked by the sensorial field itself, induced bythe tensions and participations between the human body and the animate earth’ (262). Thepsychological world and verbal expression are inseparable from the perceptual terrain. Onemight consider whether nature itself is a biological and socio-cultural constructive entityserving to nurture children as biological and cultural beings.

Nature as container: symbolic identifications

Children symbolized aspects of themselves through nature drawings that they could not verballyexpress. Blue Jay had drawn cut tree trunks with hats and suitcases to portray her immigrationexperience. Shooting Star had portrayed her experience of vulnerability and aggressionthrough a scene in which two wolves eyed penned-in sheep from behind the cover of trees(Figure 3). Six-year-old Cicada was only able to access nature as symbol once he had physicallyexpressed his anger and suffering.

Cicada had arrived at camp shortly before he was to move the 6000 km away from his motherto live with his father. Though he could not speak of it, the impending separation was clearly over-whelming for him. He provoked others all week, stepping on plants and small animals, destroyingthe work of peers and interrupting group times of silence or stories. It was difficult to see howeither nature or the camp facilitators could receive and contain his heightened agitation andaggression as he attempted to sabotage almost every activity he was engaged in. Nonetheless,he did want to come to camp and there were periodic moments when he was quietly engagedin sensory activities or able to participate in the group.

On the second to the last day, the group engaged in the silent bird feeding activity. Cicadabecame highly agitated, seeking to disrupt this activity for all kids. The camp facilitator respondedas she had all week, inviting him into relationship and setting firm boundaries. The following andfinal day, Cicada was significantly calmer in his interactions and created a drawing of a large heartthat appeared almost balloon-like (Figure 4). Above this was a winged creature flying into thedistance. He was not able to speak of his drawing, although based on his calm demeanour and

12 S.R. Hordyk et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

Figure 3. Sheep and wolves.

Figure 4. Winged creature in flight.

Children’s Geographies 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

the content of the large heart and winged creature in his drawing, one could speculate that he mayhave identified with the winged creature and was becoming reconciled to the reality of his ownupcoming flight.

Discussion: why provide kids with more time in nature

Nature nurtures

Nature like humans can at times be experienced as unpleasant, anxiety provoking and evenaggressive. Winnicott’s (1960) concept of the ‘good enough hold’ in which caregiver holdsneed be reliable though not perfect may explain why these experiences do not destroy children’sdesire to be in nature. When children have enough access to nature’s sustaining capacities, theunpleasant experiences do not obliterate them. When the hold of nature is reliable in spite ofoccasional failures, its nurturing qualities are maintained and internalized.

The results of this study do not contradict theories of Biophilia (Wilson 1984), Attention Res-toration Theory (Kaplan 1995) or Stress Recovery Theory (Ulrich et al. 1991). Clearly, childrenhave an affiliation to nature and time spent in nature served to strengthen regulatory capacitiesneeded in stress reduction and cognitive functioning. However, these theories cannot fullyexplain the results of this study. Taguchi (2011) speaks of an ‘assemblage of forces and flows’(38) that occurs in the encounter between children and nature. Regardless of one’s worldview,children do access nature in nurturing ways. Considering the perspective of children in thisstudy, ‘Nature nurtures’ may be another theory to explore as we seek to conceptualize nature’simpact on health and well-being.

Two qualities are needed for children to be nurtured by nature: access to nature and personalreceptivity. Children need access to nature in order to enter into this interrelationship, access that,in urban settings is largely dependent on others such as primary caregivers, teachers and urbanplanners. Sensory and emotional receptivity on the part of children determine the degree towhich nature is able to nurture, a receptivity that Western educational, leisure and agriculturalpractices can potentially erode (Abram 1996; Posey 1999; Shiva 1994).

Embodied contact with nature serves to facilitate immigrant children’s adaptation

Time spent in nature enhanced children’s confidence, strengthened social bonds, provided a safecontext for the expression of difficult emotions and conflicts, allowed for transmission of knowl-edge across cultures and increased children’s awareness of their local environment. In addition,inhibitions were reduced as spontaneous moments of excitement, joy and play permeated eachday. This study more clearly defines how these processes occur. Children were taught to interpretthe language of birds and mimic the stealth of animals as they moved through the gardens andforests. In a safe and contained environment, they learned to rely on and to trust their own fivesenses in navigating the world. In response, they developed a confidence in their step and afreedom in their explorations. Over a period of hours, children appropriated the garden andforest space as natives, not newcomers suggestive of the development of ‘nature identities’(Clayton 2003) and the presence of a ‘cosmic sense’ (Mead 1977). They identified withaspects of the natural world. They claimed spaces as their private spaces. They became morethoughtful of when to be silent and when to let loose. They increasingly acted like they belongedand were part of this nature world.

The perceptual continuity (Cobb 1959) and the perceptual reciprocity (Abram 1996) that chil-dren experienced in nature reinforced aspects of healthy caregiver relationships and, at least tem-porarily, sustained children whose human attachments were tenuous. Nature settings also

14 S.R. Hordyk et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

facilitated a sense of belonging between children. Social relationships were rapidly formed aroundshared experiences of exploration, discovery, wonder and work, relationships all the more impor-tant due to the precarious social and attachment status of many immigrant children. Elements innature provided a safe container for emotions otherwise difficult to tolerate. Conflicts were phys-ically externalized in open spaces of the outdoors and through access to other life forms. Aggres-sion could be transformed into energy towards relationship building. Anxiety and agitation werephysiologically reduced through nature contact. Cooperation-centred camp games and songsreinforced these moments.

The fact that the research took place in the same urban environments in which the childrenlived allowed for observation of an unfolding sense of belonging in urban nature settings. Thisfinding is consistent with research indicating that emotional responses to both spatial andsocial aspects of local environments foster belonging in immigrant children (den Besten 2010).I would add that sensory aspects of the local environment are equally important as they restorethe ‘continuity of being’ spoken of byWinnicott (1960). Specifically, the children’s sense of them-selves as continuous, independent and competent appeared to have been interrupted at times.When familiar, sensory experiences of nature such as tastes, aromas, sights, sounds and touchlinked children’s past and present. These sensory experiences provide continuity when changeand transition threaten to disrupt identity development.

Children ask for more embodied contact with nature

The most obvious reason to offer children more nature contact is that they are requesting it. Naturecan restore otherwise depleted reserves of immigrant children. It takes an enormous amount offocused attention to learn a second or third language, to conform to new educational standards,and to negotiate an unfamiliar social and physical environment. When this exertion is excessiveor when problems cannot be solved, learning can become stress-filled. Immersive experiences innature offered the ‘soft fascination’ (Kaplan 1995, 172) experiences necessary for children’sminds to be rejuvenated and prepared to learn.

All children expressed the desire to return to the nature camps. Robin stated that he wished thecamp continued all year; Heron and Lemon Balm echoed this. Fox stated that she did not haveenough time during the school year to be in nature. Yarrow suggested that science classes beheld outdoors so they could learn through hands-on experiences, a reference to the developmentof environmental competencies (Bixler, Floyd, and Hammitt 2002). While educational systems inEurope provide children with such opportunities through ‘forest schools’ (O’Brien and Murray2007; Ridgers, Knowles, and Sayers 2012), Canadian schools are only in very early experimentalstages of such school design. The children in this study can go from apartment block to bus toschool to a paved playground and home again without having the contact with nature they sowanted. Without prompting, most children in this study noted the absence of the natural environ-ment in their daily lives. The tastes, aromas, sounds, sights and touch of nature’s hold was some-thing they felt to be lacking. Two children who had never left the island of Montreal to visit otherparts of Quebec or Canada were overheard speaking about how great it would be to stay in thecountryside.

Unlike traditional school settings where social and intellectual demarcation lines are easily bemaintained, the outdoor nature-based summer camps invited a fluid exchange among children intheir learning and discovery process. In this setting, confrontational messages from peers thatwould have otherwise been rejected as injurious or damaging could be integrated. This waslargely because they were preceded or followed by exchanges that included mutual discovery,physical proximity and shared effort.

Children’s Geographies 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

Conclusion

Are we taking the theories of Bion and Winnicott a step too far in suggesting that children experi-ence nature as caregiver? This research suggests no. Nature’s holding is especially significant forchildren whose attachment to caregivers is unsettled by migration-related stressors. As one childstated in reference to migration, ‘nature is always present’. Perhaps for some children, nature isthe only ‘always present’ aspect of their lives. Children turned to nature for companionship whenthey felt alienated from peers. Nature was a ‘friend’ with whom they could converse in anylanguage. Nature spaces also influenced the creation of friendships as children spontaneouslygathered around new discoveries in which any child could become expert.

In addition, the importance of nature as resource for conflict cannot be underestimated forimmigrant children experiencing the helplessness and frustration that often accompanies tran-sition. While language barriers and social limitations often prevent children from resolving con-flict through shared word symbols, the outdoor environment permits them to access shared naturesymbols in their process of conflict resolution. Elements in the natural world provide containmentfor otherwise overwhelming emotions until children are ready to reintegrate them.

Children in this study engaged with nature in a process that paralleled that of the earlyrelationship between child and caregiver. As they learned to recognize the aromas, sounds,touch of caregivers, children simultaneously learned to recognize the aroma of the sea, desertor a rain-soaked earth, the sounds of birds or insects or the touch of the ground beneath. Thesesensations and perceptions experienced affectively as infants and as children are ‘beings’ intheir intimate circle of relations. Though these ‘beings’ cannot replace the need for human care-givers, they can help children to survive and even thrive in times when the hold of caregivers maybe tenuous or absent. Where such adversity may not be evident, children may still choose to incor-porate nature into their relational repertoire. Children approach nature, not as an inanimate object,but as a dynamic relationship with whom they develop a direct attachment and within whose holdand containment they relate to self and others.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Kathleen Koepele, MSW, who read an early draft of this paper, providing valuableinsights concerning the theories of Winnocott and Bion. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewersof Children’s Geographies for their thoughtful and pertinent suggestions.

Notes1. This child used the French word ‘elle’ in her dialogue in reference to nature. As this word can be trans-

lated as ‘she’ or ‘it’ and as Fox did not specify which she intended, the word nature has been inserted insingle quotations marks so as to not misinterpret her intent.

ReferencesAbram, D. 1996. The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-than-human World.

New York: Pantheon Books.Asah, S. T., D. N. Bengston, and L. M. Westphal. 2012. “The Influence of Childhood Operational Pathways

to Adulthood Participation in Nature-Based Activities.” Environment and Behavior 44 (4): 545–569.Bartos, A. E. 2013. “Children Sensing Place.” Emotion, Space and Society 9: 89–98. doi: 10.1016/j.emospa.

2013.02.008Beiser, M., N. Zilber, L. Simich, R. Youngmann, A. H. Zohar, B. Taa, and F. Hou. 2011. “Regional Effects on

the Mental Health of Immigrant Children: Results from the New Canadian Children and Youth Study(NCCYS).” Health & Place 17 (3): 822–829.

den Besten, O. 2010. “Local Belonging and ‘Geographies of Emotions’: Immigrant Children’s Experience ofTheir Neighbourhoods in Paris and Berlin.” Childhood 17 (2): 181–195.

16 S.R. Hordyk et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

Bion, W. R. 1963. Learning from Experience. New York: Basic Books.Bixler, R. D., M. Floyd, and W. Hammitt. 2002. “Environmental Socialization Quantitative Tests of the

Childhood Play Hypothesis.” Environment and Behavior 34 (6): 795–818.Bowlby, J. 1988. A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. New York:

Basic Books.Byrne, J., M. Grace, and P. Hanley. 2009. “Children’s Anthropomorphic and Anthropocentric Ideas About

Micro-organisms: Educational Research.” Journal of Biological Education 44 (1): 37–43.Caspi, A., A. Taylor, T. E. Moffitt, and R. Plomin. 2000. “Neighborhood Deprivation Affects Children’s

Mental Health: Environmental Risks Identified in a Genetic Design.” Psychological Science 11 (4):338–342.

Cheng, J., and M. C. Monroe. 2012. “Connection to Nature Children’s Affective Attitude Toward Nature.”Environment and Behavior 44 (1): 31–49.

Clayton, S. D. 2003. “Environmental Identity: A Conceptual and an Operational Definition.” In Identity andthe Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature, edited by S. D. Clayton and S.Opotow, 45–66. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Cobb, E. 1959. “The Ecology of Imagination in Childhood.” Daedalus 88 (3): 537–548.Corraliza, J. A., S. Collado, and L. Bethelmy. 2011. “Effects of Nearby Nature on Urban Children’s Stress.”

http://fspu.uitm.edu.my/cebs/images/stories/aj3josecorralizaetal.pdfEnsor, M. O., and E. Gozdiak, eds. 2010. “Introduction: Migrant Children at the Cross Roads.” In Children

and Migration: At the Crossroads of Resiliency and Vulnerability, 1–14. Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.

Fontanel, B., and C. d’Harcourt. 1998. Babies Celebrated. New York: Harry A. Abrams.Health Council of the Netherlands. 2004. “Nature and Health: The Influence of Nature on Social,

Psychological and Physical Well-being.” www.forhealth.fi/pmwiki/docs/dutch-health-council-review.pdf

Heerwagen, J., and G. Orians. 2002. “The Ecological World of Children.” In Children and Nature:Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations, edited by P. H. Kahn and S. R.Kellert, 29–64, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hinds, J., and P. Sparks. 2008. “Engaging with the Natural Environment: The Role of Affective Connectionand Identity.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 28 (2): 109–120.

Kahn, P. H. 1997. “Developmental Psychology and the Biophilia Hypothesis: Children’s Affiliation withNature.” Developmental Review 17 (1): 1–61.

Kahn, P. H., and S. R. Kellert, eds. 2002. Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, andEvolutionary Investigations, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Kals, E., and H. Ittner. 2003. “Children’s Environmental Identity, Indicators and Behavioral Impacts.” InIdentity and the Natural Environment: The Psychological Significance of Nature, edited by S.Clayton and S. Opotow Susan, 135–158. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kals, E., D. Schumacher, and L. Montada. 1999. “Emotional Affinity Toward Nature as a Motivational Basisto Protect Nature.” Environment and Behavior 31 (2): 178–202.

Kaplan, S. 1995. “The Restorative Benefits of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework.” Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 15 (3): 169–182.

Kellert, S. 2002. “Experiencing Nature: Affective, Cognitive, and Evaluative Development in Children.” InChildren and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations, edited by P. H.Kahn and S. R. Kellert, 117–152. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kelley, M. J., M. Pendras, and H. Minnella. 2012. “Sketching Culture, Sketching Nature: UncoveringAnchors of Everyday Nature for Urban Youth.” Social & Cultural Geography 13 (8): 873–893.

Masten, A. S. 2001. “Ordinary Magic: Resilience Processes in Development.” American Psychologist 56 (3):227–238.

Mead, M. 1977. “Children, Culture, and Edith Cobb.” Paper presented at the Children, Nature, and the UrbanEnvironment: Proceedings of a Symposium-Fair, 18–24. http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=Children%2C+culture%2C+and+Edith+Cobb&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

Mygind, E. 2009. “A Comparison of Children’s Statements about Social Relations and Teaching in theClassroom and in the Outdoor Environment.” Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning 9(2): 151–169.

Norton-Smith, T. M. 2010. The Dance of Person and Place: One Interpretation of American IndianPhilosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

O’Brien, L., and R. Murray. 2007. “Forest School and Its Impacts on Young Children: Case Studies inBritain.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 6 (4): 249–265. doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2007.03.006

Children’s Geographies 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5

Plumwood, V. 2002. Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason. London: Routledge.Posey, D. A. 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. London: Intermediate Technology.Prout, A. 2005. The Future of Childhood. London: Routledge.Rautio, P. 2013. “Children Who Carry Stones in Their Pockets: On Autotelic Material Practices in Everyday

Life.” Children’s Geographies 11 (4): 394–408.Ridgers, N. D., Z. R. Knowles, and J. Sayers. 2012. “Encouraging Play in the Natural Environment: A Child-

Focused Case Study of Forest School.” Children’s Geographies 10 (1): 49–65.Rishbeth, C., and N. Finney. 2006. “Novelty and Nostalgia in Urban Green Space: Refugee Perspectives.”

Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 97 (3): 281–295.Shiva, V. 1994. Close to Home: Women Reconnect Ecology, Health and Development. London: Earthscan.Simmons, I. G. 2008. Global Environmental History: 10,000 BC to AD 2000. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.Skår, M., and E. Krogh. 2009. “Changes in Children’s Nature-Based Experiences Near Home: From

Spontaneous Play to Adult-controlled, Planned and Organised Activities.” Children’s Geographies 7(3): 339–354.

Suárez-Orozco, M. 2000. “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Assimilation But were Afraid toAsk.” Daedalus 129 (4): 1–30.

Taguchi, H. L. 2011. “Investigating Learning, Participation and Becoming in Early Childhood Practices witha Relational Materialist Approach.” Global Studies of Childhood 1 (1): 36–50.

Taylor, A. 2011. “Reconceptualizing the ‘Nature’ of Childhood.” Childhood 18 (4): 420–433.Twiss, J., J. Dickinson, S. Duma, T. Kleinman, H. Paulsen, and L. Rilveria. 2003. “Community Gardens:

Lessons Learned from California Healthy Cities and Communities.” American Journal of PublicHealth 93 (9): 1435–1438.

Ulrich, R. S., R. F. Simons, B. D. Losito, E. Fiorito, M. A. Miles, and M. Zelson. 1991. “Stress RecoveryDuring Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 11 (3):201–230.

Ungar, M., and L. Liebenberg. 2008. Resilience in Action: Working with Youth Across Cultures and Contexts.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Wells, N. M., and G. W. Evans. 2003. “Nearby Nature.” Environment and Behavior 35 (3): 311–330.Wilson, E. O. 1984. Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Winnicott, D. W. 1953. “Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena: A Study of the First Not-Me

Possession.” International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 34: 89–97.Winnicott, D. W. 1960. “The Theory of the Parent-infant Relationship.” International Journal of

Psychoanalysis 41 (6): 585–595.Winnicott, D. W. 1965. The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment: Studies in the Theory

of Emotional Development. New York: International Universities Press.Winnicott, D. W. 1967. Winnicott on the Child. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

18 S.R. Hordyk et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

14 3

0 M

arch

201

5