We compared the experience with nature of today’s children with data from the beginning of the 20th century to determine whether we can confirm a loss of experience and contribute to the description of changes in children’s relationship with nature. We used a questionnaire originally published in 1900 for this survey. Results from contemporary participants tested by ANOVA showed no difference in level of experience according to the age of the respondents. Comparing historical data with current data by a Z-test for proportions and Cohen’s h, we found a significant increase in contemporary children’s summary experiences. Although children of the 21st century have less experience with traditional extensive farming activities and biotechnologies, they have much more experience with nature, apparently connected with recreational and field-trip activities. We cannot confirm a decrease in experience among generations, on the contrary, we found a summary increase in experience.
BabbY. M.McBurnieJ.MillerK. K. (2018). Tracking the environment in Australian children’s literature: The Children’s Book Council of Australia Picture Book of the Year Awards 1955-2014. Environmental Education Research, 24(5), 716–730.
2.
CaillonS.CullmanG.VerschuurenB.SterlingE. (2017). Moving beyond the human–nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: Including ecological well-being in resilience indicators. Ecology and Society, 22(4), 27.
3.
ChanE. K. H. (2014). Binary response. In MichalosA. C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 394–395). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_208
4.
ClarkeD. A.McphieJ. (2014). Becoming animate in education: Immanent materiality and outdoor learning for sustainability. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 14(3), 198–216.
5.
ClaytonS.ColléonyA.ConversyP.MacloufE.MartinL.TorresA.-C.TruongM.-X.PrévotA.-C. (2017). Transformation of experience: Toward a new relationship with nature. Conservation Letters, 10(5), 645–651.
6.
CohenJ. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
7.
CoxD. T.HudsonH. L.ShanahanD. F.FullerR. A.GastonK. J. (2017). The rarity of direct experiences of nature in an urban population. Landscape and Urban Planning, 160, 79–84.
FletcherR. (2017a). Connection with nature is an oxymoron: A political ecology of “nature-deficit disorder”. The Journal of Environmental Education, 48(4), 226–233.
HeinrichG.SchanderaG. (2002). Magdeburger biographisches Lexikon. Scriptum V.
13.
ImaiH.NakashizukaT.KohsakaR. (2018). An analysis of 15 years of trends in children’s connection with nature and its relationship with residential environment. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability, 4(8), 177–187.
14.
ImaiH.NakashizukaT.KohsakaR. (2019). A multi-year investigation of the factors underlying decreasing interactions of children and adults with natural environments in Japan. Human Ecology, 47(5), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-00108-5
15.
IvesC. D.AbsonD. J.von WehrdenH.DorningerC.KlanieckiK.FischerJ. (2018). Reconnecting with nature for sustainability. Sustainability Science, 13(5), 1389–1397.
16.
IvesC. D.GiustiM.FischerJ.AbsonD. J.KlanieckiK.DorningerC.LaudanJ.BarthelS.AbernethyP.Martín-LópezB.RaymondC. M.KendalD.von WehrdenH (2017). Human–nature connection: A multidisciplinary review. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 106–113.
17.
KahnP. H.Jr., (2002). Children’s affiliations with nature: Structure, development, and the problem of environmental generational amnesia. In Children and nature: psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations (pp. 93–116). MIT Press.
18.
KahnP. H.Jr.SeversonR. L.RuckertJ. H. (2009). The human relation with nature and technological nature. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1), 37–42.
19.
KesebirS.KesebirP. (2017). A growing disconnection from nature is evident in cultural products. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 258–269.
20.
KleinS. A.HilbigB. E. (2018). How virtual nature experiences can promote pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 60, 41–47.
21.
KraftlP.BalastieriJ. A. P.CamposA. E. M.ColesB.Hadfield-HillS.HortonJ.SoaresP. V.VilanovaM. R. N.WalkerC.ZaraC. (2018). (Re) thinking (re) connection: Young people, “natures” and the water–energy–food nexus in São Paulo State, Brazil. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 44(2), 299–314.
22.
MaloneK. (2015). Posthumanist approaches to theorising children’s human-nature relations. In NairnK.KraftlP.SkeltonT. (Eds.), Space, place and environment (pp. 1–22). Springer.
23.
MillerJ. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(8), 430–434.
24.
MollL. C.AmantiC.NeffD.GonzalezN. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.
25.
MuslimH. F. M.HosakaT.NumataS.YahyaN. A. (2017). Nature-related experience during childhood in urban and rural areas: The case of Peninsular Malaysians. Urban Studies Research, 2017, 1–9.
26.
PaulyD. (1995). Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 10(10), 430.
27.
Prévot-JulliardA.-C.JulliardR.ClaytonS. (2015). Historical evidence for nature disconnection in a 70-year time series of Disney animated films. Public Understanding of Science, 24(6), 672–680.
28.
PyleR. M. (1993). The thunder tree. Houghton Mifflin.
29.
PyleR. M. (2003). Nature matrix: Reconnecting people and nature. Oryx, 37(2), 206–214.
30.
QuayJ.SeamanJ. (2013). John Dewey and education outdoors: Making sense of the ‘educational situation’ through more than a century of progressive reforms. Sense Publishers.
31.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/
SchmeilO. (1900). Über die Reformbestrebungen auf dem Gebiete des naturgeschichtlichen Unterrichts. E. Nägele.
34.
SchmeilO. (1903). O reformních snahách v oboru učby přírodopisné (Autoris. vyd). Dašice u Pardubic: E. Geissler.
35.
SkårM.KroghE. (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.
36.
SogaM.GastonK. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: The loss of human–nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(2), 94–101.
37.
SogaM.GastonK. J.KuboT. (2018). Cross-generational decline in childhood experiences of neighborhood flowering plants in Japan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 174, 55–62.
38.
SogaM.GastonK. J.YamauraY.KurisuK.HanakiK. (2016). Both direct and vicarious experiences of nature affect children’s willingness to conserve biodiversity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(6), 529.
39.
SogaM.YamanoiT.TsuchiyaK.KoyanagiT. F.KanaiT. (2018). What are the drivers of and barriers to children’s direct experiences of nature?Landscape and Urban Planning, 180, 114–120.
40.
TruongM.-X.PrevotA.-C.ClaytonS. (2018). Gamers like it green: The significance of vegetation in online gaming. Ecopsychology, 10(1), 1–13.
41.
VirtičM. P.ŠorgoA. (2016). Can we expect to recruit future engineers among students who have never repaired a toy?Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(2), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1201a
42.
WarrenC. A. (2018). Empathy, teacher dispositions, and preparation for culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(2), 169–183.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
