The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0965-4283.htm

HE
109,6 Promoting childrens mental,
emotional and social health
through contact with nature:
522
a model
Cecily Jane Maller
The Centre for Design & The Global Cities Institute,
College of Design and Social Context, RMIT University,
Melbourne, Australia

Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to determine educators perceptions about the benefits of contact with
nature for childrens mental, emotional and social health.
Design/methodology/approach The approach was exploratory using qualitative methods.
Face-to-face interviews were conducted with school principals and teachers as well as professionals
from the environmental education industry. Interviews focused on the perceived benefits for childrens
health from school activities involving hands-on contact with nature.
Findings Hands-on contact with nature is perceived by educators to improve self-esteem,
engagement with school and a sense of empowerment, among other benefits. Different types of
activities are perceived to have different outcomes. A model is proposed to illustrate the findings.
Research limitations/implications Activities involving hands-on contact with nature may have
significant health outcomes for children. Further empirical work is needed to determine the extent of
the benefits and provide further evidence.
Practical implications Findings support the value of activities involving nature and provide
further incentive to include such activities in teaching curricula. Activities involving hands-on contact
with nature at school may be a means of promoting childrens mental, emotional and social health at a
crucial time in their development.
Originality/value This paper addresses two gaps in current knowledge: much research on contact
with nature and health and wellbeing has focused on adults not children; despite the popularity of
nature-based activities in schools there has been no investigation into the potential of these activities to
promote childrens mental, emotional and social health.
Keywords Children (age groups), Schools, Personal health, Outdoor training
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
There is a large body of literature indicating substantial benefits for health and
wellbeing are to be derived from contact with nature and exposure to natural
environments generally (e.g. Health Council of the Netherlands, 2004; Maller et al.,
2006; Rohde and Kendle, 1994). The majority of benefits reported relate to mental

This research was undertaken towards completion of a doctorate in public health, generously
Health Education
Vol. 109 No. 6, 2009 funded by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation in Melbourne, Australia. I would like to
pp. 522-543 sincerely thank the educators who kindly participated in the research for sharing their time,
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0965-4283
experiences and insights. Thanks also to two anonymous reviewers who provided constructive
DOI 10.1108/09654280911001185 feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
health and wellbeing, and include among other outcomes, stress reduction, improving Contact with
the ability to concentrate, alleviating the effects of depression, and improving
self-esteem (Frumkin, 2001; Prosser et al., 2008; Rohde and Kendle, 1994; Seymour,
nature: a model
2003). To date however, most research on contact with nature has concerned adults
rather than children.
Childrens mental health and wellbeing impacts directly on their ability to learn;
that is, children with poor mental health usually have learning as well as other 523
difficulties. There is evidence that mental health problems in teenagers and young
people are occurring at an unprecedented rate (Sawyer et al., 2001; Weare, 2000;
Zubrick et al., 2000). Weare (2000, p. 3) observes that modern children are part of a
social fabric undergoing an accelerated rate of change where . . . they are increasingly
exposed to adult ways of thinking, experience, problems and pressures in ways that
they may well not be equipped to handle. By identifying ways to promote mental
wellbeing at the primary school level, children may be better able to cope with these
changes, and realise their full potential as young people and adults.
Ecological theory suggests that contact with nature is important for children
because it promotes imagination and creativity, cognitive and intellectual
development, and enhances social relationships (Heerwagen and Orians, 2002;
Kellert, 2002; Kellert, 2005). In addition, educational theory suggests contact with
nature facilitates childrens understanding of their place in the world, their knowledge
of nature, and develops their cognitive, emotional and spiritual connections to the
social and biophysical world around them (Capra, 1999; Cramer, 2008; Green, 2004;
Hart, 1997; Montessori, 1967; Moore, 2000; Moore and Wong, 1997; Steiner, 1970).
Despite limited research, some evidence suggests that from five to 12 years of age
children have a particular affinity with nature where they engage in activities such as
den construction and use natural places to retreat from the world of adults (Kylin, 2003;
Powell, 2007; Sobel, 1993; Titman, 1994). However, because modern urban
environments generally limit childrens access to nature (Kellert, 2002; Kellert, 2005;
Louv, 2008; Moore and Wong, 1997; Pyle, 2002; Rivkin, 1995; Rivkin, 1997) it could be
argued that the responsibility to provide children with nature contact is largely placed
on schools, through the physical environment of their grounds and through teaching
activities. Research on childrens contact with nature at school is in its early stages and
little is known about educators perceptions of the mental health benefits children may
gain from nature experiences. This paper seeks to determine the importance of
hands-on contact with nature at school for childrens mental health and wellbeing as
perceived by principals, teachers and other educators in the environmental education
industry in Melbourne, Australia.

Approach and methods

A qualitative, interpretivist approach, where an attempt to understand the social world
is made through the researchers as well as participants perspectives (Snape and
Spencer, 2003), was chosen to incorporate the context of the school environment and to
understand the benefits of contact with nature from the perspective of adults who work
with children in school settings. Due to the close-association of activities involving
hands-on contact with nature with environmental education or education for
sustainability, the research was conducted within this context. The specific research
questions addressed by this paper are:
HE .
What are educators perceptions about the different types of hands-on contact
with nature children experience at school?
109,6 .
What are educators perceptions of the benefits of these activities for childrens
mental, emotional and social health?
It is important to state that the research was not concerned with the potential of contact
524 with nature as a treatment for mental illness. Rather, the objective was to determine the
potential of hands-on contact with nature to improve the emotional wellbeing and
social relationships of normal primary-aged school children. To avoid confusion, the
term mental, emotional and social health (Weare, 2000) is used rather than mental
health. For further clarity, hands-on contact with nature is defined as any activity
that involves children physically engaging with plants, soil or animals. Hands-on
activities were the focus because experiential engagement with nature is likely to be
deeper and more meaningful than theoretical or vicarious experiences (Kellert, 2002).
The research was conducted in Melbourne, Australia to build on earlier work
exploring the types of nature-based activities found in Melbourne primary schools
(Maller and Townsend, 2006). Interviews, using a semi-structured interview schedule,
were the primary form of data collection. The schedule comprised a series of open
questions about activities involving hands-on contact with nature and was designed to
probe participants perceptions about the potential effects on childrens mental,
emotional and social health. Interviews were conducted face-to-face with participants
at or near their workplaces.

Selection and recruitment of participants

Two types of educators were sought as participants:
(1) principals and teachers from Melbourne primary schools who participated in an
earlier research project (Maller and Townsend, 2006); and
(2) representatives from leading environmental education organisations in
Melbourne.
Principals and teachers from Melbourne schools who had taken part in an earlier,
quantitative study (Maller and Townsend, 2006) were invited to participate in this
more in-depth phase. The criteria used for selection were:
.
the questionnaire from the earlier study must have been completed in full,
including open questions (in order to make an informed decision about each
school);
.
more than one activity involving hands-on contact with nature must have been
conducted (the activities could be either related or unrelated) on-site at the school;
.
the activities must be multidimensional (i.e. involving more than study of a
single animal or plant); and
.
a number of grade levels must participate in the activity (to eliminate those
schools that introduce activities involving hands-on contact with nature for the
preparatory year or grade one only).
Principals were invited to participate by letter, followed up one week later by a
telephone call. Principals were also asked to nominate the most appropriate teacher
involved in the activities at their school for an interview.
 In Melbourne, there are several well-established environmental education Contact with
organisations that influence developments in the field nationally. These
organisations have close working relationships with schools and develop and
nature: a model
implement a wide-range of environmental education activities. Including educators
from organisations in the environmental education industry as participants would
provide a perspective outside of the school sector, enhancing the scope of the research.
Purposeful sampling, where participants are selected because they know the 525
phenomena of interest well, have the time and are willing to participate (Spradley,
1979) was used to recruit industry participants. High profile individuals or
environmental education organisations in Melbourne were approached by telephone
to participate in the research. Additional organisations to supplement potential
participants were located using the Yellow Pages telephone directory (under the
category Organisations Conservation and Environment).
Although similar, two separate interview schedules were used for industry and
school participants because they had different roles in, and experiences of, activities
involving hands-on contact with nature (see Appendix). The interview schedule for
school participants comprised 19 items, including questions about the activities at their
school, any enablers and barriers encountered, their perceptions about different types
of activities, observed outcomes and their understanding of childrens mental,
emotional and social health. The interview schedule for industry participants
comprised 18 items, including questions concerned with the context of environmental
education and/or activities involving hands-on contact with nature in Melbourne, their
perceptions about different types of activities and associated outcomes, and their
understanding of childrens mental, emotional and social health.

Data collection and analysis

Interviews were conducted from December, 2004 to June, 2005 until repetition was
observed in the data (i.e. data saturation was reached) (Morse and Richards, 2002). This
was expected to occur after 20 to 40 interviews had been completed. It was predicted
that interviews would last from 60 to 120 minutes. All interviews were digitally
recorded and were transcribed verbatim for analysis using qualitative analysis
software. Iterative qualitative data analysis techniques, including question coding,
content analysis (Morse and Field, 1995) and rich point analysis (Agar, 1999) were used
to categorise, compare and interpret the data.

Findings
Characteristics of participants
In total, 30 participants were interviewed when data saturation was observed.
Interviews lasted from around 30 minutes to two hours, with most being about an hour
in duration. The principal and a lead teacher from 12 schools participated, except for
one school where the principal was unable to take part. Eleven schools were
government funded schools while the remaining school was a privately funded
Catholic school. To locate industry participants, 15 environmental education
organisations were approached. Seven participants from across these organisations
were interviewed when data saturation occurred. Four industry participants were
managers, including a coordinator of a community garden, two managers of
environmental education organisations, and a senior officer of a sustainability
education organisation. The three remaining participants were practitioners, including
HE a landscape architect of a garden for children, a freelance early childhood
environmental education consultant, and an education coordinator at a childrens
109,6 garden. Six industry participants had teaching qualifications and had worked as
teachers, or were currently working in some capacity as a teacher.
Findings are presented below according to the research questions this paper seeks
to address. Quotes from participants are used to illustrate key points.
526
(1) Educators perceptions about the types of hands-on contact with nature in schools
When asked about the types of activities involving hands-on contact with nature found
in schools, school and industry participants held different perceptions. Industry
participants clearly differentiated between environmental education and other
activities that might involve nature, whereas school participants did not. For
example, when asked about the difference between nature-based activities and
environmental education, one principal stated:
. . . call it what you might but youre doing the same activity arent you? The content is the
same. Youre developing an appreciation for growing things. No, I cant see that theres a
difference really. Theyre one and the same thing . . . (Principal, School 12).
Industry participants perceived some activities to be more structured while others were
considered unstructured. For example, unstructured activities were described as
experiences children had alone in nature, or with a small group of other children, that
were not directed by adults. While structured activities, usually associated with
environmental education, were about problem-solving, were shared with other
children, and were often directed by adults.
The most commonly provided example of an unstructured activity was free play in
a school garden or nature reserve, with or without other children, where children are
not necessarily supervised by adults or if so, their play is not directed by adults. In this
type of activity children can exercise their will to manipulate and discover the
environment as they wish.
. . . I was in the childrens garden the other day and I found just a little pile of stones, a little
sand and a whole lot of sticks around it . . . I just imagined that child being absorbed in that
. . . I just think thats gotta be healthy for a child (Industry participant 1).
For three industry participants, free-play in nature was seen as an essential part of a
childs development, particularly because they considered childrens lives to be overly
structured:
. . . the philosophy here is that children have to . . . find what they love first . . . I think our
children are far too organised these days particularly in terms of school . . . I think were
institutionalising children too early . . . it can deaden them a bit . . . continually trying to
improve them and improve them and [getting them to] do all these [extra curricular] activities
. . . (Industry participant 1).
Examples participants provided of structured activities included working in a
vegetable garden, restoring native habitat, and building a wetland on the school
grounds. Participants described how children work with other children and adults
towards achieving a common goal.
That notion of being actively involved in a collective way with others . . . Addressing
challenges or problems that [the children] see as significant to others in addition to
themselves. Working for the community I suppose, for their friends . . . And linked to that,
 actually feeling that you are a functioning part of . . . a big wide community (Industry Contact with
participant 4).
nature: a model
Four industry participants perceived that structured activities were more beneficial for
children than unstructured activities because they were about problem-solving,
teamwork and contributing to society. . . . they had to do research, they had to use
maths, they had to build things . . . they had to [give] a presentation which [brings in]
their communication skills . . . The kids . . . designed a garden, a herb and flower 527
garden, which has a pond and it has water tanks, and it has a yabbie farm and it has a
solar powered pump . . . the children designed it all. And they now link the products
that they sell or they make in the garden, back to the food in the canteen . . . So what
theyre doing is fostering creativity, and innovation and enterprise (Industry
participant 5).The contrasting viewpoints of industry participants can be explained by
their professional roles: managers favoured structured activities, whereas practitioners
favoured unstructured activities. Managers held a strategic view of environmental
education and were largely removed from daily educational encounters with children.
Furthermore, managers considered themselves responsible for promoting best-practice
and were acutely aware of the history of environmental education in Melbourne:
. . . environmental education tended to start off with a nature-studies approach . . . If you go
back to the long history of organisations like the Gould League and the School Forestry
Branch and so on, it was very much a lets go out and observe nature and appreciate its
beauty, and know the names of the creatures and . . . draw pictures of them. But not really try
to get involved in actually addressing conservation issues . . . That whole notion of learning
through action . . . and really trying to address environmental problems rather than just learn
about them, has really started to be picked up much more widely and we [currently] see some
fantastic projects and programs that really build that dimension into it (Industry
participant 4).
This focus explains their readiness to distinguish between types of activities involving
contact with nature and also explained their preferences for structured activities that
are goal-oriented and focussed on positive environmental outcomes to benefit society
as a whole.
Practitioners engaged with children on a regular basis and were more interested in
enhancing childrens personal development. They distinguished between types of
activities because of their particular belief in the importance of unstructured
experiences. This preference was explained by their desire to provide an alternative to
current environmental education practice by giving children opportunities for free-play
in natural environments.
In the childrens garden . . . we wanted children to play . . . What we wanted to do was create a
whole series of plant environments . . . [that] have an openness like nature does where it
actually allows the children to come in and do what they want to do in those spaces (Industry
participant 1).
Despite these distinctions, the views of managers and practitioners were not regarded
as mutually exclusive and furthermore, it is likely that some participants had changed
roles from a practitioner to a manager, and vice versa, during their career.
Conversely, ten out of eleven principals did not distinguish between activities: they
perceived all activities involving hands-on contact with nature as interwoven.
HE . . . I think you integrate things together . . . you might have a different focus . . . but generally
you try to integrate things so that it flows and you dont say, thats environmental studies,
109,6 thats gardening . . . It overlaps and youve got to see it as being an overlapping of, maybe
different concepts, but similar skills . . . (Principal, School 10).
Not surprisingly, all twelve teachers held a similar view.
I think because we have our integrated programs . . . everywhere we look around the school
528 something has come from either an integrated unit, or a whole school activity . . . Its
integrated into the school curriculum and its integrated into being a student [here] (Teacher,
School 7).
School participants did not differentiate between types of activities involving hands-on
contact with nature because they saw simpler nature or environmental educational
activities as opposite ends of a contact with nature spectrum. In practice, the
activities were integrated across schools curricula and were utilised for different
purposes. For example, some school participants spoke of simpler activities as being
appropriate for younger children and complex activities as more suitable for older
children.
I think its probably more [determined by] the age group . . . if the Preps look at butterflies, its
manageable for them, mainly because of the developmental stage that [the children are] at.
Whereas if a year 5-6 [child] was doing that, you could expect them to actually build the
[butterfly] habitat . . . (Principal, School 2).

(2) Educators perceptions of the benefits of hands-on contact with nature for childrens
mental, emotional and social health
Due to the differences in participants perceptions about types of contact with nature,
industry and school participants views about the potential benefits are examined
separately in this section. However, the views of different participants are not
considered mutually exclusive; rather they are seen as complementary interpretations
of the potential benefits arising from different types of activities involving hands-on
contact with nature.

(i) Industry participants

The benefits of unstructured activities for childrens mental, emotional and social
health were perceived by industry practitioners to be associated with childrens
individual, self-directed experiences in nature as opposed to those activities where they
are directed by adults, for example as part of a lesson. One of the main benefits
practitioners described was when children establish a connection with nature as a
result of their own discovery.
. . . by them finding a lovely little place that they want to play in, that connects to them on a
very deep level . . . If we think of our own experiences in nature . . . I remember the smell of the
Tea-tree down at Sorrento [where] we used to play hidey . . . in amongst [the] trees . . . I think
its that sort of connection that a child makes when they choose to go and play in a space,
which is different to say going and helping build a wetland (Industry participant 1).
All three practitioners referred to the pedagogies of Rudolf Steiner and Maria
Montessori, who advocate the benefits of experiential learning in natural
environments, in support of their beliefs. For example, Participant 6 spoke of the
importance of informal play spaces, spontaneity, and privacy:
 . . . I ask them to reflect on what were the key elements within those experiences that made it Contact with
special, and it was that sense of being away from adults, having your own secret place, being
unsupervised . . . That spontaneity and being able to discover things outside is important in nature: a model
terms of childrens self-esteem if they discover things for themselves, you know, whether its a
dead bird or its a beautiful autumn leaf or whatever (Industry participant 6, practitioner).
Another practitioners comments referred to the sensation of being lost and then
found. 529
. . . to move in and out, be found and be lost, so its hidey, you know? Its that whole sense of
mass and void, where youre seen and then youre not seen (Industry participant 1).
Although not always linked to specific elements of childrens mental, emotional and
social health, practitioners perceptions appeared to be driven by the importance of
unstructured activities for childrens discovery of their environment and of their own
place in the world. Furthermore, they were concerned not only about the declining
number of natural play spaces available to children, but also about the lack of time to
experience them.
I like Rivkins quote about outdoor play spaces . . . evaporating like water in sunshine. And I
think thats very true . . . its not just the space thats disappearing but its also time for
children to have that free exploration. Its the ballet lessons, and the music lessons, and weve
got to go here and weve got to go there. They dont have that down time which I think is so
important for their mental health and wellbeing. In some ways its like a big social experiment
because well see the outcomes when theyre young teenagers and young adults, and how
they understand the natural environment in particular. But also . . . the skills they might be
missing, whether its physical skills or [the] thinking skills that come from those experiences,
that free-time [and] those more open-ended experiences (Industry participant 6).
Managers did not share practitioners concerns and instead spoke of the beneficial
outcomes children experience through participation in structured activities. Managers
perceived the benefits of structured activities to be associated with positive outcomes
arising from hands-on contact with nature experienced by a child as a member of a
group of other children and adults: experiences that are shared with, as well as shared
by, others. One of the main outcomes associated with structured activities was a
meaningful learning experience. Managers believed that involving children in tackling
issues that concern them, such as environmental problems, gives them cognitive
thinking skills and puts their learning into a meaningful, real-world context.
. . . when you get them involved in these sorts of [sustainability] programs . . . it is . . .
authentic, real, meaningful learning for children. (Industry participant 5).
The link between physical activity and mental, emotional and social health was also
recognised as a particular outcome of structured activities. This was illustrated by one
participants description of the benefits for boys in upper primary school (i.e. early
adolescents).
I have some boys coming to my garden class . . . and they would be the troublemakers . . . I
didnt know, theyd just come and be [placed] in my gardening group . . . Theyd often be the
ones who were . . . the most energetic and the most able to deal with tools . . . And these boys
would be skilled theyd know what [the] tools were, they had lots of energy, and they could
complete a job and they responded really well to these kinds of fixed goals. Move that pile of
compost from that bin to that bin, and then spread that stuff over there . . . these are your
HE tools, use them . . . At the end of that lesson these guys would have worked really, really hard
and . . . theyd be justifiably proud of their work (Industry participant 2).
109,6
As suggested in this quote, managers relayed the benefits of engaging in activities that
give children a sense of empowerment and ownership, resulting in improved
self-esteem. It was felt in particular that empowerment arose from children
experiencing responsibility and having the opportunity to use their initiative to
530 solve environmental problems.
. . . in terms of the hands-on practical thing it also helps them develop . . . knowledge and
skills for directly addressing environmental problems, in the sense of restoring vegetation or
controlling weeds . . . or growing your own food . . . And feeling empowered, like you are able
to do it and other people arent able to do it . . . Its good for your self-esteem, especially young
people when . . . they know how to do something and they know that thats a bit rare . . . They
become [the] experts (Industry participant 4).
Additionally, there was a strong perception that structured activities cater to children
with different learning styles and predispositions.
Social outcomes include boosting students self-esteem by providing leadership roles for
children of all ages and abilities, improving attendance rates, [and] benefits for children with
behavioural and learning difficulties (Industry participant 5).
A final benefit of structured activities was that they are perceived to be a successful
means of engaging the local community, particularly parents, in schools.
. . . In terms of the parents, they have closer links with the school, particularly if theyre the
ones managing the compost system, or helping to revegetate an area of the school. And
theres that greater sense of connectedness between the parents and the school (Industry
participant 5).
Practitioners and managers perceptions about hands-on contact with nature are
illustrated in Figure 1.

(ii) School participants

As discussed, principals and teachers perceptions shared much in common, their
comments implying that any activity with hands-on contact with nature was beneficial
for children.
School participants stated one of the main benefits from nature activities was an
increase in childrens self-confidence through experiencing success.
. . . the sense of responsibility . . . I think, thats important. I think theres a certain pride, a
sense of ownership too. I know when we first started working on the Koori garden the Year
6 s really were thrilled to think they could come back and see their stepping stone that theyd
made, and these plants [theyd planted] . . . they were all involved in the design of [the garden]
as well [and] that sense of ownership is ongoing . . . and again . . . the feeling of success and
confidence . . . (Principal, School 3).
Some school participants connected these experiences directly with childrens
self-esteem.
So a lot of the kids that . . . were the low achievers . . . whove got low self esteem problems,
who come from disrupted families, or who just dont feel great about their abilities in all kinds
of ways . . . just blossomed. They took ownership of this little students garden weve got
 Contact with
nature: a model

531

Figure 1.
Conceptual map of
industry participants
perceptions of
unstructured and
structured hands-on
contact with nature and
the perceived benefits for
childrens mental,
emotional and social
health according to their
roles as either
practitioners or managers

down the end of the building here, and they nurtured it, and they were out there at lunch
times, watering their plants. Oh, you couldnt go near their garden! (Teacher, School 2).
Like industry participants, school participants also believed that activities involving
hands-on contact with nature give children with different learning abilities or who may
have behavioural difficulties, an opportunity to experience a sense of achievement.
And a lot of kids . . . that are seen with behavioural problems in the classroom, you get them
outside doing activities and they just shine (Teacher, School 5).
Importantly, this outcome was interpreted as resulting in a level playing field where
all children involved in the activity had an equal chance of success a situation that
may be rare in the context of their normal academic learning environment.
Gardening or outdoor education is just one [activity] where a child doesnt necessarily have to
have superb listening, language acquisition, reading, [or] maths. Its a wonderful activity for a
child to succeed in, and [these activities create] a level playing field (Principal, School 12).
HE Again, similar to industry participants, some school participants recognised the link
109,6 between mental and physical health, for example when childrens self-confidence is
boosted from overcoming a physical challenge. Several school participants commented
that because some children have limited opportunities to experience nature they can be
reluctant to get their hands dirty. Hence, experiential activities involving nature were
believed to provide important opportunities for children to be challenged in this way.
532 . . . you get the kids out there for the first time . . . [and they] hardly want to touch the dirt, and
they dont want to get their hands dirty . . . But once [they] get their hands in the dirt and put a
seedling in . . . then they dont worry so much. Same with our worm farm [and] kids picking
up worms . . . They go out there, and first of all they go, Urrr, Im not going to touch that, but
when you next see them . . . They love . . . it. And I think thats almost therapeutic for them to
be able to do that (Principal, School 10).
Further to this, enjoyment resulting in deeper engagement with school was a frequent
benefit mentioned by school participants, either from the perspective that universally
children enjoy outdoor experiences, or from the point of view that these activities
provide them with an alternative learning environment to the classroom.
The kids love it . . . theres no doubt about that . . . and I dont think any teacher needs to be
convinced about what hands on-learning does for kids, how it engages kids. The engagement
that the program has . . . brought about in the student learning in this school is fantastic, and
that alone . . . is probably the most valuable thing that it has [done] (Principal, School 5).
Apart from enjoyment, the development of skills in care and nurturing of plants and
animals were described by many school participants as important outcomes. One
teacher described how he believed that these skills transfer to the care and nurturing of
people.
The idea of growing something and looking after it, or having rabbits in the classroom and
looking after them, or the goldfish . . . Those ideas I believe are transferred [to people]. And
kids who are happy to do those types of things are also happy to look after each other. So if
you can instil the importance of looking after a plant or looking after an animal, then the idea
of looking after each other and not putting each other down, and thinking of the feelings of
other people, can be made that much easier as well (Teacher, School 11).
Participants also described connectedness to other people as a major outcome,
particularly for middle- and upper-primary school children aged from around 8 to 12
years. Additionally, teachers and principals believed that activities that connect
children with their school can result in students at-risk of becoming disengaged from
school, continuing to be engaged with their learning and their school community.
And again projects like this [are] . . . a way of helping kids remain engaged in schools.
Because schools are often the last social bastion to help these kids . . . if [their] families have
broken down. Something critical has happened in their lives and theyre not connected in the
school . . . (Principal, School 11).
Related to this, teachers and principals described how they believed children obtained
stress relief from having contact with plants, animals, or other elements of nature and
that having access to quiet natural spaces in the school grounds had a calming effect.
For many children sitting and patting an animal can make a significant difference to them
either in terms of their capacity to come in here, but also for kids that lose it Im able to
 watch the anger or anxiety dissipated by patting. So, its genuine, I can see it everyday with Contact with
the kids (Principal, School 1).
nature: a model
Lastly, around one third of school participants believed that activities based around
hands-on contact with nature allowed children to experience freedom and creativity,
and that these activities also lend themselves to exploration and the opportunity for
children to engage in play.
533
. . . its an experience that a lot of kids dont have. Watching a calf being born next door . . .
finding out about the farmers anger when theyve patted a horse they shouldnt have patted.
All that sort of stuff . . . Kids learn something about themselves when they go away on a
camp . . . They learn some degree or capacity for a level of independence . . . its because
theyre in a natural environment they learn about simply using it to explore and make play
(Principal, School 1).
School participants perceptions about activities involving hands-on contact with
nature are illustrated in Figure 2.

Discussion
The differences detected in the perceptions of industry and school participants about
the benefits of childrens hands-on contact with nature demonstrate considerable
overlap which can be explained by the application of some ecological theory.
Kellert (2005, 2002) reflects on the role of experience and contact with nature in
childhood development. He distinguished three kinds of contact children have with
nature:
(1) direct;
(2) indirect; and
(3) vicarious experiences (Kellert, 2005, 2002).
Direct experiences are defined as actual physical contact with plants and animals
and physically being in natural settings. However, Kellert (2002) restricts direct
encounters to animals, plants and environments occurring mostly outside and
independent of the human built environment, where organisms and ecosystems
function without continuous human intervention and control. Furthermore, he
considers direct contact with nature as an unplanned experience, for example, when a
child engages in spontaneous play in their backyard, a neighbourhood park or an
abandoned lot and they encounter native species of plants and animals (Kellert, 2002).
Kellert (2002, p. 119) defines a childs indirect experience of nature as involving
actual physical contact with plants and animals but in more restricted, programmed
and managed contexts where . . . the experience of natural habitats and nonhuman
creatures is typically the result of regulated and contrived human activity. For
example, included are experiences with animals, plants and habitats encountered in
zoos, aquariums and botanical gardens, and domesticated species and habitats such as
farm and companion animals, vegetable gardens and cultivated crops (Kellert, 2002).
The final type of experience with nature described by Kellert (2002; 2005) is a
vicarious or symbolic experience which . . . does not involve contact with actual
living organisms and environments but rather, with the image, representation, or
metaphorical expression of nature (Kellert, 2005, p. 66). Vicarious experiences have
become more predominant in childrens lives through various means such as books
and other print media, radio, television, film and computers (Kellert, 2002). Hence direct
HE
109,6

534

Figure 2.
Conceptual map of school
participants perceptions
of activities with hands-on
contact with nature and
the perceived benefits for
childrens mental,
emotional and social
health

and indirect experiences of nature are those experiences that involve hands-on contact
with plants, animals and other elements of nature, while vicarious experiences do not
(Kellert, 2002, 2005).
The theory of biophilia argues that owing to our evolutionary history, where
humans lived entirely in and were dependent on nature, people today still have an
innate affinity for nature that is beneficial for health and wellbeing (Wilson, 1984;
2001). Early in human history there was an evolutionary advantage in knowing about
the natural world, particularly information concerning plants and animals, and this
knowledge contributed to survival (Kellert, 1997). Kellert (2002) suggests that
according to biophilia, hands-on contact with nature becomes paramount in
middle-childhood. As evidence Kellert (2002) discusses den construction, an activity
particularly associated with this developmental stage (Kirkby, 1989; Kylin, 2003;
Moore, 1986; Sobel, 1990; Sobel, 1993; Titman, 1994). By using their hands to construct
secret hiding places out of natural elements outside of, but near to, the home, children
create and construct quasi-habitations gaining autonomy and self-confidence in Contact with
the process (Kellert, 2002).
Direct and indirect experiences can be considered equivalent to the unstructured
nature: a model
and structured types of contact described by industry participants in the present study.
Direct experiences are equal to unstructured activities in nature, described by
participants as facilitating childrens exploration, discovery of, and immersion in
nature through which they negotiate their own identity and their place in the world. 535
Indirect experiences are equal to structured hands-on activities in nature, which
participants described as beneficial for meaningful learning, problem-solving skills,
empowerment and connecting with local community members, teachers and other
adults. Indirect activities occur in more programmed contexts (Kellert, 2002) which in
the current context can be interpreted as the school environment.
Although he argues that indirect and vicarious experiences of nature still play an
important role, Kellert (2002) emphasises that it is childrens direct experience of nature
in middle-childhood that has the most powerful effect on their psychosocial growth and
development. Despite acknowledging that further study is required, Kellert (2002, p.
139) states: . . . direct experience of nature plays a significant, vital and perhaps
irreplaceable role in affective, cognitive and evaluative development. Similarly,
practitioners in the present study believed that unstructured activities were more
beneficial than structured activities for childrens development and mental, emotional
and social health. Both Kellert (2005, 2002) and the practitioners in this study intimate
that childrens time is now more structured than in previous eras, and that
opportunities for autonomous, private play in natural environments have diminished.
Others have also expressed this concern (Louv, 2008; Moore and Wong, 1997; Nabhan
and Trimble, 1994).
Additional potentially interchangeable terms for structured and unstructured
hands-on contact with nature can be found in other studies, although they are not
necessarily used in reference to children. For example, Sempik et al. (2003) explored the
use of gardening to promote health, wellbeing, and social inclusion among vulnerable
adults. The authors constructed a model, based on biophilia, to illustrate the main
activities, processes and outcomes of hands-on contact with nature through gardening.
Similar to the distinction made in the present work between unstructured and
structured hands-on contact with nature, the model distinguishes between quiet
appreciation of nature (passive participation) and active engagement with it through
organised gardening activities (active participation) (Sempik et al., 2003).
Regardless of whether structured and unstructured activities are considered as
direct and indirect experiences of nature, or as passive and active participation, it is
argued here that not only are both activities highly beneficial for childrens mental,
emotional and social health, but that the activities and their associated benefits are in
fact concomitant and complementary to one another.
It is interesting at this point to reflect on the ecological-evolutionary perspective of
Heerwagen and Orians (2002), who predict age-related patterns of behavioural
responses to the natural environment or environmental stimuli. They consider certain
ecological needs or challenges children may encounter, including safety, foraging and
feeding, and finding a place to live, and their influence at different stages of childrens
development (Heerwagen and Orians, 2002). Heerwagen and Orians (2002) contemplate
these challenges and predict at what developmental stage they would have most
influence as evidenced by childrens behaviour. In middle-childhood, they suggest that
as children develop their physical skills (enabling them to move further away from
HE their home base) they would engage in greater exploration of their environment and
participate in self-directed activities such as den construction. As evidence, they cite
109,6 the work of Hart (1979), which demonstrates that den and tree-house construction is a
preferred activity for children aged between seven and 11 years (Heerwagen and
Orians, 2002). It appears therefore, that unstructured activities involving hands-on
contact with nature may fulfil an ecological need of children during middle-childhood
536 that is a natural part of their development.
Where does this leave structured contact with nature, which managers and school
participants perceived as equally, if not more beneficial, for childrens development and
mental, emotional and social health? The answer is in the data. During this research,
school participants (who teach children in middle-childhood ranging in age from five to
12 years of age) did not differentiate between unstructured and structured activities
involving hands-on contact with nature. As explained earlier, this was because they
considered all hands-on contact with nature beneficial for children. Contrary to this
stance however, was the perception that different types of contact with nature were
suitable at different stages of childrens development. School participants described
simpler, less structured contact with nature as being most appropriate for younger
primary-aged children and more complex, problem-solving activities with nature as
appropriate for older primary-aged children. Based on this reasoning, which is
consistent with Piagetian theory, unstructured and structured activities can be placed
on a spectrum based on childrens developmental stage rather than being considered
oppositional or discrete types.
The concept of a spectrum also helps explain the views of managers and
practitioners. It is likely that managers preferred structured activities because they
were focussed on positive environmental outcomes and pro-environmental behaviour,
whereas practitioners favoured unstructured activities because they were focussed on
younger children and their development. In fact, one practitioner was as an early
childhood environmental education consultant, and two other practitioners worked
with children ranging in ages from one to eight years of age. The spectrum of activities
can be combined with earlier diagrams depicting the perceived benefits of hands-on
contact with nature to create a model.

A model of activities involving hands-on contact with nature and the benefits to
childrens mental, emotional and social health
The model devised by Sempik et al. (2003) explaining the benefits of hands-on contact
with nature for adults can be adapted to accommodate the findings of this study. It has
been adapted for the perceived benefits of hands-on contact with nature and childrens
mental, emotional and social health in Figure 3.
The model depicts the influence of biophilia, or innate evolutionary factors (Sempik
et al., 2003) on childrens interest in activities involving hands-on contact with nature.
Based on the perceptions of the participants in this study, the model also incorporates
all of the outcomes described for childrens mental, emotional and social health.
Portrayed as a spectrum, hands-on contact with nature can occur at either extreme as
either unstructured or structured activities, or alternatively, in various forms between
these two types (Figure 3).
Activities occurring at different points along the spectrum result in different, but
often overlapping, benefits for childrens mental, emotional and social health (Figure 3).
For example, outcomes such as stress relief, self-esteem, sensory engagement, physical
 Contact with
nature: a model

537

Figure 3.
Hands-on contact with
nature and childrens
mental, emotional and
social health a model
depicting the types of
activities and outcomes
(after Sempik et al., 2003)

activity, the accommodation of different learning styles and connectedness to others

can result from activities occurring at any point along the spectrum.
A limitation of the model is that it is based on the perceptions of adults. Also, as the
study involved adult educators engaged in the promotion and day-to-day running of
activities involving hands-on contact with nature, their perceptions of the benefits may
be exaggerated. However, the model and associated findings could be tested
empirically with an experiment or controlled study in future research involving data
collected from children.

Implications
This research has shown principals, teachers and professionals from the
environmental education sector perceive that hands-on contact with nature is
important for childrens mental, emotional and social health on various dimensions. It
also highlights the pivotal role that schools can play in providing children with access
HE to nature. As the majority of opportunities for modern children to experience contact
with nature appear to be occurring at school, the amount of access to nature that school
109,6 settings provide is becoming increasingly important.
Schools are in an ideal position to provide both unstructured and structured
activities involving hands-on contact with nature. Unstructured activities could occur
before and after school, as well as during morning tea or lunch breaks, on school
538 grounds that have high amounts and diverse types, of vegetation and other natural
features (e.g. animals, water features). Children would be able to use their imagination
to discover and play alone, or with other children, in these environments which would
be highly manipulable and reflect natural cycles (i.e. the seasons, growth, birth and
death). Structured hands-on contact with nature is highly suited to the curriculum
where nature can be incorporated into childrens daily lessons. Structured activities
could occur indoors and outdoors (on the school grounds or in another natural area
off-site), involve other children and teachers and/or other adults who could work
together to solve local environmental issues or alternatively to create green spaces on
the school grounds, such as gardens or habitat for wildlife.
Adults largely control most aspects of childrens lives, and school settings are no
different. If schools do not have green grounds, or the school philosophy does not
value the environment, many children who live in urban areas may have limited
opportunities to experience nature and may miss out on the potential benefits
described in this research. With the likelihood of future research contributing to the
growing evidence in this area, reconsideration could be given to the design of schools,
early childhood centres and local neighbourhoods to ensure that children are provided
with opportunities to access nature. In particular, it is recommended that school
grounds are designed to maximise childrens contact with plants and animals.

Conclusion
This exploratory study has demonstrated that adults from the education sector perceive
there are multiple benefits to childrens mental, emotional and social health from activities
involving hands-on contact with nature at school. A valuable next step would be to take
an experimental approach to measure effects on childrens mental, emotional and social
health, building on the groundwork established here. Combined with the impetus of
increasing mental health problems in children reported in the literature, it is evident that
there is greater potential for activities involving hands-on contact with nature to be
introduced into primary schools. Schools appear to be playing an increasingly important
role in providing children with access to nature and are in an ideal position to provide
activities incorporating both unstructured and structured elements.

References
Agar, M.H. (1999), How to ask for a study in Qualitatisch, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 9
No. 5, pp. 684-97.
Capra, F. (1999), Ecoliteracy: The Challenge for Education in the Next Century, Center for
Ecoliteracy, Berkeley, CA.
Cramer, J.R. (2008), Reviving the connection between children and nature: through
service-learning restoration partnerships, Native Plants Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 278-86.
Frumkin, H. (2001), Beyond toxicity human health and the natural environment, American
Journal of Preventative Medicine, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 234-40.
Green, V. (2004), An exploration of school gardening and its relationship to holistic education Contact with
a major paper submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of master of
science, The Rural Extension Studies Program in The School of Environmental Design nature: a model
and Rural Development, The University of Guelph, Guelph.
Hart, R. (1979), Childrens Experience of Place, Irvington Publishers, New York, NY.
Hart, R. (1997), Childrens Participation: The Theory and Practice of Involving Young Citizens in
Community Development and Environmental Care, UNICEF and Earthscan, New York, NY. 539
Health Council of the Netherlands (2004), Nature and health the influence of nature on social,
psychological and physical well-being, Health Council of the Netherlands and the
Advisory Council for Research on Spatial Planning, Nature and the Environment (RMNO),
The Hague.
Heerwagen, J.H. and Orians, G.H. (2002), The ecological world of children, in Kahn, P.H.J. and
Kellert, S.R. (Eds), Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary
Investigations, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kellert, S.R. (1997), Kinship to Mastery: Biophilia in Human Evolution and Development, Island
Press, Washington, DC.
Kellert, S.R. (2002), Experiencing nature: affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in
children, in Kahn, P.H.J. and Kellert, S.R. (Eds), Children and Nature: Psychological,
Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kellert, S.R. (2005), Building for Life Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature
Connection, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Kirkby, M. (1989), Nature as refuge in childrens environments, Childrens Environments
Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 7-12.
Kylin, M. (2003), Childrens dens, Children, Youth and Environments (Electronic Version),
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Louv, R. (2008), Last Child in the Woods Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder,
Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Maller, C.J. and Townsend, M. (2006), Childrens mental health and wellbeing and hands-on
contact with nature: perceptions of principals and teachers, International Journal of
Learning, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 357-73.
Maller, C.J., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P.B. and St Leger, L. (2006), Healthy parks healthy
people: contact with nature as an upstream health promotion intervention for
populations, Health Promotion International, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 45-54.
Montessori, M. (1967), The Discovery of the Child, Ballantine Books, New York, NY.
Moore, R.C. (1986), Childhoods Domain: Play and Place in Child Development, Croom Helm,
London.
Moore, R.C. (2000), Childhoods domain: play and place in child development, Michigan
Quarterly Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 477-81.
Moore, R.C. and Wong, H.H. (1997), Natural Learning Creating Environments for Rediscovering
Natures Way of Teaching, MIG Communications, Berkeley, CA.
Morse, J. and Field, P. (1995), Qualitative Research Methods for Health Professionals,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Morse, J. and Richards, L. (2002), ReadMe First for a Users Guide to Qualitative Methods,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Nabhan, G.P. and Trimble, S. (Eds) (1994), The Geography of Childhood: Why Children Need Wild
Places, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
HE Powell, M. (2007), The hidden curriculum of recess, Children, Youth and Environments, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 86-106.
109,6
Prosser, L., Townsend, M. and Staiger, P. (2008), Older peoples relationships with companion
animals: a pilot study, Nursing Older People, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 29-32.
Pyle, R.M. (2002), Eden in a vacant lot: special places, species, and kids in the neighborhood of
life, in Kahn, P.H.J. and Kellert, S.R. (Eds), Children and Nature: Psychological,
540 Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rivkin, M. (1995), The Great Outdoors Restoring Childrens Right to Play Outside, National
Association for the Education of Young Children, Washington, DC.
Rivkin, M. (1997), The schoolyard habitat movement: what it is and why children need it, Early
Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 61-6.
Rohde, C.L.E. and Kendle, A.D. (1994), Report to English nature human well-being, natural
landscapes and wildlife in urban areas: a review, Department of Horticulture and
Landscape, University of Reading and the Research Institute for the Care of the Elderly,
Bath.
Sawyer, M.G., Arney, F.M., Baghurst, P.A., Clark, J.J., Graetz, B.W., Kosky, R.J., Nurcombe, B.,
Patton, G.C., Prior, M.R., Raphael, B., Rey, J.M., Whaites, L.C. and Zubrick, S.R. (2001),
The mental health of young people in Australia: key findings from the child and
adolescent component of the national survey of mental health and well-being, Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 806-14.
Sempik, J., Aldridge, J. and Becker, S. (2003), Social and Therapeutic Horticulture: Evidence and
Messages from Research, Thrive and Centre for Child and Family Research,
Loughborough University, Loughborough.
Seymour, L. (2003), English Nature research reports, number 533: nature and psychological
well-being, English Nature, Peterborough.
Snape, D. and Spencer, L. (2003), The foundations of qualitative research, in Ritchie, J. and
Lewis, J. (Eds), Qualitative Research Practice A Guide for Social Science Students and
Researchers, Sage Publications, London.
Sobel, D. (1990), A place in the world: adults memories of childhoods special places, Childrens
Environments Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 5-12.
Sobel, D. (1993), Childrens Special Places Exploring the Role of Forts, Dens, and Bush Houses in
Middle Childhood, Zephyr Press, Tuscon, AZ.
Spradley, J.P. (1979), The Ethnographic Interview, Holt, Rienhart & Winston, New York, NY.
Steiner, R. (1970), Education and the science of spirit, in Allen, P. (Ed.), Education as an Art,
Rudolf Steiner Publications, New York, NY.
Titman, W. (1994), Special Places, Special People: The Hidden Curriculum of School Grounds,
World Wide Fund for Nature, Surrey.
Weare, K. (2000), Promoting Mental, Emotional and Social Health A Whole School Approach,
Routledge, London and New York, NY.
Wilson, E.O. (1984), Biophilia, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wilson, E.O. (2001), Nature matters, American Journal of Preventative Medicine, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 241-2.
Zubrick, S.R., Silburn, S.R., Burton, P. and Blair, E. (2000), Mental health disorders in children
and young people: scope, cause and prevention, Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Psychiatry, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 570-8.
Appendix Contact with
Interview schedule for school participants
Topic (A) introducing activities: nature: a model
1. Tell me a little about the nature-based or environmental education activities at your
school?
2. How were you involved in the introduction of the nature-based/env education activity 541
at your school?
3. For what purpose/purposes was the activity introduced?
4. How was the activity introduced? E.g. was it an initiative of one person, or a
group/committee? Or did it just evolve?
5. Briefly, were there any enablers to the introduction of the activity? i.e. What brought
about its introduction?
6. Briefly, were there any barriers to overcome before introducing the activity? i.e. Any
obstacles to overcome?

Topic (B) definitions/:

7. What do you think are the key elements of a typical environmental education
activity?
8. What do you think, if any, are the main differences between nature-based activities
and more typical environmental education activities?
9. What does the mental health/wellbeing of children mean to you? What key
words/phrases in terms of good mental health for children come to mind?

Topic (C) benefits/effects of activities:

10. Could you describe the effects, if any, of these activities on children in terms of their
mental health and wellbeing? Can you give examples?
11. What sorts of changes (positive or negative) have you observed in the relationships
between children involved in the activity since its introduction? Can you give an
example?
12. What sorts of changes (positive or negative) have you observed in the childrens
relationship with teachers/staff involved in the activity since its introduction? Can you
give an example?
13. What sorts of changes (positive or negative) have you observed in the childrens
overall behaviour since the introduction of the activity? Can you give an example?
14. What sorts of changes (positive or negative) have you observed in the childrens attitude
towards school since the introduction of the activity? Can you give an example?
15. Could you describe the effects, if any, of these types of activities on teachers and other
staff involved?
HE Topic (D) personal contact/beliefs:
109,6 16. What sort of contact with nature do you have personally with nature (for example
gardening, spending time with animals, bushwalking, bird watching etc)? Please
describe.
17. How do you think this effects your health? In what way/s?
542 18. What sort of contact with the natural environment did you have as a child?
19. How do you think your own beliefs about nature influence your opinion of the benefits
of nature-based activities at your school?
Are there any comments you would like to make?

Interview schedule for industry participants

Topic (A) definitions:
1. What are the key elements of a nature-based activity such as . . . a kitchen garden?
2. What do you think, if any, are the main differences between nature-based activities
and more typical environmental education activities?
3. What does the mental health/wellbeing of children mean to you? What key
words/phrases in terms of good mental health for children come to mind?

Topic (B) extent:

4. From your perspective describe current environmental education in Victorian primary
schools?
5. Why do you believe nature-based activities and environmental education activities are
popular in primary schools?
6. Overall, what do you think are the main type/most common form of on-site
nature-based activities in primary schools (i.e. those activities conducted at the school)?
7. Overall, what do you think are the main type/most common form of off-site
nature-based activities in primary schools (i.e. external excursions, site visits)?
8. What would you/your organisation like to achieve in terms of environmental education
or nature-based activities for primary school children over the next 5-10 years?
9. What would be some of the indicators of success, in terms of what youve just
described?

Topic (C) introducing activities/support:

10. For what purpose/s do you believe these types of activities are introduced? Why? Why
not?
11. What sorts of things result in a high level of up-take by schools of the types of
activities your organisation offers? What brings about their introduction?
12. What sorts of things result in a low level of up-take by schools of the types of activities
your organisation offers? What prevents their introduction?
Topic (D) health: Contact with
13. What sorts of health benefits do you believe there are from having contact with the nature: a model
natural environment? Please describe (briefly).
14. Could you describe the effects, if any, of engaging hands-on with the natural
environment on childrens mental health/psychological state?
15. Could you describe the effects, if any, of these types of activities on teachers and other 543
staff involved?
16. How many times in the last fortnight would you have personally had contact with
nature (for example gardening, spending time with animals, bushwalking, bird
watching etc)? Please describe.
17. How do you think this impacts on your health? In what way/s?
18. How do you think your own beliefs about nature influence your opinion of the benefits
of nature-based activities in primary schools?
Are there any other comments you would like to make? Thoughts you have?

About the author

Cecily Jane Maller is a research fellow at the Centre for Design and the Global Cities Institute at
RMIT University, Melbourne (Australia). Beginning with an undergraduate degree in
environmental studies and completing her doctorate in public health, Cecily has a
multidisciplinary background and is interested in the social dimensions of sustainability, in
particular, the dynamics between people and their environments. Before joining RMIT
University, Cecily was employed by various academic institutions and governments in Australia
to conduct social science in the fields of health and natural resource management. Previously,
Cecily has been employed in the Australian university sector, undertaking ecological and social
research, as well as teaching undergraduates. Cecily Jane Maller can be contacted at:
cecily.maller@rmit.edu.au

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints