Risks, rationalities and realities: Learning disabled children’s access to the outdoors - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Risks, rationalities and realities: Learning disabled children’s access to the outdoors

Dr Nadia von Benzon

Lecturer in Human Geography,

SoGEES

n

adia.vonbenzon@plymouth.ac.ukSlide2

Research: explored the relationship – including experiences and perceptions – between learning disabled young people and outdoor green space.Slide3

Context: ‘vulnerable’ children in ‘dangerous’ places

Evidence of widespread decline in children’s access to ‘nature’

Evidence of declining free play and independent mobility amongst children.

Discourse concerning the reduction in opportunities for individual risk taking.

An ongoing narrative of social and space marginalisation of learning disabled people.Slide4

Social Model of Disability

Disability Studies perspective:

People are

disabled

by society’s inability to meet their needs.

Therefore the term

disabled person

is highly politicized.Slide5

Valuing outdoor experience

Childhood experiences crucial to adult interest and competence in accessing these spaces.

Mental health, physical, cognitive health and development,

Environmental awareness and action

Behaviour management

Social opportunities and recreational value.Slide6

The value placed on human interaction with green space is a product between the perceived difference between ‘natural’ or green environments that emanate the habitats of our prehistoric ancestors, and urbanized contemporary society in which we now live.

Biophilia

NostalgiaSlide7

Not solely a contemporary concern:Slide8

Contemporary institutional provision

Access facilitated through public bodies and Quangos (local councils, Forestry Commission), charities, (National Trust, English Heritage), and private companies.

Emphasis placed on different values – different ‘rationalities of rule’.

Conservation a key focus.

Also clear objectives for enjoyment and leisure – potential ‘gateway’ sites.Slide9
Slide10

Children’s visits with school, family/friends or other extra-curricular activities.

‘Supported’ by public policy such as the Learning Outside the Classroom Manifesto

Schools likely to prioritize educational benefits – although also leisure and social benefits.

Extra-curricular clubs may focus on leisure but also value skill development/learning

opportunites

.

For families – may be considered particularly suitable sites to recreate the ‘ideal’ family – memory making and developing bonds.Slide11

However…

Overwhelming evidence for the decline in quality and quantity of outdoor experience amongst children.

Dramatic decrease over a single (two?!) generation(s).

Discussion focuses on:

Loss of independent mobility

Declining access to green spaceSlide12

North American rhetoric: children heading indoors

en

masse

UK perspective: increased use of urban infrastructure and supervised extra curricular activities.

Class based – ‘middle class’ ‘bubble wrapping’Slide13

Potentially a more significant issue for disabled children:

Disabled people absent from both rural green spaces and urban parks.

Exception concerning low cost, sedentary and low risk activities.

Activities typically highly restrictive and supervised.

Importance of independent access for developing a ‘sense of wonder’.Slide14

Learning Disabled Children and Green Space

Generally disabled young people participate in fewer casual and organised social activities than non-disabled children.

More ‘domestic’ than non-disabled children.

The ‘illusion of inclusion’.

Differences between opportunities for disabled and non-disabled people not logical outcomes of impairment but result of prejudiced or stigmatized behaviours that disenfranchise disabled people.Slide15

Goffman (1963): Through stigma a person declines from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one.

As such – disabled people ‘

othered

’

Leads to outright discrimination and/or a paternalistic, protectionist attitude.Slide16

Social paternalism

Stigma therefore motivated by benevolence as well as hostility.

Wolpert

(1980) The Dignity of Risk.

However, protectionism not just a form of discrimination. Occurs increasingly in Western countries to avoid (children’s) exposure to risk and potential litigious outcomes.

Policy and law results in all citizens experiencing curtailment of choice to protect from engagement in harmful activities – lowers social cost and limits litigation.Slide17

So, whilst protectionism likely to impact on all environmental access – particular focus on natural environments as deemed especially ‘dangerous’ sites.

Woolley (2009:49): ‘Risk and fear of risk is the main hindrance to children and young people benefitting from engaging with the natural environment’.

Promotion of ‘play’ in the UK has focused on structured provision in ‘acceptable’ settings such as enclosed playgrounds, parks and children’s centres. Slide18

Factors influencing access

Neighbourhood characteristics

ClassSlide19

Accessing outdoor space and risk

Fear of risk focuses on large, rare events – infrequent occurrences that have the power to threaten social or personal sense of security, stability and competence.

For e.g. – greatest risk to children playing independently is minor physical injury – but parents fear small frequency, high impact risks such as abduction or assault.

Extreme risk aversion fuelled by emotive media representations of victims and the impact of crime or disaster of families (Gill, 2007).Slide20

Green space as particularly dangerous

Seclusion

Non-human – beyond human control.

People with less experience of outdoor green space most likely to view them as risky places.Slide21

Paranoid Parenting

Children’s freedom to roam has reduced, but threats have not increased.

Change in parental attitudes attributes to increased social reflexivity and breakdown in historic support networks and community cohesion.

Changing attitudes towards parent-child relationships with children increasingly positioned as ‘vulnerable’.

Dualistic approach to children – angels and demons.

Vicious circle of intervention – e.g. material dangers caused by parents’ fear.Slide22

Parental interventions

Territorial limits

Parental influence over organizational behaviour

But children also play a role in governing risk.Slide23

My own research

A year at ‘

Broadheath

’ High School – SEN secondary in Greater Manchester.

Ethnographic research, interviews, creative research methods with approximately 100 participants in years 7-11. Slide24

Opportunities

Many and varied for some.

High levels of variation in quantity, types of activities engaged with both inside and outside school.

‘Big ticket’ activities.

Highly structured and supervised.

Wide open spaces afforded some independence.Slide25

Rationalities

Social developmentSlide26

Independent Natural Environment Experiences

Most of the young people (over age 12) allowed some sort of independent mobility in their neighbourhood.

Spent time in ‘private’ spaces, supervised activities or areas of heavy adult surveillance.

Absence of ‘street’ spaces and of any sort of green space such as urban parks.Slide27
Slide28

Restriction to movement a result of fear of violence or other negative reactions from non-disabled young people.

Reflects stigma as a result of being learning disabled

But also a structural issue concerning children educated outside their local community.Slide29

However, outdoor green space seen by a minority as a refuge.

Sites accessed in a subversive manner as an escape from home – potential therapeutic function.Slide30

Managing risk in context: the school

Protection of young people from ‘outside’ harm.

Risk also presented by young people themselves.

Particularly risky behaviour understood as a result of giving young people free time.Slide31

Institutional imperatives approach:

Not children that are being protected but institutional objectives that are maintained through control over children.

Educational objectives pursued in outdoor environments through the reproduction of power hierarchies.Slide32

Concluding remarks

No clear distinction between social construction of risk and material experience of risk.

Young people/adults read environments or social interactions in a negative light as a result of social narratives or become vulnerable to negative social interaction as a result of being viewed as vulnerable.

Children also become vulnerable as a result of protectionist attitudes based on perceived weakness.

Link between perception and reality mediated through public policy and through parental/teachers’ decision making.

Discussion moves beyond concerns regarding the denaturing of childhood to argue that this is one facet of a broader social segregation that has implications for both children’s development and their rights.Slide33

Policy recommendations

Learning disabled young people require support and encouragement to engage independently in their local community.

Green spaces need to offer increased opportunities for supported and structured access.

Schools and families need to be supported in managing risk/benefit analysis of independent and unstructured activities.Slide34

Research site

Interest in exploring the implications of the ‘

microgeographies

’ of the space in which the research encounter occurs on the ethics and the data of the research.

Context: some methodological reflection on the effects of different locations on the research process.

My own interest arose from reflecting on some of the more challenging ‘incidents’ that occurred during the fieldwork.Slide35

Reflections and Implications

Found that whilst

microgeography

is important – the

mesogeography

is the overriding context

i.e. even in the store cupboard both parties are still governed by expectations, norms, and rules of the institution.

Temporal context overrides spatial context. Slide36

Fantasy in research with children

Found many and varied instances of children ‘story telling’ in their research contributions.

Questions the well established understanding that children lie in research contexts where they feel uncomfortable and/or a desire to please.

Poses a challenge to the way in which we treat children’s (?) research contributions.Slide37

Research publications

von Benzon, N., (2009) Moving on from ramps? The utility of the social model of disability for facilitating experiences of nature for disabled children, Disability and Society, 25 (5), 617-626

.

von

Benzon, N., (2011). Who’s afraid of the big bad woods? Fear and learning disabled children’s access to nature. Local Environment, 16(10), 1021-1040

.

von Benzon, N., (2015), ‘I

fell out of a tree and broke my neck’: acknowledging fantasy in children’s research contributions, Children’s

Geographies

The following papers are also available in proof

format (please email for a copy),

due for publication within the next twelve months:

Chapter in Volume 12 (on Risk) in the Springer Handbook of Children’s Geographies – available online.

Chapter (on learning disabled young people’s access to urban parks) in Children, Nature, Cities

- to be published by

Ashgate

next month.

Paper on research site in Social and Cultural Geographies – due to be published in an SI on research with ‘vulnerable’ people, due for publication late 2016/early 2017.Slide38

Key References

Burns, RC and

Graefe

, AR, (2007), Constraints to Outdoor Recreation: Exploring the effects of disabilities on perceptions and participation,

Journal of Leisure Research

, 39 (1), 156-181

Cooper, G., (2005), Disconnected Children,

ECOS

, 26, 26-31

Foucault, M., (1986),

Disciplinary Power and Subjection

, New York: New York University Press

Furedi

, F., (2002),

The Culture of Fear

, London:

Cassell

Gill, T., (2007),

No Fear: Growing up in a risk averse society,

London:

Calouste

Gulbenkein

Foundation

Hallman, B., and

Benbow

, M., (2007),

Familiy

leisure, family photography and zoos:

Explorign

the emotional geography of families,

Social and Cultural Geography

, 8 (6), 871-886

Hart, R., (1978), Children’s exploration of tomorrow’s environments,

Ekistics

, 45, 387-390.

Jahonda

, A., Wilson, A., and Stalker, K., (2010), Living with stigma and the self-perceptions of people with mild intellectual disabilities,

Journal of Social Issues

, 66(3), 521-534.

Kytta

, M., (2004), The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments,

Journal of Environmental Psychology

, 22, 109-123

Malone, K., (2007), The bubble-wrap generation: Children growing up in walled gardens,

Environmental Education Research

, 13 (4), 513-527

Metzel

, D. and Walker, P., (2001), The Illusion of Inclusion:

Geograpies

of the lives of people with developmental disabilities in the United States,

Disability Studies Quarterly

, 21, 114-128

Milligan, C., and Bingley, A., (2007) Restorative Places or Scary spaces, The impact of Woodland on the Mental Well Being of Adults,

Health and Place

, 13, 799-811

Oxarart

, A., Monroe, M., and Plate, R., (2013), From play areas to natural areas: The role of zoos in getting families outdoors,

Visitor Studies

, 16 (1), 82-94.

Philo, C., (1997), Across the water: Reviewing geographical studies of asylums and other mental health facilities,

Health and Place

, 3 (2), 73-89.

Louv

, R. (2005),

Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature deficit disorder

, Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books.

Valentine, G., (1996) Children should be seen and not heard: the production and transgression of adults’ public space,

Human Geography

, 17 (3), 205-220

Valentine, G., and

McKendrick

, J., (1997), Children’s outdoor play, exploring parental concerns about children’s safety and the changing nature of childhood,

Geoforum

, 28 (2), 219-235

Wilson, E O(1986),

Biophilia

, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press

Wolpert

, J., (1980), The Dignity of Risk,

TIBG

, 5 (4), 391-401

Woolley, H., (2009), Every Child Matters in Public Open Space, in Millie, A. (

ed

),

Securing respect: behavioural expectations and anti-social behaviour in the UK

, Bristol: The Policy Press 75-95