1

A Future For Wildlife

at

Hengistbury Head Nature Reserve &

Visitor Centre

Jessica Hodges

Brian Heppenstall

2

Acknowledgements We would like to thank all the people and organisations involved with the project, from the

funders who made the project possible to the participants whose enthusiasm and hard work

made the project a success. Therefore, thank you to:

• AFC Bournemouth’s Green Goals

• Bournemouth Borough Council

• Christchurch Harbour Ornithological Group

• Local Improvement funding from the Ward Councillors of:

Boscombe West East Southbourne & Tuckton

West Southbourne

• LV (Liverpool Victoria)

• Tesco: Bags of Help

• Students and Staff of Stourfield Junior School

• Students and Staff of Jewell Academy

• Students and Staff of Bethany Junior School

• Residents of Michael House

• Students of the Children’s University

• Carers from Bournemouth Young Carers

• Volunteers from Bournemouth Council for Voluntary Service

• Students and Staff of the STEPs Scheme at Bournemouth & Poole College

3

Table of Contents Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................2

1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................5

2. Aims of the Project .....................................................................................................................6

3. Methodology ..............................................................................................................................6

a. Project Location & Schools Involved ................................................................................................. 6

b. Health & Safety Provision ................................................................................................................. 8

c. Participants ....................................................................................................................................... 9

d. Activities .......................................................................................................................................... 10

e. How it All Worked ........................................................................................................................... 12

f. Data Collection ................................................................................................................................ 13

4. Results ..................................................................................................................................... 14

5. Evaluation of Activities ............................................................................................................. 16

a. Moth Trapping ................................................................................................................................ 16

b. Heathland Survey ............................................................................................................................ 17

c. Orienteering .................................................................................................................................... 18

d. Sharkstuff ........................................................................................................................................ 19

e. Forest School with the Dorset Wildlife Trust (DWT) ....................................................................... 20

f. Building a Bug Hotel ........................................................................................................................ 21

g. Reptile Identification ....................................................................................................................... 22

h. Pond Dipping ................................................................................................................................... 23

i. British Mammals ............................................................................................................................. 24

j. Bug Hunting ..................................................................................................................................... 26

k. Round-Up of the Week ................................................................................................................... 26

6. Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 27

a. Impact of Being Outside .................................................................................................................. 27

b. Restrictions ..................................................................................................................................... 27

4

c. How Future for Wildlife Combated Restrictions ............................................................................. 28

d. The Results ...................................................................................................................................... 29

e. Who else Benefitted from the Project? .......................................................................................... 29

f. Limitations....................................................................................................................................... 31

7. Looking to the Future: If you can’t take nature into schools, take the schools into nature ........... 33

a. Taking Nature into Schools ............................................................................................................. 33

b. Taking Schools into Nature ............................................................................................................. 33

8. References ............................................................................................................................... 34

5

1. Introduction The benefits of outdoor learning and spending time in nature are well understood and include:

positive attitude changes, increased levels of concentration and increased motivation to do

exercise outside (Mittelstaedt et al, 1999; Clarke, 2010). Evidence suggests that children want

to spend time in nature as it gives the freedom of choice and encourages natural inquisitive and

adventurous behaviours which are restricted and possibly discouraged within a classroom

(O’Brien & Murray, 2007). Outdoor learning can add value to indoor learning as the education

can complement the curriculum and children who have been exposed to outdoor learning

scored higher on concentration, self-discipline, awareness and observation (Rickinson et al,

2004; Moss, 2012). Learning outside is believed to boost confidence, increase fine motor skills

as well as contributing to general knowledge and understanding of the topic being addressed

(O’Brien & Murray, 2007). Moreover, this is due to the nature of an outside setting posing a

dynamic learning environment which also tackles risk assessing and awareness; for example,

with trip hazards or fire safety and being prepared for changeable weather conditions (O’Brien

& Murray, 2007). The type of learning accessed outside is known as experiential learning,

meaning learning through experience which is vivid, interesting and memorable so the students

are more likely to retain the information for longer (Clarke, 2010). Experiential learning also

exhibits the adaptability of children to varying situations or conditions; which may require:

critical thinking, team working or problem solving all of which have been shown to improve

behaviour and show achievement in alternative ways to exams (Rickinson et al, 2004; Clarke,

2010).

As well as a positive learning experience, experiential learning and being outside is beneficial to

the well-being of children as their “connectedness” to nature increases (Mittelstaedt et al,

1999). Edward Owen Wilson (1986) describes the “Biophilia Hypothesis” as an innate tendency

expressed by human beings to focus on the living world and life processes which reinforces the

importance of encouraging children to go out into nature.

6

2. Aims of the Project The overarching aim of this project was to get children to spend time outside and enjoy being in

nature. This is broken down to the following:

1. To encourage children to go outside, get closer to nature and to educate the

participants about the local wildlife;

2. To increase the amount of time children spent playing outside with other children as a

form of exercise;

3. To boost the interest participants had in their local wildlife with a hope to increase the

protection over nature in the future.

3. Methodology

a. Project Location & Schools Involved Bournemouth holds a population of 197,700 people which is expected to rise by 2036 to

233,900 people; where 25.7% of the population below the age of 16 are living in relative

poverty (Valadez & Hirsch, 2016). Bournemouth is also included in the top third of the countries

most deprived local communities (BCVS, 2017).

Three schools from within Bournemouth were selected to be involved with this project and

were chosen for the potential of being able to engage pupils which may be at a disadvantage to

other pupils in other areas (Figure 1; Table 1). Stourfield Junior school and Bethany Junior

school both received a “Good” (Varnom & Barron, 2012; Pye et al, 2013) rating on previous

Ofsted reports whereas Jewell Academy received an “Outstanding” rating (Popper, 2015).

Within the Ofsted report for Jewell Academy the inspectors commented on the quality of

outdoor learning and its benefits to the pupils- which reinforces the importance for outdoor

education within the curriculum (Popper, 2015).

7

Figure 1 Map presenting the location of the three schools included in the project. Data: Google maps 2017

Table 1 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) where 1 is most deprived and 32844 is least deprived. IMD decile puts this on 1-10 scale where 1 is most deprived and 10 is least deprived (Office of National Statistics, 2015).

School Location IMD Rank IMD Decile

Stourfield Junior School West Southbourne (Bournemouth 014C)

16,651 6

Jewell Academy Strouden Park (Bournemouth 008A)

3,367 2

Bethany Church of England Junior School

Boscombe West (Bournemouth 019B)

3,096 1

8

Two of the schools fall into the most deprived community categories in the country, these are

Jewell Academy and Bethany Junior School; (Table 1). Stourfield Junior school, although not in

an extremely deprived area, was selected as its catchment area includes the Beaufort Estate

which is an area of high deprivation.

The schools were then asked to personally select children who they thought would benefit the

most from the project. The parameters they used to select the children included the following:

- If the child is eligible for free school meals;

- If the child is part of the Pupil Premium Scheme;

- If the child is a young carer or has a member of family who is unwell.

b. Health & Safety Provision When planning for the project began, health and safety were considered first in the way of: risk

assessments, first aid and child protection.

• Risk Assessments:

Before planning each activity, careful risk assessments were completed to judge if the

activities would be safe enough to carry out and any associated risks could be managed.

All risk assessments were distributed to the schools prior to the project commencing.

The risk assessments covered broad risks such as trip hazards, site specific risks such as

adder bites and activity specific risks such as falling into the pond.

• First Aid:

A qualified first aider and a complete first aid kit remained with the group throughout

the project ensuring that if any accidents did occur they could be dealt with

competently. All members of staff from Hengistbury Head carried a radio and mobile

phone allowing them to be contacted when required to help.

Before commencing the project, a form was sent to the families of the children involved

asking questions regarding allergies, medication, dietary needs or disabilities therefore

allowing the staff to be prepared for any situations that may arise.

• Child Protection:

To ensure the children from the project were kept safe during the project a high adult to

child ration was achieved where the minimum number of adults with a group of children

was 4; however, this was normally much higher. The high adult to child ratio allowed for

smaller groups to work together with an adult to help along the way, prevent any

disagreements and keep the children safe when walking around site. At all times, the

9

group had at least one DBS checked adult with them and again there was normally more

than one.

Also, included in the letter given to parents/guardians was a section where their

permission was requested to firstly attend the trip and secondly to take photos of the

group for school or centre purposes. Therefore, only the children whose parents had

given permission were photographed during the week; however, it is worth noting that

the children who were not photographed were often unaware as this was done

discretely to avoid feelings of segregation.

In addition to the health and safety provision mentioned above, general “common sense” was

exercised throughout the trip. This included judging the weather in advance to advise the

parents on what clothing to provide such as raincoats. We also advised parents to put sun

cream on their children and when it was sunny it was agreed that only short periods of time

would be spent in the direct sun and children were to carry water on them always.

c. Participants It is said that primary school children are more enthusiastic towards new experiences when

compared to secondary school children who are more difficult to enthuse regarding new

learning opportunities (Rickinson et al,2004). Dr William Bird, 2007, stated that the critical age

of influence for children is under 12 years old; therefore, all children included in the project

were ages 7-10 years old as this fits into the junior category of primary school. The

demographic of children included was selected randomly, except for the “deprived” status

(Table 2).

Table 2 Demographic of the students involved in the project broken down by age and gender

Number of Children

Number of Boys

Number of Girls

Children aged 7 years

Children aged 8 years

Children aged 9 years

Children aged 10 years

35 18 17 1 13 12 9

There was an almost even gender ratio which is positive as a previous study showed that both

boys and girls benefit from outdoor learning (Table 2; Mittelstaedt et al¸ 1999). There was a

trend toward an older group of students with only one 7-year-old; therefore, some of the

activities moulded to better suited to a slightly older group (Table 2).

10

d. Activities With hope to engage as many of the young people as possible, a wide variety of activities were

included to cover: terrestrial and marine life, invertebrates and vertebrates, plants and animals

(Table 3).

Table 3 Description of the activities included in the project week and the aims of each activity

Name of Activity

Description Aims

Moth Identification

A light moth trap was set the night before to check in the morning. Moths were identified using books and examined in magnifying pots before being released.

- To appreciate the variety of moth and butterfly species

- To treat the moths carefully and with respect

- To identify the species found

Heathland Survey

A basic heathland assessment took place using a transect and quadrats to examine the changes in a heathland after management.

- To identify the changes that can occur in a single habitat

- To learn variety of species in a habitat and how to identify them

Orienteering A short orienteering course around the area using maps and checkpoint code words placed in advance.

- To familiarise the children with their surroundings

- To teach them how to read maps and orienteering signs

- To inform the children of how to walk safely around the public and wildlife

- To appeal to and expose the adventurous side of childhood

“Sharkstuff” A day learning more about what is in the waters around Dorset, a beach combing session, a litter pick and interactive presentations on sharks

- To inform the children of the variety of life in the waters near Dorset

- To respect rather than fear sharks - To appreciate the damage that

littering can do to the ocean/seas

Dorset Wildlife Trust

A morning working in the woodlands, playing games, making pendants, using tools and learning safety.

- To learn how to be safe in woodlands: trip hazards, fire safety, hazardous plants

- To learn how to use tools safely: wearing gloves, safe working space

11

Building a Bug Hotel

Making a bug hotel from materials such as wooden pallets, hay, pipes, bamboo, soil, leaves, twigs and bricks.

- To appreciate the variety of invertebrates in a small space

- To learn how to create habitats for species wherever they are

- To appreciate the importance of invertebrates

British Mammals

Making, baiting and setting mammal footprint tunnels to check the following morning. Longworth traps were also set to check early in the morning. Mammal identification was therefore covered from photos and footprints.

- To understand the various mammal species in the UK

- To learn how to behave when working with small mammals

- To learn how to conduct mammal surveys safely

Reptile Identification

Artificial reptile refuges were set a couple of months in advance and these were checked by a member of staff so that the children could observe from a safe distance.

- To learn about the various reptile species

- To learn how to safely observe them - To learn how to deal with an adder

bite

Pond Dipping An aquatic macro-invertebrate survey was completed of a dipping pond using nets, trays and ID guides from a platform and the bank.

- To understand the ecosystems of a pond and its diversity

- To learn how to identify pond species - To behave sensibly and safely around

a pond

Sweep Netting Terrestrial invertebrates were searched for using sweep nets in a grassland and planted wild-flower meadow, these were then identified.

- To learn the survey techniques for terrestrial invertebrates

- To appreciate how to handle invertebrates and how to be safe while doing so

The activities formed a basic structure for the week and these activities were interwoven with

games, times for questions, walking between activities and breaks where the children socialised

and could explore the wildlife garden. However, this structure was not rigid, and where

necessary it was deviated from; for example, one afternoon an activity was altered as the

children were interested in the cows, so a ranger gave the children a talk and a Q&A session on

the cows.

12

The weekly plan was designed to merge outdoor education with topics that the children may

also cover at school to approach learning from a different angle that is much more interactive.

However, it was important that this did not feel like an extra week of schooling and therefore it

was essential that the week was fun and adventurous.

e. How it All Worked The project ran from Monday to Friday within the school summer holidays so no education was

interrupted, this meant that the children and parents chose to attend the week. Each morning,

the group were collected from their school at 9:15am, they were registered and driven to the

nature reserve. The children were introduced to the adults who would be leading the day and

informed of the first aider and who to look to in the case of a fire. Throughout the day, the

children were registered to ensure everybody was together and the adults were constantly

checking that everyone was okay and enjoying the day. The week ran to the same schedule

each week (Figure 2) to ensure consistency for the data which will be discussed in the next

section.

Figure 2 Schedule for each week with the schools during Future for Wildlife

13

f. Data Collection An objective of the project was to use before and after intervention questionnaires to assess if

learning outside in nature had any effect on children’s wellbeing or connectedness to nature. At

the beginning of the week the children individually sat with a researcher to answer a set of

questions, at the end of the week these questions were then repeated to produce a measure of

wellbeing (Table 4). At the end of the week the children were also asked questions regarding

their experience and connectedness to nature. All questions were asked on a 1-5 Likert scale

which had been adapted for children by using faces showing various emotions (Figure 3; Table

4) (Likert, 1932; Bragg et al, 2013).

Table 4 List of the parameters and statements given to the children to assess wellbeing, connectedness to nature, perceived restorativeness.

Wellbeing Parameters

Connectedness to Nature Statements Perceived Restorativeness

Statements

Energetic Feeling connected to all living things This experience was

different

Happy Importance of taking care of animals I would like to come here

again

Excited Humans are part of the natural world There were lots of

interesting things to discover

Daring All living things are clever The experience was

confusing

Proud Feeling separate to all living things I can do things I like here

Calm Feeling sad when animals are hurt I feel like I belonged here

Sad People cannot live without animals or plants

I enjoyed being in nature

Upset Considering how my actions affect the earth

Lonely Picking up litter can help the environment

Angry Nice to see wild animals in a clean environment

Nervous Humans are more important than animals

Scared Humans and animals are equal

People do not have the right to change the natural environment

14

The statements were kept constant throughout the project and the children were all asked the

questions at the same point during the week. Since these consistencies were kept for all three

weeks with both the questionnaires and the activities involved, the data collection occurred in a

controlled manner. Once the scores were collated it was possible to interpret the following:

level of wellbeing, connectedness to nature and perceived restorativeness.

4. Results A Future For Wildlife was assessed by the children using a pre- and post- intervention

questionnaire with the aim of quantifying perceived restorativeness, connectedness to nature

and levels of wellbeing.

Overall Hengistbury Head was rated as very restorative by the children at the end of the project

scoring it 4 out of 5. All three schools rated this highly with Bethany Junior School rating the

highest to Stourfield rating the least high of the three (Table 5).

Table 5 Ratings of perceived restorativeness from each school; where the maximum score was 5

School Group Average perceived restorativeness score

Stourfield Junior School 4.08

Jewell Academy 4.18

Bethany Junior School 4.23

Figure 3 Adapted version of the Likert scale to fit a younger age group (Bragg et al, 2013).

15

Considering connectedness to nature, overall the project and setting made all the children feel

connected to nature to some extent where the average score across all the children was 4.04

out of 5. Jewell academy and Bethany Junior School children felt very connected to nature

whereas Stourfield Junior School felt somewhat connected to nature (Table 6).

Table 6 Connectedness to nature scores from each school; where the maximum score was 5

Overall, wellbeing of all the children saw a marginal improvement as positive emotion

increased on average by 0.08 and negative emotion did not change at all. Positive emotions

such as feeling proud, energetic and calm increased; however, the feeling of excitement

decreased from the Stourfield School children. Jewell academy saw the most positive emotion

improvement followed by Bethany Junior school; however, positive emotion decreased in the

Stourfield Junior School group (Table 7).

Table 7 Positive and Negative emotion changes from each school to assess wellbeing change; where the maximum change was ± 5

Negative emotion did not change on average across the schools; however, within each

school it did marginally alter. Stourfield Junior school saw the largest increase in negative

emotion change which was driven by increased feelings of anger (Table 7). Negative

emotion did not substantially alter in Jewell Academy; however, anxiety specifically

reduced by half a categorical level driven by nervousness and scared emotions (Table 7).

Bethany Junior School saw a reduction in negative emotions (Table 7) where decreases

were seen in 4 of the 6 negative emotions including: nervousness, loneliness, scared and

angry. It is worth noting that at the end of the week children from all three groups

expressed that they were sad to leave and asked if they could “come back on Monday to

School Group Average connectedness to nature score

Stourfield Junior School 3.90

Jewell Academy 4.22

Bethany Junior School 4.01

School Group Positive Emotion Change Negative Emotion Change

Stourfield Junior School -0.19 +0.13

Jewell Academy +0.26 +0.02

Bethany Junior School +0.19 -0.13

16

do it all again.” Therefore, it poses the question if the wellbeing results may be swayed by

negative emotions because they were sad the week was over rather than being sad in

general.

5. Evaluation of Activities

a. Moth Trapping This activity was placed as the first event on the first day as many of the children involved were

not friends before the project and this activity gave a good introduction to the week and

allowed plenty of time for team games. The children went through the moth trap learning some

identification skills and fun facts about moths, also getting to observe them close-up once

safely in a tube. Related to this session was an activity page asking them to draw, colour,

describe and name a moth they have seen or one they can imagine (Figure 4).

Figure 4 Moth identification page which was completed after checking the moth trap

17

Since many of the children did not know each other prior to starting the project, we played

several team games such as “stuck in the mud” or “wink murder” which appealed to all the

children and allowed them to learn each other’s names. This session became a crucial part of

the week where initial friendships formed, and names were learned.

This activity received positive feedback from the children who initially did not seem interested

but were then impressed when shown the variety of moths in the trap (Figure 5). One mother

commented after the project that her son had “given (her) lots of facts about moths.”

b. Heathland Survey A simplified version of a heathland condition assessment was conducted by the students each

week to collate a large enough data set for statistical testing. The students learnt how to

identify a few heathland plant species as well as the survey techniques required. The children

were taught how to use a quadrat along an interval transect to assess the percentage cover of

various plants and bare ground. This was selected as an activity to assess if children could

conduct ecological surveys using standardised techniques and learn identification techniques

about plants.

The heathland survey also posed a challenge in portraying the need to be cautious and sensible

in this habitat due to plants like gorse, the uneven ground and the potential presence of adders.

Figure 5 Moth trapping with Stourfield Junior School

18

The adults assisting the children commented that they were quick to pick up the identification

skills and all were keen to find the position on the tape and place the quadrat. It was also

interesting to listen to the children throughout the week point out plants to the adults such as

gorse and various types of heather showing they had remembered what was taught.

c. Orienteering Orienteering was placed as an activity on the first day as an opportunity to give the children a

chance to explore the site. A route was marked out on maps (Figure 6) and estimated to take 90

minutes to walk at a leisurely pace including time to talk about various places and answer

questions. The activity aimed to appeal to children’s natural curiosity and adventurous nature;

whilst learning about the site. The children were taught how to read an orienteering map using

various symbols and were encouraged to work as a team to navigate themselves as they were

given the responsibility to lead and the responsible adult was to follow behind the group.

It was found that many of the children were nervous at the beginning of the activity because of

fears such as getting lost or not feeling confident enough to communicate to the group.

However, as the activity continued the children became a lot more confident and worked well

to figure the route out. They were also quick to assess risks when walking such as the land train

passing by, the children were keen to tell the group to move to the side and wave to the train.

Figure 6 Example orienteering map with the individual checkpoints marked

19

d. SharkStuff The second day of the project was dedicated to the marine environment which is possibly

neglected within the school curriculum (Gov.UK, 2015). Therefore, a charity called “SharkStuff”

spent the day educating the children about marine life, beaches and specifically sharks in

Dorset and UK waters. Activities included: beachcombing, litter picking, taking shark

measurements and making sculptures out of objects found on the beach. The entire day was

focused around the charities mission statement: “using education to change perception, and

science to save sharks.”

At the beginning of the day the children were asked what words they thought of when they

heard “shark;” at the end of the day this exercise was repeated to assess if their opinion

towards sharks had changed because of what they had learned (Table 8).

Table 8 Opinions, feelings and thoughts expressed by children before and after the day spent with SharkStuff

Words about sharks before intervention Words about sharks after intervention Finding Nemo Eat Food Blood Scared Bait Fossils

Evolved Sharp Teeth Killers Ocean Scary Megalodon

Megalodon Shy Curious Happy Friendly Kind Survivors

Harmless Endangered Blood Thoughtful Resilient

Although some negative opinions were expressed at both the beginning and the end of the day-

such as “blood”- there was a big difference in the words expressed. Where the beginning of the

day expressed some fear emotions, such as “scary” or “killers,” the end of the day consisted

more of positive emotions such as “happy” or “resilient.” The words expressed at the end of

the day show that the children understood and engaged with the activities presented by

SharkStuff. A parent commented that since learning this new information about sharks her

daughter “wants to work with sharks in the future.” Another parent commented that her son

spent the evening “showing shark videos and telling (her) why we need to help them.”

20

e. Forest School with the Dorset Wildlife Trust (DWT) The morning was spent carrying out forest school activities aimed to show the children a

different way to spend time outside. It focused on playing games using their imagination,

learning facts about nature and using tools safely. The morning began with animal yoga to calm

the group down and to stretch before doing exercise. Originally the children were shy about

this activity, but once the adults were getting involved too they seemed to enjoy making the

silly animal noises.

Behind all the activities for the day the main learning objective was learning how to be safe

outside. Therefore, the children were told what to do in a fire, where the boundaries were and

not to cross them, how to identify a trip hazard and who to report to if they were hurt. The

children all listened intently to this and took on board the messages passed as they were given

this responsibility and allowed to roam within the area defined during the activities and games

(Figure 7).

For many of the children, using hand tools was a first-time experience and some were nervous

about getting hurt; however, once reassured by the DWT all the children worked hard to make

their pendant and took great care doing so.

Figure 7 Another activity from the DWT: the children had to collect various colours from the woodland

21

f. Building a Bug Hotel Since much of the week was spent learning about the variety of wildlife present in Hengistbury

Head, this activity was incorporated to show children the sorts of things they can do to help

wildlife. The children were presented with a stack of empty wooden pallets and a collection of

materials that they could use to create habitats within the pallets. All materials used were

either natural (hay), recycled (drainpipes and bricks) or found naturally within the working area

(sticks, soil, leaves).

The use and importance of each type of habitat they could create was explained, as well as

what wildlife would benefit, and this included: bees, woodlice, ladybirds, hedgehogs, birds and

toads. It was also explained how the bug hotel would contribute to the ecosystem providing

shelter as well as food all year round. The children were split into smaller groups and given a

side to work on: they had to plan what they were going to do, delegate tasks, work as a team

and complete it within a time limit.

Due to exposure to wildlife decreasing on a society scale many of the children were not very

keen on being near to insects and were hesitant to go near the bug hotel even when empty.

Therefore, the adults spent time talking about the importance of insects and other

invertebrates to the ecosystem and explaining not only bugs will use the hotel. After this and

with the prospect of helping mammals and birds as well as the bugs, the children soon seemed

happier and found themselves jobs within the team that included collecting rather than placing

things into the pallets. A guardian of one of the children commented that “she enjoys finding

insects and looking in the garden” where she may not have been so keen to do this before.

The bug hotels will now stay in the education area which is currently being developed on site,

the children were told of this and were happy that lots of other children will see the work they

have done (Figure 8).

Figure 8 One of the bug hotels built during the project; in this example material such as: bamboo, hay, drainpipe, plant pots, pine cones, bricks, leaves, twigs and soil were used.

22

g. Reptile Identification At the beginning of this activity the children were asked what a reptile was and unfortunately

very few could give any definitions or key features of reptiles without being prompted by being

given examples. Therefore, the reptile identification session was quite important; they were

informed of what makes reptiles different as well as all the different reptile species in the UK.

Before, going to check the reptile artificial refuges a safety talk about adders was also given.

This was to highlight that there are venomous snakes in the UK but if you are safe and

respectful then there is nothing to fear. The children then made safety posters about adders

and what they thought the public should be told.

The group were then lead around the artificial refuges and as each one was checked. The

children were not allowed to touch the refugia or the reptiles and the adults did any handling

where appropriate. Generally, slow worms (Anguis fragilis) and common lizards (Lacerta

vivipara) were found when checking the refuges and this may partly be because the group were

quite loud and may have scared off any other species. However, from a safety point of view

these were the best species to find and the children seemed fascinated by the slow worms

being “legless-lizards” rather than snakes or worms (Figure 9). An adult later heard one of the

children relaying the facts about slow worms to another child and adult. This, along with the

excitement shown by all, was great to see as many children told the adults they had never seen

a wild reptile before.

Figure 9 A slow worm found underneath the reptile artificial refuges

23

h. Pond Dipping Pond dipping was an eagerly anticipated activity. The children took responsibility of carrying the

equipment to the pond and did this in a very safe manner. Once at the pond area, a safety talk

was given and included details on: how to be safe around ponds, how to correctly handle pond

dipping equipment and how to be respectful of the creatures caught. The group was instructed

not to lean over the water, to kneel on the platform where necessary and to be aware of the

people around them when manoeuvring the nets.

The group then split off into pairs to pond dip. Working in pairs was very efficient as they were

encouraged to take turns and help each other to identify the species found using an

identification guide. The children were also allowed to choose their partners but encouraged to

be considerate of others and try to work with someone they did not normally work with. This

had been a theme throughout the week, so it was very positive that some of the children took

this on board when choosing their partners for this activity.

Pond dipping was a very positive activity, the entire group enjoyed themselves and were rather

disappointed to leave at the end. The enthusiasm to identify the species varied between

children as some were not interested in this part of the activity; however, other children spent

a great amount of time identifying each creature they caught. Although, a follow up to this

activity suggested that all the children absorbed more information than at first believed as most

of the children could match the image to the creature’s name or only required a little help from

their peers (Figure 10).

Pond dipping received the most positive and enthusiastic feedback of the week. On the Friday

afternoon, the children were asked about their favourite activity and all of them commented

that they enjoyed the pond dipping as well as other activities.

24

i. British Mammals This activity was split over two days, where on the first day the group did all the preparation

work and on the second day we collected the results so that the children could take full

ownership of the survey. The survey technique used was to record mammal footprints in baited

tunnels over-night. The children had to work in pairs to construct the tunnels, attach the paper

to record the footprints, apply the ink and place the bait in the centre. They then had to choose

where to position their tunnel after a short introduction to small mammal behaviour and make

sure it was pegged into place.

Figure 10 Pond dipping follow-up activity. Children were asked to select the creatures they found and link the picture to the name

25

Throughout the activity, the importance of keeping hands away from mouths was reinforced

and everyone involved had to wash their hands as soon as the activity finished.

The following morning all the children were keen to go to collect their mammal footprint

tunnels. In their groups, the children found and collected the tunnels, making sure to keep

them level to prevent the ink spreading, the entire group then gathered to look through each

tunnel with the help of a footprint ID guide (Figure 11).

This activity proved to be very popular with all the children as they could take ownership of

their survey tunnel and did not want any assistance from adults. The children also appeared

surprised by the variety of small mammals in Britain as pictures of each animal were shown.

However, a similar topic arose between this activity and the reptile activity; in that the children

struggled to identify key features of mammals, but could identify humans as mammals. The

distinction between wild and domestic animals also posed many questions, where many

children believed cows and sheep would class as wild mammals, rather than owned livestock.

Figure 11 Examples of some small mammal footprints to compare the tunnel results to (Mammal Society, 2017).

26

j. Bug Hunting For approximately half of the children involved, the bug hunting activity made them quite

nervous due to a fear of bugs. Therefore, the aims of this activity widened to include

familiarising the children with various invertebrates as well as learning the sweep netting

technique and identification. This activity also allowed the children to demonstrate their

knowledge of how to use a net safely which they had remembered from the previous day. The

adults observed many of them correcting each other about being spatially aware. To begin with

some of children struggled to get the invertebrate out of the net and into the magnifying pot to

identify it. However, it was interesting to observe the various ways which they tried to achieve

this, many tried working in teams and waited until the creature was still before trying to catch

it.

This activity proved to be beneficial particularly for those who were nervous about bugs to

begin with as a mother of one of the children commented: “She was very hesitant around bugs

before, but this seems to have gone since attending the project.”

k. Round-Up of the Week As the last session of the week, time was spent as a group reflecting on the project. The

children were asked what they had enjoyed the most and if there was anything that they had

wanted to do but didn’t get chance- these ideas were then incorporated into the afternoon,

where possible. This session was designed to ensure that the project ended on a high each

week. The activities they suggested included:

- Playing team games that they had learned during the week - Exploring the museum exhibitions in the visitor centre - Using their wildlife ID books in the wildlife garden - Doing a nature orientated craft activity

The activities that the children selected was evidence that they engaged with nature and felt

comfortable and confident working with their new peers. During this session, a small “Awards

ceremony” also took place: here every child received a small gift, a certificate and we discussed

what the child had done well during the week. This was an important part of the week to

represent what the children had individually achieved and to thank them for their hard work

and enthusiasm.

27

6. Discussion

a. Impact of Being Outside Spending time outside and in nature is very beneficial to children’s development; however, the

time children spend outside is now being described by some as a crisis known as “Nature Deficit

Disorder (NDD)” (Cohen, 2017). Authors are attempting to quantify the amount of time that

children are spending outside, although the results show high variance, they are all worrying.

Cohen (2017) states that children only spend 7 minutes outside playing per day, whereas the

Guardian (2016) state that children play for approximately 4 hours per week outside. These

estimates are concerning, especially when compared to the 17 hours per week watching

television and 20 hours per week spent online (Moss, 2012).

b. Restrictions Despite the benefits of spending time outside, the opportunities for children to connect to

nature are diminishing; and there are 4 key reasons why:

1. Health & Safety

Health and safety measures can sometimes put up actual or perceived restrictions on children

spending time outside which is due to fear from parents, teachers and the children themselves

(Moss, 2012). This is reflected in research suggesting that the area which children can freely

roam has reduced by 90% since 1971 (Moss, 2012). Therefore, children are not getting

sufficient time to play or learn outside which could stem from a perception that being indoors is

safer. Despite the feeling of being unsafe outside it has been shown that children are most at

risk from harm when inside the home from cleaning products, stairs and knives (Moss, 2012).

However, if conducted correctly, outdoor learning holds the capability to teach children how to

keep themselves safe by understanding the risks and how to approach them (Clarke, 2010).

2. Curriculum Limits

The restrictions of the curriculum are another reason for diminishing levels of outdoor

education, because there is little flexibility in the content that the schools must ensure is

sufficiently covered- leaving little time for other activities (Rickinson et al, 2004). However,

many would argue that including outdoor learning would enrich the curriculum and provide

students with a wider range of learning experiences (O’Brien & Murray, 2007). It has been

accepted for many years that outdoor learning should be used additionally as a learning

28

method; for example: maths by counting firewood, team work and biology to name only a few

(Rickinson et al, 2004).

3. Lack of Teacher Confidence

Teacher confidence to deliver outdoor learning is another restriction placed on children’s

outdoor education due to the very little support for teachers to help teach outdoor learning.

Therefore, if support could be given to teachers, outdoor learning may be boosted within

schools, this could be in the form of training.

4. Lack of Time, Resources and Support

With little time to fit outdoor learning into the curriculum, using it as a learning method may

increase the opportunities within the school term time; for example, measurements of trees

and subsequent calculations taken for numeracy lessons (Forestry Commission, 2011). There

are other issues surrounding the resources that the schools have access to, in order to deliver

these lessons, for example if they do not have sufficient school grounds or local green space,

and funding remains a significant barrier.

c. How Future For Wildlife Combated Restrictions With the aim to increase the amount of time children spend outside having fun, it was essential

that a Future For Wildlife combatted the above restrictions in order to deliver a safe and

successful project.

Health and safety provisioning was the first thing considered during planning and it remained at

the forefront throughout the project. Robust risk assessments were conducted which included

using suitable equipment. Staff were competent, aware of risks and constantly exhibited safe

practice. At all times a high staff to student ratio was achieved at a minimum of 1:4, where one

of the adults with the group was first aid trained and DBS checked. These members of staff

were also aware of any special requirements or needs of the participants to be able to provide

this help subtly to give each child the same experience.

Future For Wildlife took place during the summer holidays, this meant that no time was taken

away from the curriculum time table. However, the activities that took place all linked into

subjects taught at school with a direct link to biology. Therefore, it would be possible to mould

the activities to fit within the curriculum or be used as a teaching method to assist a range of

subjects from physical education to maths.

29

The project was not delivered by teachers, but by members of staff from Hengistbury Head

whose backgrounds range from ecology, wildlife conservation and countryside management, so

were confident at presenting the content. However, the activities included within a Future For

Wildlife could easily be translated to educate teachers on how to teach outdoor education. Also

within the activities, follow-up resources were generated that could be distributed to schools to

assist teachers when conducting outdoor education.

Future For Wildlife was a funded project (Please see Acknowledgements), meaning that any

essential resources could be sourced. The nature of Future For Wildlife drew in great support

for the project from: the funders, schools involved, participants, SharkStuff and the DWT as well

as the ranger team and staff at Hengistbury Head.

d. The Results Throughout the questions included in the children’s questionnaire, positive results were

expressed including connectedness to nature, perceived restorativeness and wellbeing. The

children rated the setting to be very restorative meaning that it was successful in restoring

health and wellbeing when compared to their normal or urban settings (Pasini et al¸ 2014). A

very high connectedness to nature result was also presented, showing that by the end of the

project the children felt emotionally connected to the natural world (Mayer & Frantz, 2004). An

improvement in wellbeing was also recorded from the children. However, this improvement

was marginal, it wasn’t seen in all the children and was not expressed in every single emotion.

Although we must consider that these results are based on an intervention that lasted only a

marginal amount of time and therefore begs the question: “given more time and further

intervention what additional benefits could be seen?”

e. Who else Benefitted from the Project? Aside from the schools, several other organisations were approached to be involved with the

project to attempt to reach a range of people and included the following (Table 9).

Michael House is a homeless hostel and home providing support to vulnerable people, they

also offer day services and initiatives to help them in their future. Therefore, a 5-day

programme was conducted with the hostel residents and included a range of tasks relating to

countryside jobs such as: heathland surveys, aquatic macroinvertebrate surveys and invasive

plant species removal such as ragwort (Jacobaea vulgaris). The residents commented that they

enjoyed being outside and gaining experience often in a field unrelated to their background.

30

Bournemouth Council for Voluntary service is a group which helps to facilitate work

experience for young people in a range of sectors who live in Bournemouth. The young people

in the group spent two sessions at Hengistbury head and completed the following tasks:

checking the animals, ragwort removal, reptile identification and cutting back of invasive plants

such as gaultheria. The young people who attended these sessions were enthusiastic and

engaged in the activities with one asking the potential for future opportunities to do work

experience outside.

There were two groups from Bournemouth Young Carers which attended different sessions-

the first aged 5-11 years and the second aged 12+, during which there was pond dipping, reptile

identification, a guided nature walk and bug hunting. The children who attended these sessions

all had additional responsibilities at home, so this was an opportunity for them to play, be

outside and socialise with other children the same age. Only a few of the children knew each

other prior to the session; however, by the end friendships were establishing. The children

worked both independently and in small groups, interacting with all the activities; but showing

particular interest in the pond dipping and reptile identification.

The Children’s University is a scheme working in partnership with Bournemouth University to

introduce children to innovative and exciting learning experiences; therefore, a group of 15

spent the day at Hengistbury Head covering a variety of ecologically based activities. The day

ran as follows: moth trap check, reptile identification, beachcombing, pond dipping and sweep

netting. The families of the students were invited to join them for the day which had varying

effects; some were more confident with their parents whereas others wanted to stay close to

their parents. The children seemed most surprised by the moth trap check as many began the

session considering them to be “boring,” the reptile identification was also received in various

ways: where some were excited having been unaware of wild reptiles and others were fearful

of presence of snakes.

A programme called STEPs takes place at Bournemouth and Poole College for young people

with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Throughout the term time sessions are

being held at Hengistbury Head to give the students the opportunity to spend time outside in a

safe environment learning about nature. Activities with this group include: pond dipping in a

wheelchair accessible pond, litter picking, grazing talks and animal checking. Many of the

students do not get as many opportunities to spend time outside and can be restricted due to

wheelchair access so all the activities included in the sessions are fully accessible to everyone.

31

Table 9 List of other organisations included in the project, the type of participants, age group of participants and number of people (where CVS stands for Council for Voluntary Service).

Organisation Type of

Participant Age Group

Number of Participants

Michael House Residents Adults (Aged 21+) 7

Bournemouth CVS Volunteers Young people (Aged 13-21) 5

Bournemouth Young Carers Young carers Children (Aged 5-16) 23

Children’s University Students Children (Aged 5-14) 13

STEPs Programme at Bournemouth & Poole College

Students Young Adults (Aged 16-25) 16

f. Limitations

• Intervention only lasted 5 days

It would be advisable that if the project was repeated to extend the period of intervention.

Since a marginal improvement was seen in wellbeing over a marginal period of time, it could be

speculated that if the intervention was extended then the improvement of wellbeing would be

increased. This is reinforced by Mittelstaedt et al (1999) who commented that a longer

intervention period would be more beneficial and possibly see a greater impact.

• No control groups

Due to the nature of the project, there wasn’t a control group who were assessed without

intervention. Therefore, it must be considered that children’s wellbeing can change regardless

of the intervention period. Therefore, if given the opportunity, a control group could be added

to the project to assess children’s wellbeing with and without the intervention week.

• Activities were not individually assessed

The questionnaire was asked at the beginning and the end of the intervention to assess the

week overall including all the activities. However, if possible it would be beneficial to assess

each activity to see how much the group enjoyed it or learned from it to help mould the

activities to better suit the participants.

32

• Small sample group

Predominantly due to time constraints the sample size of children was relatively small at 35,

which made statistical testing rather difficult and in some cases redundant. Therefore, a greater

sample size would increase the reliability and validity of the data collection and any associated

statistics.

• Participants backgrounds from varying levels of deprivation

Most, if not all the participants in this project, were deprived or disadvantaged in some sense;

however, this varied greatly across the project population. Therefore, the participants were

from a range of backgrounds where some had a fair amount of exposure to wildlife whereas

others were almost entirely deprived of nature. Hence, this may have an impact on the

connectedness to nature scale.

• Low turn-out from Michael House

When working with the hostel residents, there was a low turn-out on each day when compared

to the maximum number of possible participants. There are a few possible reasons for this such

as: the residents were nervous about trying something new with new people or they had

commitments such as job interviews, benefits meetings and other courses. Some of these

reasons are easy to combat but time restrictions meant the time needed could not be

dedicated to it. Given time it would be beneficial to spend time in advance getting to know the

participants, so they feel comfortable and have some prior knowledge on the activities they will

be doing.

33

7. Looking to the Future: If you can’t take nature into schools, take

the schools into nature A future for wildlife proved to be a successful and beneficial project, it reached a minimum of

100 people over a period of 2 months including school children, young adults and adults from a

range of backgrounds with a common factor of deprivation of some form.

The project highlighted several discussion points:

- Outdoor education is not included enough in the curriculum

- Children want to and enjoy spending time outside with nature

- In most cases, Schools do not have the resources to facilitate outdoor learning

- There is a lack of confidence from teachers on how to teach outside

Taking these points into consideration there is a clear need for further interventions to help get

more people, particularly children, outside and closer to nature. With this in mind, future work

should aim to address these points possibly in some of the following ways:

a. Taking Nature into Schools Many schools are located within urban or built up locations and therefore the presence of

nature or wildlife within their grounds is limited. Research has shown that school grounds

impact the behaviour of children and academic performance (Lowis, 2003). Enriched and

natural school grounds holds a positive relationship with improved behaviour and happier

students; however, it has been estimated that only 30% of the learning potential is reached

from school grounds (Lowis, 2003). Therefore, the possibility of assisting schools and students

to expose and utilise the natural environments within their grounds is exciting. This could be

achieved by: assisting teachers to deliver science lessons outside and interacting with the

natural world, via pond dipping, bug hunting or plant identification; helping the students to

improve their school’s grounds for wildlife by putting in a bug hotel or a hedgehog highway; or

by providing teachers with the necessary resources to confidently deliver lessons relating to

wildlife in their school.

b. Taking Schools into Nature Some schools do not have the available school grounds or are not able to use outdoor learning at their

school; in such cases the potential to bring the school classes out of their school buildings and into a

natural space such as a nature reserve could be an alternative. This would provide a safe space to learn

the topic in-situ providing dynamic, real world examples without the necessity for electricity or screens.

34

However, an obvious issue to arise from this would be what would happen in unfavourable weather

conditions, therefore it would be advantageous if the site had sufficient resources to conduct the

activities and a dry “classroom” space and to keep any equipment safe and dry.

It is because of these reasons, that plans are being put in place for a new dynamic opportunity at

Hengistbury Head to form an Education Area and base. Already an area has been cleared, a pond has

been placed and platforms are planned to allow pond dipping, but there is still much work to do. There

are plans for a teepee like shelter to be constructed and a pen to be built for sheep grazing. It is hoped

that the area will be ready to use by students in Spring/Summer of 2018.

Alongside this, Bournemouth Council’s Countryside Team have committed to providing a minimum of 25

lessons onsite- recognising the need for further outdoor education. These lessons will be initially offered

to schools from deprived areas or whose grounds limit the potential for outdoor education within their

grounds.

An extension of this is an Education base, which is at present an aspiration to create a space which

would be able to hold education lessons/activities in a sheltered space and safely store education

equipment and for the groups to use. The area will be fully waterproof, secure and wheelchair

accessible with a direct, accessible pathway to the education area away from the public footpaths. It will

provide the resources, space and opportunity for outdoor learning to be taught outside in nature. This

space would combat many of the restrictions outdoor learning poses as the lessons would link into the

curriculum, risk assessments would be completed in advance, resources would be provided in the

education base and the option would be there for rangers to assist with the sessions if the teachers did

not feel confident in the topic area.

8. References Bird, W. (2007). Investigating the links between the Natural Environment, Biodiversity and

Mental Health. Natural Thinking. 1 (1), Pages 1-116.

Bournemouth Council for Voluntary Service (BCVS). (2017). Facts about Bournemouth:

September 2017. Available: http://www.bournemouthcvs.org.uk/FactsAboutBournemouth.asp.

Last accessed 18.09.2017.

Bragg, R., Wood, C., Barton, J. & Pretty, J. (2013). Measuring connection to nature in children

ages 8-12: A robust methodology for the RSPB. Available: https://rackspace-

web2.rspb.org.uk/Images/methodology-report_tcm9-354606.pdf. Last accessed 20.09.2017.

35

Clarke, M. (2010). Every Child Outdoors. Available:

https://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/everychildoutdoors_tcm9-259689.pdf. Last accessed

13.09.2017.

Cohen, D. (2017). Why Kids Need to Spend Time in Nature. Available:

https://childmind.org/article/why-kids-need-to-spend-time-in-nature/. Last accessed

27.09.2017.

Forestry Commission. (2011). Outdoor Learning Pack: for primary school teachers. Woodland

Trust Scotland. 1 (1), Pages 1-30.

Gill, B. (2015). The English Indices of Deprivation 2015. Available:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/465791/Engli

sh_Indices_of_Deprivation_2015_-_Statistical_Release.pdf. Last accessed 18.09.2017.

Gov.UK. (2015). Statutory Guidance: National curriculum in England:Science programmes of study.

Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-science-

programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-science-programmes-of-study. Last accessed

31.10.2017.

Guardian. (2016). Children spend only half as much time playing outside as their parents

did. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/27/children-spend-only-

half-the-time-playing-outside-as-their-parents-did. Last accessed 27.09.2017.

Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology. 22

(140), Pages 5-55.

Lowis, C. (2003). School environment 'can affect behaviour'. Available:

https://www.theguardian.com/0education/2003/jun/10/schools.uk10. Last accessed

6.10.2017.

Mammal Society. (2017). UK Small Mammal Footprints. Available:

http://www.mammal.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/#. Last accessed 22.09.2017.

Mayer, F. & Frantz, C. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals'

feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 24 (4), Pages 503-515.

36

Mittelstaedt, R., Sanker, L. & VanderVeer, B. (1999). Impact of a week-long experiential

education program on environmental attitude and awareness. The Journal of Experiential

Education. 22 (3), Pages 138-148.

Moss, S. (2012). Natural Childhood. Available:

http://www.outdoor.nation@nationaltrust.org.uk. Last accessed 13.09.2017.

O'Brien, L. & Murray, R. (2007). Forest School and its impact on young children: Case Studies in

Britain. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 6 (1), Pages 249-265.

Office of National Statistics: Department for Communities and Local Government.

(2015). English Indices of Deprivation 2015. Available:

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-201. Last accessed

15.09.2017.

Pasini, M., Berto, R., Brondino, M., Hall, R. & Ortner, C. (2014). How to Measure the Restorative

Quality of Environments: The PRS-11. Procedia: Social and Behavioural Sciences. 159 (1), Pages

293-297.

Popper, S. (2015). Jewell Academy Bournemouth. Ofsted: Raising standards improving lives.

School Report (1), Pages 1-9.

Pye, M., Hunnings, S. & Chaffey, V. (2013). Stourfield Junior School. Ofsted: Raising standards

improving lives. School Report (1), Pages 1-9.

Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Young Choi, M., Sanders, D. & Benefield, P.

(2004). A review of Research on Outdoor Learning. National Foundation for Educational

Research and Kings College London. Pages 5-40.

Valadez, L. & Hirsch, D. (2016). Child Poverty Map of the UK. End Child Poverty. November (1),

Pages 1-35.

Varnom, S. & Barron, M. (2012). Bethany Church of England Voluntary Aid Junior

School. Ofsted: Raising standards improving lives. School Report (1), Pages 1-9.

Wilson, E (1986). Biophilia. Harvard: Harvard University Press.