The Educational Values of Trees and Forests Terry L. Sharik and Stacey Frisk Department of Environment and Society College of Natural Resources Utah State University Logan, UT 84322-5215 Presented at Seventh Biennial Conference on University Education in Natural Resources Corvallis, OR
Terry L. Sharik and Stacey Frisk
Department of Environment and Society
College of Natural Resources
Utah State University
Logan, UT 84322-5215
Seventh Biennial Conference on University Education in Natural Resources
March 14, 2008
When we think about the benefits provided by forests and trees, we tend not to think about how they contribute to enhanced learning ability, despite the mounting evidence (MEA 2005: Table 1).
To review the literature on this topic with the intent of stimulating further research on the educational values of trees and forests and fostering the application of this knowledge in the learning environment.
Complexities of the learning process
Links of this process to nature, including ways of interacting with nature
Role of trees and forests
Three Major Modes of Learning (Kellert 2002)
1. Affective or Emotional
Focuses on the formation of emotional and feeling capacities.
Typically precedes cognition or intellect as a basis for maturation
2. Cognitive or Intellectual
Stresses the formation of thinking and problem-solving skills.
Emphasizes the creation of values, beliefs, and moral perspectives.
Emerges from a synthesis of affective and cognitive perceptions and
(Additional References: Iozzi 1989a, 1989b)
There is some evidence that contact with the natural world, especially during middle childhood (ages 6-12), is important in a person’s emotional responsiveness and receptivity.
Seems to be due to its “dynamic, varied, often unique, surprising, and adventurous character.”
Elicits such responses as satisfaction, delight, joy, excitement, and curiosity.
(References: Cornell 1977, Cobb 1977, Kellert 1985, Kellert 1996, Derr 2001, Ratanopojnard 2001, Sabal 1993)
Interactions with natural settings reduce stress or elicit positive feelings and thereby enhance cognitive functioning, creativity, and performance, especially regarding higher order tasks.
(References: Olmsted 1865, Kaplan and Talbot 1983, Isen et al. 1985, Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Isen 1990, Hartig et al. 1991, Ulrich et al. 1991a, Ulrich 1993, Kaplan 1995, Wells 2000, Wells and Evans 2003, Am. Institutes for Research 2005)
Attention Restoration Theory has been utilized to explain the restorative aspects of contact with nature following a period of directed or forced, focused attention and associated mental fatigue (Kaplan 1995).
There is both psychological and physiological evidence for the restorative value of nature.
Results in cognitive clarity and reflection, thereby enhancing creativity.
(Additional References: Ulrich 1981, Ulrich and Simmons 1986, Ulrich et al. 1991b, Chang and Pergn 1998, Chang and Uan 1999, Hartig et al. 2003, Hammitt 2007)
Evidence that experiential contact with nature can have a positive impact on cognitive development comes from a number of sources.
Bloom et al.’s (1956) taxonomy of cognition has been used to frame this relationship (Table 2).
(Additional References: Altman and Wohwill 1978, Ulrich 1993, Kahn 1999, Ratanapojnard 2001, Kellert 1997, Kellert 2002, Burdette and Whitaker 2005, Taylor and Kew 2006)
Table 2. Enhancement of various elements in Bloom et al.’s (1956) taxonomy of cognition by various forms of interaction or contact with nature (after Kellert 1997).
Burrowing from the work of Mednick (1962), it has been argued that higher order cognitive functioning, which involves integration or association of diverse and seemingly unrelated information or concepts in novel ways, is likely enhanced by exposure to nature (Ulrich 1993).
Evaluative Mode argued that
Kellert (1996) formulated nine values of the natural world that contribute significantly to human well-being (Table 3).
Those that contribute most strongly to the development of learning skills include the naturalistic and scientific, and to a lesser extent the symbolic, the latter mostly through the development of language skills.
Gardner’s (1999) inclusion of learning skills include the naturalist intelligence among the (ten) multiple intelligences he formulated to represent the entire spectrum of human cognition lends support to the importance of the naturalist perspective as a fundamental way of learning.
Ways of Interacting with Nature Can Make a Difference learning skills include the
Three ways in which (young) people’s experience of nature occurs (Kellert 1996, 2005)
Actual physical contact with nature in a spontaneous and unstructured way, including play
Actual physical contact with nature, but more structured and planned.
e.g., zoos, arboreta, botanical gardens, science museums, and nature centers; contacts with domesticated plants and animals; [outdoor lab instruction ? (TLS)]
Vicarious or symbolic
--Representations or depicted scenes of nature
--Principally through the mass media (classroom? TLS)
Considerable conceptual and empirical support for the argument that direct experience of nature plays a significant role in affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in humans that is not replaced by indirect and vicarious experiences, which are on the rise.
Attributed to diversity and variability in space and time of the natural world, together with its unpredictiveness and challenges.
(References: Searles 1959, Kaplan and Talbot 1983, Moore 1986, Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Sebba 1991, Pyle 1993, Sobel 1993, Nabhan and Trible 1994, Kellert 1996, Kellert 2005, Burdette and Walker 2005)
Considerable evidence that children (and adults) are argument that spending increasingly less and less time experiencing high quality natural environments.
Due to a number of factors, including habitat destruction, species loss, environmental contamination, natural resource depletion, urban sprawl, human population growth, “videophilia,” and fear of violence.
(References: Barney et al. 1980, Wilcox et al. 1991, Groombridge 1992, Wilson 1992, Myers 1994, Heywood 1995, Savage 1995, Kellert 2002, Pergams and Zaradic 2008)
Parental concern argument that for the health and safety of their children, in turn related to increased violence in our society, real and imagined, is an increasingly important factor.
Louv (2005)labeled the health syndrome associated with this diminished experience of nature in children today as “nature-deficit disorder” as a way of creating heightened awareness of the problem.
Has had a major impact on the development of impending federal legislation on “no child left inside.”
(Additional References: Clements 2004, Karstan 2005, Farmer 2005, Veitch et al. 2006, Jackson and Tester 2008).
Key point concerning children’s direct contact with nature is that it be ongoing and highly accessible, which in turn implies that it be “nearby.”
Has important implications for regional and urban planning.
(References: Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Sobel 1993, Kaplan et al. 1998, Wells 2000, Kellert 2002, Taylor et al. 2002, Wells and Evans 2003, Bell and Dyment 2006)
Contributions of Trees and Forests to Learning is that it be
The first scholarly treatment of the origins of the fundamental relationship between trees and people was that of the psychologist J. O. Quanz (1897).
Created the term “dendro-psychoses” to represent this relationship.
Provided several lines of biological and psychological evidence of an adaptive nature to support the argument that the earliest humans dwelled in trees.
Examples of psychological evidence included the fear of wild animals, thunder and lightning, high winds, and falling; “hide and seek” games; rocking babies to sleep.
Considerable evidence that is that it be trees have played a central role in everyday life throughout human history, including:
Source of food and shade
Safe sleeping and eating places
Vantage points for surveying the landscape
Escape from predators
Provision of shelter, weapons, tools, and medicine
(References: Bourliere 1963, Lee 1979, Isaac 1983, Shipman 1986, Heerwagen and Orians (1993).
Orians (1980) hypothesized that is that it be tree forms that were most important in the survival of early humans in African savannas should be most preferred by humans today from the standpoint of aesthetics.
Referred specifically to the “acacia” form, with canopies broader than tall, trunks terminating and branching considerably below half the height of the tree, small leaves, and layered branching.
Argued that such trees are easy to climb and their canopies offered greater protection from sun or rain.
Hypothesis was tested on preferences of Americans for trees cultivated in Japanese gardens and for various dimensions of the dominant East African tree, Acacia tortilis.
Hypothesis was not rejected.
(Additional References: Orians 1986, Heerwagen and Orians 1993)
Preference for the acacia tree form is that it be over other tree forms was subsequently investigated by utilizing college students from all major continents except Antarctica.
In all cases, students preferred the acacia form over other forms (eucalyptus, oak, conifer, and palm).
Moreover, they tended to prefer the most common tree experienced in their respective childhoods more so than students who grew up with other tree forms as most common, indicating that experience also shapes one’s preferences of tree form.
(References: Sommer and Summit 1996, Sommer 1997)
At the is that it be stand or landscape level, the evidence suggests that people prefer natural environments over built environments and savanna-type natural environments over other natural environments (Kahn 1999).
Young children (age 8-11 years) from the eastern U.S. preferred East African savannas over mixed hardwood forest (their home environment), boreal forest, rain forest, and desert, while older children showed an equal preference for savannas and mixed hardwood forest.
Suggests the influence of both genetics and environment (familiarity) in such preferences.
(Additional Reference: Balling and Falk 1982)
Preference for the savanna-like environment is that it be seems to be the result of being able to acquire new information (mystery) without becoming disoriented or lost (legibility).
May help explain the appeal for closed-canopy forest stands that have been thinned or for urban or suburban open spaces that are planted with scattered trees in a grassy matrix, i.e., are park-like.
May also help explain the tendency of European settlers in North America to open up forested landscapes and plant trees in prairie landscapes.
(References: Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Kaplan 1992)
Conclusions is that it be
The development of learning skills, especially in children, and the realization of creativity and productivity in adults, seem to be enhanced significantly by direct and informal contact on a regular basis with natural settings, especially those that are savanna- or park-like.
These findings may have important implications for the teaching and learning process in our society.
In particular, the notion of less structured and more emotions- or value-laden environments for learning seem to run counter to traditional institutional approaches.
Terry L. Sharik
Last Updated on February 27, 2008)
American Institutes for Research. 2005. Effects of outdoor education programs for children in California. American Institutes for Research: Palo Alto, CA.
Altman, I. and J. Wohlwill (eds.). 1978. Children and the environment. Plenum Press: New York.
Appleton, J. 1990. The symbolism of habitat. University of Washington Press: Seattle.
Barkow, J., L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby (eds.). 1992. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Barney, G. (ed.). Global 2000 report. Council on Environmental Quality: Washington, D. C.
Bell, Anne C. and J. E. Dyment. 2006. Grounds for action: Promoting physical activity through school ground greening in Canada. Evergreen: Toronto, ON.
Bettelheim, B. 1977. The uses of enchantment: The meaning and importance of fairy tales. Vintage Books: New York.
Bloom, B. S., M. B., Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: The classification of educational goals—cognitive domain. Longman: New York.
Bourleire, F. 1963. Observations of the ecology of some large African mammals. In F. C. Howell and F. Bourliere (eds.). African ecology and human evolution. Aldine: Chicago.
Burdette, H. L. and R. C. Whitaker. 2005. Resurrecting free play in young children: Looking beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 159: 46-50.
Chang, C. Y. and Perng, J. L. 1998. Effect of landscape on psychological and physical responses. Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture 9: 783-76.
Chang, C. Y. and Uan, L. L. 1999. Influences of landscape types on recovery of concentration and EMG. Journal of Landscape Planning 7: 1-22.
Chawla, L. 1994. In the first century of places: Nature, poetry, and childhood memory. State University of New York Press: Albany, NY.
Chawla, L. 2002. Spots of time: Manifold ways of being in nature in childhood. pp. 199-225 In P. Kahn, and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). 2002. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Clements, R. 2004. An investigation of the state of outdoor play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 5: 68-80.
Cobb, E. 1977. The ecology of imagination in childhood. Columbia University Press: New York.
Coley, J. D., G. E. A. Solomon, and P. Shafto. 2002. The development of folk biology: A cognitive science perspective on children’s understanding of the biological world. Pp. 65-91 In Kahn, P. and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). 2002. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Cornell, j. 1979. Sharing nature with children. Dawn: Nevada City, CA.
Diamond, J. 1993. New Guineans and their natural world. Pp. 251-271 In S. R. Kellert and E. O. Wilson (eds.). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press/Shearwater Books: Washington, D. C.
Derr, V. 2001. Growing up in the Hispano homeland: The interplay of nature, family, culture, and community in shaping children’s experiences and sense of place. Doctoral dissertation. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University: New Haven.
Driver, B. et al.1987. Wilderness benefits: A state-of-the-knowledge review. In R. C. Lucas (ed.). Proceedings of the National Wilderness Research Conference. General Technical Report INT-220. U.S. Forest Service: Fort Collins, CO.
Eagles, P. J. and S. Muffitt. 1990. An analysis of children’s attitudes toward animals. J. Environmental Education 21: 41-44.
Engel, S. 1995. The stories children tell: Making sense of the narratives of childhood. Freeman: New York.
Erikson, E. 1968. Identity: Youth and crisis. Norton: New York.
Ewart, A. 1989. Outdoor adventure pursuits: Foundations, models and theories. Publishing Horizons: Scottsdale, AZ.
Farmer, C. 2005. Home Office citizenship survey: Top level findings from the children and young people survey. Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills: London, England.
Fjørtoft, I. 2004. Landscape as playscape: The effects of natural environments on children’s play and motor development. Children, Youth and Environments 14: 21-44.
Gardner, H. 1999. Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Basic Books: New York.
Gibson, J. J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton-Mifflin: Boston.
Goldsmity, E. 1993. The way: An ecology world-view. Shambala: Boston.
Groombridge, B. (ed.). 1992. Global biodiversity. Chapman and Hall: London.
Hammitt, W. E. 2007. The mental restorativeness of outdoor recreation environments. Annals of Leisure and Recreation Research. In review.
Han, Ke-Tsung. 2003. A reliable and valid self-rating measure of the restorative quality of natural environments. Landscape and Urban Planning 64: 209-232.
Hart, R. 1979. Children’s experience of place. Irvington Publishers: New York.
Hartig, T., M. Mang, and G. W. Evans. 1991. Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and behavior. 23: 3-26.
Hartig, T., G. W. Evans, L. D. Jamner, D. S. Davis, and T. Gärling. 2003. Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 109-123.
Heerwagen, J. H. and G. H. Orians. 1993. Humans, habitats, and aesthetics. Pp. 138-172 In S. R. Kellert and E. O. Wilson (eds.). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press/Shearwater Books: Washington, D. C.
Heywood, V. 1995. Global biodiversity assessment. United Nations Environment Program/Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Huttenmoser, M. 1995. Children and their living surroundings: Empirical investigations into the significance of living surroundings for the everyday life and development of children. Children’s Environments Quarterly 12: 403-413.
Iozzi, L. A. 1989a. What research says to the educator. Part I. Environmental education and the affective domain. J. Environmental Education20: 3-9.
Iozzi., L. A. 1989b. What research says to the educator. Part 2. Environmental education and the affective domain. J. Environmental Education 20: 6-13.
Isaac, G. 1983. Bones in contention: Competing explanations for the juxtaposition of Early Pleistocene artifacts and faunal remains. In J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson. Animals and archeology, Part I: Hunters and their prey. B.A.R. International Series: Oxford.
Jackson, R. J. J. and J. Tester. 2008. Environment shapes health, including children’s mental health. Journal American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 47: 129-131.
Kahn, P. H., Jr. 1999. The human relationship with nature: Development and culture. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kahn, P. H., Jr. 2002. Children’s affiliations with nature: Structure, development, and the problem of environmental generational amnesia. pp. 93-116 In Kahn, P. and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). 2002. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kahn, P. and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). 2002. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations.. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kanner, A. D., T. Roszak, and M. E. Gomes. 1995. Ecopsychology: Restoring the earth, healing the mind. Sierra Club Books: San Francisco
Kaplan, S. 1992. Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge-using organism. pp. 581-598 In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and j. Tooby (eds.). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press: New York.
Kaplan, S. 1995. The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrated framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15: 169-182.
Kaplan, S. and R. Kaplan. 1982. Cognition and environment: Functioning in an uncertain world. Praeger Publishers: New York.
Kaplan, S. and J. Talbot. 1983. Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. In I. Altman and J. Wohlwill (eds.). Behavior and the natural environment. Plenum Press: New York.
Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan. 2002. Adolescents and the natural environment: A time out? pp. 227-257 In Kahn, P. and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). 2002. Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations.. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kaplan, R., S. Kaplan, and R. L. Ryan. 1998. With people in mind: Design and management for everyday nature. Island Press: Washington, D. C.
Karstan, L. 2005. It all used to be better? Different generations on continuity and change in urban children’s use of space. Children’s Geographies 3: 275-290.
Kellert, S. R. 1985. Attitudes toward animals: Age-related development among children. J. Environmental Education 16: 29-39.
Kellert, S. R. 1996. The value of life: Biological diversity and human society. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
Kellert, S. R. 1997. Kinship to mastery: Biophilia in human evolution and development. Island Press/Shearwater Books: Washington, D. C.
Kellert, S. R. 2002. Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development in children. pp. 117-151 In P. Kahn and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kellert, S. R. 2005. Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature connection. Island Press: Washington, D. C.
Kellert, S. R. and V. Derr. 1998. National study of outdoor wilderness experience. School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University: New Haven.
Kellert, S. R. and M. O. Westervelt. 1983. Children’s attitudes, knowledge and behaviors toward animals (Phase 5). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, D. C.
Kellert, S. R. and E. O. Wilson (eds.). 1999. The human relationship with nature. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Kirby, M. A. 1989. Nature as refuge in children’s environments. Children’s Environments Quarterly 6: 7-12.
Krathwohl, D. R., B. S. Bloom, and B. B. Masia. 1964. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. Longman: New York.
Lawrence, E. A. 1993. The sacred bee, the filth pig, and the bat out of hell: Animal symbolism as cognitive biophilia. pp. 301-341 In S. R. Kellert and E. O. Wilson (eds.). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
Lee, R. B. 1979. The !Kung San: Men, women, and work in a foraging society. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Lieberman, G. A. and L. L. Hoody. 1998. Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning. SEER: Poway, CA.
Louv, R. . 2005. Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill, NC.
Lumsden, D. and E. O. Wilson. 1983. The relation between biological and cultural evolution. J. Biological Structure 8: 343-359.
Machado, A. , O. Lourenco, and F. J. Silva. 2000. Facts, concepts, and theories: The shape of psychology’s epistemic triangle. Behavior and Philosophy 28: 1-40.
Maker, C. J. 1982. Teaching models of the gifted. Pro-ed: Austin.
Mednick, S. A. 1962. The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review 69: 220-232.
Metzner, R. 1993. Spirit, self, and nature: Essays in green psychology. Green Earth: El Verno, CA.
Meyers, N. 1994. Global biodiversity II: Losses. In G. Meffe and C. Carrolls (eds.) . Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer: Sunderland, OH.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press: Washington, D. C.
Moore, R. C. 1986. Childhood’s domain: Play and space in child development. Croom Helm: London.
Moore, R. C. 1993. Plants for play: A plant selection guide for children’s outdoor environments. MIG Communications: Berkeley, CA.
Moore, R. C. 1997. The need for nature: A childhood right. Social Justice 24: 203.
Moore, R. C. and H. H. Wong. 1997. Natural learning: The life history of an environmental schoolyard: Creating environments for rediscovering nature’s way of teaching. MIG Communications: Berkeley, CA.
Nabhan, G. P. and S. St. Antoine. 1993. The loss of floral and faunal story: The extinction of experience. pp. 229-250 In S. R. Kellert and E. O. Wilson (eds.). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
Nabhan, G. P. and S. A. Trimble. 1994. The geography of childhood: Why children need wild places. Beacon Press, Concord Library: Boston.
Nicholson. S. 1971. How not to cheat children: The theory of loose parts. Landscape Architecture 62: 30-34.
Orians, G. H. 1980. Habitat selection: General theory and applications to human behavior. In J. S. Lockard (ed.). The evolution of human social behavior. Elsevier: New York.
Orians, G. H. 1986. An ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In E. C. Penning-Rowsell and D. Lowenthal. Allen and Unwin: London.
Orians, G. H. and J. H. Heerwagen. 1992. Evolved responses to landscapes. pp. 555-579 In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and j. Tooby (eds.). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press: New York.
Olmsted, F. L. 1865. Preliminary report upon the Yosemite and Big Tree Grove. Report to the congress of the state of California. Reprinted in V. P. Ranney, G. J. Rauluk, and D., F. Hoffman (eds.). 1990. The Papers of Frederick Law Olmsted, vol. V: The California frontier, 1863-1865. John Hopkins Press: Baltimore.
Orr, D. W. 1992. Ecological literacy: Education and transition to a postmodern world. State University of New York Press: Albany, NY.
Pergams, O. R. W. and P. A. Zaradic. 2008. Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.o709893105.
Piaget, J. 1969. The child’s conception of the world. Littlefield, Adams: Totowa, NJ.
Pyle, R. M. 1993. The thunder tree: Lessons from an urban wildland. Houghton Mifflin: Boston.
Quantz, J. O. 1897/98. Dendro-psychoses. Am. J. Psychology 9: 449-506.
Quammen. D. 1985. Natural acts: A sidelong view of science and nature. Avon Books: New York.
Ratanapojnard, S. 2001. Community-oriented biodiversity environmental education: Its effects on knowledge, values, and behavior among rural fifth-and sixth-grade students in northeastern Thailand. Doctoral dissertation, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University: New Haven.
Roszak, T. 1992. The view of the earth: An exploration of ecopsychology. Simon and Schuster: New York.
Savage, J. 1995. Systematics and the biodiversity crisis. BioScience 45: 673-679.
Searles, H. F. 1959. The nonhuman environment. International Universities Press: New York.
Sebba, R. 1991. The landscapes of childhood: The reflections of childhood’s environment in adult memories and in children’s attitudes. Environment and Behavior 23: 395-422.
Shepard, P. 1978. Thinking animals: Animals and the development of human intelligence. Viking Press: New York.
Shepard, P. 1996. The others: How animals made us human. Island Press: Washington, D.C.
Shepard, P. 1982. Nature and madness. Sierra Book Clubs: San Francisco.
Shipman, P. 1986. Scavenging or hunting in early hominids: Theoretical framework and tests. American Anthropologist 88: 27-40.
Sobel, D. 1993. Children’s special places: Exploring the role of forts, dens, and bush houses in middle childhood. Zephyr Press: Tucson.
Sobel, D. 1996. Place-based education: Connecting classrooms and communities. The Orion Society and the Myrin Institute: Great Barrington, MA.
Sommer, R. 1997. Further cross-national studies of tree form preference. Ecol. Psychol. 9: 153-160.
Sommer, R. 2001. The dendro-psychoses of J. O. Quantz. J. Arboriculture 27: 40-43.
Sommer, R. and J. Summit. 1996. Cross-national rankings of tree shape. Ecol. Psychol. 8: 327-341.
Sommer, R. , F. Learey, J. Summit, and M. Tirrell. 1994. Social benefits of resident involvement in tree planting: Comparison with developer-planted trees. J. Arboriculture 20: 323-328.
State Education and Environment Roundtable (SEER). 2005. California Student Assessment Project Phase Two: The effects of environmental-based education on student achievement. SEER: Poway, CA.
Taylor, A. F. and F. E. Kuo. 2006. Is contact with nature important for healthy child development? State of the evidence. pp. 124-140 In C. Spencer and M. Blades (ed.). Children and Their Environments : Learning, Using, and Designing Space. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Taylor, A. F., F. E. Kuo, and W. C. Sullivan. 2002. View of nature and self-discipline: Evidence from inner city children. Journal of Environmental Psychology 22: 46-63.
Thomashow, C. 2002. Adolescents and ecological integrity. pp. 259-278 In P. Kahn and S. R. Kellert. (eds.). Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Ulrich, R. S. 1979. Visual landscapes and psychological well being. Landscape Research 4: 17-23.
Ulrich, R. S. 1981. Natural versus urban scenes: Some psycho–physiological effects. Environmental Behavior 13: 523-556.
Ulrich, R. S. 1993. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. pp. 73-137 In S. R. Kellert and E. O. Wilson. The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press/Sherwater Books”: Washington, D. C.
Ulrich, R. S. and Simons. 1986. Recovery from stress during exposure to everyday outdoor environments. pp. 115-122 In J. W. Wineman and C. Zimring (eds.). Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association, April, 1986. EDRA: Washington, DC.
Ulrich, R. S., R. Simons, B. D. Losito, E. Fiorito, M. A. Miles, and M. Zelson. 1991a. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 11: 201-230.
Ulrich, R. S., U. Dimbeg, and B. L. Driver. 1991b. Psychophysiological indicators of leisure benefits. pp. 73-89 In B. L. Driver, P. J. Brown, and G. L. Peterson (eds.). Benefits of Leisure. Venture Publishing: State College, PA.
Veitch, J., S. Bagley, K. Ball, and J. Solomon. 2006. Where do children usually play? A qualitative study of parents’ perceptions of influences on children’s active free play. Health and Place 12: 383-393.
Wells, N. M. 2000. At home with nature: Effects of greenness on children’s cognitive functioning. Environment and Behavior 32: 775-795.
Wells, N. M. and G. Evans. 2003. Nearby nature: A buffer of life stress among rural children. Environment and Behavior 35: 311-330.
Whittaker, R. H. 1970. Communities and ecosystems. Macmillan: New York.
Wilcov, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips, and E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. Bioscience 48: 607-615.
Williams, G. C. and R. M. Nesse. 1991. The dawn of Darwinian medicine. Quarterly Review of Biology 66: 1-21.
Wilson, E. O. 1984. Biophilia. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Wilson, E. O. 1992. The diversity of life. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Wilson, E. O. 1993. Biophilia and the conservation ethic. pp. 31-41 In S. R. Kellert and E. O. Wilson (eds.). The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press: Washington, D.C.