Discussing Nature, ‘Doing’ Nature: for an emancipatory approach to conceptualizing young people's access to outdoor green space

: Across the social sciences there is an extensive literature exploring the complex relationships between society and nature, increasingly concerned with, and critiquing, the notion of a unique relationship between children and green space. However, a nature/culture dichotomy remains central to socio-political discourse presenting a crisis of detachment. This nature/culture division can also be seen through practices surrounding children's natural environment access. This paper explores the conflict between academic and societal approaches to the nature/culture divide through the perceptions and experiences of learning disabled young people, aged 11-16. The findings illustrate the importance of allowing (learning disabled) young people the opportunity for embodied engagement in natural spaces. Through activity the young people developed nuanced and hybrid understandings of nature that contest widely held dichotomies of nature and culture. This conceptualisation of complexity and non-dichotomy in the relationship between culture and nature may underpin exploration of the specific factors of natural landscapes that provide wellbeing benefits, potentially increasing the accessibility of the recognised benefits of natural environment interaction for those who experience challenges in reaching rural green space. As such, this paper presents a call for academics to communicate hybrid geographies in a way that is accessible beyond the ivory tower. Abstract 8 Across the social sciences there is an extensive literature exploring the complex relationships 9 between society and nature, increasingly concerned with, and critiquing, the notion of a unique 10 relationship between children and green space. However, a nature/culture dichotomy remains 11 central to socio-political discourse presenting a crisis of detachment. This nature/culture division 12 can also be seen through practices surrounding children’s natural environment access. This paper 13 explores the conflict between academic and societal approaches to the nature/culture divide 14 through the perceptions and experiences of learning disabled young people, aged 11-16. The 15 findings illustrate the importance of allowing (learning disabled) young people the opportunity for 16 embodied engagement in natural spaces. Through activity the young people developed nuanced 17 and hybrid understandings of nature that contest widely held dichotomies of nature and culture. 18 This conceptualisation of complexity and non-dichotomy in the relationship between culture and 19 nature may underpin exploration of the specific factors of natural landscapes that provide 20 wellbeing benefits, potentially increasing the accessibility of the recognised benefits of natural 21 environment interaction for those who experience challenges in reaching rural green space. As 22 such, this paper presents a call for academics to communicate hybrid geographies in a way that is 23 accessible beyond the ivory tower. Abstract 4 Across the social sciences there is an extensive literature exploring the complex relationships 5 between society and nature, increasingly concerned with, and critiquing, the notion of a unique 6 relationship between children and green space. However, a nature/culture dichotomy remains 7 central to socio-political discourse presenting a crisis of detachment. This nature/culture division 8 can also be seen through practices surrounding children’s natural environment access. This paper 9 explores the conflict between academic and societal approaches to the nature/culture divide 10 through the perceptions and experiences of learning disabled young people, aged 11-16. The 11 findings illustrate the importance of allowing (learning disabled) young people the opportunity for 12 embodied engagement in natural spaces. Through activity the young people developed nuanced 13 and hybrid understandings of nature that contest widely held dichotomies of nature and culture. 14 This conceptualisation of complexity and non-dichotomy in the relationship between culture and 15 nature may underpin exploration of the specific factors of natural landscapes that provide 16 wellbeing benefits, potentially increasing the accessibility of the recognised benefits of natural 17 environment interaction for those who experience challenges in reaching rural green space. As 18 such, this paper presents a call for academics to communicate hybrid geographies in a way that is 19 accessible beyond the ivory tower.

parenthood. She has a number of papers published in international journals, including Rural Studies, Social 1 and Cultural Geographies and Children's Geographies, as well as chapters in edited collections.

26
This paper explores what happensthe material places that emerge (Shillington, 2014) and the 27 socio-spatial practices and structures that developthrough the romantic idealisation, and thereby 28 the 'othering', of children and of nature (Taylor, 2013). Whilst many authors, including Taylor  The dominant narrative in media representations of children's engagement with outdoor green 1 space is one of a naive and innocent, heteronormative, able-bodied and neurotypical child, who 2 has the potential to enjoy a positive, and symbiotic relationship with 'nature' (Moss, 2012). 3 Typically this relationship is presented as an innate need for child/nature interaction that must be 4 satisfied through unbounded, but productive and creative, engagement with wildlife and open 5 space (Wilson, 2012;Bragg et al., 2013;Nilsen, 2008). Authors such as Louv (2005) present a 6 crisis of detachment in which this fundamental relationship is under threat from competing 7 interests, over-zealous risk management and a reduction in natural environments. Meanwhile 8 newspapers run regular opinion pieces and light news reflecting and reinforcing public concerns 9 over such issues as the reduction in time children spend outdoors, children's inability to identify 10 wildlife, and reduced opportunities to climb trees (Monbiot, 2012;Meech, 2014;Bissett, 2016). The 11 idea of children spending time in nature is part of an entrenched public imaginary of what it is to be 12 a child, and closely tied to public understanding of childhood health and happiness (Taylor, 2011). 13 14 Alongside the news media, this public imaginary of an innate and positive relationship between 15 children and nature is reflected through broader public policy and organizational rhetoric (see, for 16 example the National Trust's '50 things to do before you're 11 ¾' campaign:  This presumed connection between good childhood and nature reflects a long history of an 30 assumed connection between the two, traceable to enlightenment thinkers (Taylor, 2011). The 31 intensified public interest can also be theorized as a backlash to a perceived curtailment of 32 children's independent mobility and play (Monbiot, 2012). A discourse of children's reduced 33 opportunities to play outdoors, with marked declines in opportunities for independent mobility and 34 play over a generation, has also been prevalent in academia (Karsten, 2005 Lea, 2008), concern the ability of the natural 20 environment to provide space that promotes human wellbeing. In the media, environmental 21 science, popular non-fiction and organisational rhetoric described above, 'nature' is presented as a tangible and knowable place of innate and unique character. These literatures present 'nature' as 23 an environment that is universally and timelessly knowable, following a Romantic 24 conceptualization of nature as counter to culture, of wild and unmanaged spaces that provide a 25 (positive) contrast to urban and developed places (Oerleman, 2004).

27
These literatures present a clear case for the need to conserve places deemed 'natural' in order 28 that they can be accessed by the public, and particularly children, who will experience a range of 29 benefits from connecting with these spaces (White et al., 2017). These benefits primarily concern 30 psychological relaxation and restoration (Hertzog and Strevey, 2008), but authors have also 31 identified a wide range of other benefits that include wellness, increased physical activity, cognitive 32 benefits and social benefits (Faber Taylor and Kuo, 2006;Frumkin, 2001;Popham, 2007). 33 Childhood experiences of nature have particularly been linked with ongoing desire to seek out  Whilst these papers present a clear justification for facilitating access to nature, the presentation of 6 natural landscapes in juxtaposition to manmade ones, as something 'other' to socio-cultural or 7 economic space presents a challenge for those unwilling or unable to access wild and untamed 8 spaces (Kong et al., 1999;Milligan and Bingley,2007). An essentialist approach to nature, which 9 sees natural spaces as having particular and innate characteristics, also risks being co-conceived  innate difficulty in navigating natural environments, but rather policy that fails to be inclusive. 16 17 Conversely, a post-structuralist or social constructionist approach to nature argues that nature is 18 not an objective reality -it is not tangible, or something that we can know or somewhere we can 19 visit. Rather, cultural geographers have argued that nature is a social construct (Cronon, 1995;20 Eder and Ritter, 1996; Evernden, 1992). That is to say that what we understand nature to be, and 21 how we conceptualise our own, and broader society's relationship to nature, is entirely dependent 22 on cultural facets such as traditions, politics and economy (Cronon 1995; Castree and Braun, 23 1998). Therefore 'nature' can be conceived of merely as an imaginary with a definition that is fluid 24 and relational (Instone, 2004). A postructuralist response to much of the environmental 25 psychology, popular inter-disciplinary non-fiction and media rhetoric, might therefore be as follows:

26
If nature is not material, it cannot possibly offer the benefits to health, wellbeing and society 27 claimed by much of the research. Rather, it must be engagement with material elements of these 28 landscapes, or with people and activities within these settings, that provide these benefits. This   However, hybrid, more-than-human and animal geographers have sought to demonstrate that by 4 defining nature as separate from culture and society, and from oneself, we risk denying the natural 5 environment conceptual agency (Whatmore, 2002;Bennett, 2009). That is to say that we risk is material objects and the way that they are experienced by society) are intrinsically linked, and 12 contemporaneously coproduce one another. Barad's viewpoint moves beyond social 13 constructivism in that it takes a performative, non-representational approach, arguing that there 14 must be ways of knowing the world outside the rhetoric that is used to present it. Phenomena must 15 'exist' is some pre-discursive manner in order to be the catalyst for the language that surrounds it. 16 As such, Barad's approach necessitates conceptualisation of nature and culture as separate 17 phenomena, but prioritises their inextricable interrelations as culture shapes and inscribes nature, 18 but is not responsible for the initial production of the phenomenon.  In practical terms, this might involve a revisitation of theories of child-landscape engagement 30 which recognise the assemblage of outdoor environments as confluences of material and psycho- 31 social phenomenon, such as environmental affordances (Gibson, 1978). According to Gibson,32 children will value and classify environments according to the possibilities for activities or 33 'affordances' that the physical space, and objects within, offer. This theory has received wide affordances or non-human-agency-based approach provides an explanation for the benefits, and 7 interests, a natural space might hold for children, without relying on moralistic or reductionist 8 constructions of an inherent biological or psychological relationship between the two entities. 9 10 The notion of environmental affordances also marries well with the idea of embodied and 11 emotional experiences of landscape and nature, emphasising the importance of the physicality of 12 the environment as a place in which children feel and do, as well as a place that is formed through 13 social discourse and understanding (Horton and Kraftl, 2006). Lefebvre (1991) argues that is it 14 through bodily experience that we not only understand and relate to space, but also produce  From an emancipatory standpoint, social geographers may also feel compelled to approach issues 29 of children's access to outdoor green spaces from a hybrid perspective that recognises material 30 agency, as this allows the voices of children to be heard. This approach allows researchers to 31 engage with children's interests and prioritize their landscape preferences over a quantification of 32 intrinsic environmental characteristics. Moreover, assemblages suggest that each child's 33 perception of landscape will be different, and influenced by a broad range of material, embodied 34 and psycho-social factors, unique to each individual child; reflective of their own identity and life 35 experience. This paper seeks to consider the perceptions and experiences of green spaces held 36 by a small group of learning disabled young people in Greater Manchester, UK, in the hope of 1 contributing a new, and valuable, perspective to the current debate.  (The term) 'Nature' is dead 4 The participants in this study may not be familiar with the work of Noel Castree,(Castree, 2004) 5 however, their contributions to the research suggest that they might concur with his thesis that 6 'nature' cannot be considered a useful categorisation or conceptualisation when exploring their 7 lived environmental experiences. 'Nature' was understood broadly as unspoilt, wild and rural -not 8 an environment with which most of the urban young people felt they had any relationship, beyond 9 perhaps a vague and imagined one. The nature that the young people imagined was at once 10 abstract and theoretical, For the young people 'nature' was something seen on the television 'I 11 think it's like, yeah, animals, yeah but animals that live in the wild, like camels or birds' (Elsie, aged 12 14) or discussed in science class: 'And like, every few minutes I think it is, more and more trees 13 are being knocked down and more nature is being killed' (Adam, aged 13). 14 15 In some cases the young people repeated dichotomies concerning the difference between culture  The dichotomy of culture and nature within the children's rhetoric is so entrenched for many of the 29 young people, that there is even some suggestion in the young people's discourse that to access 30 the spaces they imagine to be natural, would then render them unnatural. This extract reflects, not necessarily a lack of engagement with outdoor green space -the boys 13 talk enthusiastically about going to the woods -but rather a lack of comfort or familiarity the idea of 14 'nature' as a category that applied to the world around them. The term is familiar to them, they 15 repeat a cliché of 'nature is good', but the discussion suggests that they don't categorize their 16 environment in this way. That, whilst they are in a relatively unmanaged and green space, in a 17 woodland, the boys in fact do not categorize the woodland an environment of nature, but rather 18 one of potential for excitement and activity. Whilst in this quote it is Andy who first uses the term 19 'nature', it is important to understand that in the broader context of a class discussion in which the 20 young people had been asked to define and discuss what they thought of as nature. When asked 21 to be more specific, and to deconstruct this term 'why's that good?' and 'what does playing in 22 nature mean?' the boys either don't answer in a meaningful manner, replying simply: 'cos nature is 23 good', or answer in a way that doesn't specifically address the issues of 'nature' per se, but rather 24 focuses on the activity potential and the loose parts. So for Andy and Dan, the appeal of this 25 environment is not the matter of it per se, but rather the affordances presented by the material 26 landscape.

28
The absence of 'nature' from the children's accounts of their own environmental experience, or 29 the rather fanciful and detached way in which it was discussed, should of course be considered 30 within the specific context of lived experience of the research participants. Whilst the participants 31 were a heterogeneous group of young people, they did share some characteristics that might, whether this difference illustrates a difference in experience, or delineation, but does underline and 6 support the concern expressed by Collado et al. (2016), that a common definition of nature is 7 required in order to make comparisons between studies. 8 9 Nevertheless, for the participants in this study, the term 'nature' was not part of their normal 10 categorising or ordering of the world, and they did not relate the term to environments with which 11 they interacted or landscapes with which they felt they had personal relationships. This is of with perceived exclusion from a particular landscape or ecology. 29 30 However, a hybrid understanding of nature, not as object, nor as cultural ideology, but following 31 Barad (2003Barad ( , 2007 as agentially real, might have the potential to reframe relations with 32 landscapes, environments, plants and animals in a way that demonstrates the young peoples' real 33 and everyday engagements with elements of 'nature', thus addressing the potential problems 34 outlined above. Moreover, this reframing might contribute to a sense of connectedness and 35 belonging, largely absent from the young people's own discourse, demonstrating the co-production 36 and interconnectivity of the young people's use of the environments and their imaginations of 1 them. Furthermore, if we consider the benefits of engagement with nature, not as intrinsic aspects 2 of qualities of the place associated with its 'naturalness' but rather as a product of the sorts of 3 activities and experiences that are typically facilitated by spaces and objects often classified as 4 'natural' by society, land managers and through policy, then we are in a position to explore the way 5 in which these benefits might be gained from interaction with non-natural, less-natural, or 6 manufactured landscapes. In so doing, one might argue that it is not wild and unbounded green 7 space that is important to children's development or experience, but associated activities, and the 8 affordances potentially although not routinely offered by natural spaces, such as free play and 9 independence (Skar et al., 2016), that should be considered to be vital co-constructs with 10 'childhood'. 11 12 Doing hybid spaces: discussing perception in the context of experience 13 In the context of 'doing', that is the research discussions that formed around activities and 14 observation of participants in outdoor spaces, the participants were able to reflect on their 15 immediate experiences and preferences outdoors. In general, the young people prioritised 16 affordances of environments, such as a slope to roll or run down, or sandcastle building material. It 17 was the ability of the environment to provide for a particular need, as directly experienced by the 18 participant that set an environment apart as being valuable to the young person in some way. 19 Particularly, in terms of the participants, environments were judged for their ability to provide play 20 places or social spaces, rather than according to specific characteristics that might order them as forgotten when the participants were actually 'doing' outdoors -young people did not use the same 25 terminology when considering their experiences 'in' outdoor spaces as they had when discussing 26 these landscapes from the distance of the classroom.

28
The hillslope where the young people were given free time to play, and spent time rolling and 29 running, was also mentioned enthusiastically by other participants: Environmental affordances were explored with the young people through discussion of their 5 environmental preferences for play places. The participants' preferences appeared to be for 6 'obvious' activities, such as play equipment that they were familiar with, managed or supervised 7 activities or sites where play objectives were clear, such as playgrounds with fixed materials. 8 These activities and experiences appeared to be preferred in general over spaces with mobile 9 materials or more ambiguous activity options such as open field space or woodland. This is 10 illustrated through the following extract from a conversation with Aaron who demonstrates a 11 preference for playing on the fabricated structures designed for adventurous play in the woodland, 12 rather than experimenting with the trees and wooded spaces as apparatus for play. 13 14 Aaron: I went down to the forest because there's a big adventure playground up 15 high, they had a big rope swing. 16 Nadia: Ah, that was good. And was it better playing in the adventure playground, or 17 playing in the woods ...? 18 Aaron: Playing in the adventure playground. 19 [Extract from class discussion with [12][13][14] year olds] 20 21 The finding that some of the young people prefer structured and unambiguous play spaces may at 22 first appear contrary to the affordances literature which values variety in play possibilities offered 23 by loose materials or more ambiguous 'equipment' (Gibson, 1978;Nicholson, 1971). However, for 24 the learning disabled participants, the structure offered in the playground may offer more in the 25 way of affordances. That is to say that the young people are familiar with the equipment and 26 therefore know what they can do with it, and moreover, are more likely to be permitted to play with 27 it by supervising adults as its use is known and therefore may be considered less risky (von 28 Benzon, 2011). However, whilst there was a clear preference for these structured play spaces 29 amongst some participants, there were others who did state a preference for unstructured outdoor 30 spaces, particularly woodlands. The earlier extract of the discussion with Andy and Dan 31 concerning their desire to build tens and treehouses in the woods, is one example of this. Of 32 particular value was the potential for fantasy play in an environment in which participants could 33 conceal themselves, and in which others could potentially be concealed. 34 35 Whilst the thought of strangers hidden in woods is often cited as a reason that wooded areas 1 might be avoided (Milligan and Bingley, 2007), a number of participants suggested that it was the 2 potential for lurking strangers that led to a heightened sense of fun and playfulness in these 3 spaces: As such threat may be considered by some of the young people to be an attribute of these spaces, 12 presumably due the excitement this threat can engender (von Benzon, 2011). Of course, threat 13 was also used in a more playful sense, as participants used woodland undergrowth to play games: 14 15 'The best part of the day was for me, the nature walk, because I like the forest, which I 16 liked to hide from the teachers, which was really good because, urm, urm, because when 17 the teacher was trying to find me, she couldn't because I was behind the tree' 18 [From Carl's video diary, Carl, age 13] 19 20 Whilst some studies have shown young people to value spaces deemed natural as sites of 21 'freedom', 'solitude' or a space to 'reflect' (Wals, 1994), there was limited vocalization of this 22 construction of outdoor space amongst the participants. This may well reflect a more restricted 23 experience of natural environments amongst the Broadheath High School participants, suggesting 24 that they do not have the chance to experience outdoor environments independently or in an 25 unstructured manner (von Benzon, 2017). This lack of independent experience may also be 26 reflected in the absence of narrative concerning natural environments as threatening places, as 27 found in other research on the topic (such as Kong, 2000). This lack of environmental 28 independence may well be of far greater concern in terms of environmental justice, and in terms of 29 child development and experience, than a general lack of contact with spaces deemed natural. It 30 is lack of independent exploration and free play that limits young people's opportunities for risk 31 taking, decision making and socialization (Skar et al., 2016). 32 33 The young people's discussion about their experiences of being in outdoor spaces illustrates a 34 whole range of embodied and emotional reactions to space. Overwhelmingly these experiences 35 are positive, suggesting excitement, playfulness and an enjoyment of the space that the outdoors offered. These discussions were far more animated, and illustrated with reference to personal 1 experience, specific spaces, and stories from their visits, than had been discussions surrounding 2 the concept of 'nature' prior to our visit, illustrated in the previous section. This finding reflects work 3 by authors such as Tapsell et al. (2001) who found that young people had a rather negative 4 perception of London rivers, until they were taken to experience, and play in a river. At this point, 5 through physical engagement with the landscape, the young people recognised the play value, 6 and then the broader environmental value, of the river basin. 7 8 What is crucial to draw from this brief discussion is that the young people are not discussing their 9 experiences in terms of engagement with 'nature' but in terms of opportunities for adventurous 10 play or for independence. The young people identify a variety of factors, including fixed apparatus 11 (e.g. the hillslope, the trees), moveable parts (branches for dens) and large spaces and barriers to 12 vision (that allow for hiding and surprising). Indeed, nature is a key environment that may provide 13 these sorts of affordances, but outdoor green spaces are not the only sort of landscape that can 14 be engaged with in this manner. Engaging young people in discourse around environmental 15 experience is crucial to identifying the sorts of opportunities young people want in play and social 16 spaces, and allowing providers to think outside nature, or alongside nature, for ways in which 17 these needs might be met that go beyond independent access to nature spaces. This may be an 18 important step in ensuring that young people who experience challenges to accessing wild outdoor 19 green spaces, may not have these experiences replaced, but augmented through access to other 20 sorts of environment that may provide some of the benefits (mental health, wellness, socialization, 21 amongst many identified in the literature review) associated with outdoor green space. these spaces might offer, in terms of a space to play, or relax or meet some other immediate need 33 or desire. This link is illustrated by an ability to visualise, describe and explain natural spaces, 34 underpinned by memories of 'doing' that may, following Longhurst (1997) and Lefebvre (1991), 35 build a clearer sense of self, in the context of building a relational identity that is intertwined with 1 leisure experiences in natural environments. This paper has shown that the prevalent culture/nature dichotomy has the potential to 4 detrimentally impact on young people's perceptions of their own relationship with nature, whilst 5 experience leads to a more nuanced, hybrid, approach to conceptualising the value of natural 6 spaces. Drawing on approaches, such as Barad's agential realism, to conceptualize human-nature 7 relations that recognize nature as not only man-made but man-making, serve to break down the 8 notion of 'nature as other' as held by the young people when discussion nature in the classroom. A 9 hybrid approach that moves beyond a culture/nature dichotomy as an organizational structure for