This article was downloaded by: [Copenhagen University Library]On: 09 January 2014, At: 03:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Landscape ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/clar20

Green Space as Classroom: OutdoorSchool Teachers’ Use, Preferences andEcostrategiesPeter Bentsena, Jasper Schipperijnb & Frank S. Jensena

a Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, University ofCopenhagen, Denmark.b Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, Universityof Southern Denmark, Denmark.Published online: 02 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Peter Bentsen, Jasper Schipperijn & Frank S. Jensen (2013) Green Space asClassroom: Outdoor School Teachers’ Use, Preferences and Ecostrategies, Landscape Research,38:5, 561-575, DOI: 10.1080/01426397.2012.690860

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.690860

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Green Space as Classroom: OutdoorSchool Teachers’ Use, Preferences andEcostrategies

PETER BENTSEN*, JASPER SCHIPPERIJN** & FRANK S. JENSEN**Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

**Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark

ABSTRACT More and more Danish teachers have started introducing curriculum-based outdoorlearning as a weekly or biweekly ‘outdoor school’ day for school children. This move towardsschooling in non-classroom spaces presents a challenge for green space managers. Basicmanagerial knowledge related to what, who, when and where has thus far only been supported byanecdotal evidence, but seems fundamental to the decision-making of a range of green spaceproviders. The present study aims to describe, characterise and discuss outdoor teachers’ use,preferences and ecostrategies in relation to green space. A nationwide survey was conductedamong Danish teachers practising outdoor teaching (107 respondents), and it showed that amajority used and preferred forest areas. The outdoor teachers used mainly school grounds andlocal green space for their outdoor teaching with a majority using the same place or mostly thesame place and preferring natural environments with easy access. We recommend that greenspace managers try to accommodate the ecostrategy preferred by outdoor teachers, i.e. visits tolocal and well-known places.

KEY WORDS: education outside the classroom, green space management, outdoor learning,preferences for green space, use of green space

Introduction

There is an increasing tendency among Danish teachers to introduce outdoorlearning for children aged 6–16 on a weekly or biweekly ‘Outdoor School’ day, oftencalled udeskole in Danish. This is happening in both private and public schools andat grade levels from 0 to 10. Outdoor School is characterised by compulsoryeducational activities outside the school buildings on a regular basis and can takeplace in various settings, such as forests, parks, local communities and farms (Jordet,2007). Outdoor School comprises a range of activities, and there is often a focus onpractical and direct experiences while specific subjects and themes within the writtencurriculum are being covered, for example, mathematics, language and history(Jordet, 2007).

Correspondence Address: Peter Bentsen, Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, University of

Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, DK-1958 Frederiksberg, Denmark. Email: pbe@life.ku.dk

� 2012 Landscape Research Group Ltd

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2012.690860

Landscape Research, 2013

Vol. 38, No. 5, 561–575,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cop

enha

gen

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:14

09

Janu

ary

2014

Policy, Planning and Management for Outdoor School

How do Outdoor School teachers view and use nature areas and green space asclassroom? What types of green space do teachers and pupils use and prefer? Thesequestions present a challenge to green space planners and managers, and recentresearch has recognised the need to understand decisions associated with children’sactivities in and use of the outdoors (e.g. Munoz, 2009). In their recent assessment ofresearch needs regarding green space in Europe, James et al. (2009, p. 70) identifiedseveral key research questions, e.g. ‘‘How can urban green spaces be used for greaterbenefit in environmental education and in education more generally?’’, and Bell et al.(2007) pointed out that there is almost no research on education and training inrelation to green and public space in the UK. In addition, Jensen (1993) showed thatDanish forest planners and managers can have a fairly distorted perception of theforest preferences of different groups of users, which is why it is important to look atthe preferences of the actual and potential users (i.e. teachers and pupils) and not relysolely on experts’ (i.e. planners’ and managers’) opinions. The development ofschooling in non-classroom spaces presents a challenge for green space managers,and has created a demand for valid information on the use of and preferences forgreen space in an educational context (for studies in a recreational context, see e.g.Jansson, 2010; Jensen & Koch, 2004; Roovers et al., 2002; Schipperijn et al., 2010;Thompson et al., 2005). Considering how many teachers practise Outdoor School inDenmark, little is currently known about their use of land, constraints in terms ofspace nor how green space managers can accommodate teachers and pupils in theiroutdoor learning activities. Basic managerial knowledge related to who, what, whenand where has so far only been supported by anecdotal evidence. However, Bentsenet al. (2010) recently argued that it is important to understand this grassrootsmovement of teachers, and that green space near schools holds a range ofpossibilities. They further highlighted the role of green space planners and managersfacilitating outdoor teaching and learning, and recommended that planners andmanagers take Outdoor School seriously and consider teachers and pupils as animportant current as well as future user group.

The term ‘green space’ is used in a very broad sense in this study and includesareas such as forests, beaches, the agricultural landscape, urban parks and othergreen urban and peri-urban green structures.

Outdoor School in Danish Schools

It is difficult to grasp the precise extent of Outdoor School programmes and hencethe exact number of teachers practising regular outdoor teaching. At least 14% ofDanish schools practise outdoor learning (Bentsen et al., 2010), but the populationchanges over time, and there are different ways of defining, perceiving and practisingOutdoor School. We based our delineation and inclusion criteria for the respondentson Bentsen et al. (2009), Jordet (1998, 2007) and Mygind (2005, 2007), and excludedall other forms of ad hoc outdoor teaching. Thus, we included teachers practisingeducational activities during the school year 2007/2008 which:

. took place outside the walls of the school (buildings)

. took place on a regular basis (every or every other week)

. were structured (integrated into the teaching plan for the school year)

2 P. Bentsen et al.562

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cop

enha

gen

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:14

09

Janu

ary

2014

. had a specific duration over a certain period of time (minimum half a day andminimum half-year round), and

. were a part of the formal curriculum in combination with indoor teaching (withinspecific subjects and curriculum areas, such as Danish, mathematics, art, English,or developed as interdisciplinary activities).

Sandell’s Conceptual Framework of Ecostrategies

Describing and understanding outdoor teaching from a green space managementperspective is quite challenging. Drawing on Sandell’s (see e.g. 1991) conceptualframework of ecostrategies, we address outdoor teachers’ use of and preferences forgreen space (see Figure 1). The conceptual framework of ‘ecostrategies’ offerstheoretical perspectives on views and use of landscapes. The different landscapeperspectives (called ‘ecostrategies’) are researchable through what is said and writtenabout landscape (called ‘eco-views’) and what is done in the landscape (called ‘eco-practices’). In this study, we apply the framework to outdoor teaching and the use ofgreen space in schools, so that the framework can be used by researchers as well asgreen space planners and managers to describe, analyse and discuss teachers’ use,preferences and ecostrategies in relation to green space.

Sandell identified four landscape perspectives; so-called ecostrategies (see Figure1C). The first strategy, referred to as ‘A factory for producing activities’, includesvisiting specific areas for specific activities (i.e. active functional domination), andcould for example characterise visits to an outdoor education or science centre.Sandell (2006a) emphasised that transport and use of material resources are ofteninvolved and argued that the landscape is looked upon and used as a factory for theproduction of adventure or experiences, for example, rope courses, canopy walks,artificial climbing walls, nature schools and outdoor education centres. The secondecostrategy, also called ‘A museum for external consumption’, characterises ideassuch as nature protection, conservation and national parks. This ecostrategy couldinclude schools’ and teachers’ interest in ‘natural’ places and landscapes withpreserved and protected natural, wilderness and cultural values, for example, beingin a wilderness area or pristine environment with minimal human influence duringenvironmental education. Often this includes visiting a landscape that represents acontrast with the participants’ everyday living environment. The third ecostrategy,also described as ‘One’s home district to be utilised’, is in line with active adaptation,and the attention is on the local natural and cultural landscape but also on the directuse and change of the landscape. This ecostrategy can be exemplified in treeplanting, fishing, school forests as well as school ground, garden and communityprojects. The fourth ecostrategy, ‘One’s home district to be contemplated’, is anecostrategy of passive adaptation. Sandell (2006b) characterised this ecostrategy aspassive amusement, but with an integration of or identification with the landscape.This ecostrategy often involves the practice of returning to the same place severaltimes, for example, during different seasons.

Aims and Research Questions

This paper presents teachers’ perspectives on the use of and preferences for greenspace, and the results will hopefully help bridge the gap between green space

Green Space as Classroom 3563

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cop

enha

gen

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:14

09

Janu

ary

2014

Figure 1. A. The point of departure for the two axes in the conceptual framework ofecostrategies. B. Characteristics of different landscape perspectives along the two axes and keywords for the four corner positions. C. The conceptual framework of four ecostrategies. FromSandell (2007, pp. 4–5).

4 P. Bentsen et al.564

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cop

enha

gen

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:14

09

Janu

ary

2014

managers and teachers. The aim is to increase green space managers’ knowledgeabout how this relatively new user group views green space with a view to improvinguser opportunities and experiences, minimising conflicts and identifying current andfuture demands, for example, motives, wishes, barriers and use of green space. Thefollowing specific research questions will be addressed:

. What are the characteristics of teachers practising Outdoor School?

. Where do Outdoor School teachers practise outdoor teaching?

. How do Outdoor School teachers use green space?

. What are Outdoor School teachers’ preferences for green space?

. What is Outdoor School teachers’ ecostrategy?

Methods

Population and Participants

The survey population consisted of known Outdoor School teachers in Denmark.The study was carried out in 2008 and based on a survey distributed among 401teachers identified in a 2007 national electronic survey to all Danish schools andcompleted by the school principals. One of the aims of the 2007 survey was toidentify schools and teachers practising regular outdoor teaching (Bentsen et al.,2010). We identified 280 teachers at 139 schools and 121 schools with no specificOutdoor School teacher. Of the total of 401 teachers, 216 individual teachers at 178different schools returned the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 53.9%. Ofthe 216 individual teachers, 107 teachers divided across 93 schools were included inour analysis, that is, those practising Outdoor School during the 2007/2008 schoolyear according to the inclusion criteria described above.

Survey Technique and Questionnaires

Survey questions were constructed and a draft questionnaire was piloted amongselected teachers, educational experts and researchers to get feedback. Thequestionnaire was inspired by several international outdoor education question-naires (e.g. Limstrand, 2001; Lugg & Martin, 2001; Zink & Boyes, 2006) andoutdoor recreation questionnaires (e.g. Jensen, 1999; Schipperijn et al., 2010). Thefinal questionnaire consisted of 50 questions grouped into five sections spanning22 pages. The questions were a mix of closed and open questions, for example,yes/no questions, Likert scales and a final open question. Contact with theteachers was established through a postal questionnaire accompanied by a letterof introduction. In order to increase the response rate, we took care in designingthe questions and sent up to two reminders. Respondents provided details on, forexample:

. their personal practice and provision of outdoor teaching;

. their use of and preferences for green space in an outdoor teaching context;

. demographic data.

Similar to Kruuse (2005), we perceived it as an advantage that the survey wasdesigned for a narrow and relatively homogeneous target group and expected

Green Space as Classroom 5565

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cop

enha

gen

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:14

09

Janu

ary

2014

respondents to be motivated to participate because the survey and results were ofrelevance to them.

Data Processing and Background Variables

The processing and analysis of data were done using IBM SPSS Statistics 19.0. Thefollowing background variables of the respondents were cross-tabulated (Chi2 test):age (27–39, 40–49, 50–62 years), gender and educated/non-educated teacher. Wepresent the population as one group and specify only significant differences (p 50.05) although we are perfectly aware that even a non-significant result is animportant result. Hence, this survey is descriptive rather than analytic, aiming toestablish a broad characterisation of Outdoor School teachers’ use of, preferencesfor and ecostrategies in relation to green space.

Results

What are the Characteristics of Teachers Practising Outdoor School?

Table 1 shows the main characteristics of the Outdoor School teachers. The averageage of the included outdoor teachers was 47 years, and there was a predominance ofteachers with biology and physical education as their main subjects. Approximately40% of the teachers were younger than 45 years of age compared to the total Danishteacher population (N ¼ 50 972), of which 47% are under 45 (Danish Ministry ofEducation, 2010). Seventy-six percent were educated as teachers and the rest mainlyas social educators and nursery teachers. There were significantly more women whowere not educated as teachers (p 5 0.0001). Thirty-eight percent were men, which isslightly higher than the national percentage for public and private schools (31% and34%, respectively). The 107 teachers represented 93 schools: 43% small, 28%medium and 29% large schools; 73.1% public and 26.9% private schools (comparedto 33.1% small, 33.1% medium and 33.1% large and 77% public and 23% privateschools for all Danish schools).

Where Do Outdoor School Teachers Practise Outdoor Teaching?

The results indicate that when practised within walking distance, Outdoor Schooltakes place mainly in green space and on school grounds (72.9% both). When a

Table 1. Main characteristics of Outdoor School teachers, Denmark, autumn 2008.

n

Men/women 106 37.7%/62.3%Age mean (median; range) 106 47.2 (49; 27–62)Educated teacher 105 76.2%Trained in udeskole 105 48.9%Years of udeskole practice mean (median; range) 103 6.2 (5; 1–35)Years since graduation mean (median; range) 81 17.3 (16; 1–39)

6 P. Bentsen et al.566

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cop

enha

gen

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:14

09

Janu

ary

2014

location further away is used (i.e. use of transport resources), Outdoor School ismainly practised in green space (43.9%) (see Table 2). We combined the answersin Table 2 to type of place and local area/areas further away and created threenew variables, and it is interesting to note that 26.7% did not use schoolgrounds; 7.6% did not use the local area; and 5.7% did not use green space atall. A significantly higher proportion of older teachers (50–62 years) did not useschool grounds (p ¼ 0.029).

The teachers also provided information about how they organised OutdoorSchool. Roughly 20% stated that they ‘‘always used the same place’’ for teaching,approximately 45% indicated that they ‘‘mostly used the same place’’, and around30% indicated that they mostly or always used ‘‘a variety of places’’.

We asked the teachers who had used green space in their teaching to identify whattype of green space they had used at least once: 94.4% of the teachers replied thatthey had used forests, 72.9% streams and lakes, and 72.9% green school grounds(see Table 3, column A). Forests, green school grounds and streams and lakes wereused the most (64.7%, 11.8% and 9.4%, respectively) (see Table 3, Column B).Significantly more female teachers used beaches and coasts (p ¼ 0.035), andsignificantly more educated teachers used streams and lakes (p ¼ 0.025).

How Do Outdoor School Teachers Use Green Space?

One of the questions asked how many days the respondents had practised OutdoorSchool in green space during the school year 2007/2008. The average number of dayswas approximately 35 (median 30; range 3–200 days), with educated teachers havingsignificantly fewer Outdoor School days (p ¼ 0.013). The respondents indicated thatthe average duration of the outdoor teaching activities was 3.7 hours (median 4;range 1–6 hours). Less than 25% stated that they had practised sleeping outdoors ingreen space.

The average group size of children was 27.6 (median 22.5; range 4–90 children),while the average number of adults was 2.4 (median 2; range 1–6 adults). Therespondents also provided information about the type of transport used for OutdoorSchool. Results show that walking was the most common type of transport

Table 2. ‘‘Which areas/places did you use for udeskole last school year?’’ (n ¼ 107). Multipleanswers were allowed.

Places for outdoor teachingLocal area within

walking distance (%)

Areas further away:use of transportresources (%)

Green space 72.9 43.9School grounds 72.9 2.8Museums 8.4 26.2Cultural and public institutions 8.4 15.0Nature schools 7.5 25.2Factories 1.9 17.8Other 2.8 1.9

Green Space as Classroom 7567

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cop

enha

gen

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:14

09

Janu

ary

2014

(approximately 85%), followed by cycling (31.7%) and bus (31.7%) in 2007/2008.There were significantly more male teachers who did not use a car (p ¼ 0.046), andsignificantly more non-educated teachers who used walking as a means of transport(p ¼ 0.009). A majority (approximately 60%) of the respondents had not usedmotorised transport during the school year. The average time spent on transport was30 minutes per visit (median 25; range 0–150 minutes).

What are Outdoor School Teachers’ Preferences for Green Space?

Teachers’ responses regarding their preferences for the ideal green space for outdoorteaching are summarised in Figure 2. The most important characteristics of this‘imaginary’ landscape are natural flora and fauna, water, easy access either on footor by public transport, and what one could call ‘gathering places’, that is, places forbuilding a fire and finding shelter. Significantly more male teachers found areas withwater, for example, stream, lake and sea, important (p ¼ 0.008), while significantlymore female teachers had a preference for large open grassy areas (p ¼ 0.043).Another notable finding is that facilities/features/options such as sports grounds,sleeping facilities, drinking water, bins, toilets, benches/tables and buildings/shacksdid not seem to be of major importance to the outdoor teachers, while the absence oftraffic noise was important. A significant proportion of older teachers (50–62 years)did not prefer benches/tables (p ¼ 0.046) and toilets (p ¼ 0.041), while significantlymore educated teachers found camping facilities important (p ¼ 0.010). Theseresponses suggest that outdoor teachers prefer easily accessible natural environmentswhile green spaces resembling parks (i.e. grass fields with solitary large trees) do notseem to be of high importance.

Table 3, Column C, shows that the responding teachers’ preferred green space forOutdoor School. A majority (64%) of the teachers preferred forests, followed bystreams and lakes (12.5%). These results are very much in line with those presentedin Figure 2.

Table 3. A: ‘‘Which type of green space did you use for udeskole last school year?’’ (Multipleanswers were allowed). B: ‘‘Which type of green space did you use most often during the lastschool year?’’ C: ‘‘If possible, which type of green space would you prefer for practisingudeskole?’’ (Results ranked by Column A).

A B CUsed; multiple answers (%) Used most often (%) Preferred (%)

Type of green space (n ¼ 107) (n ¼ 85) (n ¼ 80)

Forest 94.4 64.7 63.8Stream and lake 72.9 9.4 12.5Green school grounds 72.9 11.8 7.5Field and meadow 56.1 2.4 1.3Beach and coast 48.6 1.2 7.5Park and garden 26.2 3.5 1.3Cemetery 14.0 0 0Other 0.9 7.1 6.3P

% 385% 100% 100%

8 P. Bentsen et al.568

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cop

enha

gen

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:14

09

Janu

ary

2014

What is Outdoor School Teachers’ Ecostrategy?

Supported by the findings above, we argue that Outdoor School teachers’ecostrategy can be characterised as ‘one’s home district to be contemplated’ (seecircle in Figure 3). There is a clear tendency among the teachers to use and prefergreen space in their local environment. A majority used more or less the same placeevery week, a pattern characterised by Jordet (1998) as ‘the base camp model’.Furthermore, the teachers did not prioritise specialised facilities for sport, forexample. Sandell (2007) emphasised that the ecostrategy of ‘one’s home district to becontemplated’ often implies the practice of returning to the same place several times,and comments in the questionnaire do indeed confirm that the outdoor teacherspractise this particular ecostrategy, for example, ‘‘The best thing is that all thepossibilities are right outside our door!’’. Furthermore, many teachers indicated thatevery season had its own educational potential, for example, ‘‘We go outside all yearround in all kinds of weather to explore the nature around us.’’ As furtherconfirmation of their choice of ecostrategy, the teachers referred to their teachinglocation using specific names, for example, ‘‘the rolling hill’’, ‘‘our place’’, ‘‘theMumi valley’’ and ‘‘the troll trees’’ (as opposed to the universal ‘a hill’, ‘a valley’ or‘some trees’). One could argue that this process of endowing places with namescreates a sense of relationship. We also note that a majority of the teachers choselocal places (see Table 2).

Figure 2. ‘‘Try to imagine the best possible green space for udeskole activities’’. Ranked byvery important and important (n ¼ 95–100). Translation and abbreviation of the actualDanish statements posed in the questionnaire.

Green Space as Classroom 9569

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cop

enha

gen

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:14

09

Janu

ary

2014

Discussion

This paper attempts to shed empirical light on outdoor teachers’ use of andpreference for green space. Our results show that Outdoor School teachers mainlyused school grounds and local green space for their outdoor teaching, and amajority used the same place or mostly the same place. The outdoor teacherssurveyed mainly used forests, school grounds, and streams and lakes for theirteaching activities, and preferred forests. In addition, they expressed a desire fornatural flora and fauna, water, easy access and places for building a fire andfinding shelter. The teachers had practised Outdoor School approximately 35 daysin green space, and the average duration of their teaching activities was 3.7 hours.The average group size was 27.6 children and 2.4 adults. The Outdoor Schoolteachers mainly used walking, biking and bus as transport means to and from thegreen space. There do not seem to be any other national studies examining outdoorteachers’ use, preferences and ecostrategies in relation to green space. However,this study can complement studies in the area of recreation. When it comes to thepreferences for green space outdoor teachers and outdoor recreationists seem toshare many similarities (see e.g. Jensen, 1999; Jensen & Koch, 2004; Schipperijnet al., 2010), but there are many differences when it comes to how green space isused, that is, larger group sizes, longer and more frequent visits, visits during

Figure 3. Outdoor School teachers’ ecostrategy. Inspired by Sandell (2007).

10 P. Bentsen et al.570

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cop

enha

gen

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:14

09

Janu

ary

2014

non-peak hours (i.e. during the school day instead of at weekends), and how it isaccessed (i.e. walking instead of driving).

The ecostrategy of the outdoor teachers questioned can be characterised as‘one’s home district to be contemplated’, that is, visits to a known and local place.We think it is important to understand the consequences of different strategies andrelated educational and managerial choices. Perhaps the Danish Outdoor Schoolteachers’ ecostrategy reflects the Nordic outdoor recreation tradition of friluftsliv(see e.g. Henderson & Vikander, 2007). Paradoxically, one characteristic of manyoutdoor learning activities in schools in the English-speaking countries is that theyoften take place far from where the children live (see e.g. Beames, 2010; Lugg &Slattery, 2003). Remote, or ‘wilderness’, areas are often seen as an ideal setting forjourneys and adventure activities. Loynes (2010) characterised British expeditionsas seeking to explore unknown places, while the Nordic tradition of friluftslivcould be seen as a practice that relates people to their landscape as a home(Henderson & Vikander, 2007). Scandinavian cultures appear to have long-standing links with the landscape, and their understanding of the landscape is notshaped in relation to pre- versus post-colonisation nor based on the idea of afrontier beyond which lies a wilderness (Brookes, 2001). In this respect, theconceptual framework applied to outdoor teaching in schools draws attention to aseries of dilemmas within outdoor educational practices: unfamiliar places versusfamiliar places, cultural landscape versus ‘wilderness’ and sense of activity versussense of place.

Perhaps the ecostrategy of ‘one’s home district to be contemplated’ is moreadaptable to and more logistically possible in schools and educational systems?Would it perhaps be easier to integrate this type of outdoor learning and thisecostrategy within the school curriculum and its delivery? Moreover, adapting thisstrategy could remove the ‘tourist’ perspective of many school excursions thatseem to neglect unknown local areas and green space while ‘constructing’ locationsfurther away as destinations. For instance, Hyllested (2007) described howteachers use professional outdoor and science centres in their outdoor teachingpractices, thus leaving the teaching to the staff of the centre. Furthermore, shecharacterised environmental education centres as ‘tourist’ places and this kind ofpractice as ‘lemonade visit’. Loynes (1998) in turn warned outdoor educators ofthe danger of disassociating people from their community and place, andcompared the development of pre-fabricated, off-the-shelf outdoor educationprogrammes to a McDonald’s hamburger. Here, there is no specific focus on theplace (compared with the activity), and these kinds of universal programmes canoften take place anywhere, or as Baker (2005) stated, ‘Anywoods, USA’.Practising the ecostrategy of ‘one’s home district to be contemplated’ might helpremove some barriers and costs, for example, less travel and less risk in thefamiliar local environment.

Sandell’s framework provides a basis for analysis and comparison and less of anattempt to describe any particular reality. Each of the four strategies brings with itparticular approaches and practical consequences, and it is not our intention toadvocate any one strategy per se, but it is worth noting (for both teachers and greenspace managers) the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Green Space as Classroom 11571

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cop

enha

gen

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:14

09

Janu

ary

2014

Methodological Considerations

A major strength of this study is the fact that it is based on a nationwide survey ofOutdoor School teachers which provides an initial broad characterisation andoverview of Outdoor School teachers’ use, preferences and ecostrategy in relation togreen space, and which also supplements previous studies of unorganised andorganised outdoor recreation and use of green space. Some methodological cautionis required when reading, interpreting and communicating the results of the survey.A self-reported quantitative approach may illustrate main tendencies and patterns inrelation to a theme, but one should be aware of the limitations.

First, the description of how green space was used was based on teachers’ ownreports and may therefore have been exaggerated. One disadvantage of collectingactivity information via questionnaires is the risk of respondents exaggerating (e.g.Jensen & Koch, 2004) and the risk of participants answering strategically. Use ofgreen space could be interpreted as a normative field, that is, something you ‘should’have done. Moreover, using generalisations covering a whole year means that thereis a substantial risk of details being left out or participants’ memory being somewhatunclear. Within the field of outdoor recreation participation, Jensen and Koch(2004) estimated the exaggeration factor at 1.5 to 2. We defined Outdoor Schoolfairly strictly (see our initial methodological definition), and the outdoor teachingprogrammes that fall within our definition are the most demanding in terms ofteacher time and planning; it is safe to conclude that many more teachers teachoutdoors on a more ad hoc basis (Bentsen et al., 2010).

Second, the response rate may limit the generalisability of the results. However, ourresponse rate of 53.9% is relatively high compared to related surveys of teachers inNorway (Limstrand, 2001), Australia (Lugg & Martin, 2001), New Zealand (Zink &Boyes, 2006) and Scotland (Higgins et al., 2006). We consider the response ratesatisfactory considering the strict inclusion criteria, the general turnover rate ofteachers in the Danish school system and the fact that contact was made through aninitial survey of school principals. Furthermore, Outdoor School is only practised byapproximately 14% of Danish schools, so this study is a broad characterisation of theteachers who practise outdoor teaching on a regular basis (see our inclusion criteria).

Third, the results of the present study may contain one final limitation, namely‘‘the problem of ‘the average camper’ [teacher] who does not exist’’ (Schafer, 1969).We have presented the Outdoor School teachers as one homogenous population,which might encourage planning and managing for the ‘average’ (non-existent)Outdoor School teacher. A quantitative approach illustrates the main tendencies andpatterns in relation to a theme, but one should be aware of its limitations in that itmay exclude other potentially relevant responses and skew the data towardspreconceived ideas. On the other hand, no meaningful sub-populations could bedistinguished, and it is important to generally understand new forms of use andconsider the value of nationwide data for decision-making and policy (see e.g. Jensen& Koch, 2004; Schipperijn et al., 2010).

Implications for Green Space Managers

The purpose of the present study was to provide green space managers, policy-makers and researchers with national data on Outdoor School teachers’ use of,

12 P. Bentsen et al.572

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cop

enha

gen

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:14

09

Janu

ary

2014

preferences for and ecostrategies in relation to green space. How do we translate theecostrategic framework and the survey results into green space policy, planning andmanagement for Outdoor School? And how are green spaces going to be planned,designed and managed to take into consideration the preferences and demands for a‘good’ outdoor classroom? We have explored teachers’ use of and preferences forgreen space and have generated a national up-to-date empirical description of aspecific group: outdoor teachers. Furthermore, we have identified their primaryecostrategy, thus providing a platform for discussion and reflections about outdoorlearning in schools and teachers’ use of green spaces. This can be a useful point ofdeparture for identifying future directions, implications and managerial responses.Also, the characterisation of teachers’ use and preferences above can be used in theformulation of strategies and policies for green space management.

There seems to be a need for green space managers to try to accommodate theecostrategies of the teachers. It sometimes seems as if green space managers practiseecostrategies on the left side of the framework (see Figure 1C), offering solutions thatpromote aesthetic expressions, specialisation, technical solutions, preservation andphysical features (see e.g. Golicnik & Thompson, 2010; Simkins & Thwaites, 2008).In his often cited article ‘Adventure in a bun’, Loynes (1998) argued that outdooreducation has adopted marketplace values and marketplace language, for example,products, services, customers, consumers, niche markets and logos. Instead ofviewing outdoor teaching as a continuous development of increasingly specialisedand occasionally discrete activities, a focus can be drawn towards places and routesas well as support points for Outdoor School, that is, attachment to place versusattachment to activity.

It would be beneficial if green space managers focused on multipurpose use insteadof specialised use. Local green space should be planned and managed for a variety ofactivities, including Outdoor School and other outdoor teaching activities. Perhapsgreen space managers could facilitate regular outdoor teaching by providing tours oflocal green space for school teachers, to show the possibilities and suitable sites foroutdoor teaching.

A further implication of Outdoor School teachers use, preferences andecostrategies could be to ‘naturalise’ old and new urban parks and try to createmore ‘wild/natural zones’ near schools. Re-establishing nature in school grounds andlocal areas is another possible solution, that is placing the importance on naturalflora and fauna, school grounds and areas close by. The presence of simple andinformal gathering places and a place for building a fire or finding shelter seem to beimportant in the planning and managing for outdoor teaching. Designing andmaintaining ‘good’ green space nearby for teachers and pupils could be an overallplanning task. When planning and building new schools, one should consider accessto local green space as well as designing ‘green (forest resembling) school grounds’.Another recommendation could be to subsidise transport for existing schoolssituated far from green space.

Such a strategic and user-oriented approach to outdoor teaching and the use ofgreen space would be beneficial for pupils, teachers, policy-makers and not leastgreen space managers. We advocate theoretically and empirically informed decisionsin the planning and management for outdoor learning in schools, and we see thispaper as a first step in this direction.

Green Space as Classroom 13573

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cop

enha

gen

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:14

09

Janu

ary

2014

Acknowledgements

Several people have contributed to the development of the ideas in this paper. Wethank Klas Sandell (1991, 2006a, 2006b, 2007) for his inspiration. Our genuinethanks also go to the teachers who completed the questionnaires, and we thankMarie Juul Knudsen for her invaluable assistance in mailing and keying in thequestionnaires. Finally, we would also like to express a special thank you to ourcolleagues Richard Hare, Erik Mygind, Thomas B. Randrup and ChristianLindholst for their valuable comments, feedback and suggestions.

References

Baker, M. (2005) Landfullness in adventure-based programming: Promoting reconnection to the land,

Journal of Experiential Education, 27(3), pp. 267–276.

Beames, S. (Ed.) (2010) Understanding Educational Expeditions (Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense

Publishers).

Bell, S., Montarzino, A. & Travlou, P. (2007) Mapping research priorities for green and public urban

space in the UK, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6, pp. 103–115.

Bentsen, P., Jensen, F.S., Mygind, E. & Randrup, T.B. (2010) The extent and dissemination of udeskole in

Danish schools, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9, pp. 235–243.

Bentsen, P., Mygind, E. & Randrup, T.B. (2009) Towards an understanding of udeskole: Education

outside the classroom in a Danish context, Education 3–13, 37(1), pp. 29–44.

Brookes, A. (2001) Conservation of remnant Box Ironbark forests as an issue of community education. A

challenge for outdoor environmental education. Paper presented at ‘The Future is Here—A Conference

for Environmental Education’, RMIT, Melbourne, available at http://www.latrobe.edu.au/staff-

profiles/admin/show-profile-admin.php?uname=ARBrookes (accessed 17 January 2010).

Danish Ministry of Education (2010) Pædagogisk personale i grundskolen [Educational staff in the school;

in Danish], available at www.uvm.dk (accessed 15 January 2010).

Golicnik, B. & Thompson, C.W. (2010) Emerging relationships between design and use of urban park

spaces, Landscape and Urban Planning, 94, pp. 38–53.

Henderson, B. & Vikander, N. (Eds) (2007) Nature First: Outdoor Life the Friluftsliv Way (Toronto,

Ontario: Natural Heritage Books).

Higgins, P., Nicol, R. & Ross, H. (2006) Teachers’ approaches and attitudes to engaging with the natural

heritage through the curriculum. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 161, Edinburgh,

Scotland.

Hyllested, T. (2007) Nar læreren tager skolen ud af skolen—en analyse af naturskolebesøg og andre ud af

skolen aktiviteter med fokus pa lærernes formal med at tage ud og deres interaktion med eleverne i

forhold til at optimere betingelserne for elevernes læring [When the teacher takes the school out of the

school; in Danish with English summary]. PhD dissertation, University of Aarhus, Denmark.

James, P., Tzoulas, K., Adams, M.D., Barber, A., Box, J., Breuste, J., Elmqvist, T., Frith, M., Gordon, C.,

Greening, K.L., Handley, J., Haworth, S., Kazmierczak, A.E., Johnston, M., Korpela, K., Moretti, M.,

Niemela, J., Pauleit, S., Roe, M.H., Sadler, J.P. et al. (2009) Towards an integrated understanding of

green space in the European built environment, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8, pp. 65–75.

Jansson, M. (2010) Attractive playgrounds: Some factors affecting user interest and visiting patterns,

Landscape Research, 35(1), pp. 63–81.

Jensen, F.S. (1993) Landscape managers’ and politicians’ perception of the forest and landscape

preferences of the population, Forest & Landscape Research, 1, pp. 79–93.

Jensen, F.S. (1999) Forest recreation in Denmark from the 1970s to the 1990s. PhD dissertation, The

Research Series No. 26, Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, Hoersholm, Denmark.

Jensen, F.S. & Koch, N.E. (2004) Twenty-five years of forest recreation research in Denmark and its

influence on forest policy, Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 19 (Suppl. 4), pp. 93–102.

Jordet, A. (1998) Nærmiljøet som klasserom. Uteskole i teori og praksis [The nearby Environment as

Classroom; in Norwegian] (Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag).

14 P. Bentsen et al.574

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cop

enha

gen

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:14

09

Janu

ary

2014

Jordet, A. (2007) Nærmiljøet som klasserom. En undersøkelse om uteskolens didaktikk i et

danningsteoretisk og erfaringspedagogisk perspektiv [The nearby environment as classroom; in

Norwegian with English summary]. Doctoral dissertation, No. 80, University of Oslo, Norway.

Kruuse, E. (2005) Kvantitative forskningsmetoder—i psykologi og tilgrænsede fag [Quantitative Research

Methods—In Psychology and Related Subjects; in Danish] (Virum, Denmark: Dansk Psykologisk

Forlag).

Limstrand, T. (2001) Uteaktivitet i grunnskolen. Realiteter og udfordringer [Outdoor activity in primary

and lower secondary school. Realities and challenges; in Norwegian]. Master’s thesis, University of

Oslo, Norway.

Loynes, C. (1998) Adventure in a bun, Journal of Experiential Education, 21(1), pp. 35–39.

Loynes, C. (2010) The British youth expedition: Cultural and historical perspectives, in: S. Beames (Ed.)

Understanding Educational Expeditions, pp. 1–16 (Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers).

Lugg, A. & Martin, P. (2001) The nature and scope of outdoor education in Victorian schools. Australian

Journal of Outdoor Education, 5(2), pp. 42–48.

Lugg, A. & Slattery, D. (2003) Use of national parks for outdoor environmental education: An Australian

case study, Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 3(1), pp. 77–92.

Munoz, S.A. (2009) Children in the Outdoors. A Literature Review (Edinburgh, Scotland: Sustainable

Development Research Centre).

Mygind, E. (Ed.) (2005) Udeundervisning i folkeskolen. Et casestudie om en naturklasse pa Rødkilde Skole

og virkningerne af en ugentlig obligatorisk naturdag pa yngste klassetrin i perioden 2000–2003 [Outdoor

Teaching in the Public School; in Danish] (Copenhagen, Denmark: Museum Tusculanums Forlag and

University of Copenhagen).

Mygind, E. (2007) A comparison between children’s physical activity levels at school and learning in an

outdoor environment, Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 7(2), pp. 161–176.

Roovers, P., Hermy, M. & Gulinck, H. (2002) Visitor profile, perceptions and expectations in forests from

a gradient of increasing urbanisation in central Belgium, Landscape and Urban Planning, 59, pp.

129–145.

Sandell, K. (1991) ‘Ecostrategies’ and environmentalism: The case of outdoor life and friluftsliv,

Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 73(2), pp. 133–141.

Sandell, K. (2006a) Access, tourism and democracy: A conceptual framework and non-establishment of a

proposed national park in Sweden, in: D. Muller & B. Jansson (Eds) Tourism in Peripheries:

Perspectives from the Far North and South, pp. 141–153 (Wallingford, UK: CABI).

Sandell, K. (2006b) Access under stress: the right of public access tradition in Sweden, in: N. Mcintyre,

D.R. Willams & K.E. McHugh (Eds) Multiple Dwelling and Tourism: Negotiating Place, Home and

Identity, pp. 278–294 (Wallingford, UK: CABI).

Sandell, K. (2007) A conceptual framework of ecostrategies and some cases of proposed protected areas in

the high mountain region of Sweden. Paper presented at the 2nd Nordic Geographers Meeting in

Bergen, Norway, 15–17 June, available at http://www.bth.se/tks/sustour.nsf/attachments/0,0,0,

Paper_abstrac, Sandell_1_pdf/$file/0,0,0,Paper_abstrac, Sandell_1.pdf (accessed 13 April 2008)

Schafer, E.L. (1969) The average camper who doesn’t exist. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-

142, Upper Darby, PA.

Schipperijn, J., Ekholm, O., Stigsdotter, U., Toftager, M., Bentsen, P., Kamper-Jørgensen, F. & Randrup,

T.B. (2010) Factors influencing the use of green space—results from a Danish national representative

survey, Landscape and Urban Planning, 95(3), pp. 130–137.

Simkins, I. & Thwaites, K. (2008) Revealing the hidden spatial dimensions of place experience in primary

school-age children, Landscape Research, 33(5), pp. 531–546.

Thompson, C.W., Aspinall, P., Bell, S. & Findlay, C. (2005) ‘‘It gets you away from everyday life’’: Local

woodlands and community use—what makes a difference?, Landscape Research, 30(1), pp. 109–146.

Zink, R. & Boyes, M. (2006) The nature and scope of outdoor education in New Zealand schools,

Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 10(1), pp. 11–21.

Green Space as Classroom 15575

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cop

enha

gen

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:14

09

Janu

ary

2014