C&NN Connect was created to support people and organizations working worldwide to reconnect children and nature.
1 member
1 member
1 member
1 member
1 member
Follow us on Twitter
Become a fan
Read our blog
Visit the Children & Nature Network Web site for news, resources, network initiatives, and the Movement Map.
How can we work together so people are free and safe as they enjoy a community's natural areas? Citizen patrols on bike and horseback? Many people have considered the Lake Hodges trails their "personal natural area," but of course predators can use the space too...
Tags:
Hi Rich,
I'm just back from a keynote in Indiana, where the question of safety came up -- as it virtually always does when promoting nature play. It takes on still more currency after the recent, tragic murder in San Diego.
In response to your query, I wonder if the ultimate need is truly to make it safer to enjoy the outdoors -- or rather to improve the perception of safety there? As a parent myself, whenever I hear of crimes or injuries to children playing in nature, my right brain quickly says, "OMG, that could have been my child!" But my left brain then starts debating its counterpart: "Yes, but my kid is statistically in more danger every time I drive him to the store, or take him canoeing."
An example from my own personal experience, some years back: when my youngest was about 8, a mountain lion visited our slightly wild backyard and left clear signs (in Omaha, no less!). That certainly got my attention, since my kid played in the adjacent woods and stream. However, I chose not to ban Duncan from playing out there, but instead taught him how to react if he should happen to encounter a cougar. Was I an irresponsible parent? I don't think so. The chances of injury were exponentially smaller than the benefits he was gaining from outdoor play!
Too often we fail to apply logic and common sense to the issue of outdoor dangers. When I speak to audiences, I often tell the story of my conversation with a parks director who told me that they couldn't possibly allow kids to climb trees in their parks, since they might fall and break their arms. In reply, I asked if they had any ponds, lakes, or rivers in their parks. Of course, the answer was yes. I then asked if they had six-foot fences around all of them. Naturally, the answer was no. I then pointed out that drowning was the second most common cause of accidental children's deaths, and noted that apparently he was OK with kids drowning in his parks, but not with them breaking bones....
That illustrates what I feel is the real key to the safety issue: comparative risk. Statistics on it are not easy to find, but do any of us doubt that kids are more likely to be hurt running down their home stairs than running across a meadow? Or that today's children are at more risk of encountering a dangerous human predator on the internet than in their neighborhood park? In Last Child you cited stats that crimes against children are fewer now than a generation ago. Yet the general public's perception is almost certainly the exact opposite. It's not that such crimes don't continue to happen, of course. They do; they always have; and they always will. Each and every one of us who promotes more time in nature for children has an obligation to thoughtfully address those risks and to try to minimize them.
However, my hope is that the children and nature movement can become a consistent source of common sense regarding outdoor risks, and not inadvertently become a part of the problem by overplaying it -- a role that 24/7 media coverage handles quite well, thank you. Children need some risks; they need to test their abilities, to learn good judgment, to thrive from successfully overcoming challenges, and to gain empathy for their own failed efforts and those of others.
The key -- it seems to me -- is to aim for manageable and reasonable risks that do not dramatically alter the value and impact of their nature experiences. I'm sure there is no perfect answer to what constitutes "manageable and reasonable," but perhaps it is best viewed in the context of all of life's risks, rather than in the magnifying lens of isolation. If we unintentionally add to the hype about danger outdoors by speaking of it as though it is a common occurrence, we may scare parents towards even greater reliance on indoor, plugged-in play for their kids. That, too, reflects a part of the comparative risk viewpoint: it's not just what parental fears prevent kids from doing (like outdoor play), it's what those fears push kids into doing, instead (like more screen time). Which is worse? I certainly know my choice!
I don't mean to sound naive or unfeeling about the dangers to children when they are outdoors, enjoying free play and recreation. But they are at far greater risk in so many day-to-day life activities -- risks which parents accept as normal and don't obsess over, and which the media pays little attention to. Do parents hold their young kids out of soccer leagues because they may tear up a knee -- or because there's a tiny, tiny chance that the coach may be immoral? Do they avoid driving on family vacations because the highways can be so deadly?
Maybe we in the movement should collectively and aggressively focus on helping parents and other caregivers to view nature play similarly: as something so routine and positive for healthy childhoods that the minimal dangers will constitute no barrier to the valuable experiences.
Best,
Ken Finch
Green Hearts Institute for Nature in Childhood
Ken, I agree with all you say and you say it well. I do think we need to both educate people about comparative risk, but we also need to recognize that the fear isn't going to go away, so coming up with ways to help parents cope with that -- and still encourage independent play -- is going to be crucial. Excellent post by you, by the way.
rich
Ken Finch said:Hi Rich,
I'm just back from a keynote in Indiana, where the question of safety came up -- as it virtually always does when promoting nature play. It takes on still more currency after the recent, tragic murder in San Diego.
In response to your query, I wonder if the ultimate need is truly to make it safer to enjoy the outdoors -- or rather to improve the perception of safety there? As a parent myself, whenever I hear of crimes or injuries to children playing in nature, my right brain quickly says, "OMG, that could have been my child!" But my left brain then starts debating its counterpart: "Yes, but my kid is statistically in more danger every time I drive him to the store, or take him canoeing."
An example from my own personal experience, some years back: when my youngest was about 8, a mountain lion visited our slightly wild backyard and left clear signs (in Omaha, no less!). That certainly got my attention, since my kid played in the adjacent woods and stream. However, I chose not to ban Duncan from playing out there, but instead taught him how to react if he should happen to encounter a cougar. Was I an irresponsible parent? I don't think so. The chances of injury were exponentially smaller than the benefits he was gaining from outdoor play!
Too often we fail to apply logic and common sense to the issue of outdoor dangers. When I speak to audiences, I often tell the story of my conversation with a parks director who told me that they couldn't possibly allow kids to climb trees in their parks, since they might fall and break their arms. In reply, I asked if they had any ponds, lakes, or rivers in their parks. Of course, the answer was yes. I then asked if they had six-foot fences around all of them. Naturally, the answer was no. I then pointed out that drowning was the second most common cause of accidental children's deaths, and noted that apparently he was OK with kids drowning in his parks, but not with them breaking bones....
That illustrates what I feel is the real key to the safety issue: comparative risk. Statistics on it are not easy to find, but do any of us doubt that kids are more likely to be hurt running down their home stairs than running across a meadow? Or that today's children are at more risk of encountering a dangerous human predator on the internet than in their neighborhood park? In Last Child you cited stats that crimes against children are fewer now than a generation ago. Yet the general public's perception is almost certainly the exact opposite. It's not that such crimes don't continue to happen, of course. They do; they always have; and they always will. Each and every one of us who promotes more time in nature for children has an obligation to thoughtfully address those risks and to try to minimize them.
However, my hope is that the children and nature movement can become a consistent source of common sense regarding outdoor risks, and not inadvertently become a part of the problem by overplaying it -- a role that 24/7 media coverage handles quite well, thank you. Children need some risks; they need to test their abilities, to learn good judgment, to thrive from successfully overcoming challenges, and to gain empathy for their own failed efforts and those of others.
The key -- it seems to me -- is to aim for manageable and reasonable risks that do not dramatically alter the value and impact of their nature experiences. I'm sure there is no perfect answer to what constitutes "manageable and reasonable," but perhaps it is best viewed in the context of all of life's risks, rather than in the magnifying lens of isolation. If we unintentionally add to the hype about danger outdoors by speaking of it as though it is a common occurrence, we may scare parents towards even greater reliance on indoor, plugged-in play for their kids. That, too, reflects a part of the comparative risk viewpoint: it's not just what parental fears prevent kids from doing (like outdoor play), it's what those fears push kids into doing, instead (like more screen time). Which is worse? I certainly know my choice!
I don't mean to sound naive or unfeeling about the dangers to children when they are outdoors, enjoying free play and recreation. But they are at far greater risk in so many day-to-day life activities -- risks which parents accept as normal and don't obsess over, and which the media pays little attention to. Do parents hold their young kids out of soccer leagues because they may tear up a knee -- or because there's a tiny, tiny chance that the coach may be immoral? Do they avoid driving on family vacations because the highways can be so deadly?
Maybe we in the movement should collectively and aggressively focus on helping parents and other caregivers to view nature play similarly: as something so routine and positive for healthy childhoods that the minimal dangers will constitute no barrier to the valuable experiences.
Best,
Ken Finch
Green Hearts Institute for Nature in Childhood
Love the ideas people are putting forward.
I think the best thing we can do as a community is to "take back our trails" --slowly, over time, we will reach a "tipping point" of sorts. The more people are out there, using our parks, using our trails, enjoying our natural areas, the more our collective comfort with this sort of thing increases. Also, I believe, the very act of claiming our right to these spaces will have a deterrent mpact on those folks who would choose to victimize people for using them.
Patty Born Selly
www.smallwondersmn.com
Ken, I agree with all you say and you say it well. I do think we need to both educate people about comparative risk, but we also need to recognize that the fear isn't going to go away, so coming up with ways to help parents cope with that -- and still encourage independent play -- is going to be crucial. Excellent post by you, by the way.
rich
Ken Finch said:Hi Rich,
I'm just back from a keynote in Indiana, where the question of safety came up -- as it virtually always does when promoting nature play. It takes on still more currency after the recent, tragic murder in San Diego.
In response to your query, I wonder if the ultimate need is truly to make it safer to enjoy the outdoors -- or rather to improve the perception of safety there? As a parent myself, whenever I hear of crimes or injuries to children playing in nature, my right brain quickly says, "OMG, that could have been my child!" But my left brain then starts debating its counterpart: "Yes, but my kid is statistically in more danger every time I drive him to the store, or take him canoeing."
An example from my own personal experience, some years back: when my youngest was about 8, a mountain lion visited our slightly wild backyard and left clear signs (in Omaha, no less!). That certainly got my attention, since my kid played in the adjacent woods and stream. However, I chose not to ban Duncan from playing out there, but instead taught him how to react if he should happen to encounter a cougar. Was I an irresponsible parent? I don't think so. The chances of injury were exponentially smaller than the benefits he was gaining from outdoor play!
Too often we fail to apply logic and common sense to the issue of outdoor dangers. When I speak to audiences, I often tell the story of my conversation with a parks director who told me that they couldn't possibly allow kids to climb trees in their parks, since they might fall and break their arms. In reply, I asked if they had any ponds, lakes, or rivers in their parks. Of course, the answer was yes. I then asked if they had six-foot fences around all of them. Naturally, the answer was no. I then pointed out that drowning was the second most common cause of accidental children's deaths, and noted that apparently he was OK with kids drowning in his parks, but not with them breaking bones....
That illustrates what I feel is the real key to the safety issue: comparative risk. Statistics on it are not easy to find, but do any of us doubt that kids are more likely to be hurt running down their home stairs than running across a meadow? Or that today's children are at more risk of encountering a dangerous human predator on the internet than in their neighborhood park? In Last Child you cited stats that crimes against children are fewer now than a generation ago. Yet the general public's perception is almost certainly the exact opposite. It's not that such crimes don't continue to happen, of course. They do; they always have; and they always will. Each and every one of us who promotes more time in nature for children has an obligation to thoughtfully address those risks and to try to minimize them.
However, my hope is that the children and nature movement can become a consistent source of common sense regarding outdoor risks, and not inadvertently become a part of the problem by overplaying it -- a role that 24/7 media coverage handles quite well, thank you. Children need some risks; they need to test their abilities, to learn good judgment, to thrive from successfully overcoming challenges, and to gain empathy for their own failed efforts and those of others.
The key -- it seems to me -- is to aim for manageable and reasonable risks that do not dramatically alter the value and impact of their nature experiences. I'm sure there is no perfect answer to what constitutes "manageable and reasonable," but perhaps it is best viewed in the context of all of life's risks, rather than in the magnifying lens of isolation. If we unintentionally add to the hype about danger outdoors by speaking of it as though it is a common occurrence, we may scare parents towards even greater reliance on indoor, plugged-in play for their kids. That, too, reflects a part of the comparative risk viewpoint: it's not just what parental fears prevent kids from doing (like outdoor play), it's what those fears push kids into doing, instead (like more screen time). Which is worse? I certainly know my choice!
I don't mean to sound naive or unfeeling about the dangers to children when they are outdoors, enjoying free play and recreation. But they are at far greater risk in so many day-to-day life activities -- risks which parents accept as normal and don't obsess over, and which the media pays little attention to. Do parents hold their young kids out of soccer leagues because they may tear up a knee -- or because there's a tiny, tiny chance that the coach may be immoral? Do they avoid driving on family vacations because the highways can be so deadly?
Maybe we in the movement should collectively and aggressively focus on helping parents and other caregivers to view nature play similarly: as something so routine and positive for healthy childhoods that the minimal dangers will constitute no barrier to the valuable experiences.
Best,
Ken Finch
Green Hearts Institute for Nature in Childhood
Hi Ken,
Thank you so much for your post. I'm the author of Get Out! 150 Easy Ways for Kids and Grown-Ups to Get Into Nature and Build a Greener Future, and I've been doing several book presentations lately. This is one question that always comes up in the Q & A afterwards, and I'm delighted to be able to refer to your wise response.
Judy Molland
Richard Louv said:Ken, I agree with all you say and you say it well. I do think we need to both educate people about comparative risk, but we also need to recognize that the fear isn't going to go away, so coming up with ways to help parents cope with that -- and still encourage independent play -- is going to be crucial. Excellent post by you, by the way.
rich
Ken Finch said:Hi Rich,
I'm just back from a keynote in Indiana, where the question of safety came up -- as it virtually always does when promoting nature play. It takes on still more currency after the recent, tragic murder in San Diego.
In response to your query, I wonder if the ultimate need is truly to make it safer to enjoy the outdoors -- or rather to improve the perception of safety there? As a parent myself, whenever I hear of crimes or injuries to children playing in nature, my right brain quickly says, "OMG, that could have been my child!" But my left brain then starts debating its counterpart: "Yes, but my kid is statistically in more danger every time I drive him to the store, or take him canoeing."
An example from my own personal experience, some years back: when my youngest was about 8, a mountain lion visited our slightly wild backyard and left clear signs (in Omaha, no less!). That certainly got my attention, since my kid played in the adjacent woods and stream. However, I chose not to ban Duncan from playing out there, but instead taught him how to react if he should happen to encounter a cougar. Was I an irresponsible parent? I don't think so. The chances of injury were exponentially smaller than the benefits he was gaining from outdoor play!
Too often we fail to apply logic and common sense to the issue of outdoor dangers. When I speak to audiences, I often tell the story of my conversation with a parks director who told me that they couldn't possibly allow kids to climb trees in their parks, since they might fall and break their arms. In reply, I asked if they had any ponds, lakes, or rivers in their parks. Of course, the answer was yes. I then asked if they had six-foot fences around all of them. Naturally, the answer was no. I then pointed out that drowning was the second most common cause of accidental children's deaths, and noted that apparently he was OK with kids drowning in his parks, but not with them breaking bones....
That illustrates what I feel is the real key to the safety issue: comparative risk. Statistics on it are not easy to find, but do any of us doubt that kids are more likely to be hurt running down their home stairs than running across a meadow? Or that today's children are at more risk of encountering a dangerous human predator on the internet than in their neighborhood park? In Last Child you cited stats that crimes against children are fewer now than a generation ago. Yet the general public's perception is almost certainly the exact opposite. It's not that such crimes don't continue to happen, of course. They do; they always have; and they always will. Each and every one of us who promotes more time in nature for children has an obligation to thoughtfully address those risks and to try to minimize them.
However, my hope is that the children and nature movement can become a consistent source of common sense regarding outdoor risks, and not inadvertently become a part of the problem by overplaying it -- a role that 24/7 media coverage handles quite well, thank you. Children need some risks; they need to test their abilities, to learn good judgment, to thrive from successfully overcoming challenges, and to gain empathy for their own failed efforts and those of others.
The key -- it seems to me -- is to aim for manageable and reasonable risks that do not dramatically alter the value and impact of their nature experiences. I'm sure there is no perfect answer to what constitutes "manageable and reasonable," but perhaps it is best viewed in the context of all of life's risks, rather than in the magnifying lens of isolation. If we unintentionally add to the hype about danger outdoors by speaking of it as though it is a common occurrence, we may scare parents towards even greater reliance on indoor, plugged-in play for their kids. That, too, reflects a part of the comparative risk viewpoint: it's not just what parental fears prevent kids from doing (like outdoor play), it's what those fears push kids into doing, instead (like more screen time). Which is worse? I certainly know my choice!
I don't mean to sound naive or unfeeling about the dangers to children when they are outdoors, enjoying free play and recreation. But they are at far greater risk in so many day-to-day life activities -- risks which parents accept as normal and don't obsess over, and which the media pays little attention to. Do parents hold their young kids out of soccer leagues because they may tear up a knee -- or because there's a tiny, tiny chance that the coach may be immoral? Do they avoid driving on family vacations because the highways can be so deadly?
Maybe we in the movement should collectively and aggressively focus on helping parents and other caregivers to view nature play similarly: as something so routine and positive for healthy childhoods that the minimal dangers will constitute no barrier to the valuable experiences.
Best,
Ken Finch
Green Hearts Institute for Nature in Childhood
You're very welcome, Judy. Give me a shout if I can help further: kfinch@greenheartsinc.org
Judy Molland said:Hi Ken,
Thank you so much for your post. I'm the author of Get Out! 150 Easy Ways for Kids and Grown-Ups to Get Into Nature and Build a Greener Future, and I've been doing several book presentations lately. This is one question that always comes up in the Q & A afterwards, and I'm delighted to be able to refer to your wise response.
Judy Molland
Richard Louv said:Ken, I agree with all you say and you say it well. I do think we need to both educate people about comparative risk, but we also need to recognize that the fear isn't going to go away, so coming up with ways to help parents cope with that -- and still encourage independent play -- is going to be crucial. Excellent post by you, by the way.
rich
Ken Finch said:Hi Rich,
I'm just back from a keynote in Indiana, where the question of safety came up -- as it virtually always does when promoting nature play. It takes on still more currency after the recent, tragic murder in San Diego.
In response to your query, I wonder if the ultimate need is truly to make it safer to enjoy the outdoors -- or rather to improve the perception of safety there? As a parent myself, whenever I hear of crimes or injuries to children playing in nature, my right brain quickly says, "OMG, that could have been my child!" But my left brain then starts debating its counterpart: "Yes, but my kid is statistically in more danger every time I drive him to the store, or take him canoeing."
An example from my own personal experience, some years back: when my youngest was about 8, a mountain lion visited our slightly wild backyard and left clear signs (in Omaha, no less!). That certainly got my attention, since my kid played in the adjacent woods and stream. However, I chose not to ban Duncan from playing out there, but instead taught him how to react if he should happen to encounter a cougar. Was I an irresponsible parent? I don't think so. The chances of injury were exponentially smaller than the benefits he was gaining from outdoor play!
Too often we fail to apply logic and common sense to the issue of outdoor dangers. When I speak to audiences, I often tell the story of my conversation with a parks director who told me that they couldn't possibly allow kids to climb trees in their parks, since they might fall and break their arms. In reply, I asked if they had any ponds, lakes, or rivers in their parks. Of course, the answer was yes. I then asked if they had six-foot fences around all of them. Naturally, the answer was no. I then pointed out that drowning was the second most common cause of accidental children's deaths, and noted that apparently he was OK with kids drowning in his parks, but not with them breaking bones....
That illustrates what I feel is the real key to the safety issue: comparative risk. Statistics on it are not easy to find, but do any of us doubt that kids are more likely to be hurt running down their home stairs than running across a meadow? Or that today's children are at more risk of encountering a dangerous human predator on the internet than in their neighborhood park? In Last Child you cited stats that crimes against children are fewer now than a generation ago. Yet the general public's perception is almost certainly the exact opposite. It's not that such crimes don't continue to happen, of course. They do; they always have; and they always will. Each and every one of us who promotes more time in nature for children has an obligation to thoughtfully address those risks and to try to minimize them.
However, my hope is that the children and nature movement can become a consistent source of common sense regarding outdoor risks, and not inadvertently become a part of the problem by overplaying it -- a role that 24/7 media coverage handles quite well, thank you. Children need some risks; they need to test their abilities, to learn good judgment, to thrive from successfully overcoming challenges, and to gain empathy for their own failed efforts and those of others.
The key -- it seems to me -- is to aim for manageable and reasonable risks that do not dramatically alter the value and impact of their nature experiences. I'm sure there is no perfect answer to what constitutes "manageable and reasonable," but perhaps it is best viewed in the context of all of life's risks, rather than in the magnifying lens of isolation. If we unintentionally add to the hype about danger outdoors by speaking of it as though it is a common occurrence, we may scare parents towards even greater reliance on indoor, plugged-in play for their kids. That, too, reflects a part of the comparative risk viewpoint: it's not just what parental fears prevent kids from doing (like outdoor play), it's what those fears push kids into doing, instead (like more screen time). Which is worse? I certainly know my choice!
I don't mean to sound naive or unfeeling about the dangers to children when they are outdoors, enjoying free play and recreation. But they are at far greater risk in so many day-to-day life activities -- risks which parents accept as normal and don't obsess over, and which the media pays little attention to. Do parents hold their young kids out of soccer leagues because they may tear up a knee -- or because there's a tiny, tiny chance that the coach may be immoral? Do they avoid driving on family vacations because the highways can be so deadly?
Maybe we in the movement should collectively and aggressively focus on helping parents and other caregivers to view nature play similarly: as something so routine and positive for healthy childhoods that the minimal dangers will constitute no barrier to the valuable experiences.
Best,
Ken Finch
Green Hearts Institute for Nature in Childhood
Thanks, Ken. My presentation went really well, but was quite different from usual - an audience full of a majority of teenage boys! (They were AP English students who have a requirement to attend at least 3 author events - and they chose mine!) So the issue of safety didn't come up this time, but what I loved was realizing how we need to reach everybody to tell them about the importance of spending time in nature. Many of these boys had never before considered that nature could be important to them - so I was excited to enlighten them.
Thanks again for your offer, Ken. I'll definitely keep it in mind! Judy
Ken Finch said:You're very welcome, Judy. Give me a shout if I can help further: kfinch@greenheartsinc.org
Judy Molland said:Hi Ken,
Thank you so much for your post. I'm the author of Get Out! 150 Easy Ways for Kids and Grown-Ups to Get Into Nature and Build a Greener Future, and I've been doing several book presentations lately. This is one question that always comes up in the Q & A afterwards, and I'm delighted to be able to refer to your wise response.
Judy Molland
Richard Louv said:Ken, I agree with all you say and you say it well. I do think we need to both educate people about comparative risk, but we also need to recognize that the fear isn't going to go away, so coming up with ways to help parents cope with that -- and still encourage independent play -- is going to be crucial. Excellent post by you, by the way.
rich
Ken Finch said:Hi Rich,
I'm just back from a keynote in Indiana, where the question of safety came up -- as it virtually always does when promoting nature play. It takes on still more currency after the recent, tragic murder in San Diego.
In response to your query, I wonder if the ultimate need is truly to make it safer to enjoy the outdoors -- or rather to improve the perception of safety there? As a parent myself, whenever I hear of crimes or injuries to children playing in nature, my right brain quickly says, "OMG, that could have been my child!" But my left brain then starts debating its counterpart: "Yes, but my kid is statistically in more danger every time I drive him to the store, or take him canoeing."
An example from my own personal experience, some years back: when my youngest was about 8, a mountain lion visited our slightly wild backyard and left clear signs (in Omaha, no less!). That certainly got my attention, since my kid played in the adjacent woods and stream. However, I chose not to ban Duncan from playing out there, but instead taught him how to react if he should happen to encounter a cougar. Was I an irresponsible parent? I don't think so. The chances of injury were exponentially smaller than the benefits he was gaining from outdoor play!
Too often we fail to apply logic and common sense to the issue of outdoor dangers. When I speak to audiences, I often tell the story of my conversation with a parks director who told me that they couldn't possibly allow kids to climb trees in their parks, since they might fall and break their arms. In reply, I asked if they had any ponds, lakes, or rivers in their parks. Of course, the answer was yes. I then asked if they had six-foot fences around all of them. Naturally, the answer was no. I then pointed out that drowning was the second most common cause of accidental children's deaths, and noted that apparently he was OK with kids drowning in his parks, but not with them breaking bones....
That illustrates what I feel is the real key to the safety issue: comparative risk. Statistics on it are not easy to find, but do any of us doubt that kids are more likely to be hurt running down their home stairs than running across a meadow? Or that today's children are at more risk of encountering a dangerous human predator on the internet than in their neighborhood park? In Last Child you cited stats that crimes against children are fewer now than a generation ago. Yet the general public's perception is almost certainly the exact opposite. It's not that such crimes don't continue to happen, of course. They do; they always have; and they always will. Each and every one of us who promotes more time in nature for children has an obligation to thoughtfully address those risks and to try to minimize them.
However, my hope is that the children and nature movement can become a consistent source of common sense regarding outdoor risks, and not inadvertently become a part of the problem by overplaying it -- a role that 24/7 media coverage handles quite well, thank you. Children need some risks; they need to test their abilities, to learn good judgment, to thrive from successfully overcoming challenges, and to gain empathy for their own failed efforts and those of others.
The key -- it seems to me -- is to aim for manageable and reasonable risks that do not dramatically alter the value and impact of their nature experiences. I'm sure there is no perfect answer to what constitutes "manageable and reasonable," but perhaps it is best viewed in the context of all of life's risks, rather than in the magnifying lens of isolation. If we unintentionally add to the hype about danger outdoors by speaking of it as though it is a common occurrence, we may scare parents towards even greater reliance on indoor, plugged-in play for their kids. That, too, reflects a part of the comparative risk viewpoint: it's not just what parental fears prevent kids from doing (like outdoor play), it's what those fears push kids into doing, instead (like more screen time). Which is worse? I certainly know my choice!
I don't mean to sound naive or unfeeling about the dangers to children when they are outdoors, enjoying free play and recreation. But they are at far greater risk in so many day-to-day life activities -- risks which parents accept as normal and don't obsess over, and which the media pays little attention to. Do parents hold their young kids out of soccer leagues because they may tear up a knee -- or because there's a tiny, tiny chance that the coach may be immoral? Do they avoid driving on family vacations because the highways can be so deadly?
Maybe we in the movement should collectively and aggressively focus on helping parents and other caregivers to view nature play similarly: as something so routine and positive for healthy childhoods that the minimal dangers will constitute no barrier to the valuable experiences.
Best,
Ken Finch
Green Hearts Institute for Nature in Childhood
© 2021 Created by amy pertschuk.
Powered by