Children's Books Lack Nature References, Study Suggests

From Jenn Savedge and Mother Nature Network:

Take a minute to think about your favorite book from childhood. Do you envision lots of furry animals? A wise old tree? Kids in the forest? With environmental issues so prominent in the American mindset, one would think that the natural environment would play an even larger role in children's books now than it did several decades ago. But a new study has found a steady decline in the number of children's books that depict the natural environment.

For the study, a group of researchers led by University of Nebraska-Lincoln sociologist J. Allen Williams Jr. evaluated the images found in the American Library Association's prestigious Caldecott Medal winning children's books between 1938 through 2008. They looked at more than 8,000 images in almost 300 books noting whether they showed natural settings, human-made environments, or something In between (like a playground.)

The results? Initially, natural and built environments were equally represented, but beginning in the 1960s, depictions of natural settings began a steady decline. By 2008, images of human-made environments showed up in books twice as often as those depicting nature scenes.

The study's authors attribute the decline to the increasing isolation of children from the natural world. "These findings suggest that today's generation of children are not being socialized, at least through this source, toward an understanding and appreciation of the natural world and the place of humans within it," noted the authors.

But are these Caldecott Medal winners are a true representation of what are kids are actually reading on a daily basis?

I conducted an "unscientific" scientific poll on Facebook and Twitter asking friends, colleagues, and followers what their kids' favorite books are right now.

Sadly, there were few books on the list that carried a nature theme, or even depicted the natural environment, although a few parents did list animal books as their kids' favorites. Even in our house, with bookshelves full of nature stories and eco-thrillers, my own kids named 'My Little Pony' and 'Harry Potter' books as their favorite reads (I'm still trying to decide if Harry Potter's Forbidden Forest counts as the natural environment.)

But does this really mean that my kids are not connected with nature? That just doesn't make sense -- my kids love hiking and playing outdoors and can't get enough of websites, magazines, and movies that feature animals. It seems more likely to me that the most recent nature-themed books are so steeped in eco "messages" that they are no longer enjoyable for kids to read. The Poky Little Puppy didn't have a hidden eco-agenda. It just followed a slow-moving puppy on his adventures in the "wide, wide world."

So maybe kids aren't really disconnected from nature as much as they really just want to read better books featuring the natural environment that aren't constantly trying to teach them a lesson about recycling or climate change.

What do you think? Does your child's favorite book feature the natural environment?

Comments

[shamrabooksrule]

10:03 AM on 05/15/2012

The story's second to last paragraph speaks volumes. Too many books dealing with nature or the environment are trying to preach rather than tell a story. Kids don't read to take a ride on a guilt trip. They want a good story with interesting characters. In many of the Dystopian novels much of nature has been destroyed. Does that mean kids shouldn't be reading these novels? I think not. In my Shamra Chronicles I've created a world (pre-industrial) so a description of the world is, initially, front and center. But, the world is described. There is no hidden message, no preaching. And the world of the Shamra takes a back seat to the characters who populate the world.

[greenhouse annie]

09:53 AM on 02/14/2012

Face it: Fewer and fewer kids grew up in the kind of "woods-with-a-creek-in-the-backyard/don't-come-back-into-the-house-until-the-streetlights-come-on" childhood that we did -- with encroaching development, there simply isn't as much of that natural environment left. Current authors are simply writing what current kids can relate to. That's why so many modern kids' stories seem to be set in the characters' houses or, in tween fiction, the mall. But I agree with the Sci-Why's point that the award-winners, which often deal with dysfunctional situations and environments, are not representative fiction. Turn the kiddos loose in the library and let them lead you to what stuff they're interested in. Nature is still there, it's just a little more hidden (as it is in kids' real lives). And when they find nature, it's magic!

[RealistBC]

08:26 PM on 02/13/2012

Kids are being corporatized like everyone else who doesn't own the means of production.

[Helaine Becker]

02:10 PM on 02/12/2012

This article drew the attention of the members of Sci-Why, where we are both children’s writers/illustrators and scientist/environmentalist types (We blog together at www.sci-why.blogspot.com). As suspected, the study did not pass the scientific sniff test.

First off, the study examined books that are award-winners for artistic merit. These books, by definition, are not reflective of books overall.

Nor, as the authors claim, are Caldecott winners necessarily “the books that young children are most likely to encounter.” A better designed study would have looked at best-selling books, and books actually on school and library shelves.

An even greater flaw is the restricted sample size of the sample: 296 books. Contrast this figure to the number of children’s books published in 2009: 21,878.

The authors, we believe, suffer from confirmation bias: They set out to confirm a hypothesis in which they already believed.

As writers and illustrators involved in science and nature, we, of course, have our own biases. We know, however, exactly how much our own work, and the work of our peers, is inspired by and infused by the natural world. Is literature less “natural” than it was for previous generations? We think not.

We also think Huffington Post should be more careful about the studies they highlight to avoid spreading inaccuracies and foolishness.

Helaine Becker
On behalf of 16 contributors to www.sci-why.blogspot.com
Please check out our blog for a more detailed discussion of this topic.

[azatrox]

12:27 AM on 02/12/2012

Hmmmm. Does simply reading about nature get you interested in it? I grew reading books with hardly any nature theme to them (Hardy Boys, James Bond). But now I cannot get enough of nature. Why? Because I actually spent a lot of time out in nature growing up.

[Jennifer Kley]

10:21 AM on 02/11/2012

So then what's worse? The violence in books/cartoons from the classics (Humpty Dumpty, Little Red Riding Hood, etc.) or no references to nature? Yep, I agree w/ the poster here who says it's part of the dumbing down of America. I cringe to picture our world/nation 2050. CRINGE.

http://thecubiclerebel.wordpress.com/

[SangZe]

04:59 PM on 02/10/2012

It's all part of the dumbing down of americans. Books are designed to create consumers, not citizens. The natural environment is there to provide materials with which to make things to sell and thus earn a profit. That's all.

[Darcy Pattison]

12:38 PM on 02/10/2012

There are of course, many great children's books that feature nature scenes or focus on nature. Here's my offereing: http://albatross.darcypattison.com
It's the story of how the oldest known wild bird in the world survived the Japanese tsunami on March 11, 2011.

Darcy

[MBGarcia]

09:45 AM on 02/10/2012

My kids have grown up in the days of Nintendo, Playstation and such...I made sure they played outside. I made sure I unplugged them from the electronic entertainment. We'd read together; we'd go for walks and climb trees. They are adept at the electronic stuff, but they also are adept at "real" life. It's a balance that has to be struck by the parents, and -having worked in a bookstore- I know there are plenty of books out there that refer to nature and living things. Would I give an e-reader to a very young child? No. I'd give them a book, and I'd explain to them how books come from trees and how recycled paper is wiser for resource preservation, but I'd still give them an actual book...and then I'd sit and read it with them...doing all the voices, of course.

[Cael]

09:13 AM on 02/10/2012

Well good news for me because the children's book I am writing has nature as a very predominate set piece in it.

bucking the trend.

[Genders]

09:00 PM on 02/09/2012

We should more natural environments in our lives, then the books would show that.

[Candi Cj Dubord Jensen]

08:57 PM on 02/09/2012

This is stupid. There are so many books out there with nature in them. One series comes to mind that is very popular the "Warriors" series by Erin Hunter. Clans of cats living in the 'wild' in their prospective territories. Lots of stuff to talk about war, poverty, loyalty..I could go on and on. I read the whole series with my daughter and now my stepdaughter is starting to get into them. My kids are into nature and there is no shortage of nature in books. We are big readers. Going by Caldecott is silly.

[jeffrow63]

04:45 PM on 02/09/2012

This is what is wrong with kids today,. They stay inside on computers or play video games. When I was a kid (I'm 49) being inside was the most miserable punishment doled out for misbehavior. Now you can drive through huge family neighborhoods in the afternoons or weekends and rarely see children. Man made structures do not compare with the glorious wonder of nature. If you have kids or grandkids take them walking, hiking, fishing or looking for critters. We all need nature.

[CathyBreland]

02:55 PM on 02/09/2012

The garden was the setting I chose in my latest children's book "Ima Pea". While my book is a children's religion book, I made a conscious effort to include nature for this very reason. http://cathybrelandimapea.authorsxpress.com/

[childbookart]

01:10 PM on 02/09/2012

This kind of a study makes my blood boil...there are HUNDREDS of children's books with natural settings, themes and animals featured!! Caldecott winners are a TINY percentage of what's being published. Sorry, I couldn't disagree more.

[azatrox]

12:25 AM on 02/12/2012

Well what are some examples? My kids have read all the Harry Potters, Series of Unfortunate Events, Alex Riders, Percy Jacksons, Last Apprentices, Rangers Apprentices, among others and I think this study has a point. Books with nature as an important part of story seem to be few (or at least not popular). They've read all the Warriors type series also, but even in those the animals have been anthropomorphized. But does it really matter? I grew up reading Hardy Boys and James Bond, but now I cannot get enough of nature.