View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Ecotherapy and Out-of-Classroom Learning for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Young People: An Evaluation of a Project in England

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Ecotherapy and Out-of-Classroom Learning for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Young People: An Evaluation of a Project in England
Language: English
Authors: Joanna Horne, Joseph De Lappe (ORCID 0000-0002-9528-424X), Paul Anand, Jenny Tse-Leon, Kathy Wormald, Chantel Carr, Jitka Vseteckova
Source: Environmental Education Research. 2025 31(6):1193-1206.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 14
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Environmental Education, Ecology, Therapy, Climate, Disadvantaged Youth, Foreign Countries, Outdoor Education, Program Effectiveness
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom (England)
DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2024.2446711
ISSN: 1350-4622
1469-5871
Abstract: Vulnerable and disadvantaged young people are often disengaged from mainstream education and lack the substantive capacity and opportunity to benefit from nature-focused activities without support. Ecotherapeutic out-of-classroom environmental education (EE) programmes hold the potential to benefit such young people, although research involving this population is limited. This paper reports on the findings of a study which aimed to measure the impact of such a programme, Green Pathways in Peterborough England, on vulnerable and disadvantaged young people taking part. The study utilised a controlled pre- and post-test design and was co-produced by OU researchers and Froglife staff running Green Pathways. Young people participating in Green Pathways were compared to young people not participating, before and after the Green Pathways intervention, on their preference for being outdoors and physically active, knowledge and appreciation of amphibians and reptiles, and perceived capabilities (i.e. confidence, social skills, behaviour, positive outlook). Mixed ANOVA showed significant increases across all measures for those taking part in the programme, suggesting that programmes such as Green Pathways substantively support vulnerable and disadvantaged young people's opportunities to enjoy nature and the associated benefits to their health, wellbeing and life outcomes.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1473371
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEhp8Ci8cxdF-zWFV52HxEkAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDFNfyZroKuLwTG7NlgIBEICBmvTdUAcAQdk5viJ_XVJvII6_994h6lepn1MPTuVEJByDCg3-FqDB9kQ2dbmnxfeZn31UehrhHzJzTH5ryVUyR7ggocmOgEqVi30ByOkVPW6sxrWYfqU45N4fxOQKQxkdLr9gYyUMLA1HzTOOi1PpuMHMLuyZjIyGs8_rXsnsUAxPh0kfOGcWitwH5ueRS8-4ftqSbJ3ZfPiGdxY=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0185388086;eed01jun.25;2025May27.03:00;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0185388086-1">Ecotherapy and out-of-classroom learning for vulnerable and disadvantaged young people: an evaluation of a project in England </title> <p>Vulnerable and disadvantaged young people are often disengaged from mainstream education and lack the substantive capacity and opportunity to benefit from nature-focused activities without support. Ecotherapeutic out-of-classroom environmental education (EE) programmes hold the potential to benefit such young people, although research involving this population is limited. This paper reports on the findings of a study which aimed to measure the impact of such a programme, Green Pathways in Peterborough England, on vulnerable and disadvantaged young people taking part. The study utilised a controlled pre- and post-test design and was co-produced by OU researchers and Froglife staff running Green Pathways. Young people participating in Green Pathways were compared to young people not participating, before and after the Green Pathways intervention, on their preference for being outdoors and physically active, knowledge and appreciation of amphibians and reptiles, and perceived capabilities (i.e. confidence, social skills, behaviour, positive outlook). Mixed ANOVA showed significant increases across all measures for those taking part in the programme, suggesting that programmes such as Green Pathways substantively support vulnerable and disadvantaged young people's opportunities to enjoy nature and the associated benefits to their health, wellbeing and life outcomes.</p> <p>Keywords: Young people; nature-learning; ecotherapy; out-of-classroom; SDG 3: Good health and well-being; SDG 4: Quality education; SDG 10: Reduced inequalities; SDG 11: Sustainable cities and communities</p> <hd id="AN0185388086-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Does environmental education (EE) as ecotherapy and out-of-classroom learning benefit vulnerable and disadvantaged young people? There is mounting evidence of broad benefits to humans from interactions with nature, as indicated by a recent review (Silva et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref1">29</reflink>]) though as it notes, there are still many gaps in the literature to be filled. Ecotherapy, green therapy, or nature therapy is an interesting and potentially valuable form of applied ecopsychology (Buzzell and Chalquist [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref2">7</reflink>]; Chalquist [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref3">9</reflink>]) comprising a synthesis of ecology and psychology stressing the psychological and interpersonal benefits of re-engaging with nature, as well as physical benefits (Roszak [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref4">28</reflink>]). Ecopsychology argues that connection to natural environments is mutually healing for humans and nature, and disconnection is mutually damaging, particularly if that disconnection begins in childhood (Roszak, Gomes, and Kanner [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref5">28</reflink>]). Furthermore, it has been suggested (Bayley [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref6">5</reflink>]) that this disconnection is intensified by mainstream education's focus on exam-led classroom learning in England, where the study reported in this paper is located. For many young people, such disconnection may impact not only on their health and wellbeing, but also their educational outcomes as they disengage from mainstream education. As a result, Bayley proposed that out-of-classroom nature-based learning can be a tool for reengaging such young people with mainstream education, rebuilding educational relationships that might have fallen apart in a classroom setting.</p> <p>Evidence that reconnection might have such benefits can be found in Bragg et al.'s review of the emerging literature ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref7">6</reflink>]), which evidenced multiple benefits that reconnection with natural environments brings. These include improvements in physical health through increased physical activity; psychological wellbeing through reduction in stress and anxiety and increased positive mood, self-esteem and resilience; and social wellbeing through improvements in social functioning and inclusion. Wood, Bragg, and Pretty ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref8">33</reflink>]) note also the benefits to children in terms of physical exercise and spontaneous play that interactions with nature can bring. One, perhaps surprising, finding by Methorst et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref9">18</reflink>]) was that bird species diversity impacted on human subjective wellbeing to a degree that was comparable with income.</p> <p>Mind ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref10">19</reflink>]) defines ecotherapy as interventions that support people to be active outdoors doing gardening, food growing or environmental work. They suggest this is a cost-effective method of improving mental and physical health and wellbeing in all groups in society, including children and young people and those with learning disabilities. This equates ecotherapy with green social prescribing (GSP), a tool for linking people from primary care, social care, or other routes to low- or no-cost nature activities that support their health and wellbeing (Public Health England, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref11">22</reflink>]; NHS England [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref12">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>To date, ecotherapy as GSP in the UK has largely focused on the benefits for adults (Bayley [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref13">5</reflink>]). Less attention has been given to the benefits for young people's health and wellbeing, and their educational outcomes. This is despite Richardson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref14">25</reflink>]) finding that children with higher levels of connection to nature, as measured by the Connection to Nature Index (CNI), had better English language attainment, health, life satisfaction, and pro-environmental and pro-nature behaviours. Nevertheless, children's contact with the natural world has declined worldwide (Charles and Wheeler [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref15">10</reflink>]). There are alternative educational organisations such as Forest Schools, which promote nature-based learning, though at present, there are only 71 Forest School Association recognised Forest School Providers in the UK (67 in England and 4 in Scotland), and many forest schools charge school fees (Forest School Association [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref16">14</reflink>]). Funded ecotherapeutic out-of-classroom EE projects that are free to access hold the potential to benefit vulnerable and disadvantaged young people in deprived areas in the UK who may not have access to a Forest School, but to date, there has been little empirical evidence to back up claims made for such nature learning.</p> <p>There are also relatively few examples of research that consider potential benefits for children with a mental or physical disadvantage. However, a couple are important to mention in our context. Floresca ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref17">13</reflink>]) reports work that showed how the use of a nature walk with children with learning disabilities leads to increased desire to participate, improvements in memory and awareness and sensitivity to the natural environment. Another study that took place in 90-minute sessions located in parks and gardens over a 12-week period found that children with ADHD benefitted both in terms of academic performance and severity of symptoms (Altarawneh, Al-Ajeely, and Khasawneh 2023). Often, psychological research is in need of non-Western research to confirm (or otherwise) the importance of culture and context, but given the countries of application reported in the literature, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, we believe our study might be a relatively early UK-based evaluation of the use of ecotherapy with disadvantaged children and young people.</p> <p>Our study aims to add to this literature by reporting on a UK-based coproduction study by researchers from The Open University (OU) and staff from The Froglife Trust (Froglife), a national wildlife conservation organisation in the United Kingdom with a specific focus on native reptile and amphibian species and their habitats (Froglife [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref18">31</reflink>]). The study collected data on young people participating in Froglife's Green Pathways project in Peterborough, a city in eastern England with high levels of social deprivation and health and educational inequalities (Cambridge Insight 2022). Young people in Peterborough are referred to the project as a form of GSP by participating schools and other referring organisations such as NACRO (National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders) for diverse reasons that include, but are not limited to, living in a deprived area; being out of mainstream education; lack of confidence; learning difficulties; disability; behavioural issues; substance abuse; mental health problems; and being a young carer.</p> <p>The pilot study aimed to:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Collect data for statistical analysis to demonstrate some of Green Pathways' impact on the lives of young people participating.</item> <p></p> <item> Analyse the collected data to evaluate whether there were differences in the impact of Green Pathways between different groups of participants according to the reasons they were referred to the project.</item> <p></p> <item> Support and develop the basic research skills of participating Froglife staff members in accordance with the principles of co-production (Hickey, Richards, and Sheehy [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref19">16</reflink>]).</item> </ulist> <p>Conceptually, the pilot study was underpinned by a capability approach (Walker and Unterhalter [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref20">32</reflink>]; Robeyns [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref21">26</reflink>]) which allows for skills and feelings to be included in the assessment of wellbeing. In this context, vulnerable and disadvantaged young people may have the right and need to engage with nature and its benefits and to benefit nature through their engagement. However, without support, they may not have the substantive capability or opportunity for this engagement to happen. Across a range of measures, the study set out to evidence the overall impact of the support Green Pathways provides young people participating in developing key nature-focused abilities.</p> <p>The study is original in collecting empirical evidence for the impact of ecotherapeutic out-of-classroom learning on vulnerable and disadvantaged young people living in a deprived area of England. The results will be of interest to environmental education researchers, particularly those considering co-produced research with organisations similar to Froglife. It will also be of wider interest to educators, charities, funders and others concerned with the impact of young people's disengagement from mainstream education on their life outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0185388086-3">Methods</hd> <p>The study used a co-production approach where academic researchers and community organisation partners worked collaboratively from the start of the study to its end.</p> <p>Froglife staff drew on the expertise of OU researchers in conducting research and developing their own research skills, particularly in terms of ethics, objectivity and data recording. In turn, OU researchers drew on the expertise of Froglife staff in running Green Pathways for 12 years in Peterborough, and the relationships Froglife had built up with young people, parents-guardians, and referring organisations.</p> <p>An intervention control study was used to collect rigorous quantitative data suitable for measuring cause-and-effect, i.e. measuring whether taking part in Green Pathways had an impact.</p> <p>The intervention study utilised a pre-test, post-test design, with a further follow-up three months after completion of the intervention. Young people referred to Green Pathways were allocated either to an Intervention Group (IG) who participated in Green Pathways (the intervention) in comparison to a Control Group (CG) who did not. Participants in the IG took part in 10 two-hour weekly sessions of Green Pathways activities (see Summary of Green Pathways programme below). Participants in the CG were not engaged in activities during the study but acted as a waiting-list control group and were enrolled in the Green Pathways programme during the school term following the completion of the study, so they were not disadvantaged.</p> <p>Ethical approval for the study was given by the OU Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/4069/Vseteckova).</p> <hd id="AN0185388086-4">Sampling and recruitment</hd> <p>Participants were recruited by Froglife staff from young people (aged 10 to 25) referred to Green Pathways through Froglife's network of referring organisations. Informed consent for taking part in the study was obtained from all young people participating and their parents-guardians. For young people, informed verbal consent was obtained, in line with British Psychological Society (BPS) Code of Ethics guidelines (BPS [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>], Sections 4.4–4.8), as many of them were likely to be anxious about their reading and writing skills. It was felt to be more equitable to request verbal informed consent from all young people than single out those for whom written informed consent would be stressful.</p> <p>In total, 111 young people were recruited from multiple referring organisations and were allocated to either the IG or CG, depending on their availability. Forty-nine participants were recruited for the IG (<emph>n</emph> = 49, five of whom left the study) and 62 participants were recruited for the CG (<emph>n</emph> = 62, 19 of whom left the study), see Table 1. Peterborough is an area of high social deprivation and inequality in eastern England (Cambridge Insight [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>]), and the referral codes included in Table 1 reflect this. As the group allocation was dependent on the young person's availability (i.e. those available for the intervention during the study period were allocated to the IG; those not available at that time or recruited after the start of the intervention were allocated to the CG), it was not possible for the groups to be purposefully balanced in terms of gender, age, and type of disadvantage. As can be seen in Table 1, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the gender of participants. However, the IG contained older participants, more White young people, fewer Asian/Asian British young people, more participants out of mainstream education, with a disability, with ADHD, referred by a crime reduction charity or Special Educational Needs (SEN) school, and fewer participants living in a deprived area, referred by a faith school or asylum/refugee group or with a sensory processing disorder. Nevertheless, the analysis below takes account of pre-test scores in order to control for any inherent group differences.</p> <p>Table 1. Participant demographics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Intervention group</td><td>Control group</td><td>Test for difference</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td><italic>N</italic></td><td char=".">49</td><td char=".">62</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Mean age (SD)</td><td char=".">14.27 (2.53)</td><td char=".">12.84 (3.05)</td><td>t(109) = 2.636, <italic>p</italic> <.05</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td /><td /><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(2) = 0.90, NS</td></tr><tr><td> Females</td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">28</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Males</td><td char=".">28</td><td char=".">33</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Non-binary</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">1</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethnicity</td><td /><td /><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(13) = 35.346, <italic>p</italic> <.001</td></tr><tr><td> White</td><td char=".">29</td><td char=".">18</td><td /></tr><tr><td> English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British</td><td char=".">10</td><td char=".">14</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Gypsy or Irish Traveller</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">2</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Any other White background</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">4</td><td /></tr><tr><td> White and Asian</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">0</td><td /></tr><tr><td> White and Black Caribbean</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">1</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Any other Mixed or Multiple Ethnic backgrounds</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">3</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Asian or Asian British</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">8</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Pakistani</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">6</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Black, African, Caribbean or Black British</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">3</td><td /></tr><tr><td> Spanish or other Spanish background</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">3</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Referral reason</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Lives in a deprived area</td><td char=".">25</td><td char=".">49</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 9.664, <italic>p</italic> <.01</td></tr><tr><td> Out of mainstream education</td><td char=".">36</td><td char=".">19</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 20.079, <italic>p</italic> <.001</td></tr><tr><td> Lacks confidence</td><td char=".">34</td><td char=".">39</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 0.511, NS</td></tr><tr><td> Has learning difficulties</td><td char=".">21</td><td char=".">22</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 0.627, NS</td></tr><tr><td> Has a disability</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">11</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 6.139, <italic>p</italic> <.05</td></tr><tr><td> Has ADHD</td><td char=".">11</td><td char=".">4</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 5.993, <italic>p</italic> <.05</td></tr><tr><td> Involved in substance abuse</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">1</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 0.798, NS</td></tr><tr><td> Has mental health problems</td><td char=".">6</td><td char=".">5</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 0.536, NS</td></tr><tr><td> Is a young carer</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">2</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 1.305, NS</td></tr><tr><td> Has social skills / communication issues</td><td char=".">33</td><td char=".">41</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 0.018, NS</td></tr><tr><td> Referred by crime reduction charity</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">0</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 3.901, <italic>p</italic> <.05</td></tr><tr><td> Referred by faith school</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">9</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 7.741, <italic>p</italic> <.01</td></tr><tr><td> Referred by asylum / refugee group</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">8</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 6.814, <italic>p</italic> <.01</td></tr><tr><td> Referred by SEN school</td><td char=".">19</td><td char=".">6</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 13.280, <italic>p</italic> <.001</td></tr><tr><td> Has selective mutism</td><td char=".">2</td><td char=".">0</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 2.577, NS</td></tr><tr><td> Has a sensory processing disorder</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">10</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 8.686, <italic>p</italic> < 0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Has prior experience of wildlife activities</td><td char=".">24</td><td char=".">25</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 0.278, NS</td></tr><tr><td>Number who left project</td><td char=".">5</td><td char=".">19</td><td><italic>X</italic><sup>2</sup>(1) = 6.748, <italic>p</italic> < 0.01</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0185388086-5">Summary of Green Pathways programme</hd> <p>Green Pathways helps young people aged 10–18, or those up to 25 if they have a learning disability, take part in activities linked to wildlife and conservation in their local community. The project aims to improve knowledge, skills and appreciation of amphibians and reptiles, as well as increase confidence, social skills, and educational and life aspirations. The work is mostly outdoors, taking place in weekly two-hour sessions over ten consecutive weeks: nature walks, creating and restoring freshwater habitats, undertaking species surveys, planting wildflower meadows, building wildlife homes, building inspiring nature trails, wildlife photography, and a wide range of wildlife-featured arts and crafts.</p> <hd id="AN0185388086-6">Instrumentation</hd> <p>Data collection methods for Green Pathways (a questionnaire and quiz) already used by the Froglife Trust were re-purposed for the study. This was important because the sample for the intervention study were young people typically disengaged from mainstream education and likely to be anxious about more standard research testing measures.</p> <p>Participants in both the IG and CG groups completed the following testing measures:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The <emph>Froglife Trust questionnaire</emph></item> <p></p> <item> The <emph>Froglife Trust quiz</emph>.</item> </ulist> <p>The <emph>Froglife Trust questionnaire</emph> required participants to rate themselves on a scale of 0 to 5 regarding the following 10 questions (for a score out of 50 in total):</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How much do you know about UK amphibians (frogs, toads, newts) and reptiles (lizards, slow worms, snakes)?</item> <p></p> <item> How much do you like amphibians and reptiles?</item> <p></p> <item> How much do you enjoy being outside in nature?</item> <p></p> <item> How much time do you spend outside in nature?</item> <p></p> <item> How much physical activity do you do?</item> <p></p> <item> What level of practical skills do you have for helping UK amphibians and reptiles?</item> <p></p> <item> How confident do you feel?</item> <p></p> <item> How good are you at talking with people and working in a team?</item> <p></p> <item> How good are you at managing your own behaviour?</item> <p></p> <item> How positive do you feel about the future?</item> </ulist> <p>As such, the survey assessed a variety of aspects of human flourishing, including activities (functioning), experiential wellbeing (happiness) as well as personal resources related to agency (confidence and knowledge). As such, they map onto key elements of a capability approach to wellbeing (Anand [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>]), which has a clearly articulated theoretical basis and has been used widely to understand the wellbeing of children in a variety of contexts (Hart and Brando [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref25">15</reflink>]; Domínguez-Serrano and Moral-Espin [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]). A final question on the <emph>Froglife Trust questionnaire</emph> asked whether participants had prior experience of wildlife activities ('yes' or 'no').</p> <p>As the questionnaire has not been previously used in research, there are no published estimates of its reliability or validity. In order to establish the internal consistency of the <emph>Froglife Trust questionnaire,</emph> Cronbach's Alpha was calculated using the item data for all participants on the pre-test administration. This produced a Cronbach's Alpha value of 0.716, suggesting that the measure has an adequate level of internal consistency.</p> <p>A Principal Component Analysis of the pre-test questionnaire data for all participants, with varimax rotation, extracted three components with eigenvalues over Kaiser's criterion of 1 and, in combination, explained 56.13% of the variance. Table 2 shows the component loadings after rotation. The items clustering on the components (shown in bold) suggest that Component 1 represents a preference for being outdoors and physically active; Component 2 symbolises knowledge and appreciation of amphibians and reptiles; and Component 3 embodies perceived capabilities. As such the analysis of the data below focuses on these components:</p> <p>Table 2. Principle component analysis for the Froglife Trust questionnaire.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Rotated component loadings</td></tr><tr><td>Item</td><td>Component 1</td><td>Component 2</td><td>Component 3</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Q1</td><td /><td char=".">.83</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Q2</td><td /><td char=".">.56</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Q3</td><td char=".">.59</td><td /><td char=".">.30</td></tr><tr><td>Q4</td><td char=".">.86</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Q5</td><td char=".">.80</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Q6</td><td /><td char=".">.74</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Q7</td><td char=".">.50</td><td /><td char=".">.47</td></tr><tr><td>Q8</td><td /><td /><td char=".">.37</td></tr><tr><td>Q9</td><td /><td /><td char=".">.89</td></tr><tr><td>Q10</td><td char=".">.50</td><td /><td char=".">.57</td></tr><tr><td>Eigenvalue</td><td char=".">2.991</td><td char=".">1.467</td><td char=".">1.155</td></tr><tr><td>% of variance</td><td char=".">29.91</td><td char=".">14.67</td><td char=".">11.55</td></tr><tr><td>Α</td><td char=".">.70</td><td char=".">.53</td><td char=".">.59</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Outdoors/physically active: sum of scores for Q3, Q4, Q5.</item> <p></p> <item> Appreciation of amphibians/reptiles: sum of scores for Q1, Q2, Q6.</item> <p></p> <item> Capability: sum of scores for Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10.</item> </ulist> <p>The <emph>Froglife Trust quiz</emph> measured participants' knowledge of native amphibians and reptiles, by identifying them from 10 pictures (for a score out of 10 in total). This evaluated the learning that had occurred regarding native amphibians and reptiles.</p> <p>The IG and CG completed both the questionnaire and quiz at the start of the first session of Green Pathways activities (Week 1, IG and CG), at the end of the final session (Week 12, IG and CG), and three months after the end of the intervention (Week 24, IG only).</p> <hd id="AN0185388086-7">Results</hd> <p>A significant finding was the high retention rate across the study. Both the IG (89.8% retention) and CG (69.3% retention) had high retention rates for often disengaged young people taking part in a study of this type (see Table 1). However, the retention rate for the IG is significantly higher than that for the CG (<emph>X</emph><sups>2</sups> = 6.748, df = 1, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01).</p> <p>Mixed ANOVA tests (see Table 3 and Figure 1) show the IG scores to improve significantly more than the CG scores from pre-test to post-test on all three dimensions of the questionnaire, total questionnaire score and quiz score.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Mean scores pre-test and post-test for both groups.</p> <p>Table 3. Mixed ANOVA analysis for questionnaire and quiz scores.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td /><td>Pre-test mean (SD)</td><td>Post-test mean (SD)</td><td><italic>N</italic></td><td>F*</td><td><italic>P</italic></td><td>Ƞ<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Outdoors / physically active</td><td>Intervention group</td><td char=".">9.44 (2.89)</td><td char=".">11.52 (2.88)</td><td char=".">48</td><td char=".">31.015</td><td char="."><.001</td><td char=".">.240</td></tr><tr><td>Control group</td><td char=".">9.54 (3.32)</td><td char=".">8.04 (3.33)</td><td char=".">52</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Amphibian / reptile appreciation</td><td>Intervention group</td><td char=".">5.33 (2.64)</td><td char=".">10.85 (2.22)</td><td char=".">48</td><td char=".">96.666</td><td char="."><.001</td><td char=".">.497</td></tr><tr><td>Control group</td><td char=".">5.56 (3.55)</td><td char=".">4.56 (3.43)</td><td char=".">52</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Capability</td><td>Intervention group</td><td char=".">11.77 (4.13)</td><td char=".">15.31 (3.57)</td><td char=".">48</td><td char=".">37.685</td><td char="."><.001</td><td char=".">.278</td></tr><tr><td>Control group</td><td char=".">12.29 (4.31)</td><td char=".">10.71 (4.09)</td><td char=".">52</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Total questionnaire score</td><td>Intervention group</td><td char=".">26.54 (7.39)</td><td char=".">37.69 (7.16)</td><td char=".">48</td><td char=".">74.099</td><td char="."><.001</td><td char=".">.431</td></tr><tr><td>Control group</td><td char=".">27.38 (8.39)</td><td char=".">23.31 (8.40)</td><td char=".">52</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Quiz score</td><td>Intervention group</td><td char=".">0.31 (0.83)</td><td char=".">6.90 (2.15)</td><td char=".">48</td><td char=".">505.630</td><td char="."><.001</td><td char=".">.838</td></tr><tr><td>Control group</td><td char=".">0.25 (0.48)</td><td char=".">0.25 (0.48)</td><td char=".">52</td><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 The effect cited here is for the interaction of time (pre/post-intervention) x group (intervention/control).</p> <p> <emph>A</emph> Repeated Measures ANOVA test for the impact of participating in Green Pathways for the IG, across all three-time points, shows the effect of the intervention remains at the 3-month follow-up for the questionnaire total score, with means of 26.45 out of 50 pre-intervention, 37.73 post-intervention, and 38.20 at follow-up (F[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref28">86</reflink>] = 37.76, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, Ƞ<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.468). The Repeated Measures ANOVA test for quiz totals shows even more impact, with scores for the IG of 0.32 out of 10 pre-intervention, 6.95 post-intervention, and 8.11 at follow-up (F[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref29">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref30">86</reflink>] = 300.112, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, Ƞ<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.875).</p> <p>In a hierarchical multiple regression analysis of the IG data (see Table 4), pre-test questionnaire score was entered into block 1 and explained 1% of the variance in post-test questionnaire score. All the referral codes were entered into block 2 (using a stepwise method) and three of these were found to be predictive of post-test questionnaire score: referral by a SEN school, referral for mental health difficulties and referral for social skills/communication difficulties. Referral by a SEN school accounted for 42% of the variance, with young people referred by a SEN school having higher post-test questionnaire scores. Referral for mental health difficulties accounted for 15% of the variance, with young people with mental health difficulties having lower post-test questionnaire scores. Referral for social and communication difficulties accounted for 4% of the variance, with young people with social and communication difficulties having higher post-test questionnaire scores.</p> <p>Table 4. Multiple regression analysis of predictors of post-test questionnaire scores for the intervention group.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Block</td><td>Variable</td><td>Cum R<sup>2</sup></td><td>R<sup>2</sup> change</td><td><italic>B</italic></td><td><italic>SE B</italic></td><td><italic>Beta</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1</td><td>Pre-test questionnaire</td><td char=".">.006</td><td char=".">.006</td><td char=".">0.30</td><td char=".">0.10</td><td char=".">.31</td><td char="."><.01</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Referred by SEN school</td><td char=".">.427</td><td char=".">.421</td><td char=".">12.11</td><td char=".">1.66</td><td char=".">.84</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Has mental health difficulties</td><td char=".">.573</td><td char=".">.146</td><td char=".">−8.85</td><td char=".">2.09</td><td char=".">−0.41</td><td char="."><.001</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Has social skills / communication issues</td><td char=".">.616</td><td char=".">.043</td><td char=".">3.75</td><td char=".">1.70</td><td char=".">.25</td><td char="."><.05</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>In a second hierarchical multiple regression analysis of the IG data (see Table 5), pre-test quiz score was entered into block 1 and explained 6% of the variance in post-test quiz score. All the referral codes were entered into block 2 (using a stepwise method) and only one of these was found to be predictive of post-test quiz score. Referral for being a young carer accounted for 8% of the variance, with young carers having higher post-test quiz scores.</p> <p>Table 5. Multiple regression analysis of predictors of post-test quiz scores for the intervention group.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Block</td><td>Variable</td><td>Cum R<sup>2</sup></td><td>R<sup>2</sup> change</td><td><italic>B</italic></td><td><italic>SE B</italic></td><td><italic>Beta</italic></td><td><italic>p</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>1</td><td>Pre-test quiz</td><td char=".">.055</td><td char=".">.055</td><td char=".">0.56</td><td char=".">0.36</td><td char=".">.21</td><td>NS</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Is a young carer</td><td char=".">.135</td><td char=".">.08</td><td char=".">2.18</td><td char=".">1.07</td><td char=".">.28</td><td char="."><.05</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Of those in the IG group, 50% had prior experience with wildlife, whilst 50% had no prior experience. A mixed ANOVA test showed that those in the IG with no prior experience of wildlife (pre-intervention 24.46; post-intervention 39.13) gained more from the intervention than those with prior experience of wildlife (pre-intervention 28.62; post-intervention 36.25) in terms of their questionnaire scores (F[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref32">46</reflink>] = 6.869, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05, Ƞ<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.130).</p> <hd id="AN0185388086-8">Discussion</hd> <p>Working collaboratively, Froglife and OU researchers drew on the analysis to consider the benefits of Green Pathways for young people taking part, parents-guardians of young people taking part, referring organisations, and local area of Peterborough, including wildlife and the environment. There is growing interest in the cost-effectiveness of eco-therapies (Hinde, Bojke, and Coventry [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref33">17</reflink>]), and as our discussion shows, the range of benefits and beneficiaries can be substantially expanded beyond the individual who might be directly involved in any programme. Each of these stakeholder groups and benefits are discussed separately below.</p> <hd id="AN0185388086-9">The benefits for young people taking part</hd> <p>With the proviso that these are the outcomes of an initial pilot study, the data analysis shows that vulnerable and disadvantaged young people in Peterborough who take part in Green Pathways benefit in many lasting ways. Our findings suggest that the participants developed a knowledge of and appreciation for native amphibians and reptiles, with the evidence suggesting that IG participants' interest in amphibians and reptiles gained from Green Pathways led them to independent learning about the topic after the sessions had ended. This is in line with other educational interventions, described by Walker and Unterhalter ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref34">32</reflink>]), impacting on multiple dimensions around capabilities and activities, supporting a young person's wellbeing. Our participants learned to enjoy spending time in nature and outdoors, engaged in educational and practical wildlife activities, and developed their practical, language and learning skills while doing this. Our participants reported not only increased confidence, collaborative working and improved communication skills but also improved management of their behaviour and more positive thoughts about their future. The data analysis suggests these multiple benefits are particularly good for young people engaging with Green Pathways who are referred from SEN schools, supporting the findings of Floresca ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref35">13</reflink>]) and Altarawneh, Al-Ajeely, and Khasawneh ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>As described by Cottrell and Cottrell ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref37">11</reflink>]), opportunities available from outdoor skills building and education within both natural and social environments illustrate situations in which they demonstrate positive connections with the self, others, as well as the environment. For young people participating in the Green Pathways programme, as well as their parents-guardians, our findings demonstrate benefits in terms of enhanced self-reported capabilities, including increased confidence, improved social skills and teamwork, improved management of their own behaviour, and a more positive outlook for the future. In doing this, Froglife and Green Pathways create opportunities for the young people, who agreed to participate, to become more socialised and embedded within the community life of Peterborough.</p> <hd id="AN0185388086-10">Benefits for referring organisations</hd> <p>One of the OU research team attended a session of Green Pathways activities at the start of the study. Dr De Lappe is a qualified secondary school teacher of English whose classroom practice for seven years focused on SEN and literacy provision with vulnerable and disadvantaged young people in challenging schools in London and Leicester. Regarding the Green Pathways session he attended, Dr De Lappe notes:</p> <p>Had I been a teacher observing an outdoor classroom lesson given by teachers, I would have rated [Froglife staff running the session] at least good-to-outstanding. As well as introducing the children to nature and the outdoors, the session was structured so that there were constant learning moments happening across key literacies (communication, language, working collaboratively, basic maths, and science). My overall impression was of children who might not engage with such structured learning in a classroom setting but clearly did in an outdoor setting.</p> <p>It should be noted that Dr De Lappe only attended one session, but the evidence from the collected data suggests that, in addition to developing practical outdoor skills and an appreciation of nature, young people who engage with Green Pathways develop confidence and social skills that can be transferred back to the classroom. This is supported by the anecdotal evidence collected through interviews from three key stakeholders, which will be the focus of its own forthcoming paper.</p> <hd id="AN0185388086-11">Benefits for the Froglife Trust</hd> <p>The Green Pathways programme benefits Froglife across all three of its work streams:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Contribution to transforming landscapes. During Green Pathways sessions, Froglife aims to incorporate an element of habitat improvement. These improvements include smaller interventions such as litter picking, scrub management, and pond clearance or larger actions such as creating a new pond, building a hibernacula (overwintering site for amphibians and reptiles), or seeding a wildflower meadow. These interventions improve the aesthetics and biodiversity of a place and improve access to nature for all. Projects are often located in deprived areas, and therefore, these activities broaden the impact that the Green Pathways project has by reaching more people from disadvantaged backgrounds in areas that often have poorer access to good quality natural green spaces.</item> <p></p> <item> Contribution to transforming lives. The data analysis suggests that Green Pathways has multiple lasting benefits for vulnerable and disadvantaged young people referred to the project. The analysis suggests young people referred to Green Pathways in Peterborough develop a lasting knowledge and appreciation of native amphibians and reptiles, wider nature, and wildlife conservation activities, which is also in line with the existing literature referenced above. Furthermore, the findings evidence an increase in preference for being outdoors and physically active, as well as and enhanced perceived capabilities (i.e. confidence, social skills, behaviour, positive outlook).</item> <p></p> <item> Contribution to transforming research. Our findings contribute to an academic and public understanding of the importance of young people engaging with nature both for their benefit and nature's. Additionally, the study highlights the benefits of co-design and co-production, which are discussed further below.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0185388086-12">Wider benefits in Peterborough</hd> <p>The Children and Young People's Joint Strategic Needs Assessment for Peterborough describes a 'fast growing city with a young and ethnically diverse population, significant levels of deprivation, and concomitant poor health and educational outcomes' (Peterborough County Council [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]). According to Peterborough City Council, Peterborough has higher than average levels of deprivation, with 24% of children living in poverty. This results in low aspiration rates for vulnerable and disadvantaged young people and a lack of knowledge and confidence to access local opportunities. As Summers and Vivian ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref39">30</reflink>]) note, there is increasing evidence to not view ecotherapy as a nearly forgotten service but rather as a potentially cost-effective approach to the enhancement of mental and physical wellbeing.</p> <p>The analysis of the data collected suggests that Green Pathways, with its focus on vulnerable and disadvantaged young people in Peterborough, benefits Peterborough more widely in tackling health, wellbeing, and educational inequalities associated with high rates of deprivation. Green Pathways sessions improve the biodiversity of green spaces in Peterborough, benefiting both nature and people living in the deprived areas where sessions often take place.</p> <hd id="AN0185388086-13">The benefits of co-production</hd> <p>Below is a reflective consideration by Froglife staff on the benefits of co-production structured around principles discussed in the literature (Bandola-Gill, Arthur, and Leng [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref40">4</reflink>]; Hickey, Richards, and Sheehy [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref41">16</reflink>]; Reed [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref42">24</reflink>]):</p> <p>Froglife has valued the co-production approach. The benefits of this have included being able to be more closely involved in the design of the research and production of the report reducing the divide that can sometimes be present between academics and practitioners. Examples include being able to:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Ensure the research techniques used have been suitable for the participants in our projects.</item> <p></p> <item> Better explain and reflect the reality of the project on the ground rather than a second-hand interpretation that can sometimes be slightly misunderstood.</item> <p></p> <item> Suggest information to include that will be of most value to us in quoting and sharing in the future in project evaluations and funding applications. The research team obviously sets the findings independently, but keeping the real-world application in mind provides a more valuable report for us, funders, and partners.</item> </ulist> <p>The Open University research team has championed this approach throughout the project and made sure that we have been able to contribute fairly at every stage. Our views have been listened to, respected, and valued. Regular project meetings have included the full research team and Froglife team involved in the project so everyone knows each other and has the opportunity to ask questions.</p> <p>We, the Open University research team, agree with the above but we would add a further key benefit of co-production in this study from our perspective. Evaluating the benefits of GSP has generated a lot of recent research interest in England. To date, evaluating the benefits of GSP for young people, in particular, evaluating the benefits for their educational outcomes as well as their general health and wellbeing, has largely been absent from the conversation. To some extent, this absence is due to criteria set for GSP by Public Health England and NHS England, but we believe it is also due to the challenges researchers face in rigorously evaluating complex interventions with vulnerable, disadvantaged, and disengaged young people.</p> <p>The model of co-production adopted for this study and the expertise and guidance of Froglife staff we were able to draw upon enabled us to overcome those challenges. Once disseminated, we believe this model of co-production has the potential to encourage other researchers to engage with similar organisations to Froglife to evaluate similar projects to Green Pathways for the benefit of other young people. As Redman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref43">23</reflink>]) note, trust is important and takes time to establish. In this case, the participants themselves were the knowledge brokers, and senior figures on both sides spent time interacting to set up these conditions and to clarify possible benefits and, therefore, the incentives for the collaboration to continue.</p> <hd id="AN0185388086-14">Limitations</hd> <p>Our findings presented above are the results of an initial study testing a co-production approach adopted by Froglife and OU researchers, and there are limitations to what the findings can evidence. It was felt to be too onerous for the initial study to use more standard testing measures that might overwhelm vulnerable and disadvantaged young people, with many already disengaged from mainstream education and its testing. However, the tool used (the Froglife questionnaire) would benefit from further testing, particularly with regard to test-retest reliability and validity. The initial study design planned for the IG and CG to be balanced in terms of gender, age, and type of disadvantage. For practical reasons this could not be carried through, e.g. allocating referred young people to the IG or CG had to fit in with the schedules of referring organisations. This impacted upon the data collected and its analysis, e.g. there are four referral codes where no young people were allocated to the IG. The findings suggest that Green Pathways is particularly beneficial for young people referred to the project from a SEN school. This is a significant finding, but requires more detailed and focused research to expand on it.</p> <hd id="AN0185388086-15">Conclusion</hd> <p>Based on the results of the pilot study we conducted on the impact of Green Pathways, we believe similar ecotherapeutic out-of-classroom EE programmes hold the potential to substantively support vulnerable and disadvantaged young people's opportunities to engage with nature and benefit from the resulting improvements related to their health, wellbeing, and life outcomes. Young people participating in Green Pathways learn to enjoy spending time outside in nature, engaged in practical wildlife activities, and develop their practical and learning skills in doing this. They feel more confident and are better able to talk to other people and work in groups. They feel better able to manage their behaviour and are more positive about their futures. They develop an appreciation for nature-based learning that extends beyond the programme itself. The data analysis suggests these multiple benefits are particularly good for young people engaging with Green Pathways who are referred from SEN schools.</p> <p>The abilities they develop have benefits for others as well. For parent-guardians, young people participating become more confident with improved behaviour and develop learning skills. For participating schools and other organisations, the learning capabilities young people develop can be brought back into classrooms and other learning environments. Young people become more embedded within wider communities and help to improve the aesthetics and biodiversity of local nature sites. And for organisations such as Froglife running such programmes, a cadre of young people develop their capacity to engage with nature for the benefit of nature as well as themselves.</p> <p>The co-production approach we adopted for the study enabled us to collect data on young people likely to have disengaged from more traditional research approaches and standard testing measures. As we have discussed, this had limitations, but we believe researchers considering studies with similar organisations to Froglife should consider co-production for the benefits that it brings. Finally, we note that the capability approach provides a useful framework for providing an overview of wellbeing.</p> <hd id="AN0185388086-16">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The researchers involved in this study thank all the young people who took part in the Green Pathways evaluation study, and their parents/guardians.</p> <p>We thank the following schools and other referring organisations for their contribution to the Green Pathways evaluation study:</p> <p>Ambergate School.</p> <p>Hampton College.</p> <p>Heltwate Special School.</p> <p>Highlees School.</p> <p>IQRA Academy.</p> <p>Ken Stimpson Community School.</p> <p>NACRO.</p> <p>Peterborough College.</p> <p>Queen Katherine Academy.</p> <p>Stamford College.</p> <p>We thank BBC Children in Need for funding the Green Pathways project in Peterborough with co-funding from Waitrose, Co-op, Orton Parish Council, Hodge Foundation, and Cambridgeshire Community Foundation.</p> <p>We thank the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation for funding the research underpinning this study.</p> <p>Finally, we thank Briony Nesbit, former learning officer at the Froglife, for her contribution to the study.</p> <hd id="AN0185388086-17">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>The Open University researchers involved in this study confirm there are no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests for them to report.</p> <p>Chantel Carr was employed by The Froglife Trust at the time of the evaluation to work on the Green Pathways programme. Froglife as an organisation was funded to deliver this project which included a contribution to its core costs associated with delivering the project. Otherwise, there are no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests for them to report.</p> <ref id="AN0185388086-18"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref31" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Altarawneh, Z. S. A., S. A. Al-Ajeely, and M. A. S. Khasawneh. 2023. " The Impact of Ecotherapy on Academic Performance and ADHD Symptom Severity in Children." Migration Letters 20 (5): 1192 – 1204. https://doi.org/10.59670/ml.v20i5.4875.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref24" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Anand, P. 2016. Happiness Explained: What Human Flourishing is and What we Can Do to Promote It. Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref22" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> BPS Ethics Committee. 2021. Code of Ethics and Conduct. The British Psychological Society. Accessed April 20, 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.bps.org.uk/guideline/code-ethics-and-conduct">www.bps.org.uk/guideline/code-ethics-and-conduct</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref40" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bandola-Gill, J., M. Arthur, and R. I. Leng. 2023. " What is co-Production? Conceptualising and Understanding co-Production of Knowledge and Policy across Different Theoretical Perspectives." Evidence & Policy 19 (2): 275 – 298. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16420955772641.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref6" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bayley, J. 2019. " Ecotherapy: The Benefits for Young People.". Holistic Healthcare 16 (1): 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref7" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bragg, R., C. Wood, J. Barton, and J. Pretty. 2015. Wellbeing benefits from natural environments rich in wildlife: The Wildlife Trusts. Accessed April 20, 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/r1%5fliterature%5freview%5fwellbeing%5fbenefits%5fof%5fwild%5fplaces%5flres%5f0.pdf">www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/r1%5fliterature%5freview%5fwellbeing%5fbenefits%5fof%5fwild%5fplaces%5flres%5f0.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref2" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Buzzell, L., and C. Chalquist. 2009. " Psyche and Nature in a Circle of Healing." Ecotherapy: Healing with Nature in Mind, San Francisco : Sierra Club Books, 17 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref23" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cambridge Insight. 2022. Welcome to Cambridgeshire Insight. Cambridge Insight. Accessed April 20, 2023. https://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref3" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chalquist, C. 2009. " A Look at the Ecotherapy Research Evidence." Ecopsychology 1 (2): 64 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2009.0003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charles, C., and K. Wheeler. 2012. "Children & Nature Worldwide: An Exploration of Children's Experiences of The Outdoors and Nature with Associated Risks and Benefits." Accessed February 1, 2013.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cottrell, J. R., and S. P. Cottrell. 2020. " Outdoor Skills Education: What Are the Benefits for Health, Learning and Lifestyle? " World Leisure Journal 62 (3): 219 – 241. https://doi.org/10.1080/16078055.2020.1798051.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Domínguez-Serrano, M., and L. del Moral-Espín. 2022. " The Capability Approach and Child Well-Being: A Systematic Literature Review." Child Indicators Research 15 (6): 2043 – 2063. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-022-09953-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Floresca, J. A. 2020. " How Nature Walk Program Affects the Behavior of Children with Learning Disabilities." Education Quarterly Reviews 3 (4): 500 – 509. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.03.04.157.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forest School Association. 2024. What is Forest School? Forest School Association. Accessed September 11, 2024. https://forestschoolassociation.org/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hart, C. S., and N. Brando. 2018. " A Capability Approach to Children's Well‐Being, Agency and Participatory Rights in Education." European Journal of Education 53 (3): 293 – 309. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12284.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hickey, G., T. Richards, and J. Sheehy. 2018. " Co-Production from Proposal to Paper." Nature 562 (7725): 29 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06861-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hinde, S., L. Bojke, and P. Coventry. 2021. " The Cost Effectiveness of Ecotherapy as a Healthcare Intervention, Separating the Wood from the Trees." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18 (21): 11599. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111599.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Methorst, J., K. Rehdanz, T. Mueller, B. Hansjürgens, A. Bonn, and K. Böhning-Gaese. 2021. " The Importance of Species Diversity for Human Well-Being in Europe." Ecological Economics 181 : 106917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106917.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mind. 2013. Feel Better outside, Feel Better inside: Ecotherapy for Mental Wellbeing, Resilience and Recovery. London: Mind.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NHS England. 2022. Green social prescribing. NHS England. Accessed February 20, 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.england.nhs.uk/personalisedcare/social-prescribing/green-social-prescribing/">www.england.nhs.uk/personalisedcare/social-prescribing/green-social-prescribing/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterborough County Council. 2015. " Children & Young People's Joint Strategic Needs Assessment. Peterborough County Council." Accessed April 20, 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.peterborough.gov.uk/healthcare/public-health/jsna">www.peterborough.gov.uk/healthcare/public-health/jsna</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Public Health England. 2021. Green social prescribing: Call for expressions of interest available. Public Health England. Accessed April 20, 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-social-prescribing-call-for-expressions-of-interest/green-social-prescribing-call-for-expressions-of-interest#:∼:text=Project%20set%20up%20is%20scheduled,Environment%2C%20Food%20and%20Rural%20Affairs">www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-social-prescribing-call-for-expressions-of-interest/green-social-prescribing-call-for-expressions-of-interest#:∼:text=Project%20set%20up%20is%20scheduled,Environment%2C%20Food%20and%20Rural%20Affairs</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Redman, S., T. Greenhalgh, L. Adedokun, S. Staniszewska, and S. Denegri. 2021. " Co-Production of Knowledge: The Future." BMJ 372 : N 434. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n434.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reed, M. S. 2008. " Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A Literature Review." Biological Conservation 141 (10): 2417 – 2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richardson, M., D. Sheffield, C. Harvey, and D. Petronzi. 2015. The Impact of Children's Connection to Nature: A Report for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Derby, UK: University of Derby, College of Life and Natural Sciences.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robeyns, I. 2005. " The Capability Approach: A Theoretical Survey." Journal of Human Development 6 (1): 93 – 117. https://doi.org/10.1080/146498805200034266.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roszak, T. 2001. The Voice of the Earth: An Exploration of Ecopsychology. Phanes Press. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZLWGPwAACAAJ.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roszak, T. E., M. E. Gomes, and A. D. Kanner. 1995. Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, Healing the Mind. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silva, A., M. Matos, and M. Gonçalves. 2023. " Nature and Human Well-Being: A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence from Nature-Based Interventions." Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2023, 67 : 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2023.2227761.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Summers, J. K., and D. N. Vivian. 2018. " Ecotherapy – A Forgotten Ecosystem Service: A Review." Frontiers in Psychology 9 : 1389. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01389.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Froglife Trust. 2023. The Froglife Trust. The Froglife Trust. Accessed April 20, 2023. https://<ulink href="http://www.froglife.org/">www.froglife.org/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker, M., and E. Unterhalter. 2007. "The Capability Approach: Its Potential for Work in Education." Amartya Sen's Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education, 1 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wood, C., R. Bragg, and J. Pretty. 2016. " The Benefits of Green Exercise for Children." In Green Exercise: Linking Nature, Health, and Well Beingm, edited by J. Barton, R. Bragg, C. Wood, and J. Pretty, 46 – 52. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Joanna Horne; Joseph De Lappe; Paul Anand; Jenny Tse-Leon; Kathy Wormald; Chantel Carr and Jitka Vseteckova</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref43"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1473371
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Ecotherapy and Out-of-Classroom Learning for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Young People: An Evaluation of a Project in England
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Joanna+Horne%22">Joanna Horne</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Joseph+De+Lappe%22">Joseph De Lappe</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9528-424X">0000-0002-9528-424X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Paul+Anand%22">Paul Anand</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jenny+Tse-Leon%22">Jenny Tse-Leon</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kathy+Wormald%22">Kathy Wormald</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chantel+Carr%22">Chantel Carr</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jitka+Vseteckova%22">Jitka Vseteckova</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Environmental+Education+Research%22"><i>Environmental Education Research</i></searchLink>. 2025 31(6):1193-1206.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environmental+Education%22">Environmental Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ecology%22">Ecology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Therapy%22">Therapy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Climate%22">Climate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disadvantaged+Youth%22">Disadvantaged Youth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outdoor+Education%22">Outdoor Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28England%29%22">United Kingdom (England)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13504622.2024.2446711
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1350-4622<br />1469-5871
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Vulnerable and disadvantaged young people are often disengaged from mainstream education and lack the substantive capacity and opportunity to benefit from nature-focused activities without support. Ecotherapeutic out-of-classroom environmental education (EE) programmes hold the potential to benefit such young people, although research involving this population is limited. This paper reports on the findings of a study which aimed to measure the impact of such a programme, Green Pathways in Peterborough England, on vulnerable and disadvantaged young people taking part. The study utilised a controlled pre- and post-test design and was co-produced by OU researchers and Froglife staff running Green Pathways. Young people participating in Green Pathways were compared to young people not participating, before and after the Green Pathways intervention, on their preference for being outdoors and physically active, knowledge and appreciation of amphibians and reptiles, and perceived capabilities (i.e. confidence, social skills, behaviour, positive outlook). Mixed ANOVA showed significant increases across all measures for those taking part in the programme, suggesting that programmes such as Green Pathways substantively support vulnerable and disadvantaged young people's opportunities to enjoy nature and the associated benefits to their health, wellbeing and life outcomes.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1473371
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1473371
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13504622.2024.2446711
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 1193
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Environmental Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ecology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Therapy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Climate
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disadvantaged Youth
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Outdoor Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (England)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Ecotherapy and Out-of-Classroom Learning for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Young People: An Evaluation of a Project in England
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Joanna Horne
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Joseph De Lappe
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Paul Anand
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jenny Tse-Leon
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kathy Wormald
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chantel Carr
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jitka Vseteckova
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1350-4622
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-5871
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 31
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Environmental Education Research
              Type: main
ResultId 1