As a child, how important was access to natural areas to you? How important is it to you now? Do you think access to green areas should be listed as one of the rights which every child should have? What are the practical difficulties which make access difficult? What implications would this have for public policy (such as educational programs or city planning)?
I have been born and raised in Bratislava, so I can not say that I developed a connection with nature through that way. However I was climbing the trees(the few we have) ever since I could climb. Now, that I am older I barely spend 5 minutes in the nature. I do not know if this caused me problems with my mental health, as the article claims, but I definitely feel the absence.
ReplyDeleteIf I could I would let all the children have their share of nature, but making a law ensuring this is a bit too much. I agree with the article, that the absence of nature could lead to obesity and I think, parents should realize this.
Another thing is, that even if we made this into a law, not everyone would be able to follow it. If the kids were required to spend at least 5 days a month in a nature, it would not only be expensive for their parents, that would not be such a problem after all, but the parents and kids would consider this as an inconvenience. Taking the kids out would be for them like eating vegetables, good for their health, but an terrible experience for them. I can not accept such a thing, because to me, trips to the nature were always fun.
The best solution would be if parents would influence their kids in the right way, so the kids can build a fondness for the nature on their own.
Since we live in the industry age, we need to adapt to it. In the past it was normal to take a horse and ride it over the countryside. Now, it’s quite unimaginable. And that’s why we need to find new possibilities of bringing nature closer to us.
ReplyDeleteI think that the bill dealing with the access to wildlife is very good idea. It can seem to somebody to be quite extreme, but we need to consider the positive consequences of this bill. People, especially children, who need the access to the nature the most, will have much bigger opportunity to breath the fresh air. The family’s trips to the nature will not be only nice memories, but also reality. Kids will feel the amazing atmosphere of the nature and so they can “better” develop their personality.
In my opinion, if we want to bring nature back to our lives, we should start with children at schools. I don’t think that some ecological lessons would be useful, but spending more time outside definitely will. If every school had access to the greenspace and students would spend more time in the fresh air, the total mental health of young people would be more stable. Kids who had good experiences from the nature would like to spend more time outside with their parents as well. After that, the adults would realize that nature is very important to us, and they would start to solve the problems about lack of nature.
I am really satisfied with my childhood. I can remember how I was playing with my friends in grandparent’s garden. I spent most of the free time outside. My friends and I were doing lots of dumb things, but we have never hurt anyone. I can’t imagine that I wouldn’t spend so much time in the nature. Every time, when I was confused, I found the calm in the forests and parks. In my opinion, every child should go through this face. And the kids who didn’t experience so much adventure and excitement are suffering lots of various problems. We do not have to mention that kids who are active are healthier and the lack of physical activity is causing significant mental problems. However, children can’t play “policeman and thieves” on the city roads surrounded by huge industrial buildings. That’s why kids should spend more time playing in the nature.
Based on my experience, I can say that the mentioned bill has a reason. If we want to develop our own thinking and not only invent the new machines, we need to reconsider the traditional values. That’s why I think nature is an important part of our lives.
Even though I am a child of Bratislava, my mother used to take me for long walks in the forest when I was young. It was at a time I can hardly remember but I certainly know those walks were usually too long for me. Not only I got bored but also tired a great deal. Well, now I think this was a very important experience for me. In contrast to climbing on trees, those walks in the middle of some huge forest gave me a different feeling for the wildlife. I mean it wasn’t only that I new there is some fauna and flora around us, but I got close to it in more intimate situations when I had nowhere else to go but follow my mother another 5 kilometers until we reached a road. When I look back from time to time, I always find it precious to grow up with admiration to nature. As Janka said, it is very important for parents to try to build a relationship with nature in their children.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, I definitely think that any laws wouldn’t do for the current problem of people growing less connected with the wildlife. From my point of view, giving children a right to grow up and live in a wildlife-rich environment could help only some of the poorest living at the edge of the urbanized world if any governmental institution came and took them to a forest. I mean, such law could help those who are denied this potential right but certainly wouldn’t motivate regular people to make new habits. Unless access to the green is obliged, nobody would change their lifestyle drastically. Laws simply aren’t good motivators.
On one hand, what I think would help to get people more into the wildlife is a kind of educational process where both children and their parents would be motivated to spend more time in the green environment. All the examples of health problems stemming from lack of time spent in the wildlife are a strong negative motivation - that has in fact always worked well. On the other hand, bringing green closer to people would be probably most effective in the urbanized areas. This could be achieved mainly by building parks and other rest places inside towns and cities. Moreover, I think that many over civilised societies need what is, fortunately, still in Slovakia (or at least in the part where I live), and that is greenery already in kindergartens. I think it is the first step to make children grow closer to the green the natural way. They can’t rely on family trips in this hectic, modern society.
When I was a child the “natural areas” played an abundant role in my life. Most of the games we played with my friends were outside, somewhere in the nearby parks. Obviously we couldn’t go that far from home, whereas our parents or grandparents needed to know where we were. I remember that our favourite childhood game was the hide-and-seek. Before we attended school we used to play it almost everyday, whereas after we entered the first, second, third grade our everyday’s hide-and-seek activity decreased quite rapidly. All my other activities in the countryside were reduced slowly. These included the long walks in the centre of Bratislava with my mum, or walks with my dad in the nearby countryside. However, even the activities in the natural areas were reduced it didn’t really affect me that much, because my parents bought a house in an urban area surrounded by several lakes, forests and fields. Actually, we can say that my “natural life” began only at that time. We started some new activities with my dad that included cycling in the forest or on the field roads, then I also helped my mum with gardening. Some of these activities stayed with me even until now.
ReplyDeleteAs I grow older, I can feel that the “access to natural areas” slowly loses its value. I don’t really go for walks nowadays, since I don’t have that much time. I don’t even visit our urban house nowadays. The era really changes. These days’ dancing is more for me than the “natural areas”. Even though it is also movement, it doesn’t really contribute essentially for the “delivery of better health, attainment or better social development” as mentioned in the article. However I still believe that nature is really important to us, and if I have some free time during weekends I try to go at least for a walk. Sometimes it’s good to go with your friends or even with your family to for example Devín or Koliba.
I think that every child should have a right to have the access to wildlife but I don’t think that it should be that strict, as making laws from it. It actually depends on each child individually how much they like the nature. Children shouldn’t be forced to like nature or to go to “natural areas” against their wills. However, it is important for them, especially for their health whereas for example fresh air is good for their brain, as well as less air pollution. The lack of “access to the natural areas” as the article says, also contributes to “the possible obesity” of children. If there is a reasonable access to the natural areas the kids are more likely not to be obese which later helps them in their health development.
Sometimes it is not that easy to access there natural areas, because some kids don’t have the opportunities to have contacts with the countryside for example if the live in bigger towns or cities. The kids can be also lazy to improve their contacts with the natural areas since nowadays many children play computer games, watch television or just surf on the internet. These factors are examples of the factors that usually affect the lack of access to the natural areas. In my opinion it would be a wise idea to implement new educational programs or city planning for improving of the access to the natural areas, to simply “give them the green.” This wouldn’t affect only the children, but in my opinion many adults would contribute as well. They could later postpone the information to their children. Some presentations could be made to show people that they should not forget about the “nature.” Many organizations would come up with new ideas such as some meetings for the “green people” to help with the maintaining of the great value of the remarkable access to the green areas. If these implications would have been made, I believe that the access to the natural areas would have been improved at least for a bit, but even a small bit is a success.
This is a comment on Kika's comment
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Kika's idea of the intimacy that nature provides. My closest friends are those, with whom I have gotten lost in a forest at least once. Not only we had a chance to cooperate in a critical situation, we also shared the same feeling, how small we are compared to the forest, and this made us even closer that we were before. It is sad, that many kids from big cities will not be able to experience this.
I really like the idea of introducing plants or trees to kindergarten. It would be nice, if the kids planted cucumbers, carrots and pumpkins instead of playing with cars and dolls. Maybe the kindergartens could even use the vegetables in their kitchen, this would give the kids a sense of accomplishment. As Kika said, long boring walks outside tend to get long and boring. That is why, maybe some games played outside would do a better job.
When all is said and done, I completely agree with Kika.
This is a comment on comment is a response to Janka’s comment.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the environment in which children spend their childhood is extremely important for both their physical and mental development. My parents probably shared this opinion, because throughout my childhood years my siblings and I were constantly on a hike in the middle of nowhere or playing outside, even when it was raining. Now that I am older, it still feels more natural for me to be outside than inside, probably because of the upbringing I had. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of nature to see in Bratislava, but my parents and I try to take a walk to Slavín and through the nearby Horský park before going to sleep each day.
I agree with most of the points that Janka made. If there was a law that stated that children must have the kind of childhood that included spending vast amounts of time in nature, it would not necessarily be bad, but I think that it is very strange and even disappointing that in order for children to have access to “green environment” a law should be made about it. Similarly to Janka, I think that this is something that parents should decide about by themselves. On the other hand, it would be a different story if a law was made that stated the minimal amount of parks a city should have or some similar aspect that would e.g. support the conservation of wildlife even in cities.
When I become a mother I will want the best for my kids so, similarly to what my own parents did, I will try to provide them with as much access to nature as I will be capable of. However, each parent chooses a different approach to how to bring up their child, so I do not think such a law is adequate.
@Matúš
ReplyDeleteGenerally speaking, I disagree with Matúš that the access to wildlife and green areas should be made into law. It does not make much sense to me, because I can’t imagine how the government would even watch over the people to meet the law. Just like Janka, Kika and Sabi, I would also rather choose different approach. The officials should raise public awareness by educating both, parents and children. Moreover, they should grant every single green project, while setting higher requirements for developers, so that they would have to count with natural areas of their own in the designs. However, I can see Matúš’ point when speaking about access to nature in schools. In fact, most of the schools in Slovakia have rather poor schoolyards with lack of green areas; for example GJH’s schoolyard - one concrete giant. Children tend to be denied access to nature as they enter school years. This attitude has to be changed as soon as possible in order for kids to grow in healthier environment.
I want to react to the comments written by Matúš and Janka. I totally agree with Janka that making laws for the „Access to natural areas is a bit too much. It is not only about Money and inconvenience that would cause problems, but also other factors that are related to nature would have had bad affects on us. It could interrupt people’s rights, while many people that don’t like spending time in the country side – so called nature haters would be forced to follow this law. Obviously, there are also some other possible examples. On the other hand, don’t share Matúš´s idea about considering only the good consequences of introducing the “bill” since we should always consider the negative consequences as well. However, I agree with Matúš and his good idea to start with solving this problem in schools, whereas the nature is mainly important for the kids. This improves their health and their further developments. In addition, i can see that we quite have similar opinions on the points of views, that Access to the natural areas is really important and shouldn’t be downtrodden.
ReplyDelete