Back to School: Why Access to Nature Matters More Than Ever

Societal Class and Children’s Relationship with Nature

At the age of 5, some children have never heard the sound of the ocean. This observation comes from the research of childhood sociologist Julien Vitores, a professor at Sorbonne Paris-Nord University, who published “Nature from a Child’s Perspective: Ecological Socialization and the Genesis of Inequality” on August 21st by La Découverte publishers.

Vitores studied children’s interactions with nature in two Parisian nursery schools—one private school in the affluent districts and one public school in the northern part of the city—and a third school in a rural area in the south of France. As schools resume, he explains how unseen inequalities in access to nature influence educational paths.

Why the 12-5-30 Incline Walking Method Is the Ultimate Fat-Burning Workout, According to Fitness Experts

The ultimate trick to banish mold from your bathroom grout in just 7 minutes—no vinegar or baking soda needed

Decatur Metro — There is a common belief that children naturally enjoy nature and that it spontaneously nurtures their abilities and curiosity. Why should we question this assumption?

Julien Vitores — Educational texts often assume that simply placing children in a natural setting is sufficient for nature to do its educational work. This concept fails to adequately capture the complex ways children engage with nature. First, it assumes all children have the opportunity to freely explore nature, which is not the case as these experiences are shaped by social factors.

Not all children have equal chances to explore and learn from natural environments. Moreover, the concept of nature or life is quite broad. When examined closely, children may enjoy certain animals while fearing others. They feel comfortable with certain textures and environments and uncomfortable with others. Even parents who encourage nature contact do not expose their children to just any type of natural environment. Identifying which children learn about what kind of nature—and under what circumstances—seemed a good starting point for my research.

How do parents’ social backgrounds affect their children’s relationship with nature?

One of the key findings of my research is the stark differences between social classes. By age 5, children from upper-class families have often visited the sea, mountains, forests, and countryside numerous times. A 5-year-old girl from the private school I studied talked about “my daddy’s forest” when describing a hunting trip with her father.

Conversely, children from less affluent families sometimes have never been on vacation, heard the sea, or walked in a forest. These are often sources of regret for their parents, who explain that they lack the means or the time to organize more outings. It is usually schools or community associations that provide such opportunities. A mother told me how her children saw the sea for the first time thanks to a community group. Afterward, her son asked if they could go back to “Corinne’s beach,” referring to the organizer. This highlights the unequal appropriation of nature between children who refer to it as “my daddy’s forest” and those who call it “Corinne’s beach.”

How do different social classes perceive nature?

Tendencies vary among social groups. In affluent families from western Paris—where parents are senior executives, bankers, or business owners—nature is seen as a grand space where children can test their physical limits and develop self-discipline and an appreciation for effort, even at the age of 4 or 5, through activities like mountain hiking.

Families with substantial cultural capital—where parents are teachers, psychologists, journalists—emphasize children’s free development, implicitly valuing intellectual awakening, creativity, and intelligence. These parents take pride in their children’s ability to identify numerous plants and animals.

In contrast, during my research with working-class families, the responses were sometimes vague. When asked about experiencing natural spaces, the reply would often be, “No, we haven’t gone on vacation.” But when asked about daily life, they would mention visits to parks for recreation, relaxation, and picnics, where children could run freely. These families emphasized less the educational value of nature and more its role as a relaxing space for family time.

How do these different engagements with nature translate into educational inequalities at school?

Schools value basic knowledge about nature, which is part of essential vocabulary learning and an introduction to scientific thinking. In creative activities, using natural materials like leaves and branches is standard.

Some children arrive at school with a rich cultural background about nature. I refer to this as a form of “proto-cultural capital” that children acquire within their family circle through direct experiences, reading, watching documentaries, and discussions with parents.

During a typical day in nursery school, children are asked about what they see in a picture or outside, favoring those I call “budding naturalists.” Others often end up providing incorrect answers, feeling corrected, sometimes by their peers, which can be embarrassing and painful.

What version of ecology does the nursery school promote?

The nursery school teaches an ecology of small actions, which is necessary to make concepts understandable for children. They are encouraged not to litter, to save water, and to respect fauna and flora, which means behaving well during nature outings. It is often children from lower social classes who are corrected for handling a worm or a flower too roughly. They lack the legitimate behaviors expected in natural settings, such as observing calmly and patiently.

Respectful but disciplined behavior towards the natural environment is valued, akin to visiting a museum. This internalizes a behavior that aligns with school expectations.

Is this similar to learning to sit quietly in a chair all day and listen to teachers?

Exactly. It’s a lesson in self-restraint and moderation.

Reading your findings, it seems that the way schools teach about ecology and nature can feel like social violence to children and parents from lower social classes. Could this contribute to some people’s rejection of environmentalists?

There is indeed a strong link between ecology, cultural capital, and the educational world. From this perspective, ecology can feel like a top-down discourse, especially when perceived as an external demand unrelated to daily concerns.

However, some segments of the less precarious working class adopt ecological discourses as common sense: not wasting, reusing, and keeping local areas clean.

Based on your research findings, do you believe that nature education needs rethinking?

Yes, but as a sociologist, I’m always cautious about suggesting how to implement changes. We can build on what is already being done: many teachers are already making significant efforts to organize outings and minimize the effects of familial inequalities as much as possible. Supporting these educational initiatives requires resources. This includes promoting outdoor schooling, as recently proposed.

However, we must avoid presenting this issue as neutral, to prevent depoliticizing the stakes and obscuring the debates on different ways to educate children about nature and ecology.