Hannah Nadeau ENVS 4130: Recreation Issue and Policy Research Paper Topic/Issue: Childhood Outdoor Recreation

April 5, 2012 Dr. Steve Burr

Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Identified Need....................................................................................................................................... 1 Background Activity.............................................................................................................................. 3 Memorandums, Initiatives, and Proposed Legislation..................................................................... 4 Policy Framework .................................................................................................................................. 5 Direction for Management Decisions .................................................................................................. 6 a. b. Agency Action ............................................................................................................................ 6 Education Action........................................................................................................................ 6

Guidelines and Procedures................................................................................................................... 6 Monitoring, Evaluation and Feedback ................................................................................................ 7 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Associated Controversies .................................................................................................................. 8 Alternative Solutions ......................................................................................................................... 9 a. b. c. Agency initiatives....................................................................................................................... 9 State initiatives ........................................................................................................................... 9 Private Initiatives ..................................................................................................................... 10

Implications for Outdoor Recreation ................................................................................................ 11 Policy Model Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 11 References ............................................................................................................................................. 12

Page |1

Introduction
In just under 200 years, the United States of America changed from being a society of resource plundering explorers to a society of devoted defenders as they implemented a widespread variety of national policies for managing the use and protection of natural resources. In the 19th century, as a budding nation grew and conquered the frontier, most Americans were eager to develop, discover, and even destroy—purposefully or accidentally—the resources they came into contact with. Slowly, enlightened individuals like Aldo Leopold, John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and even presidents like Theodore Roosevelt, began to recognize importance of preserving and protecting America‘s remaining resources for present and future generations. Today, those goals are accomplished through the work of federal land management agencies (FLMAs). Although each agency has a slightly different organizational structure and philosophy, the devotion to future generations is a thread woven through the tightly knit fabric of each agency. Despite the commitment of federal—and even state or private—agencies and organizations to future generations, one is forced to ask the question: Will future generations even appreciate the resources that have been set aside for their enjoyment? As each generation experiences advances in technology, from the television to the latest gaming system, it seems as though time spent exploring the outdoors steadily decreases. Are we preserving our lands for a new generation of destructive consumers? If so, how can we change this disastrous trend? This paper will analyze the effectiveness of the policy model as taught in ENVS 4130. It will do so by examining the how the policy model applies to the issue of childhood outdoor recreation. Each step and its effectiveness will be addressed: identified need, background activity, legislation, policy framework, direction for management decisions, guidelines and procedures, and monitoring and evaluation. The conclusion of this paper will address associated controversies, alternative solutions, implications for outdoor recreation, and a summarized policy model analysis.

Identified Need
The unsettling downward progression of childhood outdoor involvement has started to become a recognized issue. In fact, some have even assigned a term to the phenomenon—Nature Deficit Disorder. The first person to use the term was a concerned author named Richard Louv. He states, ―In the space of a century, the American experience of nature—culturally influential around the world—has gone from direct utilitarianism to romantic attachment to electronic detachment‖ (2008, p. 16). In his book, Last Child in the Woods (2008), Louv describes a wide variety of issues which are arising across America due to the decreasing amount of outdoor involvement, from a lack of childhood creativity to an increase in disorders such as ADHD. His

Page |2

personal experience, research, and observations cause him to believe, ―Our society is teaching young people to avoid direct experience in nature… Our institutions, urban/suburban design, and cultural attitudes unconsciously associate nature with doom—while disassociating the outdoors from joy and solitude‖ (p. 4). Midway through his book, Louv asks the critical question: ―Where will future environmentalists come from?‖ (p.147). Indeed, American children have transformed from excited adventurers who build tree forts, catch frogs, fish down at the local pond, and have snowball fights, to nearly robotic figures who spend most of their free time exploring the vast and dreadfully stale internet, playing video games, and only venture outside to walk across the street to the neighbor‘s house to participate in the same dull activities. How will these children know how to care for our natural resources if they have never been instructed to care? More than ten years before Louv wrote Last Child in the Woods, naturalist Robert Michael Pyle asked a similar question, ―As for [those], whose lives hold little place for nature, how can they even care?‖ He goes on to say, ―As cities and metastasizing suburbs forsake their natural diversity, and their citizens grow more removed from personal contact with nature, awareness and appreciation retreat. This breeds apathy toward environmental concerns and, inevitably further degradation of the common habitat‖ (1993, p. 146). The ideas of Louv and Pyle continue to gain support as environmentally aware Americans begin to ask their own questions. Where are the future leaders in natural resource management? Who is going to protect our threatened and endangered species? Will Americans have places to recreate in the future? Most importantly, will there even be outdoor recreationists? To mitigate these fears, Americans must change the social attitude of their youth by educating them, providing new opportunities, and by passing on family traditions of outdoor recreation. A study done in 2008 found that children‘s participation in outdoor recreation activities is declining, although overall, outdoor activity is increasing. The study also stated that in order to see continued outdoor recreation in coming years, individuals must be introduced to outdoor recreation at a young age. Young participants are likely to continue to participate in outdoor recreation as they become adults and are also more likely to become lifelong recreationists (Outdoor Foundation, 2008). In order to address the challenges faced by the next generation of Americans, there are increasingly widespread attempts to educate, train, and provide opportunities for today‘s youth. These actions have been taken by federal and state governments, as well as private organizations devoted to securing a better future for both Americans and their natural resources.

Page |3

Background Activity
The protection of American public lands required the hard work of a dedicated group of individuals who spent their lives fighting for what they believed in. With an issue such as childhood outdoor recreation, it seems as though the same approach must be taken. Any attempts to address the problem will require the hard work of Americans who are dedicated to the future of the great outdoors. The writings of Robert Michael Pyle and, more recently, the efforts of Richard Louv, are the beginning of a potentially effective movement to increase children‘s outdoor awareness, recreation, and knowledge. After all, if books such as The Sand County Almanac, Man and Nature, and others were enough to change American environmental philosophies, it only makes sense that Louv‘s Last Child in the Woods could be the book to address the modern land management question: ―Who is going to take over the American legacy and continue to successfully care for our public lands?‖ In addition to dedication and published books, influential background activity takes the form of studies and local movements. For example, the Chicago Wilderness Initiative is an alliance of organizations working together to restore local nature and improve the quality of life for all Chicago residents. In order to illustrate the importance of childhood outdoor recreation, they created ―The Children‘s Outdoor Bill of Rights.‖ The bill of rights states that every child should have the opportunity to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Discover wilderness – prairies, dunes, forests, savannas, and wetlands Camp under the stars Follow a trail Catch and release fish, frogs, and insects Climb a tree Explore nature in neighborhoods and cities Celebrate heritage Plant a flower Play in the mud or a stream Learn to swim

These basic principles indicate activities which are thought to enhance children‘s physical, social, and emotional development, while connecting them to the wealth of resources available in their backyards (―Children‘s outdoor bill of rights,‖ n.d.). The title ―bill of rights‖ draws attention to the significance of childhood outdoor recreation as well as the importance of preserving it. State funded research is an additional background activity which has the potential to increase public awareness of the issue and influence legislation. For

Page |4

example, Arizona‘s 2008 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) declares, Whether it is because of the perceived safety issue, decreased access to natural areas or outdoor recreation opportunities, or changing preferences in how youth spend their leisure time, children are spending fewer hours outside enjoying the out of doors…This has widespread implications as these children become adults and start raising their own families. If they didn‘t use parks and recreation areas as children will they use them—and value them—as adults? (p. 16, 2008). The inclusion of childhood recreation in a state‘s SCORP lends credibility to the issue, showing that it is indeed significant.

Memorandums, Initiatives, and Proposed Legislation
There have been a few specific events which mark key advances toward a solution. First, in 2010, President Barack Obama released a memorandum titled ―America‘s Great Outdoors‖ (2010).The goal of the initiative is to not only encourage children to reconnect to nature, but to continue to protect areas where they are able to recreate. The memorandum requests that federal departments, including the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Education work together to accomplish the established goals. Although the memorandum is intended to aid a diverse group of Americans, its primary focus is on American youth. However, it is important to note that the initiative does not assign any funding to programs, or contain a specific plan for action, and only contains general recommendations for action. In addition to the 2010 memorandum, since 2004, there has been a National Great Outdoors month, which devotes a specific time period for Americans to participate in additional outdoor recreation activities nationwide. According to the American Recreation Coalition, ―Media attention to the proclamation triggers actions by millions of households and prompts public discussion of important issues linked to outdoor recreation, including volunteerism, health, and outdoor ethics‖ (―Great outdoors month,‖ n.d.). The second attempt to address the problem is the No Child Left Inside Act. The act is a bipartisan bill introduced by Jack Reed and Mark Kirk and it is intended to increase the ability for school systems to provide environmental education (―Reed and Kirk introduce…,‖ 2011). Although the act has been introduced during each congressional session for several years, it has not yet been passed. As of 2011, the Senate Education Committee approved the motion that portions of the act should be included in the revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but the act failed to pass during the 2011 session (―No child left inside…,‖ 2011). Although Congress has not yet passed any laws mandating the development of outdoor recreation opportunities and education for children, proposed legislation such as the No Child Left Inside Act, as well as memorandums such as ―America‘s Great Outdoors‖ bring issues to

Page |5

light and allow federal agencies to attempt to address identified needs without any executive or legislative mandates to do so. State and private endeavors also provide incentive for federal agencies to create new programs and guidelines for childhood education and involvement.

Policy Framework
Since there are no specific policies devoted to childhood outdoor recreation, this section focuses on the Great Outdoors Initiative (GOI) and the potential impacts of the No Child Left Inside Act. The key goals of the GOI, as stated in America‘s Great Outdoors memorandum (2010), are to: i. ii. Reconnect Americans, especially children, to America's rivers and waterways, landscapes of national significance, ranches, farms and forests, great parks, and coasts and beaches Build upon State, local, private, and tribal priorities for the conservation of land, water, wildlife, historic, and cultural resources, creating corridors and connectivity across these outdoor spaces, and for enhancing neighborhood parks; and determine how the Federal Government can best advance those priorities through public private partnerships and locally supported conservation strategies. Use science-based management practices to restore and protect our lands and waters for future generations.

iii.

The principles identified in the memorandum build on land management and agency principles already in existence. The goals provide a foundation and incentive for youth-focused programs to be implemented by key federal agencies. The current programs implemented by the National Park Service and United States Forest Service will be addressed in the next section. The No Child Left Inside Act is intended to primarily increase environmental literacy by developing environmentally focused programs for K-12 students. Key components in the act include: i. Incentives and support for states to develop and implement Environmental Literacy Plans to integrate environmental education and field experiences into the core academic program in public schools. ii. Partnership grants between school districts, colleges, parks, zoos, and other communitybased environmental organizations with expertise in environmental education to develop and implement professional development for teachers on the use of field-based, service, and experiential learning to provide innovative and interdisciplinary instruction to students. iii. National capacity grants to scale up and disseminate effective practices in environmental education. If the act were passed by congress, these guidelines would help change the current focus of the current education system by creating programs to emphasize what could be termed ―natural education.‖

Page |6

Both the GOI and the No Child Left Inside Act are worded to illustrate and address the need for environmental education and program development. The GOI also explains that it is necessary for land restoration and protection to continue.

Direction for Management Decisions
a. Agency Action

The Great Outdoors Initiative helped influence increased funding for the continuation of child-specific programs in the United States Forest Service (USFS). The USFS has two different methods of creating child-friendly outdoor recreation and education. First, through a partnership with the ad council, they created Discover the Forest. This program is an agencywide, broad approach intended to reconnect youth with nature. It encourages youth and their parents nationwide to unplug from technology and spend more time exploring their national forests. The second approach is through two Forest Service initiatives: More Kids in the Woods and Children‘s Forests. These initiatives set aside money for every region in the Forest Service to create new children‘s programs and Children‘s Forest sites. However, it is important to note that the GOI did not designate funding and both programs existed prior to the release of the GOI. These two programs will be further addressed in the next section.
b. Education Action

In response to the GOI, The US Department of Education created an award to recognize K-12 schools who have implemented an environmental emphasis into their program. The program is called the Green Ribbon Schools and is intended to encourage schools to help kids connect what they are learning in class to the world around them. The award will be given to schools for energy conservation, creating healthy learning spaces, and teaching environmental literacy. Again, it is important to note that the GOI did not officially mandate or provide funding for the program—it is simply an attempt by the Department of Education to respond to the identified need and is not formal legislation. The No Child Left Inside Act would be very similar to what is being done through the Green Ribbon Schools program, but instead of simply awarding successful schools, it would mandate fiscal incentives and grants so every school in the US could reach a number of environmental education standards. People have drawn similarities between the No Child Left Inside Act and the No Child Left Behind Act and it is only logical to assume that, if passed, the No Child Left Inside Act would face as much controversy as No Child Left Behind experienced. This potential for political controversy will be further addressed in the conclusion.

Guidelines and Procedures
In 2011, the USFS designated $1 million in cost-share funding to nine of its ten regions for the More Kids in the Woods and Children‘s Forests programs. These programs aid the development of child-focused programs and forest areas. For example, one of the programs funded by the money was located in Albuquerque. According to the Region 3 office, they will

Page |7

be making signage, trails, and an outdoor classroom that looks like a fort in an area that does not have many play spaces otherwise (Sosbe, 2011). In Region 4, the funding provided specific guidelines for two projects. More Kids in the Woods received funding for the Experience Your Abilities program in the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest and the Color Country Outdoor Youth Initiative across southwestern Utah. Both programs are intended to provide youth with opportunities to become familiar with, and proficient in, outdoor recreation activities. The Children‘s Forest program received funding for the Bridger-Teton Children‘s Forest ‗Teton Ten Project‘, which is intended to provide service learning environmental education, and pivotal outdoor experiences. However, as briefly mentioned in the previous section, it is important to note that although the large 2011 fiscal designation seems to have been somewhat influenced by the wording of the GOI, the two programs funded by the monetary designation existed before the initiative—and so did the Discover the Forest Program mentioned previously. This raises the critical question: Did the initiative even change anything? It is possible the programs would not have received as much funding if not for the initiative, but obviously the GOI did not result in new, agency-wide guidelines and procedures. Unlike the pre-existing programs in the Forest Service, the Green Ribbon Schools award is a brand new program developed by the Department of Education. Arguably, the creation of the program may have been grounded in the first goal of the GOI, which is to: ―Reconnect Americans, especially children, to America's rivers and waterways, landscapes of national significance, ranches, farms and forests, great parks, and coasts and beaches.‖ However, this is the only new program that was created with a direct link to the GOI. The Great Outdoors Initiative places responsibility for its goals on the shoulders of the Secretary of the Agriculture and the Interior, as well as the Director of the EPA, with input from other federal departments as necessary, and the Green Ribbon Schools award was created thanks to input from the Director of the EPA, as well as the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as recommended in the GOI. But is the existence of the award simply due to the GOI? Or was there already pressure to create the award before the memorandum was issued? Basically, did the GOI truly change the status quo? These questions will be further addressed in the next section. More questions are raised regarding the proposed legislation of the No Child Left Inside Act. Since the No Child Left Inside Act would essentially be an extension of the Green Ribbon Schools Program, is there even any need for it? Would the passage of the act do anything but create additional political controversy? Due to the inability for the act to pass in any congressional sessions for several years, it seems that most Americans believe the answer to both of those questions is a resounding, ―No.‖

Monitoring, Evaluation and Feedback
In order for monitoring and evaluation of the GOI to occur, there must be programs that were specifically created in order to meet the demands of the GOI. However, as specified in the previous section, all of the FLMA programs that have been funded since the GOI was released were already in existence. Therefore, monitoring and

Page |8

evaluation of the effectiveness of the GOI cannot be based upon agency guidelines and procedures. The Green Ribbon Schools award is the only new program that has been created since the GOI was released. The program has been running for just under a year, which limits the amount of evaluation that can be accomplished regarding its ability to successfully educate youth and reconnect them to the outdoors. One potential method of monitoring and evaluation is tracking how many schools are participating in the program. Currently, there are 548 schools involved, but most of them are only successfully accomplishing one of four goals set forth in the program‘s guidelines: Eco-campus, nature adventure, health and fitness, and natural classrooms (―Involved schools,‖ 2012). To put this in perspective, as of 2009, there were 98,706 elementary and secondary schools in the United States (―Educational Institutions‖). This means that even if the number of schools changed by a few hundred since 2009, fewer than 1% of schools in America are currently participating in the program. Low participation may be due to the relatively recent creation of the program, but to truly be successful—and meet the goals of the GOI—the Green Ribbon Schools program must substantially increase participation in the program over the next several years. Again, this relates back to the No Child Left Inside Act: If so few schools are currently involved in the Green Ribbon program, how many will willingly participate in measures mandated by the hypothetical passage of the No Child Left Inside Act? Such questions provide a strong case against the implications of the No Child Left Inside Act. If the passage of a policy is not going to successfully accomplish anything unique, there is no reason to pass it. Because of the situations mentioned, it seems the feedback the federal government is receiving in response to the GOI is nearly non-existent and will remain that way unless more schools decide to participate in new programs such as the Green Ribbon Schools program or additional federal agencies create new programs that can be evaluated for success. Additionally, if the No Child Left Inside Act were passed, feedback would likely only be negative based on the fact that it does not currently have much public support.

Conclusion
Associated Controversies

As mentioned in previous sections, it is important to consider the GOI with the question: ―Has it changed anything?‖ Controversy arises when an initiative is not able to lead to any progress. The GOI has only resulted in one brand-new program being created, and so far it is highly unsuccessful if participation is any indicator. Any form of federal policy mandating environmental education is bound to create controversy, but the hypothetical passage of the No Child Left Inside Act is likely to create tension that would exceed any caused by the GOI. Aside from the fact that schools, agencies, and organizations would be mandated to change their current programs to solve the childhood

Page |9

outdoor recreation predicament in a specific fashion, Americans would eventually be led straight back to the traditional ―use versus protection‖ controversy. Even if the programs were intended to simply introduce youth to outdoor recreation, environmentalists would petition that education focus on the environmentalist philosophy of outdoor recreation, while conservationist individuals would urge that the education be focused on the conservation philosophy. Additionally, politically conservative individuals would probably be strongly against the creation of a federal act that provides additional funding and grants to schools if there is no likelihood that it would accomplish intended results.
Alternative Solutions

To address potential controversies, it is important to consider the successes of other programs that may indicate that effort should instead be focused on already existing programs, rather than creating new policies. This section considers agency, state, and private initiatives and programs that were created before the GOI was released. a. Agency initiatives In addition to the previously mentioned USFS programs, other FLMAs have implemented their own programs independent from the GOI. The National Park Service (NPS) has a junior ranger program which many National Park units use to help children understand the purpose of each unit as they explore and recreate in each area. The NPS has also developed a program called First Bloom, which invites children to explore America‘s national parks by learning about native plants. First Bloom has worked with forty parks to engage youth who typically do not get a chance to experience outdoor recreation. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also have their own programs to increase youth outdoor recreation. However, their programs are not as developed or as accessible as the USFS and NPS programs. Again, all of these FLMA youth programs existed before the release of the GOI. b. State initiatives In addition to efforts by the federal government to reconnect children with nature, several states have implemented programs and policies to create environmental literacy and opportunities for outdoor education. In 2006, Connecticut formed a statewide initiative intended to provide the opportunity for children across the state to disconnect from technology and experience the great outdoors through Connecticut state parks and forests. They foster outdoor recreation through several programs, the most popular being ―The Great Park Pursuit.‖ Every year there is some variation with the program, which is designed to prompt Connecticut families to visit as many state

P a g e | 10

lands as possible, and encourage them to try different recreational activities in each area (―Our Programs,‖ n.d.). In addition to Connecticut‘s statewide initiative, all 50 states and the District of Colombia have issued individual proclamations declaring their commitment to increasing childhood outdoor recreation and have set aside a month for citizens of each state to increase their participation in outdoor recreation. The designation of a statewide outdoor month allows state governments to create annual programs and educational events to further outdoor knowledge and experience of present and future generations. Some states also promote outdoor recreation—both in urban and less developed settings—by including outdoor recreation programs in their more broad policies for combating childhood obesity and stress. Theoretically, statewide initiatives are likely to be more accepted by the general public, especially in conservative states where state citizens are strong proponents of the philosophy of state‘s rights. Additionally, even if citizens were willing to accept government legislation, such as the No Child Left Inside Act—which tightly integrates traditional education with environmental education—simply instructing youth is unlikely to change societal ideas and philosophies. For legislation to be successful, youth and their parents must be motivated to learn and discover the opportunities available in the outdoors, as well as the superb benefits of spending time recreating free from technology.
c. Private Initiatives

Perhaps the most effective attempt to educate youth and prepare them to assume leadership of our natural resources in the future comes in the form of private organizations. The benefit of private organizations is that they do not require any form of government legislation. Rather than mandating nationwide action, they require the leadership of strong individuals who are dedicated to the future of America and her youth. Such organizations do not necessarily need to be restrictively devoted to outdoor recreation but must have an emphasis on youth and provide adequate opportunities for outdoor recreation and education. Some of the oldest American organizations devoted to youth are the Boy Scouts of America, Girl Scouts of the USA, and the YMCA. These three organizations have each created opportunities for youth for at least 100 years, and although these organizations were not founded for the sole purpose of providing outdoor recreation opportunities for youth, they are some of the most accessible and trustworthy organizations in the country because they have had time to develop into respected entities. Unlike governmental legislation which mandates increased outdoor recreation and education, these organizations empower youth to make a difference by educating them in a wide variety of essential areas to create well-rounded adults who are then able to pass on their knowledge of outdoor recreation to their peers. These organizations also have the ability to help fulfill the goals set forth in government initiatives; perhaps more adequately than the government could through federal and state programs.

P a g e | 11

However, there are also organizations created for the sole purpose of promoting outdoor recreation. From groups such as the Sierra Club, to the National Wildlife Federation, organizations across the country are continuing to recognize the growing need for children‘s programs and have started implementing more direct methods to reach American schoolchildren the importance of protecting our heritage and natural resources. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that many children will have heard of these interest groups or become involved in them unless their parents support them in some manner. Because of this, it may be difficult for these organizations to make an impact the way they intend to—they cannot reach out to educate youth if they are unknown to most communities.
Implications for Outdoor Recreation

As stated in the introduction of this paper, childhood outdoor recreation has clear implications for the future of America‘s natural resources and obviously the future of outdoor recreation is going to be dependent on the next generation. The current predicament is becoming recognized, and in order to create the next generation of conservationists and preservationists, today‘s youth must be introduced to outdoor recreation and be provided with opportunities to not only experience the benefits of outdoor recreation, but they must also be taught to lead their peers in accomplishing the daunting tasks that are in the future of America‘s natural resource protection.
Policy Model Analysis

The policy model has the potential to work in this context, but it seems that federal acts or laws are absolutely unnecessary for the future of childhood outdoor recreation. The GOI appears to have had very limited success as the foundation for agency guidelines and procedures. Additionally, federal agencies, state programs, and private organizations seem to be fully able to adequately address the situation. The initiatives of agencies, states, and organizations are also less controversial, because no one is mandated to participate. For these reasons, the policy model is only partially applicable to this situation, and it is definitely not necessary. There is no need for federal laws to be passed for the identified need to be met. In order for the future of America‘s natural resources to continue to be protected, current generations of Americans need to pass on their values, expertise, and passion to the future—and individual agencies, states, and organizations seem to be progressing towards this goal successfully, without the creation of a federal policy.

P a g e | 12

References
American Recreation Coalition. (2011). Great outdoors month 2011 state proclamations. Retrieved from http://www.funoutdoors.com/node/view/2713 America’s Great Outdoors. (2010). Presidential memorandum: America’s great outdoors. [Online]. Retrieved April 1, 2012 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/presidential-memorandum-americas-great-outdoors Arizona State Parks. (2008). Arizona 2008 SCORP. Retrieved April 3, 2012, from http://azstateparks.com/publications/downloads/SCORP_2008_Final.pdf Children’s outdoor bill of rights. (n.d.) Chicago Wilderness Initiative. Retrieved April 3, 2012, from http://www.kidsoutside.info/billofrights.php Educational institutions. (n.d). Department of Education. Retrieved April 4, 2012, from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84 Involved schools. (2012). Green ribbon schools. Retrieved April 4, 2012, from http://www.greenribbonschools.org/schools.php Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods (2nd ed.). Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books. No child left inside legislation approved by senate committee. (2011). Retrieved April 1, 2012, from http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/24681 Our programs. (n.d.) No child left inside Connecticut. Retrieved from http://www.ct.gov/ncli/cwp/view.asp?a=4005&q=471158&ncliNav_GID=2004 Outdoor Foundation. (2008). Outdoor recreation participation report, 2008. Washington, DC: Outdoor Foundation. Pyle, R. M. (1993). The thunder tree: Lessons from an urban wildland. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. Reed and Kirk introduce bipartisan “No child left inside act”. (2011). Retrieved April 1, 2012, from http://www.reed.senate.gov/press/release/reed-and-kirk-introduce-bipartisan-nochild-left-inside-act

P a g e | 13 Sosbe, S. (2011). Slice of Albuquerque will be turned into the Children’s Bosque: More kids in the woods projects and children’s forests nationwide receive $1 million funding. Retrieved April 4, 2012, from http://blogs.usda.gov/2012/03/05/slice-of-albuquerque-will-be-turned-into-thechildrens-bosque-more-kids-in-the-woods-projects-and-childrens-forests-nationwidereceive-1-million-funding/

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful