“The hardest part about listening is to not fill in the blanks with your perceptions – to clear the mind and be willing to understand something new” – Amy Larson

Did you know that Singapore’s primary vegetation has been reduced to 0.16% of a total land area of 714.3km²? (Khew, Yokohari, & Tanaka, 2014). Does this lead you to believe that Singapore cares about nature? Probably not, but read on and you might be surprised.

During our time in Singapore many people, myself included, commented on how the main difference between Outdoor Education (OE) in Singapore and Australia, is that Australia has a much larger focus on connecting people to nature. This statement is true, as long as we perceive nature as the wild, abundant, spacious wilderness type environments that are common to Australia and Australian OE programs. But what if we broaden our perspective of what nature is, or can be?

The above model (Martin, 2014) shows a continuum along which people can place themselves as to how they perceive nature. I like this model and I think it is a good one to use when looking at how we can perceive nature. But…

Over the last few weeks I have been on teaching placement. One of the new teaching tools I have picked up is about questioning students when using models, such as the one above. We usually just tend to ask, what does this model tell us and how does it relate to us. This model shows us where we fit along a perception continuum. But is this what’s really important? Perhaps a more important question to ask is what doesn’t this model show us? (Thanks mentor teacher!)

This model doesn’t show us the country we are in, it doesn’t show the place we have grown up in, it mentions nothing about our education and this model doesn’t show us how these perceptions relate to our connections. Don’t get me wrong, I like this model, I just think it’s important to remember that there are so many factors at play when we discuss how people are perceiving and connecting to places. So maybe we see a certain place as a playground, or a museum, or a cathedral, but is that all? Is that really the extent of our connection? I used to think it was (I’m a VERY literal person), and I once believed that only those who saw themselves as part of nature could really act to protect it. But I think I was wrong (as I quite often am).

Time for another figure..

47% of Singapore is classed as green and 60% of land areas are a combination of urban areas and manicured landscapes (Khew, Yokohari, & Tanaka, 2014). Manicured landscapes refers to areas such as parks, or ‘man made natural areas’.

Still think they don’t care about nature? Read on (also keep reading if you do think they care).

In their study, Khew, Yokohari, and Tanaka (2014), were able to show that there is a preference towards preservation of nature in Singapore. They also showed that the preference for landscapes is manicured. When people feel more connected to a place they are more likely to want to preserve it (Khew, Yokohari, &Tanaka, 2014; Morgan, 2012). Given that there was a consistent result to want to preserve nature it is no surprise that a majority of respondents also scored low for nature disconnection tests (Khew, Yokohari, & Tanaka, 2014).

But here’s the real kicker, this study also found that most respondents believed that manicured landscapes deserved to be termed as nature just as much as primary and secondary vegetation (Khew, Yokohari, & Tanaka, 2014). And to be honest this doesn’t surprise me when you have seen and read that 60% of the country is basically manicured landscapes. Of course these spaces are going to be seen as natural and what this study shows is that the people of Singapore want to keep these spaces, showing that they feel a connection to them! In case you’re not getting the tone, I’m excited.

Khew, Yokohari, and Tanaka (2014) go on to express some concern for these results, saying that it seems contradictory to want to preserve nature but to have a preference for man made nature. Whilst I can see the validity in this argument, I also think that the people of Singapore are just being practical. 60% of the country is man made nature, and they like it, so why not try to protect it?!

I would like to finish with some thoughts from Morgan (2012), who talks about place-based education. Morgan maintains that place-based education is important, but not in way that causes ‘lop-sided’ views of romanticism, nostalgia or obsessed ideas about heritage, but in a way that gives a balanced perspective of the social and natural dimensions and their subsequent relations between places. Although Singapore and Australia have different places that they term as natural, if we were both working towards this global sense of place in our OE programs we might be better able to retain appreciation, perspective and understandings of the importance and uniqueness of place (Morgan, 2012).

“There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception” –  Aldous Huxley

References

Khew, J., Yokohari, M., & Tanaka, T. (2014). Public Perceptions of Nature and Landscape Preference in Singapore. Human Ecology, 42(6), 979-988.

Martin, P. (1996). New perspectives of self, nature and others. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 1(3), 3-9.

Morgan, A. (2012). Inclusive place-based education for ‘Just Sustainability’. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(5-6), 627-642.