Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Qualitative study reveals values-driven commitments to outdoor play in early childhood education, suggesting a need for regulatory frameworks supporting nature access.
Global concern surrounding declining outdoor play, physical activity, and children’s engagement with natural environments has prompted increased interest in nature-based early childhood education (ECE). Within such settings, outdoor spaces are positioned as central to learning, supporting embodied and authentic interaction with the natural world. Despite expansion in provision, limited research has examined how parents and practitioners conceptualise the value of nature-based ECE or how their perspectives intersect across ecological contexts. This qualitative study investigated the key perspectives of parents and practitioners in nature-based ECE settings in England. Following institutional ethical approval, 16 participants were recruited: seven parents (all female) of children aged three to five years attending nature-based ECE settings and nine practitioners (eight females, one male). Data were generated through in-depth semi-structured interviews and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Five themes were identified: Protecting children’s rights; Nature as a context for whole-child development; Risk, resilience, and physicality; Communities of learning; and Beyond the setting: systemic pressures and parental fears. Choosing nature-based ECE reflects a proactive, health-promoting decision grounded in parental values concerning children’s rights to nature and outdoor play. Practitioner commitment was similarly values-driven, centred on children’s freedoms and positioned in tension with prevailing societal norms. Key findings illuminate practitioners’ concerns regarding the perceived absence of outdoor-based provision across mainstream ECE and schooling, highlighting the need for clearer regulatory frameworks to establish quality outdoor play in nature as a systemic entitlement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Taylor et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: