> What Kids Really Want in a Garden for Children: Fact vs. Fiction
What Kids Really Want in a Garden for Children: Fact vs. Fiction
Contributed by Monica Buntin Myhill, The Dallas Arboretum and Gardens, Dallas, Texas, USA
In order to create the most enjoyable and stimulating garden for children at The Dallas Arboretum, children aged 6 -12 years old were involved in its planning and design. Students in first to fifth grades were asked to draw a picture of their ideal garden for children (FICTION).
Observations were also made of school children who visited the Arboretum to determine their interests and activities within the Arboretum's current gardens (FACT). The results of these two studies were compared and contrasted to determine the most appropriate garden designs, features, topography, plant materials, and visitor activities for a future garden for children.
Why was this Research Study Conducted?
The Dallas Arboretum determined that it needed a garden for children. The mission statement for the Garden for Children is:
The Garden should stimulate exploration, discovery, dramatic play and imagination. It should provide memorable senses of place and promote feelings of security, safety and orientation while explored by children. The Garden should be properly scaled and accessible to children of all ages and learning styles, with a special sensitivity toward those with disabilities. It should integrate children and allow opportunities for shared experiences with adults, friends and family members. The Garden should offer diversity, reflect a sense of continual change, stimulate the senses and provide abundant opportunities for horticultural education, all in an aesthetic setting with a positive ambiance.
The Garden also determined to involve the audience in the planning
Who was involved?
Students in the first to fifth grades were asked to draw a picture of their ideal garden for children. The total number of students involved was 241, mostly from the Dallas public school system. Almost equal numbers of white, African-American and Hispanic students were involved.
How were the student’s responses collected?
Through visiting classrooms, mostly in Dallas public schools.
What were the results?
The frequency with which certain items appeared in the drawings was calculated. These frequencies are listed below:
|Plant Materials:||80% flowers ( i.e. 80% of the drawings contained one or more flowers)|
69% a tree
21% fruit tree(s)
| Flower Color:||46% red flower(s)|
34% yellow flower(s)
34% purple flower(s)
28% pink flower(s)
26% blue flower(s)
23% orange flower(s)
|Garden terrain: ||82% the garden was on flat land |
11% the garden was on hills
| Wildlife:||26% birds|
| Water:||38% of the drawings contained water in the form of rain, in a stream, in a pond, or coming from a fountain.|
| People: ||36% of the drawings contained a person or persons.|
|Garden Features: ||28% playground equipment|
24% a water fountain
11% a garden tool/gardening device (sprinkler, hose, flower pot)
7% a treehouse
7% a stream
2% store/vending machine
Who was involved?
Large groups of students were observed during June. These groups were attendees at summer camps, year-round classes, and child care groups. A total of 144 students were involved, from kindergarten to sixth grade. Their ethnic composition was 67% white, 28% African-American and 6% Hispanic.
How was the data collected?
As each group entered The Dallas Arboretum, the leader was asked if the group could be observed for the first 45 minutes of their visit (to keep consistency). Individual and group actions were recorded as well as individual comments.
What were our results?
At The Dallas Arboretum, the top two areas of interest were:
1) Water and water features:
- Decorative stone fountains
- Interactive large fountains
- Shallow stone fountains with metal sculptures
- Spiders and their webs
The Implications for Garden Design
- Texture, shape, size, etc. (for touching)
- Scent: good and bad (for smelling).
- Plants that support wildlife
- Bird houses, etc.
- Natural ponds.
Opportunities for Activities:
- Areas for planting by children
- Wildlife-viewing areas
- Assisting with daily watering, etc.
Additional structures and garden elements: Treehouse.
The Design Process for the Children’s Garden at The Dallas Arboretum
To design and build the Children’s Garden, staff carried out the following steps:
- conducted background research on other children's gardens throughout the USA (staff)
- formulated the beginnings of a program statement, goals, and objectives (staff). Submit draft to Education & Research Committee
- researched potential funding sources through the establishment of a Funding Sub-committee
- provided opportunities, workshops, and special events to enable kids to give their input on what they would like to have in a children's garden. It would be most advantageous to solicit thoughts from 9, 10, and 11-year olds because of their ability to verbalize. Also consult local school teachers and science specialists
- established a committee to select a designer for the children's garden
- created a long list of potential designers
- called for design-firm proposals
- selected a design firm
- established a design committee for the children's garden
- selected the appropriate site with the designer
- developed the conceptual design, the theme of the garden, components, discovery stations, etc. in collaboration with staff, committees, and the designer
- established the preliminary design
- began a fundraising drive
- created mock-up garden discovery stations and components
- conducted audience-testings by observation. Modified mock-ups as necessary
- analyzed observation results
- modified components and discovery stations
- completed the final design with construction documents
- began development of education programs that supplement the children's garden, such as teacher packets, school programs, birthday parties, etc.
- called for bids (city)
- selected a contractor
- fabricated the discovery stations and constructed the Garden
- grand opening!
Eberbach, C. (1987). Gardens: from a child's view an interpretation of children's art work. Journal of Therapeutic Horticulture. (2). 9-16.
Eberbach, C. (1988). Garden design for children. Unpublished master’s thesis, Longwood Graduate Program, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA.
Eberbach, C. (1992). Children’s gardens: the meaning of place. In: Relf, D. (ed.) The role of horticulture in human well-being and social development (pp. 80-83). Timber Press, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Guddemi, M. and Erksen, A. (1992). Designing outdoor learning environments for and with children. Dimensions of early childhood. 20 (4),15-18, 23-24, 40.
Hat, R. A. (1987). Children’s participation in planning and design: theory, research, and practice. In: Weinstein, C. S. and David, T. G. (eds.), Spaces for children: the built environment and child development (pp. 217-239). Plenum Press, New York, NY, USA.
Keilogg, R. (1970). Analysing children's art. Mayfield Publishing Company, Palo Alto, California, USA.
Lark-Horowitz, B., Lcwis, H.P. and Luca, M. (!967). Understanding children’s art for better teaching. Charles E. Merrill Books Inc., Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Moore, R. C., Goltsman, S. M., and Iacofano, D. S. (eds.) (1992). Play for all guidelines: planning, design and management of outdoor play settings for all children. (2nd ed). MIG Communications, Berkeley, California, USA.
Myhill, Monica Buntin (1989). Doing it right: a workbook for improving exhibit labels. Brooklyn Childrens’ Museum. Brooklyn, NY, USA.