![]() |
||||
|
||||
| What We Do | Enabling Botanic Gardens | Securing Plant Diversity | Influencing Policy | |
|
MAKE A DONATION
|
Education > A Global Snapshot of Botanic Garden Education Provision 2006
A Global Snapshot of Botanic Garden Education Provision 2006Sarah Kneebone |
| Full time paid staff | Part time paid staff | Full time volunteers | Part-time volunteers | |
| Total number working in botanic gardens | 549 | 382 | 314 | 1949 |
| Number with education qualifications | 258 | 128 | 7 | 226 |
| Percentage | 47 | 33 | 2 | 12 |
The results of the survey show that over ½ the number of staff working full time in education are unqualified. We need to consider why this is the case. Could it be that qualified educators cost more and that gardens are unwilling to invest additional funds in their education provision, or is it that garden management does not see the benefit of hiring qualified education staff? What do you think? Is there a need here for additional training?
What audiences are being targeted by botanic garden education and in what numbers?
In order, the audiences targeted by botanic garden education provision are as follows:
| Audience Type | Number | Percent |
| School children aged 5- 11 | 99 | 85 |
| School children aged 11- 16 | 99 | 85 |
| University students | 94 | 81 |
| School children aged 16-18 | 90 | 78 |
| Families | 86 | 74 |
| Tourists | 77 | 66 |
| Community groups | 73 | 63 |
| School children aged 0 -5 | 67 | 58 |
| Professional educators | 66 | 57 |
| Senior citizens | 57 | 49 |
| Garden staff | 47 | 41 |
| Special interest groups | 48 | 41 |
| Special needs groups | 42 | 36 |
| Decision makers | 21 | 18 |
| Business leaders | 17 | 15 |
There is a higher proportion of education provision aimed at secondary school children and university students than might be assumed at first. It is generally felt that it is harder to encourage secondary teachers to bring their classes to gardens due to clashes in timetabling, the lack of plant science in curricula and an increase in bureaucracy that attends a school trip. However, gardens appear to be providing for this group, which is excellent in terms of maintaining contact between teenagers and nature.
The results are very positive, as they show gardens have provision in their education to target families, tourists and involve communities. Over half provide for professional educators, an efficient method of using the multiplier effect to communicate messages about plant diversity and conservation beyond the garden wall.
Just under half provide programmes specifically for senior citizens, which is interesting as, particularly in developed countries, they make up a large proportion of botanic garden visitors, botanic garden friends groups (pers comm. Kew Gardens Friends membership dept 2007), volunteers and have significant disposable income. For example, in the UK the over-50’s have a collective disposable income of £175bn – 30% more than the under 50’s
(http://www.saga.co.uk/corporate/magazine/saga_media_pack_august_06.ppt#2 accessed 29/3/07)
Decision makers and business leaders have been identified as being those least targeted by education programme, with only 1/5 of gardens actively targeting decision makers with their provision. As policy makers and potential sources of funding, these two groups are powerful and therefore are incredibly important to target. This may not be through traditional public awareness programmes, but through events, media, lobbying and so on. The current state of plant conservation means botanic gardens cannot afford to ignore these influential people.
What about groups with particular interests or special needs?
Many gardens welcome special interest groups; those identified in the survey include environmental groups, particularly ornithologists, horticulturalists/ garden lovers and botanists, religious groups, professionals such as foresters and agriculturalists and eco-tourists.
About 1/3 of gardens have provision for groups with special needs. The most commonly mentioned special needs were the visually impaired, the physically disabled and those with learning difficulties or mental disability. To put this into perspective, the United National Development Programme (Helander 1999, quoted in Price and Stoneham) estimates global figures of moderately and severely disabled people to be 335 million in 2000 – 5.5% of the world population, increasing to 667 million by the year 2035.
In the UK, 6.5 million people are formally classified as disabled (over 10% of the population), 10 % of these are wheelchair users. There are 1.1 million people with a visual impairment severe enough to be eligible to register as blind or partially sighted, 7 million with literacy problems and 1 million with learning disabilities (Price and Stoneham, 2001), so in a population of 60 million, one in six people could have difficulty accessing the education provision. Working with improving access groups can help botanic gardens ensure that they are inclusive and accessible for all.
How many people participate in botanic garden education programmes?
NB - This is an initial review and is not necessarily indicative of the true situation – further research and analysis is needed before we can estimate the numbers of people being reached by garden education programmes per year.
| Totals | Average | |
| School children aged 0 -5 | 188177 | 1940 |
| School children aged 5- 11 | 349485 | 4017 |
| School children aged 11- 16 | 270268 | 3256 |
| School children aged 16-18 | 131821 | 1533 |
| University students | 125154 | 1472 |
| Professional educators | 10610 | 114 |
| Community Groups | 61380 | 731 |
| Families | 1120958 | 13506 |
| Senior citizens | 49691 | 540 |
| Tourists | 533960 | 6357 |
| Business leaders | 4102 | 36 |
| Decision makers | 3895 | 34 |
| Garden staff | 13929 | 144 |
| Special needs | 1415 | 16 |
| Special interest | 9895 | 110 |
| Totals | 2874740 | 33805 |
Where are botanic garden education programmes getting their money from?
| Rank | Source of Funding | Number | Percentage |
| 1 | Government | 64 | 58 |
| 2 | Participation fees | 54 | 49 |
| 3 | Donor gifts | 33 | 30 |
| 4 | Foundation grant | 32 | 29 |
| 5 | Corporate grant | 23 | 21 |
| 6 | Membership | 19 | 17 |
| 7 | No funding | 17 | 15 |
Other sources of funding that are used to support the education programmes include the local county or city council, affiliated universities, small grants, such as the National Lottery or EU funding and donations from garden supporters, including Friends groups.
Looking at this data, and comparing it with the audiences that are currently being targeted by garden education programmes, there is a distinct gap – the decision makes and donors which are actually handing money over, are not being targeted –there is little education provision for them. As we can see from the other data, education provision seems to be suffering from a lack of resources – maybe those responsible for education can develop ways of reaching those people who may be able to offer the additional financial support their programme and development needs.
Another question we had from this data is that, if there is no specific budget or funding set aside for education in botanic gardens, where does the money come from?
What themes are being focused on with the garden education provision?
| Rank | Theme | Number | Percentage |
| 1 | plant diversity | 104 | 90 |
| 2 | conservation | 97 | 84 |
| 3 | ethnobotany | 91 | 78 |
| 4 | plant science | 88 | 76 |
| 5 | endangered species | 86 | 74 |
| 6 | horticulture | 75 | 65 |
| 7 | environmental appreciation | 66 | 57 |
| 8 | environmental degradation | 56 | 48 |
| 9 | recycling | 42 | 36 |
| 9 | water conservation | 42 | 36 |
| 11 | climate change | 39 | 34 |
| 12 | food security | 32 | 28 |
| 13 | landuse | 30 | 26 |
| 14 | poverty alleviation | 21 | 18 |
| 15 | fair trade | 18 | 16 |
| 16 | societal change | 16 | 14 |
Target 14 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation states:
"The importance of plant diversity and the need for its conservation incorporated into communication, educational and public-awareness programmes."
Botanic gardens are stalwarts of the GSPC and much of their work, including their education programmes, directly support the GSPC and its targets. This is no different with education – 90% of gardens cover plant diversity as one of their key themes and it is the most common topic covered by education provision. This is swiftly followed by conservation at 84%, ethnobotany at 78 % and endangered species at 74%. Between these three themes, gardens are directly supporting all the aspects of Target 14.
Botanic gardens are also still bastions of the traditional skills and academic learning about plants which, some might say, are being lost from traditional formal education provision at schools and universities (Newton, 2007). Plant science is covered by 76% of garden and horticulture by 65%
What is not so common is addressing environmental issues and problems of the 21st century. At a time when climate change is at the top of the political and environmental agendas, only one third of gardens are talking about it in their education programmes. We know that plant diversity conservation can only take place with dramatic behavioural change, towards a more sustainable way of living, among developed and some developing countries. However, botanic garden do not seem to be leading the way on facilitating the changed needed - only 16% look at fair trade, 14 % at societal change, 18% look at poverty alleviation, and just over 1/3 look at water conservation and recycling. If we are to be effective at moving on from merely promoting towards enabling the conservation of plant diversity, we must address these themes and show our audiences how their behaviour can and does make an impact on the environmental problems we have created and face.
What are botanic gardens using for their Communication, Education and Public Awareness (CEPA) provision, how are they communicating their messages to their diverse audiences?
| Guided tours | 92 | Posters | 51 | Video screens | 18 |
| Talks / Lectures | 78 | Website | 46 | Loan of resource kits | 15 |
| Exhibitions | 69 | Art and crafts | 42 | Dance | 15 |
| Leaflets | 67 | Worksheets | 36 | Poetry | 14 |
| Interpretation panels | 65 | Fact sheets | 26 | CD Rom | 12 |
| Workshops | 63 | Theatre | 25 | Debate | 12 |
| Self guided trails | 56 | Music | 24 | ||
| Training Courses | 52 | Touch tables’/‘Discovery carts’ | 23 |
Obviously, there is a very varied selection of methods used. It is interesting that the top two, guided tours and talks, are both face-to-face forms of interpretation – humans are a social species and personal interaction can be a very effective method for communication (Honig, 2000). This will be an interesting data set to refer back to in order to review how methods change over time – currently debate is used relatively little, but it may be that as BGs become more aware of their role in societal change for sustainable development, this will increase. Likewise, the use of the arts in communication and education in gardens. Nearly half those surveyed use art and craft, but only a few use other art media such as poetry, music, theatre and dance.
How do gardens know that their education provision is effective? Do they carry out evaluation?
Only a fifth of gardens always evaluate their programmes, although 71% say they do use some form of evaluation sometimes. This is concerning when evaluation is the only way that gardens can monitor whether their programmes achieve the outcomes they are designed to. Evaluation provides many benefits, including evidence for funders, professional development for staff, confirming successes and investigating where change would be beneficial.
| How often do they evaluate? | Number | Percentage |
| Always | 23 | 20 |
| Usually | 24 | 21 |
| Sometimes | 35 | 30 |
| Not very often | 25 | 21 |
| Never | 8 | 7 |
| Don’t know | 2 | 2 |
What methods do gardens use to evaluate?
| Rank | Method of evaluation | Number | Percentage |
| 1 | Observation | 67 | 60 |
| 2 | Interviews | 59 | 53 |
| 3 | Self- administered questionnaire | 52 | 47 |
| 4 | Visitor profile | 41 | 37 |
| 5 | Focus groups | 23 | 21 |
| No evaluation | 16 | 14 |
Other methods gardens use to evaluate include visitors books, in the garden and online, postcard evaluation, stakeholder meetings discussion and pre and post testing. Some garden also contract out formal evaluation of major programmes to professional evaluators. It is great to see that gardens are employing a range of techniques to evaluate their programmes, but there are gaps.
What do they not use?
The least used type of evaluation is focus groups. This may be due to the time and costs involved or perceived to be involved with setting up and running focus groups. However, this is unfortunate as, particularly with programme development, focus groups can be very useful, to find out how particular audiences might react to a specific product or programme (Diamond 1999)
Who is involved with education in the garden – is there a dedicated education department or is it run part time by other departments, or is it a team effort with everyone involved?
What proportion of botanic gardens have a dedicated education team?
| Rank | Department within garden involved with running the education programme | Number | Percentage |
| 1 | Education | 78 | 71 |
| 2 | Horticulture | 65 | 59 |
| 3 | Volunteers | 59 | 54 |
| 4 | Administration | 48 | 44 |
| 5 | Management | 42 | 38 |
| 6 | Research | 41 | 37 |
| 7 | Marketing | 23 | 21 |
| 8 | Sales, e.g. café, shop etc | 16 | 15 |
71% of gardens have a dedicated education team running programmes.
What proportion of gardens have other departments running the education provision?
On average, 3.4 departments are involved with running the education programme. The most likely combination is the education department working with the horticultural team and the volunteer group to deliver a garden’s education provision.
Which is the most common department to run education if it isn’t education?
If there is no dedicated education department, then the mostly likely groups to be involved with running education provision are the horticultural team and the administration department, followed by volunteers and management
| Rank | Department | Number | Percentage |
| 1 | Horticulture | 14 | 23 |
| 1 | Administration | 14 | 23 |
| 3 | Volunteers | 11 | 18 |
| 3 | Management | 11 | 18 |
| 5 | Research | 10 | 16 |
| 7 | Marketing | 1 | 2 |
| 7 | Sales | 1 | 2 |
How well resourced is the education provision in the garden – are there basic facilities available for use by the education programme?
| Rank | Resource | Number | Percentage |
| 1 | Toilets | 92 | 80 |
| 2 | Plant material | 84 | 73 |
| 3 | Library | 72 | 63 |
| 3 | Classroom | 72 | 63 |
| 5 | Exhibition space | 66 | 57 |
| 6 | Arena | 63 | 55 |
| 7 | Refreshment area | 47 | 41 |
| 8 | Artifacts | 45 | 39 |
| 9 | Education centre | 42 | 37 |
| 10 | Lecture theatre | 36 | 31 |
One fifth are missing toilets, this is difficult for access for visitors, as any visit has to be short. Surprisingly only just over 1/3 of respondents said they had artefacts to use. When compared to the proportion that use ethnobotany as one of their themes, this suggest that there is a lack of practical physical examples for educators to use in their programmes. Far more, 73%, said they had fresh plant material available, but even this means that 27% do not have fresh material, which is also surprising considering they are in a garden. Gardens should ensure that educators and horticulturalists work closely together to make sure sufficient fresh material can be used for education purposes.
| Rank | Organisation linked | Number | Percentage |
| Schools | 94 | 82 | |
| Other botanic gardens | 91 | 79 | |
| =3 Local conservation organisations | 55 | 48 | |
| Regional conservation group | 55 | 48 | |
| Government | 53 | 46 | |
| Environmental education network | 53 | 46 | |
| Science organisation | 47 | 41 | |
| International conservation organisation | 46 | 40 | |
| Overseas organisation | 33 | 29 | |
| Education research organisation | 32 | 28 | |
| Zoos | 29 | 25 | |
| No links | 2 | 2 |
Are botanic gardens linked to other education institutions?
Botanic gardens seem to be extremely well networked within the educational field - only 2% of respondents said they had no links, and even then they must be connected with BGCI to have received a questionnaire. Links are valuable as they can become routes to potential partnerships, whether through project development or expansion or support for capacity building or finance. The strongest links are with schools – 84% of garden have connection with them, as illustrated by the strong student participation in education programmes, followed by 79% connected with other botanic gardens.
Do they have contacts with similar groups that they could develop partnership programmes with?
About half of respondents are connected with local or regional conservation groups, which could lead to potential in situ conservation projects, with complementary education programmes. A similar number are connected with government and environmental education networks – also positive both for the potential impact on policy makers and also for promoting the work of botanic gardens in the environmental education field.
Particular areas for development are in education research – less than 1/3 (28%) have links with education research organisations. Increased partnerships could be used to develop investigations into the provision and impact of education within the garden, thus strengthening its position, and help ensure educator’s practices and skills are based on the latest education pedagogy. Another area is with zoos – there are often zoos in the same city as botanic gardens, they also offer education focused on conservation and the environment and a joint programme can demonstrate the complexity and wonder of ecosystems, rather than focusing on plants in isolation from the rest of nature.
Is botanic garden education making the most of the 21st century and the technologies available? Have education teams realised its potential for CEPA?
| Rank | Information on line | Number | Percentage |
| 1 | Programme description | 70 | 63 |
| 2 | Booking information | 67 | 60 |
| 3 | Information on plants | 54 | 49 |
| 4 | Conservation information | 39 | 35 |
| 5 | Teacher resources | 24 | 22 |
| 6 | Activities for children | 19 | 17 |
| 7 | No website | 13 | 12 |
| 8 | Nothing on education | 9 | 8 |
What types of information do botanic gardens have on the internet and what are the most common?
The most common information for people to have on the website is programme descriptions and booking information
If 88% of gardens have a website (as only 12% say they do not have a website), whether hosted themselves or by their governing body, it demonstrates that this resource is massively under-utilised by education departments. The internet is still undergoing massive growth and is used on a regular basis by a huge number of people, in developed and developing counties. As communicators, educators should not be lagging behind in this area. As well as helping to advertise events and programme, a website can be seen as another form of interpretation – one with a potential audience of 1.14 billion (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm), there aren’t many interpretation panels that could reach that many!
The ‘new media’ revolution, with video sites such as YouTube and methods such as blogs and podcasts, mean that botanic gardens can communicate their message to audiences without them even setting foot inside the garden. At the most basic level, providing information on-line for users, to read before they reach the site increases the accessibility (Price and Stoneham, 2001).
Where are the gaps?
There are gaps throughout the education provision on the website – at the least, gardens should have programme descriptions, booking details and some of the messages about plants and conservation on their site (depending on their education strategy of course). Resources for teachers are also useful again for orientation but also for follow-up work back at school.
This research has uncovered a number of salient points for educators and gardens considering their education provision;
Office for National Statistics, 2006, Population and vital statistics by area of usual residence in the United Kingdom, 2004 Key Population and Vital Statistics 2004, Series VS No.31, PP1 No.27
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/KPVS31_2004/Revised_KPVS2004.pdf (accessed 28/3/07)
Diamond, J., 1999, Practical Evaluation Guide: Tools for Museums and other informal educational settings, Altamira Press, Walnut Creek
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 2007, Pers comm. on proportion of senior concessionary Friends memberships.
Price, R. and Stoneham, J., 2001, Making Connections: A guide to accessible greenspace, Sensory Trust, St Austell
Helander, E., 1999, Prejudice and Dignity: An introduction to community-based rehabilitation, United Nations Development Programme
Internet World Stats, 2007, INTERNET USAGE STATISTICS - The Big Picture World Internet Users and Population Stats, http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
http://www.saga.co.uk/corporate/magazine/saga_media_pack_august_06.ppt#2
Proviso
Please note, the results in this survey are presented as raw data with no statistical analysis to confirm whether the findings are significant or not.