Q & A with

Richard Louv

author of

Last Child in the Woods
Saving Our Children from
Nature-Deficit Disorder

Q. Early in the book, you quote a fourth-grader who says, “I like to play indoors better 'cause that's where all the electrical outlets are.” Does that describe childhood today?

A. To a large degree, yes, and increasingly so. This book describes the growing gap between children and nature, and its destructive implications. Today, kids are aware of the global threats to the environment but their physical contact, their intimacy with nature, is quickly fading. At no other time in our history have children been so separated from direct experience in nature.

Last Child in the Woods also reports some good news. Studies conducted within the past five to ten years indicate that nature can be powerful therapy for such maladies as depression, obesity and attention-deficit disorder – problems associated with alienation from nature. We also know that experience in nature can increase a child’s (and an adult’s) powers of concentration. In addition, anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that creativity is stimulated by childhood experiences in nature. Everyone who lives with or works with children needs to know about these researchers’ studies, about the growing deficit of nature experience, and the implications for our society as a whole.

Q. You talk about “nature-deficit disorder.” What’s that?

A. Nature-deficit disorder is a term I use to describe the human costs of alienation from nature. Among them: diminished use of the senses, attention difficulties, and higher rates of physical and emotional illnesses. I don’t suggest that nature-deficit disorder represents a medical diagnosis, but the descriptive quality of the phrase helps us get a handle on what children lose when they lose direct contact with the outdoors. It’s not overstating the case to say nature-deficit disorder also affects adults, neighborhoods, whole communities, and the future of humankind’s relationship to nature. The term offers people a useful way to describe in just a few words what so many are experiencing.

Q. What’s lost or damaged as kids separate from nature?

A. Health and a sense of wonder – an understanding of where we fit in our world – and possibly cognitive acuity. Howard Gardner, a professor of education at Harvard University, developed his influential theory of multiple intelligences in 1983. More recently, he added an eighth intelligence to his list: naturalist intelligence ("nature smart"). I believe lack of outdoor play diminishes the full use of the senses. Direct experience in nature simultaneously stimulates all of a child’s senses, and the use of our senses is essential to learning. By moving childhood indoors, we deprive children of a full connection to the world.

Our culture increasingly suffers from “cultural autism”: tunneled senses, feelings of isolation and containment. Experience, including physical risk, is narrowing to about the size of a cathode ray tube, or flat LCD screen, if you prefer. But most of all, I think plugged-in kids are missing out on many chances to feel a sense of wonder. Many now have what writer D.H. Lawrence called the “know-it-all state of mind.” Nature experiences can offset that – even in teenagers. And it’s never too late to start. What I’d really like to communicate to fellow parents is that we shouldn’t think about a child’s experience in nature as an extra-curricular activity. Childhood experience in nature is not a nice-to-have activity. It is a vital element, perhaps a necessity, for healthy child development. That’s what the new research strongly suggests.

Q. So, is our need for direct nature experience biological – or learned?

A. Both. Biologically, we’re still hunters and gatherers. Some of the most intriguing research has been inspired by Harvard University scientist and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Edward O. Wilson’s "biophilia" hypothesis. Wilson defines biophilia as "the urge to affiliate with other forms of life.” He and his colleagues argue that humans have an innate affinity for the natural world, probably a biologically based need integral to our development as individuals. Gordon Orians, professor emeritus of zoology at the University of Washington, says such research suggests that our visual environment profoundly affects our physical and mental well-being, and that modern humans need to understand the importance of what he calls "ghosts," the evolutionary remnants of past experience hard-wired into a species’ nervous system. The biophilia theory, though not universally embraced by biologists, is supported by a decade of research that reveals how strongly and positively people respond to such things as open, grassy landscapes, scattered stands of trees and winding trails.

Most of the new evidence connecting nature to well-being and restoration of health focuses on adults; many of whom credit exposure to plants or outdoor views with speeding up recovery time from injury, among other benefits. Now kids are the subjects of some of the most interesting research, and just in time. The rate of anti-depressants prescribed to children has doubled in five years. Sixty-six percent of this increase was in preschool-age children. But we’re often ignoring this other potent therapy available at no cost.

At this point, many of us have read how stress can be a factor in many illnesses. Our competitive society contributes to individual stress levels, of course, as do our recreational choices. Well, more than 100 studies reveal that one of the main benefits of spending time in nature is stress reduction. Environmental psychologists reported in 2003 that a room with a view of nature can help protect children against stress, and that the protective impact of nearby nature is strongest for the most vulnerable children — those experiencing the highest levels of stressful life events. Fascinating recent studies by the Human-Environment Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois show that direct exposure to nature relieves the symptoms of attention-deficit disorders. You might say the greener the setting, the more the relief. By comparison, activities indoors, such as watching TV, or activities outdoors in paved, non-green areas, leave these children functioning worse. Is the nature deficit among children actually increasing attention-deficit disorders? Clearly, human beings – and especially children during their formative years – need nature in ways we do not yet fully understand. We need much more research in this neglected arena.

Q. How widespread is the nature deficit? Are you mainly talking about kids in inner cities? What about kids who live where they do have access to nature?

A. More physical access to nature does help, but it’s not necessarily true that kids who live in suburbs have more access to nature than kids in cities. In my interviews across the country I was surprised to find that the widening gap between kids and nature is also occurring in rural areas. We are only now becoming aware of the price we pay for this estrangement.

Q. What are the top reasons why kids no longer connect with the outdoors?

A. Many parents are directly or instinctively aware of the change, and they sense its importance. They typically cite a number of everyday reasons why their children spend less time in nature than they themselves did, including competition from television and computers, more homework and other time pressures, and lack of access to natural areas. And fear plays a part in this – fear of traffic, of crime, of stranger-danger, of nature itself. As a result, the boundaries of children’s lives grow ever tighter. A 1991 study of three generations of nine-year-olds found that between 1970 and 1990, the radius around the home where children were allowed to roam had shrunk to one-ninth of what it had been in 1970. Parents not only fear strangers, they fear the air outdoors. Yet indoor air pollution is the nation’s number-one environmental threat to health — and it’s from two to ten times worse than outdoors air pollution, according the Environmental Protection Agency. As if to address these fears, we’ve tried to recreate nature in artificial environments, but these places aren’t necessarily healthy, either. For example, Pediatric Nursing journal reports that indoor ball pit playgrounds at fast-food restaurants can spread serious infectious diseases.

Good parents are doing their best, but information about the value of nature experience to child development has not been widely available. Indeed, there are many parents out there who have deliberately or intuitively exposed their kids to nature, but without the proof of how important that is. I hope Last Child in the Woods will make them feel very good about what they did or what they’re doing. But the wider societal message often unwittingly teaches children to avoid nature. This powerful, negative message is even codified into the regulatory structures of many of our neighborhoods. In a sense, this criminalizes natural play. That may seem an extreme statement, until you add up all the neighborhood covenants and government regulations -- many of them well-intentioned -- that put nature off-limits. This is only one example of how the everyday message is delivered.


Q. You talk about the Bogeyman syndrome – that fear of strangers is the chief reason parents don’t let their kids play outside. You also suggest media have greatly exaggerated the risk of stranger danger. But parents want their children to be safe…

A. Of course they do. As a parent, I feel that way about my boys, as well. There are perils in this world, but they can be surmounted. And there are more certain dangers if nature is removed – threats to our children’s physical, emotional and spiritual health; to the full development of their senses; to their appreciation of beauty and their nascent imaginations; to their understanding of their place in the universe. Last Child in the Woods, by the way, recommends several ways families can sensibly reduce the fear that interferes with children’s involvement in nature.

Q. So, is there something to lure kids outdoors that doesn't also have an engine?

A. Parents don’t have engines. One of the most important gifts a parent can give a child is his or her own infectious enthusiasm for the outdoors. It’s amazing how kids take to nature. I’ve gone into the woods with urban teenagers who have never been beyond the sidewalk. At first, they’re scared of nature – they sometimes talk about how loud it is out there. But after a while, something mysterious takes over and they begin to react like plants watered after a long drought. Their whole affect changes; their faces light up – even the toughest kids. They lose that “know-it-all state of mind.” It’s a remarkable and often moving thing to witness.

Q. How can we bring nature into our homes, schools and neighborhoods? In what ways can parents help their kids interact with nature?

A. Educators, urban planners, physicians and institutions can make a huge difference. But parents, of course, are the most important players in this game. For parents who have missed out on outdoors activities in their own lives, this can be a great opportunity to discover the joys of nature for themselves. The traditional activities include hiking, fishing and hunting. For families not attracted to fishing or hunting, wonderful alternatives exist. One is wild crafting, a term which originally meant gaining skill and knowledge in wilderness survival, but has come to be used more specifically as the gathering of plants in their wild state, for food, crafts, collections. My book describes a wide variety of activities, much longer than I can list here, of course. The important thing is to get out there and discover the wider world.

We can reclaim nature, and I describe many ways to do it -- from everyday actions that families can take (which, by the way, increase quality of life for everyone in the family) to more systemic innovations already being devised by schools, places of worship, and many other institutions. I also believe that we have to rethink the way our cities and towns are designed. A growing number of ecologists and ethicists are challenging the assumption that cities have no room for wildlife. Some suggest that we think of the city as a potential "zoopolis." Proponents say such design goes beyond aesthetics; children and adults in these more natural settings concentrate better and are more productive. Western Europe is busy creating new kinds of green developments that truly bring nature home, for kids and adults. Green, nature-friendly architecture slowly is gaining popularity in the United States, as I discovered while researching this book. This is one path we can take to revitalize our civilization in the 21st century.

Q. What about schools?

A. Our schools are doing a good job teaching kids about, say, the Amazon rain forest or acid rain, but not necessarily about the joy of hands-on experience in nature, and hence the intrinsic value of places like rain forests. Researcher David Sobel says schools are unintentionally spreading “ecophobia,” a term he uses to describe fear of ecological deterioration. Lacking direct experience with nature, children begin to associate nature with fear and apocalypse, not joy and wonder. An environmentally correct curriculum similarly ends up distancing children from, rather than connecting them with, the natural world. This is an unhealthy disengagement. A world-renowned oceanographer I quote in the book decries the “death of natural history.” Few upper-division ecology majors or undergraduates in marine ecology "know even major phyla such as Arthropods or Annelids,” he says. Higher education is setting the tone for primary and secondary schools. As a consequence, natural history is disappearing from all grades. For example, San Diego County, where I live, has an amazing array of species – more plant and animal species, in fact, than any other county in the continental United States. Yet not one of the 43 school districts in this county offers a single elective course in local flora and fauna. This is fairly typical across the country.

Nature isn’t the problem. It’s a solution. Want real school reform? Increase support for environment-based education, which produces solid student gains in social studies, science, language arts and math; improves standardized test scores and grade-point averages; and develops skills in problem-solving, critical thinking and decision-making. Studies of outdoor-education programs geared toward troubled youth — especially those diagnosed with mental-health problems — show a clear therapeutic value.

Q. You suggest that the future of the environment itself depends on reconnecting children to nature.

A. Yes, it does. Studies show that people who care deeply about the future of the environment almost always enjoyed transcendent experiences in nature when they were children. If nature experiences continue to fade from the current generation of young people, and the next, and the ones to follow, where will future stewards of the earth come from? I hope that Last Child in the Woods challenges conservation groups and environmental organizations to ask that question, too – and then bring their own creativity to the protection of Western society’s endangered, keystone species: the human child in nature. Ultimately, this is a matter of common sense.

Q. What would people be surprised to learn about you?

A. Perhaps how hopeful I am, after writing this book. I think many of us have sensed that something has been taken from our lives. We know our kids are missing out. I think that once parents and other adults understand not only what is being lost but also what can be gained by reconnecting our kids to nature, that great change will follow. After all, most parents want what’s best for their children. College-age young people give me the most hope, even though they belong to what could be considered the first de-natured generation.

During my interviews in college classes, the tone changed when the issue of nature's role in personal health – physical, mental and spiritual – was introduced into conversations about nature. What often began as a fatalistic, intellectual discussion about the hole in the ozone layer quickly turned away from abstraction and hit close to home. As it turned out, these weren’t commonplace discussions. Some students approached me later to say they had never thought about the fate of the environment in such a direct way. Now some of them are considering how they can apply the skills they’re learning – from education to medicine – to heal the bond with nature for future generations. I sense these young people hunger for a greater purpose, and this could be that purpose.

#