Richard Louv, is the author of the best-seller The Last Child in the Woods, which makes a passionate case that our children are suffering from “nature deficit disorder,” growing up disconnected from the natural world. He links this lack of contact with nature to obesity, ADD and depression. According to his website, Louv and his book have inspired “No Child Left Inside” initiatives in 27 states.
It’s easy to see why his message resonates with parents and teachers in our risk-averse and increasingly wired world. At a recent appearance described by the Providence Journal’s education columnist Julia Steiny, ”Louv was mid-sentence when an irate leader of a Girl Scout troop in the audience interrupted to complain that the scout camp forbids the girls to climb trees or walk on logs. The girls in the troop with her nodded with insulted agreement. Then a teacher piped up and said that her preschool forbids her to let the children touch fallen snow. Louv shrugged, shook his head and put his hands up in surrender.” Notes Steiny:
Most intriguing to me was his discussion of nature’s effect on our brain’s “executive function,” which he described as “the voice in your head.” I would add that executive function governs your ability to assimilate lots of different kinds of information, and to act or make choices as a result. Louv said, “The best way to develop executive function is through imaginative, made-up games. But both independent play and nature have been disappearing. From Suzuki [music lessons] to soccer to the flip-down screen in the SUV so the kids can watch nature shows on the way to the play date, kids are dramatically split from nature. As a result, a 7-year-old today has the executive function of a 5-year-old in 1940.” One reason is that “on a playground, leaders tend to be the physically strongest. But in nature, leaders are the smartest because they are the ones making up the games.” “If you really want to get into Harvard, go outside,” he intones.
Quite a bold claim. Whenever someone makes grand research-based claims about the brain, I always wonder WWDWS? Or, What Would Dan Willingham Say? I emailed Dan, the UVA professor and American Educator’s Ask the Cognitive Scientist columnist.
“It’s hard to even guess what data he thinks supports this,” he said. “I’d like to know more about what Louv has in mind, and not judge based on what someone reported he said, but this sounds unlikely.”
Please edit your title!
Does “Nature Deficit Disorder” Effect the Brain?
It’s time for a vocabulary lesson! Effect means to bring about. Affect means to influence. In your title you’ve just given a good reason for teaching Latin.
Parmalee
D’oh!! I blame the affect of a paucity of caffeine and sleep at the early hour at which I posted.
Mea culpa.
I did my thesis at Harvard University on this topic. The lack of nature retards human development.
Thanks for the blog entry. An ongoing collection of the research on this topic can be found at the Web site of the Children & Nature Network. Two volumes (soon to be three) of research abstracts, with links to the original research, are available here: http://www.childrenandnature.org/research/Intro/ Also, the newest study suggesting a relationship between nature experiences and ADHD is reported here: http://www.childrenandnature.org. Among researchers, interest in the relationship of nature experience to human health, cognition and well-being is growing, but the research is limited — and much of it has been conducted within the past few decades. Therefore, some cautionary notes: Findings on outdoor play often mingle types of activities, such as bicycle riding in the neighborhood, with findings more specific to the nature experience. There is a need for more rigorous, controlled studies in order to make confident statements about correlation, cause and effect. However, when recent studies are considered together, they do lead to strong hypotheses. We believe that experience in nature helps children be happier, healthier and smarter. As Dr. Howard Frumkin, director of the Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control, often says, we need more research, but “we know enough to act.”
I’m puzzled as to why you would, on the one hand, acknowledge that there have been few controlled studies and that those that have been done confound important variables (e.g., outdoors/indoors and activity type), and on the other hand claim that “we know enough to act.” Why not wait until there is scientific evidence to support a claim before invoking scientific support, even indirectly?
How did you control for parenting? It’s a fun idea, but I’ll believe it when I see causation.