By: Mickey Bolyard
When we talk about nature conservation, we often separate ourselves from the problem. We focus on saving the bees, the turtles, and the trees. We view conservation as a completely selfless effort–as humans, we have nothing to personally gain from protecting the environment…right? Separating ourselves from nature has disastrous consequences; climate change is probably the first outcome that comes to mind… wildfires, flooding, and droughts. However, there are perhaps more subtle–dare I say, deadly–consequences to this problem. Before industrialization and urbanization, humans were inseparable from nature. Our livelihoods, cultures, and even spiritualities reflected our local environments. It is not a far fetch to assume that our health, too, is tied to the land we walk on, the air we breathe, or even the view during our daily commute.
The Biophilia Hypothesis
“Biophilia” is a term originally coined by Edward O. Wilson in 1984 (Wilson, 1984). Later, in 1993, he and Stephen Kellert released The Biophilia Hypothesis, a book exploring the innate human affinity for natural stimuli (Kellert & Wilson, 1993). For example, most people would agree that flowing rivers and tree canopies are more attractive than man-made elements such as concrete and glass windows. The book features scientists of various disciplines who suggest that natural elements could have a positive effect on multiple elements of human development. This begs the question: to what extent does nature impact us?
The Benefits and Accessibility of Green Space
Recent findings suggest that simply being exposed to nature can impact one’s health. Nature-based physical activity has been associated with enhanced cardiovascular functioning (De Brito et al), decreased sedentary behaviour and increased physical activity (Gray et al), improved mental health outcomes (Maier & Jette), and reduced stress (Park et al). While the underlying mechanisms of these findings remain unknown, it is clear that nature exposure has a positive relationship with health outcomes.
Now, let’s zoom out to the community level. As the human population continues to grow, so do urban areas; two in three people are expected to live in urban areas by the year 2050 (Hunter et al). The distance between nature and humans is increasing. However, there is growing interested in what is known as urban green space (UGS) which includes parks, community gardens, or even trees and grass next to roads and sidewalks. In theory, UGS brings natural elements and their benefits into man-made spaces.
Recent studies have found that UGS usage can prevent poor health outcomes, including risks for type II diabetes and all-cause mortality (Twohig-Bennett & Jones). Green space can also reduce stress, reduce crime rates, and increase the perception of safety (Hunter et al). Conversely, increased distance from green spaces is associated with decreased usage. Therefore, UGS must be viewed through an equity lens; gentrification can limit the accessibility of UGS and its benefits.
“Prescribing” Nature
Forest therapy has become a popular method for achieving these benefits, encouraging clients to participate in activities such as meditation, yoga, walking, and mindfulness. Compared to urban environments, natural environments showed greater reductions in stress, measured by vitamin D and serotonin levels (Park et al). This is unsurprising to many of us: walking in a forest or on a hiking trail is probably more relaxing than walking on a city sidewalk or a gym treadmill.
Recent initiatives propose “prescribing” nature, particularly to those suffering from mental illness and/or stress. Campus Nature Rx, or CNRx, is a network of universities in the U.S., including Cornell University, the University of California-Davis, the University of Minnesota, and William & Mary. CNRx began in January 2019, when these universities met to discuss how they could help college students engage with nature and improve their health and well-being. The network has grown to almost 50 colleges and universities devoted to making nature more accessible through programming, college courses, and research (Campus Nature Rx Network, 2021). They also host an annual symposium, and the 2021 symposium can be viewed here: https://www.campusnature.com/cnrx-symposia/2021-cnrx-symposium
The Bottom Line
Access to nature influences our health, for better or for worse. As humans, we are culturally, physiologically, and psychologically tied to nature. If all other reasoning fails, keeping nature protected and accessible is important to our health and community's well-being. This author believes it is also important to note that this reasoning is nothing new. Many indigenous peoples and communities of colour across the globe regard nature as vital to the multiple dimensions of personal and community health. In the end, respecting and protecting nature can only stand to benefit us and future generations.
Some Green spaces in Birmingham, Alabama:
Caldwell Park
Glen Iris Park
Lane Park
Linn Park
Moss Rock Preserve
Oak Mountain State Park
Railroad Park
Red mountain park
Veterans Park
Vulcan Trail
Work Cited
Campus Nature Rx Network. (2021, December 17). Campus Nature Rx Network. https://www.campusnature.com
De Brito, J. N., Pope, Z. C., Mitchell, N. R., Schneider, I. E., Larson, J. M., Horton, T. H., & Pereira, M. A. (2020). The effect of green walking on heart rate variability: A pilot crossover study. Environmental Research, 185, 109408. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109408
Gray, C., Gibbons, R., Larouche, R., Sandseter, E. B. H., Bienenstock, A., Brussoni, M., Chabot, G., Herrington, S., Janssen, I., Pickett, W., Power, M., Stanger, N., Sampson, M., & Tremblay, M. S. (2015). What is the relationship between outdoor time and physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and physical fitness in children? A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(6), 6455–6474. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120606455
Hunter, Cleland, C., Cleary, A., Droomers , M., Wheeler, B. ., Sinnett, D., Nieuwenhuijsen , M., & Braubach , M. (2019). Environmental, health, wellbeing, social and equity effects of urban green space interventions: A meta-narrative evidence synthesis. Environment International, 130, 104923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.104923
Jiang, B., Chang, C.-Y., & Sullivan, W. C. (2014). A dose of nature: Tree cover, stress reduction, and gender differences. Landscape and Urban Planning, 132, 26–36. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.08.005
Kellert, S. R., & Wilson, E. O. (1993). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Island Press.
Maier, J., & Jette, S. (2016). Promoting nature-based activity for people with mental illness through the US “Exercise Is Medicine” Initiative. American Journal of Public Health (1971), 106(5), 796–799. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303047
Park, B.-J., Shin, C.-S., Shin, W.-S., Chung, C.-Y., Lee, S.-H., Kim, D.-J., Kim, Y.-H., & Park, C.-E. (2020). Effects of forest therapy on health promotion among middle-aged women: Focusing on physiological indicators. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(12), 4348. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124348
Roberts, Ada, M. S. D., & Jette, S. L. (2021). NatureRx@UMD: A review for pursuing green space as a health and wellness resource for the body, mind and soul. American Journal of Health Promotion, 35(1), 149–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117120970334d
Twohig-Bennett & Jones, A. (2018). The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes. Environmental Research, 166, 628 637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.06.030.
Comments