oppositional? I certainly understand that point of view. But consider the echo from
folks who reside at another point on the political/cultural spectrum, where nature is
the object of human dominion, a distraction on the way to Paradise. In practice, these
two views of nature are radically di=erent. Yet, on one level, the similarity is striking:
nature remains the “other.” Humans are in it, but not of it.
The basic concept of rights made some people uncomfortable. One friend asked,
In a world in which millions of children are brutalized every day, can we spare time
to forward a child’s right to experience nature? Good question. Others pointed out
that we live in an era of litigation in?ation and rights de?ation; too many people
believe they have a “right” to a parking spot, a “right” to cable TV, even a “right” to
live in a neighborhood that bans children. Do we really need to add more “rights”
to our catalogue of entitlements? Another good question.
The answer to both questions is yes, if we can agree that the right at issue is fundamental to our humanity, to our being.
A growing body of scienti>c evidence identi>es strong correlations between
experience in the natural world and children’s ability to learn, along with their physical
and emotional health. Stress levels, attention-de>cit hyperactivity disorder, cognitive
functioning—and more—are positively a=ected by time spent in nature. “In the
same way that protecting water and protecting air are strategies for promoting
public health,” says Howard Frumkin, director of the National Center for Environmental
Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “protecting natural
landscapes can be seen as a powerful form of preventive medicine.” In October,
researchers at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indiana University–Purdue
University at Indianapolis, and the University of Washington reported that greener
neighborhoods are associated with slower increases in children’s body mass, regardless of residential density. Such research will be immensely helpful as we rethink our
approaches to urban design, education, and health care, in particular our societal
response to childhood obesity.
Yes, we need more research, says Frumkin, “but we know enough to act.” To
reverse the trends that disconnect children from nature, actions must be grounded
in science, but also rooted in deeper earth.
In 2007, the National Forum on Children and Nature, an impressive collection of
mayors, professors, conservationists, and business leaders, met in Washington DC
to explore the disconnection between children and nature. The conversation was
enlightening, at times passionate, but as the hours passed several of the attendees
began to ask about quanti>cation. Some were looking for a business model to apply
to the challenge of introducing children to the natural world. Most saw the obvious
need for more research. “I appreciate this discussion, but I’d like to say something,”
announced Gerald L. Durley, Senior Pastor at Providence Missionary Baptist Church
in Atlanta. Durley had helped found the Afro-American Cultural Organization and
worked shoulder to shoulder with Martin Luther King Jr. He leaned forward and said,
“A movement moves. It has life.”
Like every successful movement, the civil rights struggle was fueled by a strongly
articulated moral principle, one that did not need to be proved again and again. The
outcome of the civil rights movement might have been quite di=erent, or at least
delayed, had its leaders waited for more statistical proof to justify their cause, or
focused on the metrics of lunch-counter sit-ins, Durley added. Some e=orts proved
successful, some were counterproductive. But the movement moved.
