“The Nature-Deficit Disorder and the Restorative Environment”

    In Richard Louv's book, Last Child in the Woods, the author expresses his beliefs that there is a strong link between the lack of nature in education and childhood obesity but perhaps a stronger link between the lack of physical exercise in young children and the decline of mental health in young children. Louv uses the facts concerning the decline of physical education and recess in the school system with the rise of mental health issues in children, particularly ADHD, to support his thesis. Whether Louv's beliefs are agreeable or not they are interesting to think about and enjoyable to read.

Photo provided by Goat Mountain on Flickr Oct. 23rd, 2014

    In the chapter "Nature-Deficit Disorder and the Restorative Environment" Louv states, "Much about ADHD remains a medical and political mystery (Louv, 2008 p.102)" and, as I have a son who is diagnosed with ADHD, I could not agree more. There have been some family doctors my son has seen who feel ADHD is highly misdiagnosed and is usually pushed on the medical community by the child's family to explain eccentric behavior. Other doctors my son has seen view ADHD as something very real, very common, and can be usually "cured" with simple medications. I have also read countless articles and watched many videos detailing what doctors believe increase ADHD symptoms and what decreases ADHD symptoms; to say the least, these beliefs vary. Politically, ADHD, what it is and how it can be managed, is all over the map as well. There are some people that occupy seats in office who believe children with ADHD need special accommodations and should be treated like children that suffer from any other mental disorder. Others in office believe it is a ploy by families to take advantage of a medically obsessed system to benefit from special privileges usually only given to those who suffer from more severe mental disorders. ADHD remains a question that too many people believe they have the answer to.

Photo provided by John Currle on Flickr Jan. 20th, 2007

    Further in the chapter Louv states, "The greener the setting, the more the relief. By comparison, activities indoors, such as watching TV, or outdoors in paved, non-green areas, increase these children’s symptoms (Louv, 2008 p.106)", suggesting that children who play outside, in more green locations not paved parks, can relieve the symptoms of attention deficit disorders. This statement I can not believe. Firstly, I would think it is not the outdoors that is relieving ADHD but rather the indoors, the lack of physical play and the constant attention to electronics that is making symptoms worse. If my son is constantly on the T.V. or tablet and then is suddenly told to concentrate on something else, something he does not want to apply effort to focus on, he will be less attentive. He will also more hyperactive, not because of his disorder, he is actually AHDH minus the hyperactivity, but because he has been cooped up in the house and not exerting physical energy. Secondly, I can not believe there is a difference between the advantages of parks, whether surrounded by buildings or trees. If a child is playing on a jungle gym surely whether there are trees surrounding the area or buildings is inconsequential regarding ADHD symptoms. Finally, how is this thesis even capable of being supported through research or experiment; there must be countless other variables. Do the children in New York City suffer from far worse ADHD symptoms than other children with ADHD in the mountains of Oregon? It seems like quite a jump to make such a conclusion.

Photo provided by Patrick Marella on Flickr April 24th, 2014

    And later in the chapter Louv agrees with a scientists who states, "nature is good for children (Louv, 2008 p.110) ." I do not have a degree in any field of science, however, I do have three children and I can concur with this statement as well. Children need to go outside and play, explore, wander, get dirty, and come back home once tired and ready to eat. Everyone should agree with this. But, this does not necessarily mean the outdoors is a cure for mental disorders nor is there a degree of benefit associated to how green the outdoors are, right? Surely, it is just nice to get some fresh air as opposed to staying inside staring at a screen as it stares back for countless hours. Surely, it is the harm of the indoors that is detrimental to human development not the benefit of the outdoors; if that makes sense.

Louv, R. (2008). Last Child in the Woods. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.

Biophilia vs. Biophobia

    As defined by David W. Orr in Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect, biophobia is when one has a severe aversion to nature (Orr, 1994 p.186). A perfect example of this was used in the book written by Orr pertaining to Woody Allan, the most stereotypical New Yorker who views city life with great reverence and passion and any other form of living as alien and detrimental to the true human spirit. Orr goes on to further explain biophobia as a negative reaction to nature, with various levels of severity, worsened by television, air conditioning, and other man-made distractions that separate man from true human existence (Orr, 1994 p.187). Biophilia, as defined by Orr, is a condition that is contrary to biophobia. This reaction to nature is more open and welcoming; an urge to exist in other aspects of life and surroundings. This attitude towards nature is seen as progressive and a sign of a strong mental and physical health.

Photo provided by Ken Yeul on Flickr Sept. 15, 2009

    "We recognize these as the result of deformed childhoods that create unloving and often violent adults. Biophobia in all of its forms similarly shrinks the range of experiences and joys in life in the same way that the inability to achieve close and loving relationships limits a human life (Orr, 1994 p.191)." With the manner in which children are being raised on video games, television shows, movies, social media, gym memberships, and restaurants its no wonder that concern for the outside word, for the environment, is at serious risk. Without people, particularly young people, enjoying nature and the outdoors the idea that one day it all might be lost would not be a particularly great concern for those who spend most of their lives indoors. This is why it is crucial that people need to enjoy the outdoors just as much, if not more, than the air-conditioned, wifi hotspots that are so much more frequented. To ward off global devastation people must first find a love for global activities that connect them closer to the environment. Camping, hiking, site seeing, sun bathing, picnics, outdoor sports, going for a walk once in while are all activities that could bring people closer to biophilia and further away from biophobia.

Photo provided by Mobile Gaming Revolution on Flickr May 28, 2011

    "But is it possible for us to be neutral or “objective” toward life and nature? I do not think so (Orr, 1994 p.193)." This point is actually inaccurate and too hard-line to offer logical thought. Many, if not most, people are neutral about the environment, and that is not such a bad thing, considering the alternative. People who are considered neutral are perhaps those care about the environment, but also care about feeding their families and are too busy working two jobs to be active about saving their natural surroundings. They are neutral because they are too busy just trying to survive, and people have every right to be neutral. People who are neutral are not the problem, it is the people who are willingly polluting the oceans and rivers, cutting down acres upon acres of forests, overflowing landfills, and burning resources without a care in the world, almost in spite of the environmentally conscious who are the problem. Orr used physicians as an example of why people cannot be neutral. He asked if people would like those whose job it is to save their life to be neutral about life and death. This is entirely inaccurate. It is true physicians all want to save lives, but they are in no way passionate or overemotional about death. If they were each life lost would devastate them and force them out of their profession. Physicians must be neutral about life and death or it would lead them to a life of despair.

Photo provided by Marcia Valenzuela on Flickr Sept. 7, 2006

    "I do not know whether it is possible to love the planet or not, but I do know that it is possible to love the places we can see, touch, smell, and experience (Orr, 1994 p.205)." This quote is actually quite head scratching and muddies any real thoughts I had about this chapter of the book. At the beginning of the chapter Orr spoke of people of prehistoric times who worshiped the environment is which they lived. Now Orr states he does truly know if anyone can love the planet. Of course people can love the planet, right? Even if we, as people, do not touch, smell, see, or experience natures, as Orr puts it, we can still "love" nature. I have never touched, smelled, heard, saw, or experienced the Amazon rain forest, but were it to be completely destroyed I would be incredibly hurt and distraught. Isn't this the idea of biophilia? This left me confused to say the least.


Orr, D. W. (1994). Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect.
         Washington, DC: Island Press.