Nature Deficit Disorder: Children Need to Reclaim Outdoor Play

Nature Deficit Disorder: Children Need to Reclaim Outdoor Play

Discussion of the Article "Leave No Child Inside" By Richard Louv
Photo by Kate Anderson
Printed in Orion (March/April 2007)
Online article viewable here.

There exists a new diagnosis called "nature deficit disorder". It is largely a consequence of excessive safety concerns by parents and authorities that confine children indoors and substitute virtual play (tv, games, computer) for actual physical outdoor experiences.

This article talks about the serious risks associated with "raising children under virtual protective house arrest: threats to their independent judgment and value of place, to their ability to feel awe and wonder, to their sense of stewardship for the Earth—and, most immediately, threats to their psychological and physical health." Given the publicity and recognition of this problem, the issue discussed is how to reconnect children with the natural world. I propose the promotion of treehouses is an excellent solution to this problem.

Why is this trend toward nature deficit disorder happening? One contributing factor is derived from our cultural bias in media: Specifically, parents most often cite the fear of "stranger-danger" as the reason for keeping their children indoors. "Conditioned by round-the-clock news coverage, they believe in an epidemic of abductions by strangers, despite evidence that the number of child-snatchings (about a hundred a year) has remained roughly the same for two decades, and that the rates of violent crimes against young people have fallen to well below 1975 levels."

Another factor is the economically driven decisions around community development.
"Developers, builders, and real estate marketers are partially responsible for the problem because they destroy natural habitat, design communities in ways that discourage any real contact with nature, and include covenants that virtually criminalize outdoor play—outlawing tree-climbing, fort-building, even chalk-drawing on sidewalks." Largely these decisions are driven by a desire to maximize monetary profits from a development project and minimize their potential exposure to litigation. Basically its all about money and children playing in nature on their own holds no profit incentive.

What is it about immersion in nature that is beneficial to children? Our need for outdoor experiences as a part of healthy development may have something to do with what E. O. Wilson calls "the biophilia hypothesis". This position suggests that human beings are innately attracted to nature: "Biologically, we are all still hunters and gatherers, and there is something in us, which we do not fully understand, that needs an occasional immersion in nature. We do know that when people talk about the disconnect between children and nature—if they are old enough to remember a time when outdoor play was the norm—they almost always tell stories about their own childhoods: this tree house or fort, that special woods or ditch or creek or meadow. They recall those 'places of initiation,' in the word of naturalist Bob Pyle, where they may have first sensed with awe and wonder the largeness of the world seen and unseen."

There are also physical and self-concept benefits that come from outdoor experiences. For example, the physical action of play outdoors sharpens coordination and spatial skills, helps reduce obesity, and stimulates creativity and cooperative forms of play. These benefits are different from those gained from organized sports -- there is a critical self-directed and open-ended aspect -- and it is important for children to learn them from trial-and-error exploration. Unstructured play in a complex and stimulating environment also helps offset attention-deficit disorders and childhood depression. The experience of exploring the rich complexity of natural systems can provide a child with the unique perspective of place within nature's interconnecting web, and can also promote a sense of stewardship and responsibility for the health of the environment.

Unfortunately, solutions proposed by authorities typically revolve around secondary markets for business. "Developers exploiting our hunger for nature . . . market their subdivisions by naming their streets after the trees and streams that they destroy." These business based institutions want to build sports arenas, interpretive centres, and theme parks. But none of these really address the core issue: that children need to be free to play in an unstructured way. A treehouse, for example, needs none of that money and infrastructure: kids only need a tree, some scrap wood, and the freedom to engage in the play of building. Parents and authorities need to stop looking at children's play from the point of view of a revenue model and learn how to just get out of their way.

Related Blog posts:
Treehouse Felled After Neighbour Complains
Community Officer Bullies Treehouse Kids
Safe and Sorry: Are Child Safety Laws Turning Our Kids into Ninnies?

Additional Reading:
Last Child in the Woods, 2005, By Richard Louv

---

Back from exile: Serbian forced to live up tree

Back from exile: Serbian forced to live up tree

Back from exile: Serbian forced to live up tree
Article written by Bojan pancevski in Vienna, Sunday Telegraph
Web published by the Telegraph.co.uk (Link)

"A Serb who returned to reclaim his home in Croatia a decade after fleeing the war in the 1990s is living in a tree house in his old orchard because of the failure of the Zagreb authorities to evict the new owners."

"The family who moved into his home refused to give it up on his return, arguing that they had nowhere to go. So Mr Graovac, 59, built a house in a tree in his former orchard and has lived there since. He sleeps on a straw mattress and has his 'living room' under the tree, furnished with an old bus seat, a table and a mirror."

"The case has prompted accusations that the Croatian authorities have not done enough to repatriate refugees."

This article is interesting to me because a treehouse is described as a mechanism that increases a person's claim to their old property rights. This move to inhabit a tree in the orchard is seen as odd, yet much more significant than merely camping out on the property in a tent, trailer, or caravan.

Reoccupation, in this sense, is his position as being rooted to the land via the tree and this somehow strengthens his claim to his rights to the land. Also, the novelty of living in a treehouse adds an element of sensationalism to his story and gets the international publicity needed to help move his case through the local bureaucratic red tape.

Unfortunately, there is the implication of hardship here: Mr Graovac, at nearly 60 years of age, is living in a sub-standard accommodation while the squatters occupy his comfortable old home. I could see this as unnecessary, and possibly a backfiring tactic, if used to push for the eviction of the squatters since this action will essentially place them is a similar, or worse, situation.

I'd like to see Mr Graovac offer to build some more treehouses in his orchard for the squatters to occupy until they find another place to live. Seems unusual but there could be a boon to the livelihood of everyone involved. The publicity could lead to all kinds of spin-off income and possibilities.

There is definitely an interesting connection between treehouses and issues of protest, occupation, and publicity.

View full article here

---

Tree-house Felled After Neighbour Complains

Tree-house Felled After Neighbour Complains

Tree-house felled after complaints

Summary of an Article from: EADT24
Suffolk and Essex Online [link to original article]
28 February 2007

Daniel Anderson,13, right, and Mackenzie Gooch,10, at their tree house. Photos by Tudor Morgan-Owen

A tree-house built by 13-year-old Daniel Anderson with his younger sister Olivia, 10, opposite their home in Long Melford has been torn down after neighbour complains it was an “eyesore”.

Their mother, Lindsay Anderson, said: “The children were very proud of their little tree-house - it was a very funny design with a little ladder and a box for a roof and sides. They even had a carrier bag for rubbish.

“I also liked it because it meant I could see them from the garden. They were not doing anything naughty or being rowdy, just having some traditional fun." She said: “The children spent many happy hours outside building. They made a funny looking ladder, worked as a team to measure and saw wood, made trips in and out of my shed to get nails and tools, and every now and then I watched them carrying bits proudly up to the green to erect their house."

"I was absolutely thrilled to see them happily pursuing such a healthy and normal childhood activity in the fresh air. At the end of the day they were all pink cheeked and hungry. I pride myself on the fact that my children don't hang around on the street. Yet this attitude and our disappearing countryside are pushing our children into mischief.”

But when the neighbours complained the children came home devastated after being told that their precious house was an eyesore. One disgrunteled resident said: “I think where the tree-house was put up could be very dangerous, to the kids and also for the environment with nails banged in the trees. There are some lovely places for the children to play around here and I am not against building tree-houses - I encouraged my children to do that in our garden. But I just think there is a time and a place and this is the wrong place.”

I think this is another classic example of how neurotic adult safety fanatics can impose harm on young people's development in their community. Children exposed to this kind of petty constraints to their freedom to play are often prone to turning to anti-social outlets and developing poor respect for authorities. And, no wonder. As adults many of us would never stand for an infraction on our basic freedoms.

And, the arguement that treehouse is somehow dangerous to the environment is an ironic misstatement. Sure many nails are not so good for trees, but they are minor and definately not a threat to human health. I'd wager that the emissions from the complaining neighbour's daily activities (car, home heating, electricity usage, etc.) is many time more detrimental to the environment than the kid's treehouse would ever be.

To exert muscle power climbing and cobbling scraps of recycled wood together in a tree is one of the most environmentally benign activities children could engage in. Videogames, by contrast, consume between 100 and 500 Watts of electricity to play. And the physical health benefits of being active outside far outweigh the potential harm from an accident. Children are not best served by excessive safety controls -- they need to be free to learn and play for themselves.

For more on this topic see this previous blog post.

---