Stigmatized places as therapeutic landscapes

Jennifer T Mokos

doi:10.17157/mat.4.1.362

Abstract

Urban rivers in the United States have frequently been sites of long-term homeless encampments. Recent efforts to ‘restore’ these marginal waterways have focused on removing such camps, an approach that is justified in terms of concern for the health of both waterways and people. This article explores the intersection of landscape health and human health, based on twelve months of ethnographic research on the ecological restoration of the Ventura River in southern California. I argue that river-bottom camps contribute to the health and well-being of residents by helping them resist social exclusion and mitigate experiences of violence and stigma. It is important to recognize this complexity so that logics of exclusion are not unintentionally reproduced in how landscapes are understood, which can legitimate actions, such as camp removals, that cause marginalized communities additional harm. Embracing the complexity of therapeutic landscapes opens up possibilities for more just ways of restoring the health of human and nonhuman natures.

Highlights

As I embarked upon my fieldwork on the Ventura River in southern California, I received many well wishes and warnings
In contrast to outsiders’ characterizations of the river as an unsafe and unhealthy place, I argue that river-bottom camps contribute to the health and well-being of residents by helping them resist social exclusion and mitigate experiences of violence and stigma
This article draws upon twelve months of ethnographic fieldwork on the ecological restoration of the Ventura River in southern California

Summary

Introduction

As I embarked upon my fieldwork on the Ventura River in southern California, I received many well wishes and warnings. This research focuses primarily on the positive value of indoor, managed spaces, such as public libraries (Brewster 2014; Hodgetts et al 2008), drop-in centers (Cloke et al 2010; Conradson 2003b; Hodgetts et al 2007; Johnsen et al 2005; Llewellin and Murdoch 1996), community service provider locations (Cloke et al 2007; Conradson 2003a; Conradson 2003b; Crack et al 2007; Parr & Philo 2003), shelters (Evans 2011; May et al 2006), hostels (Stuttaford et al 2009), and substance abuse treatment programs (DeVerteuil and Wilton 2009; Evans et al 2015; Wilton and DeVerteuil 2006; Love et al 2012) This split in the therapeutic landscape literature between unhealthy, unmanaged, ‘wild’ landscapes and health-promoting, indoor, managed spaces reflects broader patterns of social sorting in the United States that divide the homeless into the deviant, undeserving poor and the docile, deserving poor (for example, Mitchell 2011). After providing an overview of my research context and methods, I show how river bottoms may act as a protective space through four overlapping categories of care: belongings, access to nature, privacy, and relational benefits

Background and methods

Conclusion