The Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

Abstract

206 Children, Youth and Environments Vol. 16 No. 1 (2006) ISSN: 1546-2250 The Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder Louv, Richard (2005). Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books; 336 pages. $24.95. ISBN 1565123913. Richard Louv's book is of considerable interest to the community of researchers and professionals working with children, youth and the outdoors. Louv is a journalist and writer with a strong, abiding interest in children and childhood, and his book attempts to translate for a broader public the research findings of scholars that publish in places like CYE. Briefly, the book ferrets out nearly every conceivable angle and anecdote, and a goodly portion of the research, to argue that children since the baby boomer generation have been growing up without much first-hand experience in nature, that nature experience is valuable for health and development, and that thus the trends that have cut children off should and can be combated if we seize the opportunity. Although this book is about North American trends, the underlying factors of urbanization and technology are widespread. There are several angles researchers and practitioners might want to take on this book. In this review I will first consider the book's intellectual soundness and contributions, which are of primary concern for readers of this review. Secondly, the book should be judged in terms of its genre and evident intentions. Thirdly, in light of both of the above, does (and should) this book affect the terrain or substance of our scholarly and applied work, and if so, how? On one level, Louv's book is an accessible review of research about children and nature. The first two sections (chapters one to eight) touch on many concepts advanced in the last 20 to 30 years, including: evolutionary origins of a relation to nature; biophilia; Howard Gardener's "naturalist" intelligence; ecological psychology and ecopsychology (which he confounds); the Kaplans' work on attentional fatigue and restoration; pet-facilitated therapy; the 207 “significant life event” work stemming from Tom Tanner’s first assay; sense of place; Edith Cobb's notion that nature experience is the wellspring of creativity, and Louise Chawla's careful reexamination thereof; therapeutic effects of nature exposure; David Sobel’s notion of “ecophobia;” the work of Andrea Taylor and Frances Kuo on attention-deficit symptoms; conservation psychology; and more. Louv's presentations of these theories are usually superficial but acceptable. His examples are usually wellmatched to the particular concepts. He notes where research is weak or incomplete, such as the lack evidence for the full set of Gardener's criteria for an “intelligence” of the “naturalist” variety. He also acknowledges the need for, and distinct nature of, further high-standards scientific work. The book may introduce a popular audience to this modest and mixed but growing body of research. Expectably, there are flaws from the scholarly point of view. Louv briefly explains methodology in reporting on some studies; other studies are not elucidated. He seldom tests his audience's patience; for example, once averring, "the controls in this study were more complex than space allows me to describe, but suffice it to say, the research team was careful to account for variables" (105). At times, studies are almost indistinguishable from anecdotes. Naturally, the research consulted falls far short of exhaustive—excusable given the book's intended wide appeal, but the endnotes are incomplete. A concern, despite his saying we should be wary because the literature has its limits, is Louv's dramatizing style. After a fairly careful explanation of some studies, for example, he blurts, "to take nature and natural play away from children may be tantamount to withholding oxygen" (108). The central exaggeration is his notion of "nature deficit disorder" itself. He qualifies this as a non-scientific, non-medical term, but flies with it nonetheless. For the nonscientific reader, it is these punchy one-liners that will stick. Louv has his hardest problems making sense of larger conceptual matters (such as the cross-cutting paradigmatic commitments in the field; questions such as how should we think of “nature;” what is “postmodern;” nature-nurture matters); similarly, his demarcation of the “revolutionary” current third “frontier” of child-inaccessible...