Peter H. Kahn’s research while affiliated with University of Washington and other places

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic rendered daily life overwhelmingly difficult for many children. Given the compelling evidence for the physical and mental health benefits of interaction with nature, might it be the case that time spent interacting with nature buffered the negative effects of the pandemic for children? To address this question, we conducted a longitudinal investigation with a cohort of 137 Girl Scouts across two time periods: right before the onset of the pandemic (December 2019–February 2020) and one year later (December 2020–February 2021). We found that during the pandemic (compared to pre-pandemic), Girl Scouts fared worse on measures of physical activity, positive emotions, negative emotions, anxiety, behavioral difficulties, and problematic media use. However, by using mixed models, we also found that, on average, Girl Scouts who spent more time interacting with nature fared less poorly (in this sense, “did better”) on measures of physical activity, positive emotions, anxiety, and behavioral difficulties, irrespective of the pandemic. Further analysis revealed that these advantageous associations were present even when accounting for the amount of nature near each child’s home (as measured by the normalized difference vegetation index, percent of natural land cover, and self-reported access to nature). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating nature interaction and children’s well-being to use data collected from the same cohort prior to and during the pandemic. In addition, we discuss the importance of opportunities to interact with nature for children’s well-being during future periods of social upheaval.

Might interacting with relatively wild forms of nature help move our world away from its largely domination-oriented and destructive sensibilities? Toward broaching this question, this study used an Interaction Pattern Approach to model child-nature interaction in a Hong Kong nature program. Observational video data were collected of 54 children (mean age 4.8 years) while they were playing in relatively wild or domestic landscapes. In total, 708 interactions were coded and categorized based on 37 distinct interaction patterns. Based on this modeling, we then tested two hypotheses: (1) that in the more domesticated nature areas, children would engage in more domination interaction patterns (e.g., catching wild animals), and (2) in the more wild nature areas, children would engage in more relational interaction patterns (e.g., cohabitating with wild animals). Both hypotheses were supported statistically. Discussion focuses on the importance of interacting with relatively wild aspects of nature, even in urban areas.

Numerous studies have highlighted the physical and mental health benefits of contact with nature, typically in landscapes characterized by plants (i.e., “greenspace”) and water (i.e., “bluespace”). However, natural landscapes are not always green or blue, and the effects of other landscapes are worth attention. This narrative review attempts to overcome this limitation of past research. Rather than focusing on colors, we propose that natural landscapes are composed of at least one of three components: (1) plants (e.g., trees, flowering plants, grasses, sedges, mosses, ferns, and algae), (2) water (e.g., rivers, canals, lakes, oceans), and/or (3) rocks and minerals, including soil. Landscapes not dominated by plants or liquid-state water include those with abundant solid-state water (e.g., polar spaces) and rocks or minerals (e.g., deserts, caves). Possible health benefits of solid-state water or rock/mineral dominated landscapes include both shorter-term (e.g., viewing images) and longer-term (e.g., living in these landscapes) exposure durations. Reported benefits span improved emotional and mental states and medical treatment resources for respiratory conditions and allergies. Restorative and instorative mechanisms underlying health benefits consist of commonly discussed theories in the “greenspace” and “bluespace” literature, as well as less discussed pathways in that literature (i.e., post-traumatic growth theory, supportive environment theory, and place attachment). This is the first review to draw attention to the potential salutogenic value of natural landscapes beyond “greenspace” and “bluespace.” It is also among the first to highlight the limitations and confusion that result from classifying natural landscapes using color. Since the extant literature on natural landscapes - beyond those with abundant plants or liquid-state water - is limited in regard to quantity and quality, additional research is needed to understand their restorative potential and therapeutic possibilities.

Numerous studies have highlighted the physical and mental health benefits of contact with nature, typically in landscapes characterized by plants (i.e., “greenspace”) and water (i.e., “bluespace”). However, natural landscapes are not always green or blue, and the effects of other landscapes are worth attention. This narrative review attempts to overcome this limitation in past research by pursuing the following objectives: (1) categorizing these natural landscapes, (2) summarizing the literature on health benefits of exposure to landscapes beyond "greenspace" and "bluespace," and (3) presenting the potential mechanisms underlying any health benefits derived from exposure to these other landscapes. We propose that natural landscapes are composed of at least one of three components: (1) plants (e.g., trees, flowering plants, grasses, sedges mosses, ferns, and algae), (2) water (e.g., rivers, canals, lakes, oceans), and/or (3) rocks and minerals, including soil. Landscapes not dominated by plants or liquid-state water include those with abundant solid-state water (e.g., polar spaces) and rocks or minerals (e.g., deserts, caves). Possible health benefits of solid-state water or rock/mineral dominated landscapes include both shorter-term (i.e., viewing images) and longer-term (i.e., living in these landscapes) exposure durations. Reported benefits span improved emotional and mental states and medical treatment resources for respiratory conditions and allergies.Restorative and instorative mechanisms underlying health benefits consist of commonly discussed theories in the "greenspace" and "bluespace" literature as well as less discussed pathways in that literature. Benefits of shorter-term exposure may be explained by attention restoration theory and stress reduction theory. Benefits of longer-term exposure may result from the cumulative effects of shorter-term exposures as well as psychological benefits explained by post-traumatic growth theory, supportive environment theory, and place attachment. Additional mechanisms may include distinct types of physical activity and immune system benefits, among others.This is the first review to draw attention to the potential salutogenic value of natural landscapes beyond "greenspace" and "bluespace." It is also among the first to highlight the limitations and confusion that result from classifying natural landscapes using colors. Since the extant literature on natural landscapes - beyond those with abundant plants or liquid-state water - is limited in regard to quantity and quality, additional research is needed to understand their restorative potential and therapeutic possibilities.

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted everyone in urban areas. Some of these impacts in the United States have negatively affected People of Color more than their White counterparts. Using Seattle, Washington as a case study, we investigated whether inequitable effects appear in residents’ interactions with urban nature (such as urban green space). Using a 48-question instrument, 300 residents were surveyed, equally divided across four racial/ethnic groups: Asian, Black and African American, Latino/a/x, and White. Results showed that during the span of about 6 months after the onset of the pandemic, Black and Latino residents experienced a significant loss of time in urban nature, while Asian and White residents did not. The implications of these findings, including inequities in the potential buffering effects of urban nature against COVID-19 and the future of urban nature conservation, are discussed. Multiple variables were tested for association with the changes to time spent in urban nature, including themes of exclusion from urban nature spaces found throughout the existing literature. Findings show that decreases in time spent in urban nature among Black and Latino residents may be associated with their feeling as though they did not belong in urban nature. We provide recommendations based on these findings for how government agencies can promote more equitable access to urban nature during the pandemic and beyond. The results of this study have implications that extend beyond the US and are relevant to the international scholarly literature of inequities and urban nature interaction during the COVID-19 pandemic.