New Research Shows Cognitive Benefits of Natural Areas
by Eliza Barclay, Washington, D.C. 
on 01. 8.09
Photo credit: Milan Italy
Jonah Lehrer, author of the new book called "How We Decide," had an interesting piece in the Boston Globe describing how the city affects the brain. Unfortunately, Lehrer tells us, being in an urban environment damages our basic mental processes. A few minutes spent on a crowded city street apparently reduces the brain's ability to hold things in memory and as well as our self-control. Urbanization, the frenetic energy of dense environments, and the loss of natural areas in our cities all put a strain on the brain.
In one study Lehrer cites, Marc Berman, a psychologist at the University of Michigan, outfitted students with GPS receivers. Some of the students went to an arboretum, while others wandered through the streets of downtown Ann Arbor.
"The subjects were then run through a battery of psychological tests," Lehrer writes. "People who had walked through the city were in a worse mood and scored significantly lower on a test of attention and working memory, which involved repeating a series of numbers backwards. In fact, just glancing at a photograph of urban scenes led to measurable impairments, at least when compared with pictures of nature."
"We see the picture of the busy street, and we automatically imagine what it's like to be there," Berman told Lehrer. "And that's when your ability to pay attention starts to suffer."
Fortunately, Lehrer, says, there is hope for those of us urbanites. Time spent among trees and in other green spaces will do a lot to reverse the harmful cognitive effects of the city. He suggests parks and landscapes with the highest amount of plant diversity for optimal benefits. : Via Boston Globe
More on Green Spaces:
The New School Tackles Green Urban Design Through Environmental Education in NYC
Elegant Embellishments: Improving Urban Air & Visual Appeal
Cuba Relies on Urban Gardens to Feed Hungry Populace
Green City: People, Nature and Urban Places
Amazingness - An Exhibition About Urban Nature
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Is School Food Harming Kids? Enlist a Labor Day Eat-In To Promote Fresh, Healthy Food
- Travel Green and Save Money without Giving Up Anything (Except Your Carbon Footprint)
- The Happiest, Greenest Place on Earth—Seriously!
- Track Buses by Phone, Internet, Bus Stop
- Spare Yourself from Road Raging Bike Haters: How to Avoid Anti-Cyclism
- Your Idle Computer Can Save Lives
I can relate to this. When I first moved to New York City from Utah about six months ago I experienced something similar. Just one example: I was walking around trying to get used to my neighborhood. After a few hours of walking around I wandered into a grocery store, picked something up (I don't even remember what) and went to try to pay for it. First I handed the cashier my school ID, then I handed her my credit card and tried to enter my pin for my debit card. Finally I realized what was going on.
I was so mentally drained after walking around it was embarrassing. However, I don't necessarily think that it is a characteristic inherent in the city. I think it might just be what I am used to. Of course there is more simulation in a city compared to Arches National Park, but once you develop a filter for the city there isn't much of a problem. Most of the students in the study probably grew up in the Michigan suburbs and aren't used to urban environments, much like I wasn't used to New York City. Now I'm fine when I walk around in the city for hours.
I'm the opposite: after a few hours away from "the frenetic energy of dense environments" I get antsy and bored. To quote Frank O'Hara, "I can't even enjoy a blade of grass unless I know there's a subway handy, or a record store or some other sign that people do not totally regret life."
While I certainly applaud the use of more street trees, green roofs and the like in dense urban environments, trying to put too much nature in the city in the form of big open green spaces can reduce the density to the point where everyone has to drive everywhere, with negative environmental consequences. It also reduces the vitality of the city, and as Jane Jacobs pointed out, calling for more "green space" as if it were a universal panacea often just creates deserted and dangerous wastelands.
I'd much prefer a dense and vibrant city, where most people can walk or take public transport and the streets and squares are alive with people, to a sprawling "garden city" with big green parks and sparse suburbs, since the latter will inevtiably fill up with freeways and carparks and eat up all the actual wilderness. Green isn't alwasy green.