As we write our paper on the walk-shops we have held at the UT, extinction of experience is a topic we need to address, as we hope to counter it through means of the walk-shops. Or at the very least, address it.
The loss or
extinction of experience refers to the decrease of human interaction with
nature, and is connected to the loss or extinction of knowledge of nature.
Several
studies point out that reduced experiences in with nature have negative effects.
These include reduced health and well-being, and reduced desire to support
biodiversity or conservation actions and policies (Gaston and Soga, 2019[1]).
To understand the extent of this problem, it is important to distinguish what
we mean with these terms when we try to define or measure its extent.
For this we
need to describe what we mean with nature, interactions, extinction, and how a
changing human experience over a lifetime can be measured validly.
For the first
term, Gaston and Soga (2019) state that nature is often described as wild, ‘free
from human interventions such as cultivation or domestication. This would leave
nearly entire countries in coastal areas as unnatural. For instance, the global
map “Last of the Wild” shows the areas in the world where the Human Footprint Index
is 10 or less (Gassert 2023[2])
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/remote-sensing/articles/10.3389/frsen.2023.1130896/full),
and it does not leave many areas in the urbanized parts of the world to experience
wilderness. Then again, if there were humans to experience the wilderness, the footprint
would increase and they wouldn’t be considered as wild anymore. It would also mean
that all forms of green infrastructure do not count as nature experience. Gaston
and Soga recommend a wider range of the term nature to include cultivated and
domesticated species. There is also evidence that these forms of nature also
bring about the desired benefits, so why not include more ‘unwild’ forms of
nature.
For the
second term, interactions, Gaston and Soga state that the debate is about what
counts as an interactions, when these are direct or indirect. This is at best a
vague scale. For instance: animals, plants, or even weather effects could
interact with our bodies or senses directly, we could observe these in our
direct vicinity, we could observe these through a window, or we could look at
depictions on a screen or painting etc.. It has already been found that
patients recovering in hospitals who observe nature, real or ‘fake’, recover slightly
faster than those who don’t (Guidolin, 2024[3]).
Again, here it appears prudent to include options, but indeed to be clear about
what is included. It is also linked to a further term where they distinguish
between interactions and experiences. Merely interacting, but not having any reflection
or follow-up emotional, spiritual, or intellectual experience is stated to also
need a distinction. This I think raises a myriad of questions. If you dream of
nature, was it due to a nature interaction? It is less feasible to draw such a
distinction as experiences can and most often are more private and immeasurable
than interactions. Experiences could be self-reported by participants if answering
the research question would be strengthened by it.
The third
term of extinction is also on a type of scale. When is experience truly lost
(and can be regained), when extinct (impossible to regain)? Gaston and Soga
include people who live in highly urbanized areas (thus excluding the less wild
versions of nature), house- or bed-bound people (again excluding less wild
versions and images of nature), and people who are not particularly eager to
interact with nature. Perhaps here extinction is too strong of a word and while
knowledge can be regained, on average, for most people, so can experience.
In alignment with Gaston and Soga's call to be more specific (2019), the type of walk-shops we have organized mainly focus on countering the loss of experiences with living organisms.
[3] Guidolin K, Jung F, Hunter S, et al. The Influence of Exposure to Nature
on Inpatient Hospital Stays: A Scoping Review. HERD: Health Environments
Research & Design Journal. 2024;17(2):360-375. doi:10.1177/19375867231221559
