Category Archives: social cohesion

How nature “nurtures”: Research confirms what we’ve always known

“How Nature Nurtures,” a story appearing in the Summer 2026 issue of National Wildlife magazine, sets forth a whole lot of research studies, both old and new, that confirm what we’ve always known:  Exposure to nature makes people feel better.

This story, written by Katarina Zimmer, highlights one of the most recent studies, conducted by neuroscientist Sonja Sudimac and her colleagues in Berlin’s Grunewald Forest.   After spending an hour strolling through the trees, 32 participants were rushed to the researchers’ nearby lab at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development.  They lay down in a functional MRI machine that analyzed their brain activity.  The question: Had the nature walk affected their brains?

The scientists were most interested in the amygdala, the part of the brain that processes fear or stress and can trigger the body’s fight-or-flight response.  Inside the scanner, participants were shown images of scared human faces.  Those images would normally provoke activity in the amygdala.  The result?  Participants’ amygdalae were much less reactive after the forest walk than during tests conducted beforehand.  Even more significantly, another group of 31 who had walked along a busy street showed no difference in their brain activity before and after their walk.

The researchers concluded that walking in the forest made people feel less prone to stress. (2022 report in Molecular Psychiatry)

Author Zimmer goes on to note other studies, including the 2025 study by Mathew White of the University of Vienna where, much like the one in Berlin, participants lay in an MRI scanner. But here they watched imagery of a greenery-surrounded lake, a city, or an office while they received mild electric shocks. People reported that the pain was less severe when they watched the natural scene. White concluded that, because of the scenes of greenery, people “weren’t aware of the pain…to the same level.”

Many scientists look to the “stress reduction theory” proposed by Roger Ulrich in 1991 to explain some of nature’s health-boosting effects.  Non-threatening natural environments, like forests, please and relax us, lowering our heart rate and blood pressure, making us better at handling stress-provoking situations.  Reduced stress, in turn, lowers the risk of stress-triggered diseases and mental health problems.

Another theory goes back to the 1980s, when Rachel and Stephen Kaplan conceived the “attention restoration theory,” the idea that nature gives our overloaded brains a break.  Other researchers have linked nature exposure to greater satisfaction with our social lives, not only because we may spend time outdoors with other people but also because it puts us in a better mood when we later spend time with family and friends.  A 2025 study of Canadian university students reported that when they felt connected to the natural world, they felt less lonely in nature even when they were outdoors by themselves.  Terry Hartig of Sweden’s Uppsala University thinks the natural world, or features of it like animal life or certain trees or plants, almost take on the quality of a “social partner.” (Health and Place)

Even our immune systems may get a boost. In a 2024 study of over 1,000 U.S. adults, those who spent more time in nature had lower blood concentrations of C-reactive protein, a sign of inflammation that can give rise to chronic diseases and other health issues. (Brain, Behavior, and Immunity) A possible reason: Kendra Wilson, a social psychologist at Ohio State speculates that natural environments expose us to beneficial bacteria that contribute to healthy microbe communities in our guts and on our skin, thereby reducing inflammation.

Research also shows that feeling safe in the natural world is important.  Because it’s one of the strongest predictors of health benefits, people may get bigger health boosts from landscaped environments like parks than they do from wilder areas that they view as dangerous.

The focus today is on bringing more nature into cities in the form of parks, community gardens, and other greenery. People in many city neighborhoods, especially marginalized communities, don’t have access to green spaces. Nooshin Razani, a pediatrician and researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, analyzed nearly 50,000 children and teenagers across the U.S. and found that nearly a quarter lived in neighborhoods that lacked parks. Published in 2020 in Preventive Medicine, her study found this was especially true in nonwhite and low-income families. Razani hopes that, to address this gap, physicians will increasingly connect their patients to nature through partnerships with parks. She has already put this goal into action in Oakland, California, where she and her colleagues organize monthly bus outings for families who might otherwise have limited access to parks.

As researcher Sudimac concludes, these research findings are more important today than ever, when more than half the world’s population lives in cities and 70 percent is predicted to live in cities by 2050.  Along with our indoor, on-screen lifestyles, this unequal access to nature may be contributing to the rise of mental health problems like anxiety and depression.

All of this research confirms what we already knew: Protecting and expanding the nature around us is a priority.  Protecting the environment has always been a priority for some of us. It now appears to be even more of a priority for human health for every one of us.

As author Zimmer concludes, “If we nurture nature, nature can help us heal, too.”

Happy Holidays! Well, maybe…

 

As the greeting “Happy Holidays” hits your ears over and over during the holiday season, doesn’t it raise a question or two?

At a time when greed and acquisitiveness appear to be boundless, at least among certain segments of the American population, the most relevant questions seem to be:

  • Does money buy happiness?
  • If not, what does?

These questions have been the subject of countless studies.  Let’s review a few of the answers they’ve come up with.

To begin, exactly what is it that makes us “happy”?

A couple of articles published in the past two years in The Wall Street Journal—a publication certainly focused on the acquisition of money—summarized some results.

Wealth alone doesn’t guarantee a good life.  According to the Journal, what matters a lot more than a big income is how people spend it.  For instance, giving money away makes people much happier than spending it on themselves.  But when they do spend it on themselves, they’re a lot happier when they use it for experiences like travel rather than material goods.

The Journal looked at a study by Ryan Howell, an associate professor of psychology at San Francisco State University, which found that people may at first think material purchases offer better value for their money because they’re tangible and they last longer, while experiences are fleeting.  But Howell found that when people looked back at their purchases, they realized that experiences actually provided better value.  We even get more pleasure out of anticipating experiences than we do from anticipating the acquisition of material things.

Another psychology professor, Thomas Gilovich at Cornell, reached similar conclusions.  He found that people make a rational calculation:  “I can either go there, or I can have this.  Going there may be great, but it’ll be over fast.  But if I buy something, I’ll always have it.”  According to Gilovich, that’s factually true, but not psychologically true, because we “adapt to our material goods.”

We “adapt” to our material goods?  How?  Psychologists like Gilovich talk about “hedonic adaptation.”  Buying a new coat or a new car may provide a brief thrill, but we soon come to take it for granted.  Experiences, on the other hand, meet more of our “underlying psychological needs.”

Why?  Because they’re often shared with others, giving us a greater sense of connection, and they form a bigger part of our sense of identity.  You also don’t feel that you’re trying to keep up with the Joneses quite so much.  While it may bother you when you compare your material things to others’ things, comparing your vacation to someone else’s won’t bug you as much because “you still have your own experiences and your own memories.”

Another article in the Journal, published in 2015, focused on the findings of economists rather than psychologists.  A group of economists like John Helliwell, a professor at the University of British Columbia, concluded that happiness—overall well-being–should not be measured by how much money we have by using metrics like per-capita income and gross domestic product (GDP).  “GDP is not even a very good measure of economic well-being,” he said.

Instead, the World Happiness Report, which Helliwell co-authored, ranked countries based on how people viewed the quality of their lives. It noted that six factors account for 75 percent of the differences between countries.  The six factors:  GDP, life expectancy, generosity, social support, freedom, and corruption.  Although GDP and life expectancy relate directly to income, the other four factors reflect a sense of security, trust, and autonomy.  So although the U.S. ranked first in overall GDP, it ranked only 15th in happiness because it was weaker in the other five variables.

According to Jeffrey D. Sachs, a professor at Columbia and co-author of the World Happiness Report, incomes in the U.S. have risen, but the country’s sense of “social cohesion” has declined.  The biggest factor contributing to this result is “distrust.”  Although the U.S. is very rich, we’re not getting the benefits of all this affluence.

If you ask people whether they can trust other people, Sachs said, “the American answer has been in significant decline.”   Forward to 2017.  Today, when many of our political leaders shamelessly lie to us, our trust in others has no doubt eroded even further.

Even life expectancy is going downhill in the U.S.  According to the AP, U.S. life expectancy was on the upswing for decades, but 2016 marked the first time in more than a half-century that it fell in two consecutive years.

Let’s return to our original question:  whether money can buy happiness.  The most recent research I’ve come across is a study done at Harvard Business School, noted in the November-December 2017 issue of Harvard Magazine.  Led by assistant professor of business administration Ashley Whillans, it found that, in developed countries, people who trade money for time—by choosing to live closer to work, or to hire a housecleaner, for example–are happier. This was true across the socioeconomic spectrum.

According to Whillans, extensive research elsewhere has confirmed the positive emotional effects of taking vacations and going to the movies.  But the Harvard researchers wanted to explore a new idea:  whether buying ourselves out of negative experiences was another pathway to happiness.

Guess what:  it was.  One thing researchers focused on was “time stress” and how it affects happiness.  They knew that higher-earners feel that every hour of their time is financially valuable.  Like most things viewed as valuable, time is also perceived as scarce, and that scarcity translates into time stress, which can easily contribute to unhappiness.

The Harvard team surveyed U.S., Canadian, Danish, and Dutch residents, ranging from those who earned $30,000 a year to middle-class earners and millionaires. Canadian participants were given a sum of money—half to spend on a service that would save one to two hours, and half to spend on a material purchase like clothing or jewelry.  Participants who made a time-saving purchase (like buying take-out food) were more likely to report positive feelings, and less likely to report feelings of time stress, than they did after their shopping sprees.

Whillans noted that in both Canada and the U.S., where busyness is “often flaunted as a status symbol,” opting for outsourcing jobs like cooking and cleaning can be culturally challenging.  Why?  Because people like to pretend they can do it all.  Women in particular find themselves stuck in this situation.  They have more educational opportunities and are likely to be making more money and holding more high-powered jobs, but their happiness is not increasing commensurately.

The Harvard team wants to explore this in the future.  According to Whillans, the initial evidence shows that among couples who buy time, “both men and women feel less pulled between the demands of work and home life,” and that has a positive effect on their relationship.  She hopes that her research will ameliorate some of the guilt both women and men may feel about paying a housekeeper or hiring someone to mow the law—or ordering Chinese take-out on Thursday nights.

Gee, Ashley, I’ve never felt guilty about doing any of that.  Maybe that’s one reason why I’m a pretty happy person.

How about you?

Whatever your answer may be, I’ll join the throng and wish you HAPPY HOLIDAYS!