Tag Archives: nature

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.”

THE BEEKEEPERS//KEEPING BEES

I’m not a big fan of action films, but I find some of them worth watching.  I recently watched such a film, “The Beekeeper,” starring English actor Jason Statham.  (Hint: TV-viewing is better for almost any film but especially for action films because you can fast-forward through the most harrowing scenes.)  Statham is well known for playing tough characters who don’t shy away from violent behavior if it will benefit good people.

In this film, Statham portrays Adam Clay, a retired government assassin who has changed course and lives a quiet life taking care of his beehives on property owned by kindly Eloise Parker.  Parker falls for a phishing scam that wipes out her savings, leading her to commit suicide. When Clay finds her body, he’s enraged and sets out to seek revenge against those who have caused her death.  The complicated plot involves a group called “The Beekeepers,” but I’ll stop here, adding only that I liked the way the film ended.

One endearing feature of this story is Clay’s devotion to his bees. That kind of devotion leads to a much more serious (and appropriate) story for today, Earth Day:  The threat to our country’s bees.  I recently read a scary update from one of the environmentally-concerned entities I support, Earthjustice.

Earthjustice is concerned with many threats to the earth’s environment, including the human-made biodiversity crisis that is causing the “die-off” of a number of species. One of the most critical is the current threat to honey bees, who pollinate our “superfoods,” foods that are rich in vitamins and nutrients.  Earthjustice warns that without these pollinators, “our nation would lose one-third of its crops as well as our food security.”  But extensive use of pesticides in industrial agriculture has led to massive die-offs of honey bees.  We simply can’t afford to lose them.

Earthjustice, whose slogan is “because the earth needs a good lawyer,” believes that the law is the most powerful tool we have to protect our natural world.  In the case of honey bees, its lawyers are fighting the key drivers of this crisis.  Notably, they recently won a victory in California that prohibits the use of an insecticide, sulfoxaflor. This victory should help to protect bees across the country. 

Earthjustice plans to continue to protect the diversity of plant and animal life on which we all depend.  Let’s support its efforts and those by other hard-working groups committed to preserving our planet, especially the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).

We can begin by fighting to save our honey bees!

Being short

Being short

When I was in seventh grade, I was one of the tallest kids in my class.

The other kids kept growing.  I didn’t.

So, for most of my life, I’ve been viewed by others as “short.”  Not painfully short.  Just short.  And that’s been fine with me because I’ve always viewed myself as perfectly normal, confident in my own (short-sized) skin.  At the same time, I can’t deny my short stature, with all of its attendant pros and cons.                      

Another writer, Mara Altman, recently put forth her own ideas on being short. In an opinion piece in The New York Times, Altman declared that “there has never been a better time to be short.”

Why did she decide to take up this particular cause?  Altman tries to make being short seem to be somehow better by dredging up a list of positives as support for her claim.  Quoting famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith, who was himself 6’8” and once said that our culture’s “favoring the tall” is “one of the most blatant…prejudices in our society,” she attempts to knock down that prejudice.

As someone who’s about the same height as Altman, I like her list of benefits.  For example, I like her claim that short people live longer and have fewer incidences of cancer.  Great news, if true.  I’ve lived my life feeling pretty happy about being short, and anything that bolsters my general feeling of well-being is welcome.  But I question some of her sunny conclusions. 

First, Altman contends that being short benefits the environment.  She cites Thomas Samaras (she refers to him as the Godfather of Shrink Think), who has calculated that if Americans were just 10 percent shorter, we would save 87 million tons of food every year, as well as trillions of gallons of water and millions of tons of trash. But where are the calculations that support these conclusions? 

Altman also cites, Yuval Noah Harari, the author of “Sapiens,” who studied a population of early humans living on a small island.  When the island was cut off by rising sea levels, “Big people, who need a lot of food, died first,” Harari wrote.  But does this story of an isolated group of early humans really inform us in twenty-first-century America?  For a more recent and more apt example, why don’t we look at Holocaust survivors?  I haven’t researched this topic, but it seems to me that those who survived horrendous treatment in the Nazi concentration camps covered a wide range of body types.  Everyone in the camps was desperate for food, disease stalked the camps, and survival depended on a number of things in the survivors’ lives.  I have to question whether the “big people” died first.

Another bit of questionable evidence cited by Altman:  The findings of a Dutch researcher, Nancy Blaker, who has studied “social status” and concluded that short men (not clearly defined), “counter to prevailing attitudes,” may “compensate” for being short by “developing positive attributes.”  According to Blaker, short men aren’t necessarily “aggressive and mean” but “behave in smart strategic ways…that can also mean being prosocial.”  Huh?  Let’s be honest here.  I’ve known a great many short (as opposed to tall) men during my lifetime, and I would never presume to generalize about them.  Each man, like each woman, is an individual, subject to his gene pool and to a number of influences that began in their early childhoods.  Each man, short or tall or medium-height, is the result of whatever has made him the way he is.  Whoever said they were “aggressive and mean” in the first place?  Ludicrous.  All of them now behave “in smart strategic ways”?  Some, maybe, but all? 

I share Altman’s concern that some parents foolishly seek out expensive human growth treatment in an attempt to produce a child who’s bigger than nature intended.  A Philadelphia endocrinologist, Dr. Adda Grinberg, worries that parents think height is the key to success and belonging.  Grinberg disagrees with these parents.  “There are some short people who thrive and do phenomenally well and lead fantastic lives, and there are some tall people who are miserable.  It’s not the height that determines the outcome.”   Well said.  Truly caring parents should think twice before subjecting their children to an uncertain and possibly harmful treatment, hoping their kids will turn out taller.  Altman confesses that her parents, concerned that she would be short, subjected her to those “excruciating” treatments for three and a half years.  And those treatments apparently didn’t make much of a difference.  She still turned out to be “five-feet-even” short.

I’d love to believe Altman’s claims that short people live longer and have fewer incidences of cancer.  I sadly don’t find any citations of evidence for those claims.  I similarly like her focus on environmental benefits, but her support there is also sketchy.  If anyone can offer valid numbers to attach to these claims, I’m all ears.

By the way, I’d add one advantage Altman’s omitted:  Being a passenger on an airplane.  No matter where I sit on a plane, I always have plenty of legroom because my legs simply don’t require a lot of room.  Taller passengers often look resentful.

But things may not the same on other forms of transit.  When I would take a commuter train from home to downtown Chicago, I’d usually seek out the window seat on a two-seater bench. Time after time, a large overweight man would squeeze into my bench, leaving me little space to enjoy my chosen spot.  Whenever I later told my darling husband about it, he wisely responded, “Of course! Those guys want to sit next to you because you’re so small.”  He explained the obvious:  These men were exploiting my small size by occupying the lion’s share of my bench.

So, being a short person hasn’t always been totally positive.  I have a perennial problem reaching high shelves and racks in stores.  Since the pandemic has cut my time in stores to a minimum, that problem has abated.  But I still have kitchen cabinets and closets with high shelves requiring a stool to reach items perched there.  But seriously, are those enormous obstacles to happiness?  I don’t think so.

Overall, being short hasn’t been a big problem for me. As a child, I always felt perfectly normal.  Both of my parents and my sister were also short, and I was never made to think that it was better to be tall. I’ve rarely felt excluded, because of my height, from any activity or pursuit I chose to follow, including attending law school at a time when women were generally discouraged from doing so.  And I had a whole universe of men, from the shortest to the tallest, who were OK with dating me, while taller women may have attracted a somewhat smaller cohort.

Still, I’m not sorry that my delightful daughters have turned out to be about five or six inches taller than I am, reaching a height somewhere between mine and that of their much taller father. They light up my life in every way.  But to be specific, they’re happy to grab items for me from those pesky high shelves. 

I’m OK with being short, and I don’t feel a need to defend it.  Nature intends us to be short or tall or in-between.  Why should I pick a fight with Mother Nature?