features. According to Soga and Gaston (2016), fewer and fewer of those who live in modern societies are having enough contact with the natural world. This, according to Pyle (1993), the originator of the term ‘extinction of experience’, sets up a vicious circle of increased alienation from experiences that may very well be beneficial to us, but to which we could be increasingly indifferent – a cycle of growing disaffection that may well have, according to many of these researchers, some fairly disastrous consequences. Zooming out to contemplate the broader history of humankind, Kellert (2002, p. 118) goes as far as to argue that modern US society has ‘become so estranged’ from its natural origins, that it now fails to recognise its ‘basic dependence on nature as a condition of growth and development’. It’s easy to see the problem here. If many people no longer care about, or see themselves as part of, the wider ‘natural world’, humanity could very well be drifting towards a rude awakening, whilst (adding insult to injury) being comparatively unhappy along the way by virtue of how they are increasingly oblivious to the benefits that flow from greenspace experience.
This is an alarming prospect. And we should examine the processes involved before we abandon all hope. The leading villain in this story is often urbanisation. Despite the best efforts of some of the park planners and researchers discussed above, city living is often taken to draw people away from the likelihood of beneficial encounters with greenspace. If the vast majority of humans are now living urban lives, researchers should examine how everyday experience is structured in different cities around the world and see what that tells us about the likelihood of people venturing out into greenspaces (see, for example, Turner, Nakamura, and Dinetti 2004; Fuller and Gaston 2009). Another anxiety centres on how new recreational activities could be replacing outdoor play. The migration of social life online and the ways in which many children are coming to prefer computer games over outdoor activities has been a particular source of worry for some (Pergams and Zaradic 2006; Soga and Gaston 2016). Just how busy many people now are occasionally gets a mention – how it is that many groups, in cities at least, now feel themselves to be too rushed to think about ways of inserting more greenspace experience into their lives (Lin et al. 2014). Ward Thompson (2002) develops this last point by considering the apparent stigma of lingering without purpose within societies whose members feel they should be seen to be doing something. Could it really be that the simple idea of sitting and contemplating greenspace has become too challenging for those who feel they ought to be otherwise preoccupied? This connects to concerns (Duvall and Sullivan 2016) about how our technologies can stop us from reaching the point when we are able to derive greenspace benefits even when we have managed to get there. Smartphones might provide a helpful social crutch if we find it difficult to appear purposeless in a park. But, if we have made it to the park but cannot help but look at our screens when we are there, is being there really doing us so much good?
Others have pointed to how an alternative series of, less frequently discussed but no less important, social trends have also served to discourage people from acting on the suggested desire to be around plants and trees. Bixler and Floyd (1997), for example, make the obvious but crucial point that, if we stopped for a second and allowed ourselves to consider changes in how human lives are most commonly organised (instead of jumping the gun with a premature focus on effective landscape design), we should be unsurprised to see a growing separation between everyday life and outdoor greenspace. Because of how societies have set about making life easier for themselves, natural areas may now be ‘uncomfortable’ for many. As they noted, in the twentieth century, most advances in home design have sought to improve comfort (see also Shove 2003, on these trends). So, whilst central heating and air-conditioning, showers, sinks and other inventions may initially seem like fairly innocuous and attractive technological advances, they have probably, according to them, also resulted in a ‘narrowing of comfort range and lowered tolerance for a wide range of environmental irritants’ (Shove 2003, p. 448). In developing this suggestion, theirs is a very different way of seeing human encounters with the ‘natural world’ when some of the above studies can tend to celebrate greenspace benefits. Could it actually be that many people now see outdoor greenspaces as places of environmental ‘irritation’ (more than enjoyable restoration) when compared to their indoor comforts? Perhaps we should consider what keeps people away from outdoor greenspace as much as what they would ideally experience if they went.
On that point, others have emphasised the importance of acknowledging the continued geographical bias in studies of greenspace benefits. This has led researchers to overlook certain important parts of the puzzle. Specifically, because many studies have been done in relatively temperate climates, the outdoor discomforts that are likely to be more keenly felt elsewhere in the world are often downplayed (Keniger et al. 2013). In other words, these studies tend to picture ‘the outdoors’ as a pleasant environment in which to linger such that those who do so will soon start to reap the restorative benefits provided by greenspace. Sometimes this is even part of the research design when studies have attempted to control for these ‘contextual’ climatic matters in order to study the effects of spending time with greenery in a more scientific way (see, for example, Bamberg, Hitchings, and Latham 2018). Yet, in very many cities around the world, it is often simply too hot, too cold, too sticky or too windy to make it an attractive proposition to sit outside and start accruing the benefits that feasibly flow from living vegetation in parks. It is a straightforward, but no less important, point that, if the people involved are rained on, or they start to sweat, they might soon leave (and potentially resolve never to spend time in such ‘irritating’ environments again).
If we turn to a different reading of the persistent effects of our evolutionary past, we are encouraged to see another set of reasons to be reticent about lingering for too long in these spaces. Whilst humans may very well be fundamentally attracted to particular vistas and the presence greenery, we should not forget how there have often been challenges and threats concealed within. These range from spiders and snakes to irritating plants and stinging insects (Bixler and Floyd 1997). It might therefore make good sense to recoil from these environments and retreat into the sanctuary that was once provided by caves and other forms of basic shelter and is now more commonly found in houses and apartments. Others have developed this thinking by turning to how greenspaces can feel like unpalatable places of ‘risk’ such that many do not go to them because of a background sense that they are insufficiently safe or, returning to the less intense feelings of aversion that Bixler and Floyd point towards, insufficiently sanitised (Skår 2010). Another study has considered how we might feel more relaxed if we can see for a good distance without potential assailants seeing us – viewed in this way, being immersed in vegetation that can also conceal threats is understandably unappealing (Gatersleben and Andrews 2013).
How to Respond?
What should be done about this? If we accept that there is more to this issue that providing attractive urban parks, what other solutions are there? One novel response is to think about how comparable experiences and benefits could be provided indoors. Could getting people to look at greenery on screen (or experience it through virtual reality) have the same effects? Perhaps for older people in ageing societies this could be a particularly good idea when the real-world equivalents can be physically daunting for this group (Depledge, Stone, and Bird 2011)? However, such a strategy could also push those involved even further away from the outdoors by giving them everything they need from nature inside. Presenting dramatic natural environments on screen might furthermore make the local outdoor reality increasingly dull by comparison (Ballouard, Brischoux, and Bonnet 2011). Building on the idea that we need to engage with, rather than ignore, the changing ways in which people are living in cities, another suggestion is that policymakers might do better to focus on making greenspace easier for people to encounter without making active choice to go to parks and gardens. Perhaps we should focus on the ‘incidental’ interactions associated with where they already walk, work and live (Cox et al. 2017a).
In a study that suggests those Australians who go to urban parks are doing so because of their personal affinity with these places more than the proximity to their homes – what they call the tension between ‘orientation’ and ‘opportunity’ –the logical conclusion is that we should encourage the affinity (Lin et al. 2014). For these authors, that
