Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Connecting with nature’

The renowned nature photographer and author, Joel Sartore,  is on a mission. He has set out to photograph every species of animal currently housed in the world’s zoos. With portraits of over 6000 species already taken, he is halfway towards completing his project, which he calls Photo Ark. His quest is to create a photo archive of global diversity with the hope that his portraits will stir in people a deep empathy with animals and an active desire to protect them from extinction. He is undertaking the project against the background of the calamitous species loss almost everywhere on Earth. It has been estimated that unless massive remedial action is taken, half the animal species currently inhabiting the planet will be gone by the end of the century.

Sartore’s portraits are both beautiful and moving. He tries to take his shots with the animal looking

A photo from Photo Ark

directly into the lens, so creating the impression that the animal is making eye contact and forming a connection with the viewer.

While we are all genetically programmed to pay attention to animals, we are more attracted to, and more empathic with, species that share similar features and/or behaviours to ourselves. This is sometimes referred to as the “similarity principle”.

Regardless of the enormous range of size, shape and other differences that separate our species from others, the main features of the human face (especially the eyes) have their counterparts in mammals, birds and other members of the animal kingdom. By focussing on the faces of his animal subjects, Sartore is making clever (but entirely appropriate) use of the similarity principle.

There is something of a tragic irony in the fact that we humans evolved to live with other animals and to share our ancestral forest and grassland habitats with them. There was nothing in this arrangement that required the extinction of species. The web of life is intended to remain intact – not to have great holes in it.

The evidence that our brain has an “animal bias” is irrefutable. We are hard-wired to notice animals and to pay attention to them involuntarily. When people are shown pictures of animals, a specific part of the amygdala – a brain structure that is central to pleasure, pain, fear and reward – reacts almost instantly. This may explain why we very rapidly detect animals in nature scenes and why we are more sensitive to changes in the movement and positioning of animals than we are to other objects, including objects as familiar as vehicles.

In infants, the animal bias shows up in a number of ways including more animation, vocal activity and social interaction when they are engaged with animals rather than toys.

None of this should be surprising as humans have been in the company of animals for two million years or more. Instantaneously obtaining and processing information about an animal’s intent was obviously very important for not becoming prey or being bitten, scratched, thumped or trampled. Not only that, the same ability could be turned to using animals as food and as indicators of where water, edible plants and other food sources might be located. Our ancestors were well served by their genetic disposition to pay close attention to animals.

About 14,000 years ago, these same ancestors found another use for animals, particularly for dogs. Bonding with dogs proved to very beneficial. Apart from providing protection and helping with hunting and shepherding, dogs proved to be great companions and promotors of mental health. Interacting with a friendly dog increases the production of oxytocin, a powerful “feel-good” hormone. A surge of oxytocin facilitates social bonding, co-operation, caring and empathy. It also decreases stress, depresses fear and enhances a sense of security, trust and pleasure. Not surprisingly the presence of a dog has been found to improve the effectiveness of therapeutic counselling (the “dog in the room” phenomenon).

Similar benefits come from interactions with cats and indeed other pets including horses. And it is almost certain that the “oxytocin response” is triggered, to some degree at least, in most of our benign encounters with non-domestic animals.

It is also the case that dogs get something of the oxytocin lift from an engagement with humans (maybe cats and other pets do as well).

Not a great deal is known about the specific animal attributes that attract our attention and elicit the oxytocin response. Common experience suggests that beauty of form, colour and movement is an obvious candidate. Superiority to humans in size, strength and physical skill is another. One attribute that has received some research attention is the “cuteness” factor.

We tend to prefer animals that we perceive as “cute”, an attribute we usually associate with babies, infants and young children. In scientific terms, cuteness is thought to be bound up with the “baby schema”, a set of features including large head, round face, high forehead, large eyes and small nose and mouth. In combination, these features automatically trigger nurturing, care-giving and empathic behaviour in both adults and children. Animals displaying these features, can look forward to being patted and cuddled on a regular basis.

Even though I have never seen one in the wild, I have a special place in my heart for snow leopards. These magnificent animals thrive in some of the most hostile landscapes on earth. I am fascinated by their beauty and awed by their capacity to survive. Needless to say, I was delighted when a recent blog post by Josh Gosh contained this link to a stunning video that features wonderful images of snow leopards. Take time to view it; you won’t be disappointed.

 

Read Full Post »

I have just had the great good fortune to view Jennifer Peedom’s documentary film, Mountain.

A product of her collaboration with Robert Macfarlane (script), Enan Ozturk (cinematography) and Richard Tongnetti leading the Australian Chamber Orchestra (music), Mountain is a feast for the eyes and ears. It is the most sensuously sumptuous film I have ever viewed. Not to be missed!!

Macfarlane drew the deeply insightful and poetic script from his bestselling book, Mountains of the Mind: A History of a Fascination. Although written very much from a mountaineer’s perspective, the book is also about the human experience of mountains more generally.

Unlike Macfarlane, I have not had the climber’s extreme engagement with mountains, but I have trekked around them, across them and even into the glacial hearts of some. So I know first-hand the fascination about which he writes and can relate totally to his well-informed analysis of that fascination.

The label, “mountain”, is attached to all sorts of elevated landforms, some more hills than mountains.

Genuine mountains are characterised not just by height but also by the way ecosystems vary in layers across their vertical expanse (vertical or altitudinal zonation). To ascend a mountain is to pass from relatively warm forests to cooler grasslands and heaths, to cold, vegetation-free rock and scree and then, in many instances, to regions of permanent ice and snow.

Even the “baby” mountains making up the Australian Alps display something of this zonation.

That said, it is important to accept that our experience of mountains has to do more with how we perceive them rather than the facts of their geology, climatic variation and ecology.

As Macfarlane writes, What we call a mountain is thus in fact a collaboration of the physical forms of the world with the imagination of humans – a mountain of the mind.

In his book, Macfarlane plots how the imagining of mountains has changed over time. In so doing, he draws our attention to the rich and unique impact that mountains have on the human mind and spirit.

These excerpts from Mountains of the Mind convey something of the extent and power of that impact.

  • Ultimately and most importantly, mountains quicken our sense of wonder. The true blessing of mountains is not that they provide a challenge or a contest, something to be overcome and dominated (although this is how many people have approached them). It is that they offer something gentler and infinitely more powerful: they make us ready to credit marvels – whether it is the dark swirls that water makes beneath a plate of ice, or the feel of the soft pelts of moss that form on the lee side of boulders and trees.

Mountains return to us the priceless capacity for wonder which can so insensibly be leached away by modern existence and they urge us to apply that wonder to our own everyday lives.

  •  By speaking of greater forces than we can possibly invoke, and by confronting us with greater spans of time than we can possibly envisage, mountains refute our excessive trust in the man-made. They pose profound questions about our durability and the importance of our schemes. They induce, I suppose, a modesty in us.

At bottom, mountains like all wildernesses, challenge our complacent conviction – so easy to   lapse into – that the world has been made for humans by humans.

  • Mountains also reshape our understandings of ourselves, of our interior landscapes. The remoteness of the mountain world – its harshness and its beauties – can provide us with a valuable perspective down on to the most familiar and best-charted regions of our lives. It can subtly reorient us and readjust the points from which we can take out bearings. In their vastness and in their intimacy, mountains stretch out the individual mind and compress it simultaneously: they make it aware of its own immeasurable acreage and reach out, at the same time, of its own smallness.

 

  • Nowhere but in the mountains do you become aware of the incorrigible plurality of light, of its ability to alter its texture rapidly and completely.

The sky and the air, too, were found to be magnificently different in the mountains. At altitude, on a clear day, the sky was no longer the flat ceiling of the lowlands, but an opulent cobalt ocean, so sensuously deep  that some travellers felt themselves falling up into it.

  •  In the mountainous world things behave in odd and unexpected ways. Time, too, bends and alters. In the face of the geological time-scales on display, your mind releases its normal grip on time. Your interest and awareness of the world beyond the mountain falls away and is replaced with a much more immediate hierarchy of needs: warmth, food, direction, shelter, survival.

It is little wonder that people are still flocking to mountains in their millions, most to savour rather than climb them. As a friend of mine recently discovered, Yosemite Valley in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of Northern California is crawling with sightseers during the summer season. A comparable influx of visitors occurs in iconic mountain locations and resorts in other countries including Nepal, India, Switzerland and Canada.

Is my friend’s experience telling us that people’s love of nature is well and strong and that the evidence pointing to a declining involvement with nature in many Western countries is, in fact, misleading?

Regrettably it doesn’t – in part, because the evidence is from a range of reliable studies including large-scale surveys, and also in part, because the evidence can be linked to (and partially explained by) broader changes in lifestyle and recreational preferences within Western societies.

And then there is the fact that the allure of mountains, especially the awesomeness of them, is like the Sirens’ call – very hard to resist even by those who are not otherwise drawn to nature. People will still be visiting mountains, even when other forms of nature experiences have little or no part in their lives.

Nevertheless, we can always hope that people will come away from their mountain visit with a new, restored or re-vitalised love of nature.

Read Full Post »

In most Western societies, the physical distance between people and nature is growing. There are, for example, studies showing that since the 1980s, visitation per capita to national parks and other natural places has been declining in the USA, Japan and Australia. This is part of a more general trend for outdoor activities to be replaced by indoor and virtual forms of recreation. As Oliver Pergams and Patricia Zaradic have suggested, “videophilia is replacing biophilia”.

Not surprisingly, there is now growing evidence that the physical isolation from nature is showing up as a pervasive cultural disconnect. The messages our minds are receiving from the words we read, the images we see and indeed the songs we sing are directing our attention less and less to the natural world.

Does it surprise you to learn that a study of 60 Disney and Pixar animated films made between 1937 and 2009 found a decline in the depiction of outdoor scenes and less biodiversity and more human impact in the scenes that were portrayed?

And what about this? An investigation of 296 children’s books that won Caldecott awards from 1938 to 2008 reported a similar decline, accompanied by an increase in the portrayals of human-built environments.

Films and books of fiction are cultural “products” and, as such, they reflect their creators’ minds and the cultural scene on which these minds are drawing.

If these creators have limited encounters with nature in popular culture, nature is less likely to feature in their work. And as communicators, they are less likely to refer to nature if they do not expect nature to resonate with their audiences. Is this, in fact, what is going on?

The answer is, Yes, and here is a graph that illustrates the reason for this answer.

 

As you can see straight away, the graph tells a story that spans the 100 years of the 20th century. It is also easy to see that it is a story that falls into two parts, one across the years to 1950, the second spanning the following 50 years.

The story can be told because the data bases and the technology are available to chart, year-by-year, the relative frequency with which words, phrases and other units of language have appeared in selected bodies of writing. The red line in the graph is just such a chart.

It shows, as a percentage of all words, how frequently 186 nature-related words were used in all fiction books published in English between the years1900 and 2000. In 1920, for example, the 186 words accounted for 0.40% of all words published; in 2000, the figure was close to 0.34%. The black lines in the graph show the overall trends in the figures.

The nature words (nouns and verbs) were objectively and very systematically chosen to cover four categories: general – e.g., hill, river, sunset; bird names – e.g., finch, heron, lark; tree names – e.g., birch, willow, poplar; and flower names – e.g., camellia, daisy, marigold.

What is clear from the graph is that, since 1950, the appearance of nature-related words in fiction books has fallen substantially and steadily. The same trend was not displayed by words, such as building, door, curtain, highway and computer, relating to the human-made environment.

The researcher responsible for these findings is Associate Professor Selin Kesebir from the London Business School. As part of the same study, she investigated trends in the number of references to nature for two other “products” of popular culture – song lyrics and film storylines.

Professor Kesebir found that references to nature in both lyrics and storylines exhibited the same downward trend as was detected in novels. This led her to conclude:

Nature features less in English popular culture today than it did in the first half of the 20th century.

She summarises the implications of her research eloquently and powerfully.

The pattern we documented is disconcerting in light of the strong evidence documenting the positive effects of contact with nature. To the extent that the disappearance of nature vocabulary from cultural conversation reflects an actual distancing from nature, the findings suggest unrealised gains to human health and well-being, as well as lost opportunities to nurture pro-environmental attitudes and stewardship behaviours.

There is another reason why these findings are of concern. Cultural products not only reflect the prevailing culture, they also shape it. Socialization that helps people to form, maintain, and reinforce particular worldviews. The flagging cultural attention to nature means a muting of the message that nature is worth paying attention to and being talked about. It also means a loss of opportunities to awaken curiosity, appreciation, and awe for nature.

The loss of physical contact with nature, combined with a parallel loss of symbolic contact through cultural products may set in motion a negative feedback loop, resulting in diminishing levels of interest in and appreciation for nature. In this light, our findings do not look auspicious. We hope that an awareness of the existing trends will be instrumental in instigating cultural leadership to reverse it.

Valid, eloquent and powerful as these words are, they are unlikely to change anything. In the face of the tide of popular culture, they are futile. It pains me to say this because I have written hundreds of thousands of words in the same vein. Naively perhaps, I once believed that if people were made aware of the value of a nature connection for them personally and collectively and for planet Earth, they would open their lives to nature – at least to some degree.

What do I think now? Well, I am still coming to terms with what is actually happening. But one thing I still believe is that there is a part all of us nature “lovers” can play in helping others reconnect with nature. How? – simply by inviting family, friends and acquaintances to join us in our nature-based activities. We need to do this in a patient, mindful, considerate and sensible way, of course, guided always by the “gradualism” principle. Success is not guaranteed but we owe it to others, ourselves and the future of planet Earth to try.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

These are views of the greenspace I see from one of the balconies of my new apartment.

Having these views was a big reason for choosing the apartment in the first place. Even so, I feel very fortunate and privileged to have such greenery to look at every day.

Not all residents of medium density developments in our cities have such amenities to enjoy. After all, lawns and gardens take up space where apartments can be built. Where’s the financial sense in foregoing profits in order to provide a view of a bit of greenery?  Anyway, isn’t it the case that people don’t miss what they didn’t have to begin with. Besides, a few token plants and trees around the place will keep everyone happy.

While such cynical views may not be expressed openly, they might as well be. It is a rare apartment development these days that doesn’t occupy the entire block of land. And government regulators are doing little to curb the practice or to reserve land in areas of increasingly high population density for parks and gardens.

Evidence from the many studies of the relationship between green space and human health and well-being clearly shows how short-sighted, irresponsible and potentially damaging these policies and attitudes are.

Consider these research findings, for example:

  • People are happier and have lower mental distress when living in urban areas with more green space, especially biodiversity rich spaces.
  • Meeting one’s neighbour in a local park can help to build friendship and foster a sense of commonality, and can lay the groundwork for further socialising.
  • Green space in urban areas is associated with a long-term reduction in mortality (Proximity to green space helps people live longer).
  • People living close to (within 300 metres of) green space report better health, require fewer medications and are troubled less by anxiety and depression.
  • Green space can have beneficial therapeutic benefits for people suffering from mental illnesses and even reduce the risk of schizophrenia.
  • Access to green space can help to counter some of the risks to health associated with low socio-economic circumstances especially inadequate physical activity.
  • Access to green space can reduce childhood behavioural problems including hyperactivity disorders.
While everyone stands to benefit from having green space nearby, it is likely that children and disadvantaged people have most to gain.

I often wonder what it will take to awaken Australians and people elsewhere to the power for good that resides in urban nature (and nature in all its forms). I am not sure that writing about it achieves much, apart from warming the hearts of the converted. And I am not convinced that TV nature documentaries – even of the quality of Planet Earth II – have more than a transient impact on most people.

Certainly, there are signs of an awakening of sorts – most notably the actions being stirred by Richard Louv’s warnings about the epidemic of “nature deficit disorder” spreading through children of the First World. But even this awakening is struggling to find its way into the consciousness of society’s opinion shapers and policy makers. The movers and shakers are simply not being moved and shaken by a “nature narrative”. Even the most monumentally impacting of nature’s current narratives, climate change, is still being denied by some and heard without real understanding by many.

One major impediment, I think, is that nature has ceased to be personal for many citizens of Western societies. When something is personal it reaches beyond our minds to the depths of our emotions and values. When something is personal it is part of us, part of our sense of meaning and identity. We appropriate it to ourselves; we revel in it; we nurture it; we defend it. When it flourishes, we flourish; when it hurts we hurt.

A personal relationship is grounded in intimate experience – an “I-thou” rather than an “I-it” form of engagement. Our relationship with nature is no different – as scientific as well as anecdotal evidence clearly tells us.

What, then, has to be done to help people discover nature in a personally meaningful and significant way?  Perhaps the answer can be found by encouraging people like you (my valued readers) to tell how they (and you) formed a personal relationship with nature. There is a power in personal stories. Perhaps the way forward is to tap that power on behalf of ourselves and nature.

Read Full Post »

Perhaps you saw the first episode of David Attenborough’s Planet Earth II, the documentary I mentioned in my last post, which is currently being screened in Australia on Channel 7. If you didn’t, or even if you did, please turn your mind off other things and take a few minutes to look at this promotional trailer.

Having watched the trailer and before reading on, think about some of the emotions that the scenes evoked. Did you experience awe, joy and amusement for example? Were your feelings more positive after the viewing than before? Do you think that looking at nature content like this improves your general sense of well-being?

These are the kind of questions that the BBC, the producers of Planet Earth II, also posed and sought answers to. They recruited a leading authority on human emotions and well-being, Dacher Keltner to help them.

Based at the University of California, Berkley, Professor Keltner is a social psychologist who is a leader in the study of the biological and evolutionary origins of the positive and benevolent or “prosocial” human emotions such as compassion, love, gratitude, awe, aesthetic pleasure and humour. Apart from his impressive academic publications, he is the author of the best-selling, Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life. He is co-director of the Greater Good Science Centre (a visit to the Centre’s website is highly recommended).

As some of Keltner’s work has focussed on the impact of nature on our positive and benevolent emotions, he was a very appropriate person to undertake the kind of survey that the BBC required.

The way Keltner and his team went about the task was to sample adult members of TV viewing audiences in the UK, USA, Australia, India, Singapore and South Africa, 7500 people in all. The recruits were assigned randomly to view one of five short video clips: two from Planet Earth II (just like the one you may have just viewed), one showing a montage of news reports, one comprising scenes from a TV drama and the last presenting an excerpt from a DIY instructional video.

Emotional responses before and after viewing the clips were assessed using a questionnaire that measures positive emotions, a stress scale and facial mapping technology that measure a viewer’s subconscious (emotional) facial responses when viewing a video.

The producers of Planet Earth would have been very pleased with the findings of the survey. Watching content from Planet Earth II produced:

  • significant increases in feelings of awe, contentedness, joy, amusement and curiosity, but
  • reduced feelings of tiredness, anger and stress.

Some fancy statistical analyses demonstrated that these effects could indeed be traced to the kind of content viewed – natural history versus that in the control clips.

It is unlikely that Keltner and his colleague would have been surprised by their results. Evidence from 150 or so studies give scientists strong grounds for believing that exposure to nature, whether direct or via media of one kind and another, reduces stress, increases calm and improves mental efficiency and creativity.

There is also growing evidence that contact with nature produces “elevating” effects whereby our minds are expanded, our morality strengthened and our concern for others deepened. In short, “nature makes us nicer” (as well happier and smarter).

Given this scientific reality, why is it such a struggle to get people to listen to the message and to take advantage of it, especially as tapping into the reality can be done so easily? One minute of gazing at a stand of Tasmanian eucalypts in a university campus was all it took to heighten feelings of awe in young adults – feelings that were associated with a display of diminished self-centredness and heightened ethical sensitivity.

There is no suggestion here that a minute of immersion in nature is all it takes to change a person’s long term well-being and attitude to others. But the finding does demonstrate just how responsive the human brain is to the sensory richness, beauty, awesomeness, limitless diversity and, yes, humour of nature.

Keltner would agree, I am sure, that a worthwhile step towards “elevating” individual human behaviour and creating less violent and more compassionate human societies is to enhance people’s connectedness with the natural world.

And we need to be taking such steps in today’s world. Do you agree?

Read Full Post »

In a scene from his latest documentary, Planet Earth 2, Sir David Attenborough is surveying a natural landscape from the basket of a floating hot-air balloon.  “It’s impossible not to be impressed by the sheer grandeur, and splendour and power of the natural world”, he remarks.

That, a cynic might say, is the kind of thing you would expect him to say, given that he has been rewarded handsomely, materially and otherwise, for spending much of his life immersed in the natural world. Surely his exceptionally privileged career as a naturalist and documentary maker has given him a romanticised view of nature (some might say).

Even a less cynical person might be tempted to think that Sir David’s enthusiasm is a unique product of the extraordinary opportunities he has had to revel in the “grandeur”, “splendour” and “power” of the natural world.

There is undoubtedly some truth in this view, but it is far from the full picture.

The biological foundations of Sir David’s passion for nature are shared by everyone. We all come into the world with a brain that has an inherent disposition to seek and to enjoy nature. This disposition, known scientifically as biophilia, contains the potential for a profoundly enriching relationship with nature. We have to accept, however, that biophilia is thought to be a “weak” biological tendency, meaning that regular and positive interactions with the natural world are necessary if it to flourish in the human psyche and behaviour.

Fortunately, it does not necessarily have to be the world of wild nature that Sir David has experienced so extensively. Biophilia can be nurtured in all sorts of “green spaces”, including gardens, parks and other forms of domesticated nature. Even representations of nature in photos and paintings are able to provide some of the emotional building blocks of biophilia.

The building process works like this:

 

  • we have an encounter with nature in some form (flower, native animal, sunset, panorama, seascape, for example);
  • in response, brain chemicals, notably dopamine, trigger positive or “feel-good” emotions such as pleasure, joy, tranquillity, calmness and wonder; and
  • these pleasant and rewarding feelings motivate us to repeat the experience.

 

It is true to say that the process cultivates a form of subtle addiction. It tends to make our contacts with nature “self-multiplying” – the more contacts we have, the more we seek. That is why people who have gardens, compared with those without, are more likely to visit parks and other green spaces, and to take their children with them. And the children who are exposed to green spaces in this and other ways are more likely to become nature seeking and nature valuing adults.

A great thing about the process is that it requires little conscious management by us, apart from putting ourselves in touch with nature is some appropriate way to begin with. Once we have initiated a nature experience, our senses, emotions and unconscious cognitive processes take over – often in ways that range well beyond simply being “impressed”.

The “grandeur” of nature, for example, can

 

  • provide a profound sense of satisfaction and joy
  • transport us from the here-and-now to places beyond ourselves
  • make us kinder and more sociable
  • give us a sense of unity or “at-one-ment” with nature, others and the cosmos in general.

 

The eminent Australian biologist, the late Professor Charles Birch defined “at-one-ment” as the “experience of oneness with ourselves, with others, with the world, with the universe and with God”. It is, he says, the “most ultimate encounter”, the “opposite of being adrift and separate from the rest of existence”.

Urban environments can never lead us to at-one-ment, but nature can.

Possibly (and hopefully), it is a deep, intuitive inkling of this fact that is at work motivating some city dwellers to pay more for accommodation near green spaces. In research conducted in Vienna, Dr Shanaka Herath of the University of Wollongong found that apartment prices dropped by 0.13 – 0.26 % for every 1% increase in distance from the nearest green space. Similar findings have been reported from cities in the UK, Canada and South Korea, he says. Judging by anecdotal reports from buyers agents, the same is true of Australian capital cities with some buyers prepared to pay up to 10% more for homes with greenery around them.

Maybe this is telling us that biophilia is a more robust trait than it is generally thought to be.

Even if that is the case, we still must heed the call made by Sir David in Planet Earth 2:

Now, over half of us live in an urban environment. My home, too, is here, in the city of London. Looking down on this great metropolis [as he was at the time], the ingenuity with which we continue to reshape the surface of our planet is very striking.

But it’s also sobering. It reminds me of just how easy it is for us to lose our connection with the natural world.

Yet, it’s on this connection that the future of both humanity and the natural world will depend. And surely, [it is] our responsibility to do everything within our power to create a planet that provides a home not just for us, but for all life on Earth.

Read Full Post »

As this is my first blog of 2017, let me wish you all a happy and nature-filled new year.

It is, in fact, my first blog in almost three months, breaking the pattern of fortnightly blogs very comprehensively.

hg-east-balcony-feb-2017During the gap in my blogging, my wife and I were very caught up in the business of downsizing and moving from our home of 55 years to an apartment in a retirement village. We left behind our much-loved garden and fernery, but have pleasant greenish outlooks and two balcony gardens to compensate.

If the whole truth be told, the distraction of the move hg-west-balcony-feb-19coincided with a spot of “blogger’s block”. During the past three or so years, I have always been able to source inspiration for my blogs from news items, life events, people or scientific reports concerned with biophilia or related topics. By November of 2016, my sources appeared to have dried up (from my viewpoint at least).

Hopefully, 2017 will see the streams flowing again.

A recent newspaper report about how Finland intends to commemorate a significant national anniversary is a promising start. It seems that the whole of Finland is preparing to celebrate nature as a central part of the country’s Centennial Jubilee.

Since 2013, Finns have celebrated their connection with nature on a Nature Day held in the height of summer on the last Saturday in August. In the centenary year of 2017, there will be three added Nature Days: the first in February to encourage Finns to revel in winter finland-bwonderlands; the second in June when spring will be wholeheartedly embraced; and the third in June when everyone will be urged to enjoy the long summer nights – by sleeping outdoors if possible.

On the traditional Nature Day in August, the Finnish flag will be flown in “honour of the country’s natural environment”, making Finland the first country in the world to acknowledge its natural scenic and recreational finland-dresources in this way. Nine out of ten Finns support celebrating their natural heritage as part of their country’s centennial jubilee. About 50 organisations are co-operating.

One aim of the Nature Day campaign is to have the Finnish flag in as many places as possible including on nature trails and as decorations for hiking food. A host of activities is planned or being promoted, including choral concerts in all 40 national parks and “dinners under the sky” in natural settings. There is a strong push, as well, to have people organise independent events such as inviting family and friends to have a campfire meal, accompanying an elderly person on a parkland walk or arranging family reunions in natural settings.

Apart from fostering national pride and nature awareness, the Nature Day campaign also aims to promote conservation and encourage nature play in children, both areas requiring attention despite the Finns’ relatively strong physical and psychological affinity with nature as expressed in the philosophy of frlluftsliv – “free air life”.

Quite rightly, Nature Day is attracting a great deal of international interest. Finland is greatly favoured by an abundance of beautiful landscapes and the drama of radically changing seasons, but it is not unique as far as having natural assets is concerned. Even the most densely populated countries on the planet have their wild and urban green spaces.

I believe that the concept of Nature Day could be made to work almost everywhere. All that is required is the spark of enthusiastic leadership and the active support of community organisations, the media and government agencies. Look what has happened to the Clean-up Australia day movement. From small-scale beginnings, it has grown to become a model for similar campaigns in other countries.

A local council, service group such as Rotary or Lions Club, church or school could get the ball rolling. This could be even better perhaps than having the lead come from the state or national government.

I would love to receive comments about the idea. Why not suggest a Nature Day activity that could be easily undertaken a family, neighbourhood group or community.

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »