The subject of “nature deficit disorder” has become de riguer in any meaningful discussion of urban planning. Most clearly enunciated and defined in Richard Louv’s Last Child Left in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder, the topic continues to be vigorously debated and the principles promoted (for another take on the subject see Stephen Kellert’s Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the Human-Nature Connection). Hurricane Ike’s storm surge may have presented Galveston with an unexpected opportunity to now address what has been a chronic deficit related to the connection of our inner city children, particularly those from the poorest families, and the outside world.

A recent article published on the website Children and Nature Network addresses this topic powerfully. The author (Jonah Lehrer) states the following:

Although Olmsted took pains to design parks with a variety of habitats and botanical settings, most urban greenspaces are much less diverse. This is due in part to the “savannah hypothesis,” which argues that people prefer wide-open landscapes that resemble the African landscape in which we evolved. Over time, this hypothesis has led to a proliferation of expansive civic lawns, punctuated by a few trees and playing fields. However, these savannah-like parks are actually the least beneficial for the brain.

In a recent paper, Richard Fuller, an ecologist at the University of Queensland, demonstrated that the psychological benefits of green space are closely linked to the diversity of its plant life. When a city park has a larger variety of trees, subjects that spend time in the park score higher on various measures of psychological well-being, at least when compared with less biodiverse parks. “We worry a lot about the effects of urbanization on other species,” Fuller says. “But we’re also affected by it. That’s why it’s so important to invest in the spaces that provide us with some relief.” When a park is properly designed, it can improve the function of the brain within minutes. As the Berman study demonstrates, just looking at a natural scene can lead to higher scores on tests of attention and memory. While people have searched high and low for ways to improve cognitive performance, from doping themselves with Red Bull to redesigning the layout of offices, it appears that few of these treatments are as effective as simply taking a walk in a natural place.

But where do Galvestonians “walk in a natural place?” If you are relatively affluent, and live on the west end, there are wonderful outdoor resources such as the beaches and Galveston Island State Park. If you live in the central city, the choices are more limited. Inner city park space is lacking, and many of the parks that do exist are poorly designed and managed.

Ike’s storm surge, though, now offers the central city an interesting opportunity to develop more urban open spaces and neighborhood “pocket” parks. Most neighborhoods will be left with significant holes or gaps from homes that must be removed (i.e., where the owners lacked the funds to rebuild). Of course there will be an opportunity for significant in-fill development. But what if some of these lots could be developed for inner city parks?

Given the importance of urban open spaces to the viability of neighborhoods and quality of life in a community, Galveston must quickly develop an urban open space strategy by which these central city properties can be better utilized. My vote is for parks.

Ted Eubanks