and to learn about their doubts and biases as I set off on my own
exploration about nature and health. Sitting in the car with me that
first day were Lisa Fournier and her husband, Brian Dyre,
psychologists from two universities near Pullman, Washington. Dyre
was the biggest doubter in the group.
“I’m a skeptic about the restorative effects of nature,” he told me.
“I believe people feel good but I wonder about the mechanism—is it
that you’re just away from daily cares and is the benefit that you’re in
a new mind-set? Is it just a cheap and easy way to get to a new mind-
set?” Dyre thinks being in nature might be no different from playing
music or visiting a museum. The experience is diverting, pleasant and
sometimes social. Period.
And in fact, science has shown that those things—music, friends,
cultural events—are good for our mental health. Why should there be
something superior about nature? Maybe a bunch of tree huggers just
want that to be the case. It would be more fodder for their progressive
agendas—more parks and wetlands, fewer paved megadevelopments
and corporate theme parks. Museums, bands, legions of friends: they
tend to be found in cities.
Skeptical or not, Dyre liked the scenery. We started out in Arches
National Park, walking toward a landform called the Double O Arch
via a series of red, slickrock fins characterized by steep sides and
expansive views. It was a bit like walking on a dragon’s back. A
wooden sign warned CAUTION: PRIMITIVE TRAIL DANGEROUS HIKING. I
was loving it. To arrive here from D.C. and inhale the desert was like
climbing out of a basement. Everywhere was sky and light and the
unlikeliest colors and collections of wind-worn twisted rock. It was a
visual feast.
After picnicking on a narrow tongue of rock, we found the
remarkable double-decker arch, which looked something like a giant
bracelet of rock set atop a lifesaver. A few of us gingerly climbed
atop the delicate upper bracelet. From the top, the world fell away on