When I first picked up Last Child in the Woods by Richard Louv, I was a little put off by the author’s use of the term “nature deficit disorder.” Just because something is bad doesn’t make it a disorder, but he did acknowledge that the term is not a medical diagnoses, but a way of explaining a phenomenon. I get that. Sometimes you need a concise way to convey a concept and “Nature Deficit Disorder” does get the point across.

I heartily agree with the basic premise of the book, that children spending time in nature is critical for both the development of children and the preservation of the environment. You don’t have to be an expert to realize that time spent in nature has a profound effect on children.

I wasn’t raised in an outdoorsy family, and yet memories of my experiences in the natural world rank as some of the best, most vivid memories of my childhood. They introduced in me the concept that the world was much bigger, more intricate and amazing than I had ever thought possible. They inspired awe.

To me this was the most important concept in the book. The amazing sense of wonder, awe and curiosity that children are introduced to through their experiences in nature are invaluable—both essential components of happy, successful lives and cornerstones of ingenuity.

While it’s easy to see how time spent in nature is good for children, it may be harder to see how it is good for the environment. The basic idea is that if you love something, you will strive to protect it. You will want to understand it better. You will care for it. Only firsthand experience can foster that kind of love and passion. It’s all well and good that you and I are passionate about protecting the environment, but it can’t stop with us.

It’s cheesy and cliche, I know, but today’s children are tomorrow’s leaders. If we lock them away in our homes and schools, we make “saving the environment” an abstract concept like “saving the starving children” was when you were six and didn’t clean your plate. You may pay lip service to an abstract concept. You may even donate a little money to an abstract concept, but you don’t alter your life for it the way you do for something you love.

The one thing I felt this book lacked was concrete ideas about what you can do today to get your kids out in nature. There were a few mentions of fishing and camping, but most of the solutions were about organizing our urban landscapes to include natural areas. That is a worthy goal, to be sure, but I think parents need solutions that work within our existing framework too.

My husband and I do a decent job of getting our kids out in nature, but this book inspired me to want to do more. I checked out the website associated with this book, but I didn’t find much in the way of ideas there either.

In my search I stumbled on a few other sites that seemed to have some great ideas. Here are a few to get you started:

Green Hour is a campaign by the National Wildlife Federation to give your kids one hour a day of unstructured interaction with the natural world. Their activities, Discovery Journal and forums had some great ideas.

The National Resource Defense Center’s link page for kids has lots of fun stuff to check out here. I especially enjoyed the Environmental Club Projects on the EPA Student Center website.

EcoKids Canada is a great site with homework help resources and online games for kids to play (although the games might be counterproductive to the goal of getting your kids outside!) The coolest things on this site are the Eco Field Guides, where kids can learn about insects, fish, mammals, birds, etc. It would be a lot of fun to read about creatures and plants native to your area, then go outside and find and observe them.

Even though Last Child in the Woods left me wanting more, I’m inspired to make the commitment to get my kids outside as much as possible. And so far, we are doing great—living across the street from a gorgeous park helps a lot!

What are your favorite ways of getting outside with or without kids?

(image by CLMinc via flickr)