I recently wrote a paper arguing that forests close to urban and residential areas have enormous disease-preventive value. The costs of lifestyle-related diseases are growing exponentially, and nearby forests—when combined with well-guided forest bathing—can play an incredibly important role in prevention, recovery, and recreation. In fact, their societal value can be as much as 120–180 times greater than the value of the timber itself.
Could this line of reasoning be useful here?
After all, people often buy homes in these areas precisely because of the forest. It is a major part of the property's value. If someone moves to a neighborhood because it is surrounded by woodland, and that forest is later cut down, the value of their home could drop significantly. One could argue that, in such cases, the developer should even be liable for compensation.
Hi! I'd love to see your paper. I have no idea about disease preventive value, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. Certainly, I would expect to see nearby nature associated with calmness and some indicators of better health. I know when they cut down the forest behind our house my wife was in tears. We still urge neighbors to limit how much they cut trees around their houses, in order to keep our neighborhood green. The land conservation trust I used to be a part of actually prioritized conserving small -- sometimes as small as half-acre -- plots of green in urban settings. That's because we knew how important even a tiny plot can be to the character of a built-up space. It gave everyone a place to go and breathe. Not to mention a place to hear a bird sing, etc.
And, from an economic standpoint, I have never quite understood the practice of clear-cutting all the trees before putting up new houses. I know it probably saves the developer money in the sense that they have a clean slate upon which to install pipes, etc. But the new neighborhood is then denuded of anything more than a sapling or two, which -- for people like us -- would make it a less desirable place to live and presumably reduce its market value.
Part of the problem we face where I live is that there is an enormous lack of housing. That means a developer can destroy everything and still count on selling new houses for profit. Many homebuyers can't be choosy.
Getting back to your point, though -- yes, I would expect to see reduced lifestyle-related maladies where people have ample access to nature, especially emotional maladies. I know that is the case for someone like me. I get very uncomfortable in places where there isn't any greenery at all, like a hospital room or even a hotel room. When I was young, I visited the parents of a girl I was dating and immediately noticed that their large house had no plants at all. It really struck me. I couldn't feel at ease in such a big, lifeless place. Not surprisingly, at least to me, the parents were both highly successful corporate types who had put their daughter up for adoption decades before. I find them polite but not warm at all.
Ranjit describes this well. This is happening all over the county at a breakneck pace. This forest loss, along with our historical and cultural resources being equally bulldozed, is literalky and figuratively erasing who and what we are as a society.
Hi Ranjit,
I recently wrote a paper arguing that forests close to urban and residential areas have enormous disease-preventive value. The costs of lifestyle-related diseases are growing exponentially, and nearby forests—when combined with well-guided forest bathing—can play an incredibly important role in prevention, recovery, and recreation. In fact, their societal value can be as much as 120–180 times greater than the value of the timber itself.
Could this line of reasoning be useful here?
After all, people often buy homes in these areas precisely because of the forest. It is a major part of the property's value. If someone moves to a neighborhood because it is surrounded by woodland, and that forest is later cut down, the value of their home could drop significantly. One could argue that, in such cases, the developer should even be liable for compensation.
What do you think?
Hi! I'd love to see your paper. I have no idea about disease preventive value, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. Certainly, I would expect to see nearby nature associated with calmness and some indicators of better health. I know when they cut down the forest behind our house my wife was in tears. We still urge neighbors to limit how much they cut trees around their houses, in order to keep our neighborhood green. The land conservation trust I used to be a part of actually prioritized conserving small -- sometimes as small as half-acre -- plots of green in urban settings. That's because we knew how important even a tiny plot can be to the character of a built-up space. It gave everyone a place to go and breathe. Not to mention a place to hear a bird sing, etc.
And, from an economic standpoint, I have never quite understood the practice of clear-cutting all the trees before putting up new houses. I know it probably saves the developer money in the sense that they have a clean slate upon which to install pipes, etc. But the new neighborhood is then denuded of anything more than a sapling or two, which -- for people like us -- would make it a less desirable place to live and presumably reduce its market value.
Part of the problem we face where I live is that there is an enormous lack of housing. That means a developer can destroy everything and still count on selling new houses for profit. Many homebuyers can't be choosy.
Getting back to your point, though -- yes, I would expect to see reduced lifestyle-related maladies where people have ample access to nature, especially emotional maladies. I know that is the case for someone like me. I get very uncomfortable in places where there isn't any greenery at all, like a hospital room or even a hotel room. When I was young, I visited the parents of a girl I was dating and immediately noticed that their large house had no plants at all. It really struck me. I couldn't feel at ease in such a big, lifeless place. Not surprisingly, at least to me, the parents were both highly successful corporate types who had put their daughter up for adoption decades before. I find them polite but not warm at all.
Ranjit describes this well. This is happening all over the county at a breakneck pace. This forest loss, along with our historical and cultural resources being equally bulldozed, is literalky and figuratively erasing who and what we are as a society.