Artifacts in the Experience of Fuzzy “Nature”: A Commentary

Many peer-reviewed research publications have concluded that “experience of nature” is beneficial for mental health and well-being, but virtually all of them offer only fuzzy definitions of “nature,” or none at all, and the “nature” to which subjects are exposed is itself fuzzy. This commentary argues that accounting for the two kinds of fuzziness are the underappreciated roles of artifacts and natural kinds (as understood by cognitive psychologists and philosophers of science) in both researcher and subject thinking which involves quasi-natural places and scenes. Artifacts, if discerned, adulterate what might otherwise be considered “nature.” They arouse thinking about the intentions behind them and in doing so they may trigger rumination. Rumination is associated with depression and other undesirable mental states, now rampant in urban populations. Instances of natural kinds, by definition and in contrast, generally do not express human intentions, so attending to them entails less rumination. The commentary suggests several potential explanations for why exposure to fuzzy “nature” may be healthful despite the fact that a “green” landscape or scene abounds in artifacts. It ends with some implications for research and park practice.