Theme song

This week I've been thinking about what idea I should keep at the center of the early stages of research that will determine the directions I will take and questions I will ask/attempt to answer. I've decided to go with "concepts of urban natural space and access to them." This is vague on purpose so that my work can ask more questions. For example, what enables or prohibits access? Socio-economic factors? Transportation? Cultural beliefs? Also, who creates natural space? Why? How does this change people's access?

This idea of access is a big deal. What does it mean that some urban dwellers will never get to go to an Arboretum, or that some children will never roll down a giant hill that overlooks an English garden? I certainly never gave a thought to how (or if) inner-city school kids got to the Chicago Botanic Garden because I was privileged enough to have it practically in my back yard. But why does it matter? Historians reveal those answers when they put a community's access to nature in the larger context of how that community treats the environment and whether or not they have a say in how the environment is used. A person's relationship with the environment is shaped by their access to natural environments.

What is often hidden from sight are the motives behind the economic and political forces that create the natural spaces (which shape our relationship to the environment) in urban areas. How and why a city government (or a private organization) chooses a specific site for a community garden can influence their community's relationship to the environment depending on who has access to that site. These forces thereby have power over how a community thinks about and uses the environment. Crazy, yes, but not conspiracy theory crazy. These forces don't shape our environments in dark board rooms with men in suits laughing maniacally like Mr. Burns. However, they are done with a social, political or economic agenda, which may benefit or harm a community in multiple and complex ways that aren't revealed until after the fact. Access to natural space matters because it has the potential to give people power over their environment.

Other questions I'm thinking about:

There are sociological and historical studies on how ecological education fosters an appreciation and connection to nature. How much more difficult is it to get this type of education and appreciation from city parks or walking paths or forest preserves? Do we get just what we put in? If so, does the value a community gets from an ecological institutions like a Botanic Garden or Nature Center go as far as the people it reaches?