Indira,
I just recently read The Nature Fix: Why Nature Makes us Happier, Healthier, and More Creative by Florence Williams. In exploring recent research on the role of nature in human health and well-being, she encountered several studies looking at how virtual nature might be a "stand-in" for actual nature experiences. Her own experience of these virtual nature encounters was that they were nothing like the real thing.
My concern is about intergenerational environmental amnesia, a term first coined by Peter H. Kahn in an essay in Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations: Psychological, Sociocultural and Evolutionary Investigations from MIT Press. Basically, children use as their baseline for nature what they know. For instance, I grew up in suburban Pennsylvania, with a stand of floodplain woods behind my house -- maybe 30 or 40 acres of third or fourth growth. Yet as a child, I thought of that as wilderness. It was the nature that I experienced. If I had grown up next to a national park filled with old growth woods, then I would have had a different sense of nature.
Fast forward to today. Are children getting the outdoor experiences that will give them a sense of nature? If nature is instead what they experience in a virtual reality, could that one day be sufficient? What would that mean for the deep engagement with the wild other -- with life beyond the human, with the wild -- during childhood?
I agree that if experiencing a virtual Walden makes a child want to go visit the real one, or even check out a cool pond down the street, that is a marvelous outcome. But if it instead leads the child to seek other virtual experiences (virtual Muir's Sierras, anyone?), then I would find it deeply troubling. In short, I would be interested in seeing a research study looking at the effects of these kinds of virtual nature experiences on children. Do they spend more time outdoors as a result, or less?
Clifford