A complex relationship between the specific configurations and experiential qualities of natural and built environments may impact working memoryResearch has shown that the design of physical environments can influence cognitive processes, such as working memory (WM). This study defines WM as the “temporary storage and processing of information.” While much research has considered the relationship between physical environments and cognition, the environmental features that impact WM remain unclear. This systematic literature review examined the existing literature to clarify the connection between the physical settings of built and natural environments and WM. Analysis of the existing literature also employed statistical modelling to determine which types of environmental contexts were most strongly related to WM performance.
A search of four academic databases was conducted to identify empirical studies that specifically examined the effects of the built or natural environment on WM in children and adults. Only studies that assessed the WM of healthy participants using standardized tests were eligible for inclusion in the review. Studies that assessed WM as a component of a larger cognitive test were included only if they analyzed the relationship between environmental settings and WM. Additionally, only peer-reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings that were published in English were included. No limitations were placed on publication dates. Thirty-four studies met these criteria and were included in the review. The studies utilized a broad range of study designs, including controlled laboratory experiments, field studies, and large-scale observational analyses. The studies were categorized into three main themes based on the methodological approaches used to examine the relationship between the environment and WM: (1) Dynamic Environmental Exposure, which included studies of settings where participants actively engaged with their surroundings through movement (such as walking or exercise); (2) Passive Environmental Exposure, which included studies of stationary participants who were exposed to environmental elements through videos, virtual reality (VR), or still images; and (3) Neighborhood Characteristics, which included studies that examined how participants’ living environment were related to WM over time (such as NDVI assessment studies). Nature was a central theme across all studies, and, while some reported that natural environments were linked to improved WM, others did not find significant results.
The next phase of analysis examined the studies’ effect sizes (strength of relationship between nature exposure and WM) in relation to the degree of naturalness of the setting and type of engagement with nature. This phase only included dynamic and passive environmental exposure studies. Due to the variability of natural settings across studies, the researchers first developed classification scales for nature wildness and representation. The nature wildness scale was constructed by categorizing all environments considered in the review according to the degree of human control, ranging from indoor nature (such as potted plants) to wild environments (such as national parks). The representation of experience scale categorized the form of nature exposure and the degree of participant immersion in the environment. This scale accounted for visual representations of nature (such as photographs), mediated experiences (such as VR), and direct physical engagement in nature. A similar scale for the built environment was also developed. Statistical analysis of effect sizes (from 23 studies) and nature wildness, built environment and representation scale scores resulted in a model that showed a complex relationship between environmental characteristics and their impact on WM. Interestingly, higher built environment scores were significantly linked with larger effect sizes, indicating that more complex urban settings may enhance WM performance. On the other hand, higher nature wildness scores were significantly linked with smaller effect sizes, suggesting that “exposure to more untamed or wild natural environments may not uniformly benefit WM, and could in some contexts even impair it—potentially due to increased unpredictability or reduced legibility.” However, analysis also revealed that these relationships are influenced by the interactions between environmental complexity and degree of immersion in the environment. Analysis of such interactions suggested that high levels of immersion in excessively complex built environments are linked to diminished WM. Therefore, optimal cognitive function may be supported by a balance between immersion and moderate environmental complexity. Overall, the model indicates that “WM-related cognitive effects are not simply determined by being in “nature” or “built environment,” but by the specific configurations and experiential qualities of those environments.”
The review offers insight to the complex relationships between experiences in built and natural environments and WM. Results indicate that “moderate exposure to environmental stimulation may be more beneficial for WM than the extremes.” Therefore, natural and built settings that are overly simplified or chaotic may not support the cognitive benefits associated with more balanced environments. However, given the limited number of studies, findings should be interpreted with caution. The review also calls attention to “the need for a more systematic approach to describing environments, moving beyond binary distinctions like “nature” versus “urban” to include finer-grained classifications that account for architectural features, spatial configurations, and affordances across different scales.”
The Bottom Line