Skip to main content

Lack of green space affects our cognitive development

Children living in urban greener neighborhoods may have better spatial working memory, according to a British Journal of Educational Psychology study. Spatial working memory is responsible for recording information about one's environment and spatial orientation, and it is strongly inter-related with attentional control.

Although I grew up in the 1950-60s in a council housing estate in London, it was at that time beautifully maintained, and we were fortunate as children to be surrounded by green space.

We walked in the local park and not far away was Wimbledon Common.  We were, in that sense at least, rich.  

Does lack of green space affect cognitive ability?

Biologists often say that we humans are hunter-gatherers living in a concrete jungle.  But how does this jungle affect our cognitive development, and our awareness of it?

A new study of 4758 11-year-olds in England, shows that living in urban areas with limited green space is related to poorer spacial working memory.  This is not simply a reflection of poverty.  It is so in both deprived and non-deprived neighbourhoods.

The findings suggest a positive role of green space in cognitive functioning.  Lead author, Dr Elrini Flouri, of University College London, tells us

Spatial working memory is an important cognitive ability that is strongly related with academic achievement in children, particularly mathematics performance.

If the association between neighbourhood green space and children’s spatial working memory is causal, then these findings could be used to inform decisions about both education and urban planning.


What is spatial working memory?

Working memory is the limited‐capacity store we use for holding information over a short period of time, and our mental use of what we put in this store.

Spatial working memory is the retention and processing of visuospatial information and is strongly interrelated with attentional control.



Subscribe to The Thin End






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As