Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effects of neighborhood built environment on cognitive function in older adults: a systematic review

BMC Geriatrics volume 24, Article number: 194 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

In the background of an aging population, the risk of cognitive impairment in the older population is prominent. Exposure to complex neighborhood built environments may be beneficial to the cognitive health of older adults, and the purpose of this study was to systematically review the scientific evidence on the effects of neighborhood built environments on cognitive function in older adults.

Methods

Keywords and references were searched in Web of Science, Pubmed, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE. Studies examining the relationship between the built environment and cognitive function in older adults were included. The neighborhood built environment as an independent variable was classified according to seven aspects: density, design, diversity, destination accessibility, public transportation distance, blue/green space, and built environment quality. The cognitive function as the dependent variable was classified according to overall cognitive function, domain-specific cognitive function, and incidence of dementia. The quality of the included literature was assessed using the National Institutes of Health's Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Study Quality Assessment Tool.

Results

A total of 56 studies were included that met the inclusion criteria, including 31 cross-sectional studies, 23 longitudinal studies, 1 cross-sectional study design combined with a case-control design, and 1 longitudinal study design combined with a case-control design. Most of the studies reviewed indicate that the built environment factors that were positively associated with cognitive function in older adults were population density, street connectivity, walkability, number of public transportation stops around the residence, land use mix, neighborhood resources, green space, and quality of the neighborhood built environment. Built environment factors that were negatively associated with cognitive function in older adults were street integration, distance from residence to main road. The relationship between residential density, destination accessibility, and blue space with cognitive function in older adults needs to be further explored.

Conclusion

Preliminary evidence suggests an association between the neighborhood built environment and cognitive function in older adults. The causal relationship between the built environment and cognitive function can be further explored in the future using standardized and combined subjective and objective assessment methods, and longitudinal or quasi-experimental study designs. For public health interventions on the cognitive health of older adults, it is recommended that relevant authorities include the neighborhood built environment in their intervention programs.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

It is reported that about 8.5% of the world's population was aged 65 years and older in 2015, and this is expected to reach 16.7% by 2050 [1]. Population aging has become a global phenomenon and issue that is gradually becoming a topic of increasing concern for both developed and developing countries.

As the number of older adults increases, the risk of cognitive impairment increases. Cognitive impairment is characterized by reduced cognitive ability in one or more cognitive domains such as language, memory, executive function, computation and comprehension, and reasoning [2]. Dementia is the main cognitive impairment category, and one of the most common types of dementia is Alzheimer's disease (AD) [3]. Cognitive impairment not only affects the physical and mental health, daily living ability, and quality of life of older adults [4, 5], but also imposes a heavy economic burden on individuals, families, society, and healthcare [6]. Cognitive impairment in older adults has become an important public health issue. Therefore, to slow down cognitive decline and reduce the risk of dementia in older adults, the relevant authorities should actively propose appropriate intervention strategies.

Cognitive impairment can be influenced by a variety of modifiable risk factors, such as health behavior factors [7]. Many studies have shown significant correlations between physical activity, dietary behavior, sleep, smoking, alcohol consumption, and other lifestyle factors and the risk of cognitive decline and dementia [8,9,10]. In addition, research on the relationship between environmental factors and cognitive function in older adults has become an increasing focus of scholarly attention in recent years, particularly as the neighborhood built environment may affect cognitive function in older adults [11, 12]. Previous studies have pointed out that the built environment plays an important role in promoting healthy aging [13, 14]. For example, King et al. argued that the neighborhood built environment affects the physical activity levels of older adults, and the study showed that in less densely populated (and more suburbanized) neighborhoods, older adults would walk to errands less often [15]. In addition, Cassarino et al. suggest that exposure to complex, stimulating neighborhood environments may be one mechanism for delaying cognitive impairment and suggest that using the environment as a source of cognitive stimulation has the potential to contribute to a better understanding of successful aging as well as aging in place [16].

Built environment mainly refers to human-made buildings and spaces used for daily living, working, and recreating [17]. Measures of the built environment typically include density, design, diversity, destination accessibility, and proximity to public transportation, in addition to green space, aesthetics, and safety as some of the characteristics of the built environment [18, 19]. In the study on the relationship between the built environment and older adults' cognition, the results of Finlay et al. suggested that living in communities with higher local park accessibility, recreational facility availability, and commercial density may have a positive impact on cognitive function in older adults [20]. Green spaces may play an important role in promoting the health of older adults, and a perception of pedestrian safety may moderate the impact of green spaces on the health of older adults. However, the study by Crous-Bou et al. showed no significant association observed between green space around the community and cognitive composite indicators [21]. Different indicators of the built environment may have different effects on cognitive function in older adults.

Because the environment is an integral part of the various conditions that humans face in life, it can have lasting effects, especially on a specific group of older adults. However, previous studies still have gaps. First, the analysis of the relationship between different built environment elements and cognitive function has not been comprehensive enough. For example, built environment elements such as density, design features, and diversity may have different correlations with cognitive function in older adults, and few studies in the past have comprehensively and systematically synthesized the relationship between different built environment elements and cognitive function in older adults. Second, although some previous studies have shown that the built environment affects cognitive function in older adults, others have concluded that there is no significant relationship between the built environment and cognitive function in older adults. It is clear that the results of previous studies are mixed, and whether the built environment affects cognitive function in older adults still needs to be further explored. In addition, although some studies have systematically reviewed the relationship between the built environment and the health of older adults, fewer systematic reviews are focusing on the built environment and cognitive function in older adults. For example, Barnett et al. reviewed the relationship between the built environment and physical activity in older adults and found that safe, walkable, and aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods, with access to general and specific destinations and services, had a positive impact on older adults' participation in physical activity [22]. Tuckett et al.'s study also showed that the community's built environment affects the health behaviors and health status of older adults [23]. To compensate for the limitations of previous studies, this study systematically reviewed studies on the built environment and cognitive function of older adults, which not only helped to reveal the relationship between the built environment and cognitive function but also helped to provide some theoretical insights for future research.

In addition, active prevention and early treatment for high-risk older populations have become key to improving cognitive function and preventing and delaying the onset and progression of related diseases in older adults [24, 25]. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to systematically review the relationship between different built environment elements and cognitive functions of older adults and to summarize the effects of neighborhood built environment on cognitive functions of older adults. It is expected to provide scientific references for the improvement of cognitive function and the development of environmental interventions for older adults.

Methods

This systematic review followed the recommendations provided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines [26].

Literature search

Four electronic literature databases, Pubmed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO, were systematically searched for literature. The search strategy is based on a combination of subject terms and free words. It is determined after iterative pre-screening and supplemented by manual searches, tracing citations back to the literature when necessary. The search period is from the start date of the creation of each database to July 7, 2023. The specific search strategy for PubMed, for example, is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Pubmed Search Policy
Full size table

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria for the studies were as follows: (1) study participants: community-dwelling older adults; because the age thresholds used to define older adults varied across studies (e.g., people aged 65 and older are usually defined as older adults in developed Western countries, and older adults in developing countries are usually defined as people aged 60 and older), we included studies in which the authors described their study population as older adults; (2) study design: observational studies (e.g., cross-sectional studies or longitudinal studies), experimental studies, and qualitative studies; (3) independent variables: built environment (e.g., density, diversity, destination accessibility); (4) outcome variables: cognitive function or dementia (e.g., cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, risk of dementia); (5) language: papers published in English; and (6) type of article: peer-reviewed publications.

Exclusion criteria for studies were as follows: (1) no focus on the built environment; (2) studies that did not include cognition or dementia as an outcome variable; (3) repeated publications with poor quality assessment; (4) case reports, review literature, conference papers, and dissertations; and (5) non-English language papers.

Study selection

Two researchers screened the literature independently according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. First, the papers were initially screened by reading the title and abstract. Second, the full text was downloaded after obtaining the eligible literature, and full-text screening was performed. Finally, the two researchers compared the independently screened literature. For the literature with inconsistent screening results, the decision to include or not was to be made by a joint discussion with the third researcher.

Data extraction and synthesis

Relevant information for the included literature was extracted independently by two researchers using a standardized form. The information extracted was as follows: (1) basic information: first author, year of publication, region/country, and setting; (2) basic characteristics of participants: age, sample size, the proportion of females, dementia restriction; (3) statistical analysis: statistical models; (4) other: study design, the spatial unit of analysis, types of measures to assess the built environment, detailed measure of built environment, types of measures to assess the cognitive function, detailed measure of cognitive function, the estimated effect of built environment on cognitive function, and key findings. Because heterogeneity in exposure and outcome metrics hindered Meta-analysis, we provide a narrative summary of common themes and findings from the included studies.

Study quality assessment

Each included study's quality was evaluated using the National Institutes of Health’s Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies (33). Each included study was required to undergo a quality evaluation containing 14 questions. For each question, "yes" responses received a score of one, while "no" responses received a score of zero. By computing the results for each criterion, a study's overall quality score is determined. Higher evaluation scores indicate higher quality of the included literature. The strength of the scientific evidence was measured using study quality assessment, however, the inclusion of research was not taken into consideration [27, 28]. The specific criteria and results of the literature quality evaluation can be found in Supplement 1.

Results

Search results

A total of 5761 articles were retrieved from the database, and after removing duplicates, 3633 articles were obtained. By screening titles and abstracts, 3567 articles were excluded. After the full text of 96 articles was screened, 40 articles were excluded, and finally 56 articles were included in the study. Figure 1 shows the specific literature screening procedure.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of study selection

Full size image

Basic characteristics of the included studies

A total of 56 studies were included in this study, as shown in Table 2, which summarizes the basic characteristics of the included studies and the quality assessment scores of the literature. The included studies were mainly published in 2012 and later, with more articles published in 2020 and 2021, with 13 and 11 articles, respectively; fewer articles were published between 2012 and 2017, with only 2 articles published in 2012 [29, 30], 3 articles published in 2015 [31,32,33], and 2 articles published in 2017 [34, 35]. The studies were mainly concentrated in the United States, China, the United Kingdom and Japan. There were three studies each from Hong Kong [36,37,38] and Taiwan [39,40,41], and only one study each from Singapore [42], Spain [21], and Ireland [43]. In terms of study design, 31 studies used a cross-sectional study design [21, 30, 32, 35,36,37,38, 41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64] and 23 studies used a longitudinal study design [20, 29, 31, 34, 39, 65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82]; in addition, one study used both a longitudinal study design and a case–control design [32], and one study used a cross-sectional study design and a case–control design [40].

Table 2 Basic characteristics of the included studies and the quality assessment of the studies
Full size table

The sample sizes of the included studies were generally large but varied considerably between studies. Twelve of the studies had a sample size of less than 1000, and the remaining studies had a sample size of 1000 or more. The studies were generally of older adults aged 65 years and older, and the proportion of women in each study ranged from 27.7% to 73.3%. There were also varying requirements for dementia restriction of study subjects, with several studies explicitly requiring that study subjects have no symptoms of dementia, but many studies did not explicitly require dementia symptoms in study subjects. In addition, a variety of statistical models were used in the included studies, including multilevel linear regression, generalized estimating equation, multilevel logistic regression, cox proportional hazard models, multilevel mixed effect linear regression, generalized additive multilevel models, unadjusted and adjusted linear regression models, and hierarchical regression models. Most studies were conducted in both urban and rural areas, and only one study was conducted in a rural area [78].

The literature quality assessment of the included studies showed that the mean score of the included studies was 7.57 (ranging from 7 to 9), with 28 articles (50%) scoring 7, 24 articles (42.86%) scoring 8, and 4 articles (7.14%) scoring 9. The detailed literature quality assessment results of the 56 studies are shown in Supplementary Table 1.

Assessment measures of the built environment

Table 3 summarizes the measures of assessment of the built environment and cognitive function in the included studies. For measures of the built environment, the vast majority of studies used objective assessment measures (n = 4), 6 studies used subjective assessment measures [43, 50, 52, 59, 68, 72], and 4 studies used a combination of objective and subjective assessment measures [42, 49, 63, 64]. The objective assessment method of the built environment was mainly processed by using Geographic Information System (GIS) and satellite remote sensing images.

Table 3 Measures of built environment and cognitive function in the studies included in the review
Full size table

The objective built environment variables included in the study were grouped into six areas based on the elements of the built environment: (1) density—including population density, residential density; (2) neighborhood built environment design—including street connectivity, street integration, walkability index, neighborhood walkability, street layout, etc.; (3) public transportation distance—including the number of public transportation stops, distance from homes to major roads, distance from homes to roads, etc.; (4) destination accessibility—including accessibility of community libraries, accessibility of medical services, accessibility of food stores, accessibility of community centers, etc.; (5) neighborhood built environment diversity—including land use mix, recreation centers, community centers, basic medical facilities (hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, etc.), food and beverage venues, senior centers, fitness and sports recreation centers, coffee and fast food restaurants, grocery stores, higher education campuses, libraries, museums, recreation centers, commercial facilities, cultural facilities, etc.; (6) Blue and green spaces—including park areas, green spaces, tree canopies, open grassy areas, and blue waters, etc.; (7) Neighborhood built environment quality—including street disrepair index, cleanliness, neighborhood physical disorder, etc.

The subjective built environment was assessed mainly using questionnaires administered to the participants, such as the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale, self-reported perceived neighborhood environment, etc. The variables of subjective built environment include neighborhood physical disorder, Street disrepair index, Cleanliness, safety, neighborhood pleasantness, neighborhood streetscape, etc.

Assessment measures of cognitive function

As shown in Table 3, For the assessment of cognitive function, most studies have used objective assessment measures such as Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Digit Symbol Coding (DSC), Digit Span Forward (DSF), Digit Span Backward (DSB), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), etc. Only one study measured cognitive function based on a self-report survey [43].

The variables of the outcome of cognitive function were divided into 3 categories, namely (1) overall cognitive function: cognitive changes over time, global cognition, cognitive impairment, cognitive performance, and Cognitive vulnerability; (2) domain-specific cognitive function: including immediate and delayed memory, recognition, language, working memory, attention and psychomotor speed, set-shifting, verbal memory, executive function, processing speed, reasoning, verbal fluency;(3) Incidence of dementia.

Key findings

Table 4 summarizes the effects of a built environment on cognitive function in older adults. We summarize our key findings in the following seven areas.

Table 4 Estimated effects of built environment on cognitive function in the studies included in the review
Full size table

Association between residential/population density and cognitive function

Based on previous studies, population density may have a positive effect on cognitive function in older adults, but residential density does not appear to affect cognitive function in older adults. A total of five studies investigated the effects of residential/ population density on cognitive function in older adults. Specifically, Hsu et al. found that better cognitive function in older adults was associated with higher city population density [41]. Cerin et al. showed that higher population density is beneficial to the cognitive health of older adults [61]. In addition, a study from Japan showed that higher hilly environments and residential density may predict a decline in cognitive function in rural older adults [78]. However, the study by Besser et al. did not find a significant effect of the proportion of residential land use on overall cognition and processing speed in older adults [44]. Neither subjective nor objective measures of residential density by Ng et al. found significant effects on global cognition, immediate and delayed memory recall, visuospatial/construction, and language skills in older adults [42].

Association between neighborhood built environment design and cognitive function

Most of the studies reviewed showed a significant positive correlation between cognitive function and street connectivity and walkability in older adults, but a possible negative correlation with neighborhood integration. For example, Ng et al. showed that objectively measured street connectivity had significant positive correlations with global cognition and immediate and delayed memory in older adults, but subjective street connectivity had no significant correlations with global cognition, immediate and delayed memory, attention, language, or visuospatial/constructional [42]. This suggests that different measures may influence the relationship between street connectivity and older adults' cognition. Neighborhood integration measures how many turns or choice points a person must go through to access all of the locations in a finite system. A study from the United States showed that for older adults without mild AD, higher levels of neighborhood integration predicted greater declines in attention and verbal memory during a two-year follow-up period, yet higher neighborhood connectivity predicted less decline in attention [32].

A Japanese study found a significant negative correlation between street integration and the odds of having a cognitive impairment [48]. However, Clarke et al. showed that the presence of crosswalks around homes and the presence of discontinuous sidewalks did not significantly affect the decline in cognitive function in older adults over time [31]. The results of Tani et al. showed a significant negative association between sidewalk coverage and the risk of dementia in urban areas [49]. In addition, Kim et al. showed a significant positive correlation between perceived walkability and cognitive function [64].

Association between public transportation distance and cognitive function

The majority of previous studies have shown that the distance of the residence from a major road is negatively associated with cognitive function in older adults, while the number of public transportation stops around the residence is positively associated with cognitive function. Specifically, a total of four studies investigated the effect of distance from a major road on cognitive function in older adults, with three studies showing a negative association with distance from a major road and one study showing no effect. For example, Wellenius et al. showed that living near a major roadway harms cognition in older adults [29]. A study from Canada showed that the proximity of residences to roads was associated with a higher incidence of dementia [34]. However, it was also shown that the distance between the residence and the bus stop does not affect the cognitive function of Chinese older adults [68].

In addition, two studies investigated the effect of the number of public transportation stops around the residence on the cognitive function of older adults, and both studies showed that the number of public transportation stops had a positive effect on cognition. For example, Clarke et al. found that living in neighborhoods with community centers and public transportation stops resulted in a slower rate of cognitive decline over time in older adults [31]. Chan et al. showed that in communities with more public transportation terminals, residents aged 80 and younger would show better cognitive performance [37].

Association between destination accessibility and cognitive function

The effects of destination accessibility on cognitive function and dementia in older adults had mixed results. Among them, Guo et al. showed that library accessibility was positively associated with cognitive function in older adults and negatively associated with dementia [36]. A study by Tani et al. reported a significant negative association between the availability of healthy food stores around the home and the incidence of dementia [49]. In addition, a previous study showed that female participants who lived away from the supermarket had significantly poorer cognitive function than those who lived near the supermarket [62].

However, some studies have also shown no significant association between destination accessibility and cognitive function and dementia in older adults. A study of older adults in Singapore showed that subjective and objective assessments of destination accessibility had no significant effects on overall cognition, immediate and delayed memory, attention, language, or visuospatial/constructional in older adults [42]. In addition, studies of older adults in China have shown that the availability of healthcare services has no significant effect on either cognitive function or decline in cognitive function in older adults [68]. The relationship between accessibility to destinations around residences and cognitive function in older adults needs to be further explored in the future.

Association between neighborhood built environment diversity and cognitive function

Such as land use mix, and neighborhood resource indicators that may reflect the diversity of a neighborhood's built environment. Most studies concluded that a higher land use mix and rich neighborhood resources in residential communities may have a positive impact on the cognitive functioning of older adults. In terms of land use mix, a cross-sectional study revealed that subjective measures of land use mix diversity were significantly and positively associated with global cognition, immediate and delayed memory recall, visuospatial/constructive ability, and language [42]. A cross-sectional study from Hong Kong, China, also showed that older adults living in communities with a higher land use mix exhibited better cognitive performance [37]. Moreover, A previous study showed that living in an area with a high land use mix was significantly associated with nearly 60% lower odds of dementia, but there was no linear trend in cognitive impairment [33]. However, studies have also shown that living in areas with a high mix of land uses is associated with nearly 30% lower odds of cognitive impairment [35].

Neighborhood resources include some basic infrastructure and services for daily living, such as community centers, supermarkets, health care services, recreational facilities, libraries, grocery stores, and fast food restaurants. A longitudinal study from the United States showed that living in a community with more accessible recreational facilities and commercial density was associated with higher levels of cognitive functioning in older adults [20]. In addition, there was a significant positive correlation between the kernel density of senior centers, civic/social organization, and cognitive function [55]. Liu et al. showed that the availability of community centers was significantly associated with an 8% reduction in the probability of dementia [40]. However, some studies have also concluded that the relationship between the availability of neighborhood resources and cognitive function in older adults is not significant [30, 68].

Association between blue/green spaces and cognitive function

In general, green space has a positive effect on cognitive function in older adults, but fewer studies have addressed the relationship between blue space and cognition, and the results have been mixed, and further exploration is needed in the future. More than half of the included studies described the relationship between green/blue space and cognition in older adults, but only three of these studies described the effect of blue space on cognition [55, 61, 62].

First of all, in terms of green space, the results of Aitken et al. showed that the highest neighborhood greenness was associated with 20% lower odds of AD compared to the lowest neighborhood greenness [57]. The study by Besser et al. reported a positive effect of higher park accessibility on cognitive function [74]. A study by Slawsky et al. found that residences with a higher proportion of green space were associated with a reduced risk of dementia compared to a low proportion of green space [81]. Additionally, Godina et al. showed that forested green space was associated with lower odds of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and that green space diversity was associated with a lower risk of dementia events, but no significant association was observed between overall green space percentage and risk of MCI or dementia [82]. A longitudinal study showed that among people with a low risk of genetic AD, those who lived in a more green surrounding had a lower risk of cognitive impairment. However, no significant association between greenness and cognitive impairment was observed in people with a high risk of genetic AD [77].

Second, in terms of blue space, a cross-sectional study from Australia showed that living in an environment with blue spaces is beneficial to the cognitive health of older adults [61]. However, a study from the UK showed that the availability of blue space was not associated with dementia [55]. Some scholarly research has shown that the presence of local blue space is associated with cognitive function but not MCI and that participants with any blue space within an 800-m buffer zone around their residence may have higher levels of cognitive performance than those without blue space nearby, but this association was only present in female participants [62].

Association between neighborhood built environment quality and cognitive function

Research on the relationship between neighborhood built environment quality and older adults' cognition remains limited, but most of the existing studies suggest that better neighborhood environmental quality may have a positive impact on cognition. The quality of the neighborhood built environment referred to in this study includes variables such as aesthetics, neighborhood physical disorder index, street disrepair index, neighborhood streetscape, traffic safety, and crime safety, Cleanliness. Thierry et al. showed that among white adults, poorer neighborhood characteristics were associated with lower cognitive function; among black adults, poor neighborhood quality was associated with poor cognitive function; and among Mexicans, perceived neighborhood uncleanliness was associated with lower cognitive function among those with less education but higher cognitive function among those with more education [59].

In terms of neighborhood physical disorder, higher neighborhood physical disorder was associated with poorer initial episodic memory and verbal fluency [72]. Similarly, Estrella et al. showed that female participants' perceived neighborhood physical disorder was associated with their poorer global cognitive and memory abilities [52]. A cross-sectional study showed that older adults' perception of greater neighborhood physical disorder was significantly associated with poorer episodic memory [50]. However, some studies did not find a relationship between neighborhood disorder and cognitive function [30, 46]. In terms of safety, a study from Taiwan, and China, showed that community safety was positively associated with older adults' perceptions [41]. The study by Cherrie et al. concluded that lower road traffic accident density was associated with better cognitive performance [67]. In addition, higher self-reported neighborhood pleasantness was associated with lower cognitive vulnerability, particularly among older adults living in the most rural and urban areas, but neighborhood streetscape was not associated with older adults' cognition [43]. And a study by Lee et al. found that the street disrepair index was significantly and negatively associated with cognitive function [46].

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the relationship between the neighborhood built environment and cognitive function in older adults. A total of 56 studies met the inclusion criteria for this study, including 31 cross-sectional studies, 23 longitudinal studies, 1 cross-sectional study design combined with a case–control study, and 1 longitudinal study design combined with a case–control design. The study focused on seven aspects of neighborhood built environment indicators divided into residential/population density, neighborhood built environment design, public transportation distance, the density of public transportation stops, destination accessibility, neighborhood built environment diversity, blue/green space, and neighborhood built environment quality. Most of the studies reviewed showed that these built environment indicators showed varying degrees of correlation with cognitive function of older adults.

In terms of residential/population density, the reviewed studies showed a significant positive association between population density and older adults' cognition [61], but residential density may not affect cognitive function [42]. At present, the specific mechanisms by which population density affects cognitive functions in older adults are unclear. Previous studies have shown that social interactions are associated with cognitive function in older adults [83, 84]. The size of the population density may cause changes in cognitive function by affecting the social interactions of older people, and it is suggested that the specific pathways through which population density affects cognitive function in older people should be analyzed from the perspective of social interactions in the future. In terms of neighborhood built environment design, the study found that older adults' cognitive function was significantly and positively related to street connectivity and walkability, but negatively related to street integration [32, 64]. Neighborhood street integration is a measure of the number of turns required to travel between two points. Higher street integration means fewer turns are required in practice. When street integration is higher, the cognitive engagement required for walking is lower, which is not conducive to cognitive training for older adults [32]. However, the higher the neighborhood street connectivity and walkability, the better it is for older adults to engage in walking activities. For example, higher intersection density provides more potential paths for walking and facilitates travel for older adults, and higher levels of physical activity positively affect [85].

Regarding the distance of homes from public transportation, the cognitive function of older adults was negatively and significantly correlated with the distance of homes from major roads, but positively and significantly correlated with the number of public transportation stops [31, 34]. The closer a community is to major roadways, the greater the risk of individual exposure to noise and traffic-related air pollution [86], which may affect the cognitive health of older adults. However, a higher number of public transportation stops around the community may increase opportunities for older adults to travel and improve their physical activity levels, which in turn promotes cognitive health [87]. Studies on the relationship between older adults' cognition and destination accessibility have yielded mixed results due to differences in region, sample size, assessment methods, and destination variables [49, 68], and future research is needed to standardize the criteria for destination accessibility assessment and further explore the impact of destination accessibility on older adults' cognitive function.

Regarding the diversity of the neighborhood built environment, older adults' cognition was positively correlated with the land use mix, and most studies showed a positive correlation with neighborhood resources as well [20, 37]. Higher land use mix and neighborhood resources can provide opportunities for older adults to engage in a variety of activities while providing an interactive environment for cognitively stimulating activities, which in turn promotes cognitive health [11, 33]. In terms of blue-green space, most studies analyzed the relationship between greenness around the neighborhood, park area, and distance from the park and cognition, and the results showed that green space was significantly and positively related to cognition, but the effect of blue space on older adults' cognition needs to be further explored [62, 81]. Previous studies have shown that exposure to green space can reduce individual stress, benefit physical and mental health, and potentially promote cognitive development by reducing air pollution [88, 89]. In addition, Detweiler et al. suggest that green space has a positive impact on the long-term care and rehabilitation of older adults and can be used to improve the quality of life of the global aging population [90]. Regarding the quality of the neighborhood built environment, research suggests that the better older adults' perceptions and objective measures of environmental quality, as well as a safe and clean neighborhood environment, the better older adults' cognitive function is likely to be [41, 50].

In a rapidly aging society, it is essential to provide older adults with a neighborhood built environment that is suitable for aging in place and that maintains cognitive health [91, 92]. Research has generally shown a significant correlation between neighborhood built environment and cognitive functioning in older adults, but future research on this topic needs to be more comprehensive in the future. First, the causal effect of the built environment on cognitive functions is not clear because previous studies have mainly utilized cross-sectional study designs. It is recommended that future studies adopt a longitudinal study design to further explore the relationship between the built environment and cognitive function in older adults. Second, some studies suggest that physical activity partially mediates the relationship between the built environment and cognitive function. For example, studies have shown that transportation and recreational physical activity have significant mediating effects between land use mix and cognitive function [42]. In addition, air quality may also mediate the relationship between the built environment and cognitive function [34]. Therefore, the moderating role of mediating variables (e.g., physical activity, and air quality) may be considered in future studies of the mechanisms and pathways of the built environment's effects on cognitive function in older adults. Third, the current standards for assessing environmental exposures are not uniform, and different standards for assessing the built environment may contribute to differences in results, suggesting the use of standardized measures in the future. Fourth, previous research has focused on analyzing the relationship between the objective built environment and cognition, but older adults' perceptions of the built environment are also important. The perception of the neighborhood built environment may be a more proximate determinant of individual health outcomes than objective measures, as it reflects the individual's life experiences [93]. Therefore, it is suggested that a combination of subjective and objective methods may be considered in the future to further analyze the impact of the neighborhood built environment on older adults' cognition. In addition, previous studies have analyzed the relationship between a single built environment element and cognitive function by using a single evaluation index of the built environment element, and the relationship between a comprehensive evaluation index of the built environment and cognitive function of older adults is missing. In future studies, comprehensive indicators of the built environment, such as the walkability index, can be introduced to further analyze the relationship between the built environment and cognitive function in older adults.

The strength of this study is that it provides a systematic and comprehensive review of the effects of the built environment on cognitive function in older adults and analyzes the relationship between different built environment indicators and cognition in older adults, which provides some reference basis for the development of intervention programs to improve cognitive function in older adults. However, there are some limitations in this study. First, the study only included published literature in English and not in other languages, which may have some selection bias. Second, we were unable to conduct a quantitative synthesis due to the large heterogeneity of built environment assessment criteria and study populations among the different studies. For example, there is a huge variability in the indicators used to assess environmental exposure. In the case of green space, some studies chose only the area of parks to represent the level of green space around the community [30], while some studies used the NDVI [45]. In addition, the spatial unit of analysis for assessing environmental exposure varied widely, for example, some studies assessed the built environment within a 500-m buffer zone around the community [66], while some studies used the 2000-m buffer zone [81]. Therefore, it is recommended that future research should develop criteria for assessing exposure to the built environment to provide a quantitative synthesis for future research on this topic. Third, not all included studies used objective assessments of the built environment and cognitive functioning, and some studies used self-reported questionnaires, so the questionnaire results may have produced some bias. Fourth, it has been suggested that different spatial units of analysis used in assessing individual exposure to various environmental characteristics may influence the results between the built environment and health [94]. The use of spatial units of analysis in different studies has not been analyzed in this study, which may have some impact on the results of this study.

Conclusion

This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the effects of neighborhood built environment on cognitive function in older adults. In general, population density, street connectivity, walkability, number of public transportation stops around the residence, land use mix, neighborhood resources, green space, and quality of the neighborhood built environment were positively associated with cognitive functions of older adults, respectively. In contrast, street integration and the distance between the residence and the main road were negatively related to the cognitive function of the older adults. The results of this review may provide a scientific reference for relevant policymakers and for the development of intervention programs to improve cognitive function, and suggest that public health interventions may take into account neighborhood built environment aspects to promote cognitive health and reduce the risk of dementia in older adults.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is included within the article.

References

  1. He W, Goodkind D, Kowal P. An aging world: 2015;2016.

  2. Peng TC, Chen WL, Wu LW, Chang YW, Kao TW. Sarcopenia and cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nutr. 2020;39(9):2695–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kumar A, Sidhu J, Goyal A, Tsao JW. Alzheimer Disease. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island: StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2023, StatPearls Publishing LLC.; 2023.

  4. Leon-Salas B, Ayala A, Blaya-Novakova V, Avila-Villanueva M, Rodriguez-Blazquez C, Rojo-Perez F, Fernandez-Mayoralas G, Martinez-Martin P, Forjaz MJ, Spanish Research Group on Quality of L, et al. Quality of life across three groups of older adults differing in cognitive status and place of residence. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2015;15(5):627–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Liang Y, Yang Y, Yang T, Li M, Ruan Y, Jiang Y, Huang Y, Wang Y. Effects of cognitive impairment and depressive symptoms on health-related quality of life in community-dwelling older adults: The mediating role of disability in the activities of daily living and the instrumental activities of daily living. Health Soc Care Commun. 2022;30(6):e5848–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Koroukian SM, Schiltz NK, Warner DF, Stange KC, Smyth KA. Increasing burden of complex multimorbidity across gradients of cognitive impairment. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2017;32(7):408–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Barnes DE, Yaffe K. The projected effect of risk factor reduction on Alzheimer’s disease prevalence. Lancet Neurol. 2011;10(9):819–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Sofi F, Valecchi D, Bacci D, Abbate R, Gensini GF, Casini A, Macchi C. Physical activity and risk of cognitive decline: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Intern Med. 2011;269(1):107–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Scarmeas N, Anastasiou CA, Yannakoulia M. Nutrition and prevention of cognitive impairment. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(11):1006–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pace-Schott EF, Spencer RM. Age-related changes in the cognitive function of sleep. Prog Brain Res. 2011;191:75–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wu YT, Prina AM, Brayne C. The association between community environment and cognitive function: a systematic review. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2015;50(3):351–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim J, Lee J, Park J, Kim H, Yoo I. The impact of physical environment on the cognitive function of the elderly: a scoping review of cohort studies. Home Health Care Manag Pract. 2021;34(3):221–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Burton E. Streets ahead? The role of the built environment in healthy ageing. Perspect Public Health. 2012;132(4):161–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kerr J, Rosenberg D, Frank L. The role of the built environment in healthy aging: community design, physical activity, and health among older adults. J Plan Lit. 2012;27(1):43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. King AC, Salvo D, Banda JA, Ahn DK, Chapman JE, Gill TM, Fielding RA, Demons J, Tudor-Locke C, Rosso A, et al. Preserving older adults’ routine outdoor activities in contrasting neighborhood environments through a physical activity intervention. Prev Med. 2017;96:87–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cassarino M, Setti A. Environment as “Brain Training”: A review of geographical and physical environmental influences on cognitive ageing. Ageing Res Rev. 2015;23(Pt B):167–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Roof K, Oleru N. Public health: Seattle and King county’s push for the built environment. J Environ Health. 2008;71(1):24–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Saelens BE, Handy SL. Built environment correlates of walking: a review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(7 Suppl):S550-566.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Laddu D, Paluch AE, LaMonte MJ. The role of the built environment in promoting movement and physical activity across the lifespan: Implications for public health. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2021;64:33–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Finlay J, Esposito M, Li M, Colabianchi N, Zhou H, Judd S, Clarke P. Neighborhood active aging infrastructure and cognitive function: A mixed-methods study of older Americans. Prev Med. 2021;150:106669.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Crous-Bou M, Gascon M, Gispert JD, Cirach M, Sánchez-Benavides G, Falcon C, Arenaza-Urquijo EM, Gotsens X, Fauria K, Sunyer J, et al. Impact of urban environmental exposures on cognitive performance and brain structure of healthy individuals at risk for Alzheimer’s dementia. Environ Int. 2020;138:105546.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Barnett DW, Barnett A, Nathan A, Van Cauwenberg J, Cerin E. on behalf of the Council on E, Physical Activity – Older Adults working g: Built environmental correlates of older adults’ total physical activity and walking: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):103.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Tuckett AG, Banchoff AW, Winter SJ, King AC. The built environment and older adults: a literature review and an applied approach to engaging older adults in built environment improvements for health. Int J Older People Nurs. 2018;13(1):e12171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chiu CJ, Hu JC, Lo YH, Chang EY. Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Interventions for the Elderly: A Scoping Review from 2015–2019. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(15):5335.

  25. Harada K, Lee S, Lee S, Bae S, Harada K, Shimada H. Environmental predictors of objectively measured out-of-home time among older adults with cognitive decline. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2019;82:259–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ-Brit Med J. 2009;339:b2700.

  27. Song Y, Li H, Yu H. Effects of green space on physical activity and body weight status among Chinese adults: a systematic review. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1198439.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Shen J, Li M, Wang Q, Liu R, Ji M, An R. The influence of green space on obesity in china: a systematic review. Obes Facts. 2022;15(4):463–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Wellenius GA, Boyle LD, Coull BA, Milberg WP, Gryparis A, Schwartz J, Mittleman MA, Lipsitz LA. Residential proximity to nearest major roadway and cognitive function in community-dwelling seniors: results from the MOBILIZE Boston Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(11):2075–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Clarke PJ, Ailshire JA, House JS, Morenoff JD, King K, Melendez R, Langa KM. Cognitive function in the community setting: the neighbourhood as a source of “cognitive reserve”? J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012;66(8):730–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Clarke PJ, Weuve J, Barnes L, Evans DA. Mendes de Leon CF: Cognitive decline and the neighborhood environment. Ann Epidemiol. 2015;25(11):849–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Watts A, Ferdous F, Moore KD, Burns JM. Neighborhood Integration and Connectivity Predict Cognitive Performance and Decline. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2015;1:2333721415599141.

  33. Wu YT, Prina AM, Jones AP, Barnes LE, Matthews FE, Brayne C, Medical Research Council Cognitive F, Ageing S. Community environment, cognitive impairment and dementia in later life: results from the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study. Age Ageing. 2015;44(6):1005–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Chen H, Kwong JC, Copes R, Tu K, Villeneuve PJ, van Donkelaar A, Hystad P, Martin RV, Murray BJ, Jessiman B, et al. Living near major roads and the incidence of dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and multiple sclerosis: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2017;389(10070):718–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wu YT, Prina AM, Jones A, Matthews FE, Brayne C, Medical Research Council Cognitive F, Ageing Study C. The Built Environment and Cognitive Disorders: Results From the Cognitive Function and Ageing Study II. Am J Prev Med. 2017;53(1):25–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Guo Y, Chan CH, Chang Q, Liu T, Yip PSF. Neighborhood environment and cognitive function in older adults: a multilevel analysis in Hong Kong. Health Place. 2019;58:102146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Chan OF, Liu Y, Guo Y, Lu S, Chui CHK, Ho HC, Song Y, Cheng W, Chiu RLH, Webster C, et al. Neighborhood built environments and cognition in later life. Aging Ment Health. 2023;27(3):466–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ho HC, Song Y, Cheng W, Liu Y, Guo Y, Lu S, Lum T, Har Chiu RL, Webster C. How do forms and characteristics of Asian public housing neighbourhoods affect dementia risk among senior population? A cross-sectional study in Hong Kong. Public Health. 2023;219:44–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Liu CC, Li CY, Kung SF, Kuo HW, Huang NC, Sun Y, Hu SC. Association of environmental features and the risk of Alzheimer's Dementia in older adults: a nationwide longitudinal case-control study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(16):2828.

  40. Liu CC, Sun Y, Kung SF, Kuo HW, Huang NC, Li CY, Hu SC. Effects of physical and social environments on the risk of dementia among Taiwanese older adults: a population-based case-control study. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):226.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Hsu HC, Bai CH. Social and built environments related to cognitive function of older adults: a multi-level analysis study in Taiwan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(6):2820.

  42. Ng TP, Nyunt MSZ, Shuvo FK, Eng JY, Yap KB, Hee LM, Chan SP, Scherer S. The neighborhood built environment and cognitive function of older persons: results from the Singapore longitudinal ageing study. Gerontology. 2018;64(2):149–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Cassarino M, Bantry-White E, Setti A. Neighbourhood environment and cognitive vulnerability—a survey investigation of variations across the lifespan and urbanity levels. Sustainability. 2020;12(19):7951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Besser LM, Rodriguez DA, McDonald N, Kukull WA, Fitzpatrick AL, Rapp SR, Seeman T. Neighborhood built environment and cognition in non-demented older adults: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Soc Sci Med. 2018;200:27–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Brown SC, Perrino T, Lombard J, Wang K, Toro M, Rundek T, Gutierrez CM, Dong C, Plater-Zyberk E, Nardi MI, et al. Health Disparities in the Relationship of Neighborhood Greenness to Mental Health Outcomes in 249,405 U.S. Medicare Beneficiaries. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(3):430.

  46. Lee H, Waite LJ. Cognition in context: the role of objective and subjective measures of neighborhood and household in cognitive functioning in later life. Gerontologist. 2018;58(1):159–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Besser L, Galvin JE, Rodriguez D, Seeman T, Kukull W, Rapp SR, Smith J. Associations between neighborhood built environment and cognition vary by apolipoprotein E genotype: multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Health Place. 2019;60:102188.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Koohsari MJ, Nakaya T, McCormack GR, Shibata A, Ishii K, Yasunaga A, Oka K. Cognitive function of elderly persons in Japanese neighborhoods: the role of street layout. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2019;34(6):381–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Tani Y, Suzuki N, Fujiwara T, Hanazato M, Kondo K. Neighborhood food environment and dementia incidence: the Japan gerontological evaluation study cohort survey. Am J Prev Med. 2019;56(3):383–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Zaheed AB, Sharifian N, Kraal AZ, Sol K, Hence A, Zahodne LB. Unique effects of perceived neighborhood physical disorder and social cohesion on episodic memory and semantic fluency. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2019;34(8):1346–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Besser LM, Hirsch J, Galvin JE, Renne J, Park J, Evenson KR, Kaufman JD, Fitzpatrick AL. Associations between neighborhood park space and cognition in older adults vary by US location: the multi-Ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Health Place. 2020;66:102459.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Estrella ML, Durazo-Arvizu RA, Gallo LC, Isasi CR, Perreira KM, Vu TT, Vasquez E, Sachdeva S, Zeng D, Llabre MM, et al. Associations between perceived neighborhood environment and cognitive function among middle-aged and older women and men: Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos Sociocultural Ancillary Study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2020;55(6):685–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Finlay J, Esposito M, Tang S, Gomez-Lopez I, Sylvers D, Judd S, Clarke P. Fast-food for thought: Retail food environments as resources for cognitive health and wellbeing among aging Americans? Health Place. 2020;64:102379.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Katayama O, Lee S, Makino K, Chiba I, Bae S, Shinkai Y, Harada K, Shimada H. The Association between neighborhood amenities and cognitive function: role of lifestyle activities. J Clin Med. 2020;9(7):2109.

  55. Wu YT, Brayne C, Liu Z, Huang Y, Sosa AL, Acosta D, Prina M. Neighbourhood environment and dementia in older people from high-, middle- and low-income countries: results from two population-based cohort studies. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1330.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Yuchi W, Sbihi H, Davies H, Tamburic L, Brauer M. Road proximity, air pollution, noise, green space and neurologic disease incidence: a population-based cohort study. Environ Health. 2020;19(1):8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Aitken WW, Lombard J, Wang K, Toro M, Byrne M, Nardi MI, Kardys J, Parrish A, Dong C, Szapocznik J, et al. Relationship of neighborhood greenness to Alzheimer’s disease and non-Alzheimer’s dementia among 249,405 U. S. medicare beneficiaries. J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;81(2):597–606.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Bagheri N, Mavoa S, Tabatabaei-Jafari H, Knibbs LD, Coffee NT, Salvador-Carulla L, Anstey KJ. The impact of built and social environmental characteristics on diagnosed and estimated future risk of dementia. J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;84(2):621–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Thierry AD, Sherman-Wilkins K, Armendariz M, Sullivan A, Farmer HR. Perceived neighborhood characteristics and cognitive functioning among diverse older adults: an intersectional approach. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(5):2661.

  60. Bai X, Wei JX, Luan C, Liu MT, Gong YH, Wu W, Gao Q. Relationship between road network density and cognitive function: results from a cross-sectional study among adults aged 60 years and older in Liaoning. China Biomed Environ Sci. 2022;35(4):370–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Cerin E, Barnett A, Shaw JE, Martino E, Knibbs LD, Tham R, Wheeler AJ, Anstey KJ. Urban neighbourhood environments, cardiometabolic health and cognitive function: a national cross-sectional study of middle-aged and older adults in Australia. Toxics. 2022;10(1):23.

  62. Fangfang H, Xiao H, Shuai Z, Qiong W, Jingya Z, Guodong S, Yan Z. Living environment, built environment and cognitive function among older Chinese adults: results from a cross-sectional study. J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2022;9(1):126–35.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Sylvers DL, Hicken M, Esposito M, Manly J, Judd S, Clarke P. Walkable neighborhoods and cognition: implications for the design of health promoting communities. J Aging Health. 2022;34(6–8):893–904.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Kim B, Barrington WE, Dobra A, Rosenberg D, Hurvitz P, Belza B. Mediating role of walking between perceived and objective walkability and cognitive function in older adults. Health Place. 2023;79:102943.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Cherrie MPC, Shortt NK, Mitchell RJ, Taylor AM, Redmond P, Thompson CW, Starr JM, Deary IJ, Pearce JR. Green space and cognitive ageing: a retrospective life course analysis in the Lothian birth cohort 1936. Soc Sci Med. 2018;196:56–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. de Keijzer C, Tonne C, Basagana X, Valentin A, Singh-Manoux A, Alonso J, Anto JM, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Sunyer J, Dadvand P. Residential surrounding greenness and cognitive decline: a 10-year follow-up of the Whitehall II cohort. Environ Health Perspect. 2018;126(7):077003.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Cherrie MPC, Shortt NK, Ward Thompson C, Deary IJ, Pearce JR. Association between the activity space exposure to parks in childhood and adolescence and cognitive aging in later life. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(4):632.

  68. Luo Y, Zhang L, Pan X. Neighborhood environments and cognitive decline among middle-aged and older people in China. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2019;74(7):e60–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Zhu A, Wu C, Yan LL, Wu CD, Bai C, Shi X, Zeng Y, Ji JS. Association between residential greenness and cognitive function: analysis of the Chinese longitudinal healthy longevity survey. BMJ Nutr Prev Health. 2019;2(2):72–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Astell-Burt T, Navakatikyan MA, Feng X. Urban green space, tree canopy and 11-year risk of dementia in a cohort of 109,688 Australians. Environ Int. 2020;145:106102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Paul LA, Hystad P, Burnett RT, Kwong JC, Crouse DL, van Donkelaar A, Tu K, Lavigne E, Copes R, Martin RV, et al. Urban green space and the risks of dementia and stroke. Environ Res. 2020;186:109520.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Sharifian N, Spivey BN, Zaheed AB, Zahodne LB. Psychological distress links perceived neighborhood characteristics to longitudinal trajectories of cognitive health in older adulthood. Soc Sci Med. 2020;258:113125.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Zhu A, Yan L, Shu C, Zeng Y, Ji JS. APOE ε4 modifies effect of residential greenness on cognitive function among older adults: a longitudinal analysis in China. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):82.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Besser LM, Chang LC, Evenson KR, Hirsch JA, Michael YL, Galvin JE, Rapp SR, Fitzpatrick AL, Heckbert SR, Kaufman JD, et al. Associations between neighborhood park access and longitudinal change in cognition in older adults: the multi-Ethnic study of atherosclerosis. J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;82(1):221–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Besser LM, Chang LC, Hirsch JA, Rodriguez DA, Renne J, Rapp SR, Fitzpatrick AL, Heckbert SR, Kaufman JD, Hughes TM. Longitudinal associations between the neighborhood built environment and cognition in US older adults: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(15):7973.

  76. Finlay J, Esposito M, Li M, Kobayashi LC, Khan AM, Gomez-Lopez I, Melendez R, Colabianchi N, Judd S, Clarke PJ. Can neighborhood social infrastructure modify cognitive function? A mixed-methods study of urban-dwelling aging Americans. J Aging Health. 2021;33(9):772–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Jin X, Shu C, Zeng Y, Liang L, Ji JS. Interaction of greenness and polygenic risk score of Alzheimer’s disease on risk of cognitive impairment. Sci Total Environ. 2021;796:148767.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Motohiro A, Abe T, Okuyama K, Onoda K, Ito T, Isomura M, Nabika T, Kumakura S. Environmental factors affecting cognitive function among community-dwelling older adults: a longitudinal study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(16):8528.

  79. Tani Y, Hanazato M, Fujiwara T, Suzuki N, Kondo K. Neighborhood sidewalk environment and incidence of dementia in older Japanese adults. Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(7):1270–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Finlay J, Esposito M, Langa KM, Judd S, Clarke P. Cognability: an ecological theory of neighborhoods and cognitive aging. Soc Sci Med. 2022;309:115220.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Slawsky ED, Hajat A, Rhew IC, Russette H, Semmens EO, Kaufman JD, Leary CS, Fitzpatrick AL. Neighborhood greenspace exposure as a protective factor in dementia risk among U.S. adults 75 years or older: a cohort study. Environ Health. 2022;21(1):14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Godina SL, Rosso AL, Hirsch JA, Besser LM, Lovasi GS, Donovan GH, Garg PK, Platt JM, Fitzpatrick AL, Lopez OL, et al. Neighborhood greenspace and cognition: The cardiovascular health study. Health Place. 2023;79:102960.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Dolen LS, Bearison DJ. Social interaction and social cognition in aging: a contextual analysis. Hum Dev. 2009;25(6):430–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Cohn-Schwartz E. Pathways from social activities to cognitive functioning: the role of physical activity and mental health. Innovation in Aging. 2020;4(3):igaa015.

  85. Dostalova R, Stillman C, Erickson KI, Slepicka P, Mudrak J. The relationship between physical activity, self-perceived health, and cognitive function in older adults. Brain Sci. 2021;11(4):492.

  86. Wilker EH, Preis SR, Beiser AS, Wolf PA, Au R, Kloog I, Li W, Schwartz J, Koutrakis P, DeCarli C, et al. Long-term exposure to fine particulate matter, residential proximity to major roads and measures of brain structure. Stroke. 2015;46(5):1161–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Cerin E, Barnett A, Shaw JE, Martino E, Knibbs LD, Tham R, Wheeler AJ, Anstey KJ. From urban neighbourhood environments to cognitive health: a cross-sectional analysis of the role of physical activity and sedentary behaviours. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):2320.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Dadvand P, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Esnaola M, Forns J, Basagana X, Alvarez-Pedrerol M, Rivas I, Lopez-Vicente M, De Castro PM, Su J, et al. Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(26):7937–42.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. de Keijzer C, Gascon M, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Dadvand P. Long-term green space exposure and cognition across the life course: a systematic review. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2016;3(4):468–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Detweiler MB, Sharma T, Detweiler JG, Murphy PF, Lane S, Carman J, Chudhary AS, Halling MH, Kim KY. What is the evidence to support the use of therapeutic gardens for the elderly? Psychiatry Investig. 2012;9(2):100–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Röhr S, Rodriguez FS, Siemensmeyer R, Müller F, Romero-Ortuno R, Riedel-Heller SG. How can urban environments support dementia risk reduction? A qualitative study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2022;37(1):10.1002/gps.5626.

  92. Xiang Y, Zare H, Guan C, Gaskin D. The impact of rural-urban community settings on cognitive decline: results from a nationally-representative sample of seniors in China. BMC Geriatr. 2018;18(1):323.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Senn TE, Walsh JL, Carey MP. The mediating roles of perceived stress and health behaviors in the relation between objective, subjective, and neighborhood socioeconomic status and perceived health. Ann Behav Med. 2014;48(2):215–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Laatikainen TE, Hasanzadeh K, Kyttä M. Capturing exposure in environmental health research: challenges and opportunities of different activity space models. Int J Health Geogr. 2018;17(1):29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the support of all of the participants in the study.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (20BTY004), Beijing Social Science Foundation of China (21YTA009) and the Tsinghua University “Shuang Gao” Scientific Research Program (2021TSG08208), the Tsinghua Graduated Education Reform Project (202303J039).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Education, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 100084, China

    Yiling Song, Xiaotian Bai & Hongjun Yu

  2. Graduate School of Commerce, Waseda University, Tokyo, 169-8050, Japan

    Yunxi Liu

Authors
  1. Yiling Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yunxi Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaotian Bai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hongjun Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Yiling Song: Study concept and design, drafting of the manuscript; Yunxi Liu: Proofreading and revision; Xiaotian Bai: Data extraction and analysis; Hongjun Yu: Study supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hongjun Yu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table 1.

Study quality assessment.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Song, Y., Liu, Y., Bai, X. et al. Effects of neighborhood built environment on cognitive function in older adults: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 24, 194 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04776-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-024-04776-x

Keywords

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us