The understanding of our relationship with the built environment continues to evolve. The sustainability movement of the 1970s encouraged construction that conserved earth’s limited resources. In the 1990s, universal design motivated us to create accessible and multi-generational abodes. Now, the psychological ecosystem services movement is exploring the connection between urban environments and mental health. According to the World Health Organization, “one in four people in the world will be affected by mental or neurological disorders at some point in their lives. Around 450 million people currently suffer from such conditions, placing mental disorders among the leading causes of ill-health and disability worldwide.” While treatments are available to address mental health from the inside out, fostering mental well-being from the outside in is also a viable supplement. By understanding how urban spaces affect our mental well-being, we may minimize negative outcomes. Thought leaders Greg Bratman and Agnes van den Berg represent two generations that are forging the path towards urban spaces that nourish the mind. Psychological ecosystem services is a budding field of environmental psychology. Greg Bratman is a PhD candidate in the Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources at Stanford University. He seeks evidence for the impact of nature experiences on cognitive function, mood, and emotion regulation. The results of his research will be incorporated into urban design and decision-making. Bratman explains, “This knowledge can inform the ways in which urban planners incorporate nature into cities, and provide accessible natural landscapes for urban and suburban residents.  It can also provide support for the conservation of open space and wilderness areas in policy design.” For his recent study, Bratman analyzed the rumination patterns (repetitive thought focused on negative aspects of the self) of 38 people. The participants recorded their current levels of rumination and...

From pinball to Pac-Man, arcade games and their video counterparts tend to be relegated to the children’s table – derided as juvenile entertainments that sap brainpower and encourage antisocial behavior. Lately, though, that perspective has shifted as more and more studies reveal a host of social and mental benefits associated with game play, especially for those 65 years and older. While a lot of study has gone into the effects of video games on children and young adults, in the past few years attention has shifted to how video game play can affect perceptual and cognitive abilities in older adults – specifically senior citizens aged 65 and older. Because age can influence an individual’s ability to participate in physical activities, many see video games as a perfect addition to senior living healthcare protocols. For many seniors facing mobility challenges, the interactive feature of online video games can with the isolation and deteriorating brain function so many elderly adults face as they age. With a plethora of options – from immersive adventure games to puzzle-solving offerings – video games can help enhance cognitive function and increase social interaction by allowing players to connect with other users through the game’s online community. A variety of studies has attempted to establish a connection between video game play and cognitive function. While many researchers have reported significantly improved mental functionality, including improved memory and analytical reasoning older adults as the result of playing a video game, the connection between video game play and increased cognitive function can be tenuous. A Frontiers in Psychology report from 2013 concluded, “video game interventions may hold promise in terms of addressing declines associated with cognitive aging, but there are still many unknowns.” Follow-up tests found that the seniors who played the strategy...

Upon the closing of 2015, the impact investing marketplace reached $60 billion. The increase in activity indicates that the market is gaining traction. The forecast is bright for the burgeoning market, which could ultimately spell a brighter future for our posterity. Before impact investments became a viable alternative, societies relied on philanthropy and governments to meet the monetary needs of social crises and aid. The Rockefeller Foundation reports that those combined resources amounted to a few billion per year, a far cry from the $2.5 trillion annual funding needed to meet Sustainable Development Goals for developing countries. Societies now have an alternative. Impact investments merge the interests of philanthropic outreach and market investments. They are funneled into organizations, companies and funds to provide capital for social and environmental programming. Such programs include sustainable agriculture, microfinance, sustainable technology, housing, education, and healthcare. Unlike grants, financial return is a key factor in impact investments. The returns on impact investments may be below market rate, at market rate or, on occasion, concessionary. GIIN reports that portfolio performance often meets or exceeds investor expectation for impact and financial return. Such returns are based on program output, a relatively novel approach to determining the success of social programming. Whereas governments financed social programming by defining inputs (i.e. microloans issued), impact investments gauge success and returns by program outputs (i.e. small businesses who get out of debt and stay out of debt). Investors are only paid if the outputs for the programs succeed. The U.K. has forged the path for impact investments on a broad scale, relying on the funding for social impact bonds (SIBs). The most successful SIBs address issues of homelessness in urban settings. According to Social Finance, there are now 50 SIBs worldwide, including 31 in the...