Nature Immersion and Executive Function: What the Evidence Supports

Nature immersion programs may improve specific attention-related outcomes, but current evidence does not establish a broad, reliable improvement in executive function. The strongest findings concern selective or sustained attention, selected working-memory tasks, and response stability. Evidence from real-world residential camps is much weaker for executive function because the available camp studies primarily measured well-being, nature connection, psychological functioning, or self-regulation rather than standardized executive-function tasks.

This review distinguishes directed attention, sustained and selective attention, working memory, response stability, and broader executive functions such as inhibition and cognitive flexibility. It then translates the evidence into cautious design options and an evaluation plan for organizations.

What Attention Restoration Theory Reviews Found

The 2016 systematic review found some positive effects of natural-environment exposure, but the results were selective rather than universal. Statistically significant improvements were reported for Digit Span Forward, Digit Span Backward, and Trail Making Test B.^[1]

These results suggest possible benefits for particular working-memory-related and executive-task measures, not a general improvement in executive function. The supplied review summary does not establish consistent effects on inhibition, cognitive flexibility, or every form of directed or sustained attention.

The 2018 review revisited the Attention Restoration Theory claim that nature can restore a limited cognitive resource often described as directed attention. Rather than treating all attention tests as equivalent, it proposed a process-specific framework for identifying which task components actually depend on directed-attention-related processes. This framework indicates that future studies should match claims about restoration to the particular cognitive process measured, rather than using broad labels such as “attention” or “executive function.”^[2]

The 2016 review emphasized substantial diversity in populations, study designs, and outcome measures, and was motivated by uncertainty about how much evidence actually supported Attention Restoration Theory. The 2018 process-specific framework further reflects the field's need for better conceptual discrimination among attention processes. The supplied summaries do not provide full risk-of-bias assessments, sample counts, or study-level methodological details, so conclusions should remain cautious.^[6]

Evidence From Real-World Nature Exposure and Camps

Two Finnish field studies examined self-paced walks of 4 to 6 km in a coniferous forest and an urban park. Participants completed self-report measures and the Sustained Attention to Response Task before and after walking. Mood and self-reported restoration improved, and sustained attention improved across versions of the activity, including some improvement after walking without the added psychological tasks.^[7][8][9]

These findings support a cautious claim about sustained attention, which was the reported directed-attention-related outcome in that study. They do not establish improvements in working memory, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, or directed attention as a broad construct. The added psychological tasks did not produce additional affective or self-reported restoration benefits, and the authors called for replication and research on longer-term or cumulative effects.^[10][11][12]

A child study comparing a 30-minute natural-environment walk with an urban walk found faster and more stable responding on the Attention Network Task, along with different gaze allocation during the natural walk. Importantly, it found no improvement in executive or directed attention. Response speed and stability should therefore not be presented as evidence of improved broad executive function.^[13][14][15]

A green-school study found better selective and sustained attention when children completed an attention task outdoors in a school garden or other green setting than indoors. It did not measure working memory or executive function with a dedicated broad battery, and its short-term within-subject design cannot establish effects of residential immersion, wilderness expeditions, or cumulative exposure.^[16][17][18]

The four-week residential wilderness camp study is relevant to real-world immersion, but it did not directly test executive function. It reported changes in nature exposure, nature-related skills, nature connection, relaxation, perceived stress, emotional states, and spiritual well-being. Because it had no control group, a small sample, post-camp attrition, and possible confounding from the cell-phone-free setting, it cannot show that wilderness immersion caused executive-function gains.^{[19][20][21][22][23]}

Similarly, a large evaluation of trauma-informed wilderness therapy with adolescents reported improvements in psychological, family, and psychophysiological functioning, but it was described as a pilot study and the supplied findings do not identify standardized working-memory, inhibition, or cognitive-flexibility outcomes.^[24][25]

Evidence Synthesis and Confidence

Overall confidence is moderate for short-term, selective or sustained-attention effects, low to moderate for selected working-memory or executive-task effects, and low for broad executive-function improvement from immersion camps. The evidence is stronger when studies use direct behavioral tasks and a comparison condition, and weaker when they rely on uncontrolled pre-post designs or broad self-report outcomes.

Program Design Options for Organizations

Organizations should present nature immersion as a program intended to support attention recovery, well-being, and meaningful engagement, while treating executive-function improvement as a hypothesis to evaluate. The available evidence does not establish an optimal dose, a walking-over-sitting advantage, or one superior activity.^[35][36][37]

How to Evaluate a Program

Use a controlled or randomized design when feasible, with pre-program, immediate post-program, and follow-up assessments. The comparison could be an indoor activity, an urban setting, or a matched non-nature program, provided the organization records what participants actually do in each condition. This is important because the outdoor-learning review found substantial variation in comparison groups, study quality, and outcome measures, and could not calculate pooled effect sizes.^[47][48][49]

The key test is not simply whether participants feel restored after camp. It is whether a prespecified executive or attention measure improves more than in a credible comparison condition, persists beyond the immediate session, and does so without being explained by practice effects, mood changes, social contact, exercise, reduced phone use, or other camp features.

Conclusion

Nature immersion is a plausible way to support short-term sustained or selective attention and broader restoration, and the 2016 review identified positive effects on a small set of attention-related tasks. However, the evidence does not justify saying that immersion camps generally improve executive function. Real-world camp studies so far provide stronger evidence for well-being, stress, nature connection, and psychological functioning than for working memory, inhibition, or cognitive flexibility.

For organizations, the most defensible approach is to build flexible, accessible programs with intentional nature contact, offer activity choices, measure exposure carefully, and evaluate cognitive outcomes directly against a comparison condition. Repeated exposure, quiet observation, reduced competing demands, and reflective structure may be reasonable design hypotheses, but they should be tested rather than marketed as proven mechanisms of executive-function improvement.