Can the Neighborhood Built Environment Make a Difference in Children's Development? Building the Research Agenda to Create Evidence for Place-Based Children's Policy

Abstract

Healthy child development is determined by a combination of physical, social, family, individual, and environmental factors. Thus far, the majority of child development research has focused on the influence of individual, family, and school environments and has largely ignored the neighborhood context despite the increasing policy interest. Yet given that neighborhoods are the locations where children spend large periods of time outside of home and school, it is plausible the physical design of neighborhoods (built environment), including access to local amenities, can affect child development. The relatively few studies exploring this relationship support associations between child development and neighborhood destinations, green spaces, interaction with nature, traffic exposure, and housing density. These studies emphasize the need to more deeply understand how child development outcomes might be influenced by the neighborhood built environment. Pursuing this research space is well aligned with the current global movements on livable and child-friendly cities. It has direct public policy impact by informing planning policies across a range of sectors (urban design and planning, transport, public health, and pediatrics) to implement place-based interventions and initiatives that target children's health and development at the community level. We argue for the importance of exploring the effect of the neighborhood built environment on child development as a crucial first step toward informing urban design principles to help reduce developmental vulnerability in children and to set optimal child development trajectories early.

Local Residential Segregation Matters: Stronger Association of Census Tract Compared to Conventional City-Level Measures with Fatal and Non-Fatal Assaults (Total and Firearm Related), Using the Index of Concentration at the Extremes (ICE) for Racial, Economic, and Racialized Economic Segregation, Massachusetts (US), 1995–2010

“…As new place-based approaches to addressing structural determinants of health and health inequities gain traction in diverse countries [66,69,70] (Boston, MA, USA). The funder had no role in the design of the study or in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, or in the writing of the manuscript.…”

Children’s neighbourhood physical environment and early development: an individual child level linked data study

“…The neighbourhood environment provides one such opportunity, whereby multiple features of the physical environment could be shaped to support healthy development 7. However, this requires an understanding of which features of the neighbourhood environment should be prioritised for policymakers and practitioners 8. Although there are some studies of the associations between the neighbourhood environment and early child development at the aggregate level (eg, suburb and local government), there is scant information about these associations at the individual child level.…”

Interaction of childhood urbanicity and variation in dopamine genes alters adult prefrontal function as measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)

“…Urban upbringing and urban living (“urbanicity”) offer benefits from increased productivity and prosperity, higher wages, and increased access to cultural resources [ 2 ]. However, city life carries disadvantages like increased crime [ 3 ], over-population [ 4 ], psychiatric symptoms from crowd exposure [ 5 ], and demanding social environments [ 2 ]. Urbanicity, related to poorer mental health, increases risk for anxiety and mood disorders [ 6 ], and a doubling of the lifetime prevalence of schizophrenia with an associated population relative risk larger than family history [ 7 ].…”