McCrorie P, Olsen JR, Caryl FM, Nicholls N, Mitchell R. Neighbourhood natural space and the narrowing of socioeconomic inequality in children's social, emotional, and behavioural wellbeing.
WELLBEING, SPACE AND SOCIETY 2021;
2:None. [PMID:
35712674 PMCID:
PMC9099293 DOI:
10.1016/j.wss.2021.100051]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2021] [Revised: 07/01/2021] [Accepted: 07/27/2021] [Indexed: 05/13/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
The natural environment may benefit children's social, emotional and behavioural wellbeing, whilst offering a lever to narrow socioeconomic health inequalities. We investigated whether immediate neighbourhood natural space and private gardens were related to children's wellbeing outcomes and whether these relationships were moderated by household income.
METHODS
A nationally representative sample of 774 children (55% female, 10/11 years old) from the Studying Physical Activity in Children's Environments across Scotland study. Social, emotional and behavioural difficulty scores (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire) represented wellbeing outcomes. Percentage of total natural space and private gardens within 100m of the child's residence was quantified using Ordnance Survey's MasterMap Topography Layer®. Linear regression, including interaction terms, explored the two main research questions.
RESULTS
A 10% increase in residential natural space was associated with a 0.08 reduction (-0.15, -0.01; 95%CI) in Emotional Problem scores and a 0.09 improvement (0.02, 0.16; 95%CI) in Prosocial Behaviour scores. Household income moderated the associations between % natural space and private gardens on Prosocial Behaviour scores: for natural space, there was a positive relationship for those in the lowest income quintile (0.25 (0.09, 0.41; 95%CI)) and a null relationship for those in the highest quintile (-0.07 (-0.16, 0.02; 95%CI)). For private garden space, there was a positive relationship for those in the highest quintile (0.15 (0.05, 0.26; 95%CI)) and negative relationship with those in the lowest quintile (-0.30 (-0.50, -0.07, 95%CI)).
CONCLUSION
The natural environment could be a lever to benefit those from less advantaged backgrounds, particularly the development of prosocial behaviours.
Collapse