| Literature DB >> 26771623 |
Jun-Hyun Kim1, Chanam Lee2, Wonmin Sohn3.
Abstract
Although a substantial body of literature has provided evidence supporting the positive effects of natural environments on well-being, little has been known about the specific spatial patterns of urban nature in promoting health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among children. This study assessed the association that the urban natural environment measured by landscape spatial patterns may have with obesity and HRQOL among Hispanic children. Ninety-two 4th and 5th grade students were recruited from Houston, Texas, and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) was used to capture the children's HRQOL. The quality of urban natural environments was assessed by quantifying the landscape spatial patterns, using landscape indices generated by Geographic Information Systems and remote sensing. From the bivariate analyses, children's body mass index showed a significantly negative association with their HRQOL. After controlling for socio-demographic factors, the results revealed that larger and more tree areas were positively correlated with children's HRQOL. In addition, those children living in areas with tree patches further apart from each other showed higher HRQOL. This research adds to the current multi-disciplinary area of research on environment-health relationships by investigating the roles of urban greeneries and linking their spatial structures with children's HRQOL.Entities:
Keywords: GIS; children; green space; health-related quality of life; landscape ecology; landscape spatial patterns; obesity; remote sensing; urban natural environments
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26771623 PMCID: PMC4730512 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13010121
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Different spatial settings to measure landscape spatial patterns.
Selected landscape indices, acronyms, formulas, and descriptive statistics of landscape spatial patterns.
| Criteria | Landscape Indices (Acronym) | Formula a | Description | Unit (Range) | Mean * | Std. Dev. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of landscape (PLAND) | Higher PLAND values indicate larger patch sizes. | % | 25.99 | 7.29 | ||
| Number of patches (NP) | Higher NP values indicate more number of patches and fragmented condition. | Count | 3809.29 | 1211.09 | ||
| Mean Patch size (MPS) | Lower MPS values indicate more fragmented conditions. | Square-meter (MPS ≥ 0, without limit) | 162.54 | 128.06 | ||
| Mean shape index (MSI) | Higher MSI values indicate more irregular shapes. | None (MSI ≥ 1, without limit) | 1.25 | 0.03 | ||
| Mean nearest neighbor distance (MNN) | Higher MNN values indicate more isolated patterns. | Meter | 2.87 | 0.39 | ||
| Patch cohesion index (COHESION) | Higher COHESION values indicate more connected patterns. | % | 97.78 | 1.15 |
Notes: This table is adopted and revised form Kim et al. [12]. ni = number of patches in the landscape of patch type I; aij = area (m2) of patch ij; A = total landscape area (m2); pij = perimeter of patch ij; hij = distance (m) from patch ij to nearest neighboring patch of the same type, based on edge-to-edge distance. * Mean values of half-mile airline buffers; See McGarigal and Marks [53] for more details.
Socio-demographic characteristics of child respondents (N = 92).
| Variables | Freq. (%) | Variables | Freq. (%) | Variables | Freq. (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boy | 35 (38.0%) | Mean | 35.98 | Mean | 5.11 |
| Girl | 57 (62.0%) | SD | 7.17 | SD | 1.60 |
| 9 | 21 (22.8%) | Single, never married | 13 (14.1%) | 0 | 1 (1.1%) |
| 10 | 50 (54.4%) | Married | 60 (65.2%) | 1 | 9 (9.8%) |
| 11 | 21 (22.8%) | Living with partner | 7 (7.6%) | 2 | 22 (23.9%) |
| Divorced, widow, separated | 11 (12.0%) | 3 + | 60 (65.2%) | ||
| 4th | 43 (46.7%) | Other | 1 (1.1%) | ||
| 5th | 49 (53.3%) | ||||
| Employed for wages | 39 (42.4%) | 0 | 5 (5.4%) | ||
| Hispanic | 76 (82.6%) | Self-employed | 6 (6.5%) | 1 | 33 (35.9%) |
| Don’t know | 16 (17.4%) | Out of work for more than 1 year | 5 (5.4%) | 2 | 42 (45.7%) |
| Our of work for less than 1 year | 6 (6.5%) | 3 + | 12 (13.0%) | ||
| US | 75 (81.5%) | A homemaker | 33 (35.9%) | ||
| Mexico | 12 (13.0%) | A student | 1 (1.1%) | Obese or overweight | 53 (57.6%) |
| Central America | 3 (3.3%) | Retired | 1 (1.1%) | Normal or underweight | 39 (42.4%) |
| Missing | 2 (2.2%) | Unable to work | 1 (1.1%) | ||
| Mean | 21.69 | ||||
| Mom only | 15 (16.3%) | Elementary to 6th | 15 (16.3%) | SD | 5.53 |
| Dad only | 0 (0.0%) | 7th–8th | 12 (13.1%) | ||
| Mom and Dad | 70 (76.1%) | 9th–12th | 45 (48.9%) | Mean | 0.90 |
| Parent and Step-parent | 6 (6.5%) | College degree or higher | 15 (16.3%) | SD | 1.21 |
| Missing | 1 (1.1%) | Vocational/technical | 5 (5.4%) | ||
obese or overweight = at or above the 85th percentile of body mass index (BMI) values; Normal or underweight = less than the 85th percentile of BMI values.
Children’s health-related quality of life (HRQOL) Assessed by the pediatric quality of life (PedsQL) Surveys.
| Surveys | Statistics | Mean PedsQL Score | Total PedsQL Score | Physical Health Summary Score | Psychosocial Health Summary Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child self-report survey | Mean | 76.35 | 1754.67 | 632.61 | 1122.25 |
| Std. Deviation | 13.32 | 307.86 | 131.96 | 214.72 | |
| Mother proxy survey | Mean | 71.44 | 1650.00 | 554.62 | 1093.33 |
| Std. Deviation | 16.41 | 377.75 | 187.52 | 237.37 |
Total of mean PedsQL score = 100, total of the total PedsQL score = 2300, total of the physical health summary score = 800, total of the psychosocial health summary score = 1500.
Correlations between children’s BMI and HRQOL.
| Variables | Child Self-Report Survey | Mother Proxy Survey | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta | Sig. | Beta | Sig. | |
| Total PedsQL score | −0.146 | 0.166 | −0.248 | 0.019 |
| Physical health summary score | −0.227 | 0.030 | −0.165 | 0.117 |
| Psychosocial health summary score | −0.068 | 0.520 | −0.269 | 0.010 |
Notes: Dependent variable: Children’s BMI z-score. * p < 0.05.
Landscape Indices Correlated with children’s HRQOL: Final Regression Model Results Based on the Half-Mile Airline (HA) and Quarter-mile Airline (QA) Buffer Measures.
| Half-Mile Airline Buffer: Model HA | Quarter-Mile Airline Buffer: Model QA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Beta | Sig. | Variables | Beta | Sig. |
| Children’s age | −0.189 | 0.041 * | Children’s age | −0.243 | 0.010 * |
| Children’s gender a | 0.202 | 0.038 * | Children’s gender a | 0.182 | 0.061 |
| Mother’s employment status b | 0.170 | 0.061 | Mother’s employment status b | 0.139 | 0.142 |
| Children’s BMI z-score | −0.239 | 0.010 * | Children’s BMI z-score | −0.247 | 0.008 ** |
| Total weekend PA times | 0.392 | 0.000 ** | Total weekend PA times | 0.346 | 0.000 ** |
| Total TV watching hours during the weekend | −0.225 | 0.015 * | Total TV watching hours during the weekend | −0.252 | 0.005 ** |
| Accessibility for utilitarian walking | 0.163 | 0.065 | Accessibility to playgrounds and streets to play | 0.171 | 0.059 |
| Unattractiveness in walking conditions | −0.142 | 0.099 | Neighborhood disorder | −0.283 | 0.002 ** |
| Neighborhood disorder | −0.279 | 0.002 ** | Accessibility to schools and open spaces to play | 0.194 | 0.041 * |
| Walking barriers | −0.201 | 0.035 * | Park existence in neighborhoods | 0.251 | 0.015* |
| Accessibility to schools and open spaces to play | 0.198 | 0.042 * | |||
| Park existence in neighborhoods | 0.298 | 0.005 ** | |||
| PLAND | 0.357 | 0.023 * | PLAND | 0.255 | 0.069 |
| NP | 0.382 | 0.016 * | NP | 0.385 | 0.020 * |
| MPS | −0.299 | 0.072 | MPS | N/S | N/S |
| MSI | −0.191 | 0.089 | MSI | N/S | N/S |
| MNN | 0.608 | 0.001 ** | MNN | 0.536 | 0.004 ** |
| COHESION | N/S | N/S | COHESION | N/S | N/S |
| (Constant: Coeff. = 3060.916 **) | (Constant: Coeff. = 2848.380 **) | ||||
| N = 92/Sig. < 0.000 / Adj. R2 = 0.431 | N = 92/Sig. < 0.000 / Adj. R2 = 0.423 | ||||
Dependent Variable: Child Self-report Total PedsQL Score. Dummy variables: 0 = girl, 1 = boy, 0 = unemployment, 1 = employment. Abbreviations: PLAND, percentage of landscape; NP, number of patches; MPS, mean patch size; MSI, mean shape index; MNN, mean nearest neighbor distance; COHESION, patch cohesion index; N/S, not significant. More detailed information about each landscape index in Table 1. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.