| Literature DB >> 35051065 |
Ester Cerin1,2,3,4, Anthony Barnett1, Jonathan E Shaw3,5,6, Erika Martino7, Luke D Knibbs8, Rachel Tham1, Amanda J Wheeler1,9, Kaarin J Anstey10,11.
Abstract
Population ageing and urbanisation are global phenomena that call for an understanding of the impacts of features of the urban environment on older adults' cognitive function. Because neighbourhood characteristics that can potentially have opposite effects on cognitive function are interdependent, they need to be considered in conjunction. Using data from an Australian national sample of 4141 adult urban dwellers, we examined the extent to which the associations of interrelated built and natural environment features and ambient air pollution with cognitive function are explained by cardiometabolic risk factors relevant to cognitive health. All examined environmental features were directly and/or indirectly related to cognitive function via other environmental features and/or cardiometabolic risk factors. Findings suggest that dense, interconnected urban environments with access to parks, blue spaces and low levels of air pollution may benefit cognitive health through cardiometabolic risk factors and other mechanisms not captured in this study. This study also highlights the need for a particularly fine-grained characterisation of the built environment in research on cognitive function, which would enable the differentiation of the positive effects of destination-rich neighbourhoods on cognition via participation in cognition-enhancing activities from the negative effects of air pollutants typically present in dense, destination-rich urban areas.Entities:
Keywords: blue space; cardiometabolic health; cognitive function; greenspace; walkability
Year: 2022 PMID: 35051065 PMCID: PMC8779212 DOI: 10.3390/toxics10010023
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxics ISSN: 2305-6304
Figure 1A simplified ecological model of neighbourhood environmental influences on cognitive function. indicate positive associations; indicate negative associations.
Sample characteristics (N = 4141).
| Characteristics | Statistics | Characteristics | Statistics |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Age (years), M ± SD | 61.1 ± 11.4 | Sex, female, % | 55.2 |
| Educational attainment, % | Employment status, % | ||
| Up to secondary | 32.7 | Not employed | 30.4 |
| Trade, associate diploma | 43.6 | Paid employment | 52.2 |
| Bachelor degree, postgraduate | 23.1 | Volunteering | 15.1 |
| Missing data | 0.6 | Missing data | 2.3 |
| Living arrangements, % | Household income (annual), % | ||
| Couple without children | 48.2 | Up to $49,999 | 32.9 |
| Couple with children | 26.8 | $50,000–$99,999 | 26.8 |
| Other | 22.4 | $100,000 and over | 28.9 |
| Missing data | 2.4 | Missing data | 11.5 |
| Area-level IRSAD, M ± SD | 6.4 ± 2.7 | English-speaking background, % | 89.9 |
| Residential self-selection—access to destinations, M ± SD | 3.0 ± 1.4 | Residential self-selection—recreational facilities, M ± SD | 3.1 ± 1.5 |
| Missing data, % | 7.8 | Missing data, % | 7.8 |
|
| |||
| Heart problems/stroke history, % | 8.7 | Tobacco-smoking status, % | |
| Missing data, % | 1.0 | Current smoker | 7.0 |
| LDL cholesterol, mg/dL, M ± SD | 3.0 ± 0.9 | Previous smoker | 35.9 |
| Missing data, % | 1.4 | Non-smoker | 54.5 |
| HDL cholesterol, mg/dL, M ± SD | 1.5 ± 0.4 | Missing data | 2.6 |
| Missing data, % | 0.3 | Waist circumference (cm), M ± SD | 94.6 ± 14.2 |
| Triglycerides, mg/dL, M ± SD | 1.3 ± 0.9 | Missing data, % | 0.2 |
| Missing data, % | 0.3 | ||
| Glycated haemoglobin (HbA1C), mmol/mol, M ± SD | 39.9 ± 6.3 | Mean arterial pressure, mmHg, M ± SD | 92.0 ± 12.3 |
| Missing data, % | 0.5 | Missing data, % | 0.2 |
| Diabetes medication, % | 6.3 | Anti-hypertensive medication, % | 32.0 |
| Missing data, % | 1.8 | Missing data, % | 1.8 |
| Lipid-lowering medication, % | 24.5 | ||
| Missing data, % | 1.8 | ||
|
| |||
| Memory, CVLT score | 6.5 ± 2.4 | Processing speed, SDMT score | 49.7 ± 11.6 |
| Missing data, % | 2.3 | Missing data, % | 2.0 |
|
| |||
| Population density, persons/ha | 17.4 ± 10.0 | Street intersection density, intersections/km2 | 62.2 ± 32.2 |
| Percentage of commercial land use in residential buffer | 2.5 ± 6.1 | Non-commercial land use mix, entropy score (0 to 1) | 0.14 ± 0.13 |
| Percentage of parkland in residential buffer | 11.6 ± 12.5 | Percentage of blue space (waterbody) in residential buffer | 0.24 ± 1.98 |
| NO2, ppb | 5.5 ± 2.1 | PM2.5, μg/m3 | 6.3 ± 1.7 |
Notes. M, mean; SD, standard deviation; IRSAD, Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage and Disadvantage; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; CVLT, California Verbal Learning Test; SDMT, Symbol–Digit Modalities Test; NO2, nitrogen dioxide; PM2.5, particulate matter <2.5 µm.
Total effects of neighbourhood environmental characteristics on cardiometabolic risk factors.
| Environmental Characteristic (Units) | Waist Circumference (cm) | HDL Cholesterol (mg/dL) | LDL Cholesterol (mg/dL) | Triglycerides (mg/dL) | Glycated Haemoglobin (mmol/mol) | Mean Arterial Pressure (mmHg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population density | −0.163 | 0.998 | −0.011 | 0.992 |
| − |
| (10 persons/ha) | (−0.646, 0.320) | (0.989, 1.008) | (−0.037, 0.014) | (0.972, 1.012) |
|
|
| Street intersection density | 0.145 | 1.001 |
|
| 1.000 |
|
| (10 intersections/km2) | (−0.035, 0.326) | (0.998, 1.005) |
|
| (0.999, 1.002) |
|
| Percentage of commercial land | 0.270 | 0.986 | −0.010 | 1.026 | 0.998 |
|
| (10%) | (−0.504, 1.044) | (0.972, 1.001) | (−0.051, 0.031) | (0.993, 1.060) | (0.991, 1.004) |
|
| Non-commercial land use mix | 0.377 |
| 0.014 |
| 1.002 |
|
| (0.10 score) | (−0.004, 0.770) |
| (−0.006, 0.034) |
| (0.999, 1.006) |
|
| Percentage of parkland | −0.314 | 0.996 |
| 1.003 | 1.001 | −0.303 |
| (10%) | (−0.714, 0.087) | (0.989, 1.004) |
| (0.987, 1.019) | (0.997, 1.004) | (−0.660, 0.053) |
| Percentage of blue space |
|
| −0.076 | 0.972 | 0.989 * | −1.566 |
| (10%) |
|
| (−0.197, 0.045) | (0.882, 1.070) | (0.971, 1.006) | (−3.477, 0.346) |
| NO2 | 0.066 | 0.999 | −0.002 | 1.000 |
|
|
| (ppb) | (−0.242, 0.373) | (0.993, 1.006) | (−0.018, 0.015) | (0.988, 1.013) |
|
|
| PM2.5 |
|
|
| 1.008 | 1.001 | |
| (μg/m3) |
|
|
| (0.996, 1.021) | (0.998, 1.006) |
Notes. b, regression coefficient; e, exponentiated regression coefficient; CI, confidence intervals; * effect moderated by diabetes medication. Effects in bold are statistically significant at a probability level of 0.05. Details on regression models, including confounders, are in the Supplementary material (Table S1).
Figure 2Effects of neighbourhood environmental characteristics on memory and the mediation roles of cardiovascular risk factors. Arrows linking variables indicate significant associations; b, regression coefficient; e, exponentiated regression coefficient; ha, hectare; C+, −, +/− = curvilinear positive, negative, non-monotonic association; Figure Sx; the supplementary figure of a curvilinear association. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Cardiometabolic risk factors are represented by darker grey rectangles; environmental characteristics directly associated with memory or cardiometabolic risk factors are represented by light grey rectangles; environmental attributes indirectly associated with cardiometabolic risk factors through other environmental characteristics are represented by white rectangles. All significant and non-significant associations (regression coefficients and 95% CIs) are presented in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S2–S4). Table S2 also provides the F-ratio of the smooth terms for significant curvilinear associations.
Figure 3Effects of neighbourhood environmental characteristics on processing speed and the mediation roles of cardiovascular risk factors. Arrows linking variables indicate significant associations; b, regression coefficient; e, exponentiated regression coefficient; ha, hectare; C+, −, +/− = curvilinear positive, negative, non-monotonic association; Figure Sx; supplementary figure of a curvilinear association. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Cardiometabolic risk factors are represented by darker grey rectangles; environmental characteristics directly associated with memory or cardiometabolic risk factors are represented by light grey rectangles; environmental attributes indirectly associated with cardiometabolic risk factors through other environmental characteristics are represented by white rectangles. All significant and non-significant associations (regression coefficients and 95% CIs) are presented in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S2–S4). Table S2 also provides the F-ratio of the smooth terms for significant curvilinear associations.