Ingrid Jarvis1, Hind Sbihi2, Zoë Davis1, Michael Brauer3, Agatha Czekajlo4, Hugh W Davies3, Sarah E Gergel1, Martin Guhn5, Michael Jerrett6, Mieke Koehoorn3, Lorien Nesbitt4, Tim F Oberlander7, Jason Su8, Matilda van den Bosch9. 1. Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, Faculty of Forestry, The University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 2. School of Population and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; BC Centre for Disease Control, 655 West 12(th) Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. School of Population and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 4. Department of Forest Resources Management, Faculty of Forestry, The University of British Columbia, 2424 Mail Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 5. Human Early Learning Partnership, School of Population and Public Health, The University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 6. Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California at Los Angeles, 650 Charles E. Young Drive South, Los Angeles, CA, the United States; Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California at Los Angeles, 650 Charles E. Young Drive South, Los Angeles, CA, the United States. 7. School of Population and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, 4480 Oak Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 8. Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of California Berkeley, 2121 Berkeley Way West, Berkeley, CA, the United States. 9. Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, Faculty of Forestry, The University of British Columbia, 2424 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; School of Population and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; ISGlobal, Parc de Recerca Biomèdica de Barcelona, Doctor Aiguader 88 08003 Barcelona, Spain; Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Plaça de la Mercè, 10-12, 08002 Barcelona, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Calle de Melchor, Fernández Almagro, 3, 28029 Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: matilda.vandenbosch@isglobal.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Growing evidence suggests that exposure to green space is associated with improved childhood health and development, but the influence of different green space types remains relatively unexplored. In the present study, we investigated the association between early-life residential exposure to vegetation and early childhood development and evaluated whether associations differed according to land cover types, including paved land. METHODS: Early childhood development was assessed via kindergarten teacher-ratings on the Early Development Instrument (EDI) in a large population-based birth cohort (n = 27,539) in Metro Vancouver, Canada. The residential surrounding environment was characterized using a high spatial resolution land cover map that was linked to children by six-digit residential postal codes. Early-life residential exposure (from birth to time of EDI assessment, mean age = 5.6 years) was calculated as the mean of annual percentage values of different land cover classes (i.e., total vegetation, tree cover, grass cover, paved surfaces) within a 250 m buffer zone of postal code centroids. Multilevel models were used to analyze associations between respective land cover classes and early childhood development. RESULTS: In adjusted models, one interquartile range increase in total vegetation percentage was associated with a 0.33 increase in total EDI score (95% CI: 0.21, 0.45). Similar positive associations were observed for tree cover (β-coefficient: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.37) and grass cover (β-coefficient: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.22), while negative associations were observed for paved surfaces (β-coefficient: -0.35, 95% CI: -0.47, -0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that increased early-life residential exposure to vegetation is positively associated with early childhood developmental outcomes, and that associations may be stronger for residential exposure to tree cover relative to grass cover. Our results further indicate that childhood development may be negatively associated with residential exposure to paved surfaces. These findings can inform urban planning to support early childhood developmental health.
BACKGROUND: Growing evidence suggests that exposure to green space is associated with improved childhood health and development, but the influence of different green space types remains relatively unexplored. In the present study, we investigated the association between early-life residential exposure to vegetation and early childhood development and evaluated whether associations differed according to land cover types, including paved land. METHODS: Early childhood development was assessed via kindergarten teacher-ratings on the Early Development Instrument (EDI) in a large population-based birth cohort (n = 27,539) in Metro Vancouver, Canada. The residential surrounding environment was characterized using a high spatial resolution land cover map that was linked to children by six-digit residential postal codes. Early-life residential exposure (from birth to time of EDI assessment, mean age = 5.6 years) was calculated as the mean of annual percentage values of different land cover classes (i.e., total vegetation, tree cover, grass cover, paved surfaces) within a 250 m buffer zone of postal code centroids. Multilevel models were used to analyze associations between respective land cover classes and early childhood development. RESULTS: In adjusted models, one interquartile range increase in total vegetation percentage was associated with a 0.33 increase in total EDI score (95% CI: 0.21, 0.45). Similar positive associations were observed for tree cover (β-coefficient: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.37) and grass cover (β-coefficient: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.22), while negative associations were observed for paved surfaces (β-coefficient: -0.35, 95% CI: -0.47, -0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that increased early-life residential exposure to vegetation is positively associated with early childhood developmental outcomes, and that associations may be stronger for residential exposure to tree cover relative to grass cover. Our results further indicate that childhood development may be negatively associated with residential exposure to paved surfaces. These findings can inform urban planning to support early childhood developmental health.