Green Spaces and Child Health and Development

  • Payam DadvandEmail author
  • Mireia Gascon
  • Iana Markevych
Open Access


The ongoing urbanisation worldwide has led to an increasing number of children living in urban areas. Urban children, compared to children from rural areas, are generally exposed to higher levels of a number of environmental hazards such as air pollution, noise and heat, and have limited access to natural environments, including green spaces. At the same time, urban lifestyle is predominantly associated with lower levels of physical activity and higher exposure to crime and psychological stress. Contact with green spaces, on the other hand, is thought to have a defining role in human brain development. An accumulating body of evidence has also associated such contact with improved mental and physical health in children. This chapter aims to present a synopsis of the current state-of-the-art of research linking green space and child health and development. Towards this aim, we (1) elaborate on potential mechanisms underlying health effects of green spaces, (2) highlight the importance of prenatal and postnatal periods as windows of vulnerability, and (3) provide an overview of the available evidence on effects of green spaces on (a) pregnancy outcomes, (b) brain development including structural brain development, as well as behavioural and cognitive development, (c) respiratory and allergic conditions, and (d) cardiometabolic risk factors.


Green space Built environment Biodiversity Child health Child development Biophilia 


  • Pre- and postnatal periods are important windows of vulnerability.

  • Contact with green spaces is associated with improved pregnancy outcomes.

  • Green spaces are beneficial for child brain (cognitive and behavioural) development.

  • There is inconsistent evidence on the association with respiratory and allergic conditions.

  • There is inconsistent evidence on the association with obesity and physical activity.

6.1 Potential Mechanisms

Mechanisms through which green spaces could exert their health benefits for foetuses and children are yet to be established. However, stress reduction; increase in social contacts and cohesion; enhanced physical activity; mitigation of urban-related environmental hazards such as air pollution, noise and heat; and enrichment of environmental microbiota have been suggested to play a role. The available evidence is still limited. Of the aforementioned mechanisms, mitigation of air pollution has been investigated the most. A study of 52 pregnant women in Barcelona, Spain, reported that higher residential surrounding greenness was associated with lower personal exposure to particulate air pollution, as measured by personal monitors (Dadvand et al. 2012). Another study reported that higher greenness within and surrounding 39 schools in Barcelona, Spain, was associated with lower indoor (e.g. classroom) and outdoor (e.g. yard) levels of traffic-related air pollution in these schools (Dadvand et al. 2015b). A second study of schoolchildren from these schools showed that 20–65% of the associations between school greenness and cognitive development could be explained by lower air pollution levels (Dadvand et al. 2015a). However, other studies did not support a mediatory role of air pollution in the associations between green spaces and foetal growth and blood pressure in children (Dadvand et al. 2012b; Hystad et al. 2014; Markevych et al. 2014a, b).

A study from Finland reported that adolescents living in more natural areas with higher biodiversity had richer skin microbiota, which in turn was associated with lower risk of atopy through improved immunoregulation (Hanski et al. 2012). Similarly, higher surrounding greenness was related to fungi diversity and variation in house dust in Germany (Weikl et al. 2016), which in turn was associated with lower risk of wheezing in children (Tischer et al. 2016). Improved immunoregulation induced by an enriched environmental microbiome in green spaces has not only been suggested to reduce the risk of allergic conditions but has also been postulated to enhance brain development (Rook 2013). Few studies have proposed physical activity as another potential mechanism underlying the aforementioned associations (Banay et al. 2017). The potential mediatory role of other factors such as stress (Markevych et al. 2014a), noise and heat exposure and social contact are yet to be investigated.

6.2 Pregnancy and Childhood as Important Windows of Vulnerability

An accumulating body of evidence has documented the especial vulnerability of foetuses and infants to the effects of socio-environmental factors (Nieuwenhuijsen et al. 2013). Accordingly, pregnancy and childhood are increasingly recognised as particularly influential for shaping health over the course of life (Hines et al. 2009). The influence of exposures during these periods is not limited to reproductive and childhood outcomes and can extend over a lifetime, as stated by the Developmental Origins of Health and Diseases (DOHaD) concept (Barker 1995; Gluckman and Hanson 2006). DOHaD suggests that environmental exposures during the prenatal and early postnatal periods may permanently alter the body’s physiology, metabolism and structure, and that such changes can promote disease long after the environmental exposure has ceased (Hanson et al. 2016). In this context, the ability of green spaces to promote health and development of foetuses and children and to mitigate adverse health effects of urban-related environmental hazards such as air pollution, noise and heat could have lifelong implications.

6.3 Pregnancy Outcomes and Complications

Among different pregnancy outcomes and complications that have been evaluated in relation to maternal exposure to green spaces, the association with foetal growth was the most consistent (Banay et al. 2017; Dzhambov et al. 2014). Higher greenness surrounding maternal residences has been associated with higher birth weight, higher head circumference, lower risk of low birth weight and lower risk of small-for-gestational age (Banay et al. 2017; Dadvand et al. 2012a, b, 2014b; Dzhambov et al. 2014). Although less consistently shown in the literature, green spaces have been associated with longer gestational age at delivery and lower risk of preterm birth (Banay et al. 2017). A limited body of evidence has associated green spaces with a lower risk of pregnancy complications such as pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes and peripartum depression (Banay et al. 2017). These associations have been suggested to be stronger among women of lower socio-economic status (Banay et al. 2017). A study from England reported that while for Caucasian British mothers there was a beneficial association between residential green spaces and birth weight, there was no such association for British mothers of Pakistani origin (Dadvand et al. 2014b). This highlights a potential role of ethnicity in the association between green spaces and foetal growth.

6.4 Brain Development

The Biophilia hypothesis suggests that humans have essential evolutionary bonds to nature (Kellert and Wilson 1993; Wilson 1984). Accordingly, contact with nature, including green spaces, has been postulated to be crucial for brain development in children (Kahn 1997; Kahn and Kellert 2002). The brain develops steadily during the prenatal and early postnatal periods, which are considered to be the most vulnerable windows for environmental influences (Grandjean and Landrigan 2014). Upbringing in urban areas where children often have limited access to green spaces has been associated with a higher risk of neurodevelopmental disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Skounti et al. 2007) and autism spectrum disorders (Williams et al. 2006). Green spaces, in contrast, have been associated with short-term improvements in different brain functions, as well as enhanced development of these functions in the long term.

Earlier studies on the potential effects of contact with green spaces on brain function were mainly experimental studies evaluating short-term ‘therapeutic’ effects in ADHD children (Kuo and Taylor 2004; Schutte et al. 2017; Taylor and Kuo 2009; Taylor et al. 2001; van den Berg and van den Berg 2011). They mainly compared the effects of playing in indoor environments or urban settings in comparison to green spaces, and showed that the latter could improve attentional function and reduce ADHD symptoms. Later cross-sectional epidemiological studies evaluated the long-term association between green spaces and behavioural and emotional problems among healthy children (Aggio et al. 2015; Amoly et al. 2014; Feng and Astell-Burt 2017; Markevych et al. 2014c; Younan et al. 2017; Zach et al. 2016). They mainly characterised behaviour using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), and associated nearby green spaces or time spent in them to lower risk of behavioural problems such as hyperactivity/inattention, conduct problems, emotional symptoms, peer relationship problems and aggressive behaviour. One cross-sectional study reported improved self-discipline associated with better visual access to green spaces from home (Taylor et al. 2002). A recent ecological study in 543 elementary schools in the USA reported lower prevalence of autism in schools with more green spaces (Wu and Jackson 2017). Another similar ecological study reported that more green spaces at primary schools were associated with better performance of students in math and English exams (Wu et al. 2014). Recently, longitudinal epidemiological studies have prospectively evaluated the association between long-term contact with green spaces and cognitive development (Dadvand et al. 2015a, 2017). They used repeated computerised tests to characterise cognitive function, and reported that more green space surrounding the residential address or at school was associated with improved cognitive functions including working memory and attention. A very recent study utilised magnetic resonance imaging of brain structure to assess whether lifelong exposure to green space surrounding the residential address was associated with beneficial structural changes in the developing brain in 253 urban schoolchildren (Dadvand et al. 2018a). This study detected that such exposure was associated with an increase in grey matter volume in the prefrontal and premotor cortices and an increase in white matter volume in the prefrontal, premotor and cerebellar regions. These structural changes were in turn associated with improved working memory and reduced inattentiveness. These findings provide novel evidence that long-term contact with green spaces is associated with beneficial and potentially lasting changes in brain structure.

6.5 Respiratory and Allergic Conditions

The available evidence on the effects of green spaces on asthma and allergic conditions in children is inconsistent (Lambert et al. 2017). While a number of studies have reported a higher risk of allergic conditions and exacerbation of asthma in children in relation to green spaces (Dadvand et al. 2014a; DellaValle et al. 2012; Fuertes et al. 2016; Lovasi et al. 2013), others have shown no or even protective associations (Dadvand et al. 2014a; Fuertes et al. 2016; Hanski et al. 2012; Lovasi et al. 2008; Müller-Rompa et al. 2018; Pilat et al. 2012; Tischer et al. 2017, 2018). These inconsistencies reflect the potential conflicting functions of green spaces in relation to these health outcomes. For example, green spaces can increase the risk of asthma and allergic conditions through releasing allergic pollens (DellaValle et al. 2012; Lovasi et al. 2013) and fungal spores (Bartra et al. 2009; De Linares et al. 2010), or through pesticides or fertilisers used for green space maintenance (Corsini et al. 2012; see also Damialis et al. Chap.  3, this volume). On the other hand, green spaces can prevent these conditions through enriching environmental biodiversity, mitigating exposure to air pollution and, to a lesser extent, encouraging physical activity and reducing the risk of obesity (Hanski et al. 2012; Lovasi et al. 2008; Pilat et al. 2012). The heterogeneity in the available literature could also have been, in part, due to the poor metrics that did not take into account the differential allergenicity of different vegetation species or seasonal variation in their allergenic properties. Different types of green spaces (e.g. parks vs. forests) and different climates/settings could also be contributing factors to such a heterogeneity. For example, a study from Spain reported that residing close to urban parks was associated with a higher risk of concurrent asthma and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, while residing close to natural green spaces (e.g. forests) was not (Dadvand et al. 2014a). Another study that evaluated the impacts of green spaces on respiratory outcomes reported different impacts across two bio-geographic regions in Spain (Tischer et al. 2017). In the Euro-Siberian region, characterised by a humid climate with water availability throughout the year, cold winters and maximum vegetation during summer months (Alcaraz-Segura et al. 2009), green spaces were negatively associated with wheezing. In the Mediterranean region, characterised by an arid climate with hot and dry summers, mild and rainy winters, and maximum vegetation between autumn and spring (Alcaraz-Segura et al. 2009), living closer to green spaces was associated with a reduced risk of bronchitis. Similarly, a study including seven birth cohorts from across Europe, Australia and Canada has reported heterogeneous associations for different regions (Fuertes et al. 2016). While the association between green spaces and allergic rhinitis was positive in Sweden and Southern Germany, it was negative in Northern Germany and the Netherlands. For the Australian and two Canadian cohorts, no associations were observed. A similar pattern was observed for aeroallergen sensitisation (Fuertes et al. 2016). Further research with more refined green space assessment is warranted in this field.

6.6 Cardiometabolic Risk Factors

Living in a green neighbourhood or close to green spaces has been postulated to increase physical activity or, in other terms, reduce sedentary behaviour (see Cook et al. Chap.  11, this volume). However, the available evidence is not conclusive and there are inconsistencies in the reported direction and strength of associations (Lachowycz and Jones 2011; Markevych et al. 2017; McGrath et al. 2015). The main reason for this inconsistency could be the fact that the majority of these studies have only focused on the mere presence of green spaces without taking into account their quality aspects. Aesthetics, walkability, biodiversity, availability of sport/play facilities, organised social events and perceived safety have all been suggested to affect the use of green spaces for physical activity (McCormack et al. 2010). For children and their parents, the perceived safety and crime rate in the neighborhood are main determinants of their outdoor physical activity (Sullivan et al. 2017). Moreover, most studies have relied on the mere presence of green spaces without taking into account whether they are actually accessible. Some green spaces are not open to the public at all or have restricted access. The methods with which physical activity was measured can be another source of the observed heterogeneity. While some studies have applied objective measures of physical activity (e.g. personal monitors), others have relied on questionnaires to obtain data on physical activity. Each of these methods has strengths and limitations.

In addition to the association between residential green spaces and physical activity, studies have also evaluated how active children were while in green spaces (McCrorie et al. 2014). These studies mainly relied on Global Positioning Systems and accelerometers to objectively characterise time-activity patterns and the locations. They revealed that children are more likely to engage in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity while they are in green spaces, and such an activity accounts for a notable part of the total moderate-to-vigorous physical activity that a child might perform (McCrorie et al. 2014).

Similar to physical activity, the available evidence on the association between green spaces and obesity is not conclusive yet (Gascon et al. 2016). For other cardiometabolic risk factors, the available evidence for a potential influence of green spaces is very scarce (Markevych et al. 2014b, 2016; Thiering et al. 2016). A cross-sectional study of 10-year-old children in Germany reported higher blood pressure in children living in less green areas (Markevych et al. 2014b). A longitudinal study following the same cohort of children for 5 years did not find any association between residential green spaces and blood lipids (Markevych et al. 2016). Very recently, a study of a population-based sample of around 4,000 school children in Iran found a beneficial association between time spent in green spaces and fasting blood glucose levels (Dadvand et al. 2018b). These findings were in line with those of an earlier German study that reported an inverse association between residential green spaces and insulin resistance (Thiering et al. 2016). Further studies are required to investigate the effects of green spaces on cardiometabolic risk factors such as sedentary behaviour, obesity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycaemia and hypertension.

6.7 Final Remarks

Currently, about half of the world’s population lives in cities (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2015). By 2050, almost two-thirds of the global population are projected to live in urban areas (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2015). Urban dwellers often have higher exposure to environmental hazards, limited access to green spaces, and a more sedentary and stressful lifestyle. Not surprisingly, urban children have been reported to be more likely to suffer from neurodevelopmental problems such as ADHD and autism spectrum disorders than rural children (Skounti et al. 2007; Williams et al. 2006). An accumulating body of evidence supports the potential of green spaces for mitigating and buffering the adverse impacts of urban living on child health and development. So far, green spaces have been consistently associated with brain development and foetal growth. The available evidence for preterm birth, obesity, respiratory and allergic conditions has remained relatively inconsistent. Similarly, while there is heterogeneity in the reported associations between access to green spaces and physical activity, available studies suggest higher levels of physical activity while the children are in green spaces. Few studies exist for other outcomes such as dyslipidemia, hyperglycaemia, hypertension and pregnancy complications (e.g. pre-eclampsia or diabetes). Moreover, to date, the vast majority of the studies on the effects of green spaces on child health and development have been conducted in high-income countries. As ethnicity, climate and lifestyle might modify such effects, the generalisability of studies from these countries to the rest of the world could be limited. There is a need for more studies in low- and middle-income countries. Although further research is needed, all in all, the body of evidence on the effects of green spaces on child health and development highlights the importance of providing children with a natural and biodiverse environment, enabling them to better grow and thrive in our rapidly urbanising world.


  1. Aggio D et al (2015) Mothers’ perceived proximity to green space is associated with TV viewing time in children: the growing up in Scotland study. Prev Med 70:46–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcaraz-Segura D et al  (2009) Baseline characterization of major Iberian vegetation types based on the NDVI dynamics. Plant Ecol 202:13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amoly E et al (2014) Green and blue spaces and behavioral development in Barcelona Schoolchildren: The BREATHE Project. Environ Health Perspect 122:1351–1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banay RF et al (2017) Residential greenness: current perspectives on its impact on maternal health and pregnancy outcomes. Int J Womens Health 9:133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barker DJP (1995) Fetal origins of coronary heart disease. BMJ 311:171–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartra et al (2009) Sensitization to Alternaria in patients with respiratory allergy. Front Biosci 14:3372–3379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corsini et al (2012) Pesticide induced immunotoxicity in humans: a comprehensive review of the existing evidence. Toxicology. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dadvand P et al (2012) Surrounding greenness and exposure to air pollution during pregnancy: an analysis of personal monitoring data. Environ Health Perspect 120:1286–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dadvand P et al (2012a) Green space, health inequality and pregnancy. Environ Int 40:110–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dadvand P et al (2012b) Surrounding greenness and pregnancy outcomes in four Spanish birth cohorts. Environ Health Perspect 120:1481–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dadvand P et al (2014a) Risks and benefits of green spaces for children: a cross-sectional study of associations with sedentary behavior, obesity, asthma, and allergy. Environ Health Perspect 122:1329–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dadvand P et al (2014b) Inequality, green spaces, and pregnant women: roles of ethnicity and individual and neighbourhood socioeconomic status. Environ Int 71:101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dadvand P et al (2015a) Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:7937–7942. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dadvand P et al (2015b) The association between greenness and traffic-related air pollution at schools. Sci Total Environ 523:59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dadvand P et al (2017) lifelong residential exposure to green space and attention: a population-based prospective study. Environ Health Perspect 125:097016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dadvand P et al (2018a) The association between lifelong greenspace exposure and 3-dimensional brain magnetic resonance imaging in Barcelona schoolchildren. Environ Health Perspect 126:027012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dadvand P et al (2018b) Use of green spaces and blood glucose in children; a population-based CASPIAN-V study. Environ Pollut 243(Pt B):1134–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Linares C et al (2010) Dispersal patterns of Alternaria conidia in Spain. Agric For Meteorol 150:1491–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DellaValle et al (2012) Effects of ambient pollen concentrations on frequency and severity of asthma symptoms among asthmatic children. Epidemiology 23:55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dzhambov AM et al (2014) Association between residential greenness and birth weight: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Urban For Urban Greening 13:621–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feng X, Astell-Burt T (2017) The relationship between Neighbourhood green space and child mental wellbeing depends upon whom you ask: multilevel evidence from 3083 children aged 12-13 years. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14:235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fuertes E et al (2016) Residential greenness is differentially associated with childhood allergic rhinitis and aeroallergen sensitization in seven birth cohorts. Allergy.
  23. Gascon M et al (2016) The built environment and child health: an overview of current evidence. Curr Environ Health Rep 3:250–257. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gluckman PD, Hanson MA (2006) The developmental origins of health and disease. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grandjean P, Landrigan PJ (2014) Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. Lancet Neurol 13:330–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hanski I et al (2012) Environmental biodiversity, human microbiota, and allergy are interrelated. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:8334–8339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanson MA et al (2016) Developmental aspects of a life course approach to healthy ageing. J Physiol 594:2147–2160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hines RN et al (2009) Approaches for assessing risks to sensitive populations: lessons learned from evaluating risks in the pediatric population. Toxicol Sci 113:4–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hystad P et al (2014) Residential greenness and birth outcomes: evaluating the influence of spatially correlated built-environment factors. Environ Health Perspect 122:1095–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kahn PH (1997) Developmental psychology and the biophilia hypothesis: children’s affiliation with nature. Dev Rev 17:1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kahn PH, Kellert SR (2002) Children and nature: psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kellert SR, Wilson EO (1993) The biophilia hypothesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuo FE, Taylor AF (2004) A potential natural treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: evidence from a national study. Am J Public Health 94:1580–1586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lachowycz K, Jones AP (2011) Greenspace and obesity: a systematic review of the evidence. Obes Rev 12:e183–e189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lambert KA et al (2017) Residential greenness and allergic respiratory diseases in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Res 159:212–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lovasi GS et al (2008) Children living in areas with more street trees have lower prevalence of asthma. J Epidemiol Community Health 62:647–649. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lovasi GS et al (2013) Urban tree canopy and asthma, wheeze, rhinitis, and allergic sensitization to tree pollen in a New York City birth cohort. Environ Health Perspect. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Markevych I et al (2014a) Surrounding greenness and birth weight: results from the GINIplus and LISAplus birth cohorts in Munich. Health Place 26:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Markevych I et al (2014b) A cross-sectional analysis of the effects of residential greenness on blood pressure in 10-year old children: results from the GINIplus and LISAplus studies. BMC Public Health 14:477. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Markevych I et al (2014c) Access to urban green spaces and behavioural problems in children: results from the GINIplus and LISAplus studies. Environ Int 71:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Markevych I, Standl M, Sugiri D, Harris C, Maier W, Berdel D, Heinrich J (2016) Residential greenness and blood lipids in children: a longitudinal analysis in GINIplus and LISAplus. Environ Res 151:168–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Markevych I et al (2017) Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: theoretical and methodological guidance. Environ Res 158:301–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McCormack GR et al (2010) Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: a review of qualitative research. Health Place 16:712–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McCrorie PRW et al (2014) Combining GPS, GIS, and accelerometry to explore the physical activity and environment relationship in children and young people – a review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 11:93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McGrath LJ et al (2015) Associations of objectively measured built-environment attributes with youth Moderate vigorous physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 45:841–865. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Müller-Rompa SEK et al (2018) An approach to the asthma-protective farm effect by geocoding: good farms and better farms. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nieuwenhuijsen M et al (2013) Environmental risk factors of pregnancy outcomes: a summary of recent meta-analyses of epidemiological studies. Environ Health 12:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pilat MA et al (2012) The effect of tree cover and vegetation on incidence of childhood asthma in metropolitan statistical areas of texas. Hort Technol 22:631–637Google Scholar
  49. Rook GAW (2013) Regulation of the immune system by biodiversity from the natural environment: an ecosystem service essential to health. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:18360–18367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schutte AR et al (2017) Impact of urban nature on executivefunctioning in early and middle childhood. Environ Behav 49:3–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Skounti M et al (2007) Variations in prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder worldwide. Eur J Pediatr 166:117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sullivan SM et al (2017) Associations of neighborhood social environment attributes and physical activity among 11 year old children from 12 countries. Health Place 46:183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Taylor AF, Kuo FE (2009) Children with attention deficits concentrate better after walk in the park. J Atten Disord 12:402–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor AF et al (2001) Coping with ADD The surprising connection to green play settings. Environ Behav 33:54–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taylor AF et al (2002) Views of nature and self-discipline: evidence from inner city children. J Environ Psychol 22:49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thiering E et al (2016) Associations of residential long-term air pollution exposures and satellite-derived greenness with insulin resistance in German adolescents. Environ Health Perspect 124:1291–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tischer C et al (2016) Urban dust microbiome: impact on later atopy and wheezing. Environ Health Perspect 124:1919–1923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tischer C et al (2017) Urban green and grey space in relation to respiratory health in children. Eur Respir J 49:1502112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tischer C et al (2018) Urban upbringing and childhood respiratory and allergic conditions: a multi-country holistic study. Environ Res 161:276–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2015) World urbanization prospects; The 2014 revision vol ST/ESA/SER.A/366. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. van den Berg AE, van den Berg CG (2011) A comparison of children with ADHD in a natural and built setting. Child Care Health Dev 37:430–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weikl F et al (2016) Fungal and bacterial communities in indoor dust follow different environmental determinants. PLOS ONE 11:e0154131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Williams JG, Higgins JPT, Brayne CEG (2006) Systematic review of prevalence studies of autism spectrum disorders. Arch Dis Child 91:8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilson EO (1984) Biophilia. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  65. Wu J, Jackson L (2017) Inverse relationship between urban green space and childhood autism in California elementary school districts. Environ Int 107:140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wu C-D et al (2014) Linking student performance in Massachusetts elementary schools with the “greenness” of school surroundings using remote sensing. PLoS One 9:e108548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Younan D et al (2017) Environmental determinants of aggression in adolescents: role of urban neighborhood greenspace. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 55:591–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zach A et al (2016) Association of sociodemographic and environmental factors with the mental health status among preschool children results from a cross-sectional study in Bavaria, Germany. Int J Hyg Environ Health 219:458–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Payam Dadvand
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mireia Gascon
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Iana Markevych
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal)BarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF)BarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP)BarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Institute and Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital, LMU MunichMunichGermany
  5. 5.Institute of Epidemiology, Helmholtz Zentrum München – German Research Centre for Environmental HealthNeuherbergGermany

Personalised recommendations