Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

Promoting activity participation and well-being among children and adolescents

a systematic review of neighborhood built-environment determinants

Nordbø, Emma Charlott Andersson1,2; Nordh, Helena1; Raanaas, Ruth Kjærsti1,2; Aamodt, Geir1

Author Information
doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00051
  • Free

Abstract

Introduction

The neighborhoods in which children and their families live their daily lives are important settings for health-promoting actions and policy. One of the priorities outlined in the Ottawa Charter for health promotion is to create supportive environments for children and adolescents.1 Both physical or built characteristics (e.g. residential areas, pedestrian infrastructure, green spaces) and psychosocial characteristics (e.g. social cohesion, safety from crime) of neighborhoods can contribute to determining health and well-being in the younger population by either supporting or adversely influencing health.2,3 This systematic review addresses neighborhood built-environment determinants, such as buildings, land use, green spaces and the provision of facilities, and their potential to support activity participation and strengthen well-being in childhood and adolescence.

Well-being fosters resilience and enables individuals to function well and thrive. Strengthening actions that can contribute to promoting well-being is therefore highly important.4 Participation in meaningful activities, including organized activities, unstructured play, recreational activities or various forms of physical activity (PA) (e.g. walking, cycling and running), has several positive effects on both physical and mental health.5-7 All these activities occur in different settings, such as the neighborhood. Hence, supportive neighborhood environments that foster participation in activities and let children and adolescents expand their capabilities can contribute to enhancing well-being.

A rapidly urbanizing world creates challenges, and there is a need to maintain, upgrade and develop urban areas to promote public health.8 To ensure informed decision making and policy changes, initiatives need to rely on systematic development and the use of evidence-based knowledge and best practice.9 A comprehensive understanding of neighborhood built-environment determinants is therefore essential. The volume of literature that has examined the built environment as a modifiable determinant of health has expanded substantially over recent decades.10-12 Given the great number of studies, as well as the myriad methods applied, it has become increasingly difficult for researchers and stakeholders to have an overview of the evidence.12 A recently published umbrella review provides important insights showing that neighborhoods with high street connectivity, mixed land use and compact residential design were linked to higher levels of PA.10 Bird et al.10 also found that densely populated areas with good access to facilities increased PA and improved mental health in the general population. However, several gaps in the literature remain to be filled to better understand the health-promoting potential of neighborhood built environments.

Previous reviews of the built-environment determinants of health in childhood and adolescence have mainly focused on and synthesized results by merging together different types of PA into one overall, unspecified PA outcome or considering total PA over the course of specific time periods.13-16 A common finding of these reviews is that associations between the built environment and PA are inconsistent across studies. Alternatively, reviews that specifically address the determinants of active travel have consistently shown that active travel behavior is supported by neighborhoods that have pedestrian infrastructure for walking/cycling, high walkability, less traffic exposure, high safety as well as access to facilities.17-20 It is presumed that the relationship between the built environment and PA varies according to domains of activities, such as leisure-time PA, active travel to/from school and outdoor play.3,12,14,21 This highlights the importance of being outcome-specific in the synthesis of results, which is a shortcoming of several existing reviews. Furthermore, less attention has been paid to the possible benefits of the built environment for the well-being of children and adolescents. Clark et al.22 have shown that children's mental health was diminished by lack of access to green space and poor neighborhood quality, including derelict properties, graffiti, uneven pavements, lack of public and private recreation space, speeding traffic and high crime levels. New studies have added evidence since Clark et al. published their review, but more recent syntheses are limited to assessing green and natural environments.23-25 Reviews that have considered the broader built environment have mainly included people older than 16 years.26-29 One exception is Christian et al.30 who found that the presence of neighborhood facilities was positively associated with children's physical health, well-being and social competence. Nevertheless, this review considered only a small segment of the child population by exclusively focusing on those aged seven years or younger.

Specificity in the descriptions of how built-environment determinants are measured and operationalized has also been a limitation of previous studies.31,32 Only recently, Nordbø et al.33 developed a framework for how to categorize built-environment determinants, which can be useful in both future primary studies and review studies. Another important weakness of past syntheses of the literature is the lack of quality assessments of the individual studies. Bird et al.10 highlighted that around 45% of existing reviews did not report any quality assessments. This lack of methodological quality assessment pertains to several published reviews of environmental determinants of activity participation and well-being of children and adolescents.13,14,18,30 We therefore consider it necessary to comprehensively and critically review and synthesize the current evidence in a more specific and detailed manner to address the aforementioned gaps and shortcomings.

Review objective

The objective of this review was to identify, evaluate, and synthesize the findings on built-environment determinants and their relationship to participation in different domains of activities, including PA, recreational and social activities, and well-being among children and adolescents from a broader public health perspective. In particular, the objective was to identify which built-environment determinants seem to promote participation in activities and well-being in childhood and adolescence.

Inclusion criteria

Participants

This review considered studies that included the general population of children and adolescents between five and 18 years of age based on a holistic, population-based public health approach in the young segment of the population. Studies that also included participants below/above this age were considered if stratified results were provided for age groups within the predetermined age range.

Exposure

Articles were eligible for inclusion if they examined exposure to one or several built-environment determinants. Built-environment determinants here refer to all modifiable factors in the neighborhood context, such as residential density, land use, buildings, roads and streets, traffic, pedestrian infrastructure, green space, safety, and esthetic features, as well as proximity to and the presence of facilities such as schools, shops, libraries, sports fields, and playgrounds. There were no restrictions on mode of measurement, and determinants could be assessed using, for example, geographic information systems (GIS), audits, or self-report. Articles were not considered if they validated specific methodologies for assessing the built environment. Additionally, considering the scope of this review and the notion that schools represent a separate setting for health promotion with their own structural and organizational characteristics, articles were not eligible for inclusion if they focused on the school area or schoolyard only.

Outcomes

Articles with activity participation or well-being (or both) as the main outcome were considered for inclusion. Activity participation encompassed the everyday activities of children and adolescents potentially related to the built environment, including different domains of PA (e.g. outdoor play, active travel) and recreational and social activities (e.g. spending time with friends and peers).3 Considering the scope of this review, studies examining sedentary behaviors (e.g. hours of screen time) were not eligible for inclusion. Well-being was broadly defined to encompass positive outcomes portraying individuals experiencing positive emotions and feelings, functioning well, and being able to realize their own abilities and thrive. The definition further included the contrasting outcomes characterized by negative emotions and feelings, as well as mental health and behavioral problems.4 There were no restrictions on mode of measurement.

Types of studies

This systematic review considered quantitative studies involving natural experiments occurring in the neighborhood and analytical observational studies, including retrospective or prospective longitudinal research, case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. The studies had to report test statistics (e.g. odds ratio, regression coefficient, and prevalence ratio) for associations between the built-environment determinants and the outcomes, which means that descriptive cross-sectional studies were not eligible for inclusion.

Methods

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with an a priori protocol that was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018114413). The PRISMA guidelines were followed throughout this review.34

Search strategy

A four-step search strategy was utilized to identify peer-reviewed studies within PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. The search was limited to English articles. Further, to avoid duplicating the results of previous reviews that have examined relationships between the built environment and PA among children and adolescents, the search was also limited to identify articles published since January 2010.13,14,18,19 To find relevant search terms, an initial limited search in Web of Science, PubMed, and MEDLINE was undertaken, followed by an analysis of text words contained in the titles, abstracts, and keywords. In PubMed and MEDLINE, the MeSH index terms used to describe the articles were also analyzed. This preliminary search informed the development of a full search strategy, which was tailored for each database. Next, a full search was performed in PubMed and MEDLINE using both keywords and MeSH index terms. Thirdly, a full search was undertaken across Web of Science, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL using the identified keywords only. The full search strategies for each database are detailed in Appendix I. Lastly, based on the large number of studies, as well as the limited resources and time available, the reference lists of 50% of the included articles were screened for additional studies.

Study selection

All identified records were uploaded into EndNote X8.2 2018 (Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA) where duplicates were removed. The first author (ECAN) screened the titles and abstracts of the records. Uncertainty about inclusion or exclusion was resolved by seeking a second opinion from one of the co-authors (three instances during the screening process) or by obtaining confirmatory information from the full-text article. All papers selected for full-text retrieval were assessed for eligibility based on congruence with the inclusion criteria by the first author. Eligibility assessment was duplicated for 43 full-text articles by a co-author (HN: 11, RKR: 16 and GA: 16). Disagreements about inclusion or exclusion of four of the articles emerged during the eligibility assessment. In these four instances, all co-authors assessed the articles independently and disagreements whether to include or exclude were reconciled though group discussions.

Full-text studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded, and the reasons for their exclusion are provided in Appendix II.

Assessment of methodological quality

Three independent reviewer pairs critically appraised the methodological quality of 90 out of 127 studies selected for inclusion (ECAN and HN: 30; ECAN and RKR: 30; ECAN and GA: 30). Inter-rater agreement was 87.0% (disagreed on 32 items), 90.4% (disagreed on 24 items), and 90.4% (disagreed on 23 items) for each pair, respectively. Disagreements were solved through discussions in pairs. The methodological quality of the remaining 37 studies was assessed by ECAN only. Standard critical appraisal tools tailored for the different study designs from JBI were used.35,36 The items were weighted equally (yes = 1 vs. unclear/no/not applicable = 0). A document clarifying what constituted acceptable levels of information for a study to receive a positive, negative, or unclear response was developed by two of the authors. This document was forwarded to all co-authors prior to the quality assessment. All studies, irrespective of quality, were included. Each article received a total score, and based on this score, articles were rated as being of “good”, “fair” or “poor” quality. Since cut-offs for the quality weighting of the evidence are not available for the critical appraisal tools, the weighting is based on the predetermined cut-offs. These cut-offs were based on the following criteria: i) poor quality if 50% or fewer of the items were not satisfactory, ii) fair quality if 51–85% of the items were satisfactory and iii) good quality if more than 85% of the items were satisfactory.

Data extraction

A data extraction form was developed and used to systematically record the following information from each paper: reference, country, age of the participants, total sample size, gender distribution, study design, built-environment determinants, health outcomes, mode of measurement for both determinants and outcomes, and key findings.37-163 Regarding the age of the participants, the mean age was extracted if this was the only information reported. Eleven studies (five from the USA94,103,117,122,128 and six from Canada61,88,89,100-102) reported grades instead of age. For consistency, grades were converted into age for these studies. These conversions were based on information written in government documents provided by Departments and Ministries of Education in USA and Canada as summarized by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.164 In the column for key findings, significant associations were reported and presented either as effect measures with 90% or 95% confidence interval (CI) or as effect measures with standard error (SE) and P-values, from adjusted multivariate analyses. ECAN extracted the data for all the papers. Data extraction was duplicated for 30 articles by a co-author (HN: 6, RKR: 13 and GA: 11).

Appendix III summarizes the general characteristics of the included studies. Appendix IV provides detailed characteristics and main findings of the included studies.

Data synthesis

Statistical pooling was not possible due to the heterogeneity between the included studies in assessment of exposures and outcomes. Accordingly, the findings are presented in a narrative form with tables and figures to aid the presentation of data. The narrative synthesis involved two steps. First, studies were categorized based on their general study characteristics to facilitate the interpretation of results. Then, the relations between the built-environment determinants and the established categories of outcomes were synthesized using vote counting. These two steps are detailed below.

Categorizing the studies based on general study characteristics

Following the same logic as Ding et al.,14 studies were grouped into categories based on their general characteristics, such as year of publication, geographic origin, sample age, total sample size, study design, methods for assessing the built environment, and outcome measurement methods. The number of studies within each category was reported. Outcomes were grouped into different categories to assist the interpretation of results. These categories were developed in the review process and were governed by both the content of the material as well as the aim of being domain-specific in the synthesis of activity outcomes. The following six mutually exclusive categories were established:

  1. Unspecified PA: outcomes capturing different intensities of PA, such as moderate to vigorous PA and activity counts. For outcomes in this category, the context and domain of PA could not be specified into any of the following categories due to lack of information or the outcome of the study was total PA during a specific time period.
  2. Leisure-time PA: outcomes eliciting different intensities of PA or activity counts where it was evident that the activity occurred during leisure time (e.g. running for fitness) but the context was not possible to specify.
  3. Active travel: outcomes capturing walking and/or cycling to/from school or other destinations within the neighborhood.
  4. Outdoor play/activity: outcomes specifying that the activity/play occurred outside or at specific outdoor locations in the neighborhood, such as the street, park, beach, or playground.
  5. Organized sports: outcomes capturing participation in different sport activities, mainly organized sports such as handball, soccer, volleyball, football, dancing, karate, and gymnastics.
  6. Well-being: outcomes measuring aspects of well-being or positive mental health as well as negative mental health. This included perceived stress, self-esteem, quality of life, life satisfaction, happiness, well-being, behavioral problems, and emotional symptoms.

Coding and synthesizing relationships between the built environment and health outcomes

Findings were synthesized using the predetermined categories of built-environment determinants developed by Nordbø et al.33 (Figure 1). Esthetics was added to the list of categories to facilitate the interpretation of the findings. Each determinant from the separate studies was assigned into one of the 19 categories presented in the figure.

Figure 1
Figure 1:
An overview of built-environment determinant categories used to synthesize results

Overall, mainly results from adjusted multivariate analyses were considered for the review. The exceptions were three studies38,42,74 with adjusted bivariate analyses and two studies with unadjusted estimates.80,120 In one longitudinal study, only cross-sectional (baseline) results were considered, because the age at the six-year follow-up was 21 years and thus outside the target group.144 The direction of each association between a built-environment determinant and a particular health outcome was coded, with “+” indicating a positive significant association, “0” representing a non-significant association, and “-” signifying a negative significant association. The number of association codes for each study was counted. For several studies, multiple entries were reported based on sub-group analyses or because several determinants and outcomes were studied. Results were synthesized separately for the six outcome categories. After all of the results had been extracted, the total number and the percentages of positive, negative, and non-significant associations were calculated for each investigated built-environment determinant category.

Results

Study inclusion

Figure 2 presents the flow diagram for the evidence acquisition and study selection process. The searches identified 2030 unique records. The screening process resulted in 162 full-text articles, of which 43 articles were excluded after eligibility assessment (Appendix II). An additional eight articles were identified through the screening of reference lists. In total, 127 articles met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review.

Figure 2
Figure 2:
A modified PRISMA flow diagram of the search results and study selection and inclusion process34

Methodological quality

The quality assessment rating for each study design is presented in Table 1, and the results from the critical appraisal are outlined in Appendix III. The quality of the included studies was quite good. The majority of the studies were rated as fair (57.4%), and 27.6% of the studies were of good quality. In cross-sectional studies of fair quality, the item most frequently rated as not satisfactory was the identification of confounders. Several studies also had weaknesses in their strategies to deal with confounding issues. The reason for not evaluating these items as satisfactory was that vital confounders, such as individual-level income or education, were not measured in the studies or were omitted from the statistical analyses. Additional issues of selection bias due to lack of representativeness in the recruitment of participants were a main problem in cross-sectional studies of both fair and poor quality. The longitudinal studies were all of fair quality (n = 14). The leading reasons for reduced quality scores in longitudinal studies of fair quality were the omission of important confounders and/or incomplete follow-up and lack of strategies to address study drop-out.

Table 1
Table 1:
Predetermined cut-offs for the total quality score by study design

Characteristics of included studies

Of the 127 studies included in this review, 59.8% had been published since January 2014 (Appendix III). The majority of the studies (78.7%) were from North America and Europe. There were more studies on children than on adolescents, and the study designs were mainly cross-sectional (87.4%). The sample sizes ranged from 39 to 64,076. Active travel was the most studied outcome (n = 54), followed by unspecified physical activity (n = 46), whereas 11 studies examined the built-environment determinants of organized sports and well-being. Studies assessed unspecified and leisure-time physical activity, active travel, and outdoor play/activity using either accelerometers or questionnaires, whereas organized sports and well-being outcomes were self- or parent-reported. GIS-derived measures were most commonly applied to assess the built environment, either as the only method of measurement (n = 48) or combined with direct observation/audits (n = 10), self-reported measures (n = 28), or global positioning system (GPS) (n = 5).

Review findings

The findings on built-environment determinants and their relation to participation in activities and well-being among children and adolescents are presented according to the established six categories of outcomes identified (i.e. unspecified PA, leisure-time PA, active travel, outdoor play/activity, organized sports and well-being).

The built environment and unspecified physical activity

Figure 3A shows the associations between built-environment determinants and unspecified PA. The count/proportion of facilities/amenities was the most studied determinant (n = 18). Total building density, urban-rural status, and land use or land cover have not been examined in relation to this outcome. Overall, 358 results were extracted from the 46 studies with unspecified PA as an outcome (Table 2). Few favorable associations were found between residential density, type of green/open space, esthetics, and unspecified PA. More than half of the studies (eight out of 13) that addressed road/street pattern and connectivity reported positive associations. Of these, there were three studies of good quality and five studies of fair quality. The proportion of positive associations was greatest for the composite determinant denoted as the facility and amenity index (77.8%). This determinant was investigated in relation to unspecified PA in 12 studies, of which half were rated as being of good quality. All the good-quality studies consistently reported positive associations (Table 2).

Figure 3
Figure 3:
Synthesized overview of the findings for each built-environment determinant and (A) unspecified physical activity, (B) leisure-time physical activity and (C) active travel
Table 2
Table 2:
Summary of the relationship between the built environment and unspecified physical activity based on results derived from 46 studies
Table 2
Table 2:
(Continued) Summary of the relationship between the built environment and unspecified physical activity based on results derived from 46 studies
Table 2
Table 2:
(Continued) Summary of the relationship between the built environment and unspecified physical activity based on results derived from 46 studies
Table 2
Table 2:
(Continued) Summary of the relationship between the built environment and unspecified physical activity based on results derived from 46 studies
Table 2
Table 2:
(Continued) Summary of the relationship between the built environment and unspecified physical activity based on results derived from 46 studies
Table 2
Table 2:
(Continued) Summary of the relationship between the built environment and unspecified physical activity based on results derived from 46 studies
Table 2
Table 2:
(Continued) Summary of the relationship between the built environment and unspecified physical activity based on results derived from 46 studies

The built environment and leisure-time physical activity

Figure 3B shows that 15 environmental determinants have been investigated in relation to leisure-time PA. The determinant entailing traffic exposure and safety features was the most studied (n = 10), followed by count/proportion of facilities/amenities (n = 7). Overall, 437 results were extracted from the 22 studies examining determinants of leisure-time PA (Table 3). Few significant associations were identified for population density, residential density, building density, land use mix, road/street pattern and connectivity, pedestrian infrastructure, and distance to green/open space as well as type of green/open space in terms of supporting leisure-time PA. However, only a few studies examined several of these determinants. The facility and amenity index showed the largest proportion of positive associations (38.4%) with leisure-time PA as well, but none of these studies were rated as being of good quality.

Table 3
Table 3:
Summary of the relationship between the built environment and leisure-time physical activity based on results derived from 22 studies
Table 3
Table 3:
(Continued) Summary of the relationship between the built environment and leisure-time physical activity based on results derived from 22 studies
Table 3
Table 3:
(Continued) Summary of the relationship between the built environment and leisure-time physical activity based on results derived from 22 studies
Table 3
Table 3:
(Continued) Summary of the relationship between the built environment and leisure-time physical activity based on results derived from 22 studies

The built environment and active travel behavior

The determinants associated with active travel are presented in Figure 3C. Traffic exposure and safety features (n = 37), road/street pattern and connectivity (n = 25), distance to facilities/amenities (n = 25) and pedestrian infrastructure (n = 24) were most frequently studied. Overall, 623 results were extracted from the 54 studies investigating determinants of active travel (Table 4). Less traffic and higher safety were associated with increased active travel in all the 17 studies that reported positive associations, of which one study was rated as good, 14 were rated as fair, and two studies were of poor quality. Increased traffic exposure and safety concerns reduced the likelihood of active travel in 13 out of 15 studies that reported negative associations. The studies with deviating results found that the number of slow points, which are considered to encourage slower driving, was associated with less active travel in adolescent girls53 and that more traffic lights were related to less walking for transport.64 Consistency in associations was found for pedestrian infrastructure, walkability and distance to facilities/amenities. The total proportion of significant associations for walkability was 62.7% (58.8% positive and 3.9% negative). Of the 12 studies that reported any significant influence, the majority of studies were of either good or fair quality (n = 11). Higher walkability was associated with more active travel in 11 studies, whereas one study found that active travel behavior was more frequent in areas of lower walkability.116 Distance to facilities/amenities was associated with active travel in 20 out of 25 studies, of which five studies were rated as poor. The total proportion of significant associations was 78.2% (21.8% positive and 56.4% negative). All the significant associations consistently reflected that shorter distances increased whereas longer distances reduced active travel behavior.

Table 4
Table 4:
Summary of relationship between the built environment and active travel based on results derived from 54 studies
Table 4
Table 4:
(Continued) Summary of relationship between the built environment and active travel based on results derived from 54 studies
Table 4
Table 4:
(Continued) Summary of relationship between the built environment and active travel based on results derived from 54 studies
Table 4
Table 4:
(Continued) Summary of relationship between the built environment and active travel based on results derived from 54 studies
Table 4
Table 4:
(Continued) Summary of relationship between the built environment and active travel based on results derived from 54 studies
Table 4
Table 4:
(Continued) Summary of relationship between the built environment and active travel based on results derived from 54 studies
Table 4
Table 4:
(Continued) Summary of relationship between the built environment and active travel based on results derived from 54 studies
Table 4
Table 4:
(Continued) Summary of relationship between the built environment and active travel based on results derived from 54 studies
Table 4
Table 4:
(Continued) Summary of relationship between the built environment and active travel based on results derived from 54 studies
Table 4
Table 4:
(Continued) Summary of relationship between the built environment and active travel based on results derived from 54 studies
Table 4
Table 4:
(Continued) Summary of relationship between the built environment and active travel based on results derived from 54 studies

The built environment and participation in outdoor play/activity

Figure 4A shows that 17 different determinants have been investigated in relation to outdoor play/activity among children and youth. Several of these determinants had few studies (nine with two studies or fewer). Overall, 247 results were extracted from 21 studies for outdoor play/activity (Table 5). Traffic exposure and safety features (n = 10) and count/proportion of facilities/amenities (n = 9) were the most studied determinants. All six studies that reported positive associations for traffic and safety features found that less traffic and/or higher safety increased outdoor play/activity, but two of the studies were of poor quality. Of the studies that reported negative associations, two found that more traffic and safety concerns were associated with less outdoor play/activity,43,73 whereas three presented results that conflicted with this.37,50,121 In these studies, less traffic and/or higher safety were associated with less outdoor play/activity. The contradictory findings were mainly observed for adolescents and boys. Increased count/proportion of facilities/amenities was associated with more outdoor play/activity in six out of nine studies, but three of these studies also reported associations in the opposite direction.37,50,74

Figure 4
Figure 4:
Synthesized overview of the findings for each determinant and (A) outdoor play/activity, (B) organized sports and (C) well-being
Table 5
Table 5:
Summary of the relationship between the built environment and outdoor play/activity based on results derived from 21 studies
Table 5
Table 5:
(Continued) Summary of the relationship between the built environment and outdoor play/activity based on results derived from 21 studies
Table 5
Table 5:
(Continued) Summary of the relationship between the built environment and outdoor play/activity based on results derived from 21 studies
Table 5
Table 5:
(Continued) Summary of the relationship between the built environment and outdoor play/activity based on results derived from 21 studies

The built environment and participation in organized sports

Eight built-environment categories had been examined as determinants of participation in organized sports (Figure 4B). In total, 37 results from 11 studies were extracted for this outcome (Table 6). All the studies were of either good or fair quality. Walkability was the most investigated determinant (n = 4), followed by distance to facilities/amenities, count/proportion of facilities/amenities, and the facility/amenity index, which were investigated in three studies each. The majority of the results for neighborhood walkability were non-significant (71.4%). The five significant associations reported for distance to facilities/amenities were contradictory. Longer distance was associated with more participation in organized sports in one study,67 but reduced the likelihood of participating in sports activities in another study.138 In a third study, the authors reported that greater access to facilities increased participation in organized sports among 10- to 11-year-olds.131

Table 6
Table 6:
Summary of the relationship between the built environment and organized sports based on results derived from 11 studies
Table 6
Table 6:
(Continued) Summary of the relationship between the built environment and organized sports based on results derived from 11 studies

The built environment and well-being

Figure 4C shows that only six different determinant categories were considered in the studies examining relationships between the built environment and well-being, of which three were neighborhood green/open space factors. The count/proportion of green/open space was the most frequently studied determinant (n = 7). The other determinants had been investigated in two studies or fewer. Overall, 123 results were extracted for the well-being outcomes (Table 7). Increased count/proportion of green/open space was associated with fewer behavioral problems,39 less perceived stress,75 greater well-being,76,90 and better self-perceived health99 but unrelated to quality of life.110 All of the studies that reported any significant associations between count/proportion of green/open space and well-being were of either good or fair quality. Two studies of good quality examined distance to green/open space as a determinant of well-being. One of the studies reported that longer distance to green space was associated with increased risk of hyperactivity/inattention and peer relationship problems,106 whereas the other study did not find any favorable associations.39 The studies considering neighborhood esthetics found that less favorable esthetic conditions were associated with more behavioral and mental health problems,49,145 which accounted for 58.3% of the associations extracted.

Table 7
Table 7:
Summary of the relationship between the built environment and well-being based on results derived from 11 studies

Discussion

This systematic review comprehensively evaluated and summarized evidence from 127 studies investigating the built-environment determinants of activity participation and well-being among children and adolescents. A broad range of environmental features were considered, which underscores the complexity of determinants. The built environment was most extensively studied in relation to active travel and unspecified PA, and the evidence suggests associations between some of the determinants and the two outcomes. Limited evidence existed for the relationship between the built environment and well-being among children and adolescents.

A novel finding in this review was that the facility and amenity index was most consistently related to unspecified PA and, to some extent, leisure-time PA. The majority of the studies supporting such a beneficial association were of good quality. The facility and amenity index is a combined measure or score of several determinants, such as facilities, green space, traffic safety, and pedestrian infrastructure.33 Composite measures include synergy between different determinants, and a higher facility and amenity index score represents neighborhoods that, for example, have both mixed residential and commercial land use, connected streets with direct access for pedestrians, and a variety of facilities. The determinants likely influence health through complex interactions, and assessing relationships through a composite measure may result in a cumulative impact.165 However, it is not straightforward to use composite determinants. Conceptual, as well as empirical, knowledge of the interrelationships among the determinants, along with knowledge about their relationships with specific outcomes, are required to reasonably assemble them into indexes.166 Additionally, composite measures are often inconsistently defined and inadequately reported in studies.33 These inconsistencies lead to difficulties in interpreting the findings, which in turn complicates the use of results for planning purposes.

Another key finding was a lack of consistency across studies for the rest of the built-environment determinants in relation to unspecified PA and leisure-time PA. There could be two main explanations for this inconsistency. First, the included studies were highly methodologically heterogeneous. The outcomes, neighborhood areas and built-environment determinants were measured and operationalized in multiple ways across studies. Different measurement approaches can provide distinct and inconsistent results between studies and, in turn, mask consistencies in the syntheses of evidence.167,168 Second, this systematic review considered subjects aged between five and 18 years. According to the socio-ecological model of health, there are dynamic relations between the environment and individuals. The same built-environment determinants might influence people's health and well-being differently depending on factors such as age, which also could explain this review's inconsistent finding.169,170 Nevertheless, the inconsistent results in associations between the built environment and PA is in line with a previously published literature review in which no built-environment determinants were unambiguously associated with PA.14 Contrary to the review findings of Ding et al.14 who reported that higher residential density was related to increased PA in children, this systematic review found no favorable associations for residential density. The relationship between density and the ability to participate in activities appears to be complex. Kyttä et al.171 have suggested that the association between density and PA is mediated by accessibility. A dense area without arenas for PA, or where such arenas have blocked access because of heavy traffic, will not enhance participation.

Compared to unspecified PA and leisure-time PA, more consistency was found in associations between several of the determinants and active travel. Neighborhoods with low traffic and/or high safety, pedestrian infrastructure for walking/biking, shorter distances to facilities, and greater walkability could be beneficial in terms of facilitating active travel behavior. These findings correspond with the results from several previous reviews of the determinants of active travel.17-19 Although the vast majority of this review's results derived from cross-sectional studies of fair quality, the findings provide additional confirmatory evidence that these determinants are promising in terms of promoting active travel between different destinations in the neighborhood among children and adolescents.

The activity behaviors of children and adolescents are influenced by the different contexts in which the activities are undertaken.3 Active travel between destinations only occurs within the built environment, whereas unspecified and leisure-time PA can be carried out in other contexts (e.g. indoors). The active travel behavior of children and adolescents thus depends more likely on the different facilitators and barriers in the built environment than on the other two physical activity outcomes, which is reflected in this review's findings. Furthermore, the unspecified and leisure-time PA outcomes mainly considered children's and adolescents’ total activity independent of context. Assessing PA independent of context can result in low specificity of PA measures, which can explain both the absence of associations and the inconsistent results identified for the determinants of these two outcomes. A solution to increase the specificity of measures is to monitor the activity levels of the target group and locations simultaneously, using both accelerometers and GPS.172 A few studies included in this review measured activity outcomes in this manner,39,96,112,141,160,161 among which one found that the highest physical activity intensities occurred in green space compared to other outdoor and indoor areas.160

Many built-environment determinants of outdoor play/activity have been investigated, but only a few studies examined several of these determinants. These few studies provided limited evidence. Nevertheless, in studies of good or fair quality, some consistent associations were found between less traffic and/or higher safety and more outdoor play/activity, particularly among children, whereas contradictory results were observed for adolescents. These findings can be explained by the fact that children generally have more parental constraints than adolescents and that traffic danger and safety concerns are often important reasons for parental restrictions.173,174 Consequently, children and adolescents use their neighborhood surroundings differently, which can provide mixed results in these age groups. Nearby streets may offer opportunities for outdoor play/activity for children, and it has been pointed out that cul-de-sacs could be a key determinant in that regard.175 The disparities found between age groups highlight the importance of stratified analyses to detect such variations. The results also show that ensuring low traffic exposure or more safety features could potentially be relevant to support outdoor play/activity among children. Similar findings have been reported for children below the age of seven.30 However, more research is needed to clarify the potential of traffic- and safety-related determinants to support outdoor play/activity.

This review identified a limited number of studies addressing relationships between the built environment and participation in organized sports. Although these studies were of good or fair quality, the 37 extracted results did not provide any clear evidence from which to draw conclusions, especially considering that several of these results were contradictory. In regard to well-being, a few studies provided some insight showing that more neighborhood green/open space was linked to fewer behavioral problems, less perceived stress, greater well-being, and better self-perceived health. Similar findings have been reported elsewhere, both among children and adolescents23,24 and in the general population.25 As reported in previous reviews, this review found that poorer neighborhood esthetic conditions were associated with more mental health and behavioral problems.22,27 However, only a small number of studies examined well-being outcomes, and there were more non-significant than positive findings. Thus, this review continues to support the inconclusive nature of associations reported in previous syntheses.22-25,27

Although investigations of the built-environment determinants of health have increased rapidly over the last two decades, this field of research is still quite young and under development.11 This review has identified that there remains a substantial gap in understanding the relationship between built-environment determinants and well-being as well as other activity outcomes, such as organized and social activities. Further, study quality issues and methodological challenges, such as inconsistent use of operational definitions and measures of the environmental determinants, remain to be resolved.33 Thus, it might be too early to dismiss the potential of all non-significantly or inconsistently associated determinants to support participation in activities and well-being in childhood and adolescence.

Strengths and limitations of this review

A major strength of this review is its inclusivity. A broad range of built-environment determinants and health outcomes from recently published studies were considered. Outcomes were grouped and results were synthesized separately for each outcome category. This enabled an outcome-specific synthesis of associations, which addressed an important shortcoming in the existing reviews. This review's findings are based on adjusted associations, with a few exceptions. Due to prominent confounding issues in associations between the built environment and health, this is considered a strength.11 The review also assessed if confounders were adequately considered in each study, and the limited adjustment or omission of important confounders was accounted for by the quality assessment weighting.

This review's authors acknowledge the importance of measuring the built environment using different methods to provide evidence in this field. Therefore, studies using a variety of measurement approaches were included in this review, resulting in high heterogeneity across studies. This can be viewed as both a strength and a limitation. Mode of measurement is shown to greatly influence the consistency of associations between the built environment and PA.14 Since the focus of this review was to provide an outcome-specific synthesis, results were not synthesized based on different measurement modes. Furthermore, similar built-environment constructs were assigned to predetermined categories to facilitate the interpretation of the results. The determinants were measured differently across studies and some determinants may have been grouped incorrectly. Nevertheless, it is important to consider the total evidence in this outcome-specific synthesis, and future reviews could provide results specific to different modes of measurement.

Although a large number of studies was reviewed, it is possible that articles were missed in the retrieval process. Only papers written in English were included, and reviewers had limited access to databases. Additionally, only PubMed and MEDLINE were searched with MeSH terms and not all reference lists were screened for additional articles. Furthermore, the exclusion of unpublished/gray literature could have been a weakening factor as studies showing statistically significant, positive results are more likely to be published than those that do not.176 Consequently, this present systematic review is vulnerable to publication bias, and the findings are likely to be biased toward positive results. Nevertheless, the likelihood of publication bias in the analysis and synthesis of the review findings was minimized by counting all positive, negative and non-significant results from the articles. It was not possible to use two independent reviewers throughout the entire review process due to time and resource constraints. However, the reviewers tried to reduce the risk of bias at all stages, and particularly focused on providing a rigorous quality assessment.

Conclusion

This systematic review follows up on previous reviews of the built-environment determinants of health in childhood and adolescence and includes an assessment of the most recently published literature on health-promoting environments for children and adolescents. This review found that the facility and amenity index was consistently associated with unspecified PA and, to some extent, leisure-time PA. The small number of studies examining participation in organized sports and well-being provided limited evidence, which prevents us from drawing specific conclusions regarding relationships between the built environment and these outcomes. The most consistent associations were found between active travel and the following determinants: less traffic exposure and/or higher safety, pedestrian infrastructure for walking/biking, shorter distances to facilities, and higher walkability. Policies and planning processes should consider these determinants in order to strengthen children's and adolescents’ health and well-being. However, there are remaining research gaps and important avenues for future research that need to be addressed before more specific and robust conclusions can be drawn.

Recommendations for practice

The evidence from this review suggests that the determinants of less traffic exposure and/or higher safety, pedestrian infrastructure for walking/biking, shorter distances to facilities, and higher walkability may be essential in supporting children and adolescents to travel actively to and from their daily destinations. This finding ought to be used for the improvement and specification of relevant public health and planning policies as well as spatial planning practice. It must be emphasized that this recommendation is largely based on results from cross-sectional studies, which is problematic, as associations do not equal causation. However, the associations observed were largely desirable and appear to outweigh unfavorable levels of physical inactivity.

Recommendations for research

One key area for further research is to investigate a greater variety of activity outcomes in more depth. Increased focus on a broader range of activities could contribute to expanding the knowledge on how the built environment can provide opportunities for activity participation. There is also an urgent need for studies examining the built-environment determinants of positive mental health and well-being. Neighborhood green space seems to have gained the focus in studies to date that address relationships between the built environment and well-being. In this respect, more attention should be directed toward a broader spectrum of built-environment determinants. Some determinants may not be directly associated with activity participation or well-being, and potential mediators and effect modifications need more exploration. Furthermore, subgroup analyses and increased specificity in outcome and built-environment measures, as well as clear definitions of the geographical units and built-environment determinants of interest, are important to strengthen the study results. As identified by the quality assessment, there is a need for improved study quality. Particularly, the consideration of confounders has to be more rigorous, and in studies with longitudinal assessment, there should be strategies to minimize loss to follow-up. The vast majority of the reviewed studies relied on cross-sectional designs, and research adopting longitudinal designs and natural experiments should be conducted to strengthen any causal associations.

In this current systematic review, the focus was on the entire segment of the younger population and to providing an outcome- and determinant-specific synthesis. The complexity of built-environment determinants and their links to activity participation and well-being in childhood and adolescence revealed herein raise additional issues that warrant detailed exploration in future evidence syntheses. Focusing on a narrower age range may improve the review findings and give a clearer picture of the evidence base. Further, it seems necessary to synthesize results based on objective and perceived environmental measures separately due to the heterogeneity in measurement approaches.

Funding

E.C.A. Nordbø is a PhD fellow at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. A doctoral fellowship and seed money funded by the Faculty of Landscape and Society, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, supported this work.

Appendix I: Search strategies

PubMed

Figure
Figure

MEDLINE

Figure
Figure

Web of Science

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

EMBASE

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

PsycINFO

Figure
Figure

CINAHL

Figure
Figure

Appendix II: Studies ineligible following full-text review

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

Appendix III: General characteristics of included studies

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

Appendix IV: Detailed characteristics and main findings of included studies

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

References

1. WHO. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Health Promot Int 1986; 1 (4):405.
2. Dannenberg AL, Jackson RJ, Frumkin H, Schieber RA, Pratt M, Kochtitzky C, et al. The impact of community design and land-use choices on public health: a scientific research agenda. Am J Public Health 2003; 93 (9):1500–1508.
3. Sallis JF, Cervero RB, Ascher W, Henderson KA, Kraft MK, Kerr J. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annu Rev Public Health 2006; 27:297–322.
4. WHO. Promoting mental health: concepts, emerging evidence, practice. A summary report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
5. Breistøl S, Clench-Aas J, Van Roy B, Raanaas RK. Association Between participating in noncompetitive or competitive sports and mental health among adolescents – a Norwegian population-based cross-sectional study. Scand J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Psychol 2017; 5 (1):28–38.
6. Janssen I, LeBlanc AG. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2010; 7 (1):40.
7. Wilcock AA, Hocking C. Wilcock AA, Hocking C. Defining occupation in relation to health. An occupational perspective of health. Thorofare, New Jersey: SLACK, Incorporated; 2015. 117–145.
8. Giles-Corti B, Vernez-Moudon A, Reis R, Turrell G, Dannenberg AL, Badland H, et al. City planning and population health: a global challenge. Lancet 2016; 388 (10062):2912–2924.
9. Kerr J, Sallis JF, Owen N, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Cerin E, Sugiyama T, et al. Advancing science and policy through a coordinated international study of physical activity and built environments: IPEN adult methods. J Phys Act Health 2013; 10 (4):581–601.
10. Bird EL, Ige JO, Pilkington P, Pinto A, Petrokofsky C, Burgess-Allen J. Built and natural environment planning principles for promoting health: an umbrella review. BMC Public Health 2018; 18 (1):930.
11. Diez Roux AV, Mair C. Neighborhoods and health. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2010; 1186:125–145.
12. Gebel K, Ding D, Foster C, Bauman AE, Sallis JF. Improving current practice in reviews of the built environment and physical activity. Sports Med 2015; 45 (3):297–302.
13. Davison KK, Lawson CT. Do attributes in the physical environment influence children's physical activity? A review of the literature. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2006; 3:19.
14. Ding D, Sallis JF, Kerr J, Lee S, Rosenberg DE. Neighborhood environment and physical activity among youth: a review. Am J Prev Med 2011; 41 (4):442–455.
15. McGrath L, Hopkins W, Hinckson E. Associations of objectively measured built-environment attributes with youth moderate–vigorous physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 2015; 45 (6):841–865.
16. MacMillan F, George ES, Feng X, Merom D, Bennie A, Cook A, et al. Do natural experiments of changes in neighborhood built environment impact physical activity and diet? A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15 (2):217.
17. D’Haese S, Vanwolleghem G, Hinckson E, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Deforche B, Van Dyck D, et al. Cross-continental comparison of the association between the physical environment and active transportation in children: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2015; 12:145.
18. Panter JR, Jones AP, van Sluijs EM. Environmental determinants of active travel in youth: a review and framework for future research. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2008; 5 (1):34.
19. Pont K, Ziviani J, Wadley D, Bennett S, Abbott R. Environmental correlates of children's active transportation: a systematic literature review. Health Place 2009; 15 (3):849–862.
20. Smith M, Hosking J, Woodward A, Witten K, MacMillan A, Field A, et al. Systematic literature review of built environment effects on physical activity and active transport – an update and new findings on health equity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2017; 14:158.
21. Giles-Corti B, Timperio A, Bull F, Pikora T. Understanding physical activity environmental correlates: increased specificity for ecological models. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2005; 33 (4):175–181.
22. Clark C, Myron R, Stansfeld S, Candy B. A systematic review of the evidence on the effect of the built and physical environment on mental health. J Public Ment Health 2007; 6 (2):14–27.
23. Gascon M, Triguero-Mas M, Martínez D, Dadvand P, Forns J, Plasència A, et al. Mental health benefits of long-term exposure to residential green and blue spaces: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015; 12 (4):4354–4379.
24. Tillmann S, Tobin D, Avison W, Gilliland J. Mental health benefits of interactions with nature in children and teenagers: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health 2018; 72 (10):958–966.
25. Twohig-Bennett C, Jones A. The health benefits of the great outdoors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes. Environ Res 2018; 166:628–637.
26. Evans GW. The built environment and mental health. J Urban Health 2003; 80 (4):536–555.
27. Gong Y, Palmer S, Gallacher J, Marsden T, Fone D. A systematic review of the relationship between objective measurements of the urban environment and psychological distress. Environ Int 2016; 96:48–57.
28. Kim D. Blues from the neighborhood? Neighborhood characteristics and depression. Epidemiol Rev 2008; 30:101–117.
29. Truong KD, Ma S. A systematic review of relations between neighborhoods and mental health. J Ment Health Policy Econ 2006; 9 (3):137–154.
30. Christian H, Zubrick SR, Foster S, Giles-Corti B, Bull F, Wood L, et al. The influence of the neighborhood physical environment on early child health and development: a review and call for research. Health Place 2015; 33:25–36.
31. Brownson RC, Hoehner CM, Day K, Forsyth A, Sallis JF. Measuring the built environment for physical activity: state of the science. Am J Prev Med 2009; 36: (4 Suppl): 99–123.
32. Forsyth A, Schmitz KH, Oakes M, Zimmerman J, Koepp J. Standards for environmental measurement using GIS: toward a protocol for protocols. J Phys Act Health 2006; 3 (s1):241–257.
33. Nordbø ECA, Nordh H, Raanaas RK, Aamodt G. GIS-derived measures of the built environment determinants of mental health and activity participation in childhood and adolescence: a systematic review. Landsc Urban Plan 2018; 177:19–37.
34. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6 (7):e1000097.
35. Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Sears K, Sfetcu R, et al. Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual [Internet]. Adelaide: Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017; [cited 5 January 2019]. Available from: https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org.
36. Tufanaru C, Munn Z, Aromataris E, Campbell J, Hopp L. Chapter 3: Systematic reviews of effectiveness. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual [Internet]. Adelaide: Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017; [cited 5 January 2019]. Available from: https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/.
37. Aarts MJ, de Vries SI, van Oers HA, Schuit AJ. Outdoor play among children in relation to neighborhood characteristics: a cross-sectional neighborhood observation study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012; 9:98.
38. Almanza E, Jerrett M, Dunton G, Seto E, Pentz MA. A study of community design, greenness, and physical activity in children using satellite, GPS and accelerometer data. Health Place 2012; 18 (1):46–54.
39. Amoly E, Dadvand P, Forns J, López-Vicente M, Basagaña X, Julvez J, et al. Green and blue spaces and behavioral development in Barcelona schoolchildren: the BREATHE project. Environ Health Perspect 2014; 122 (12):1351–1358.
40. Babey SH, Tan D, Wolstein J, Diamant AL. Neighborhood, family and individual characteristics related to adolescent park-based physical activity. Prev Med 2015; 76:31–36.
41. Bird M, Datta GD, van Hulst A, Cloutier MS, Henderson M, Barnett TA. A park typology in the QUALITY cohort: Implications for physical activity and truncal fat among youth at risk of obesity. Prev Med 2016; 90:133–138.
42. Bloemsma LD, Gehring U, Klompmaker JO, Hoek G, Janssen NAH, Smit HA, et al. Green space visits among adolescents: frequency and predictors in the PIAMA birth cohort study. Environ Health Perspect 2018; 126 (4):1–9.
43. Bringolf-Isler B, Grize L, Mäder U, Ruch N, Sennhauser FH, Braun-Fahrländer C. Built environment, parents’ perception, and children's vigorous outdoor play. Prev Med 2010; 50 (5/6):251–256.
44. Broberg A, Salminen S, Kyttä M. Physical environmental characteristics promoting independent and active transport to children's meaningful places. Appl Geogr 2013; 38:43–52.
45. Broberg A, Sarjala S. School travel mode choice and the characteristics of the urban built environment: the case of Helsinki, Finland. Transp Policy 2015; 37:1–10.
46. Buck C, Pohlabeln H, Huybrechts I, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Pitsiladis Y, Reisch L, et al. Development and application of a moveability index to quantify possibilities for physical activity in the built environment of children. Health Place 2011; 17 (6):1191–1201.
47. Buck C, Tkaczick T, Pitsiladis Y, De Bourdehaudhuij I, Reisch L, Ahrens W, et al. Objective measures of the built environment and physical activity in children: from walkability to moveability. J Urban Health 2015; 92 (1):24–38.
48. Buliung RN, Larsen K, Faulkner G, Ross T. Children's independent mobility in the City of Toronto, Canada. Travel Behav Soc 2017; 9:58–69.
49. Butler AM, Kowalkowski M, Jones HA, Raphael JL. The relationship of reported neighborhood conditions with child mental health. Acad Pediatr 2012; 12 (6):523–531.
50. Cain KL, Millstein RA, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Gavand KA, Frank LD, et al. Contribution of streetscape audits to explanation of physical activity in four age groups based on the Microscale Audit of Pedestrian Streetscapes (MAPS). Soc Sci Med 2014; 116:82–92.
51. Carlson JA, Sallis JF, Kerr J, Conway TL, Cain K, Frank LD, et al. Built environment characteristics and parent active transportation are associated with active travel to school in youth age 12-15. Br J Sports Med 2014; 48 (22):1634–1639.
52. Carlson JA, Saelens BE, Kerr J, Schipperijn J, Conway TL, Frank LD, et al. Association between neighborhood walkability and GPS-measured walking, bicycling and vehicle time in adolescents. Health Place 2015; 32:1–7.
53. Carver A, Timperio A, Hesketh K, Crawford D. Are safety-related features of the road environment associated with smaller declines in physical activity among youth? J Urban Health 2010; 87 (1):29–43.
54. Carver A, Panter JR, Jones AP, van Sluijs EMF. Independent mobility on the journey to school: a joint cross-sectional and prospective exploration of social and physical environmental influences. J Transp Health 2014; 1 (1):25–32.
55. Coombes E, Jones A, Page A, Cooper AR. Is change in environmental supportiveness between primary and secondary school associated with a decline in children's physical activity levels? Health Place 2014; 29:171–178.
56. Coombes E, Jones A, Cooper A, Page A. Does home neighbourhood supportiveness influence the location more than volume of adolescent's physical activity? An observational study using global positioning systems. Int J Behav Nut Phys Act 2017; 14 (1):149.
57. Corder K, Craggs C, Jones AP, Ekelund U, Griffin SJ, van Sluijs EMF. Predictors of change differ for moderate and vigorous intensity physical activity and for weekdays and weekends: a longitudinal analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013; 10:69.
58. Crawford D, Cleland V, Timperio A, Salmon J, Andrianopoulos N, Roberts R, et al. The longitudinal influence of home and neighbourhood environments on children's body mass index and physical activity over 5 years: the CLAN study. Int J Obes (Lond) 2010; 34 (7):1177–1187.
59. Curriero FC, James NT, Shields TM, Roman CG, Furr-Holden C, Cooley-Strickland M, et al. Exploring walking path quality as a factor for urban elementary school children's active transport to school. J Phys Act Health 2013; 10 (3):323–334.
60. da Silva ICM, Hino AA, Lopes A, Ekelund U, Brage S, Goncalves H, et al. Built environment and physical activity: domain- and activity-specific associations among Brazilian adolescents. BMC Public Health 2017; 17 (1):616.
61. Davidson Z, Simen-Kapeu A, Veugelers PJ. Neighborhood determinants of self-efficacy, physical activity, and body weights among Canadian children. Health Place 2010; 16 (3):567–572.
62. De Meester F, Van Dyck D, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Deforche B, Sallis JF, Cardon G. Active living neighborhoods: is neighborhood walkability a key element for Belgian adolescents? BMC Public Health 2012; 12:7.
63. De Meester F, Van Dyck D, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Deforche B, Cardon G. Does the perception of neighborhood built environmental attributes influence active transport in adolescents? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013; 10:38.
64. de Vries SI, Hopman-Rock M, Bakker I, Hirasing RA, van Mechelen W. Built environmental correlates of walking and cycling in Dutch urban children: results from the SPACE study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2010; 7 (5):2309–2324.
65. D’Haese S, De Meester F, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Deforche B, Cardon G. Criterion distances and environmental correlates of active commuting to school in children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011; 8:88.
66. D’Haese S, Van Dyck D, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Deforche B, Cardon G. The association between objective walkability, neighborhood socio-economic status, and physical activity in Belgian children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2014; 11:104.
67. D’Haese S, De Meester F, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Deforche B, Van Dyck D. Changes in the perceived neighborhood environment in relation to changes in physical activity: a longitudinal study from childhood into adolescence. Health Place 2015; 33:132–141.
68. D’Haese S, Van Dyck D, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Deforche B, Cardon G. The association between the parental perception of the physical neighborhood environment and children's location-specific physical activity. BMC Public Health 2015; 15:565.
69. Ducheyne F, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Spittaels H, Cardon G. Individual, social and physical environmental correlates of ’never’ and ’always’ cycling to school among 10 to 12 year old children living within a 3.0 km distance from school. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012; 9:142.
70. Duncan MJ, Birch S, Woodfield L, Al-Nakeeb Y. Perceptions of the built environment in relation to physical activity and weight status in british adolescents from central England. ISRN Obes 2012; 2012:903846.
71. Duncan SC, Strycker LA, Chaumeton NR, Cromley EK. Relations of neighborhood environment influences, physical activity, and active transportation to/from school across African American, Latino American, and white girls in the United States. Int J Behav Med 2016; 23 (2):153–161.
72. Durand CP, Dunton GF, Spruijt-Metz D, Pentz MA. Does community type moderate the relationship between parent perceptions of the neighborhood and physical activity in children? Am J Health Promot 2012; 26 (6):371–380.
73. Edwards NJ, Giles-Corti B, Larson A, Beesley B. The effect of proximity on park and beach use and physical activity among rural adolescents. J Phys Act Health 2014; 11 (5):977–984.
74. Edwards N, Hooper P, Knuiman M, Foster S, Giles-Corti B. Associations between park features and adolescent park use for physical activity. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2015; 12:21.
75. Feda DM, Seelbinder A, Baek S, Raja S, Yin L, Roemmich JN. Neighbourhood parks and reduction in stress among adolescents: results from Buffalo, New York. Indoor Built Environ 2015; 24 (5):631–639.
76. Feng XQ, Astell-Burt T. Residential green space quantity and quality and child well-being: a longitudinal study. Am J Prev Med 2017; 53 (5):616–624.
77. Forthofer M, Dowda M, O’Neill JR, Addy CL, McDonald S, Reid L, et al. Effect of child gender and psychosocial factors on physical activity from fifth to sixth grade. J Phys Act Health 2017; 14 (12):953–958.
78. Fueyo JL, Garcia LMT, Mamondi V, Alencar GP, Florindo AA, Berra S. Neighborhood and family perceived environments associated with children's physical activity and body mass index. Prev Med 2016; 82:35–41.
79. Galvez MP, McGovern K, Knuff C, Resnick S, Brenner B, Teitelbaum SL, et al. Associations between neighborhood resources and physical activity in inner-city minority children. Acad Pediatr 2013; 13 (1):20–26.
80. Garcia-Cervantes L, Rodriguez-Romo G, Esteban-Cornejo I, Cabanas-Sanchez V, Delgado-Alfonso A, Castro-Pinero J, et al. Perceived environment in relation to objective and self-reported physical activity in Spanish youth. The UP&DOWN study. J Sports Sci 2016; 34 (15):1423–1429.
81. Ghekiere A, Carver A, Veitch J, Salmon J, Deforche B, Timperio A. Does parental accompaniment when walking or cycling moderate the association between physical neighbourhood environment and active transport among 10-12 year old? J Sci Med Sport 2016; 19 (2):149–153.
82. Graham DJ, Schneider M, Dickerson SS. Environmental resources moderate the relationship between social support and school sports participation among adolescents: a cross-sectional analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011; 8:34.
83. Graham DJ, Wall MM, Larson N, Neumark-Sztainer D. Multicontextual correlates of adolescent leisure-time physical activity. Am J Prev Med 2014; 46 (6):605–616.
84. Gropp KM, Pickett W, Janssen I. Multi-level examination of correlates of active transportation to school among youth living within 1 mile of their school. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012; 9:124.
85. Guliani A, Mitra R, Buliung RN, Larsen K, Faulkner GEJ. Gender-based differences in school travel mode choice behaviour: examining the relationship between the neighbourhood environment and perceived traffic safety. J Transp Health 2015; 2 (4):502–511.
86. Helbich M, Emmichoven MJZv, Dijst MJ, Kwan M-P, Pierik FH, Vries SId. Natural and built environmental exposures on children's active school travel: a Dutch global positioning system-based cross-sectional study. Health Place 2016; 39:101–109.
87. Hinckson E, Cerin E, Mavoa S, Smith M, Badland H, Stewart T, et al. Associations of the perceived and objective neighborhood environment with physical activity and sedentary time in New Zealand adolescents. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2017; 14 (1):145.
88. Hobin E, Leatherdale S, Manske S, Dubin J, Elliott S, Veugelers P. A multilevel examination of factors of the school environment and time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity among a sample of secondary school students in grades 9-12 in Ontario, Canada. Int J Public Health 2012; 57 (4):699–709.
89. Hobin EP, Leatherdale ST, Manske S, Dubin JA, Elliott S, Veugelers P. A multilevel examination of gender differences in the association between features of the school environment and physical activity among a sample of grades 9 to 12 students in Ontario, Canada. BMC Public Health 2012; 12:
90. Huynh Q, Craig W, Janssen I, Pickett W. Exposure to public natural space as a protective factor for emotional well-being among young people in Canada. BMC Public Health 2013; 13:407.
91. Islam MZ, Moore R, Cosco N. Child-friendly, active, healthy neighborhoods: physical characteristics and children's time outdoors. Environ Behav 2016; 48 (5):711–736.
92. Janssen I, Rosu A. Undeveloped green space and free-time physical activity in 11 to 13-year-old children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2015; 12:26.
93. Katapally TR, Muhajarine N. Capturing the Interrelationship between objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behaviour in children in the context of diverse environmental exposures. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015; 12 (9):10995–11011.
94. Kim HJ, Lee C. Does a more centrally located school promote walking to school? Spatial centrality in school-neighborhood settings. J Phys Act Health 2016; 13 (5):481–487.
95. Kim JH, Lee C, Sohn W. Urban natural environments, obesity, and health-related quality of life among Hispanic children living in inner-city neighborhoods. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2016; 13 (1):E121.
96. Klinker CD, Schipperijn J, Kerr J, Ersboll AK, Troelsen J. Context-specific outdoor time and physical activity among school-children across gender and age: using accelerometers and GPS to advance methods. Front Public Health 2014; 2:20.
97. Kopcakova J, Veselska ZD, Geckova AM, Bucksch J, Nalecz H, Sigmundova D, et al. Is a perceived activity-friendly environment associated with more physical activity and fewer screen-based activities in adolescents? Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017; 14 (1):E39.
98. Kowaleski-Jones L, Fan JX, Wen M, Hanson H. Neighborhood context and youth physical activity: differential associations by gender and age. Am J Health Promot 2017; 31 (5):426–434.
99. Kyttä AM, Broberg AK, Kahila MH. Urban environment and children's active lifestyle: softGIS revealing children's behavioral patterns and meaningful places. Am J Health Promot 2012; 26 (5):137–148.
100. Larsen K, Gilliland J, Hess PM. Route-based analysis to capture the environmental influences on a child's mode of travel between home and school. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2012; 102 (6):1348–1365.
101. Larsen K, Buliung RN, Faulkner GEJ. School travel: how the built and social environment relate to children's walking and independent mobility in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, Ontario, Canada. Transp Res Record 2015; 2513:80–89.
102. Larsen K, Buliung RN, Faulkner G. School travel route measurement and built environment effects in models of children's school travel behavior. J Transp Land Use 2016; 9 (2):5–23.
103. Lee C, Zhu XM, Yoon J, Varni JW. Beyond distance: children's school travel mode choice. Ann Behav Med 2013; 45: (Suppl. 1): S55–S67.
104. Leslie E, Kremer P, Toumbourou JW, Williams JW. Gender differences in personal, social and environmental influences on active travel to and from school for Australian adolescents. J Sci Med Sport 2010; 13 (6):597–601.
105. Magalhaes APTDF, Pina MDFRPD, Ramos EDCP. The role of urban environment, social and health determinants in the tracking of leisure-time physical activity throughout adolescence. J Adolesc Health 2016; 60 (1):100–106.
106. Markevych I, Tiesler CM, Fuertes E, Romanos M, Dadvand P, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, et al. Access to urban green spaces and behavioural problems in children: results from the GINIplus and LISAplus studies.[Erratum appears in Environ Int. 2015 Sep;82:115]. Environ Int 2014; 71:29–35.
107. Markevych I, Smith MP, Jochner S, Standl M, Bruske I, von Berg A, et al. Neighbourhood and physical activity in German adolescents: GINIplus and LISAplus. Environ Res 2016; 147:284–293.
108. Massougbodji J, Lebel A, De Wals P. Individual and school correlates of adolescent leisure time physical activity in Quebec, Canada. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018; 15 (3):E412.
109. McCormack GR, Giles-Corti B, Timperio A, Wood G, Villanueva K. A cross-sectional study of the individual, social, and built environmental correlates of pedometer-based physical activity among elementary school children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011; 8 (1):30.
110. McCracken DS, Allen DA, Gow AJ. Associations between urban greenspace and health-related quality of life in children. Prev Med Rep 2016; 3:211–221.
111. McGrath LJ, Hinckson EA, Hopkins WG, Mavoa S, Witten K, Schofield G. Associations between the neighborhood environment and moderate-to-vigorous walking in New Zealand children: findings from the URBAN Study. Sports Med 2016; 46 (7):1003–1017.
112. McMinn D, Oreskovic NM, Aitkenhead MJ, Johnston DW, Murtagh S, Rowe DA. The physical environment and health-enhancing activity during the school commute: global positioning system, geographical information systems and accelerometry. Geospat Health 2014; 8 (2):569–572.
113. Mecredy G, Pickett W, Janssen I. Street connectivity is negatively associated with physical activity in Canadian youth. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2011; 8 (8):3333–3350.
114. Mitchell CA, Clark AF, Gilliland JA. Built environment influences of children's physical activity: examining differences by neighbourhood size and sex. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2016; 13 (1):E130.
115. Molina-Garcia J, Queralt A. Neighborhood built environment and socioeconomic status in relation to active commuting to school in children. J Phys Act Health 2017; 14 (10):761–765.
116. Molina-García J, Queralt A, Adams MA, Conway TL, Sallis JF. Neighborhood built environment and socio-economic status in relation to multiple health outcomes in adolescents. Prev Med 2017; 105:88–94.
117. Moore JB, Brinkley J, Crawford TW, Evenson KR, Brownson RC, Moore JB, et al. Association of the built environment with physical activity and adiposity in rural and urban youth. Prev Med 2013; 56 (2):145–148.
118. Moore JB, Beets MW, Kaczynski AT, Besenyi GM, Morris SF, Kolbe MB. Sex moderates associations between perceptions of the physical and social environments and physical activity in youth. Am J Health Promot 2014; 29 (2):132–135.
119. Moran M, Plaut P, Baron-Epel O. Do children walk where they bike? Exploring built environment correlates of children's walking and bicycling. J Transp Land Use 2016; 9 (2):43–65.
120. Moran MR, Plaut P, Merom D. Is the grass always greener in suburban neighborhoods? Outdoors play in suburban and inner-city neighborhoods. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017; 14 (7):E759.
121. Nguyen A, Borghese MM, Janssen I. Pedestrian traffic safety and outdoor active play among 10-13 year olds living in a mid-sized city. Prev Med Rep 2018; 10:304–309.
122. Nichol M, Janssen I, Pickett W. Associations between neighborhood safety, availability of recreational facilities, and adolescent physical activity among Canadian youth. J Phys Act Health 2010; 7 (4):442–450.
123. Nicosia N, Datar A. Neighborhood environments and physical activity: a longitudinal study of adolescents in a natural experiment. Am J Prev Med 2018; 54 (5):671–678.
124. Noonan RJ, Boddy LM, Knowles ZR, Fairclough SJ. Fitness, fatness and active school commuting among Liverpool schoolchildren. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017; 14 (9):E995.
125. Oliveira A, Mota J, Moreira C, Vale S, Abreu S, Moreira P, et al. Adolescents’ perception of environmental features and its association with physical activity: results from de Azorean Physical Activity and Health Study II. J Phys Act Health 2014; 11 (5):917–921.
126. Oliver M, Badland H, Mavoa S, Witten K, Kearns R, Ellaway A, et al. Environmental and socio-demographic associates of children's active transport to school: a cross-sectional investigation from the URBAN Study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2014; 11:70.
127. Oliver M, Mavoa S, Badland H, Parker K, Donovan P, Kearns RA, et al. Associations between the neighbourhood built environment and out of school physical activity and active travel: an examination from the Kids in the City study. Health Place 2015; 36:57–64.
128. Oluyomi AO, Lee C, Nehme E, Dowdy D, Ory MG, Hoelscher DM. Parental safety concerns and active school commute: correlates across multiple domains in the home-to-school journey. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2014; 11 (1):32.
129. Olvera N, Smith DW, Lee C, Liu J, Lee J, Kellam S, et al. Hispanic maternal and children's perceptions of neighborhood safety related to walking and cycling. Health Place 2012; 18 (1):71–75.
130. Oreskovic NM, Blossom J, Robinson AI, Chen MHL, Uscanga DK, Mendoza JA. The influence of the built environment on outcomes from a “walking school bus study”: a cross-sectional analysis using geographical information systems. Geospat Health 2014; 9 (1):37–44.
131. Page AS, Cooper AR, Griew P, Jago R. Independent mobility, perceptions of the built environment and children's participation in play, active travel and structured exercise and sport: the PEACH Project. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2010; 7:17.
132. Panter JR, Jones AP, Van Sluijs EMF, Griffin SJ. Neighborhood, route, and school environments and children's active commuting. Am J Prev Med 2010; 38 (3):268–278.
133. Panter JR, Jones AP, van Sluijs EM, Griffin SJ. Attitudes, social support and environmental perceptions as predictors of active commuting behaviour in school children. J Epidemiol Community Health 2010; 64 (1):41–48.
134. Panter J, Corder K, Griffin SJ, Jones AP, van Sluijs EM. Individual, socio-cultural and environmental predictors of uptake and maintenance of active commuting in children: longitudinal results from the SPEEDY study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013; 10:83.
135. Patnode CD, Lytle LA, Erickson DJ, Sirard JR, Barr-Anderson D, Story M. The relative influence of demographic, individual, social, and environmental factors on physical activity among boys and girls. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2010; 7:79.
136. Plotnikoff RC, Gebel K, Lubans DR. Self-efficacy, physical activity, and sedentary behavior in adolescent girls: testing mediating effects of the perceived school and home environment. J Phys Act Health 2014; 11 (8):1579–1586.
137. Prins RR, Ball K, Timperio A, Salmon J, Oenema A, Brug J, et al. Associations between availability of facilities within three different neighbourhood buffer sizes and objectively assessed physical activity in adolescents. Health Place 2011; 17 (6):1228–1234.
138. Reimers AK, Wagner M, Alvanides S, Steinmayr A, Reiner M, Schmidt S, et al. Proximity to sports facilities and sports participation for adolescents in Germany. PLoS One 2014; 9 (3):e93059.
139. Remmers T, Van Kann D, Thijs C, de Vries S, Kremers S. Playability of school-environments and after-school physical activity among 8-11 year-old children: specificity of time and place. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2016; 13:82.
140. Ries A, Yan A, Voorhees C. The neighborhood recreational environment and physical activity among urban youth: an examination of public and private recreational facilities. J Community Health 2011; 36 (4):640–649.
141. Rodríguez DA, Cho G-H, Evenson KR, Conway TL, Cohen D, Ghosh-Dastidar B, et al. Out and about: association of the built environment with physical activity behaviors of adolescent females. Health Place 2012; 18 (1):55–62.
142. Sallis JF, Conway TL, Cain KL, Carlson JA, Frank LD, Kerr J, et al. Neighborhood built environment and socioeconomic status in relation to physical activity, sedentary behavior, and weight status of adolescents. Prev Med 2018; 110:47–54.
143. Sanders T, Feng XQ, Fahey PP, Lonsdale C, Astell-Burt T. The influence of neighbourhood green space on children's physical activity and screen time: findings from the longitudinal study of Australian children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2015; 12:126.
144. Schipperijn J, Ried-Larsen M, Nielsen MS, Holdt AF, Grontved A, Ersboll AK, et al. A longitudinal study of objectively measured built environment as determinant of physical activity in young adults: the European Youth Heart Study. J Phys Act Health 2015; 12 (7):909–914.
145. Singh GK, Ghandour RM. Impact of neighborhood social conditions and household socioeconomic status on behavioral problems among US children. Matern Child Health J 2012; 16: (Suppl 1): S158–S169.
146. Tappe KA, Glanz K, Sallis JF, Zhou C, Saelens BE. Children's physical activity and parents’ perception of the neighborhood environment: neighborhood impact on kids study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013; 10:39.
147. Timperio A, Crawford D, Ball K, Salmon J. Typologies of neighbourhood environments and children's physical activity, sedentary time and television viewing. Health Place 2017; 43:121–127.
148. Trapp GS, Giles-Corti B, Christian HE, Bulsara M, Timperio AF, McCormack GR, et al. On your bike! A cross-sectional study of the individual, social and environmental correlates of cycling to school. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011; 8:123.
149. Trapp GS, Giles-Corti B, Christian HE, Bulsara M, Timperio AF, McCormack GR, et al. Increasing children's physical activity: individual, social, and environmental factors associated with walking to and from school. Health Educ Behav 2012; 39 (2):172–182.
150. Tung SEH, Ng XH, Chin YS, Mohd Taib MN. Associations between parents’ perception of neighbourhood environments and safety with physical activity of primary school children in Klang, Selangor, Malaysia. Child Care Health Dev 2016; 42 (4):478–485.
151. Uys M, Broyles ST, Draper CE, Hendricks S, Rae D, Naidoo N, et al. Perceived and objective neighborhood support for outside of school physical activity in South African children. BMC Public Health 2016; 16:462.
152. Van Dyck D, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Cardon G, Deforche B. Criterion distances and correlates of active transportation to school in Belgian older adolescents. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2010; 7:87.
153. Van Dyck D, De Meester F, Cardon G, Deforche B, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Physical environmental attributes and active transportation in Belgium: what about adults and adolescents living in the same neighborhoods? Am J Health Promot 2013; 27 (5):330–338.
154. van Loon J, Frank LD, Nettlefold L, Naylor PJ. Youth physical activity and the neighbourhood environment: examining correlates and the role of neighbourhood definition. Soc Sci Med 2014; 104:107–115.
155. Vanwolleghem G, Schipperijn J, Gheysen F, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Van Dyck D. Children's GPS-determined versus self-reported transport in leisure time and associations with parental perceptions of the neighborhood environment. Int J Health Geogr 2016; 15 (1):16.
156. Veitch J, Salmon J, Ball K. Individual, social and physical environmental correlates of children's active free-play: a cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2010; 7:11.
157. Voorhees CC, Ashwood S, Evenson KR, Sirard JR, Rung AL, Dowda M, et al. Neighborhood design and perceptions: relationship with active commuting. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2010; 42 (7):1253–1260.
158. Wang XB, Conway TL, Cain KL, Frank LD, Saelens BE, Geremia C, et al. Interactions of psychosocial factors with built environments in explaining adolescents’ active transportation. Prev Med 2017; 100:76–83.
159. Ward JS, Duncan JS, Jarden A, Stewart T. The impact of children's exposure to greenspace on physical activity, cognitive development, emotional well-being, and ability to appraise risk. Health Place 2016; 40:44–50.
160. Wheeler BW, Cooper AR, Page AS, Jago R, Wheeler BW, Cooper AR, et al. Greenspace and children's physical activity: a GPS/GIS analysis of the PEACH project. Prev Med 2010; 51 (2):148–152.
161. Williams GC, Borghese MM, Janssen I. Neighborhood walkability and objectively measured active transportation among 10-13 year olds. J Transp Health 2018; 8:202–209.
162. Wilson DK, Lawman HG, Segal M, Chappell S. Neighborhood and parental supports for physical activity in minority adolescents. Am J Prev Med 2011; 41 (4):399–406.
163. Young D, Saksvig BI, Wu TT, Zook K, Li X, Champaloux S, et al. Multilevel correlates of physical activity for early, mid, and late adolescent girls. J Phys Act Health 2014; 11 (5):950–960.
164. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Education GPS. OECD; 2019 [cited 5 January 2019]. Available from: http://gpseducation.oecd.org.
165. Bentley M. An ecological public health approach to understanding the relationships between sustainable urban environments, public health and social equity. Health Promot Int 2013; 29 (3):528–537.
166. Frank LD, Sallis JF, Saelens BE, Leary L, Cain K, Conway TL, et al. The development of a walkability index: application to the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study. Br J Sports Med 2010; 44 (13):924–933.
167. Frank LD, Fox EH, Ulmer JM, Chapman JE, Kershaw SE, Sallis JF, et al. International comparison of observation-specific spatial buffers: maximizing the ability to estimate physical activity. Int J Health Geogr 2017; 16 (1):4.
168. Kwan M-P. The uncertain geographic context problem. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 2012; 102 (5):958–968.
169. Stokols D. Establishing and maintaining healthy environments: toward a social ecology of health promotion. Am Psychol 1992; 47 (1):6–22.
170. Stokols D. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. Am J Health Promot 1996; 10 (4):282–298.
171. Kyttä M, Broberg A, Haybatollahi M, Schmidt-Thomé K. Urban happiness: context-sensitive study of the social sustainability of urban settings. Environ Plan B 2016; 43 (1):34–57.
172. Jones AP, Coombes EG, Griffin SJ, van Sluijs EMF. Environmental supportiveness for physical activity in English schoolchildren: a study using Global Positioning Systems. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2009; 6:42.
173. Kyttä M. The extent of children's independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. J Environ Psychol 2004; 24 (2):179–198.
174. Carver A, Timperio A, Hesketh K, Crawford D. Are children and adolescents less active if parents restrict their physical activity and active transport due to perceived risk? Soc Sci Med 2010; 70 (11):1799–1805.
175. Handy S, Cao X, Mokhtarian P. Neighborhood design and children's outdoor play: evidence from Northern California. Child Youth Environ 2008; 18 (2):160–179.
176. Blackhall K. Finding studies for inclusion in systematic reviews of interventions for injury prevention the importance of grey and unpublished literature. Inj Prev 2007; 13 (5):359.
Keywords:

Active travel; health promotion; physical activity; physical environment; resilience

© 2020 Joanna Briggs Institute.