CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 148Urban Green Space and HealthChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The role of public and private natural space in children's social, emotional and behavioural development in Scotland: A longitudinal study

Open access
Richardson, Elizabeth A., Pearce, Jamie, Shortt, Niamh K., Mitchell, Richard·2017·Environmental Research
DOI 10.1016/j.envres.2017.07.038PMC PMC5571194
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Introduction Poor mental health in childhood has implications for health and wellbeing in later life. Natural space may benefit children's social, emotional and behavioural development. We investigated whether neighbourhood natural space and private garden access were related to children's developmental change over time. We asked whether relationships differed between boys and girls, or by household educational status. Methods We analysed longitudinal data for 2909 urban-dwelling children (aged 4 at 2008/9 baseline) from the Growing Up in Scotland (GUS) survey. The survey provided social, emotional and behavioural difficulty scores (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)), and private garden access. Area (%) of total natural space and parks within 500 m of the child's home was quantified using Scotland's Greenspace Map. Interactions for park area, total natural space area, and private garden access with age and age 2 were modelled to quantify their independent contributions to SDQ score change over time. Results Private garden access was strongly related to most SDQ domains, while neighbourhood natural space was related to better social outcomes. We found little evidence that neighbourhood natural space or garden access influenced the trajectory of developmental change between 4 and 6 years, suggesting that any beneficial influences had occurred at younger ages. Stratified models showed the importance of parks for boys, and private gardens for the early development of children from low-education households. Conclusion We conclude that neighbourhood natural space may reduce social, emotional and behavioural difficulties for 4–6 year olds, although private garden access may be most beneficial.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envres.2017.07.038

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Fourteen studies identified in this systematic scoping review measured both ST and GT.

    “Fourteen studies identified in this systematic scoping review measured both ST and GT [234–238, 242–250].”

    From Psychological impacts of “screen time” and “green time” for children and adolescents: A systematic scoping review (2020) · cites this paper as [245]

    The Methods > Covariates section measures screen time in hours per day, and Methods > Natural space measures quantifies nearby natural space and garden access. The paper does not measure time children spent in green space, so it supports the ST part but not GT if GT means green time. The count of fourteen studies is the citing review’s own finding, not a finding attributed to this individual paper. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Richardson, E. A., Pearce, J., Shortt, N. K., & Mitchell, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
Corresponding author
Richardson, Elizabeth A.
ORCID
Venue
Environmental Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
158
Pages
729-736
ISSN
0013-9351 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.envres.2017.07.038
PMC
PMC5571194
OpenAlex
W2739715552
Cited by
148
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 2
FWCI
5.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Environmental Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
European Research Council (ERC, 2010, StG, Grant, 263501)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
Keywords
social, emotional and behavioural difficulties, parks, urban green space, child mental health, sex differences
MeSH terms
Child Behavior, Child Development, Child, Preschool, Emotions, Environment, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Residence Characteristics, Scotland, Sex Factors, Social Class

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review