







































Aisthesis      Volume 10,  201910

Room to Grow: The Importance of Urban Greening

by Mara Walters

Introduction 
 Over half of the world’s population currently lives 
in an urban environment, and this number is only 
expected to increase in the coming years (Kondo, 
Fluehr, McKeon, & Branas, 2018). The physical 
environment of a child’s neighborhood and housing 
can be looked to as an indicator of the affordances 
that may influence their development. This link 
refers to Bronfenbrenner’s (1974) Ecological Theory 
Model in which he suggests that the internal qualities 
of a child and the external characteristics of their 
environment are shown to influence their growth and 
development. The model is interconnected, meaning 
the instability of a child’s physical environment 
can lead to mirroring effects in other components 
of their life. Following this framework, the urban 
environmental context that many children grow up 
in can be predicted to influence the activities and 
experiences that are afforded within that physical 
environment. Urban housing, or the inner-city, has 
been shown to put children at risk for falling behind 
developmentally due to the affordances, or lack 
thereof, that it provides and risk factors that children 
become exposed to (Christian, Zubrick, & Foster, 
2015; Evans, 2006; Wolch et al., 2014). 
 While the natural world, or green space, has 
been cited frequently (Kondo, Fluehr, McKeon, & 
Branas, 2018; Lee, Jordan, & Horsley, 2015; Maller, 
Townsend, Pryor, Brown, & St Leger, 2006) to 
promote cognitive, physical, and mental health 
in youth, access to such beneficial spaces remains 
stratified by income and even race (Wolch, Byrne, & 
Newell, 2014). Multiple studies (Wolch et al., 2014; 
Nutsford, Pearson, & Kingham, 2013; Lee, Jordan, & 
Horsley, 2015) have shown that the demographics of 
ethnic minorities and low-income individuals have 
decreased levels of access to parks and recreational 
programs compared to their White and affluent 
counterparts (Wolch et al., 2014). This inequity 
that results from green space not being uniformly 
available to populations based on socio-economic 
status is so significant to an individual’s health and 

developmental outcomes that it has officially been 
recognized as an environmental justice issue (Wolch 
et al., 2014). Lack of adequate access to green space 
has been directly linked to the developmental 
disadvantages that disproportionately affect low-
income youth living in crowded urban cityscapes 
(Lee, Jordan, & Horsley, 2015). This population 
of urban-dwelling children is recognized also as 
the low-income youth that occupy the urban core, 
or “inner city”, in the majority of urban-greening 
literature (Taylor, Wiley, Kuo, & Sullivan, 1998; Lee, 
Jordan, & Horsley, 2015; Wolch et al., 2014). The 
demographics that make up these urban cityscapes 
are overwhelmingly populations of color and those 
that work low-earning jobs (Wolch et al., 2014). 
Because urban greening literature overwhelmingly 
uses the “urban youth” synonymously with “low-
income youth,” the population of children affected 
by this lack of adequate natural landscapes will be 
discussed as “low-income” and “urban-dwelling” 
children interchangeably in this paper. Green 
space is frequently absent from these urban 
neighborhoods, where low-income populations are 
concentrated, whereas wealthier communities, often 
in the suburban outer-ring, live in close proximity 
to natural spaces that are well-serviced, and well-
maintained (Wolch et al., 2014).
 The growing body of research on green space 
suggests links to restorative and favorable outcomes 
for children that have the potential to be extremely 
significant in the lives and development of those that 
dwell in urban environments (Nutsford, Pearson, 
& Kingham, 2013). With low-quality housing 
affecting children as severely as instilling chronic 
stress, dizziness, and poor cognitive control, natural 
resources can be seen as an alleviating solution 
(Wells, 2000).  

Missed Opportunities for Motor Development 
and Associated Health Benefits 
 The accepted framework that an individual’s 
health is directly connected to their place of residence 



Room to Grow: The Importance of Urban Greening

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  201911

also has roots in environmental affordances 
(Chawla, Keena, Pevec, Stanley, 2014; Lee, Jordan, & 
Horsley, 2015). Access to green space is considered 
significant in promoting positive opportunities for 
healthy development and has been frequently cited 
to positively impact physical, mental, and emotional 
health (Kondo, Fluehr, McKeon, & Branas, 2018; Lee, 
Jordan, & Horsley, 2015; Maller, Townsend, Pryor, 
Brown, & St Leger, 2006). Focusing on physical 
health, McCracken (2016) suggests that higher 
amounts of neighborhood green space are correlated 
with an overall better wellbeing in residents, 
including higher reports of physical activity, which 
can lead to reductions in chronic disease, such as 
cardiovascular disease and diabetes. With decreased 
access to green space, a lack of quality facilities and 
resources diminishes opportunities for physical 
activity in low-income youth (Romero, 2005). 
Consequently, these children are likely to show lower 
levels of physical exercise than those in a higher 
socio-economic group, placing them at a higher risk 
for future chronic health problems (Romero, 2005). 
Natural areas in crowded urban cityscapes have been 
shown to be so valuable to human health that, in a 
study done by Villenueve (2012), it was found that 
in urban environments, the presence of green space 
is strongly associated with long-term reduction in 
mortality of the residents. 
 Decreased opportunities to get active in the 
surrounding environment of urban-dwelling 
children has been shown to impact their long-term 
development. Numerous studies performed have 
suggested that children engage in more physically 
demanding play and even develop better motor 
skills when playing in more natural areas (Evans, 
2006; Wells & Evans, 2003). With green space 
sparsely located in urban environments, urban 
youth are at risk of not acquiring adequate motor 
development, which has been linked to outcomes 
of poor endurance and higher likelihood for injury 
(Hanscom, 2016). Motor development, Hanscom 
(2016) suggests, is a set of acquired and refined skills 
that can be cultivated through free and/or risky play. 
Although play can occur on built play equipment 
or pavement, more naturalized settings provide for 
more imaginative and sensory play (Chawla, 2015). 
Free play, or unstructured physical activity frequently 
performed outdoors during the child’s free time, is 

recognized as a major factor in the development of 
youth (Brussoni, Olsen, Pike, & Sleet, 2012). The 
authors go on to suggest that children can begin to 
understand societal roles, norms, and values as well as 
develop physical and cognitive awareness, creativity, 
and competency. Especially in the outdoors, free and 
risky play–play with the risk of physical injury–are 
important in developing navigation competency and 
spatial and environmental awareness, which, overall, 
promote optimal motor development (Brussoni et 
al., 2012). 

Barriers to Play
 Despite children’s tendency to favor free and 
risky play as well as its numerous benefits, 
children from low socio-economic, urban 
environments are less likely to engage in this type of 
play due to a number of environmental and 
social barriers (Veitch, Salmon, & Ball, 2008). 
Parental supervision plays a major role in a child’s 
opportunities for free and risky play. Wells (2000) 
highlights more-restricted play as being characteristic 
of children living in urban high-rises. In areas 
disproportionately affected by violence and crime, 
parents intend to protect children by often restricting 
them from outdoor play (Black, 1998; Wolch et 
al., 2014). Even if an urban neighborhood had a 
designated community green space, the perception 
of an unsafe atmosphere can prevent parents from 
allowing their children to utilize these spaces (Wolch 
et al., 2014). Although it may protect children from 
neighborhood violence, restriction can also have the 
adverse effect of impeding the child’s development 
by denying opportunities for independence and 
competency (Hanscom, 2016). Play deprivation is 
increasingly becoming an issue for the population 
of youth that are denied adequate outdoor spaces 
designated for adventure. Declining opportunities 
for the development of motor and cognitive skill sets 
that free play promotes places these disadvantaged 
children in a vicious cycle with potential lifelong 
repercussions, like insufficient motor development, 
obesity, and a decrease in perception and judgement 
skills (Brussoni et al., 2012).
 The barriers to play that arise in urban 
environments are shown to gradually break down 
with the addition of green space (Branas et al., 2011; 
Kuo & Sullivan, 2001; Younan et al., 2016). In a study 



Room to Grow: The Importance of Urban Greening

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  201912

examining public housing residents that live nearby 
vegetation and those that do not, the individuals that 
were in closer proximity to trees and other natural 
components of green space felt a greater sense of 
connectedness with their community and reported 
fewer incident of street violence (Wells, 2000). 
The idea that green space acts as a buffer against 
neighborhood violence is also supported by Kuo & 
Sullivan (2001) and Branas et al. (2011). Branas et 
al.  (2011) utilized the “broken windows” theory, 
suggesting that the lack of green space appears 
inviting to criminal activity, therefore increasing 
instances of violence. Kuo and Sullivan (2001) adopt 
a psychological context, suggesting that contact 
with nature–promoted by the presence of green 
space–results in reduction of mental fatigue, which 
is a precursor to outbursts of violent behavior. The 
alleviation of the perceived barrier of safety can 
additionally be seen in improved connections to one’s 
local community, mediated through green space. 
Neighborhoods with natural landscaping have been 
shown to promote community social engagement, 
accordingly strengthening the trust between 
neighbors (Wells & Evans, 2003). The increased 
community interaction can increase perceptions of 
safety and belonging, allowing parents to perceive 
their child’s environment as more secure and permit 
more free play (Wolch et al., 2014). 

Outside as a Mental Buffer  
 Along with improved physical health, the 
multifaceted effects of the natural world can be 
emphasized by the alleviation of mental ailments 
experienced through green space. With urban-
dwelling children being the most susceptible to 
mental illness and chronic afflictions like stress, 
neuroticism, and behavioral problems, the lack 
of green space they face only exacerbates the 
disadvantages that already burden them (Evans, 
2006; Harker, 2006; McCracken, Allen, & Gow, 
2016). A frequent problem cited in urban, inner-
city housing is overcrowding. High-density living 
quarters can have countless detrimental effects on 
children, including less perceived social support, 
more strained familial interactions, and increased 
mental health issues like depression and anxiety 
(Evans, 2006; Harker, 2006). The coping mechanisms 
that children often employ to counteract the 

unwanted social interaction from overcrowding 
can be as extreme as exercising social withdrawal. 
Many times, unfit housing consequences can affect 
academic performance; elementary students from 
more crowded homes were found to exhibit higher 
levels of psychological distress and poorer behavioral 
adjustment at school (Evans, 2006). With increased 
risk factors and the prevalence of mental health issues 
in the environments of youth from an urban housing 
setting, added green space has been shown to act 
as a buffer against the disproportionate stressors 
they face (McCracken et al., 2016; Villenueve, 
2012). From the lowest of exposures, green space 
has been shown to be psychologically beneficial 
simply through a view of trees outside of a window 
(Wells, 2000). Stress and headaches, conditions that 
regularly affect children from crowded city housing, 
are cited to be significantly reduced in green space 
(Villenueve, 2012). The sanctuary that the outdoors 
can provide by promoting mental health is connected 
to McCracken’s (2016) Stress Recovery Theory. 
This framework suggests that the exposure to and 
viewing of natural landscapes can reduce symptoms 
of stress and anxiety, combatting the decreased 
attention and happiness that is characteristic of built, 
urban landscapes. By counteracting the detrimental 
side-effects that urban environments can have on 
mental health, green space truly can act as a buffer, 
protecting children against the adverse conditions 
that are unjustly present in their environment.

Pathways to Academic Competency
 Looking to a different cross-sectional interaction 
of Bronfenbrenner’s (1974) ecological theory, recent 
urban housing literature has begun to focus on 
the extent to which a child’s physical environment 
foreshadows their academic promise (Ainsworth, 
2003). A neighborhood’s quality and the educational 
outcomes of youth residents are significantly 
correlated, so much so that Ainsworth (2003) cites 
dropout rates in disadvantaged neighborhoods 
can be as much as three times as high as those in 
non-poverty communities. A relationship that can 
be attributed to increased instances of violence, 
cognitive development delays, and even decreased 
nutrition, it is only exacerbated through the 
institutional phenomenon that schools serving 
lower-socioeconomic status (SES) children receive 



Room to Grow: The Importance of Urban Greening

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  201913

much lower public funding, on average, than those 
that serve higher-SES children (Arnold & Doctoroff, 
2003). Looking to various research on the reasons for 
the frequent educational failure of inner-city children, 
Ainsworth (2003) argues that social disorganization 
experienced in urban neighborhoods can incite 
social problems that carry over into the classroom, 
such as the instances of violence, increases in deviant 
behavior, and lack of constructive opportunities for 
children to spend time in. Other researchers, like 
Harker (2006), attribute low-academic performance 
to direct environmental influences such as housing 
quality. She explains that overcrowding, mentioned 
before as a common concern in urban housing, is 
linked to increased delays in cognitive development. 
Paralleling Harker’s theory, Evans (2006) suggests that 
noise effects, amplified by crowded urban buildings, 
can result in delays in reading, as well as long-term 
memory. He further notes that behavioral problems 
also present themselves far more frequently in urban-
dwelling children. With academic performance 
highly stratified by neighborhood quality, nature can 
be looked to as an equalizing agent with the potential 
to moderate the harsh environmental affects failing 
countless promising minds in the classroom.
 Green space has been consistently cited to 
promote favorable educational outcomes in youth 
through various pathways (Jurbergs, Palcic, & 
Kelley, 2007; McCracken et al., 2016; Schutte, 2015). 
Research on the effects of green space on attention 
and cognitive activity in children further supports 
the idea that natural landscapes positively influence 
psychological processes. In a study measuring the 
effects of natural views on low-income girls’ levels 
of concentration, it was found that a simple view 
of nature, outside of an apartment window, can 
increase their performance on intellectual tasks 
(Schutte, 2015). Faber, Taylor, and Kuo’s (2009) study 
shows that attention can be increased after exposing 
children to a nature walk as opposed to a walk in 
a built environment (as cited in Schutte, 2015). 
With a higher incidence of behavioral problems in 
children from low-quality housing, green space has 
the opportunity to reduce symptoms. For instance, 
activities performed in a natural setting have been 
found to lower the symptoms of youth struggling 
with Attention Deficit Disorder, or ADD, which is 
a disorder disproportionately diagnosed in low-

income children (Jurbergs et al., 2007). There is an 
established correlation between limited outdoor-
time and cognitive impairments, suggesting that the 
urban-dwelling children who live further away from 
accessible green space are, in fact, more susceptible 
to illnesses that could impair their academic 
performance (McCracken et al., 2016). Considering 
the tendency for symptoms of cognitive disorders 
to negatively affect productivity, achievement, 
and information retention, the impact of nature’s 
alleviating effects may be profound for academically 
disadvantaged youth (Jurbergs et al., 2007). 
  Unfortunately, a disparity in academic 
performance emerges very early on in a disadvantaged 
child’s classroom presence. Decreased literacy skills 
and delays in mathematics upon entering school 
set the pace for their later school performance, and 
lower-SES children are likely to remain behind, 
losing ground before entry, after school days, and 
during summers (Arnold & Doctoroff, 2003). The 
long-lasting impacts of a child’s socio-economic 
status on their academic promise is reflected in the 
lower representation of low-income children in well-
paying careers in math and technology later on in 
life (Arnold & Doctoroff, 2003). The importance 
of early childhood development is shown through 
this vicious cycle of academic failure that afflicts 
low-income youth from the time they enter grade 
school to the end stage of pursuing a career. In order 
to promote academic prosperity, there is a need for 
the mediating effects of green space on the child’s 
harsh physical environment, so that their cognitive 
and physical development can progress, without 
degradation. 

Why Early Childhood? 
 Development during early childhood can be 
defined by the interaction of various factors within 
a child’s indirect and direct influences, as shown 
in Bronfenbrenner’s model. Both beneficial and 
adverse exposures that a child is subjected to early 
on can produce small changes in their life course, 
with the potential to be magnified later on in their 
development (Hertzman & Boyce, 2010). Specifically, 
the physical environment of a child’s surroundings—
the neighborhood and housing in which they grow 
up—can have varying effects on access to important 
developmental stimuli. Equity considerations 



Room to Grow: The Importance of Urban Greening

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  201914

become inevitable when examining early childhood 
development comparatively in the populations of 
children from different neighborhood environments. 
Emphasizing the environmental affordances 
provided to both groups, children from low-income, 
urban backgrounds are disproportionately unable 
to reach developmental standards, impacting them 
continuously throughout their lifespan (Siddiqi, 
Hertzman, Irwin, & Hertzman, 2011). The significant 
influence that the quality of their surroundings 
and coinciding opportunities have on educational 
outcomes make it clear why early childhood is cited 
as the most important developmental phase in life 
(Siddiqi et al., 2011). 
 Hertzman & Boyce (2010) stress the importance 
of the early years of a child’s life, stating that many 
limited spans of developmental time are at their peak 
receptiveness during the first three years of life. This 
stresses the importance of exposing children to the 
appropriate developmental stimuli during this early 
childhood phase. The absence of significant resources 
in urban cityscapes place urban youth at a higher risk 
of missing a key time in which the brain is actively 
evolving.  As Hertzman and Boyce (2010) point out, 
the developmental trajectories of children that do 
not experience these beneficial growth periods are 
significantly impacted; when the body is no longer 
maximally receptive to environmental input, circuits 
and systems solidify permanently, even if that means 
they are only partially developed or formed. 
 Continuing Hertzman and Boyce’s (2010) 
discussion on early childhood’s potential to affect 
an individual in the long term, Siddiqi et al. (2011) 
highlights the socioeconomic consequences 
of missed opportunities or growing up in an 
unfavorable environment during this life phase. The 
authors describe positive educational attainment, 
income attainment, and social behaviors as strongly 
dependent on healthy growth that occurs during 
early childhood. The inequalities that afflict many 
low-SES children, such as lack of resources, lead to 
social and economic inequalities later on. Harker 
(2006) contributes to this idea, as well, stating that 
the lower educational attainment that many of these 
children achieve during the first few years of their 
schooling impacts opportunities in adulthood, 
like jobs and income, which ultimately can hinder 
socioeconomic mobility, placing these individuals at 

risk for poor health and early mortality. Bad housing 
is a major risk factor for lower educational attainment, 
drawing a direct link from a child’s neighborhood 
environment to their economic success as an adult. 
 
Green Resilience
 Outlining the negative impacts of a child’s 
neighborhood environment on their health and 
wellbeing reveals the numerous disadvantages and 
hardships that many low-income, inner-city children 
face. Growing up in these inequitable conditions, 
where many children are disproportionately affected 
by developmental delays, is no easy task (Christian 
et al., 2015). Although cited as having the potential 
to act as protective factors in a child’s life, safe play 
spaces, greater stimulation, and the availability of 
resources for play and exploration are characteristic 
deficits of low-income and urban youth, further 
exposing them to negative life effects (Wells & 
Evans, 2003). In addition to mediating individual 
harsh environmental effects of urban neighborhoods 
through various means, green space has also been 
shown to promote resilience in children that face 
adversity or a high concentration of risk factors in 
their everyday life (Westphal, 2003; Chawla, Keena, 
Pevec, Stanley, 2014; Wells & Evans, 2003).
 Resilience can be defined as an individual’s 
capacity to overcome life difficulties and to persevere 
even in the face of adversity (Chawla et al., 2014). It 
reflects internal strengths and is developed dependent 
on protective factors in a child’s environment. With 
the potential to mitigate negative impacts imposed by 
neighborhood risk, resilience can be understood to 
be a significant trait in urban children. Wells (2000) 
states that researchers are increasingly citing the firm 
link between environmental buffering factors, such 
as green space, and the development of resilience 
among low-income children. She continues to note 
that green space, acting as a moderator of adverse 
conditions, serves as a protective factor in a child’s 
natural environment, which contributes to the grit 
necessary for them to persist in disadvantaged 
contexts. Wells and Evans (2003) agree with this 
research, stating that adverse influences of stressful 
life challenges can be felt less severely in the 
presence of nearby nature. In the research study that 
they conducted, the degree of natural landscaping 
around children’s homes was shown to predict the 



Room to Grow: The Importance of Urban Greening

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  201915

child’s ability to cope with stressful life events—
the mediating effect was highest for children who 
experienced the highest levels of adverse effects. 

Implications for Further Research
 Through interactions with their environment, 
children can learn about themselves as well as the 
world around them. Developing environmental 
competency in a child’s neighborhood setting can be 
valuable because of the accompanying knowledge, 
skills, and confidence that they gain in their ability 
to use the environment for carrying out life goals 
and personal growth. When green space is available 
to provide developmental affordances to the youth 
that utilize it, they are exposed to stimuli that fosters 
healthy and necessary growth, which is especially 
valuable if they have other influences in their life 
that diminish opportunities for development. 
While research suggests that nature is an asset to 
fundamental growth during early childhood, the 
environmental and health injustice of stratified access 
by socioeconomic status remains an intimidating 
obstacle to reaching youth in all corners of the world. 
Communities where public health issues seem to be 
the most critical are suffering from a lack of access to 
nature. This exact issue defines the agenda for future 
research: the implications for urban planning.
 Wolch et al. (2014) highlighted an important 
point in noting that the present method for 
implementation of urban green spaces is not 
entirely effective. Attempting to increase well-kept 
green landscaping in communities of low-income 
households frequently improves the attractiveness 
of the real estate, drawing in higher-income families. 
This then raises housing costs, consequently driving 
the lower-income individuals out. This process 
is also known as ecological gentrification. Future 
collaboration between local residents, planners, 
and developers is needed in order to facilitate green 
space provision. One implication of this issue on 
future research and urban planning is the provision 
of democracy to those that are known to be the 
most vulnerable to influences from their physical 
environment: children. Including children in the 
decisions for the provision of green space offers 
them a sense of agency and the introduction of a 
voice that is rarely heard (Wagner, 2006). The idea of 
a democratic childhood, an idea frequently seen in 

Nordic communities, promotes the child as a capable 
and valuable individual. Hearing their opinion 
on what green spaces or additions they yearn for 
would be an excellent way to assure developmental 
outcomes would be heightened and children would 
be satisfied. 
 If access to green space is indeed a contributor 
to an overall healthy wellbeing, the lack of nature 
surrounding urban youth is simply another strike 
against the low-income children that already suffer 
disadvantage. Providing overlooked youth with 
sufficient room to grow would act as one more step 
towards equal opportunity for all children regardless 
of socioeconomic status.
 
References
Ainsworth, J. W. (2002). Why does it take a 

village- The mediation of neighborhood effects 
on educational achievement. Social Forces, 81, 
117–152.

Arnold, D. H., & Doctoroff, G. L. (2003). The early 
education of socioeconomically disadvantaged 
children. Annual Review of Psychology; Palo Alto, 
54, 517–545.

Black, M. M., & Krishnakumar, A. (1998). Children 
in low-income, urban settings: Interventions 
to promote mental health and well-being. 
American Psychologist, 53(6), 635–646. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.6.635

Branas, C. C., Cheney, R. A., MacDonald, J. M., 
Tam, V. W., Jackson, T. D., & Have, T. (2011). 
A difference-in-differences analysis of health, 
safety, and greening vacant urban space. 
American Journal of Epidemiology, 174(11), 
1296–1306. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwr273

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). Developmental research, 
public policy, and the ecology of childhood. 
Child Development, 45(1), 1–5. https://doi.
org/10.2307/1127743

Brussoni, M., Olsen, L. L., Pike, I., & Sleet, D. A. 
(2012). Risky play and children’s safety: Balancing 
priorities for optimal child development. 



Room to Grow: The Importance of Urban Greening

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  2019

International Journal of Environmental Research 
and Public Health, 9(9), 3134–3148. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph9093134

Chawla, L. (2015). Benefits of nature contact for 
children. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(4), 433–
452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412215595441

Chawla, L., Keena, K., Pevec, I., & Stanley, E. 
(2014). Green schoolyards as havens from stress 
and resources for resilience in childhood and 
adolescence. Health & Place, 28, 1–13.

Christian, H., Zubrick, S., & Foster, S. (2015). The 
influence of the neighborhood physical 
environment on early child health and 
development: A review and call for research. 
Health & Place, 33, 25–36.

Evans, G. W. (2006). Child development and the 
physical environment. Annual Review of 
Psychology, 57, 423–451. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.psych.57.102904.190057

Hanscom, A. J. (2016). Balanced and Barefoot. 
Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications, Inc.

Harker, L. (2006). Chance of a lifetime: The impact 
of bad housing on children’s lives. Shelter UK. 
Retrieved from https://england.shelter.org.uk/__
data/assets/pdf_file/0016/39202/Chance_of_a_
Lifetime.pdf

Hertzman, C., & Boyce, T. (2010). How experience 
gets under the skin to create gradients in 
developmental health. Annual Review of Public 
Health, 31, 329–347. https://doi.org/https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103538

Jurbergs, N., Palcic, J., & Kelley, M. L. (2007). 
School-home notes with and without response 
cost: Increasing attention and academic 
performance in low-income children with 
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School 
Psychology Quarterly, 22(3), 358–379. https://
doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.22.3.358

Kondo, M. C., Fluehr, J. M., McKeon, T., & 
Branas, C. C. (2018). Urban green space and its 
impact on human health. International Journal 
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 
15(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030445

Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Aggression and 
violence in the inner city: effects of 
environment via mental fatigue. Environment 
and Behavior, 33(4), 543–571. https://doi.
org/10.1177/00139160121973124

Lee, A. C. K., Jordan, H. C., & Horsley, J. (2015). 
Value of urban green spaces in promoting healthy 
living and wellbeing: prospects for planning. 
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, 8, 131–
137. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S61654

Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P., & 
St Leger, L. (2006). Healthy nature healthy 
people: “Contact with nature” as an upstream 
health promotion intervention for populations. 
Health Promotion International, 21(1), 45–54. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dai032

McCracken, D. S., Allen, D. A., & Gow, A. J. (2016). 
Associations between urban greenspace and 
health-related quality of life in children. 
Preventive Medicine Reports, 3, 211–221. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.01.013

Nutsford, D., Pearson, A., & Kingham, S. (2013). 
An ecological study investigating the association 
between access to urban green space and 
mental health. Public Health, 127(11), 1005–
1011. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
puhe.2013.08.016

Romero, A. (2005). Low-income neighborhood 
barriers and resources for adolescents’ physical 
activity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36(3), 253–
259.

Schutte, A. R., Torquati, J. C., & Beattie, H. L. 
(2017). Impact of urban nature on executive 
functioning in early and middle childhood. 
Environment and Behavior, 49(1), 3–30. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0013916515603095

16



Room to Grow: The Importance of Urban Greening

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  2019

Siddiqi, A., Hertzman, E., Irwin, L., & Hertzman, 
C. (2011). Early child development: A powerful 
equalizer. Improving Equity in Health by 
Addressing Social Determinants, 115–141.

Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. 
(1998). Growing up in the inner city: Green 
spaces as places to grow. Environment 
and Behavior, 30(1), 3–27. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013916598301001

Veitch, J., Salmon, J., & Ball, K. (2008). Children’s 
active free play in local neighborhoods: A 
behavioral mapping study. Health Education 
Research, 23(5), 870–879. https://doi.
org/10.1093/her/cym074

Villeneuve, P., Jerrett, M., Su, J., Burnett, R., Chen, 
H., Wheeler, A., & Goldberg, M. (2012). A 
cohort study relating urban green space with 
mortality in Ontario, Canada. Environmental 
Research, 115, 51–58. https://doi.org/https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envres.2012.03.003

Wagner, J. T. (2006). An outsider’s perspective: 
Childhoods and early education in the Nordic 
countries. In J. Einarsdottir and J. T. Wagner 
(Eds.), Nordic childhoods and early education: 
Philosophy, research, policy and practice in 
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden 
(pp. 289-306). Greenwich, CT: Information Age 
Publishing.

Wells, N. M. (2000). At home with nature: Effects 
of “greenness” on children’s cognitive functioning. 
Environment and Behavior, 32(6), 775–795. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160021972793

Wells, N. M., & Evans, G. W. (2003). Nearby 
nature: A buffer of life stress among rural children. 
Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 311–330. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916503035003001

Westphal, L. (2003). Urban greening and social 
benefits: A study of empowerment outcomes. 
Social Aspects of Urban Forestry, 29(3), 137–147.

Wolch, J., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. (2014). Urban 
green space, public health, and environmental 

justice: The challenge of making cities “just 
green enough.” Landscape and Urban Planning, 
125, 234–244. https://doi.org/https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017

Younan, D., Tuvblad, C., Li, L., Wu, J., Lurmann, F., 
Franklin, M., … Chen, J.-C. (2016). 
Environmental determinants of aggression 
in adolescents: role of urban neighborhood 
greenspace. Journal of the American Academy of 
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 55(7), 591–601. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2016.05.002

 

17


