Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Health & Place

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/healthplace

Review Essay

A review of neighborhood effects and early child development: How, where, MARK
and for whom, do neighborhoods matter?
⁎
Anita Minha, , Nazeem Muhajarineb, Magdalena Janusc, Marni Brownelld, Martin Guhna
a
Human Early Learning Partnership, School of Population and Public Health, 2206 E Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z3
b
Saskatchewan Population Health and Evaluation Research Unit, University of Saskatchewan, 3333 E-Wing, Health Sciences Building, 104 Clinic Place,
Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 2Z4
c
The Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4K1
d
Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, Community Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, 408-
727 McDermot Ave., Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3E 3P5

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: This paper describes a scoping review of 42 studies of neighborhood effects on developmental health for
Early child development children ages 0–6, published between 2009 and 2014. It focuses on three themes: (1) theoretical mechanisms
Neighborhood effects that drive early childhood development, i.e. how neighborhoods matter for early childhood development; (2)
Literature review dependence of such mechanisms on place-based characteristics i.e. where neighborhood effects occur; (3)
Mediation
dependence of such mechanisms on child characteristics, i.e. for whom is development most affected. Given that
Moderation
ecological systems theories postulate diverse mechanisms via which neighborhood characteristics affect early
child development, we specifically examine evidence on mediation and/or moderation effects. We conclude by
discussing future challenges, and proposing recommendations for analyses that utilize ecological longitudinal
population-based databases.

1. Introduction systematically test sophisticated hypotheses about the contextual

The 1990s saw the emergence of a series of empirical papers
demonstrating that the neighborhoods in which children live, play, and
go to school, particularly those rife with poverty, matter to their health
and wellbeing. Important theoretical contributions such as W.J.
Wilson's The Truly Disadvantaged (Wilson, 1987) and
Bronfenbrenner's social ecological model of human development
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979) foreshadowed this research. These scholars
postulated a concept that was relatively new at the time — that the
neighborhood context, in conjunction with other factors, such as child
characteristics, parenting, and family resources, matters to the well-
being of developing children.
Now well into the third decade of this research, there is strong
evidence to suggest that the social, economic, cultural, and built
characteristics of children's neighborhoods lay down important, some-
times life-long foundations for their development. Research in this field
has simultaneously benefitted from methodological and technological
advances in the last few years. The development of infrastructures for
population-based longitudinal data capture and linkage, geospatial
mapping, and statistical software to test complex multilevel and
longitudinal mediation and moderation models make it possible to
influences on human development (Brownell et al., 2016; Nickel
et al., 2014; Jutte et al., 2011; Roos et al., 2010; Mountain et al., 2016).
Despite these significant developments, previous reviews
(cf. Sampson et al. (2002), van Vuuren et al. (2014)) have criticized
the existing research for having limited capacity to inform effective
policies and interventions. Sampson et al. (2002) argued that confusion
over the direction of causation due to selection bias (the ability for
people to self-select into neighborhoods) is one of the more important
methodological limitations for interpreting statistical associations
between neighborhood factors and health. Broader criticisms of the
literature harken back to Jencks and Mayer (1990) argument that
neighborhood research is a “black-box” (Galster, 2012, van Ham and
Manley, 2012), showing that neighborhoods are important, but reveal-
ing little about the processes that produce inequalities (Jackson et al.,
2009). From an empirical standpoint, this gap may be understood as a
dearth of evidence about underlying processes, mechanisms, or path-
ways through which neighborhoods may affect children's developmen-
tal health (Sharkey and Faber, 2014).
To advance a research agenda that will fill existing gaps in the
literature and avoid the pitfalls of past neighborhood effects studies, we
pause to review this burgeoning literature. We focus on what is known

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: anita.minh@gmail.com (A. Minh).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.04.012
Received 2 November 2016; Received in revised form 18 March 2017; Accepted 27 April 2017
Available online 18 May 2017
1353-8292/ © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
A. Minh et al.
(i.e. where we are) and especially on what we need to know to advance
this research further (i.e. where do we go from here). This paper begins
with an overview of the theoretical frameworks underpinning the
literature on neigbourhoods and their effects on developmental health.
Next, using scoping review methodology (Arksey and O'Malley, 2005),
we synthesize recent empirical evidence of this relationship along three
dimensions: ‘how’ (the structural and mediating pathways), ‘where’,
and ‘for whom’ (the neighborhood- and child-level moderating factors
respectively). Given the empirical and technological progress in this
field over the last few decades, we argue that it is not only possible but
also imperative for future research to examine these questions using
mediation and moderation analyses. In our discussion, we describe
how a Canadian intersectoral coalition of researchers and governments
aims to meet this challenge with a national databank that monitors
early child development and neighborhood characteristics (Guhn et al.,
2016). We close by drawing from the evidence summarized in this
paper to make recommendations for future research in the neighbor-
hood effects on child development at this important juncture in the
field.
1.1. Defining developmental health in early childhood
The early years of a child's life – the time between birth and age 5 –
represent sensitive periods for development (Knudsen, 2004). The
developing brain is influenced from the time the fetus is in utero and it
continues to change through neuro-synaptic pruning over the first
months and years of a child's life (Aylward, 1997; Levitt, 2003; Monk
et al., 2001). Neuropsychological research suggests that rapid growth of
children's brains during this time makes them particularly susceptible
to environmental stimuli both positive and detrimental to development
(Fox et al., 1994; Ursache and Noble, 2016; Noble et al., 2015).
Through a process called biological embedding, social and environ-
mental experiences in a child's early years are theorized to shape
physiological changes that have lifelong protective or detrimental
effects on children's learning, behavior, health and wellbeing (Boyce
and Ellis, 2005; Hertzman and Boyce, 2010; Vimpani, 2000; Mitchell
et al., 2014). Recent advances in neuroscience, allowing for direct
measurement of the brain, confirm the strong association between
poverty and brain growth in the first three years, resulting in
differences in gray matter volume between children in families of
varying socioeconomic status (Hanson et al., 2013).
The concept that children's developmental health is both an
outcome of their early experiences and a predictor of future life success
has profound implications for its measurement. While definitions of
developmental health in early childhood have historically focused on
academic and cognitive qualities such as literacy and numeracy (Kagan,
1999, 1992), contemporary conceptions extend this definition to
include physical changes (including health-related factors) as well as
social and emotional factors that are related to early life (Heim et al.,
2004; Bartley et al., 1994; Stern et al., 2000; Wadsworth and Kuh,
1997; Scott-Little et al., 2006; Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000). This
broadened conception is accompanied by a growing interest in
measuring developmental health in association with communities
where children live. Love et al. (1994), for example, proposed a
methodology for assessing children's development in a way that is
sensitive to the influence of local, cultural, and social issues. Where
concepts of developmental health have increasingly focused on under-
standing the complex interactions between properties of individuals
and systems, however, new challenges have emerged with regards to
measuring and modeling these concepts, which we discuss later in this
paper.
1.2. Situating the neighborhood effects literature in the bio-ecological
model
The claim that a child's place of residence makes a difference to
156
Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
their developmental health is made in at least three bodies of theory.
First, Urie Bronfenbrenner's bio-ecological, or person-process-context-
time framework for human development (Bronfenbrenner and Morris,
2007; Bronfenbrenner, 1979, Bronfenbrenner, 1999), suggests that
developmental change must be understood as the product of the
sustained interaction between a child, meaning their characteristics,
and the features of their immediate and distal environments over time.
The person characteristics refer to the developmental, biological, and
psychological aspects of the developing child. Processes that lead to
developmental change may include parent-child or child-child activ-
ities, group or solitary play, reading, learning new skills, studying,
athletic activities and performing complex tasks. The environments
that constitute the bio-ecological systems framework refer to a series of
nested contexts ranging from intimate to distal, or what
Bronfenbrenner refers to as “micro” to “macro”. The intimate contexts
refer to the child's family, childcare facility, and neighborhood of
residence – those within which the processes leading to developmental
change play out constantly through direct and reciprocal interactions
between a child and objects or other people. The more distal contexts
include interactions that occur between systems or environments –
some which the child interacts with directly (e.g., the family and the
school) and others that indirectly influences their developmental health
(e.g., local or national policies). For example, policies about childcare
provision may influence childcare availability and quality, which in
turn determines the social and environmental stimuli that children
encounter. In our view, the bio-ecological approach offers a useful
framework to conceptualize a wide array of contexts that may influence
children's developmental health. Given its breadth, however, it is
difficult to operationalize and test it as a whole. Instead, as
Bronfenbrenner (1999) has suggested, the research literature is rich
with “latent paradigms” or frameworks that implicitly offer empirical
support for the model.
A second theoretical body of literature casts a sociological lens on
the relationship between children's early development and the effects
of poverty in their residential environments. Research of this kind may
be traced to work from the US in the 1980s that began in response to
concerns about a growing underclass of people living in ghettos. Poor
neighborhoods were perceived as disadvantages to their residents,
isolating them from opportunities (Wilson, 1987). This perspective
suggests that neighborhoods may indicate place-based inequalities in
the distribution of social and environmental risks and opportunities for
developmental health. In a recent review of the neighborhood effects on
health literature, Galster (2012) mapped out the social, environmental,
geographic, and institutional mechanisms that are theorized to link
neighborhoods to individual health. In neighborhoods where residents
work towards common goals (Sampson et al., 1999, 2002), or in areas
where people share similar behavioral and attitudinal norms (Brooks-
Gunn et al., 1993; Kohen et al., 1998), residents may be more likely to
share resources, and to monitor and support their local children
(Froiland et al., 2014; Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Sampson
et al., 1999). Contact among residents may mean that children are
more likely to share behaviors or attitudes towards problem behavior
(Froiland et al., 2014; Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Parents’
perceptions of their neighborhoods may also be influenced by their
social environment, which may in turn affect the parenting strategies
that they use within their homes (Roosa et al., 2003). There may be
damaging developmental consequences as a result of exposure to
environmental hazards, such as lead in soil and paint; asthma-inducing
air pollutants may be more prevalent among disadvantaged areas
(Earls and Buka, 2000; Litt et al., 2002; Ash and Fetter, 2004). Some
neighborhoods may be located within political jurisdictions that have
fewer resources for childhood or family services, or have operational
challenges which lead to services that are inferior in quality (Galster,
2012). Finally, vital societal resources (e.g., schools, healthcare, social
services, etc.) in neighborhoods may employ people who do not
necessarily live in the neighborhood but who may be role-models for
A. Minh et al.
Fig. 1. Framework for interrogating neighborhood effects on early childhood development: How, Where, and for Whom?
children (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1993). This strand of work is significant
because it not only describes how neighborhoods come to differ from
one another, but also operationalizes the importance of specific
characteristics on health and development relative to other influences.
Third, social epidemiologists have theorized about structural
determinants of health, providing a framework for understanding the
pervasive influence of context in shaping individual wellbeing, includ-
ing how it may vary by neighborhood. This framework emerged from
theories about the social causation of health which gained traction in
the 1990s, suggesting that socioeconomic status, social networks, and
power divisions, are the “fundamental causes” of disease (Link and
Phelan, 1995). The structural determinants of health are the mechan-
isms – arising from the arrangement of labour markets, collective
beliefs, government policies – that “generate stratification and social
class divisions in society, and that define individual socioeconomic
position within hierarchies of power, prestige, and access to resources”
(Solar and Irwin, 2010). They are theorized to influence developmental
health in early childhood because in part, they drive the differential
distribution of factors that promote or undermine development (e.g.,
social resources, institutional resources, exposure to environmental
risks) across geographies (Solar and Irwin, 2010). For example, local
zoning laws may determine how opportunities for healthy food choices
or green space are distributed between and within neighborhoods
(Chum, 2011). The political debates surrounding gentrification and
mixed-income development are other examples of the social hierar-
chies created at a level upstream of the neighborhood, which may come
into play at a neighborhood level to promote or mitigate developmental
inequalities (Berube, 2010; Darcy, 2010; Joseph, 2010). To date,
however, the majority of evidence in the social epidemiological
literature concerns the impacts of inequality in neighborhood condi-
tions, income, and social position without addressing the structures
that create hierarchies in the first place. Amidst this growing chorus of
calls for social epidemiology to pay greater attention to political and
economic systems that produce and distributed wealth and opportu-
nity, there have also been appeals for more policy-relevant evidence
linking neighborhood inequalities in developmental health to their
“macrosocial” determinants (Shankardass and Dunn, 2012, Blas et al.,
2008, Putnam and Galea, 2008, O'Campo, 2012).
2. Gaps in understanding neighborhood effects
Despite the many theories about how neighborhoods may affect
developmental health, the empirical evidence on the neighborhood
157
Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
effects on health offers little that may be translated to policy action
(Galster, 2012, van Vuuren et al., 2014). Neighborhood poverty (or
socioeconomic status) and its association with developmental health
continue to be the most studied neighborhood level characteristics
(Jackson et al., 2009). Statistical analyses of the association between
neighborhood poverty and health involve multilevel modeling to
disentangle neighborhood impact from those of individual character-
istics on health. However, these models have been criticized for
oversimplifying contextual effects by estimating the residual left over
when multilevel regression methods have supposedly eliminated
compositional effects (Tunstall et al., 2004; Oakes, 2006). Macintyre
et al. (2002) refer to this problem as a false dichotomy between context
and composition. The conceptual interplay between person and their
places that is central to the bio-ecological model of development is
artificially separated in these statistical models, leading to confusion
about the direction of causation and of the mechanisms involved.
Statistical analyses using theoretical frameworks that adequately
account for the complex interplay between person and place, especially
the bio-ecological framework, are markedly absent from the literature
on developmental health. A recent review found that fewer than one
third of studies on the neighborhood effects on children ages 0–18,
published between 2003 and 2013, provided a theoretical rationale to
explain their statistical model or even why the neighborhood socio-
economic indicators that they used were chosen (van Vuuren et al.,
2014). Sharkey and Faber (2014) express this problem as an imbalance
between the large number of studies whose aims are to test whether
neighborhood factors are associated with health outcomes and the
relatively fewer number that specifically examine why (or how), where,
and for whom these matter.
The recent emergence of population-level databases linking data on
place and children's developmental outcomes is a signal that future
research may be able to shift towards an agenda that prioritizes policy-
friendly questions about how, where, and for whom neighborhoods
matter, rather than dwell on the question of whether they do
(Mountain et al., 2016; Guhn et al., 2016). From a methodological
perspective, we argue that these questions translate into empirical
examination of (i) structural and mediating mechanisms of effect; and
(ii) two types of moderating effects: i.e., first, involving the (neighbor-
hood) context, and second, child characteristics, which may moderate
the degree to which structural pathways and neighborhood mechan-
isms affect children's developmental health (Fig. 1; Wu and Zumbo,
2008). We thus review current research on the structural determinants,
mediators, and moderators of the relationship between neighborhoods
A. Minh et al. Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174

and developmental health, to summarize current evidence on how,
where, and for whom neighborhoods matter in early childhood, and to
suggest gaps that future research may fill.
3. Methodology
3.1. Search strategy
We conducted a scoping review using the methodology proposed by
Arksey and O'Malley (2005). Unlike with systematic reviews, authors of
scoping reviews will not typically assess the quality of included studies;
scoping reviews also differ from narrative or literature reviews in that
authors will analyze and reinterpret the literature (Levac et al., 2010).
Because recent reviews have already provided comprehensive accounts
of the literature (van Vuuren et al., 2014, Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn,
2000, Sellström and Bremberg, 2006), we undertook a scoping review
to contribute a descriptive account of current research on mediation
and moderation in the field. We therefore included for review only
those papers that (1) were published in English in peer-reviewed
journals after 2009, (2) studied children ages 0–6, and (3) statistically
modeled the relationship between children's neighborhood residence
and their developmental health, as broadly defined by validated
assessments of children's development (Janus and Offord, 2007;
Kagan, 1992; Doherty, 1997) (Table 1). Gray literature was not
included in our analyses. As well, because we suspected that the
neighborhood effects on early childhood development may not be
comparable between low-, middle-, and high-income countries, we
limited our review to evidence from OECD countries. The study
selection process is depicted in Fig. 2.
We aimed to describe quantitative evidence on the structural
determinants, mediators, and moderators in the relationship between
neighborhoods and early childhood development. We defined early
childhood as the period between birth and school entry (i.e. up to about
the age of 6). We identified articles for review based on keyword
searches in the following databases: EconLit, PsycINFO, ERIC,
Academic Search Complete, Education Source, MEDLINE, Urban
Studies Abstracts and Google Scholar. Combinations of the keywords
neighborhood(s) or neighborhood(s), child, children were used to
identify relevant articles. Specific terms relating to developmental
outcomes that may have been included in the articles’ full text, such
as development, reading, writing, mathematics, math, physical,
emotion, social, emotional, cognitive, cognition, communication,
literacy, learning, education, outcome, influence, and effect were also
included in the search.
3.2. Theoretical integration of literature review
We conducted two analytical steps to summarize and then con-
ceptually integrate the evidence from the studies identified in this
review. In step 1, we characterized studies according to the study
population and sample size, the neighborhood characteristic(s) and
child development domain(s) examined, and whether the study exam-
ined mediation and/or moderation (interaction effects), and the main
finding(s). In step 2, we used the conceptual-methodological questions
raised in the introduction as our organizing framework for integrating
the findings conceptually. Specifically, we summarized (i) in what ways
did studies address ‘how’ neighborhood characteristics are related to
developmental outcomes (that is, via which structural and/or mediat-
ing neighborhood processes); (ii) in what ways did studies examine
whether the association between structural and/or mediating processes
and child development outcomes were moderated by place or setting,
i.e. ‘where’ (that is, in which contexts), or by child characteristics i.e.
‘for whom’ (that is, for which children).
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive summary of studies
Forty-two research articles were identified from our search. Table 2
presents study characteristics (study population, sample size, develop-
mental outcome examined, neighborhood definition and characteristics
used, and whether the analyses examined mediation or moderation/
interaction effects) and a summary of the main findings from each of
the reviewed studies. Reviewed studies pertained to populations in the
United States (n=26), Canada (n=7), the United Kingdom (n=7),
Norway (n=1), and Australia (n=1). Studies looked at a range of
developmental outcomes, from specific outcomes (e.g., reading
achievement) to overall developmental health as measured across a
range of domains (e.g., school readiness). Samples sizes ranged from
only 26-59531 children and/or families, in as few as two neighbor-
hoods to as many as 2113 neighborhoods. Thirty-one of the studies
employed multilevel analyses in which the nesting of children within
neighborhoods was statistically accounted for.
None of the reviewed studies were experimental. Thirteen used
longitudinal analytical methods and the other 29 used a cross-sectional
design. All studies controlled for family-level variables that may be
related to self-selection into neighborhoods, including family socio-
economic status (SES), residential instability, and maternal depression
in their regression models. One study used a natural experiment
design, comparing data from families in social housing with data from
a control group of families from the general population (Martens et al.,
2014). The authors reasoned that using data from the social housing
cohort would minimize selection bias because residents of social
housing presumably have limited opportunities to choose where to
live due to housing allocation methods.
4.2. Theoretical integration
Table 3 summarizes the results of our theoretical integration of the
reviewed studies according their findings on (i) how, (ii) where, and
(iii) for whom neighborhood residence may influence developmental
health in early childhood. The table summarizes theories and relevant
constructs that the reviewed studies examined; the indicators that were
used; and cites a selection of the reviewed studies from which this
information was gathered. The section on “how” describes theories
about the structural mechanisms that appear to be related to neighbor-
hood-level inequalities in children's developmental health. This section
also summarizes theories about the neighborhood and family char-

Table 1
Developmental domains in early childhood used for the search.

Domains Developmental constructs

Physical health and well-being (PHWB)
Social competence (SC)
Emotional maturity (EM)
Language and cognitive development (LCD)
Communication skills and general knowledge (CSGK)
Physical readiness for the school day, physical independence, and gross and fine motor skills
Overall social skills, understanding of responsibility and respect, approaches to learning, and readiness to explore
new things
Prosocial and helping behavior, anxious and fearful behavior, overall happiness, and hyperactivity and inattention
Basic literacy and numeracy, advanced literacy, and interest in literacy/numeracy
Skills with communicating needs and wants, the symbolic use of language, story-telling, and interest in knowledge
about life and the world

158
A. Minh et al.
Fig. 2. Study selection process.
acteristics that mediate the association between neighborhood resi-
dence and child outcomes. The section on “where” summarizes theories
of moderation of this association by place-based characteristics.
Finally, the section on “for whom” summarizes theories that were
explored using cross-level interactions i.e. moderation of this associa-
tion by child-level characteristics.
4.3. How: Class, gender, and ethnic dimensions of place
We found that neighborhood poverty (or SES) was the most studied
structural determinant of children's developmental outcomes, appear-
ing in 34 out of the 42 studies reviewed. With the exception of 12
studies that were reviewed (Flouri et al., 2010b, 2010a, O'Campo et al.,
2010; De Marco and Vernon-Feagans, 2013; Benson and Borman,
2010, Fedor et al., 2010, Bubier et al., 2009, Brown and Ackerman,
2011, Callahan et al., 2011, Fite et al., 2011, Singh and Ghandour,
2012, Froiland et al., 2014), all studies described an association
between neighborhood poverty or disadvantage and poorer develop-
mental health (Cushon et al., 2011; Daly et al., 2009; Edwards and
Bromfield, 2009; Flouri et al., 2013; Flouri et al., 2012; Hanson et al.,
2011; Jeon et al., 2014; Kershaw and Forer, 2010; Kohen et al., 2009;
Odgers et al., 2009; Vaden-Kiernan et al., 2010; Vanfossen et al., 2010;
Riina et al., 2014; Sastry and Pebley, 2010) and/or an association
between neighborhood wealth or advantage and better developmental
health (Anderson et al., 2014; Benson and Faas, 2014; Dupere et al.,
2010; Kershaw and Forer, 2010; Leventhal and Shuey, 2014), with
some evidence of diminishing returns in developmental health as
wealth increases (Carpiano et al., 2009; Dupere et al., 2010). Using
the index of concentration at the extremes, a measure of inequality,
Carpiano et al. (2009) observed that children's developmental out-
comes at school entry in a Canadian province improved as neighbor-
hood SES increased but only until a certain point. The authors
159
Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
concluded that neighborhoods that are socioeconomically heteroge-
neous may be protective for children's development compared with
neighborhoods of either concentrated poverty or concentrated wealth.
Six of the reviewed studies examined gender or cultural dimensions
of neighborhoods, implicating structural determinants that reinforce
gender and ethnic divisions between spaces in the unequal distribution
of developmental health (Kershaw and Forer, 2010; Leventhal and
Shuey, 2014; Lloyd and Hertzman, 2010; Vaden-Kiernan et al., 2010;
Hanson et al., 2011; Rydland et al., 2014). Intersectionality is the
theory that social stratification by gender, race, and class and, most
importantly, intersections among these variables, may impact how
power and opportunities for children's development are distributed
across society (Choo and Ferree, 2010). Guided by this theory, one of
these studies by found that variables indicating place-based differences
in the gendered dimensions of care-giving (e.g., neighborhoods where
most of the caregiving responsibilities were allocated to women), could
better predict the development of British Columbian children at school
entry when considered with neighborhood SES than SES alone
(Kershaw and Forer, 2010).
The other five examined the relationship between ethnic or cultural
dimensions of children's neighborhoods and developmental health but
findings were mixed. Two studies in this review—one in Canada and
two in the United States—observed that a higher concentration of
ethnic, immigrant and language minority individuals within the
neighborhood was associated with positive child development out-
comes after controlling for neighborhood SES (Leventhal and Shuey,
2014; Lloyd and Hertzman, 2010; Vaden-Kiernan et al., 2010). Two
other studies, from the United States and Norway, observed the
opposite: that a higher concentration of ethnic majority children was
associated with positive developmental outcomes (Hanson et al., 2011;
Rydland et al., 2014).
 Table 2
The reviewed studies and their results.
Citation
Study population (setting, sample size)
Andersen et al. (2014)
Children from the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development Study of
Early Child Care and Youth Development (US,
n=1364)
Benson and Borman (2010)
Children proceeding through kindergarten and
the first grade (Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study – Kindergarten Cohort, US, n=4180)
Brown and Ackerman (2011)
Children enrolled in an urban Head Start pre-
school as well as their mothers and teacher
(US, n=113)
Bubier et al. (2009)
Ethnic minority, inner-city first through fourth
grade children (US, n=57)
160
Callahan et al. (2011)
African American mother and 2 year old
children enrolled in a Head Start program
(New Orleans, US, n=55)
Carpiano et al. (2009)
Children in kindergarten ages 4 and 5
(Canada, BC, n=37,798)
Caughy et al. (2013)
Families living in a low-income, primarily
African American neighborhood, with over
selection of families with children aged 5–13
(US, City in the Southwest, n=261)
Cushon et al. (2011)
Main model parameters Mediator (s) Moderator (s) Results
A. Minh et al.
• Developmental outcome
• Neighborhood definition
• Neighborhood-level covariates (indicators)
• Reading and math achievement, Behavior NA NA Neighborhood affluence in early childhood was
problems associated with higher achievement and fewer
• Census block groups internalizing behaviors contemporaneously. These
• Affluence, Poverty associations endured until adolescence for reading
achievement.
• Reading achievement NA NA Neighborhood social context mattered for reading
• Postal code achievement at school entry and for reading
• Social context (income, education); Race/ethnic achievement growth during the summer.
composition The proportion of neighborhood residents from
minority race/ethnic groups was not associated
with reading achievement at school entry or during
summer.
• Emotional regulation Maternal negative emotionality NA Maternal negative emotionality partially explained
• NA the link between family and neighborhood
• Neighborhood adversity (physical conditions, adversity and children's emotional dysregulation.
safety, and facilities)
• Externalizing behaviors NA Sympathetic functioning Baseline sympathetic functioning moderated the
• NA relationship between neighborhood cohesion and
• Neighborhood cohesion externalizing behaviors. Higher levels of
neighborhood cohesion prospectively predicted
higher levels of externalizing behaviors among
children with heightened baseline sympathetic
functioning, and lower levels of externalizing
behaviors among children with attenuated baseline
sympathetic functioning.
• Problem behaviors NA Harsh parenting After controlling for externalizing problems, the
• NA positive association between harsh parenting and
• Neighborhood danger, and belonging internalizing problems became stronger as
neighborhood danger increased.
• School readiness NA NA Increasing heterogeneity in neighborhood
• Stakeholder-informed neighborhoods socioeconomic composition was related to
• Disadvantage/advantage (Index of concentration improved physical, social, emotional,
at the extremes) communications, and overall development.
• Behavioral problems NA NA Poor conditions of the physical environment of the
• Circles of increasing radius surrounding the neighborhood were related to more behavioral
child's place of residence. problems, and the geographic extent of the physical
• Physical conditions environment that mattered was an area with a
• Behavior of children's peers radius between 400 and 800 m surrounding the
child's home. In addition, the average level of
behavior problems of neighborhood peers within
255 m of the child's home was also positively
associated with child behavior problems. These
effects were independent of one another.
• School readiness NA NA Poverty was significantly associated with declining
(continued on next page)
Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
 Table 2 (continued)

Citation Main model parameters Mediator (s) Moderator (s) Results

Study population (setting, sample size) outcome
A. Minh et al.

Three populations of kindergarteners (Canada,
SK, n=1458/ 2159/ 2218)
• Developmental definition
• Neighborhood
• Neighborhood-level covariates (indicators)
• “Planned neighborhoods” scores in physical health and well-being.
• Poverty (%Aboriginal, single parents, low income,
residential stability, low education,
unemployment)

• Verbal/Language development Child care quality Geographic Isolation, Collective Neighborhood disadvantage did not predict
De Marco and Vernon-Feagans, (2013) • Census block group socialization children's development or child care quality.
36 month-old children from families, from • Disadvantage (Income, female-headed Neighborhood safety predicted children's receptive
three counties in eastern North Carolina, and households, social assistance, unemployment), language, with child care quality a partial mediator
central Pennsylvania (US, n=1292) Safety of this relationship.
Collective socialization but not geographic isolation
moderated the relationship between neighborhood
safety and child care quality.

Delany-Brumsey et al. (2014)
Children from the age of 5–17, whose primary
caregiver was female (US, Los Angeles, n=741)
• Behavioral problems NA Caregiver depression Disadvantage was associated with more
• Census tract internalizing and externalizing behavior problems.
• Residential stability, Concentrated disadvantage, Neither social capital nor residential stability was a
Social capital significant predictor. The interaction between
caregiver depression and social capital was not
significant.

Dupere et al. (2010) • Verbal language development, Reading skills, Maternal depression, Quality of NA The presence of educated, affluent professionals in
Children in grade 1 from 10 sites, in which the Math skills, Vocabulary home learning environment, Child the neighborhood had a favorable association with

161
mother is over 18, speaks English and does not
have substance abuse or serious health
problems (US, n=1364)
• Census block group
• Advantage (income, education, occupation)
care quality, Classroom instructional children's achievement until it plateaued at
quality, School advantage moderate levels of advantage.
Child care and school contexts explained more of
the neighborhood effects than the home
environment.

Edwards and Bromfield, (2009)
Nationally representative sample of 4–5 year
olds (Australia, n=4983)
• Behavioral problems, Prosocial behavior
• Post-codes (12,000–15,000 residents/unit)
• SES (Socioeconomic Indices for Area's Index of
Advantage/ Disadvantage), Residential stability,
Ethnic homogeneity, Remoteness (Accessibility/
Remoteness Index for Australia), Physical
disorder
Parental perceptions of
neighborhood facilities,
neighborhood safety, neighborhood
cleanliness, neighborhood belonging
NA Neighborhood facilities, cleanliness, safety and
belonging mediated the relationship between
neighborhood socio-economic status and conduct
problems.
The relationship between neighborhood safety and
conduct problems was in turn, mediated by
neighborhood belonging.
Neighborhood socio-economic status was not
associated with pro-social behavior.
Neighborhood cleanliness and neighborhood
belonging were the only neighborhood variables
that were significantly associated with pro-social
behavior

Fedor et al. (2010) • Behavior concerns NA Gender Children in low-violence communities exhibited
Children attending Head Start programs in • MI greater parent-reported behavior concerns than
high- and low-violence communities (US, • Violence children in high-violence communities and no
n=388) significant differences were found on levels of
protective factors.
There was not a significant interaction effect
between gender and community type for any of the
scales measured.

(continued on next page)

Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
 Table 2 (continued)
Citation
Study population (setting, sample size)
Fite et al. (2010)
Children between 5 and 13 years of age
recruited to a mid-sized southeastern
community-based care program (US, n=147)
Flouri et al. (2010a)
Children ages 2–5, and their older siblings
ages 4–15 (UK, n=9630)
Flouri et al. (2010b)
3-year old children (UK, n=4748)
Flouri et al. (2012)
Children aged 9 months (UK, Millennium
Cohort Study, n=9736)
162
Flouri et al. (2013)
Children aged 3–16 in the first two waves of
Millennium Cohort Study (UK, n=23,162)
Froiland et al. (2013)
Children enrolled in the Head Start preschool
program (US, Midwestern State, n=551)
Froiland et al. (2014)
Parents and children from a Head Start centre
(Suburban area of Midwestern city, US, n=89)
Grinstein-Weiss et al. (2012)
Children between 4 and 18 years old whose
families participated in the Community
Main model parameters Mediator (s) Moderator (s) Results
outcome
A. Minh et al.
• Developmental definition
• Neighborhood
• Neighborhood-level covariates (indicators)
• Delinquency and depressive symptoms NA Attendance in a community-based A marginally significant trend (p < 0.06) for
• NA program program attendance to buffer the effects of
• Neighborhood problems neighborhood problems on child depressive
symptoms was found.
• Internalizing and externalizing problems, Family adversity, Family SES, Parenting, Child cognitive ability, The deprivation-psychopathology association
Psychopathology, Prosocial behavior Parents' psychological distress, Child's developmental delay, Child's remained significant even when family adversity
• LSOA (Lower-layer super output areas) Parenting temperament was adjusted for, but it became non-significant
• Deprivation (Index of Multiple Deprivation) once adjustment was made for family-level SES.
None of the interactions were statistically
significant. When parental qualifications were
excluded from the family-level contextual controls
the effect of area risk remained significant on both
externalizing and internalizing psychopathology.
• Internalizing and externalizing problems, Parenting, Parents’ depression Family adversity The area risk/broad psychopathology association
Psychopathology, Prosocial behavior remained significant even after family risk was
• LSOA (Lower-layer super output areas) controlled but not after family level socioeconomic
• Deprivation (Index of Multiple Deprivation) disadvantage was controlled.
• Emotional and behavioral problems NA Child's cognitive ability Neighborhood deprivation was significant, even
• “Small areas" after adjustment for covariates, significantly
• Deprivation (Index of Multiple Deprivation) associated with children's peer problems. Verbal
and nonverbal cognitive ability moderated this
association.
• Emotional and behavioral problems NA NA Being in a lower deprivation neighborhood at Wave
• LSOA (Lower-layer super output areas) 1 was related to lower scores of both emotional and
• Neighborhood disadvantage (Index of Multiple behavioral problems 2 years later, even after
Deprivation), Moved to neighborhood adjustment for child's age and sex, family adversity,
family structure and maternal psychological
distress. Adjusting for family socio-economic
disadvantage at Wave 1 partially explained the
association between neighborhood SES with
emotional and behavioral problems.
Children whose families subsequently moved—even
within or between lower deprivation
neighborhoods—were at higher risk of emotional
and behavioral problems.
• Early literacy Home literacy (parent–child shared NA Neighborhood socioeconomic well-being predicted
• Census block reading, number of books at home) home literacy, which in turn predicted early literacy
• SES (education, housing occupancy, receipt of
social assistance), urbanicity
• Expressive vocabulary Home literacy NA Neighborhood social networks predicted home
• NA literacy, which in turn predicted expressive
• Neighborhood social networks vocabulary.
• Positive behaviors NA Homeownership status of parent Homeownership was found to have a stronger
• (Missing) positive effect on children's positive behavior as
• Poverty, Residential stability, Population density neighborhood population density increases.
(continued on next page)
Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
 Table 2 (continued)

Citation Main model parameters Mediator (s) Moderator (s) Results

Study population (setting, sample size) outcome
A. Minh et al.

• Developmental definition
• Neighborhood
• Neighborhood-level covariates (indicators)
Advantage Program (US, NC, n=812)

Hanson et al. (2011)
4-year-old children living in poverty, living
with disabilities, or who were English
Language Learners (US, n=1006)
• Language and vocabulary, Literacy, Mathematics, NA NA Neighborhood economic hardship predicted
Social skills children's lower mathematics and letter knowledge
• Census block academic outcomes and one social skills outcome.
• SES (poverty, female-head of household, Children's residence in primarily English-speaking
education, unemployment), Linguistic isolation neighborhoods was associated with higher levels of
social participation.

Heberle et al. (2014)
12–42 month old children living (US, New-
Haven Meriden Standard Metropolitan Area,
n=1204)
• Behavior problems Family disadvantage, Violence or NA Neighborhood disadvantage was associated with
• Census tracts conflict exposure, Parental disruptive behavior, but the effect was negligible
• Disadvantage (Sawhill Index) depression, Parenting behavior when all of the more proximal factors (i.e. family
disadvantage, violence or conflict exposure, parent
depressive symptoms, and parenting behavior)
were accounted for.

Jeon et al. (2014) • Cognitive skills, Social and emotional competence Home learning environment, NA Neighborhood disadvantage was associated with
Children in early childcare programs (US, • Census tracts Parental depression parental depressive symptoms above and beyond
Midwestern State, n=420) • Disadvantage (poverty, unemployment, female- family SES, which, in turn, was associated with
headed households, public assistance, %African children's greater probability of social-emotional
American) problems.

Kershaw and Forer (2010) • School readiness NA NA Poverty rates, the share of local wealthy families,

163
Kindergarten children (Canada, BC, n=40,772) • Stakeholder-informed neighborhoods the share of residents receiving social assistance,
• Poverty, Wealth, Social assistance, Employment, employment rates, and lone-parent households
Lone-parent households, Child-care services significantly predicted various domains of
development.

Kingston et al. (2013)
Children enrolled in the 8 pre-kindergarten
classes in public elementary schools in lower
and middle-income urban neighborhoods
whose primary caregiver spoke English
(n=171)
• Behavioral problems, Cognitive-academic skills, NA Parent involvement in education Increased parent involvement in education was
Social and emotional behavior problems related to lower rates of behavior problems among
• Census tracts children from neighborhoods with higher levels of
• Affluence, Occupation, Childcare burden childcare burden.

Kohen et al. (2009)
Children attending Kindergarten classes in 7
cities across Canada (n=2743)
• Verbal and Language development, Behavior,
School readiness, Hyperactivity, Aggression,
Anxiety
• Urban areas: Census tracts (between 2500 and
8000 residents)
• Rural areas: Census subdivisions (municipalities
so have greater variability in population size)
• Low income, Youth unemployment, Low
education, % Aboriginal status, Immigrants,
Residential stability
NA NA Low income and education were associated with
poorer verbal and behavioral outcomes. The
number of immigrants was associated with lower
verbal, and higher aggression and anxiety scores,
but also with higher developmental scores.
The school environment had a larger impact on
Kindergarten children's standardized, parent, and
teacher reported outcomes than neighborhoods.

Leventhal and Shuey (2014)
Children from three age cohorts in the Project
on Human Development in Chicago
Neighborhoods (Chicago, US, n=3209)
• Behavioral functioning and achievement, verbal NA Neighborhood immigrant Immigrant concentration and immigrant status
ability, literacy skills concentration; were moderators of associations between
• Neighborhood clusters of census tracts Immigrant status neighborhood processes and children's
• Concentrated poverty and affluence, residential development, but the nature of these associations
mobility, cohesion, friends/kin, youth services, depended on the outcome and racial/ethnic group
organizational involvement considered.
(continued on next page)
Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
 Table 2 (continued)

Citation Main model parameters Mediator (s) Moderator (s) Results

Study population (setting, sample size) outcome
A. Minh et al.

• Developmental definition
• Neighborhood
• Neighborhood-level covariates (indicators)
Lima et al. (2010) • Externalizing and Internalizing problems NA Family risk Perceived negative social climate moderated the
Children entering first grade (US, Baltimore, • Census block groups effect of family risks on behavior problems such
n=405) • Community Involvement with Children that more risk was associated with a larger
(Willingness to intervene in acts of delinquency increment in both externalizing behavior problems
and misbehavior, to assist children in need, and and psychological problems for children living in
level of social interaction), Social climate high versus low risk neighborhoods.
(Physical/social disorder, fear of retaliation, fear
of victimization)

Lloyd and Hertzman (2010)
Children between the ages 5–6 (Canada, BC,
n=5022)
• Verbal and Language development, Cognitive
development
• Stakeholder-informed neighborhoods
• Disadvantage/ advantage (Index of concentration
at the extremes), Concentrated immigration,
Residential stability, Presence of caregivers, %
Aboriginal status
NA Rural/urban In rural neighborhoods, increased concentrated
immigration predicted increased kindergarten
language scores. In urban neighborhoods,
increased concentrated immigration predicted
increased kindergarten language and
communication scores.
An increased proportion of young children in a
neighborhood predicted decreases in rural
children's language scores.
Increased concentrations of Aboriginal persons
predicted decreased urban children's kindergarten
language scores.

164
Lovasi et al. (2014)
Children of African American and Dominican
women (US, New York City, n=326)
• Child intelligence and Neurodevelopment NA Child's prenatal exposure to Neighborhood-level low English proficiency was
1 km network buffers around prenatal home polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons independently associated with lower overall
• address (PAH) intelligence scores and lower verbal and
• Poverty, Education, English-proficiency, performance scores. Low neighborhood-level
Inadequate plumbing educational attainment was also associated with
lower performance scores.
Neighborhood associations were similar or
diminished among the high PAH exposure group,
as compared with the low PAH exposure group.

Martens et al. (2014) • School readiness NA NA No statistically significant relationship between

Children ages 0–19 living in social housing in
Winnipeg (Canada, MB, n=712)
Midouhas et al. (2014)
Children in the Millennium Cohort Study (UK,
n=9850)
• Community Centre Areas (CCAs, average
population appr. 10,000)
• Neighborhood income quintiles
• Emotional and behavioral problems
• Administrative boundary: “Lower layer Super
Output Area”
• Human capital (education, occupation)
Parental involvement, Quality of
home environment (home
organization), School environment
(school achievement)
Child's nonverbal ability
income quintile and school readiness among
children living in social housing.
Low neighborhood human capital was related to
hyperactivity and peer problems, but effects were
fully attenuated by the achievement level of
children's schools.
Low neighborhood human capital was associated
with greater conduct problems, and change in
conduct problems over time.
Higher nonverbal ability did not dampen the
adverse impact of low neighborhood human capital
on the trajectory of conduct problems.

O'Campo et al. (2010)Children entering
first grade (US, Baltimore, n=393)
• Behavioral competence
• Census block group
• Disadvantage (poverty,
Parenting behavior Intimate partner violence (IPV) in While positive neighborhood characteristics such as
the family high levels of community involvement with
public assistance, children—based upon four scales capturing
(continued on next page)
Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
 Table 2 (continued)
Citation
Study population (setting, sample size)
Odgers et al. (2009)Nationally
representative sample of twins (E-
Longitudinal Twin Study, UK, n=2232)
Puchala et al. (2010)
Children attending kindergarten in Saskatoon
(Canada, SK, n=5833)
165
Riina et al. (2014)
Caregivers and their children in the Project on
Human Development in Chicago
Neighborhoods (PHDCN) (Chicago, US,
n=2810)
Rydland et al. (2014)
Turkish immigrant children (Norway, n=26)
Sastry and Pebley (2010)
Children ages 3–17 participating the Los
Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (LA,
US, n=2350)
Singh and Ghandour, (2012) Children
aged 6–17 years, 2007 National Survey of
Children's Health (US, n=59,531)
Main model parameters Mediator (s) Moderator (s) Results
outcome
A. Minh et al.
• Developmental definition
• Neighborhood
• Neighborhood-level covariates (indicators)
unemployment, female-headed households), neighborhood levels of social interaction and
Community involvement with children, Negative collective socialization of children—were protective
social climate (Physical/social disorder, fear of for high levels of behavioral problems among
retaliation, fear of victimization) families not reporting IPV, this protective effect was
not seen among families who did report IPV.
These interactions between neighborhood factors
and IPV were not explained by parental factors.
• Antisocial behavior NA Collective efficacy Deprivation was associated with higher levels of
• Postal code antisocial behavior at school entry and a slower rate
• Deprivation of decline from involvement in antisocial behavior
between the ages of 5 and 10.
Even after controlling for neighborhood problems
and family-level factors, collective efficacy was
negatively associated with levels of antisocial
behavior at school entry but only in deprived
neighborhoods.
• School readiness NA Child speaks English as a second High residential stability and low employment was
• Stakeholder-informed neighborhoods language (ESL) associated with lower scores on the communication
• Income, Ethnic diversity, Education, skills and general knowledge domains only.
Employment, Residential The difference in scores between non-ESL and ESL
• Stability. Single parents, % Aboriginal status children decreased as neighborhood diversity
increased.
• Internalizing and externalizing problems NA Parent-to-child physical aggression The difference in internalizing problems between
• Neighborhood clusters of census tracts low and high cohesion neighborhoods among
• Disadvantage, cohesion, immigrant children exposed to parent-to-child physical
concentration, residential stability aggression was statistically significant only at ages
11 and older. The difference in internalizing
problems between low and high cohesion
neighborhoods among children not exposed to
PCPA was not statistically significant
• Vocabulary skills NA NA Children in the neighborhood with fewer co-ethnics
• NA (only two neighborhoods compared) had better vocabulary skills at age 5 than children
• Education, Co-ethnic concentration in the neighborhood with more co-ethnics. This
difference was maintained up to age 10.
• Reading and math skills NA NA There were large effects of average neighborhood
• Census tract income on children's reading and mathematics
• Neighborhood median income achievement.
• Behavioral problems Family cohesion; Social Age Higher levels of behavioral problems were
• MI participation; Geographic mobility; Gender associated with socially disadvantaged
• Neighborhood social conditions (Safety, presence Sleep behavior; Television watching Race/ethnicity neighborhoods and lower household SES. The
of litter, poor/dilapidated housing, vandalism) neighborhood and household socioeconomic effects
were reduced but remained highly significant after
adjusting for potentially intervening variables
Interactions of neighborhood conditions and
household SES with age and gender were not
(continued on next page)
Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
A. Minh et al. Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174

The effects of neighborhood violence, employment,

neighborhood conditions and household SES varied

There were no mediation effects found for family or

Low neighborhood SES was associated with poorer

social variables between neighborhood factors and

female-headed households do not manifest in first

4.3.1. How: Evidence of neighborhood mediators

grade, but affect the trajectory of child aggression

cognitive functioning and high neighborhood ESL

A large number of moderation effects were found

statistically significant. However, the impacts of
Structural factors exert their influence on children's development

although there was not a clear pattern to the

income, and percentages of single males and

by determining the distribution of resources or risks that may alter
development (i.e., via neighborhood-level mediators). This review

with children's behavioral functioning.

found the most evidence of mediation for neighborhood social-inter-

Note: PHWB = Physical Health and wellbeing, SC = Social competence, EM = Emotional maturity, LCD = Language and cognitive development, CSGK = Communication skills and general knowledge, NA = Not applicable.
between first and seventh grades.
active mechanisms. Social-interactive resources or the lack thereof
significantly by race/ethnicity
were examined with indicators such as parents’ perceived social and
physical disorder, fear of retaliation or victimization (O'Campo et al.,
2010), and researchers’ ratings of noise and safety (De Marco and
Vernon-Feagans, 2013). Though one study found no relationship

child outcomes.
between neighborhood social capital and behavioral outcomes
(Delany-Brumsey et al., 2014), and another found that behavioral
Results

results.
problems were more common within neighborhoods with less violence
(Fedor et al., 2010), the majority of studies found evidence to support
theories that social-interactive mechanisms mediate the relationship
Family social risk (depression, locus
of control, social support, violence);

between neighborhood SES and developmental health. Studies found

that a lack of safety, increased neighborhood social disorder, less
Family involvement in child's

belonging, less social cohesion, and a lower potential for community

involvement with children (or collective efficacy), was directly related
to worse language, emotional, and behavioral outcomes for children
(Bubier et al., 2009; Brown and Ackerman, 2011; Callahan et al., 2011;
Moderator (s)

Fite et al., 2010; Singh and Ghandour, 2012; Froiland et al., 2014;
education

Riina et al., 2014); and in many cases, partially explained the

association between early developmental health and neighborhood
NA

disadvantage (Edwards and Bromfield, 2009, O'Campo et al., 2010,

De Marco and Vernon-Feagans, 2013).
Family social risk (depression, locus
of control, social support, violence);

By contrast, the reviewed studies provided relatively less evidence

Neighborhood family structure

supporting theories of institutional or geographic mechanisms; none of

Family involvement in child's

the studies provided evidence on environmental mechanisms that link

Neighborhood violence;

neighborhood residence with developmental health. One study exam-

Neighborhood income;

ined remoteness, a geographical mechanism, but found that it failed to

explain the relationship between neighborhood SES and Australian
Mediator (s)

children's conduct problems (Edwards and Bromfield, 2009).

education

Institutional processes that were examined included school-advantage,

child-care quality, and neighborhood facilities and services. Greater
school advantage (measured as the proportion of students not eligible
to receive free lunch or achievement levels) (Dupere et al., 2010,
SES; English-Second-Language status; High
SES; Mobile, young, and diverse; Family density

Midouhas et al., 2014), higher quality child-care institutions (measured

• Neighborhood-level covariates (indicators)

according to the quality of stimulation and support given to children in

the child care setting) (Dupere et al., 2010, De Marco and Vernon-
Feagans, 2013), and a stronger relationship between caregivers and
development, Behavior

children at childcare institutions (Dupere et al., 2010), partially

explained how neighborhood advantage may be related to better
definition
outcome

language and cognitive development in early childhood. Edwards and

Main model parameters

Bromfield (2009) found, however, that the relationship between

neighborhood SES and children's behavioral outcomes was not sig-
aggression
• Developmental
• Neighborhood

tracts

tracts

nificantly explained by the quality of neighborhood facilities such as

• Employment
• Cognitive

parks, play-spaces, roads, and access to shopping, services and

• Census

• Census

transportation. Leventhal and Shuey (2014) found no relationship

• Child
• Low

between the presence of youth services in a neighborhood and

children's behavioral functioning, when controlling for other neighbor-
hood and individual-level variables.
Children aged 3 or older who are participating

All of the above neighborhood-level mechanisms may exert their

Urban girls and boys between the first and
in the Head Start program (US, n=1785)

seventh grades (US, Baltimore, n=1409)

influence on developmental health by subsequently altering aspects of

children's family lives, including their parents’ access to resources to
Study population (setting, sample size)

support children's development, parental wellbeing, and parenting

Vaden-Kiernan et al. (2010)

behaviors. Studies in this review found that the quality, structure,

and nature of the family environment explained at least part or all of
Vanfossen et al. (2010)

the relationship between neighborhood SES and developmental health

(Froiland et al., 2014; Brown and Ackerman, 2011 Dupere et al., 2010;
Table 2 (continued)

Flouri et al., 2010b, Heberle et al., 2014, Jeon et al., 2014, Kingston
et al., 2013, O'Campo et al., 2010, Singh and Ghandour, 2012).
Children who lived in more advantaged neighborhoods had better
Citation

early language and cognitive development, as measured by their

vocabulary and reading scores in Grade 1; this association was partially
explained by more learning materials at home, heightened parental

166
 Table 3
Theoretical processes, conceptual linkages to early child development, and the empirical constructs and indicators used.

Theory Conceptual Linkage Constructs Indicators Notable studies

A. Minh et al.

How: Structural mechanisms and mediators (neighborhood and family-level)

Structural mechanisms

Neighborhood Institutions and social and economic patterns inherent in Disadvantage/ Poverty Andersen et al. (2014); Carpiano et al. (2009); Cushon et al.
disadvantage/ neighborhood life influence child outcomes by creating advantage Income (inequality) (2011); Flouri et al. (2013); Hanson et al. (2011); Martens et al.
advantage opportunities, providing resources, and encouraging behavior. Deprivation Employment (2014); Vanfossen et al. (2010); De Marco and Vernon-Feagans
Relevant neighborhood institutions include the neighborhood's Opportunity structure Occupation (2013); Delany-Brumsey et al. (2014); Dupere et al. (2010);
employment patterns, economic vitality, educational and religious Female-headed households Edwards and Bromfield (2009); Fite et al. (2011); Flouri et al.
institutions, family structure, and the political institution. Family structure (2010b, 2012); Froiland et al. 2013; Grinstein-Weiss et al. (2012);
Change in deprivation Heberle et al. (2014); Jeon et al., (2014); Kershaw and Forer
(2010); Kingston et al. (2013); Kohen et al. (2009); Leventhal and
Shuey (2014); Lloyd and Hertzman (2010); Lovasi et al. (2014);
O'Campo et al. (2010); Odgers et al. (2009); Puchala et al. (2010);
Riina et al. (2014); Sastry and Pebley (2010); Vaden-Kiernan et al.
(2010)
Intersectionality Multiple systems of oppression can simultaneously, influence Gendered dimensions of Social assistance Benson and Borman (2010); Hanson et al. (2013); Kershaw and
children (e.g., race, class, gender, citizenship, etc.) Instead of a care Child-care services Forer (2010); Puchala et al. (2010); Rydland et al. (2014); Hanson
single, universal neighborhood effect on development, there may Racial inequalities Race/ethnic composition et al. (2011)
be some effects on some outcomes, in some population groups,
and in some types of neighborhoods

Social-interactive mechanisms

Collective efficacy/Social In neighborhoods with high levels of “mutual trust or willingness Collective efficacy Community involvement with children Delany-Brumsey et al. (2014); Edwards and Bromfield (2009);

167
disorganization to intervene or the common good” of the community, residents Social capital Social interaction between neighbours O’Campo et al. (2010); Odgers et al. (2009); Bubier et al. (2009);
trust one another and work together to: fight cuts to services such Social cohesion Psychological sense of community De Marco and Vernon-Feagans (2013); Callahan (2011); Singh
as recreational facilities or healthcare; maintain their Collective socialization Trust and Ghandour (2012); Riina et al. (2014)
neighborhoods against neglect, destruction, or abandonment, Collective efficacy
which can directly impact child emotional well-being; and provide Social climate
social support to one another. Disorder Negative social climate Caughy et al. (2013); Edwards and Bromfield (2009); O’Campo
Concentrated economic disadvantage and population instability Social disorder Residential stability et al. (2010); Singh and Ghandour (2012); Brown and Ackerman
can erode trust and the willingness of residents to act for the Social disorganization Crime (2011); De Marco & Vernon-Feagans (2013); Callahan et al.
common good, which may compromise parenting and family Poor physical conditions Abandoned cars (2011); Fedor et al. (2010); Fite et al. (2010); Lima et al. (2010)
management processes, such as child monitoring. Parents may Neglected buildings
have more difficulty accessing resources in the community, such Poor lighting
as after school programs or extracurricular activities that might Trash Violence
foster child development. Safety concerns can also limit children's
opportunities to play.
Norms and Collective When many families in a community share similar practices Social capital Collective efficacy De Marco and Vernon-Feagans (2013); Delany-Brumsey et al.
socialization regarding children, strong collective norms may develop. In this Social cohesion Mutual assistance between neighbours (2014); Leventhal and Shuey (2014)
way, adults in a neighborhood can influence young people who are Collective socialization Informal social control
not their children, acting as role models for young children; as
enforcers, monitoring children's behaviors, maintaining order,
and intervening when necessary.
Social networks Relationships between early childhood well-being and Social networks Frequency of informal contact with De Marco and Vernon-Feagans (2013); Edwards and Bromfield
neighborhood characteristics may be mediated through support Social networks neighbours (2009); Leventhal and Shuey (2014); Froiland et al. (2014)
networks available to parents, parental behavior, and the home Relations/kin Number of family members and friends
environment.
Epidemic or Contagion Residents in the neighborhood can influence one another. For Peer influences % English speaking residents Caughy et al. (2013)
example, children living in affluent neighborhoods may benefit
developmentally by interacting with peers who are more
developmentally advanced.
Transactional Neighborhood structural features influence individuals' Parental perceptions of Quality of facilities Edwards and Bromfield (2009)
(continued on next page)
Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
 Table 3 (continued)

Theory Conceptual Linkage Constructs Indicators Notable studies

A. Minh et al.

How: Structural mechanisms and mediators (neighborhood and family-level)

Structural mechanisms

perceptions of the neighborhoods which in turn are related to the neighborhood Safety
neighborhood social processes. Neighborhood social processes Cleanliness
subsequently affect children's outcomes Belonging

Family-level The neighborhood may affect (through any of the mechanisms Family adversity Parental depression Brown and Ackerman (2011); Delany-Brumsey et al. (2014);
listed) parents’ physical and mental health, stress, coping skills, Family risk Adverse life events (e.g., family financial Dupere et al. (2011); Flouri et al. (2010a, 2010b)
sense of efficacy, behaviors, and material resources. All of these, crisis, family death, injury of family Gristein-Weiss et al. (2012); Heberle et al. (2014); Jeon et al.
in turn, may affect the home environment in which children are member, etc.) (2014); Kingston et al. (2013); Lima et al. (2010); Midouhas et al.
raised. Intimate partner violence (2014);
Renter O’Campo (2010), Singh and Ghandour (2012); Vaden-Kiernan
Parent-child relationship Quality of home learning environment et al. (2010); Froiland et al. (2014)
Parenting practices Cognitive stimulation at home
Supportive parenting Parenting behavior (e.g., authoritarian
Hostility vs. permissive)
Parent involvement with education
Connectedness
Maternal warmth

Institutional mechanisms

Institutional resources Affluent neighborhoods may have higher-quality public and Care/service context Child care quality De Marco and Vernon-Feagans (2013); Dupere et al. (2010);
private services. Adults who live outside the community but work Child care Presence of youth services Leventhal and Shuey (2014)

168
in these institutions (e.g., school teachers, community centre Youth services
workers, and librarians) can influence children's development. School environment School SES Dupere et al. (2014); Midouhas et al. (2014)
Classroom instructional quality

Geographical mechanisms
Geographic isolation Geographic isolation may limit residents’ access to jobs, shopping Remoteness Distance to good, services, and Edwards and Bromfield, 2009
outlets, and public institutions putting children's development at opportunities for social participation
risk, but may also be a protective factor given less exposure to
drugs, violence, and other social problems.

Environmental mechanisms
Toxin exposure Children may be exposed to unhealthy levels of air-, soil-, and/or Toxin exposure Air-pollution levels Lovasi et al., (2014)
water-borne pollutants because of the current and historical land
uses and other ecological conditions in their neighborhoods

Where: Dependence on place characteristics

We did not find evidence of theoretical frameworks that describe moderation of the Rural vs. urban Rural/Urban Lloyd and Hertzman, 2010
neighborhood-developmental health relationship by place.

For whom? Dependence on child characteristics

Biological sensitivity Nervous system functioning may buffer the effect of stressors Cognitive ability School readiness Bubier et al. (2009); Callahan et al. (2011); Flouri et al. (2010a);
associated with neighborhood deprivation because it is related to Verbal/non-verbal ability Flouri et al. (2012); Midouhas et al. (2014); Lovasi et al. (2014)
greater self-control and strengthened control over emotions. Autonomic functioning Sympathetic functioning
Exposure to stressful environments may heighten stress reactivity. Developmental delay Developmental screening
Children with high stress reactivity are hypothesized to (a) be at Parental emotional Harsh parenting
risk for negative outcomes under conditions of adversity, and (b) regulation
experience positive outcomes under conditions of support
Parents who are harsh with their young children may also be less
(continued on next page)
Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
 Table 3 (continued)

Theory Conceptual Linkage Constructs Indicators Notable studies

A. Minh et al.

How: Structural mechanisms and mediators (neighborhood and family-level)

Structural mechanisms

able to regulate their own emotional reactivity in response to

stress from neighborhood conditions. The effects of harsh
parenting may thus be exacerbated.
Attachment For children whose security in the home is threatened violence or Parent-to-child physical Conflict tactics Riina et al., 2014
neglect, relationships with and between adults in the aggression
neighborhood may be compensatory sources of emotional
support. The extent to which an abused child views adult
neighbours as trustworthy may reduce chronic feelings of fear and
distress.
Programs and services High levels of program attendance may buffer the impact of Program attendance Weekly program attendance Fite et al. (2010)
neighborhood problems on child depressive symptoms.
Other We observed a lack of theoretical frameworks describing race or Race/ethnicity Puchala et al. (2010); Singh and Ghandour (2012); Leventhal and
ethnicity as a moderator of neighborhood effects amongst the English as a second language Shuey (2014)
reviewed studies.

Integrative models
Integrated process model Neighborhood structure and quality affect parental perceptions, Neighborhood structural Poverty O’Campo et al. (2010); Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn (2013); Bubier
behavior, experiences and child behavioral and cognitive characteristics Community involvement with children et al. (2009)
outcomes directly, but neighborhood characteristics can also serve Neighborhood social Intimate partner violence
as moderators of specified associations between parental behavior climate Parenting behavior
and perceptions. Neighborhood processes, such as social climate, Family environment
also serve to attenuate or enhance associations between parenting Parent/child relationship

169
and child outcomes.
Ecological models Included in this model is the concept of person–context
interactions: Individual characteristics (e.g., immigrant status)
influence contexts (e.g., neighborhood) in which children
develop; the bidirectionality of influence is such that contexts
(e.g., neighborhood social cohesion) also affect individuals (e.g.,
children's behavior). In addition, characteristics of contexts may
interact (e.g., concentration of immigrants and social ties) to
influence development.
Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
A. Minh et al.
responsiveness, and a higher level of stimulation at home compared
with children in less advantaged neighborhoods (Dupere et al., 2010).
By contrast, children in deprived neighborhoods had worse emotional
development, an association that was partially explained by higher
maternal or paternal depression or distress (Jeon et al., 2014; Flouri
et al., 2010a; Heberle et al., 2014). Children living in neighborhoods
with more negative social climates were found to have greater risk of
behavioral problems, an association that was statistically explained by
parenting practices (O'Campo et al., 2010). Only two studies that
examined characteristics of the family environment as a mediator
failed to find evidence to support this claim. Vaden-Kiernan et al.
(2010) found that neither family-level SES or family social factors
(including family involvement with the child's education) significantly
explained any of the relationship between neighborhood SES and child
outcomes. Midouhas et al. (2014) found that neither reading to the
child nor home organization explained the relationship between
neighborhood SES and children's emotional and behavioral problems.
4.4. Where: Neighborhood-level moderators
The mechanisms that alter early childhood development, whether
they originate from the neighborhood or family level, may have a
stronger or weaker impact depending on where they occur. Six of the
reviewed studies provide insight into the place-based factors that may
moderate the relationship between neighborhood characteristics and
child development outcomes (De Marco and Vernon-Feagans, 2013,
Leventhal and Shuey, 2014, Odgers et al., 2009, Kingston et al., 2013,
Puchala et al., 2010, Lloyd and Hertzman, 2010). However, studies
seemed to lack common conceptual frameworks or methodological
guidelines—in some instances, it appeared that moderation effects were
not tested based on theoretical hypotheses, but were reported because
the statistical analyses were conducted in a way that generically tested
main effects and interaction terms.
Two studies found that the concentration of immigrants in a
neighborhood had a stronger association with children's development,
but that this association was dependent on the outcome considered, the
racial/ethnic group in question, and the urbanicity of the neighborhood
(Lloyd and Hertzman, 2010; Leventhal and Shuey, 2014). Odgers et al.
(2009) found that improvement in children's emotional development
was related to collective efficacy in the neighborhood – residents’
ratings of shared norms in the neighborhood, trust, and the likelihood
of their neighbours to intervene (Sampson et al., 1997) – but only if
these children lived in deprived neighborhoods and not if they lived in
affluent ones. De Marco (2013) found that collective socialization
moderated the relationship between neighborhood safety and child
care quality which was related to children's receptive language skills.
One study found that children were less likely to engage in externaliz-
ing behaviors despite having less-involved parents, but only if they
lived in neighborhoods that had many adults, compared to neighbor-
hoods with fewer adults (Kingston et al., 2013). The authors concluded
that results pointed to the importance of interventions that addressed
community resources, rather than focus solely on interventions that
primarily promoted parental engagement. Finally, one study found that
the extent to which developmental inequalities existed between groups
of children differed between places. Specifically, children who spoke
English as a second language (ESL) had lower communication and
general knowledge scores compared to native English speakers, but the
gap between ESL and non-ESL children was greater in ethnically
homogeneous neighborhoods than it was in neighborhoods with
greater diversity (Puchala et al., 2010).
4.5. For whom: Child-level moderators
Studies examined cross-level interactions to determine whether
children's developmental status, health, or social background shapes
the extent to which neighborhood mechanisms alter their development.
170
Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
Cross-level interactions involve a variable indicating neighborhood-
level risks or resources (such as income or employment, or social
climate and community involvement with children) interacting with a
variable indicating risk or resources at the child or family level (such as
family income or the quality of the parent-child relationship (Lima
et al., 2010), or adverse events like a death in the family (Flouri et al.,
2010b)).
Some significant cross-level interactions were observed in this
review. First, three studies found evidence that the characteristics of
children – their experiences of environmental exposure, their cognitive
abilities, and their nervous system functioning – moderate the relation-
ship between neighborhood adversity and developmental health
(Lovasi et al., 2014; Flouri et al., 2012; Bubier et al., 2009). Lovasi
et al. (2014) looked at pre-natal toxin exposure as a moderator of the
effect of neighborhood structural features – including indicators of
poverty, education, and cultural isolation – on cognitive development
at age 5, among African American children from New York City. They
found that for children with high prenatal exposure to the environ-
mental toxin, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), neighborhood
disadvantage was associated with worse performance on an intelligence
test at age 5 than among children with low prenatal PAH exposure.
Flouri et al. (2012) found that verbal and non-verbal cognitive ability
moderated the association between neighborhood deprivation and
emotional and behavioral problems. In a study of 57 children from
high-poverty neighborhoods, Bubier et al. (2009) observed that chil-
dren whose nervous system function indicated higher risk of behavioral
problems had fewer externalizing behaviors in highly cohesive neigh-
borhoods. Contrary to their hypothesis, however, they also observed
that for children whose nervous system functioning indicates greater
sensitivity to contextual influence, there was a greater risk of externa-
lizing behaviors associated with more neighborhood cohesion.
Four studies also found evidence that the neighborhood effects on
development depend on children's familial life (Lima et al., 2010;
O'Campo et al., 2010; Callahan et al., 2011, Kingston et al., 2013). Two
of these found that stressful family environments, including the
experience of family adversity and harsh parenting, augmented the
negative effect of neighborhood adversity on their emotional develop-
ment and behavioral outcomes (Lima et al., 2010; Callahan et al.,
2011). Two other found that, children who reported violence in their
family through intimate partner violence (O;Campo et al., 2010) or
physical aggression from their parents (Riina et al., 2014) failed to
experience the benefits to their social and emotional development that
might have come from living in neighborhoods with high levels of
community involvement and social cohesion. Riina et al. (2014)
additionally found that age was a factor in this moderating effect. In
their study, while social cohesion buffered the effect of violence at home
for children above the age of 11, the same protective effect was not
observed for young children. By contrast, one study found that children
with supportive family environments were found to experience aug-
mented benefits from living in advantaged neighborhoods (Kingston
et al., 2013). In a study conducted in an urban area in the United
States, children who had parents that were highly involved with their
children's education were found to have better social development than
children whose parents were less involved, particularly if they lived in
affluent neighborhoods (Kingston et al., 2013).
One study found a protective effect of accessing community-based
programs. From a sample of 147 children between the ages of 5–13
years, Fite et al. (2011) observed that children had fewer behavioral
problems and depressive symptoms if they lived in a neighborhood
with greater social and economic problems, but more frequently
attended the community-based care program.
The findings from this review, however, do not yet provide
conclusive evidence about which combinations of neighborhood and
child-family-level risks or resources are most impactful for predicting
specific developmental outcomes. For example, studies found incon-
sistent results for the moderating effects of gender, race/ethnicity, and
A. Minh et al.
immigrant status (Leventhal and Shuey, 2014; Fedor et al., 2010; Singh
and Ghandour, 2012) in the relationship between neighborhood
conditions and developmental health. Two studies failed to find an
association for the interaction between family adversity and neighbor-
hood SES on children's psychopathology (Flouri et al., 2010a, 2010b).
One study failed to find an interaction between caregiver depression
and neighborhood social capital on children's behavioral problems
(Delany-Brumsey et al., 2014). While Vaden-Kiernan et al. (2010)
observed a large number of moderation effects, there was no clear
pattern to their results. The characteristics of families and children that
exacerbate or dampen the neighborhood effect on developmental
health may be specific to both the developmental domain and to the
neighborhood mechanism at work.
5. Discussion
The last few decades have seen an increase in quantitative evidence
to show that children's residential environments are related to their
early developmental health. Using research from 2009, we attempted
to show not only the importance of residential environments, but also
what the evidence says about how, where, and for whom neighbor-
hoods matter. In terms of ‘how’ neighborhoods influence developmen-
tal health, the evidence from our review would suggest that social
inequalities between neighborhoods are related to variability in early
childhood development. These effects are mediated through social
interactive mechanisms such as safety or the likelihood that the
community would intervene on children. However, less is known about
the how environmental, geographical, and institutional mechanisms
link neighborhood residence to developmental health.
The reviewed evidence also showed that neighborhood mechanisms
are related to the differences in children's family environments. In the
majority of studies that examined family-level variables, such as the
learning environment at home or parenting practices, family-level
variables were found to explain all or part of the association between
neighborhoods and children's development. These studies underscore
the importance of the environment that is most proximal to the child,
the family, while recognizing that families exist in relation to the
people, resources, and opportunities within their residential environ-
ments.
In terms of ‘where’ and ‘for whom’ the reviewed research demon-
strates that developmental inequalities between neighborhoods may be
magnified or buffered in some places but not others, and for some
individuals but not others. The same mechanism that is important to
developmental health in some areas may not be relevant in others.
Similarly, while there is a social gradient in developmental health in
relation to neighborhood SES, characteristics and experiences of the
child with regard to their health, social position, and family environ-
ment, may make some more vulnerable to poor developmental health
than others. Most of the reviewed studies did not refer to a cohesive
theory for driving research about which place- or child-level character-
istics interact with one another to impact which developmental out-
comes and why. The field may therefore benefit from striving toward
greater conceptual-methodological integration.
5.1. Knowledge gaps about how: gender, ethnicity, and other
structural determinants
A number of knowledge gaps remain. First, there is less clarity
about the developmental impact of social divisions between neighbor-
hoods by gender, ethnicity, and race, perhaps because compared with
SES (or poverty) less data exists to operationalize such stratifications.
Available data may also fail to adequately capture the complexity of
such concepts. Only one of the reviewed studies attempted to identify
gendered dimensions of children's residential environments that may
be related to their developmental health (Kershaw and Forer, 2010).
While a number of the reviewed studies looked at ethnic dimensions of
171
Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
neighborhoods, their findings were mixed, suggesting little in the way
of conclusions about how ethnicity and place come together to
influence developmental health.
Given prominent early conceptualizations of racial segregation as
key mechanisms through which social disparities are reinforced
(Wilson, 1987; Williams and Collins, 2001; Charles, 2003), the failure
for studies to find conclusive evidence of these theories signals a need
for more research. To adequately investigate such aspects of social
stratification of opportunities and resources by place, it may be
important to develop data sources that would allow one to operatio-
nalize concepts of race and ethnicity. Fully characterizing the social
inequalities that racialized and ethnic minorities experience in associa-
tion with their residential environments may not only require assess-
ment of self-reported race and ethnicity but also multiple aspects of
racism, or acculturation that contribute to health and disease. At the
institutional level, residential segregation is a mechanism for racism
that can restrict children and families from accessing needed resources
such as quality schools and services. The subjective experiences of
discrimination can negatively affect mental and physical health
(Paradies et al., 2015). The inconsistency seen in the current quanti-
tative evidence would suggest that there may be a need for ongoing
theoretical development about how these concepts underlie area-based
deprivation and developmental inequality and how they can be
measured.
Perhaps more importantly, there remains a gap in evidence about
the social structures or policies that produce or reduce social inequal-
ities by neighborhood. None of the studies in this review provided
evidence of the structural macro-social factors that shape residential
segregation (e.g., economic restructuring, migration, discrimination,
and public policies). These upstream forces drive social differences
across areas or neighborhoods (Diez Roux, 2001), and must therefore
be linked to neighborhood differences and mechanisms.
5.2. Knowledge gaps about how: Improving inference about
mediation via qualitative studies and natural experiments
Future research must also more deeply explore how the way
children and their families interact with their neighborhood is shaped
by the variability in neighborhood characteristics, and how it may
contribute developmental inequalities. Though our review found much
evidence to support social-interactive mediators of the relationship
between neighborhoods and developmental health, we also observed
that mediation effects remain a challenge for statistical studies on
neighborhood effects on child development. Unlike models in which
there are clear etiological pathways or temporal precedence of ex-
posure, mediator, and outcome, the statistical examination of neigh-
borhood impacts reviewed in this study was continually hampered by a
lack of distinction in the temporal ordering of indicators of neighbor-
hood exposure, neighborhood or family-level mediators, and develop-
mental outcome. This is especially true of family-level variables. While
they strongly explain the statistical association between neighborhood
SES and developmental health, it is unclear whether they do so because
they in fact mediate the relationship or because there is a tendency of
families with certain characteristics to self-select into neighborhoods of
certain kinds. These debates recall questions about whether it is
theoretically important and/or appropriate to distinguish between
composition (family and individual-level) and context (neighborhood)
(Macintyre et al., 2002).
Rather than attempt to statistically separate context and composi-
tion, we therefore suggest two approaches to help future research
elucidate mediation. First, neighborhood effects researchers may
incorporate qualitative methods into their studies, which have histori-
cally complemented and strengthened quantitative evidence about the
mechanisms linking neighborhoods with developmental health in early
childhood (Galster, 2012). Such methods may allow researchers to
meaningfully engage in discussions of mediation that extend its
A. Minh et al.
definition beyond traditional cause and effect models towards the more
dynamic models of people and the places that they live in, that is
suggested by the bio-ecological theory of developmental health.
Second, the challenge of understanding mediation may be ad-
dressed in studies using natural experimental designs, which take a
more pragmatic, intervention-based approach to understanding the
modifiable aspects of neighborhood effects on developmental health.
For example, neighborhoods periodically change as a result of policies
or due to grass-roots efforts by residents. They also may change due to
rise in property prices or industrial events, such as closure of sources of
employment (Formoso et al., 2010). The study of developmental
consequences of these changes may be thought of as natural experi-
ments involving variation to characteristics in the environment. Such
studies have the benefit of not only examining mediators by examining
modifiable pathways and interventions, but also generating evidence
about the actions that will be most effective and efficient under
different conditions (Braveman et al., 2011). Within the counterfactual
framework, these studies also have the benefit of reducing selection
biases that have hindered the inference of causal relationships in
observational studies. For these reasons, we join others in recommend-
ing that neighborhood effects research brings together data that may be
used in the analysis of natural experiment designs (Diez Roux, 2008;
Galster and Santiago, 2015).
5.3. Knowledge gaps about where and for whom
While the reviewed evidence as yet do not lead us to draw
conclusions about where and for whom neighborhood effects are
important, they do reinforce the notion that the neighborhood effects
on developmental health are not generalizable across all places or all
people (Sharkey and Faber, 2014). These findings may have profound
implications for ensuring that research evidence informs policies with
greater specificity. The unintended consequences of failing to account
for differences by population or place have been demonstrated in
studies of the Moving to Opportunity project – a housing intervention
giving low-income residents the opportunity to move to more affluent
neighborhoods – which was found to effectively improve the mental
health of young girls but was deleterious to the delinquent behavior of
young boys (Osypuk et al., 2012). Similarly, previous findings that
family factors interact differently with children's outcomes in rural and
urban areas (Janus, 2011) suggest that the constraints or opportunities
afforded by the characteristics of the settings may be necessary
considerations for developing effective policies. Researchers may
therefore look across groupsand settings to understand how neighbor-
hood characteristics (such as social climate, or urbanicity) or individual
characteristics (such as ethnicity, and gender) may shape children's
experiences of policy changes and interventions. Such efforts should
also aim to strengthen underdeveloped theories about where and for
whom neighborhoods are important to children's developmental
health.
5.4. Emerging possibilities for studying neighborhood effects on early
childhood development
In the past, researchers faced limitations with describing how,
where, and for whom neighborhoods matter, due to logistical chal-
lenges with capturing data at multiple ecological levels, over time, and
for large enough populations that allow test of effects at neighborhood,
family, and child levels. Today, such barriers are being broken down. In
Canada, for example, a coalition of researchers and governments are
collaborating Canadian Neighborhoods and Early Childhood
Development project (CanNECD; Guhn et al., 2016). CanNECD has a
research agenda that aims to monitor children's development and their
neighborhoods across the country and over multiple time points. The
developmental data, representing almost 90% of children from over
2000 neighborhoods across the country and over multiple time points,
172
Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
already linked with customized sociodemographic data, offers oppor-
tunity to study the association of child development and neighborhood
across jurisdictions (e.g., Webb et al., 2017, Guhn et al., 2016), and
may be further linked with other data sources (e.g., economic data,
policy data) to systematically test hypotheses about the structural
processes that create social hierarchies within and between neighbor-
hoods (i.e. macro-social determinants). One may, for example, com-
pare early childhood development across many time points and
jurisdictions across Canada to investigate the impact of different policy
environments as they change. These data may also help researchers to
identify key neighborhoods into which one might conduct qualitative
studies that add depth to existing theories about gender and ethnic
divisions of place; or to further explore mechanisms that link neigh-
borhood residence with inequalities in early childhood development.
Together, such studies fill gaps in knowledge about how neighborhoods
influence early childhood development. Finally, because this monitor-
ing system collects representative data, it has the statistical power to
support a research agenda that aims to understand the features of place
and individual children which moderate the relationship between
neighborhood residence and developmental health i.e. where and for
whom. Given a unique population-level database, projects such as
CanNECD present opportunities to examine questions about how,
where and for whom certain neighborhood characteristics are most
salient in a way that was not previously possible.
6. Conclusion
From Urie Bronfenbrenner's first iteration of an ecological systems
theory of human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) to his bio-
ecological theory of human development, as presented in 2006
(Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2007), the person-process-context-time
model presented challenges with to operationalization. Its complexity
is in its portrayal of the multiple processes taking place across a
number of ecological levels and over time that jointly affect child
development outcomes. The recent development of benchmark data on
neighborhood and developmental indicators would be a starting point
for this research agenda. This review suggests that from within the
ongoing challenges of researching the how, where, and for whom
neighborhoods are important to developmental health, there emerge
opportunities to advance the evidence in this field.
References
Andersen, T.G., Dobrev, D., Schaumburg, E., 2014. A robust neighborhood truncation
approach to estimation of integrated quarticity. Econom. Theory 30, 3–59.
Anderson, S., Leventhal, T., Dupéré, V., 2014. Exposure to neighborhood affluence and
poverty in childhood and adolescence and academic achievement and behavior.
Appl. Dev. Sci. 18, 123–138.
Arksey, H., O'malley, L., 2005. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework.
37-41.
Ash, M., Fetter, T.R., 2004. Who lives on the wrong side of the environmental tracks?
Evidence from the EPA's risk-screening environmental indicators model. Social. Sci.
Q. 85, 441–462.
Aylward, G.P., 1997. Infant and early childhood neuropsychology. Clinical child
psychology library. Plenum Press, New York.
Bartley, M., Power, C., Blane, D., Smith, G.D., Shipley, M., 1994. Birth-weight and later
socioeconomic disadvantage - evidence from the 1958 British cohort study. Br. Med.
J. 309, 1475–1478.
Benson, J., Borman, G.D., 2010. Family, neighborhood, and school settings across
seasons: when do socioeconomic context and racial composition matter for the
reading achievement growth of young children? Teach. Coll. Rec. 112, 1338–1390.
Benson, M.J., Faas, C., 2014. Assessing adolescent contexts: measures of families, peers,
schools and neighborhoods. Int. J. Child Adolesc. Health 7, 53–69.
Berube, A., 2010. Comment on Mark Joseph's “Is mixed ‐ income development an
antidote to urban poverty?”. Hous. Policy Debate 17, 235–247.
Blas, E., Gilson, L., Kelly, M.P., Labonte, R., Lapitan, J., Muntaner, C., Ostlin, P., Popay,
J., Sadana, R., Sen, G., Schrecker, T., Vaghri, Z., 2008. Addressing social
determinants of health inequities: what can the state and civil society do? Lancet
372, 1684–1689.
Boyce, W.T., Ellis, B.J., 2005. Biological sensitivity to context: i. An evolutionary-
developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Dev.
Psychopathol. 17, 271–301.
A. Minh et al.
Braveman, P., Egerter, S., Williams, D.R., 2011. The social determinants of health:
coming of age. Annu. Rev. Public Health 32, 381–398.
Bronfenbrenner, U., 1979. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature
and Design.
Bronfenbrenner, U., 1999. Environments in developmental perspective: theoretical and
operational models. In: Friedman, S.L., Wachs, T.D., Friedman, S.L., Wachs, T.D.
(Eds.), Measuring Environment Across the Life Span: Emerging Methods and
Concepts.. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, US.
Bronfenbrenner, U., Morris, P.A., 2007. The Bioecological Model of Human
Development. Handbook of Child Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G.J., Klebanov, P.K., Sealand, N., 1993. Do neighborhoods
influence child and adolescent development? Am. J. Sociol. 99, 353–395.
Brown, E.D., Ackerman, B.P., 2011. Contextual risk, maternal negative emotionality, and
the negative emotion dysregulation of preschool children from economically
disadvantaged families. Early Educ. Dev. 22, 931–944.
Brownell, M.D., Ekuma, O., Nickel, N.C., Chartier, M., Koseva, I., Santos, R.G., 2016. A
population-based analysis of factors that predict early language and cognitive
development. Early Child. Res. Q. 35, 6–18.
Bubier, J.L., Drabick, D.A.G., Breiner, T., 2009. Autonomic functioning moderates the
relations between contextual factors and externalizing behaviors among inner-city
children. J. Fam. Psychol. 23, 500–510.
Callahan, K.L., Scaramella, L.V., Laird, R.D., Sohr-Preston, S.L., 2011. Neighborhood
disadvantage as a moderator of the association between harsh parenting and toddler-
aged children's internalizing and externalizing problems. J. Fam. Psychol. 25, 68–76.
Carpiano, R.M., Lloyd, J.E.V., Hertzman, C., 2009. Concentrated affluence, concentrated
disadvantage, and children's readiness for school: a population-based, multi-level
investigation. Social. Sci. Med. 69, 420–432.
Caughy, M.O.B., Leonard, T., Beron, K., Murdoch, J., 2013. Defining neighborhood
boundaries in studies of spatial dependence in child behavior problems. Int. J.
Health Geogr. 12, 24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-12-24.
Charles, C.Z., 2003. The dynamics of racial residential segregation. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 29,
167–207.
Choo, H.Y., Ferree, M.M., 2010. Practicing Intersectionality in Sociological Research: a
Critical Analysis of Inclusions, Interactions, and Institutions in the Study of
Inequalities. Sociol. Theory 28, 129–149.
Chum, A., 2011. Policy implications of neighbourhood effects on health research:
towards an alternative to poverty deconcentration. Health Place 17, 1098–1104.
Cushon, J.A., Vu, L.T.H., Janzen, B.L., Muhajarine, N., 2011. Neighborhood poverty
impacts children's physical health and well-being over time: Evidence from the Early
Development Instrument. Early Educ. Dev. 22, 183–205.
Daly, B.P., Shin, R.Q., Thakral, C., Selders, M., Vera, E., 2009. School engagement among
urban adolescents of color: does perception of social support and neighborhood
safety really matter? J. Youth Adolesc. 38, 63–74.
Darcy, M., 2010. De-concentration of disadvantage and mixed income Housing: a critical
discourse approach. Hous., Theory Soc. 27, 1–22.
De Marco, A., Vernon-Feagans, L., 2013. Rural neighborhood context, child care quality,
and relationship to early language development. Early Educ. Dev. 24, 792–812.
Delany-Brumsey, A., Mays, V.M., Cochran, S.D., 2014. Does neighborhood social capital
buffer the effects of maternal depression on adolescent behavior problems? Am. J.
Community Psychol. 53, 275–285.
Diez Roux, A.V., 2001. Investigating neighborhood and area effects on health. Am. J.
Public Health 91, 1783–1789.
Diez Roux, A.V., 2008. Next steps in understanding the multilevel determinants of
health. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 62, 957–959.
Doherty, G., 1997. Zero to six: The basis for school readiness. Human Resources
Development Canada.
Dupere, V., Leventhal, T., Crosnoe, R., Dion, E., 2010. Understanding the positive role of
neighborhood socioeconomic advantage in achievement: the contribution of the
home, child care, and school environments. Dev. Psychol. 46, 1227–1244.
Earls, F., Buka, S., 2000. Measurement of community characteristics. In: Meisels,
J.P.S.S.J. (Ed.), Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention2nd ed.. Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY, US.
Edwards, B., Bromfield, L.M., 2009. Neighborhood influences on young children's
conduct problems and pro-social behavior: evidence from an Australian national
sample. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 31, 317–324.
Fedor, M.C., Bender, S.L., Carlson, J.S., 2010. Examining risk and protective factors in
head start populations located in high- and low-violence communities. Infants
Young-. Child. 23, 209–217.
Fite, P.J., Vitulano, M., Wynn, P., Wimsatt, A., Gaertner, A., Rathert, J., 2010. Influence
of perceived neighborhood safety on proactive and reactive aggression. J.
Community Psychol. 38, 757–768.
Fite, P.J., Vitulano, M.L., Preddy, T.M., 2011. The positive impact of attending a
community-based youth program on child depressive symptoms. J. Community
Psychol. 39, 804–814.
Flouri, E., Tzavidis, N., Kallis, C., 2010b. Area and family effects on the psychopathology
of the Millennium Cohort Study children and their older siblings. J. Child Psychol.
Psychiatry 51, 152–161.
Flouri, E., Tzavidis, N., Kallis, C., 2010a. Adverse life events, area socioeconomic
disadvantage, and psychopathology and resilience in young children: the importance
of risk factors' accumulation and protective factors' specificity. Eur. Child Adolesc.
Psychiatry 19, 535–546.
Flouri, E., Mavroveli, S., Tzavidis, N., 2012. Cognitive ability, neighborhood deprivation,
and young children's emotional and behavioral problems. Social. Psychiatry
Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 47, 985–992.
Flouri, E., Mavroveli, S., Midouhas, E., 2013. Residential mobility, neighbourhood
deprivation and children's behaviour in the UK. Health Place 20, 25–31.
173
Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
Formoso, D., N Weber, R., Atkins, M, S., 2010. Gentrification and urban children's well-
being: tipping the scales from problems to promise. Am. J. Community Psychol. 46,
395–412.
Fox, N.A., Calkins, S.D., Bell, M.A., 1994. Neural plasticity and development in the 1st 2
years of life - evidence from cognitive and Socioemotional domains of research. Dev.
Psychopathol. 6, 677–696.
Froiland, J.M., Powell, D.R., Diamond, K.E., Son, S.-H.C., 2013. Neighborhood
socioeconomic well-being, home literacy, and early literacy skills of at-risk
preschoolers. Psychol. Sch. 50 (8), 755–769. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.21711.
Froiland, J.M., Powell, D.R., Diamond, K.E., 2014. Relations among neighborhood social
networks, home literacy environments, and children's expressive vocabulary in
suburban at-risk families. Sch. Psychol. Int. 35, 429–444.
Galster, G.C., 2012. The Mechanism(s) of Neighbourhood Effects: Theory, Evidence, and
Policy Implications. In: Van ham, M., Manley, D., Bailey, N., Simpson, L. &
Maclennan, D. (eds.) Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives.
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Galster, G.C., Santiago, A.M., 2015. Evaluating the potential of a natural experiment to
provide unbiased evidence of neighborhood effects on health. Health Serv. Outcomes
Res. Methodol. 15, 99–135.
Grinstein-Weiss, M., Key, C., Yeo, Y.H., Yoo, J., Holub, K., Taylor, A., Tucker, J., 2012.
Homeownership, Neighbourhood Characteristics and Children’s Positive Behaviours
Among Low- and Moderate-income Households 49. Urban Studies (Sage
Publications, Ltd.), 3545–3563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098012443861.
Guhn, M., Janus, M., Enns, J., Brownell, M., Forer, B., Duku, E., Muhajarine, N., Raos,
R., 2016. Examining the social determinants of children's developmental health:
protocol for building a pan-Canadian population-based monitoring system for early
childhood development. BMJ Open 6, e012020.
Hanson, J.L., Hair, N., Shen, D.G., SHI, F., Gilmore, J.H., Wolfe, B.L., Pollak, S.D., 2013.
Family poverty affects the rate of human infant brain growth. PLoS One 8, e80954.
Hanson, M.J., Miller, A.D., Diamond, K., Odom, S., Lieber, J., Butera, G., Horn, E.,
Palmer, S., Fleming, K., 2011. Neighborhood community risk influences on
preschool children's development and school readiness. Infants Young-. Child. 24,
87–100.
Heberle, A.E., Thomas, Y.M., Wagmiller, R.L., Briggs-Gowan, M.J., Carter, A.S., 2014.
The impact of neighborhood, family, and individual risk factors on toddlers'
disruptive behavior. Child Dev. 85, 2046–2061.
Heim, C., Plotsky, P.M., Nemeroff, C.B., 2004. Importance of studying the contributions
of early adverse experience to neurobiological findings in depression.
Neuropsychopharmacology 29, 641–648.
Hertzman, C., Boyce, T., 2010. How experience gets under the skin to create gradients in
developmental health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 31, 329–347, (3p following 347).
Jackson, L., Langille, L., Lyons, R., Hughes, J., Martin, D., Winstanley, V., 2009. Does
moving from a high-poverty to lower-poverty neighborhood improve mental health?
A realist review of 'Moving to Opportunity'. Health Place 15, 961–970.
Janus, M., 2011. Transition to school. In: Laverick, D.M., Jalongo, M.R. (Eds.),
Transitions to Early Care and Education. International Perspectives on Making
Schools Ready for Young Children.. Springer, Netherlands.
Janus, M., Offord, D., 2007. Development and psychometric properties of the Early
Development Instrument (EDI): a measure of children's school readiness. Can. J.
Behav. Sci. 39, 1–22.
Jencks, C., Mayer, S.E., 1990. The social consequences of growing up in a poor
neighborhood. In: Lynn, L.E., Mcgeary, M.G.H. (Eds.), Inner-City Poverty in the
United States.. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Jeon, L., Buettner, C.K., Hur, E., 2014. Family and neighborhood disadvantage, home
environment, and children's school readiness. J. Fam. Psychol.: JFP: J. Div. Fam.
Psychol. Am. Psychol. Assoc. (Div. 43) 28, 718–727.
Joseph, M.L., 2010. Is mixed‐income development an antidote to urban poverty? Hous.
Policy Debate 17, 209–234.
Jutte, D.P., Roos, L.L., Brownell, M.D., 2011. Administrative record linkage as a tool for
public health research. Annu. Rev. Public Health 32 (32), 91–108.
Kagan, S.L., 1992. Readiness pPast, present, and future - shaping the agenda. Young-.
Child. 48, 48–53.
Kagan, S.L., 1999. Cracking the readiness mystique. Young-. Child. 54, 2–3.
Kershaw, P., Forer, B., 2010. Selection of area-level variables from administrative data:
an intersectional approach to the study of place and child development. Health Place
16, 500–511.
Kingston, S., Huang, K.Y., Calzada, E., Brotman, L., 2013. Parent involvement in
education as a moderator of family and neighbourhood socioeconomic context on
school readiness among young children. J. Community Psychol. 41, 265–276.
Knudsen, E.I., 2004. Sensitive periods in the development of the brain and behavior. J.
Cogn. Neurosci. 16, 1412–1425.
Kohen, D., Oliver, L., Pierre, F., 2009. Examining the effects of schools and
neighbourhoods on the outcomes of Kindergarten children in Canada. Int. J. Speech-
Lang. Pathol. 11, 404–418.
Kohen, D.E., Hertzman, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., 1998. Neighbourhood influences on
children’s school readiness. Hull, Quebec.
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., O'brien, K.K., 2010. Scoping studies: advancing the
methodology. Implement. Sci., 5.
Leventhal, T., Brooks-Gunn, J., 2000. The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of
neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychol. Bull. 126,
309–337.
Leventhal, T., Shuey, E.A., 2014. Neighborhood context and immigrant young children's
development. Dev. Psychol. 50, 1771–1787.
Levitt, P., 2003. Structural and functional maturation of the developing primate brain. J.
Pediatr. 143, S35–S45.
Lima, J., Caughy, M., Nettles, S.M., O'Campo, P.J., 2010. Effects of cumulative risk on
A. Minh et al.
behavioral and psychological well-being in first grade: Moderation by neighborhood
context. Social. Sci. Med. 71, 1447–1454.
Link, B.G., Phelan, J.O., 1995. Social conditions as fundamental causes of disease. J.
Health Social. Behav. 35, 80–94.
Litt, J.S., Tran, N.L., Burke, T.A., 2002. Examining urban brownfields through the public
health "macroscope". Environ. Health Perspect. 110 (Suppl 2), 183–193.
Lloyd, J.E.V., Hertzman, C., 2010. How neighborhoods matter for rural and urban
children's language and cognitive development at kindergarten and Grade 4. J.
Community Psychol. 38, 293–313.
Lovasi, G.S., Eldred-Skemp, N., Quinn, J.W., Chang, H.-W., Rauh, V.A., Rundle, A.,
Orjuela, M.A., Perera, F.P., 2014. Neighborhood social context and individual
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposures associated with child cognitive test
scores. J. Child Fam. Stud. 23, 785–799.
Love, J.M., Aber, J.L., Brooks-Gunn, J., Mathematica Policy Research, I., 1994.
Strategies for Assessing Community Progress Toward Achieving the First National
Educational Goal. Mathematic Policy Research.
Macintyre, S., Ellaway, A., Cummins, S., 2002. Place effects on health: how can we
conceptualise, operationalise and measure them? Social. Sci. Med. 55, 125–139.
Martens, P.J., Chateau, D.G., Burland, E.M.J., Finlayson, G.S., Smith, M.J., Taylor, C.R.,
Brownell, M.D., Nickel, N.C., Katz, A., Bolton, J.M., 2014. The effect of neighborhood
socioeconomic status on education and health outcomes for children living in social
housing. Am. J. Public Health 104, 2103–2113.
Midouhas, E., Kuang, Y., Flouri, E., 2014. Neighbourhood human capital and the
development of childrens emotional and behavioural problems: the mediating role of
parenting and schools. Health Place 27, 155–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.healthplace.2014.02.004.
Mitchell, C., Hobcraft, J., Mclanahan, S.S., Siegel, S.R., Berg, A., Brooks-Gunn, J.,
Garfinkel, I., Notterman, D., 2014. Social disadvantage, genetic sensitivity, and
children's telomere length. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 5944–5949.
Monk, C.S., Webb, S.J., Nelson, C.A., 2001. Prenatal neurobiological development:
molecular mechanisms and anatomical change. Dev. Neuropsychol. 19, 211–236.
Mountain, J.A., Nyaradi, A., Oddy, W.H., Glauert, R.A., DE Klerk, N.H., Straker, L.M.,
Stanley, F.J., 2016. Data linkage in an established longitudinal cohort: the Western
Australian Pregnancy Cohort (Raine) Study. Public Health Res Pract., 26.
Nickel, N.C., Chateau, D.G., Martens, P.J., Brownell, M.D., Katz, A., Burland, E.M.J.,
Walld, R., Hu, M.M., Taylor, C.R., Sarkar, J., Goh, C.Y., Team, P.E., 2014. Data
Resource Profile: Pathways to Health and Social Equity for Children (PATHS Equity
for Children). Int. J. Epidemiol. 43, 1438–1449.
Noble, K.G., Engelhardt, L.E., Brito, N.H., Mack, L.J., Nail, E.J., Angal, J., Barr, R., Fifer,
W.P., Elliott, A.J., Network, P., 2015. Socioeconomic disparities in neurocognitive
development in the first two years of life. Dev. Psychobiol. 57, 535–551.
Oakes, J.M., 2006. Commentary: advancing neighbourhood-effects research–selection,
inferential support, and structural confounding. Int J. Epidemiol. 35, 643–647.
O'Campo, P., 2012. Are we producing the right kind of actionable evidence for the social
determinants of health? J. Urban Health-Bull. New Y. Acad. Med. 89, 881–893.
O'Campo, P., Caughy, M.O., Nettles, S.M., 2010. Partner abuse or violence, parenting and
neighborhood influences on children's behavioral problems. Social. Sci. Med. 70,
1404–1415.
Odgers, C.L., Moffitt, T.E., Tach, L.M., Sampson, R.J., Taylor, A., Matthews, C.L., Caspi,
A., 2009. The protective effects of neighborhood collective efficacy on british children
growing up in deprivation: a developmental analysis. Dev. Psychol. 45, 942–957.
Osypuk, T.L., Schmidt, N., Nguyen, Q., Lincoln, A.L., 2012. Effects of housing mobility
and lower poverty neighborhoods on adolescent asthma: the moving to opportunity
experiment. Am. J. Epidemiol. 175, (S48-S48).
Paradies, Y., Ben, J., Denson, N., Elias, A., Priest, N., Pieterse, A., Gupta, A., Kelaher, M.,
Gee, G., 2015. Racism as a determinant of health: a systematic review and meta-
analysis. PLoS One 10, e0138511.
Puchala, C., Vu, L.T.H., Muhajarine, N., 2010. Neighbourhood ethnic diversity buffers
school readiness impact in ESL children. Can. J. Public Health Rev. Can. De. St.
Publique 101, Suppl, S13–8.
Putnam, S., Galea, S., 2008. Epidemiology and the macrosocial determinants of health. J.
Public Health Policy 29, 275–289.
Riina, E.M., Martin, A., Brooks-Gunn, J., 2014. Parent-to-child physical aggression,
neighborhood cohesion, and development of children's internalizing and
externalizing. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 35, 468–477.
Roos, N.P., Roos, L.L., Brownell, M., Fuller, E.L., 2010. Enhancing policymakers'
understanding of disparities: relevant data from an information-rich environment.
Milbank Q. 88, 382–403.
Roosa, M.W., Jones, S., Tein, J.-Y., Cree, W., 2003. Prevention science and neighborhood
174
Health & Place 46 (2017) 155–174
influences on low-income children's development: theoretical and methodological
issues. Am. J. Community Psychol. 31, 55–72.
Rydland, V., Grover, V., Lawrence, J., 2014. The second-language vocabulary trajectories
of Turkish immigrant children in Norway from ages five to ten: the role of preschool
talk exposure, maternal education, and co-ethnic concentration in the neighborhood.
J. Child Lang. 41, 352–381.
Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., Earls, F., 1997. Neighborhoods and violent crime: a
multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277, 918–924.
Sampson, R.J., Morenoff, J.D., Earls, F., 1999. Beyond social capital: spatial dynamics of
collective efficacy for children. Am. Sociol. Rev. 64, 633–660.
Sampson, R.J., Morenoff, J.D., Gannon-Rowley, T., 2002. Assessing "neighbourhood
effects": social processes and new directions in research. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 28,
443–478.
Sastry, N., Pebley, A.R., 2010. Family and neighborhood sources of socioeconomic
inequality in children's achievement. Demography 47, 777–800.
Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S.L., Frelow, V.S., 2006. Conceptualization of readiness and the
content of early learning standards: the intersection of policy and research? Early
Child. Res. Q. 21, 153–173.
Sellström, E., Bremberg, S., 2006. The significance of neighbourhood context to child and
adolescent health and well-being: a systematic review of multilevel studies. Scand. J.
Public Health 34, 544–554.
Shankardass, K., Dunn, J.R., 2012. How Goes the Neighbourhood? Rethinking
Neighbourhoods and Health Research in Social epidemiology. In: O’Campo, P.,
Dunn, J.R. (Eds.), Rethinking Social Epidemiology. Springer Netherlands,
Dordrecht.
Sharkey, P., Faber, J.W., 2014. Where, when, why, and for whom do residential contexts
matter? moving away from the dichotomous understanding of neighborhood effects.
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 40, 559–579.
Shonkoff, J.P., Phillips, D.A., 2000. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of
Early Childhood Development. National Academy Press, Washington.
Singh, G.K., Ghandour, R.M., 2012. Impact of neighborhood social conditions and
household socioeconomic status on behavioral problems among US children.
Matern. Child Health J. 16, 158–169.
Solar, O., Irwin, A., 2010. A Conceptual Framework for Action on the Social
Determinants of Health.
Stern, M.P., Bartley, M., Duggirala, R., Bradshaw, B., 2000. Birth weight and the
Metabolic Syndrome: thrifty phenotype or thrifty genotype? Diabetes-Metab. Res.
Rev. 16, 88–93.
Tunstall, H.V., Shaw, M., Dorling, D., 2004. Places and health. J. Epidemiol. Community
Health 58, 6–10.
Ursache, A., Noble, K.G., 2016. Neurocognitive development in socioeconomic context:
multiple mechanisms and implications for measuring socioeconomic status.
Psychophysiology 53, 71–82.
Vaden-Kiernan, M., D'elio, M.A., O'brien, R.W., Tarullo, L.B., Zill, N., Hubbell-Mckey, R.,
2010. Neighborhoods as a developmental context: a multilevel analysis of
neighborhood effects on Head Start families and children. Am. J. Community
Psychol. 45, 49–67.
Van Ham, M., Manley, D., 2012. Neighbourhood effects research at a crossroads. Ten
challenges for future research Introduction. Environ. Plan. A 44, 2787–2793.
van Vuuren, C.L., Reijneveld, S.A., Van Der Wal, M.F., Verhoeff, A.P., 2014.
Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation characteristics in child (0-18 years) health
studies: a review. Health Place 29, 34–42.
Vanfossen, B., Brown, C.H., Kellam, S., Sokoloff, N., Doering, S., 2010. Neighborhood
context and the development of aggression in boys and girls. J. Community Psychol.
38, 329–349.
Vimpani, G., 2000. Developmental health and the wealth of nations. Health Promot. Int.
15, 181–182.
Wadsworth, M.E.J., Kuh, D.J.L., 1997. Childhood influences on adult health: a review of
resent work from the British1946 national birth cohort study, the MRC National
survey of Health and development. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 11, 2–20.
Webb, S., Janus, M., Duku, E., Raos, R., Brownell, M., Forer, B., Guhn, M., Muhajarine,
N., 2017. Neighbourhood socioeconomic status indices and early childhood
development. SSM - Popul. Health 3, 48–56.
Williams, D.R., Collins, C., 2001. Racial residential segregation: a fundamental cause of
racial disparities in health. Public Health Rep. (Wash., D. C.: 1974) 116, 404–416.
Wilson, W.J., 1987. The truly disadvantaged: the inner city, the underclass, and public
policy.
Wu, A.D., Zumbo, B.D., 2008. Understanding and using mediators and moderators.
Social. Indic. Res. 87, 367–392.