Shannon Shaughnessy Hi, my  name is Shannon Shaughnessy.   I am a Fourth Year Child Clinical PhD  Student at the University of Miami. So, youth interact with their physical  environments every day and there’s been   some evidence that these interactions can actually  have implications for mental health outcomes. So,   for instance, exposure to green  spaces or things like forests,   parks, outdoor spaces can have opportunities for  things like physical activity or social cohesion,   which we know are actually associated  with mental health benefits. And some   Researchers actually found similar effects  for blue spaces or things like rivers,   lakes, or oceans, but there’s a little  bit less work that’s been done on that,   so it’s a little more unclear. Whereas on the  flipside, grey spaces, like built environments   and pavement may be associated with worse mental  health outcomes. And that could potentially be   because of things like increased exposure to  violence, crime, neighbourhood disadvantage, or   even stuff like noise pollution, which we know is  associated with negative mental health outcomes. So – but why does this matter now? So, youth  today are faced with changing environments in a   way that we’ve never actually really seen before.  So, all three of those spaces I mentioned. So,   the green, blue and grey spaces look different  than they did ten, 20, even 50 years ago,   and that’s because of things like climate change  and urbanisation. So, really this is all super   new and it’s critical that we have a thorough  understanding of how exposure to those different   physical environments might be influencing  the mental health outcomes of our youth. So, there have been some gaps in the prior  research on physical environments and mental   health. For instance, very few studies  have looked at longitudinal effects,   especially on how environmental variables might  impact the change of psychopathology over time   using something like a latent growth curve  model. We also see a lack of research on the   early adolescent period, or ages nine to 13, which  we know is actually a really critical phase of   development where there’s a lot of biological  and social changes that are taking place.   So, furthermore, research on blue spaces or those  rivers, lakes and oceans is relatively new. So,   there’s a lot of uncertainty about any potential  associations that might be existing. So,   it was super important to me to address  those gaps for a couple of different reasons. So, most importantly is I felt we  needed greater clarification on any   potential long-term impacts and especially as our  physical environments continue to rapidly change.   So, I also wanted to help provide  a more comprehensive picture of   these effects by examining green, blue, and  grey spaces instead of just focusing on one   and by really zooming in on that early  adolescent period, so ages nine to 13. So, there were a few findings that were  particularly surprising in my research. So,   the first, that – was that there were no  significant effects of blue space exposure. And   although research on blue spaces and adolescent  mental health has been mixed, I expected at least   some associations to emerge, especially because I  was using data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive   Development Study, which is such a large study  of adolescent development in the United States. So, another thing that was really surprising  was how most of the facts attenuated to   non-significant once sociodemographic variables  were accounted for. So, that includes things   like child race, gender, ethnicity, household  income, and neighbourhood disadvantage. So,   what this really highlighted to me is the  importance of considering a child’s entire context   when we’re asking these questions. So, exposure  to green, blue, and grey spaces can be confounded   with indicators of privilege such as socioeconomic  status. And it’s really important that we keep   that in mind and account for that in any sort  of analysis that we’re hoping to undertake. So, overall, my findings suggests that increased  exposure to green spaces can – may be beneficial   for adolescent mental health outcomes,  whereas increased exposure to those grey   spaces may be associated with more negative  outcomes. So, for real-world practices,   it would be important to consider how we  can increase access to those green spaces,   while also decreasing exposure to grey  spaces and ensuring equity for all youth. So, for schools, this may mean finding more  opportunities for children to go outside   during the school day and trying to incorporate  more activities that allow them to engage with   the green spaces around them. For communities,  this may mean making sure that we’re engineering   our outdoor spaces in a thoughtful way and  finding ways to incorporate more parks and   other green spaces into these already existing  urban environments. And for policymakers,   I could see a lot of opportunities to really  ensure that youth are provided access to these   natural environments in a more equitable way.  Because again, we know that not all youth have   equal access to these spaces, and that indicator  is a privilege, play a really massive role. So, I think my work compliments a lot of the  prior research that has already been done,   while simultaneously providing a really  thorough picture of these associations,   specifically in American adolescents. So, because  I use data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive   Development Study, I was able to examine  these associations across over 11,000 youth   in the United States and this helped to provide  a super generalisable picture of these effects. So, I also think that my work highlights the  importance of examining longitudinal change   and making sure that we’re being really  thoughtful about the analyses that we’re   using to do so when we’re examining questions  about place, space, and youth development. So,   latent growth curve modelling is a  really powerful and flexible technique,   and we haven’t really seen that a lot in the  prior literature in this area. And my research   helps highlight how helpful it could be to  start incorporating those techniques more. So, also, I kind of feel like, a little bit  of a broken record here, but I think my work   really highlights importance of considering  covariates and other indicators of privilege   when we’re trying to answer research questions in  this area. And I really do think that that’s one   of the most important things that we should keep  in mind when we’re having these conversations. So, there are definitely some key methodological  challenges that are worth considering. So,   something that my study really highlighted  is the importance of measurement. So – and   making sure that we’re asking questions like  what are we using to measure these variables?   How reliable is that measurement? When are  we measuring these variables? So, what point   in time? So – and these questions were really  highlighted with our blue space variables. So,   those are variables looking at exposure to blue  bodies of water like rivers, lakes, and oceans,   and for example, those variables actually didn’t  factor in the quality of those spaces. So,   a polluted water body could have  been weighted equally as a safe,   fresh water body and I imagine that may have  impacted our results. So, measurement is   something that’s really essential to consider when  we’re trying to undertake any study in this area. So, another challenge is that a lot of this  work is actually observational. So there have   been a handful of experimental studies that  exist, but those can be super tricky when   you’re thinking more about like how are they  going to be implemented. So, on the flipside,   observational studies, kind of prevent us from  drawing conclusions that we could draw if we   were using an experimental study. So, for  this study, I use data from the Adolescent   Brain Cognitive Development Study, which is  entirely observational, but I think it’s super   essential for Researchers to keep discussing  how we could incorporate more experimental   studies in this area. And I think it could help  clarify a lot of these outstanding questions. One of the most important messages is that it’s  impossible to look at a child in isolation. So,   they’re a product of their entire  context and that’s beyond just their   family or school or friends, their physical  environment matters a lot too. So – and   it’s important that we’re being thoughtful  about this, not only in a research context,   but when we’re aiming to treat these  child – these children clinically. So, another important message is that we have to  find ways to promote youth access to green spaces,   while reducing exposure to grey spaces as much as  we can. And again, this is going to look different   for every child, and it’s going to look different  as our environments continue to inevitably change,   but we have to make sure that we’re  continuing to have these conversations. So, one big question that I think we really need  to answer is, what role do blue spaces actually   play? So, is it that exposure to these spaces  really isn’t as effective for reducing negative   mental health outcomes as green spaces? Or are  they just effective in a different way? Why might   those differences be the case? I think all of  those questions are going to be really important   to think about going forward. And another big  question too is measurement. So, what’s’ the best   way to measure these environmental variables? Are  we being thoughtful enough with our measurement?   Are we being thoughtful about what we’re  using and the timeframe? And also, how can   we incorporate more objective measurements like  geocoding instead of just relying on self-report? So, those are definitely two big areas that  I think we need to focus on going forward,   and I think answering these questions  would really help us understand the link   between the environment and youth  mental health a little bit better.