Background: Optimal mental health in early childhood is key to later mental health, physical health, education, and social outcomes; yet, children facing disadvantage tend to have worse mental health and fewer opportunities to develop this foundation. An emerging body of research shows that neighborhoods provide important opportunities for the development of children’s mental health. Synthesizing this evidence can advance understandings of the features of the neighborhood built environment (e.g., housing, parks) that (1) promote optimal mental health in childhood and (2) reduce mental health inequities. Methods: We systematically searched and critically reviewed the international quantitative literature investigating associations between the neighborhood built environment and young children’s mental health. Results: 14 articles met inclusion criteria; most examined nature or public open space. Studies tended to find greater access to or quantity of neighborhood nature or public open space were associated with better mental health. Significant gaps included a lack of studies investigating social infrastructure, and few studies examined how the built environment related to positive mental health (i.e., functioning, rather than problems). Conclusions: Current evidence suggests there is some relationship, but additional research is needed that addresses these gaps and examines differences in associations between child subgroups (e.g., diverse socioeconomic backgrounds).

Creating ‘liveable’ cities has become a priority for various sectors, including those tasked with improving population health and reducing inequities. Two-thirds of the world’s population will live in cities by 2050, with the most rapid urbanisation in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). However, there is limited guidance about what constitutes a liveable city from a LMIC perspective, with most of the evidence relating to high-income countries, such as Australia. Existing liveability frameworks include features such as public transport, affordable housing, and public open space; however, these frameworks may not capture all of the liveability considerations for cities in LMIC contexts. This case study formed a multi-sectoral partnership between academics, policymakers (Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Victorian (Australia) Department of Health and Human Services), and a non-government organisation (UN Global Compact – Cities Programme). This study aimed to: 1) conceptualise and prioritise components of urban liveability within the Bangkok, Thailand context; 2) identify alignment to or divergence from other existing liveability tools; and 3) identify potential indicators and data sources for use within a Pilot Bangkok Liveability Framework. The Urban Liveability Workshop involving technical leaders from the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and a rapid review of liveability literature informed the conceptualisation of liveability for Bangkok. The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Working Group and key informants in Bangkok provided input into the liveability framework. Indicators identified for Bangkok were mapped onto existing liveability tools, including the UN Global Compact CityScan. Findings revealed commonalities with the Australian liveability definition, as well as new potential indicators for Bangkok. The resulting Pilot Bangkok Liveability Framework provides a structure for measuring liveability in Bangkok that can be implemented by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration immediately, pending appropriate data acquisition and licensing. The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Working Group and key informants identified core issues for implementation, including limited spatial data available at the district-level or lower. This study conceptualised urban liveability for Bangkok, a city in a LMIC context, with potential for adjustment to other cities. Future work should leverage opportunities for using open source data, building local capacity in spatial data expertise, and knowledge sharing between cities.

Neighbourhood-level interventions offer a promising opportunity to promote child mental health at a population level; however, neighbourhood effects are still regarded as a ‘black box’ and a better understanding of the specific design elements, such as public open space, is needed to inform actionable policy interventions. Methods: This study leveraged data from a population linked dataset (Australian Early Development Census—Built Environment) combining information from a national census of children’s developmental outcomes with individualised geospatial data. Associations between access to (within 400 m and 800 m from home), and quality of, public open space and child mental health outcomes across eight capital cities were estimated using multilevel logistic regression models, adjusting for demographic and contextual factors. Access was defined based on proximity of public open space to children’s home addresses, within distance thresholds (400 m, 800 m) measured along the road network. Effect modification was tested across maternal education groups. Results: Across the eight capital cities, inequities in access to child friendly public open spaces were observed across maternal education groups and neighbourhood disadvantage quintiles. Children with access to any type of public open space within 800 m of home had lower odds of demonstrating difficulties and higher odds of competence. Children with access to child friendly public open spaces within 800 m of home had the highest likelihood of demonstrating competence. Conclusion: Improving access to neighbourhood public open space appears to be a promising strategy for preventing mental health difficulties and promoting competence in early childhood. Action is needed to redress socio-spatial inequities in access to child friendly public open space.

Urban liveability is a global priority for creating healthy, sustainable cities. Measurement of policy-relevant spatial indicators of the built and natural environment supports city planning at all levels of government. Analysis of their spatial distribution within cities, and impacts on individuals and communities, is crucial to ensure planning decisions are effective and equitable. This paper outlines challenges and lessons from a 5-year collaborative research program, scaling up a software workflow for calculating a composite indicator of urban liveability for residential address points across Melbourne, to Australia’s 21 largest cities, and further extension to 25 global cities in diverse contexts.

Globally there is increasing interest in making cities more liveable for all, a concept which aligns strongly with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. However, existing tools for tracking progress towards more liveable, equitable cities have been developed primarily for cities in high-income country contexts, while there is little guidance for cities in low- or middle-income country contexts. This partnership project is a capacity-building collaboration between RMIT University (Australia), the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (Thailand), the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (Australia), the UN Global Compact – Cities Programme, and the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services (Australia). The project’s aim is to develop a city-wide liveability indicators system for Bangkok for informing urban planning policy. Thus far, over 60 liveability indicators have been generated for Bangkok. Moreover, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration has identified three Bangkok districts for deeper interrogation. This project is developing scalable tools for monitoring liveability and strategically informing urban planning policy in a low-to-middle income city context, with relevance to other cities. It has established an international liveability network and deeper understanding of shared challenges and created ongoing opportunities for capacity building and reciprocal learning.