Innocenti Report Card 17

Places and Spaces
Environments
and children’s well-being

The Innocenti Report Card series is designed to monitor and compare the performanceof economically advanced countries in securing the rights of their children.
Innocenti Report Card 17 was written by Eszter Timar, Anna Gromada, Gwyther Rees
and Alessandro Carraro with contributions from Dominic Richardson, Gunilla Olsson,
Celine Little, Dagna Rams, Gro Dehli Villanger, Nicole Quattrini, Tim Huijts, Mirza Balajand Terje Eikemo.
The United Nations Children’s Fund Office of Research – Innocenti (UNICEF Innocenti)
would like to acknowledge the generous support for Innocenti Report Card 17
provided by the Government of Italy.
Any part of this Innocenti Report Card may be freely reproduced using the following
reference:
UNICEF Office of Research (2022). Places and Spaces: Environments and children’swell-being, Innocenti Report Card 17, UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti,
Florence.
About the UNICEF Office of Research – Innocenti
In 1988, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) established a research centre
to support its advocacy for children worldwide and to identify and research current
and future areas of UNICEF work. The prime objectives of the UNICEF Office of
Research – Innocenti are to improve international understanding of issues relating tochildren’s rights, to help facilitate full implementation of the Convention on the Rightsof the Child, and to support advocacy worldwide. The Office aims to set out acomprehensive framework for research and knowledge within the organization,in support of its global policies and programmes. Through strengthening research
partnerships with leading academic institutions and development networks in boththe North and the South, UNICEF Innocenti seeks to leverage additional resources
and influence in support of efforts towards policy reform, in favour of children.
The Office of Research – Innocenti receives financial support from the Governmentof Italy, while funding for specific projects is also provided by other governments,
international institutions and private sources, including UNICEF National Committees.
Publications produced by the Office are contributions to a global debate on children
and may not necessarily reflect UNICEF policies or approaches. The views expressed
are those of the authors.
The designations employed in this publication and the presentation of the material do
not imply on the part of UNICEF the expression of any opinion whatsoeverconcerning the legal status of any country or territory, or of its authorities or thedelimitations of its frontiers.
Cover photo © Yukiko Noritake - garance illustration llc©United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2022
ISBN: 9788865220641
UNICEF Office of Research – InnocentiVia degli Alfani 58 - 50121 Florence, Italy
Tel: +39 055 2033 0
Fax: +39 055 2033 220
researchpublications@unicef.org
www.unicef-irc.org@UNICEFInnocenti on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube
Graphic design: Art&Design Srl, Rome

Innocenti Report Card 17

Places and Spaces
Environments
and children’s well-being

2

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

FOREWORD

Home. In a good childhood, home
is a safe and stable place, withhealthy food to eat, clean water todrink and a loving family.
Yet, many children – even in theworld’s richer countries – lackthese necessities of life. They are
surrounded by toxic air, lead
pollution, loud noise or mouldy
walls. Others live in homes that are
too dark, too cold or too crowded.
Unhealthy living conditions
irretrievably harm children’s mental
and physical well-being, their
cognitive development, and theirprospects for a happy and healthy
life. For a child living with highlevels of road traffic or without
enough green space in which toplay, the options to escape oroffset these dangers are few.
Environmental risks are also
unequally distributed. Children
from poorer families andmarginalized groups face greater
exposure to severe housing
deprivation, which deepens
disadvantage and perpetuates
cycles of poverty.
Beyond the doorstep of children’s
homes, schools and communities,
our collective home – the planet– is also in jeopardy. Risingtemperatures, loss of biodiversity
and extreme weather events
threaten both livelihoods andlives themselves. The pressurethat our natural resources arecoming under and the mounting
waste are harmful to both ourchildren and our planet. The levelof consumption in most richcountries would require at least
three planet earths if replicated in
all countries. E-waste – the fastestgrowing type of domestic waste– contains hazardous substancesthat damage bodies and brains,and it takes its highest toll on
children.
Through global efforts to achievesustainable development anda more equitable world, theinternational community has
for decades been calling on
governments, the private sector,
civil society and individuals toprotect our planet. Children andyoung people have also sounded
the alarm, with millions globally
participating in climate strikes
and demanding transformative
action to save their own future on
the planet. The United Nations
Secretary-General’s report Our
Common Agenda presents “astark and urgent choice: abreakdown or a breakthrough”.
The first option is characterized
by “a perpetual crisis”, while thesecond offers the “prospect of agreener, safer, better future”.1
The good news is that, by tackling
one challenge, we improve thechances of solving another. Put
differently, what provides a childwith a safe and healthy homealso protects the environment.
Reducing motorized traffic,
for example, can have a positive
impact on road safety –making children’s journeys toschool safer – and can reducecarbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Or
transitioning towards sustainableagriculture can improve children’s
diets and reduce the environmental
damage of current foodproduction. These synergies arewell recognized in the Sustainable
Development Goals, where
meeting one goal is essential tomeeting another.
Conversely, if we, as a global
community, do not improve theenvironments in which children live
and develop, what hope is there fora better future? We can do better,
and we must. How? By listening
to children and young people; bymaking discerning choices about
how we consume and how wedispose of what we discard; bydesigning our neighbourhoods andhomes with children in mind; bysupporting children’s involvement
in environmental debates anddecisions; by ensuring that thedistinct needs of children are built
into environmental policies; andby pursuing policies and practices
that safeguard the naturalenvironment, on which children
and young people depend.

Gunilla Olsson
Director
UNICEF Office of Research –Innocenti

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

3

4

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

© Séverine Assous - garance illustration llc

SECTION 1
INTRODUCTIONI N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

5

SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION

Environmental changes taking
place around the world find theirway into the bodies and minds ofchildren. Through polluted air, waterand food, we each inadvertently
consume a quarter of a kilogramof plastic per year – equivalent toeating a credit card every week.
In nine of the world’s richest
countries, more than 1 child in 20
have elevated levels of lead in theirblood. The environmental ‘problem’
is not an abstract concept about
a distant future: it is affecting
children – right here, right now.
The results of climate change
are already clear and present.
Rising temperatures, higher sea
levels, air and soil pollution andextraordinary-turned-ordinary
weather events affect not only
the world we leave for future
generations, but also the brains,
lungs and hearts of us all today.
Globally, one death in four amongchildren aged under 5 years
could be averted by improving
environmental factors, such as
air pollution, water, sanitation,

6

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

hygiene or chemicals.2 Children
are especially vulnerable – partly
because their bodies and immune
systems are still developing, butalso because of their behaviour(for example, they are more likely
to put their fingers in their mouths
than adults). The consequencesof climate change will persist
throughout the lives of today’schildren, requiring them toadapt to, and mitigate, the risks
associated with a warming planet.
Yet, the environment influences not
only whether today’s children growup to be healthy and happy adults,
but also their current mental
well-being. A survey covering six
high-income countries3 reported
that nearly half of all young
people feel distressed about theenvironment to an extent that is
affecting their daily functioning.4
Some 6 in 10 believe that theirgovernments have failed them, as
regards the environment. Two infive have doubts about becoming
a parent in the future, due to theclimate crisis.

C A R D

1 7Rich countries, and rich people,
can often try to buy their way outof a crisis; but an environmental
crisis is different. Buying an air
purifier does not obviate the needto breathe public air. Even
if countries reduce their own
carbon footprint, they still face
the problems created by thosethat do not.
In October 2021, the United
Nations Human Rights Council
recognized the right to aclean, healthy and sustainable
environment,5 while the United
Nations Committee on the
Rights of the Child decided that acountry can be held responsible
for the impact of its emissions onchildren both within and beyond
its territory.6 Yet, more effort isneeded to avert the most direconsequences of environmental
neglect. The importance of having
all countries work towards thegoals set out in the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development is
becoming ever more apparent.

S E C T I O NDefinitions and scope
In English, the word ‘environment’
can be linked to many concepts –e.g., the ‘economic environment’or the ‘digital environment’. For
the purposes of this report, we
adopt a narrower focus on ‘theenvironment’ and use the term
to cover the physical aspects ofnatural and built environments thatchildren experience and that affecttheir well-being.
This definition, and the conceptual
framework that is presented
below, were developed on thebasis of a literature review;
consultations with research andpolicy professionals both within

and outside UNICEF; and focus
group discussions with young
people aged 10–17 years from
Canada, Chile, Mexico, Spain and
Sweden. When asked to define
the environment, young people
tended to list both natural andman-made elements; and toagree that nature, the landscapeand all living things are partof the environment. Children
highlighted the connections
between all living things – flora,
fauna and humans – and the needfor a balance between humans
and nature. Other definitionsof the environment included“everything that surrounds us”,
from the home that we live in

1

I N T R O D U C T I O N

to the planet as a whole. Someparticipants also mentioned that
culture and religion shape what
the environment is and how we
see it.
This report covers the 43
countries that are members of
the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development(OECD) and/or the European Union(EU), because their harmonizeddata infrastructures allow for acomparative analysis of children’s
environmental well-being. There
are some data limitations relating
to countries that have recently
joined the OECD, particularly
Colombia and Costa Rica.

AIMS
The report focuses on the following questions:
1. How do environmental factors affect children’s well-being?
2. How are many of the world’s richest countries faring in terms of providing a healthy
environment in which children can live, develop and thrive?
3. What actions can these countries take to improve the environments in which children live?

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

7

S E C T I O N

1I N T R O D U C T I O N

Our framework

Figure 1: Broad conceptual frameworkaround th
ec
orld
w
hi
e
l
h

e

rld of the
c
wo

ld
hi

Th

d

T

world at large
The

The child

The world
we will leavebehindThe world
we inherit

Over the past two decades,
UNICEF Innocenti Report Cards
have led the way in comparing
children’s well-being across richcountries. Innocenti Report Card 16
introduced a multi-level frameworkthat put the child at the centre.
Child outcomes – physical health,mental well-being and skills – areaffected by the world of the child,the world around the child and theworld at large. Innocenti Report
Card 17 takes this approach a
step further (see Figure 1). As thecurrent state of the environmentis shaped by past actions, and isalready shaping what lies ahead,
we add a time perspective to themodel: the world we inherit andthe world we leave behind. And
because the environmental actionsof one country can affect children
in others, we also consider the
impact that countries have beyond
their own borders.
Three crosscutting themes run
through our framework:
interlinkages, inequalities andchildren’s influence. Interlinkages
mean that many factors that cause
climate change in the long run
are also harming children now.
For example, cars emit CO2, butalso cause noise and air pollution,
take up space, create risks andlimit children’s activities, such as
playing outside.

8

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O NInequalities mean thatenvironmental factors affectpeople in different ways,
depending on their resources –as we have seen during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Somecountries and individuals are better
able to protect themselves thanare others. Environmental risks arealso spread both geographically– from rich countries to poor
countries – and temporally,
with today’s choices causing
tomorrow’s disasters.

Children, often the worst affectedby environmental problems, will
not only inherit them in the future,
but are also the least able toinfluence the course of events.
Choices that affect their lives aretaken by parents, governments
and businesses. Many of thenational climate plans submitted
ahead of the 26th United Nations
Climate Change Conference of
the Parties (COP26) were neither
child sensitive nor created withchildren’s participation.7

1

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Yet, young people are aware andare calling for action. In 2019,at the World Economic Forumin Davos, Greta Thunberg told
delegates: “I want you to act as
you would in a crisis. I want you
to act as if our house is on fire.
Because it is.”8

THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK IS APPLIED IN THIS REPORT AS FOLLOWS:
1. Child outcomes are grouped into three broad categories – physical health, mental well-being
and skills – as in Innocenti Report Card 16.
2. The world of the child focuses on children’s direct experiences of the environment, in termsof their consumption of air, water and food, and their exposure to light, noise, heat, cold andhazardous substances.
3. The world around the child covers the physical aspects of the environments that the childencounters directly, such as housing, green space, schools, traffic and environmental hazards.
4. The world at large refers to the broader context within which these physical environments are
created and maintained. This can include the impact of government policy and expenditure.
Here, we include the impact of a country’s actions not only within its borders, but also
externally.
5. The world we inherit refers to a country’s historical environmental record and actions, thecumulative results of which are still being felt today.
6. The world we leave behind refers to a country’s current actions and progress, which will
influence the environment in the future.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

9

S E C T I O N

1I N T R O D U C T I O N

Figure 2 depicts key topics that arecovered in this report within eachof these parts of the framework.

Finally, underpinning this analysis,
it is important to consider the
potential role of the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of theChild and of the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development inproviding opportunities for strong
advocacy on environmental issues(see also Spotlight 1).

The design of the framework lends
itself to exploring interlinkages
within and between levels, as will
be shown through an example
later in the report. Two othercross-cutting themes – children’s
influence and inequalities – arerelevant in each of the nested
circles.

Figure 2: Topics covered in this Report Card

Managementof natural environment
Housing andtransport policy
Waste/
recycling

Participation

Schoolplaygrounds

Housing quality

Playfacilities

Green
spacesRenewableenergyBasic home services

FoodpolicySpace
at homeInequalities

Emissions

Climate change
and natural disasters

Publictransport

Heat/cold
Toxicants

Water quality

Pesticides

Air pollutionLight
pollution

Noisepollution

Walkability

Traffic

Physical health
Mental well-being
SkillsFootprint

Historicalpollution

1 0

I N N O C E N T I

Loss ofbiodiversity

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

SECTION 2
A LEAGUE TABLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONSI N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

1 1

S E C T I O N

2AL E A G U E

T A B L E

O F

E N V I R O N M E N T A L

C O N D I T I O N S

SECTION 2
A LEAGUE TABLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS

Figure 3 presents a league tablebased on the best available
indicators to represent the aspectsof environmental conditions set
out in Figures 1 and 2. It contains
three indicators in each of threegroupings – the world of the child,the world around the child and theworld at large. Box 1 describes
the criteria we used in selecting
the indicators for the league
table. Table 1 provides details of
the definition and source of eachindicator, and also refers to thefigure in the report that shows
country statistics for the indicator.

Spain is at the top of the league
table – despite not being at the
top position in any of the individual
dimensions (it is ranked 8th forthe ‘world of the child’, and 13thfor both the ‘world around thechild’ and the ‘world at large’).
This is illustrative of the patternthat no country does consistently
well or consistently badly acrossall dimensions. Spain is followedby Ireland, a country with good
performance in the indicators
closest to the child but an average
record at the macro-level. Romania
lies at the bottom of the table,
where it is preceded by Costa Rica
and the United States of America.

The picture in Romania and Costa
Rica is remarkably different fromthat in the United States. In thefirst two, children’s immediate
environments are lacking (visible
from their low scores in the ‘worldof the child’ and ‘world around thechild’), but the countries are among
the least responsible for harming
the environment at large. The
United States, in contrast, performs
poorly in the ‘world at large’, while
there is also room for improvementin the ‘world of the child’ and the‘world around the child’.

BOX 1: HOW INDICATORS WERE SELECTED FOR THE LEAGUE TABLE
League table indicators were chosen to reflect different aspects of the framework presented in
Figure 1. The following criteria were used to select indicators.
Quality: Data had to meet high standards of quality, drawn either from national and internationallyrecognized data sources, or from peer-reviewed publications.
Coverage: Data should be available for all, or the great majority, of the Innocenti Report Card 17
countries.
Recency: Data should be available for 2018 or later.
Relevance: Data should be relevant to cross-national comparisons.
Variability: There should be enough cross-national variability to be informative.
Comparability: The indicators should have comparable meanings across cultures.

1 2

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O N

2AL E A G U E

T A B L E

O F

E N V I R O N M E N T A L

C O N D I T I O N S

Figure 3: A league table of environmental conditions that affect children’s well-being
Overall ranking

Country

World of the child

World around the child

World at large

1

Spain

8

13

13

2

Ireland

6

4

20

3

Portugal

25

9

9

4

Cyprus

15

17

10

5

Finland

1

2

30

6

Italy

7

16

14

7

Iceland

3

1

32

8

Slovenia

19

14

16

9

Germany

13

6

22

10

Sweden

4

10

26

11

United Kingdom

11

12

23

12

Netherlands

12

8

27

13

Japan

2

21

25

14

Norway

5

5

35

15

New Zealand

24

15

17

16

France

14

27

18

17

Switzerland

21

3

33

18

Hungary

34

22

6

19

Austria

9

19

29

20

Czechia

26

23

21

21

Estonia

27

11

28

22

Lithuania

32

24

15

23

Croatia

29

33

5

24

Denmark

18

26

34

25

Slovakia

31

29

11

26

Greece

22

35

8

27

Poland

30

31

7

28

Canada

17

7

38

29

Malta

33

18

24

30

Australia

10

20

37

31

Latvia

36

30

12

32

Republic of Korea

16

32

31

33

Chile

35

37

3

34

Israel

23

36

19

35

Bulgaria

37

34

4

36

Belgium

28

25

36

37

United States

20

28

39

38

Costa Rica

38

38

1

39

Romania39

39

2

Note: The ranking is calculated as follows: (1) a z-score for each indicator was calculated (reversed where necessary so that a higher score represents a
more positive condition); (2) the mean of the z-scores within each dimension was calculated; (3) the z-score for each mean was calculated and served as abasis for ranking a given dimension; (4) the mean of the three ranks was calculated and served as a basis for the final ranking. If two countries had the same
average of three ranks, the average of z-scores was used to determine their position. Countries are ranked on a dimension if they have data for at least twoof the three indicators. Four OECD/EU countries are not included in the ranking: Colombia is excluded due to missing data on the ‘world around the child’
dimension, while Turkey, Mexico and Luxembourg are excluded as they are extreme outliers on at least one indicator (z-scores below -4.0).

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

1 3

S E C T I O N

2AL E A G U E

T A B L E

O F

E N V I R O N M E N T A L

C O N D I T I O N S

prosperity is no guaranteethat children will grow up in ahealthy environment. In Canada
and Australia, present-day
environments appear relatively
child friendly, but the countries’unsustainable consumption
patterns threaten the future.

Many countries perform quite
differently across the three
dimensions, and not one nationshows consistently high or
low scores across them. The
presence of wealthy countries
in some of the bottom positions(such as the United States andBelgium) indicates that national

The league table therefore
presents a complex and multifaceted picture, which will be
explored more fully in the following
sections. Overall, no country does
well across the board. There issubstantial room for improvement,even among those at the top of
the table.

Table 1: Details of indicators included in the league table
DimensionWorldof the childWorldaroundthe child

FigureIndicator

Indicator definition

Source6

Air pollution

Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)
lost to unsafe air per 1,000 children(<15), 2019

Global Burden of Disease Collaborative
Network (2021). The Global Burden of
Disease Study 2019. Seattle, Institutefor Health Metrics and Evaluation(IHME)

7

Water pollution

DALYs lost to unsafe water per 1,000
children (<15), 2019

Global Burden of Disease Collaborative
Network (2021). The Global Burden of
Disease Study 2019. Seattle, IHME.

11

Lead poisoning

Percentage of children with elevatedblood lead levels (>5 micrograms per
decilitre), 2019

Rees, N. and Fuller, R. (2020). The Toxic
Truth: Children’s exposure to lead
pollution undermines a generation of
future potential. New York, UNICEF.

15

Overcrowding

Share of overcrowded households,
2019 or latest year available

OECD (2020). Affordable Housing
Database 2019. Paris: OECD.

18

Urban green space

Logarithmic Normalized Difference
Vegetation Index (NDVI) per capita, 2019

Kwon, O.-H., Hong, I., Yang, J., Wohn,
D. Y., Jung, W.-S. and Cha, M. (2021).
Urban green space and happiness indeveloped countries. EPJ Data Science,10(1).

22

Road safety

Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)
lost to road injuries per 1,000 children(<15), 3-year average of 2017–2019

Global Burden of Disease Collaborative
Network (2021). The Global Burden of
Disease Study 2019. Seattle: IHME.

25

Number of earths
required

The ratio of a country’s ecologicalfootprint to its biocapacity, 2018

Global Footprint Network (GFN) (2022).
National Footprint and Biocapacity
Accounts 2022 Public Data Package.
Geneva: GFN.

Total e-waste generated, kg per capita,
2019

Forti, V., Balde, C. P., Kuehr, R. and Bel,G. (2020). The Global E-waste Monitor
2020: Quantities, flows and the circular
economy potential. Bonn, Geneva andRotterdam: United Nations University
et al.

Consumption-based CO2 emissions,
metric tonnes per capita, 2019

Global Carbon Network (GCN) (2021).
The Global Carbon Budget Dataset.
Stanford: GCN.
For Iceland: Clarke, J., Heinonen, J.,
and Ottelin, J. (2017). Emissions in a
decarbonised economy? Global lessons
from a carbon footprint analysis of
Iceland. Journal of Cleaner Production
Vol. 166.

27

Electronic waste
generationWorld
at large30

1 4

I N N O C E N T I

Consumptionbased CO2
emissionsR E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O N

2AL E A G U E

T A B L E

O F

E N V I R O N M E N T A L

C O N D I T I O N S

Spotlight 1 Children’s environments, children’s
rights and sustainable development

The United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child
There is a strong connection between the questionof how the natural and the built environments
affect children and the promotion of children’s
rights under the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC).
1. First, there are clear direct links with article 6 of
the CRC (right to life, survival and development)
and article 24 (health), which references a clean
environment.
2. In a broader sense, article 3 of the Convention
requires all actions “concerning children” toconsider the best interests of the child. Many
Report Card countries have implemented
this broadly, in requiring child rights impact
assessments for legislation, while others
have incorporated the CRC into law. These areimportant measures that can be used to ensurethat the impact of environment on children is
fully considered in decision making and policy.
3. Another link with the CRC is the nondiscrimination principle embedded in article 2.
This report has highlighted how environmental
risks are distributed unequally and weigh mostheavily on children living in poverty and otheralready disadvantaged groups.
4. This report has also highlighted the need andpotential to involve children in environmental
debates and decisions. Article 12 requiresthat a child “who is capable of forming his or
her own views” has the right to express them,and for these views to be given due weight“in all matters affecting the child”. Children have
amply demonstrated their ability to form andexpress their views on environmental issues,and these are certainly matters that affectthem.

A very important development in terms of theenvironment and children’s rights is the decisionby the United Nations Committee on the Rightsof the Child to draft a general comment (No.
26) on children’s rights and the environment,with a special focus on climate change. The
general comment has the objective of providing“authoritative guidance on how children’s rights
are impacted by the environmental crisis and what
governments must do to uphold these rights”. Thisis a “major step to hold governments accountablefor ensuring children live in a clean, green, healthyand sustainable world”.9 At the time of writing(January 2022), the consultation on this generalcomment is under way.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development
A second global instrument that is highly relevantto the content of this report is the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development. A majority of the
17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) havean environmental focus. While many aspects on
the agenda that focus on environment relate to all
age groups, sustainable development will naturally
benefit children, and it provides a framework bywhich progress on reducing the adverse effects ofenvironmental risks on children can be monitored.
A relevant example from the list of SDG indicators
is the level of air pollution. As discussed in Section
3, children are more vulnerable than adults to thenegative impacts of air pollution.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

1 5

S E C T I O N

2AL E A G U E

T A B L E

O F

E N V I R O N M E N T A L

C O N D I T I O N S

Spotlight 1 Children’s environments, children’s
rights and sustainable development

Figure 4 shows how much improvement there has
been in air quality over the past three decades
in Report Card countries. Countries are orderedaccording to their most recent level of air pollution.
While many countries have made substantial
progress, the chart shows that there is still muchto do. Compared to 1990, air quality has remained
broadly the same or worsened in Chile, Costa

Rica, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Turkey.
While Australia, New Zealand and Iceland havecomparatively low levels of air pollution, they havemade only small improvements in recent decades.
The chart illustrates how much has still to be done
to ensure healthy air for all children (and adults) tobreathe.

Figure 4: Over the last decades, air quality has improved in 38 out of 43 OECD/EU countries
Mean population exposure to fine particulate matter PM2.5 (1990–2019)35

PM2.5 micrograms per cubic metre

30
25
20
15
10
5

FinlandSwedenEstonia
New Zealand
Iceland
Australia
NorwayCanadaUnited States
Ireland
Portugal
Denmark
Spain
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Luxembourg
Lithuania
FranceGermany
Netherlands
Austria
Belgium
LatviaMalta
Japan
GreeceRomania
Italy
CyprusHungary
Czechia
Slovenia
Costa Rica
Slovakia
IsraelBulgaria
MexicoColombia
Croatia
PolandChile
TurkeyRepublic of Korea

0

2019

1990

Source: OECD, <https://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?datasetcode=EXP_PM2_5&lang=en>,
accessed 16 February 2022.

1 6

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D1 7

© Lainey Molnar

SECTION 3
THE WORLD
OF THE CHILDI N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

1 7

S E C T I O N

3

T
 H E

W O R L D

O F

T H E

C H I L D

SECTION 3
THE WORLD OF THE CHILD

Children’s well-being anddevelopment are directly andtangibly affected by their interface
with the environments aroundthem. This section presents
evidence on those pathways –considering children’s
consumption of air, water andfood, and their exposure to heat/cold, light, noise and hazardous
substances.

world at large
The

ch
il

e

e

rld of thecwo

The child

ld
hi

Th

Th

aroundorld of the cwd the hillhe wor
c

d
ld
hi

T

w
he

d

T

lduant dlartgewaorrohe
Tohreld

The child

The world
we will leavebehindThe world
we inherit

1 8

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O N

AirAir pollution from chemicals andgases released through energy
use and production directly affects
our health. In Europe, polluted aircontributes to more deaths than
tobacco.10
Children are more vulnerable to air
pollution than are adults, because
they have a smaller lung capacity
and a less-developed immune
system. Being shorter than adults,
they are also closer to groundlevel, where pollution typicallyaccumulates. Air pollution starts
to harm children even before they
are born – toxic air inhaled by apregnant woman can lead to faster
cell ageing of the foetus.11
Fine particulate matter in outdoor
air is a common indicator of air
quality: the small diameter of suchmatter allows it to penetrate deep
into the respiratory tract.

3

T
 H E

W O R L D

O F

T H E

C H I L D

Figure 5: Many children in OECD/EU countries live with high levels of
air pollution
Mean population exposure to PM2.5 (2019)
Finland

5.6

Sweden5.7

Estonia

5.9

New Zealand

6.1

Iceland

6.4

Australia

6.7

Norway6.7

Canada7.1

United States

7.7

Ireland

7.8

Portugal

8.2

Denmark

9.8

Spain

10.0

Switzerland

10.0

United Kingdom

10.0

Luxembourg

10.1

Lithuania

10.5

France11.4

Germany

11.9

Netherlands

12.0

Austria

12.2

Belgium

12.7

Latvia

12.7

Malta

13.1

Japan

13.6

Greece14.3

Romania

15.1

Cyprus

15.8

Italy

15.8

Hungary

16.6

Czechia

17.0

Slovenia

17.1

Costa Rica

17.4

Slovakia

18.5

Israel19.4

Bulgaria

19.9

Mexico20.1

Colombia

22.5

Croatia22.5

Poland

22.8

Chile

23.7

Turkey26.9

Republic of Korea

27.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Micrograms per cubic metre
Source: OECD, <https://stats.oecd.org/viewhtml.aspx?datasetcode=EXP_PM2_5&lang=en>,
accessed 16 February 2022.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

1 9

S E C T I O N

3

T
 H E

W O R L D

O F

Outdoor air quality is not the
only issue. The quality of indoor
air is affected by factors suchas cooking and smoking. This
presents fundamental risks tochildren’s health and survival.
Child morbidity attributable toair pollution shows substantial
variation across Report Cardcountries (see Figure 6). We use
disability adjusted life years(DALYs) to account for the numberof years of ‘healthy’ life lost due
to pollution. Ambient particulatematter and household air pollution
from solid fuels (used for heatingor cooking) are jointly responsible
for a substantial loss of years ofhealthy life among children under
the age of 15. Overall, Colombia(3.7) and Mexico (3.7) had thehighest number of years of ‘healthy
life’ lost due to air pollution, while
Japan (0.2) and Finland (0.2)
have the lowest values.

T H E

C H I L D

Figure 6: In the average country, a child is 10 times more likely to suffer fromoutdoor than indoor air pollution
Air-related morbidity of children under the age of 15 (2019)
FinlandJapan
Estonia
NorwayIcelandSpain
Portugal
SwedenIreland
Luxembourg
Slovenia
Lithuania
Australia
Italy
New Zealand
Belgium
Austria
FranceGermany
Czechia
Republic of Korea
Cyprus
Switzerland
Netherlands
LatviaWater

Denmark

Water is one of the essentialbuilding blocks of human life,
but universal access to safe andclean water is not yet a reality in
all Report Card countries. This isreflected in years of healthy life
lost per per 1,000 children (aged0-14) attributable to an unsafe
water source, unsafe sanitation,or no handwashing facilities in
the home (see Figure 7). Safe
water, sanitation and handwashingfacilities are far from being fully
implemented in 13 countries. Most
years of healthy life lost are in
Mexico (3.8 years lost per 1,000
children), Colombia (3.7) and Turkey(2.7). The quality of essential
services in these countries remains
an important threat to children’s
health and survival.

2 0

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

United Kingdom
GreeceCanadaHungary
IsraelCroatia
United States
PolandSlovakia
Malta
Chile
Costa Rica
Bulgaria
Romania
TurkeyMexicoColombia
0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

Outdoor air pollution

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

Indoor air pollution

DALYs per 1,000 children
Source: OECD Environment Database, ‘Mortality, morbidity and welfare cost from exposure toenvironment-related risks’ <https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=EXP_MORSC> accessedon 20 March 2022

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O N

3

T
 H E

W O R L D

O F

T H E

C H I L D

Figure 7: Children lose more years of life from unsafe water than from inadequate sanitation and handwashingfacilities put together
Water-related morbidity of children under the age of 15 (2019)
Republic of Korea
Japan
NorwayNetherlands
Switzerland
United Kingdom
FinlandGermany
SwedenIcelandSpain
Denmark
Luxembourg
Ireland
Malta
GreeceBelgium
France
Italy
United States
IsraelCyprusAustria
CanadaAustralia
Portugal
New Zealand
Slovenia
Czechia
Chile
Slovakia
PolandCroatia
Hungary
Estonia
Bulgaria
LatviaLithuania
Costa Rica
Romania
TurkeyColombia
Mexico
0.0

0.5

1.0
Unsafe water source

1.5

2.0

Unsafe sanitation

2.5

3.0

4.0

3.5

No access to handwashing facility

DALYs per 1,000 children
Source: OECD Environment Database, ‘Mortality, morbidity and welfare cost from exposure to environment-related risks’ <https://stats.oecd.org/Index.
aspx?DataSetCode=EXP_MORSC> accessed on 20 March 2022

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

2 1

S E C T I O N

3

T
 H E

W O R L D

O FHeat and cold
The ability to control the indoor
temperature is important inmaintaining safe temperatures inlocations with cold winters and/or hot summers. There are also
safety issues: burning solid fuels
like wood may generate adequate
warmth but can also pollute the air
indoors.

T H E

C H I L D

Figure 8: In six countries, at least 1 family in 10 with children finds it difficult
to heat their home
Percentage of households with children that have difficulty heating theirhomes (2019)
Switzerland
Iceland
NorwayEstonia
Slovenia

Many households in high-income
countries struggle to keep thehouse warm in winter, and thisissue is strongly linked to socioeconomic inequalities. Among
31 European countries, poor
households with children weremore than twice as likely to havedifficulties keeping their homewarm as non-poor households withchildren (see Figure 8).

Finland
Austria
SwedenGermany
Luxembourg
Czechia
Netherlands
PolandDenmark
Belgium
Croatia
Hungary
IrelandFranceUnited Kingdom
Malta
Slovakia
LatviaSpain
Romania
Italy
Portugal
GreeceLithuania
CyprusBulgaria
0

10

20
All households (%)

30

40

50

60

Poor households (%)

Percentage of households with children
Note: Chart refers to 2019, except Iceland and United Kingdom (2018). Poor households defined as below
60 per cent of median equivalized income.
Source: European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) (indicator ilc_mdes01).

2 2

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O N

LightA bright home, with plenty of
daylight, can support the moodof children.12 Outdoor spaces
at home, such as gardens or
balconies, make it easier forchildren to enjoy direct sunlight,
which improves their immune
systems (via the productionof vitamin D) and reduces thelikelihood of chronic conditions,such as multiple sclerosis, in
adulthood.13
However, nocturnal light pollution(exposure to artificial light at night)
has adverse effects on children’s
sleep.14 Sleep quality and duration
are key predictors of the threechild outcomes at the heart ofour model: well-being, health andskills. Therefore, sleep disruption
should not be taken lightly. The
combination of nocturnal light
pollution and underexposure
to daylight is associated withhigher risks of cancer and otherdiseases.15
In European countries, many
homes do not have adequate
lighting (see Figure 9). The
proportion of children living in suchconditions ranges from less than
3 per cent in Italy, Norway, Iceland,
the Netherlands and Slovakia,
to almost 20 per cent in Turkey.
In almost all countries, children
living in relative household income
poverty are noticeably more likely
to be living in homes that are too
dark.

3

T
 H E

W O R L D

O F

T H E

C H I L D

Figure 9: In nine countries, over a tenth of poor children live without
sufficient light
Percentage of children living in homes that are too dark, by poverty status(2019)
Italy
NorwayIcelandNetherlands
Slovakia
Denmark
Czechia
Estonia
Finland
CyprusSlovenia
Germany
Croatia
PolandGreeceAustria
Romania
Switzerland
SwedenSpain
Luxembourg
Lithuania
Bulgaria
FranceBelgium
Ireland
Portugal
LatviaHungary
Malta
Turkey
0

5

10

15

Children in all households

20

25

30

Children in poor households

Percentage of children

Note: Chart refers to 2019 (2018 for Iceland and Turkey). The United Kingdom is excluded as data wasmarked as ‘unreliable’. Poor defined as below 60 per cent of median equivalized income.
Source: EU-SILC (indicator ilc_mdho04c).

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

2 3

S E C T I O N

3

T
 H E

W O R L D

O F

Noise
Noise – both indoor and outdoor– is an environmental hazard that
can have serious consequences forchildren. Noise pollution is linked
to various adverse health effects,
including poor birth outcomes,
stress, cognitive functioning andschool performance. Traffic andaircraft noise increases stressresponses in children.16 There isalso a relationship between noiseand cardiovascular disease inboth children and adults.17 Figure
10 shows the percentage ofhouseholds in European countries
that are affected by noise. In mostcountries, the rate is higher among
poorer households.

T H E

C H I L D

Figure 10: In many European countries, over a tenth of families with children
are affected by noise
Percentage of households with children affected by noise, by poverty status(2019)
Croatia
Estonia
Ireland
Bulgaria
Iceland
Hungary
Finland
Slovakia
NorwayPolandItaly
Slovenia
LatviaLithuania
Spain
Czechia
CyprusBelgium
SwedenDenmark
Switzerland
Austria
Romania
FranceGreeceLuxembourg
United Kingdom
Germany
Portugal
Netherlands
Malta
0

5

10

15

All households (%)

20

25

30

35

40

Poor households (%)

Percentage of households with children
Note: Chart refers to 2019, except Iceland and United Kingdom (2018). Poor defined as below 60 pr centof median equivalized income.
Source: EU-SILC (indicator ilc_mddw01).
2 4

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O NHazardous substances
Hazardous substances can affectchildren before they are even born(see Spotlight 2).
While there are many hazardousand toxic substances, suitable,comparative data on healthimpacts for Report Card countries
are only available for lead andpesticide pollution.

Lead pollution
Lead poisoning affects hundredsof millions of children globally.18
Lead is a neurological andcardiovascular toxicant, whichis globally responsible for moredeaths than malaria, war andterrorism, or natural disasters.19
Not only does it affect children’sbodily functions, but it also has
adverse effects on attention
span, memory (both long andshort term) and the ability to planand solve problems.20 It can also
increase aggression and antisocial
behaviour.21 Boys are especiallyvulnerable to brain damage andcognitive impairment due to leadpoisoning,22 probably because
higher levels of oestrogenand oestradiol in girls act asneuroprotectants.23 The exposureof girls to lead early on in life, oreven in the womb, may disrupt
their hormonal patterns and has
been associated with delayed
puberty.24

3

T
 H E

W O R L D

O F

T H E

C H I L D

Children can encounter lead athome from various sources –cosmetics, paints and pigments,
toys, clothing, jewellery, dishes
and cookware, and even water
pipes and fixtures may all containlead.25 Lead can even enter ourfood supplies through the soil
or water.26 Historical pollution
from leaded petrol can still befound in soils around the world.27
In the past, lead was present
in children’s products, such as
painted toys. Today, it can stillfeature in lead-glazed ceramics(e.g., in Mexico), lead pellets usedin hunting (a major source of leadamong children who eat wild gamein Norway), new paint, and in
spices that are mixed with lead toincrease the weight or add colour(often produced in South Asia, but
imported around the world).28
There are no safe levels of lead– the detrimental effects of lead
exposure appear even at very low
levels of lead concentration in the
bloodstream.29 In all Report Cardcountries, at least 1 child in a 100
had elevated levels of lead in the
blood (see Figure 12). In mostcountries, the proportion is morethan 1 in 50; and in Costa Rica
and Mexico, 13 per cent and 31
per cent of children, respectively,
have elevated levels of lead in
their blood. Explanations for thehigh figure in Mexico could include
the use of lead-glazed ceramictableware and the less-stringent
regulation of lead content in paints
used in the home.30

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

2 5

S E C T I O N

3

T
 H E

W O R L D

O F

T H E

C H I L D

Pesticide pollution

Figure 11: In nine OECD/EU countries, more than 1 child in 20 is being
poisoned by lead
Percentage of children with levels of lead in the blood of over 5 μg/decilitre(2019)
Finland
IcelandSwedenLuxembourg
United Kingdom
Japan
Italy
United States
Austria
Netherlands
CanadaNorwayAustralia
CyprusSlovenia
IrelandGermany
FranceDenmark
TurkeyRepublic of Korea

1.0%
1.1%
1.2%
1.3%
1.4%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.6%
1.6%
1.8%
1.8%
1.9%
2.0%
2.0%
2.1%
2.2%
2.2%
2.4%
2.5%
2.8%
2.8%
2.9%
3.2%
3.2%
3.4%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.8%
3.8%
3.8%
3.9%
5.0%
5.3%
5.4%
5.6%
7.6%
7.8%
10.1%

IsraelSpain
Chile
Switzerland
Czechia
GreeceSlovakia
PolandCroatia
Colombia
Estonia
New Zealand
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Portugal
Hungary
LatviaMalta
Belgium
Romania
Costa Rica
MexicoAgricultural activities can also
release toxic materials thathave a direct impact on physicalhealth. Children are at higher risk
than adults of suffering serious
health effects from exposure
to pesticides. Such pollution
has been linked to damage tochildren’s nervous, cardiovascular,
genitourinary, digestive,
reproductive, endocrine, blood andimmune systems. It has also been
associated with cancer, includingchildhood leukaemia. And it cancause harm to skin and eyes, aswell as developmental delays.34
Early exposure to pesticides may
likewise be linked to attention
deficit disorder and autism
spectrum disorder, although more
research is needed on this topic.35

13.4%
31.1%
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Percentage of children with elevated lead blood levels
Source: Own calculations based on number of children with elevated levels of lead in the blood from
Rees and Fuller (2021) and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2021) population
projections.

2 6

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

Agricultural activities interact
with the environment in a myriadof ways. First, and perhaps mostobviously, agricultural activities
require land: according to recent
estimates, 37 per cent of the
global land surface is used for
agriculture.31 The clearing ofland for crops and grazing, andpoor agricultural practices, aremajor drivers of environment
degradation.32 Moreover,agriculture, forestry and otherland use are responsible for 24
per cent of global greenhouse gas
emissions.33

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O N

3

T
 H E

W O R L D

O F

T H E

C H I L D

Figure 12: In most OECD/EU countries, more than 1 child in 20 lives in anarea of high pesticide risk
Percentage of children under 18 living in areas with high pesticide pollution
risk (2019)
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
Iceland
LatviaMalta
Slovakia
Slovenia
SwedenAustria
Croatia
Germany
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Romania
Bulgaria
Australia
New ZealandIrelandUnited States
NorwayMexicoHungary
Chile
GreeceJapan
FranceUnited Kingdom
CanadaCyprusSpain
Portugal
Republic of Korea

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
1.0%
1.7%
1.8%
2.7%
2.9%
4.2%
4.7%
5.4%
5.4%
5.4%
5.8%
6.2%
6.3%
6.7%
6.7%
7.6%
7.7%
7.8%
7.8%
8.1%
8.3%
8.4%
8.6%
8.9%
8.9%
9.1%
9.7%

Italy
TurkeyColombia
Costa Rica
Switzerland
Netherlands
Belgium
IsraelPolandCzechia
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Percentage of children living in areas with high pesticide pollution risk
Source: UNICEF (2021).

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

2 7

S E C T I O N

3

T
 H E

W O R L D

O F

T H E

C H I L D

Spotlight 2 Child brain development in thewomb is particularly sensitive to environmental
chemicals – results from the NeuroTox study

Chemical pollution is a continuously increasingproblem and among the largest threats to childhealth and development worldwide. Since the1950s, over 140,000 chemicals and pesticides
have been produced, 36 most of which have neverbeen tested for child safety or for any toxic effecton the developing brain. Meanwhile, since the1980s, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder(ADHD) and autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) havecome to be diagnosed increasingly frequently
in developed countries, leading to concernsthat hazardous substances in the environment
may be among the causes of these disorders.37
Environmental toxicants in our food and drinking
water, in appliances, cosmetics and the air may
adversely affect child brain development, even as
the foetus grows in the womb.
Expectant mothers are exposed to chemicals
daily, and some of them are stored in the bodyfor long periods of time. During pregnancy andbreastfeeding, toxicants can pass from motherto child. Infants are also exposed to toxicants
through the food, water and consumer products
they come into contact with. Young children’sbodies are less able than those of adults toprotect themselves from toxic chemicals, andtheir brains are particularly sensitive to theimpact of these. Levels that would be considered
tolerable for adults may be harmful for children, 38
and may cause irreversible effects that emerge
in later childhood and adolescence, including
mental health and behavioural problems, learning
disabilities and cognitive impairments.39
The NeuroTox study investigated pregnant
women’s exposure to toxins and the subsequentdevelopment of their children, using 3,500
mother–child pairs from the Norwegian Mother,
Father and Child Cohort study. On the basis ofthese data, the study explored the potential link
between the levels of environmental toxicants in

2 8

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

pregnant women’s blood and urine, and the laterrisks to their children of ADHD, ASD and cognitive
impairment.
The findings show a number of connections:
1. Elevated maternal levels of some phthalates 40
and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances(PFASs) 41 were associated with a reduction incognitive functions (such as working memory)in the child (see Figure 13).
2. Elevated maternal levels of several toxic
metals (cadmium, lead and arsenic) 42 and of
PFASs (e.g. perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) andperfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)) 43 wereassociated with increased risk of ADHD and/or
ASD in the child.
3. Some plastic toxicants (organophosphate esters(OPEs) and phthalates) were associated withincreased risk of ADHD.44
These toxic chemicals are found in food, drinking
water as well as in everyday items that we cookwith and store our food in, put on our bodies andconsume: packaging, utensils, pots and pans,cosmetics, fabrics and even medical products.
The burden of mental health conditions
attributable to pollution, and in particularhazardous chemicals in the environment, is hugely
underestimated.45 The results from the NeuroTox
study indicate the need for stronger global action
to increase knowledge of the harmful impact
of chemical exposure, and to prevent early life
exposure to toxicants.

S E C T I O N

3

T
 H E

W O R L D

O F

T H E

C H I L D

Figure 13: Impact of hazardous chemicals in the environment on child brain development
Organophosphateesters

MetalsPhthalates

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances

Cognitivefunction

ASD

ADHD

Cadmium
Arsenic

Lead

BDCIPP
DPHP

DEHP
DiNP

MBzP
DBPs

PFOS
PFAS
mixturePFOA

Carboxylate
PFAS

Toxicants
Note: Toxicants are colour-coded by group: metals in green; OPEs in orange; phthalates in navy blue; and PFASs in turquoise. Darker filled
boxes denote an adverse effect, while a lighter shade indicates no finding or not yet investigated. Grey boxes indicate that the relationshipwas not tested.
DPHD = diphenyl phosphate; BDCIPP = bis(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate; DiNP = diisononyl phthalate; DEHP = di(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate; DBP = Dibutyl phthalate (including mono-n-butyl phthalate and mono-iso-butyl phthalate); MBzP = mono-benzyl phthalate.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

2 9

S E C T I O N

3 0

3

T
 H E

I N N O C E N T I

W O R L D

R E P O R T

O F

T H E

C A R DC H I L D

1 7

© Kari Moden

SECTION 4
THE WORLD AROUND THE CHILDI N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

3 1

SECTION 4
THE WORLD AROUND THE CHILD

This section looks at the aspectsof the natural and built
environment with which childreninteract directly. The quality,
enjoyability and safety of homes
and surrounding public spaces
influence children’s daily lives.
They have implications for thechildren’s physical and mental
health, as well as for their
cognitive, emotional and social
development. Interactions
between housing quality andthe quality of local surroundings
further shape children’s wellbeing. Issues to do with transportsystems and mobility likewise
have many implications forchildren’s well-being anddevelopment. Our focus is on thelinks between these factors andchildren’s outcomes: mental
well-being, physical healthand skills.

world at large
The

ch
il

e

e

rld of thecwo

The child

ld
hi

Th

Th

aroundorld of the cw
ld the hil
he wor
c

d
ld
hi

T

w
he

d

T

lduant dlartgewaorrohe
Tohreld

The child

The world
we will leavebehindThe world
we inherit

3 2

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O N

4

T H E

W O R L D

A R O U N D

T H E

C H I L D

The home

Figure 14: In 22 countries, over a tenth of children live in a damp house

Children, especially in the earlyyears, spend much of their timeindoors at home.46 They areparticularly susceptible to theeffects of the home environment– not only because of the amountof time they spend in it, butalso because of their unique
physiological, biological and social
characteristics. Their immune
systems are still developing, theytend to breathe more rapidly andhave more hand-to-mouth activity
than adults, rendering them more
exposed to pollutants.47 Therefore,
better conditions inside the home
can go a long way in promoting
children’s health and development.

Percentage of children living in a dwelling with damp or mould (2019)

Section 3 discussed the way inwhich the presence and quality offacilities in the home can affectchildren’s well-being. For example,
a lack of safe cooking or heating
facilities forces families to burnsolid fuels, which pollute indoor air.
Similarly, even if the infrastructureof water is adequate, basic
facilities need to be present in thehome for children to benefit fully
from them.

Damp
Damp and mould are major
environmental risk factors within
the home. Upper respiratory
infections, asthma and bronchitis
are substantially and significantly
associated with mould and damp
in the dwelling.48 For instance,
estimates of the proportion ofasthma cases attributable to thesefactors ranges from 6 per cent in
one study in the Netherlands to20 per cent in another study in
the United States.49 According toEuropean data, even in Finland –the highest-ranked country –more than 1 child in 25 lives inFinland

4.2%

Slovakia

5.6%

Malta

7.1%

Norway8.0%

Sweden8.3%

Czechia

8.4%

Croatia

9.5%

Austria

10.1%

Poland11%

Romania

11%

Greece11.5%

France

12.8%

Italy

12.8%

Bulgaria

12.9%

Estonia

13.5%

Ireland

13.8%

Switzerland

13.8%

Germany

14.6%

Lithuania

15.2%

Spain

15.5%

Netherlands

15.9%

Denmark

17.6%

Luxembourg

18.4%

Belgium

18.8%

Slovenia

19.3%

Latvia20.5%

United Kingdom

21.7%

Iceland23.9%

Portugal

24.7%

Cyprus25.7%

Hungary

28.3%

Turkey

39.8%
0

10

20

30

40

50

Percentage of children living in a dwelling with damp or mould
Notes: Indicator refers to the child population living in a dwelling with a leaking roof, damp walls, floors or
foundation, or rot in window frames or doors. Data refer to 2019 (2018 for Iceland and Turkey).
Source: EU-SILC (indicator ilc_mdho01c).

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

3 3

S E C T I O N

4

T H E

W O R L D

A R O U N D

a home with wet walls, mould or
rotting doors or window frames.
In Turkey, Hungary, Cyprus,
Portugal, Iceland, the United
Kingdom and Latvia, more than
one child in five is exposed todamp and mould.
Space in the home can affectvarious aspects of children’s lives,
including their health, social
relationships, privacy andacademic performance.
Overcrowding in the home createssocial tension (including between
adult members and children) andhas a negative effect on the qualityof parent–child relationships andhousehold members’ physicaland mental health. Surveys havefound overcrowding to be related
to socio-economic status, meaningthat lower-income households are
more likely to have inadequate
living space.50 Insufficient spaceat home can contribute to theintergenerational transmission ofsocial inequalities.

T H E

C H I L D

Figure 15: In the average country, one household in nine is overcrowded
Percentage of households living in an overcrowded dwelling (2019)
Canada0.7%

New Zealand

0.8%

Malta

1.6%

Japan

1.6%

Cyprus1.7%

Ireland

1.8%

Spain

3.0%

United States

4.2%

Netherlands

4.3%

Portugal

5.0%

Switzerland

5.1%

Republic of Korea

5.2%

Belgium

5.9%

United Kingdom

5.9%

Germany

6.1%

France6.5%

Luxembourg

7.2%

Norway7.3%

The home environment also plays
an important role in children’s
education – particularly since
the COVID-19 pandemic forced
schools to close and students tostudy at home. Overcrowding has
strong adverse effects on learning
outcomes.51,52 In Latvia and
Mexico, more than one householdin three, and in Slovakia, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Romania and Poland,
more than one in four, suffersfrom overcrowding (see Figure15). Households in Canada and
New Zealand have the most space
available at home, with less than
1 per cent of them experiencing
overcrowding.

Slovenia

8.7%

Finland8.9%

Denmark

9.1%

Iceland

9.2%

Chile

9.3%

Estonia

9.9%

Hungary

11.3%

Czechia

11.6%

Austria

12.4%

Sweden14.4%

Lithuania

14.7%

Greece

18.1%

Italy

18.9%

Slovakia

25.7%

Bulgaria

27.0%

Croatia28.1%

Romania29.2%

Poland29.4%

Latvia33.1%

Mexico

33.2%
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Percentage of households living in an overcrowded dwelling
Source: OECD Affordable Housing Database, <https://www.oecd.org/housing/data/affordable-housingdatabase/housing-conditions.htm>, accessed 16 February 2022.

3 4

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O NHaving a quiet space of one’s own
provides both privacy and a goodenvironment in which to study.
On average, almost 9 adolescentsin 10 (86 per cent, unweighted
average) in Report Card countries
said they had their own desk anda quiet place to study in 2018 (seeFigure 16). However, more than
30 per cent of 15-year-olds inChile, Mexico and Colombia did
not have these facilities. In all thecountries included in the OECD
Programme for International
Student Assessment (PISA),
children who had a quiet place
to study at home registeredhigher science test scores thanchildren who did not. However,this difference in test scores isprobably not caused solely byhaving a quiet place to study.
The socio-economic position of
the family, for instance, could
affect both student performanceand the space available in thehome. In other words, some of
the relationship between testscores and private space could
be explained away by householdsocio-economic status.
This issue of educational
inequalities related to the homelearning environment has cometo the fore during the lockdowns
triggered by the COVID-19
pandemic. Children have been
educated at a distance for lengthy
periods of time, and many
households, particularly poorer
ones, have lacked the space andequipment for this to happen
effectively.

4

T H E

W O R L D

A R O U N D

T H E

C H I L D

Figure 16: In an average country, one in seven 15-year-olds lacks facilities
for studying
Percentage of schoolchildren aged 15 with their own desk and a quiet place
to study (2018)
94%
93%
93%
92%
92%
92%
92%
92%
92%
92%
92%
91%
91%
91%
91%
91%
91%
91%
91%
90%
89%
89%
88%
87%
86%
84%
84%
83%
83%
83%
83%
82%
82%
82%
81%
79%
77%
73%
73%
69%
66%

Lithuania
Switzerland
Romania
Austria
NorwayPolandSlovenia
Germany
Portugal
FranceHungary
LatviaNetherlands
Iceland
Luxembourg
IsraelEstonia
Belgium
Spain
FinlandCzechia
Italy
Denmark
SwedenGreeceSlovakia
Malta
Croatia
IrelandJapan
Republic of Korea
CanadaUnited Kingdom
Australia
TurkeyNew Zealand
Bulgaria
United States
Costa Rica
Chile
MexicoColombia

57%
0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of adolescents with a desk and a quiet place to study
Source: PISA 2018.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

3 5

S E C T I O N

4

T H E

W O R L D

A R O U N D

Severe housing deprivation
Even in wealthier countries,
children often experience
overlapping deprivations intheir home environments. Here
we look at the risk of severe
housing deprivation, understoodas overcrowding overlappingwith either damp, darkness, orinadequate sanitation. The risk
varies not only across countries,
but also across different age
groups within a country (seeFigure 17).
In most Report Cardcountries, the youngest children
are those least likely to live
in conditions of severe housing
deprivation: families and societies
do a better job of providing
safe and healthy homes for the
youngest. In Romania, Latvia
and Lithuania, the gap between
younger and older children interms of the rate of severe housing
deprivation is rather large, with
12- to 17-year-olds being thosemost at risk. In Romania, morethan one child in four in this age
group lives in a dwelling thatis both overcrowded and either
damp or has insufficient light orinadequate water or sanitation.
In Denmark and Iceland, a larger
share of children under the ageof 6 experience severe housing
deprivation than in the case ofolder children.
Severe housing deprivation amongchildren appears to be morecommon among the EU Member
States with higher child poverty
rates, signalling the predictiverole of socio-economic status in
housing conditions.

3 6

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

T H E

C H I L D

Figure 17: In seven countries, over a tenth of adolescents live in housing
deprivation
Percentage of children living in severe housing deprivation, by age group(2020)
Switzerland
Netherlands
Finland
NorwayCyprusEstonia
Ireland
Austria
Luxembourg
Malta
Spain
United Kingdom
IcelandGermany
Czechia
Belgium
Slovenia
FranceSlovakia
SwedenItaly
Croatia
Denmark
GreecePortugal
PolandLithuania
LatviaHungary
Bulgaria
Romania
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Percentage of children living in severe housing deprivation
6 and under

7 to 11 years

12 to 17 years

Note: Chart refers to 2020, except for Norway, Cyprus, Spain, Iceland, Germany, Slovenia, France,
Sweden, Croatia, Denmark, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania (2019); Slovakia and Italy (2018).
Eurostat defines severe housing deprivation as “the percentage of population living in the dwelling whichis considered as overcrowded, while also exhibiting at least one of the housing deprivation measures.
Housing deprivation is a measure of poor amenities and is calculated by referring to those householdswith a leaking roof, no bath/shower and no indoor toilet, or a dwelling considered too dark.”
Source: EU-SILC (indicator ilc_mdho06a).

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O N

The neighbourhood
We now turn to the places wherechildren spend time beyond thehome. The quality, enjoyability andsafety of public spaces aroundthem influence many aspects of
their lives, such as their physicaland mental health, skills and social
relationships.

Access to green spaceChild-friendly neighbourhoods
provide children with theopportunity to play andexercise outdoors. The World
Health Organization (WHO)lists green spaces among thesocial determinants of health.
Physical activity in nature
improves emotional well-being,and sedentary childhoods
are associated with a higher
likelihood of developing mental
health problems.53 Better mood,higher self-esteem, enhanced
resilience to daily stressors54 andlower prevalence of depression
and anxiety are some of theestablished mental health effects
of green spaces. Experimental
evidence finds that the proximityof green spaces and walks innature can reduce the symptoms
of attention deficit disorder andincrease self-discipline in affectedchildren.55
Recent data that rely on satellite
imagery of urban spaces indicate
rather stark differences in theextent to which parks and green
recreational areas are available
to city dwellers in Report Cardcountries.56 Among those countries
with data, Finland leads in termsof urban green spaces, followed
closely by Iceland and Lithuania.
Cities in Israel and the Republicof Korea are the least green: their
Urban Green Spaces Indexes rank

4

T H E

W O R L D

A R O U N D

T H E

C H I L D

Figure 18: Finland, Iceland and Lithuania have twice as much urban green
space per person as the Republic of Korea and Israel
Urban green space per person (2018)
5.7

Finland
5.5

Iceland5.5

Lithuania

5.3

New Zealand

5.3

Slovenia
Croatia

5.2

Italy

5.2

Slovakia

5.2

Estonia5.2

United States

5.1

Latvia5.1

Sweden5.0

Switzerland

5.0

Norway5.0

Canada5.0

Poland4.9

Germany

4.8

Hungary

4.8

Czechia

4.8

Portugal

4.7

Bulgaria

4.7
4.7

Australia

4.5

Netherlands

4.5

Luxembourg

4.4

IrelandUnited Kingdom

4.3

Spain

4.2
4.1

Austria
Belgium

3.9

Denmark

3.9
3.9

Romania

3.7

France3.3

GreeceTurkey

3.3

Malta

3.2

Chile

3.1

Japan

3.0

Republic of Korea

2.7

Israel

2.7
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Urban Green Space Index score
Note: Urban green spaces index is calculated based on the Normalized Vegetation Index per capita
in urban areas. Satellite imagery was collected during the summer: June to September 2018 for the
Northern Hemisphere and December 2017 to February 2018 for the Southern Hemisphere.
Source: Kwon et al. (2021). Urban green space and happiness in developed countries. EPJ Data Science10(1).

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

3 7

S E C T I O N

4

T H E

W O R L D

A R O U N D

T H E

C H I L D

Figure 19: Children in greener countries are more satisfied with life
Life satisfaction of 15-year-olds (2018) and urban green spaces (2018)
8LT

Average life satisfaction score of students

FI

NL

7.5

CH

ES
PT

FR
CL

7

AT
LU

GR

LV

HU
DE

SE

CZ
IE

IS
SK
R = 0,55

EE
IT

SI

US

PL

KR

6.5

JP

GB

6

TR
5.5
2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

Urban Green Spaces Index
Source: PISA 2018 and Kwon et al. (2021).

them the lowest, with their urban
areas having less than half thegreen spaces of Finnish cities (percapita). This study found that life
satisfaction among adults is higher
in countries with more urban
green spaces. To see whether
this relationship holds for children
as well, Figure 19 plots students’
average life satisfaction scoresfrom PISA 2018 against the Urban
Green Spaces Index. Althoughmany more factors may be at play,
we see a positive correlation.

3 8

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

Access to green spaces is evenmore important for children living
in high-density, high-rise housing,
given the lack of gardens andgreenery connected to the home.
A sense of security may also
contribute to children enjoying
their neighbourhoods. While
violence and crime are often
strongly associated with socioeconomic markers of theneighbourhood, prior research
has found elements of the built
environment that can strengthen
people’s sense of security andreduce the incidence of crime.

C A R D

1 7

At night, streetlights transform theurban environment: they have alarge impact on what we see andhow we feel. Hence, streetlights
can provide reassurance and asense of security, particularly
among people who are fearfulof using public spaces.57
Streetlights also came up in ourconsultations as elements of thebuilt environment that contributeto children’s sense of security.
Classical works of urban planningagree that neighbourhoods that
accommodate walking, sitting
and generally spending time makemore secure urban environments.58

S E C T I O N

4

T H E

W O R L D

A R O U N D

T H E

C H I L D

Play and leisure facilities

Figure 20: Children who live in areas with places to play are less stressed

Access to neighbourhood facilities
for play and leisure is a key
environmental dimension that
can impact children’s well-being.
Innocenti Report Card 16 showed
that, across a sub-group of Report
Card countries for which data are
available, children who felt that
there were enough places in theirlocal area where they could playand spend time also reported
higher levels of happiness. Figure
20 shows a similar picture forchildren’s self-reported feelings ofstress. In most of these countries,
children who felt there were good
recreation facilities also reported
lower stress levels.

Feelings of stress and neighbourhood recreation facilities (2017–2019)

As Figure 21 shows, older children
were less likely to report that theirneighbourhoods had adequate
recreation facilities. There were no
consistent gender differences inthis respect, with variations in both
directions in different countries.
Despite policy concerns withthe planning of accessible andwalkable neighbourhoods,
few studies include people
with different abilities and ofdifferent ages.59 The quality ofneighbourhood environments
shapes the agency, mobility
and social participation of allchildren, but especially of thosewith disabilities.60 Data on theaccessibility of public spaces forchildren with mobility impairments
are scarce: to the best of ourknowledge, there is no informationthat would enable a comparisonof countries’ performance in thisrespect.

Totally agree that there are places to play or have a good time in local area
Yes

No

Romania
Croatia
Hungary
Finland
UK (England)
UK (Wales)
NorwayItaly (Liguria)
Switzerland
Germany
Spain (Catalonia)
Estonia
Republic of Korea
Malta
PolandGreece (Epirus)
IsraelBelgium (Flemish)
0

2

4

6

8

10

Mean stress score (out of 10)
Note: Children aged around 10. Representative schools-based samples of whole countries or specificregions (where indicated in brackets).
Source: Children’s Worlds survey, Wave III.

Figure 21: As children grow up, they become less satisfied with places toplay in their neighbourhood
Age-group differences in children’s satisfaction with neighbourhood
recreation facilities
Age group
12 years old

10 years old

8 years old

Republic of Korea
Italy
Malta
Germany
Wales
NorwayFinland
Belgium
Spain
IsraelPolandCroatia
Hungary
Chile
Estonia
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage totally agreeing that there are places to playor have a good time in local area

Note: Representative schools-based samples of whole countries or specific regions (where indicated inbrackets).
Source: Children’s Worlds survey, Wave III.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

3 9

S E C T I O N

4

T H E

W O R L D

A R O U N D

T H E

C H I L D

Spotlight 3 The Child-Friendly Cities Initiative:
Wanju County, Republic of Korea

In child-friendly cities, children’s rights, voices andpriorities form an integral part of decisions andplanning. The UNICEF Child-Friendly Cities Initiative
brings local government, civil society organizations,the private sector, the media and academia
together with children themselves, to help makethe cities more child friendly. The initiative waslaunched in 1996 and is now being pursued in 48
countries.

Every year, the CYP creates a strategic agenda.
Proposals come both from the child representatives
themselves and from the public: all children in the
county are free to submit initiatives online, and© Korean Committee for UNICEF, Wanju County’s Festival for Child and Youth Rights Week

Wanju County, in the Republic of Korea, was thesecond municipality in the country to be recognized
as a child-friendly city. Its Children and Youth
Parliament (CYP) is an example of the involvementof children in governance. It not only represents

children’s voices in local matters, but also gives
them an opportunity to decide on important
policies and to allocate a budget. Since 2015,
the CYP has been an official authoritative body in
Wanju County, empowered by a local ordinance.
Members of the CYP are selected through open
election, where any child living in the county canrun and all children can vote. The interests ofchildren from diverse backgrounds are ensured by
the proportional representation of minorities.

Wanju County’s Children and Youth Parliament

4 0

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O Nthese are discussed by the CYP during the plenary
sessions. Once the CYP has agreed on a list ofpolicy items that it wishes to take forward, a publicvote is held among local children to finalize theagenda. The CYP is then supported by the local
government, relevant professionals and the public
to create an action plan and a budget. The resulting
policy is implemented the following year.

T H E

W O R L D

A R O U N D

T H E

C H I L D

children for children – provide opportunities foroutdoor play. Other CYP projects have focused on
making existing public facilities more accessible tochildren: for example, lower coat hooks have been
installed in libraries and lower handrails on buses.
Children also voted to improve the conditions
facing student workers in Wanju and organizeda Children and Youth Rights Festival. Since 2017,
Wanju County and its CYP have held an annualChild Rights Film Festival. And in 2020, children
participated in the International Documentary
Film Festival in Amsterdam with a film created bythemselves.

© Korean Committee for UNICEF, Wanju County’s Children and Youth ParliamentOver the years, the CYP has initiated a long list of
projects to make Wanju County more child friendly.
Spaces have been created in which young people
can socialize, such as a Youth Café and Mall anda Treehouse hideout. The Imagination Playgroundand the Wonder Water Pool – both designed by

4Children discussing an agenda proposed by the member of the Children and Youth Parliament; Building a safe bus stop nearby a school in 2018.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

4 1

S E C T I O N

4

T H E

W O R L D

A R O U N DInteractive effects between thehome and the local
environment
Research suggests that thequality of the home and the
local environment interact inshaping well-being. Better-quality
neighbourhood environments
can offset some of the adverse
effects on mental health of sub-par
housing.61 Urban planning solutions
within the community can mitigate
the negative implications of home
overcrowding – for example, by
providing outdoor play space or
facilities where older children canstudy.62

T H E

C H I L D

Transport and mobility
Safe mobility is vital if children
are to experience happy andhealthy childhoods and develop.
Transport links the home, theschool and other public andprivate places in the lives ofchildren. Children’s active andindependent mobility has been
declining in many countries,
fuelled by parents’ views about thesafety of the local environment,
as well as by an increase in car
use and a decrease in walking
and cycling.63 This trend isundesirable, because independent
mobility has various physical,
social and skill-development
benefits for children.64 Boys
tend to be granted greater andearlier independent mobility andautonomy than girls,65 suggestingthat the adverse effects associatedwith the decrease in children’s
mobility could affect girls
disproportionately.
Probably the most important threat
to children’s freedom of movementin the urban space is the growth of
motorized traffic. This has several
negative implications:§ First, motorized traffic is a threat
to children’s safety, as evidenced
by the high number of children
involved in road accidents:
pedestrian and traffic accidents
are among the leading causes ofchild death around the world.66§ Second, cars pollute ourenvironments both in theimmediate and the longer term:
they increase the concentrationof fine particulate matter in the
air and contribute to greenhousegas emissions.67

4 2

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

§ Third, vehicles require space:particularly in dense, urban
areas, car parking competes
directly with other elements ofthe built environment, such aspavements, parks andplaygrounds. While children
often used to play in front of
their homes, these spaces arealso increasingly scarce andthreatening, due to the presenceof cars. Children’s outdoor playhas declined over time,68 bringing
about negative consequences forchildren’s health (motor skills),
cognitive skills (mapping), social
capital (children’s networks) andwell-being.
Adolescents are at heightened riskof being involved in road accidents,
due to complex socio-cultural andneurodevelopmental factors. They
spend more time unsupervisedand have greater access to risky
situations than earlier in life. Theirdecision-making processes areaffected by maturational changes
in their brain function, making
them more tolerant of risk andambiguity.69 It is also well known
that boys are more likely to sufferroad accidents: in 2019, the global
rate for boys fatally injured in aroad accident was 1.4 times higher
than it was for girls.70
OECD data on child road casualties
show that it is indeed possible
to create road infrastructure thatis safe for children. In Iceland,
Luxembourg and Norway, not asingle child was killed in a traffic
accident in 2019. In an averagecountry, 1.34 years of healthy
life are lost per 1,000 children
due to traffic accidents – ranging
from fewer than 0.65 in Sweden,
Iceland, Malta and Ireland to over 3
in Colombia, Turkey and Mexico

S E C T I O N

4

T H E

DALYs due to road traffic accidents among children aged 0–14
(3-year average: 2017, 2018, 2019)

0.0

A R O U N D

T H E

C H I L D

(see Figure 22). On the other hand,a small number of child pedestrian
accidents may simply indicate thatchildren are spending little time
outdoors.

Figure 22: Even in the safest countries, the toll of road traffic accidents
is high

SwedenIceland
Malta
IrelandJapan
United Kingdom
Austria
NorwayGermany
Switzerland
Spain
Netherlands
Italy
Denmark
Portugal
Luxembourg
Finland
Estonia
FranceBelgium
Australia
Czechia
CanadaHungary
Slovenia
LatviaIsraelPolandRepublic of Korea
CyprusLithuania
Slovakia
Bulgaria
GreeceCroatia
New ZealandUnited States
Costa Rica
Chile
Romania
Colombia
TurkeyMexicoW O R L D

0.61
0.62
0.63
0.63
0.66
0.66
0.71
0.71
0.72
0.74
0.76
0.76
0.84
0.86
0.87
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
1.03
1.19
1.19
1.20
1.20
1.21
1.24
1.25
1.37
1.40
1.47
1.48
1.48
1.64
1.67
1.78
1.80

The quality, affordability andaccessibility of public transport
has far-reaching consequences formobility and access to services inboth urban and rural settings. We
are not aware of internationallycomparable data that could be
used to assess and track progressin mobility and public transport.
Given the importance of thesefactors in children’s lives, this isa knowledge gap that should be
filled – including with an analysis ofinequalities.

2.09
2.21
2.29
2.31
3.25
3.64
3.69
0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Disability-adjusted life years per 1,000 inhabitants (0–14)
Source: Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. <https://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-results-tool> accessedon 20 March 2022

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

4 3

S E C T I O N

4

T H E

W O R L D

A R O U N D

T H E

C H I L D

Spotlight 4 Children’s journeys to school

Rapid urbanization and the increase in motorized
traffic have transformed children’s environments.
These changes have also altered their journeys toschool: while walking or cycling to school used to
be a common daily experience just a few decadesago,71 travelling by private car or school bus has
now become the norm in many industrializedcountries.72 Contemporary childhood researchshows that the decline in children’s independent
mobility – and the consequent lack of engagementwith their outdoor surroundings – has had negative
implications for their physical, psychological andsocial well-being.
But what are children’s own perceptions of theirjourneys to school? What meaning do they attach
to their daily commutes? A growing body ofparticipatory research shows that the journey toschool has meaning beyond merely physical activity
and mobility.
In both the United Kingdom and Canada, children
who walked to school highlighted their journeys asopportunities to engage with their built and naturalenvironments. Some of them listed interactions
with flora and fauna among the elements they liked
during their journeys: smelling the flowers, listening
to birds, or seeing beautiful places.73 In Canada,
the visual narratives of those children who actively
travelled to school showed a greater degree ofattachment to the environment than was observed
among their peers who were driven by car.74
Journeys to school provide an opportunity forboth socializing and solitude. Some children in the
United Kingdom said that they enjoyed having time
for introspection and to get lost in their thoughts
during their daily walks.75 Others emphasized the

4 4

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

opportunity to socialize, to play and to talk to theirpeers while walking or taking the bus to school. For
these children, the time before the start of school
provided important moments for social interaction
in nearby public spaces (playgrounds, parks close
to the school). In New Zealand, children who weretaken by car felt like they missed out on thesechances to socialize.76
Children who travelled to school unsupervisedalso enjoyed the opportunity to make their own
decisions. For example, they could spontaneously
decide to stop for impromptu play, pick a different
route, or walk by the park on their way homefrom school.77 Children who travelled by car also
reported making the most of their journey to school– but in their case by engaging in more passive
actions than their peers who walked or cycled.
For some, long drives meant that they could relax,
sleep, listen to music or look at their surroundings
through the window.78
The journey to school, however, is not without risk.
Children who travel independently are aware of thedangers of traffic: in a photovoice study conductedin the United Kingdom, many of the photographs
depicted busy junctions and difficult crossing
points.79 In another study, both active travellers
and those driven by their parents expressedfear of traffic as a barrier to independent school
journeys, seeing cars as making the travelling
environment hostile.80 The built environment canenhance children’s sense of safety en route toschool – bridges for safe crossing, traffic signs
and quiet alleys away from busy roads were often
photographed and mentioned by children who
participated in various research projects.

© Pierre-Emmanuel Lyet - garance illustration llc

SECTION 5
THE WORLD AT LARGEI N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

4 5

S E C T I O N

5

T H E

W O R L D

A T

L A R G E

SECTION 5
THE WORLD AT LARGE

The world at large refers to broader
aspects of the physical andpolicy environments surrounding
children’s microsystems (theworlds around children). It includes
elements of the built and naturalenvironment at the local, regional,
national and global levels. While
children do not directly interact
with them, these elements shapechildren’s experiences.

world at large
The

ch
il

e

e

rld of thecwo

The child

ld
hi

Th

Th

aroundorld of the cw
ld the hil
he wor
c

d
ld
hi

T

w
he

d

T

lduant dlartgewaorrohe
Tohreld

The child

The world
we will leavebehindThe world
we inherit

4 6

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O N

Climate change and extreme
weather events
Countries, including wealthy
nations, vary in terms of thefrequency, type and severity of
the natural disasters they face.
Extreme weather events havebecome increasingly common anddevastating in recent years, 81 but
there is little that countries can doto reduce the occurrence of natural
disasters within their borders. Bothchildren’s physical and mental
health and their education are
threatened by disasters.82
Extreme weather events pose
direct dangers to physical health.
They also bring about indirect
effects through stress. Prenatal
exposure to Hurricane Katrina,
for example, was associated withan increased risk of low birthweight and preterm births.83
Children affected by disasters
are more likely to develop posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety
and depression than are theirunaffected peers, according toevidence from the United States(and territories) 84,85,86 and Japan.87
An example of the way in which
natural disasters can have an
impact on children’s lives, andaffect different groups of children
unequally, is forest fires. Over the
past few years, there has been an
increasing incidence of forest fires
globally.88

Such fires can have a devastating
impact on individuals, households
and whole communities. They
also affect children directly
in a number of specific ways.
For example, on a single day in
November 2018, school classes
for over one million school children
in California were cancelled due
to wildfires.89 Children are more
affected than adults by air pollution
and experience negative shortterm and long-term effects throughexposure to the smoke from forest
fires.90

5

T H E

W O R L D

A T

L A R G E

As our climate continues to change
due to human activity, adaptation
to climate change plays a key role
in reducing people’s exposure andvulnerability. Adaptation is definedas “the process of adjustment toactual or expected climate and its
effects in order to moderate harmor take advantage of beneficial
opportunities”.93 In other words, itis the effort to protect ourselves
and our environments from theadverse effects of climate change.

There are also inequalities in theimpact of this type of disaster onchildren. Indigenous populations insouth-eastern Australia were more
likely than others in the population
to be affected by bushfires in
2019–2020.91 The indigenous
population also has a younger age
profile than the general population,
including a greater proportionof children. Another study in the
United States found negative
psychological effects of wildfires
on children with disabilities in
California in 2017.92 Their needs
relating to their disability were an
important factor and may require
specific disaster preparedness
planning. These examples highlightthe importance of greater attention
to adaptation to the impact ofclimate change that is alreadyoccurring.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

4 7

S E C T I O N

5

T H E

W O R L D

A TCountries can take action invarious forms. Disaster riskreduction strategies refer
to formalized protocols ofaction that aim to reduce theexposure and vulnerability ofpeople to natural hazards. The
importance of such strategies
for sustainable development
has been recognized in various
international agreements, including
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development (Goal 11). The SDGs
include a target to increase thenumber of countries with national
and local disaster risk-reduction
strategies substantially by 2020.
The progress of countries towards
this target is monitored as thepercentage of local governmentsthat adopt and implement local
disaster risk-reduction strategies
that are in line with national
disaster risk-reduction strategies.
National disaster risk-reduction
strategies are determined ona country-by-country basis,
depending on the specific natural
hazards relevant to a given context.
Many countries have adopted
such protocols, but we find somestriking exceptions: Bulgaria,
Croatia, Romania and Sweden (seeFigure 23).

L A R G E

Figure 23: In Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Sweden, no local governments
implemented disaster-reduction strategies
Proportion of local governments that have adopted and implemented local
disaster risk-reduction strategies in line with national strategies (2019)
Costa Rica

Czechia

Estonia

Finland

100%

100%

100%

100%

FranceGermany

Ireland

Japan

100%

100%

100%

100%

Republic of Korea

Lithuania

MexicoNetherlands

100%

100%

100%

100%

New Zealand

PolandSlovenia

Turkey

100%

100%

100%

100%

United Kingdom

United States

NorwayColombia

100%

100%

98.0%

77.6%

Chile

Switzerland

Austria

Australia

62.3%

50.0%

40.5%

22.2%

Bulgaria

Croatia

Romania

Sweden

0%

0%

0%

0%

Percentage of local governments with disaster risk reduction strategies
Source: SDG Indicator 11.b.2. <https://unstats.un.org>, accessed on 28 February 2022.

4 8

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O N

Pressure on natural resources
Access to safe, clean drinking
water and sanitation is necessary
for a healthy life. Water is also
instrumental in growing foodand producing energy, goods
and services in all sectors ofsociety. Water thus underpins all
the systems that enable children
to grow and develop. Moreover,
it is the cornerstone of healthy
ecosystems around the world. But
water is also finite: the amountof fresh water available on planet
earth is fixed. Therefore, the way
we use and manage this resource
matters.
‘Water stress’ measures theburden on a country’s freshwater
resources. It refers to the amountof fresh water withdrawn by
all sectors as a share of total(renewable) freshwater resourcesin the country. High levels ofwater stress indicate a risk ofwater shortage, which thus posesa threat to sustainable resource
use and healthy ecosystems.
Water stress is likely to be lower
in countries with abundantfresh water, but the efficiency
and sustainability of resource
management is just as important.
Report Card countries varyenormously in their levels ofwater stress – from 0.4 per cent in
Iceland to 95.9 per cent in Israel(see Figure 24). The Food andAgriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO) categorizes
values over 75 per cent as ‘highstress’, which is where Malta,
the Republic of Korea and Israel
fall. Although the water stresslevel is still highest in Israel, it has
dropped since 2012 (when the rate
was over 100 per cent).

5

T H E

W O R L D

A T

L A R G E

Figure 24: Malta, the Republic of Korea and Israel withdraw the highest
proportion of their freshwater resources
Water stress levels, 2012 and 2018
Iceland
LatviaCroatia
Lithuania
NorwaySlovakia
SwedenCanadaColombia
Luxembourg
Australia
Costa Rica
Romania
Slovenia
Switzerland
Finland
Hungary
New ZealandAustria
Portugal
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Estonia
Ireland
GreeceChile
FranceCzechia
United States
CyprusDenmark
Italy
PolandGermanyJapan
Bulgaria
Spain
MexicoTurkeyBelgium
Malta
Republic of Korea
Israel
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage of freshwater resources withdrawn
2018

2012

Note: Water stress is freshwater withdrawal as a proportion of available freshwater resources. It is theratio between total freshwater withdrawn by all major sectors and total renewable freshwater resources,
after taking into account environmental flow requirements.
Source: FAO Aquastat. <https://www.fao.org/aquastat/statistics/query/index.html?lang=en>,
accessed on 28 February 2022.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

4 9

S E C T I O N

5

T H E

W O R L D

A TConsumption
It is increasingly being recognizedthat in many countries the current
levels of consumption of resources
are unsustainable. Some countries
have a particularly great impact
on the earth, relative to their
population size. To illustrate
the issue of each country’s
responsibilities towards the global
picture, Figure 25 shows theoverconsumption of the earth’s
resources in each of the Report
Card countries. All of the countries
in this group are consuming
resources at an unsustainable
pace. If everybody in the world
lived like the average person from
Report Card countries, we would
need 3.3 globes to sustain theirlifestyles. There is considerable
variation in the number of earths
we would need if everyone lived
like citizens from each of thesecountries: ranging from 1.2 in
Colombia to 8.0 in Luxembourg.

L A R G E

Figure 25: If everybody in the world consumed resources at the rate people
in the United States, Canada or Luxembourg do, we would require theequivalent of more than five earths to satisfy their needs
Number of earths required to sustain current consumption (2018)
1.2

Colombia
Costa Rica

1.6

Mexico1.6

Romania

2.1

Turkey2.2

Bulgaria

2.3

Croatia

2.3

Hungary

2.3

Cyprus

2.4

Spain

2.5

Greece

2.6

United Kingdom

2.6

Chile

2.7

New Zealand

2.7

Italy

2.8

Portugal

2.8

Slovakia

2.8

Switzerland

2.8

France2.9

Germany

2.9

Japan

2.9

Poland2.9

Ireland

3.1

Netherlands

3.1

Slovenia

3.1

Czechia

3.4

Israel

3.5

Malta

3.6

Norway3.6

Finland3.7

Lithuania

3.7

Austria

3.8

Latvia3.8

Sweden3.8

Republic of Korea

3.9

Belgium

4.1

Denmark

4.3

Estonia

4.5

Australia

4.6

United States

5.0

Canada5.0

Luxembourg

8.0
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Number of earths required
Note: The ratio of a country’s ecological footprint of consumption to its biocapacity in global hectares perperson. Data not available for Iceland. Data for 2018 (2017 for Canada).
Source: Global Footprint Network.<https://www.footprintnetwork.org/licenses/public-data-packagefree/>, accessed on 23 February 2022

5 0

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O N

Waste production andmanagement
Effective waste management
is a prerequisite for a healthy
environment for all, both now
and in the future. Preventing thecreation of waste is the mosteffective solution, followed byreuse (through eco-design, repair,refurbishment, re-manufacturing),
recycling and composting, before
energy recovery and, finally,
disposal. Across rich countries,
waste production increased froman average of 484 kg per person
in 2010 to 534 kg per person in
2019. These averages mask ahuge gap: from around 266 kg in
Costa Rica to 960 kg in Canada(see Figure 26). The ratio ofrecovered to unrecovered waste
also varies: Slovenia has the best
ratio, as it recovers 72 per cent of
total waste. On the other hand,some countries combine a low
recovery ratio with a low volume
of waste generated: although
Costa Rica recovers very little
waste, it still generates lessunrecovered waste per capita
than most countries.

5

T H E

W O R L D

A T

L A R G E

Figure 26: In 25 countries, most waste is still unrecovered
Municipal waste (kg per year per capita)
Republic of Korea
Slovenia
Belgium
Germany
Lithuania
Italy
PolandNetherlands
Austria
SwedenEstonia
Costa Rica
Hungary
United Kingdom
Slovakia
LatviaJapan
FranceAustralia
Spain
FinlandCzechia
Switzerland
MexicoPortugal
TurkeyIreland
Luxembourg
Denmark
GreeceChile
NorwayIcelandIsraelUnited States
Canada

0

200

400

600

1,000

800

Kg per capita
Unrecovered

Recovered

Note: Chart refers to 2019, except Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ireland, Japan, Republic of Korea, New
Zealand, United States (2018); Australia, Iceland (2017); Mexico (2012). Figures for Canada are own
calculations, based on ‘amount designated for recovery operations’ and ‘disposal operations’ from OECD,and population statistics from Statistics Canada.
Source: OECD stats. <https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/data/oecd-environment-statistics/
municipal-waste_data-00601-en> accessed on 23 February 2022.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

5 1

S E C T I O N

5

T H E

W O R L D

A T

L A R G E

Food waste

Electronic waste

Among types of waste, foodwaste stands out for at least
three reasons. First, enough foodis produced globally to deliver
a sufficient quantity and qualityof food for everyone. However,
it is not distributed equitably, sothat some countries generate
substantial amounts of foodwaste, while in others there isfood scarcity. Second, food is a
key contributor to climate change.
If food waste were a country, it
would be the third-biggest emitterof greenhouse gas behind only theUnited States and China.94 Third,
food production contributes to theloss of nature and biodiversity,
as well as to pollution and waste,unnecessarily burdening wastemanagement systems. Globally,
food waste totals 931 million
tonnes each year – that is almosta fifth of all food produced. For
the average person living in a richcountry, that equates to 118 kg
of food wasted each year: 79 kg
wasted at home, 26 kg wasted inrestaurants and 13 kg wasted in
shops.

Electronic waste (e-waste) is
particularly harmful, since it
contains hazardous substances,such as mercury, cadmium andlead. These elements damage
the human body and brain, andtake their highest toll on children.
Proximity to unregulated e-waste
recycling sites has been associatedwith adverse birth outcomes,
reduced neurodevelopment andlearning, 95 and even damage tochildren’s DNA 96 and immune
systems.97

5 2

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

Much of the e-waste is due
to planned obsolescence, orthe deliberate shortening of alifecycle, in order to force people
to purchase new products, suchas phones or computers. Thus,
what generates profit also causes
harm; this could be curbed bypublic policy. In 2019, a record
53.6 million tonnes of e-waste was
generated worldwide – as muchas could be carried by 350 ocean
liners the size of the Queen Mary
2. There has been a 20 per centincrease in such waste over the
past five years, and the figure is
expected to almost double in 16
years.98 E-waste is thus the fastestgrowing type of domestic waste.

C A R D

1 7

When we have finished with ourlaptops, mobile phones, PCs
and refrigerators, where do they
go? Some e-waste is informallydumped, usually in low- or middleincome countries with weakerenvironmental regulations. There, it
is recycled by informal workers to
extract metals that can be resold
for profit. The high levels of toxic
chemicals found in e-waste candamage the intellectual capacity ofchildren who live close to recycling
centres in distant parts of theworld.99
Some wealthy countries that rank
high on the ‘world around thechild’ dimension, such as Norway
and Switzerland, are among thosethat consume and waste the mostelectronics (see Figure 27). Norway
generates 26 kg of e-waste a year
per capita. In comparison, theper capita e-waste generation in
Colombia, Mexico and Chile is lessthan 10 kg.

S E C T I O N

5

T H E

W O R L D

A T

L A R G E

Figure 27: In the average country, the typical citizen generates 17 kgof electronic waste each year
Annual e-waste generated per person (2019)
Colombia

6.3

Mexico

9.7

Chile

9.9

Costa Rica

10.0

Turkey10.2

Latvia10.6

Romania

11.4

Bulgaria

11.7

Poland

11.7

Croatia

11.9

Lithuania

12.3

Slovakia

12.8

Estonia

13.1

Hungary

13.6

Israel

14.5

Malta

14.5

Slovenia

15.1

Czechia

15.7

Republic of Korea

15.8

Portugal

16.6

Cyprus

16.8

Greece

16.9

Italy

17.5

Ireland

18.7

Austria

18.8

Luxembourg

18.9

Spain

19.0

New Zealand

19.2

Germany

19.4

Finland

19.8

Sweden20.1

Canada20.2

Belgium

20.4

Japan

20.4

France21.0

United States

21.0

Iceland21.4

Netherlands

21.6

Australia

21.7

Denmark

22.4

Switzerland

23.4

United Kingdom

23.9

Norway

26.0
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Kg per capita
Source: Forti et al. (2020).

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

5 3

S E C T I O N

5

T H E

W O R L D

A T

L A R G E

Spotlight 5 Toxic exports: Global inequalities
in the world of the child

Rich countries export environmental damage
in many ways and forms – and some of themcan contribute to a health crisis for children in
the Global South. Each year, the citizens of thecountries covered in this report produce 24.3
million tonnes of e-waste. In an average country,
only 42 per cent of this is collected and recycled.
The figure ranges from 1 per cent in Colombia to
76 per cent in Estonia. Exports involve somewhere
between 7 per cent and 20 per cent of all thee-waste generated.100 Much of the e-waste
harbours hazardous substances, such as mercury
and lead; these are released during landfilling or
recycling, thus polluting the air, while toxins canleach into the soil and water.
Worldwide, 18 million children work in the informal
waste sector, which places them at the front lineof hazardous exposure. They extract precious
metals from computers and cables by burning
the devices or using chemical baths: this exposes
them to chemicals and pollutants at home, in theneighbourhood and in the places where they work
– often illegally and in hazardous conditions.101
Children engaged directly in waste work (or wholive close to it) are likely to be among the mostmarginalized members of society, exposed tomultiple risks and hazards associated with poor
living conditions.
Metals extracted at informal e-waste sites arehazardous to everyone, but they take the highest
toll on children: relative to their size, children
breathe more air and digest more food than adults,
and so they absorb proportionally more pollutants.
When faced with exposure, children are less likely
to deal well with toxic substances, due to theirunderdeveloped organs and immune systems.
E-waste exposure is linked to negative birthoutcomes and impaired neurodevelopment inchildren; respiratory problems; impaired thyroid
and cardiovascular function; DNA damage;
impaired immune system functions, including
greater vulnerability to common infections; andincreased risk of certain chronic diseases later inlife, including cancer and cardiovascular disease.
Foetal exposure to toxicants, even at very low
doses, during critical developmental windows ofgestation impacts the pregnancy and the newborn’s health.

Figure 28: Routes of children’s exposure to toxic substances

INGESTION
of food, water, breast milk, soil
and dust, including fromdust contaminated toysor other objects and surfaces

INHALATION
of aerosol gases
and particles, including
particulate matter fromopen burning

Source: World Health Organization (2021).

5 4

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

TRANSPLACENTALEXPOSURE,
in utero

DERMAL EXPOSURE,
including contact withcorrosive substances andother chemicals

S E C T I O N

5

T H E

W O R L D

A T

L A R G E

to e-waste activities in the country’s capital, Accra.
The WHO has been calling for better monitoring
and tracking of children’s health in relation toe-waste dumping.102

Growing attention to the problem of hazardous
exports has resulted in efforts to monitor andamend the toxic fallout. For example, UNICEF
Ghana has been raising awareness among affected
communities in Ghana about the effects on childrenof electronic and automobile recycling. It has also
called for urgent action to abolish the informal
recycling of lead acid batteries. Together with theGerman development agency GIZ, UNICEF Ghana
has provided medical equipment to support childand maternal health services in a clinic located next

Corporate dumping highlights the importance of
uniform regulation around environmental standards
to curb regulatory ‘arbitrage’ – a process by which
regulatory improvements in rich countries and theirassociated costs for corporations are offset by
exploiting weaker standards in poorer countries.

Figure 29: Locations of main informal e-waste dismantling and recycling sites

OCCUPIEDPALESTINIANTERRITORY,INCLUDING EAST
JERUSALEM
HebronMEXICO
Mexico City

EGYPT

GHANA
Accra (Agbogbloshie)

CHILE
Santiago
TemucoURUGUAY
Montevideo

NIGERIAAba(Cemetry, Jubilee Road/ St
Michael’s Road)
Ibadan(Ogunpa,
Queens Cinema)
Lagos(Alaba International Market,
Ikeja
Computer Village)

CAMEROON
Douala(Makea, Ngodi, NewBell)

PAKISTAN
Faisalabad
Gujranwala
Islamabad
Karachi
Lahore INDIA
Peshawar Bangalore
Chennai
Delhi(Mandoli Industrial
Area)
Moradabad
BANGLADESH
Dhaka

CHINA
Guiyu
QingyuanTaizhou

CHINA, HONG KONG SARPHILIPPINES
Manila (Capulong)
VIET NAM
Bui Dau
Trang MinhTHAILAND
Bangkok (Sue Yai Utit)
Nakhon Si Thammarat

Source: World Health Organization (2021).
Note: The designations employed in this publication and the presentation of the material do not imply on the part of UNICEF the expressionof any opinion whatsoever concerning the legal status of any country or territory, or of its authorities or the delimitations of its frontiers.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

5 5

S E C T I O N

5

T H E

W O R L D

A T

Carbon emissions
A country’s level of greenhouse gas
emissions shows its commitment
to the well-being and futureof children. There is scientificconsensus that greenhouse gases,
particularly CO2, are among themost significant drivers of climatechange: it is for good reason that
reducing emissions is a priority of
the Paris Agreement and is a targetof SDG 13: “Take urgent action
to combat climate change and its
impacts.”
CO2 emissions are typicallymeasured on the basis of acountry’s production: that is theyardstick that countries use toreport on their emissions and to
set targets for their reduction.103
However, production-based
estimates of CO2 do not consider
the harm that countries do beyond
their borders: their emissions canbe reduced simply by moving
emissions-intensive activities (e.g.,factories) abroad. A consumptionbased metric, on the other hand,accounts for all emissions thathave occurred in the production of
locally consumed goods – even if
those goods were imported fromother parts of the world. Therefore,
consumption-based CO2 emissions
reflect the lifestyle choices andconsumption of citizens. In a casestudy of Iceland, an estimated71 per cent of household emissions
were attributed to imported
goods, showing that the burden of
Icelandic consumption emissions
falls primarily on low- or middleincome countries.104
We see some striking differencesin the (consumption-based) CO2
emissions of Report Card countries.
The carbon footprint of an average
citizen of Luxembourg is over

5 6

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

L A R G E

Figure 30: In the average Report Card country, the typical person
is responsible for 9 tonnes of CO2
Consumption-based CO2 emissions (2019)
Colombia

1.9

Costa Rica

2.6

Mexico3.5

Romania

3.9

Turkey

4.7

Chile

4.9

Greece5.1

Croatia

5.1

Portugal

5.1

Bulgaria

5.4

Spain

5.8

France

6.4

Cyprus6.4

Latvia6.6

Hungary

6.7

Sweden

6.7

Italy

7.4

Poland

7.4

United Kingdom

7.7

Lithuania

7.8

Denmark

8.2

New Zealand

8.3

Slovakia

8.4

Ireland

8.4

Netherlands

8.6

Slovenia

8.9

Norway8.9

Israel

9.3

Czechia

9.6

Germany

9.8

Japan

10.1

Austria10.2

Iceland

10.4

Estonia

11.2

Finland

11.2

Malta

11.9

Switzerland

13.5

Republic of Korea

13.6

Belgium

14.8

Australia

14.8

Canada15.3

United States

17.0

Luxembourg

36.4
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Metric tonnes per capita
Source: Global Carbon Budget Database, <www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/index.htm.>
accessed on 28 February 2022. Data for Iceland refers to 2016 and comes from <www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652617318267> accessed on 28 February 2022

C A R D

1 7

40

S E C T I O N

36 metric tonnes per year – morethan the footprints of a Colombian,a Costa Rican, a Mexican, aRomanian, a Turkish, a Chilean,a Greek and a Croatian citizen
combined. The per capita CO2
emissions of Luxembourg are morethan double those of the UnitedStates, which is the country thatemits the second-highest amountof CO2 .

Government expenditure on
environmental protection
Protecting our ecosystems andensuring our children’s right toa healthy environment requires
financial commitment fromgovernments. The International
Monetary Fund (IMF) collects dataon how much money governments
spend on environmental protection(as a share of GDP), covering
pollution abatement, the protectionof biodiversity, waste management,
research and development, andother activities. Government
expenditure on protecting theenvironment gives a good indicationof how committed a country is
to ensuring a healthy, safe andsustainable world for all children.
The amount of money spenton environmental protection by
Report Card countries is shownin Figure 31. Overall, a relatively
small proportion of a country’s
economic resources is dedicated tothis function: 0.7 per cent of GDP
on average. Malta (1.45 per cent)and the Netherlands (1.39 per cent)spend twice as much of their GDP
on the environment as the average
Report Card country. Finland, Costa
Rica and Chile are at the bottom of
the distribution, all spending lessthan 0.2% of GDP on protecting
the environment.

5

T H E

W O R L D

A T

L A R G E

Figure 31: The governments in this report. on average spend 0.7 per cent of
GDP on environmental protection
Government expenditure on environmental protection as percentage of GDP(2019)
1.45

Malta

1.39

Netherlands

1.34

Greece1.29

Belgium
1.13

Japan
1.00

France0.94

NorwayLuxembourg

0.91

New Zealand

0.88

Italy

0.87

Spain

0.85

Czechia

0.84

Australia

0.81
0.80

Slovakia

0.73

Canada0.72

Romania
Bulgaria

0.68

Croatia

0.67

Estonia

0.67

United Kingdom

0.65

Iceland0.61

Germany

0.60

Portugal

0.60

Latvia0.58

Slovenia

0.57

Switzerland

0.55

Israel0.54

Poland0.53
0.50

Sweden0.44

Hungary
Republic of Korea

0.41

Ireland0.39

Denmark

0.39

Austria

0.38
0.36

Lithuania

0.30

Turkey0.28

Cyprus0.19

Finland
Costa Rica

0.12

Chile

0.09

0.00%

0.30%

0.60%

0.90%

1.20%

1.50%

Percentage of GDP
Note: Data not available for Colombia, Mexico and the United States. Data for 2019 or the latest available(2018 for Chile and Hungary, 2010 for the Republic of Korea).
Source: IMF Climate Data <climatedata.imf.org/datasets/d22a6decd9b147fd9040f793082b219b_0/
about>, accessed 16 February 2022.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

5 7

S E C T I O N

5

T H E

W O R L D

A T

L A R G E

Spotlight 6 Eco-anxiety: the mental tollof climate change

Anxiety, an emotion that alerts people to danger,
is widely felt by young people in relation to theenvironment. Climate change, associated concern
and inadequate government response are chronic
stressors that threaten their well-being and mental
health. A 2021 survey covering Australia, France,
Finland, Portugal, the United Kingdom and theUnited States found that most young people aged
16–25 believed their governments had failed
them with regard to the environment. Two infive were hesitant about becoming parents in the
future, because of the climate crisis.

In all countries, most young people were botheredby climate change: 53 per cent were very or
extremely worried and 81 per cent were at least
moderately worried. Most distressed were young
people in Portugal, which has witnessed a sharp
rise in the number of wildfires since 2017: 65
per cent of young people there described theirworry as high or extreme. Yet, even in the United
Kingdom, a country relatively protected fromextreme weather events, 49 per cent of young
people were extremely or very worried (seeFigure 32).

Figure 32: Across six rich countries, four young people in five are at least moderately worried aboutclimate change
Worry about climate change in six countries (2021)

Finland

18%

France

18%

USA

19%

UK

20%

Australia

33%

14%

40%

28%

27%

29%

35%

30%
10%

14%

31%

28%

20%

30%

40%

50%

21%
60%

8%

8%

29%

29%

25%

Portugal
0%

26%

70%

80%

4%

9%

12%

6%

10%

6%

9% 3%
90%

100%

Percentage of young people
Extremely worried

Very worried

Moderately worried

A little worried

Not worried at all

Note: n=1,000 per country.
Source: Marks, E. et al. (2021). Young people’s voices on climate anxiety, government betrayal and moral injury: A global phenomenon.
The Lancet Planetary Health, 5(12), e863–e873, <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3918955>, accessed 16 February 2022.

5 8

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O N

Nearly half of the young people felt distressed
about climate change to an extent that wasaffecting their daily functioning. Fear (62 percent), sadness (62 per cent), anxiety (57 per cent)and anger (55 per cent) were the feelings mostprovoked by the climate crisis. More than half (52per cent) believed that because of this crisis theywould not have access to the same opportunities
as their parents had had. Feelings associatedwith climate change are linked to young people’sfamily plans, as 39 per cent were hesitant about

5

T H E

W O R L D

A T

L A R G E

becoming parents. This ranged from 36 per centin the United States to 43 per cent in Australia.
Negative feelings were greatest when the young
people believed that their government’s response
was inadequate – a common opinion in all thecountries researched. Over half (55 per cent)of young people felt that their government was
betraying both them and future generations withregard to the climate (see Figure 33).

Figure 33: Two in five young people are hesitant about having children due to climate change,
and most feel betrayed by their government
Percentage of young people who are hesitant about having children and who feel betrayed by theirgovernment over climate change (2021)

USA

Portugal

FranceUK

Finland

Australia
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Percentage of young people
I'm hesitant about having children due to climate change
In relation to climate my government is betraying me and future generations
Note: n=1,000 per country.
Source: Marks et al. (2021).

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

5 9

S E C T I O N

6 0

5

T H E

I N N O C E N T I

W O R L D

R E P O R T

A T

L A R G E

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O N

6

K E Y

T H E M E S© Stephanie Edwards

SECTION 6
KEY THEMESI N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

6 1

S E C T I O N

6

K E Y

T H E M E S

SECTION 6
KEY THEMESThe evidence presented in theprevious three sections highlights
the complex nature of the ways
in which environmental factors
can affect children’s well-being.
In this section, we draw together
three key threads that run throughthese dimensions: interlinkages,
inequalities and influence.

6 2

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

Interlinkages
The ecological framework that
we have adapted for this reportclarifies connections between
factors operating at the same ordifferent levels (see Figure 1). To
shed light on this issue, Figure
34 depicts a (non-exhaustive)
network of influences of air quality
on children’s physical health.
Within the ‘world of the child’,both indoor and outdoor air quality
are important factors. In the‘world around the child’, a range
of factors in the natural and built
environments is identified, alongwith behaviours of the child andof family members. For example,
road traffic and the presence ofgreen space will have potentiallycountervailing effects on outdoor
air quality. At the macro-level,
policy and expenditure decisions
by national, regional and local
governments will influencechildren’s immediate physicalenvironments. For example,
transport and planning policies
will partly determine local trafficlevels and the availability andaccessibility of green space.

C A R D

1 7

In considering environmental
issues, interlinkages are not limited
to those within specific countries
at the present time: they also havea broader geographic and time
dimension.
In terms of geography, no country
can completely insulate itself
against environmental changes
or events that take place in othercountries. This was brought into
sharp relief in 1986, by the failureof the Chernobyl nuclear power
plant. Due to the wind direction,
this incident affected the safetyof agricultural production even insome of the most westerly partsof Europe. When it comes to theenvironment, the whole worldis inherently interconnected.
As discussed in Section 5, theconscious actions of particularcountries (such as waste disposal)
can affect children’s lives in othercountries.

S E C T I O N

6

K E Y

T H E M E S

Figure 34: Examples of pathways within and across levels that are relevant to the impacts of air quality
on children’s health
Pathways of influence: how air quality impacts children’s healthCO2CO2emissions

Environmental
degradation

Infrastructureof basic services(water, gas,
electricity)

Housing
policyInfrastructureaccomodating
walking andcycling

Behavioursof family
membersUrban
greenery,foliage
Motorized
traffic

Children’s
outdoorplay

Outdoor air
Fine particulatematterIndoor air
Cooking andheating fuels
Second-handsmoke

Inhaledoutdoor air
pollutants

Mould
Household items,
products,
appliances

Inhaledindoor air
pollutants

Mortality,
morbidity due to air quality

Note: Orange arrows depict primarily positive pathways; navy blue arrows depict primarily negative ones; and grey arrows depict pathways that can work in both
directions.
Source: Authors’ own elaboration.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

6 3

S E C T I O N

6

K E Y

T H E M E S

The globally interconnectednature of the issues discussed
in this report must also be taken
into account from a dynamic
perspective: the world in which
we live today is the one that we
inherited from our predecessors
and is a product of whateveractions they took in the past;and the actions that we taketoday will define the world that
we leave behind us for future
generations. The feature on thefollowing pages explores thisissue, juxtaposing each country’s
ranking in the league table forcurrent environmental conditions
that support children’s well-being(see Figure 3). It includes indicatorsof each country’s historicalenvironmental record and theactions it is taking to support asustainable future.
The issues of sustainability are ofmajor concern to young people(see Spotlight 6).

A dynamic perspective: The world we inherit
and the world we will leave behind
The league table presents a snapshot of the current
environmental conditions for children in eachcountry. But this static picture tells only part ofthe story. Countries have very different historicalenvironmental records and are moving at different
speeds towards a more sustainable future. These
are key issues underlying the current international
discussions – such as COP26 – aimed at reachingan agreement about the way forward.

The world we inherited
A key milestone in international discussions ontackling climate change was the adoption of the
Kyoto Protocol in 1997. This agreement committed
the industrialized countries and economies intransition to limiting and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. So, how have countries fared over the
past quarter of a century in terms of emissions?
One measure is the level of per capita CO2
emissions over that time.
Figure 35 shows the volume of the emissions
that each country has produced since 1997 andcompares it with that country’s position in theleague table of this report. Cyprus, Portugal andSpain, which are near the top of the league tableof current environmental conditions, also haverelatively low historic emissions. This contrasts
with countries such as Australia and Canada, whichhave average-low performances in the league

6 4

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

table, but are among the highest historic emitters.
The United States stands out as a country that has
high historic emissions, and yet fares poorly in theleague table. Bulgaria, Costa Rica and Romania
are ranked low in the league table but haveemitted less CO2 than average across this group ofcountries in the past 25 years.

The world we will leave behind
Our second perspective looks ahead. It considers
the actions that countries are currently taking
to improve the world we leave behind for future
generations. Figure 36 charts the percentage ofdomestic energy supply that is from renewablesources against the league table ranking of current
environmental conditions. There is some evidenceof a positive relationship – countries that use higher
proportions of renewable energy are also countries
that have better environmental conditions forchildren. In this sense, the present and the futureappear – to some extent – to go hand in hand.

S E C T I O N

6

K E Y

T H E M E S

A dynamic perspective: The world we inherit
and the world we will leave behind

Figure 35: The United States, Australia and Canada emitted most CO2 since the Kyoto Protocol
CO2 emissions per capita in last 25 years vs. league table score
1

ES

Rank on league table indicators

PT

CY
IT
IS

SE

0

NZ

HR

SK

JP

NL

AT

CZ

GR

EE

DK

PL

CA

MT

LV
CL

42

DE

NO

CH
HU

CR

FI
SI
GB

FR

LT

IE

IL

BG

AU

KR
BE

US

RO
50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Historic emissions
Source: Historical emissions – CO2 emissions since 1995 (metric tonnes per capita) (x-axis) are sourced from the World Bank Databank.
For league table ranks (y-axis), see Figure 3.

Figure 36: Countries that derive more energy from renewables rank higher in our league table
Percentage of energy from renewable sources vs. league table score
1
IE

ES

Rank on league table indicators

DE

CH
LT

SK
GR
PL
CA

KR
BE

IS
SE

FR
HU
CZ

MT

FI

GB

NL
JP

PT

IT
SI

EE
HR

AT
DK

AU

LV

CL

BG

US

NO

NZ

RO

42
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Contribution of renewables to total primary energy supply (%)
Note: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Malta and Romania (2018).
Source: The percentage contribution of renewables to total primary energy supply (x-axis) is sourced from the OECD <https://data.oecd.org/
energy/renewable-energy.htm> accessed 28 February 2022. For league table ranks, see Figure 3.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

6 5

S E C T I O N

6

K E Y

T H E M E S

Inequalities
There are substantial inequalities
in children’s exposure toenvironmental risks, and in theimpact such exposure has on
children’s well-being now and will
have in the future. This applies
both within countries and between
countries. Sections 3 and 4 of thisreport highlight many ways in which
environmental risks and harms are
unevenly distributed. Children living
in poorer households face muchgreater risk and harm, while theyalso may experience poorer-quality
neighbourhoods.

Figure 37: Low-income families are twice as likely to live in overcrowded
dwellings
Overcrowding by income status (2019)
New Zealand
CanadaJapan
Malta
Ireland
CyprusRepublic of Korea
Spain
Portugal
United Kingdom
United States
Netherlands

Inequalities in the conditions ofchildren’s homes

Switzerland

Many children experience
deprivations in their homeenvironments. Some of these –such as in relation to water andsanitation – have to do with a lackof adequate infrastructure andpublic services. Other aspects –like the choice of fuel for cooking
and heating, or the amount of
space available at home – are
intrinsically linked to poverty. Some
environmental health risks, such as
exposure to second-hand smoke,
depend on the behaviour of thoseliving with children.

Estonia

Data from EU-SILC allow for ananalysis of inequalities in housing
conditions in European Union
Member States (see Figure 37).
Overcrowding appears to be a
problem that disproportionately
affects children living in households
at risk of poverty: in almost all
countries (except for Bulgaria,
Croatia and Romania), children
below the poverty line are more
likely to live in overcrowded
dwellings, and in a number ofcountries the gap between bottom
quintile and top quintile is over 10
percentage points.
6 6

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

Belgium
Chile
Slovenia
Hungary
Germany
Czechia
FranceLithuania
Finland
Iceland
NorwayLuxembourg
Denmark
Bulgaria
Austria
Italy
Croatia
GreeceRomania
SwedenSlovakia
PolandLatviaMexico
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Percentage of households
Bottom quintile

Top quintile

Source: OECD Affordable Housing Database. <https://www.oecd.org/housing/data/affordable-housingdatabase/housing-conditions.htm> accessed 15 March 2022

C A R D

1 7

S E C T I O N

Neighbourhood inequalities
Urban and rural neighbourhoods
have different strengths andchallenges. The ‘urban advantage’refers to easier access to services
and economic opportunities incities and is well documented
for children in low- and middleincome countries. Children in rural
areas may have more space in and
immediately around the home; buton the other hand, they may livein older, poorer-quality housingthat lacks essential services.
Good transportation seems to beparticularly important for children
in rural areas, where populations
are sparse and where services
and retail are distributed overlarger areas. Cities, and evenneighbourhoods, differ in how they
accommodate children, particularly

when it comes to safe mobility andoutdoor play.105
Some insight into inequalities
in children’s access toneighbourhood recreation facilities
is provided by the Children’sWorlds study.106 As Figure 38
shows, children who experiencehigher levels of material
deprivation are also less likely toreport that their neighbourhoods
have adequate recreation facilities.
Intersecting with these socioeconomic patterns, there may
be differences in the nature andimpact of environmental conditions
and challenges according toage and gender, and for specificminority sub-groups of children.
Improving the environment forchildren’s well-being therefore

6

K E Y

T H E M E S

implies not only raising average
standards, but also consideringand addressing the specificsituations and challenges facedby different children, in order toachieve greater environmental
equality.
Children also experience
unequal effects of environmental
influences, depending on theirdevelopmental status and sex.107
Children’s vulnerability to adverse
environmental factors, particularly
hazardous chemicals, is highest at
key developmental stages, suchas before birth and during infancy.
The effects of some toxins,
including lead, are mediated by theendocrine system and affect thebodies and minds of boys and girls
differently.

Figure 38: Materially deprived children are less likely to have places to play in their neighbourhood
Differences in children’s satisfaction with neighbourhood recreation facilities, by level of individual child deprivation(2017–2019)
Level of material deprivationHigh

MediumLow

Republic of Korea
Romania
Malta
NorwayItaly (Liguria)
UK (Wales)
Finland
UK (England)
Germany
IsraelSpain (Catalonia)
Hungary
PolandGreece (Epirus)
Estonia
Croatia
Switzerland
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage totally agreeing that there are places to play or have a good time in local area
Note: Children aged around 10. Representative schools-based samples of whole countries or specific regions (where indicated in brackets).
Source: Children’s Worlds survey, Wave III.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

6 7

S E C T I O N

6

K E Y

T H E M E S

Influence
Over the past few years,
children and young people havedemonstrated a growing desire
and ability to influence debates
about the environment. Today’schildren are growing up in the
shadow of the mounting crisis ofclimate change. They will haveto live with the consequencesof current actions, and it isthey who will have to tackle theenvironmental challenges that lie
ahead. It is therefore imperative
for them to have the opportunity to
influence events now, and not only
once they are adults.

Figure 39: In most countries, over a fifth of 15-year-olds are unaware ofclimate change
Awareness of climate change and global warming, students aged 15 (2018)
Republic of Korea

88.1%

Canada87.4%

Ireland

86.5%

Malta

Three key elements of enablingchildren to have an influence
are knowledge, skills andopportunities.

83.4%

Portugal

83.4%

Australia

82.6%

Germany

82.6%

Estonia

81.4%

Spain

81.0%

France80.9%

New Zealand

80.5%

Lithuania

80.4%

Turkey78.8%

Switzerland

78.7%

Italy

77.9%

Croatia

77.8%

Slovenia

77.7%

Knowledge

Austria

77.6%

Research into children’s climatechange education is still at an
early stage.108 Basing our findings
on reports by teachers across 18
countries that participated in the
PISA 2018 survey, we can say thatmany children still do not receive
education on global issues, such as
climate change.109 This is reflectedin pupils’ own assessments. On
average, 76 per cent of children
reported that they were aware of,or were very familiar with, climatechange and global warming, withthe highest rates in the Republic ofKorea (88 per cent) and the lowest
in Romania (61 per cent) (seeFigure 39).

Mexico77.0%

Iceland76.8%

Hungary

76.0%

The levels of awareness of issues
affecting the environment mayvary by gender. It is generally
accepted that women show moreenvironmental concern thanmen, although recent research
has found that this pattern also
depends on countries’ socio-

6 8

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

Latvia75.8%

Poland75.4%

Costa Rica

73.6%

Greece

72.5%

Chile

72.0%

Colombia

71.8%

Bulgaria

69.8%

Slovakia

69.4%

Israel68.2%

Cyprus65.7%

Romania
0%

60.9%
20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage of 15-year-old students
Note: Data not available for Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom (apart from Scotland) and United States.
Source: PISA 2018.

cultural contexts.110 According to
PISA 2018 data, adolescent girls
have higher levels of awarenessC A R D

1 7

of global issues than do boys in all
Report Card countries, except for
the Republic of Korea.111

S E C T I O N

6

K E Y

T H E M E S

Spotlight 7 Environmental involvement
and skills for the future

The mere inclusion of environmental topics in theschool curriculum does not necessarily translate
into environmental awareness or pro-environmental
behaviour among students. Across 32 nations, thegreat majority of headteachers claimed that theirschool had such a curriculum topic, and in the
average country, 87 per cent of students formallyreceive lessons about climate change and global
warming in the school curriculum – ranging from50 per cent in Israel to 99 per cent in Poland.  
However, fewer students feel that they are awareof the topic; and even fewer are capable of tacklinga relevant science problem. Across 32 countries,
77 per cent of 15-year-olds say they are familiar
with climate change and global warming. However,teenagers are likely to acquire their knowledge
from sources other than the school: only inAustralia, Colombia and Germany was there a link
between the presence of environmental topics
on the curriculum and students’ environmental
awareness. Despite their declared awareness, only
16 per cent of students could solve a science task
about rising sea levels – ranging from 9 per centin Colombia to 25 per cent in Canada. All in all,this suggests that awareness does not necessarilytranslate into the skills needed to understandthe future impact of climate change and global
warming.

The school curriculum also showed no relationshipwith pro-environmental behaviour (r=-0.01).
Nevertheless, adolescents did display such
behaviour: their most common involvement wasin reducing the energy consumed at home, inorder to protect the environment (71 per cent)– ranging from 63 per cent in Turkey to 87 percent in Ireland. Other things they got involved
with included: choosing products for ethical orenvironmental reasons, even if those items are a
bit more expensive (46 per cent); participating in
activities that support environmental protection (40per cent); boycotting products or companies forpolitical, ethical or environmental reasons (27 percent); and signing environmental or social petitions
online (26 per cent).
Environmental awareness was related to some
aspects of behaviour (such as trying to reduceenergy consumption or consciously choosing
certain products), but not to others (e.g., signing
petitions, boycotting companies or participatingin activities). Even when there was a link, it was
non-linear: for example, it did not matter whether a
15-year-old had no, little or medium environmental
awareness – the decision to choose products forenvironmental reasons only emerged when theyoung person had a high level of awareness.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

6 9

S E C T I O N

6

K E Y

T H E M E S

Spotlight 7 Environmental involvement
and skills for the future

Figure 40: In eight countries, most 15-year-olds engage in activities in support of environmental
protection
Percentage of 15-year-olds who engaged in three aspects of pro-environmental behaviour (2018)80

Percentage of 15-year-olds

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

I sign environmental or social petitions online

Ireland

Italy

Germany

Croatia

CanadaAustralia

FrancePortugalEstonia

Hungary

Slovenia

Switzerland

UK (Scotland)

PolandNew ZealandLatviaAustria

GreeceMexicoCosta Rica

Spain

Colombia

Chile

Slovakia

CyprusRomania

Iceland

Malta

Bulgaria

Lithuania

TurkeyRepublic of Korea

0

I choose products for ethical or environmental reasons

I participate in activities in favour of environmental protection

Note: At least 75 per cent of all 15-year-olds were covered in all nations, apart from Romania, Austria, France, Scotland (UK) and Canada.
Source: PISA 2018.

Some gender differences presented themselves,
with slightly more boys engaging in behaviour
with a political angle: 29 per cent of boys and23 per cent of girls would boycott a company forpolitical, ethical or environmental reasons; and27 per cent of boys and 25 per cent of girls would
sign an environmental or social petition online.
By contrast, slightly more girls were likely to seek
to reduce energy consumption at home, in orderto protect the environment; to choose certain
products for ethical or environmental reasons;and to participate in activities that supported
environmental protection. Yet, there is nothinginherently gendered in these aspects of behaviour.
If we look at individual nations, we find that thedifference was driven by nine post-communist andMediterranean countries. In the remaining
23 countries, the gender difference was minor or
non-existent.

7 0

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

In Chile, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Mexico,
Portugal, Croatia and Malta, parents were asked
about the same aspects of their behaviour. In eachof those countries, every pro-environmental aspectof the students’ behaviour was significantly related
to the behaviour of their parents.112 For example, inGermany, those students whose parents boycotted
products or companies for political, ethical orenvironmental reasons were 2.4 times more likely
than their peers to do the same. The participationof teenagers is bound up in something larger,
where the ‘informal’ curriculum of providing models
of pro-environmental behaviour matters morethan the formal school curriculum. This shows usthat we cannot rely solely on schools to promoteawareness of environmental issues and to develop
the science skills and behaviour required to addressthese issues.

S E C T I O N

6

K E Y

T H E M E S

Spotlight 8 Fridays for Future: Global child
activism on climate change

Every school day in the three weeks leading up
to the Swedish general election on 9 September
2018, 15-year-old Greta Thunberg sat outside
the Swedish parliament to demand action on the
climate crisis. By the time of the election, she had
been joined by many other children and young
people, whose school strike soon sparked aninternational movement: Fridays for Future. Today,
young people all over the world are raising their
voices in an attempt to get policymakers to listen
to science, to ensure climate justice and equity,and to keep global temperatures 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels.

Figure 41: Global map of Fridays for Future strike events

Source: <https://fridaysforfuture.org>, accessed 16 February 2022.

Fridays for Future has become a youth-led andyouth-organized climate movement with a truly
global reach. By early 2022, over 139,000 strike

events had been organized in 8,500 cities, by 16
million child and adult activists, across all thecontinents of the world.

SkillsOpportunities

With support, children can develop
the skills they need to influence
events in the present. They canalso be provided with opportunities
to learn skills that could benefit
society and the world in tacklingenvironmental issues in the future(see Spotlight 7).

With a foundation of knowledge
and skills, it is also vital thatchildren should have theopportunity to participate indecision making, and that
their views should be taken
seriously. An example of thisprinciple being put into practiceis the activity of the Children’sParliament in Scotland, which has

contributed recommendations on
climate change to the Scottish
Parliament.113 There are also many
examples of children initiating
environmental action themselves(see Spotlight 8).

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

7 1

S E C T I O N

7 2

6

K E Y

T H E M E S

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

SECTION 7
CONCLUSIONSI N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

7 3

S E C T I O N

7C O N C L U S I O N S

SECTION 7
CONCLUSIONSChildren need healthy and safe
environments in which to flourish.
This report has demonstrated
the wide range of influences thatthe environment has on theirlives, particularly their physicalhealth, mental well-being anddevelopment. These include not
only present, local environmental
factors to be found in children’s
homes, schools and communities,
but also the immediate and future
effects of global environmental
change.
The performance of rich nations
is mixed. Despite their relative
wealth, the countries of the OECDand the EU have not succeededin guaranteeing a healthy
environment for all their children.
Major environmental inequalities
exist within these countries.

7 4

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

Children in poorer households
and other disadvantaged subgroups experience the greatest
environmental risk and harm. At
the same time, many of the world’s
richest countries contributedisproportionately to pollution,
environmental degradation andclimate change. These actions areharmful not only to the current
generation of children, but also to
future generations.
Rectifying the injustice anddamage, and realizing children’s
environmental rights, requires
policy action at all levels.
International cooperation isneeded to find global solutions.
But some problems can and should
be tackled by individual countries.

C A R D

1 7

No country is doing well in allareas, and all need to take action
individually, as well as collectively.
Two international instruments –the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child andthe 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development – are importantframeworks for achieving theseobjectives (see Spotlight 1).

RECOMMENDATIONS
We conclude with recommendations to improvethe environments in which children live and develop:

1. Focus on children now,protect the future

3. Ensure that environmental
policies are child sensitive

4. Involve children, the mainstakeholders of the future

Today’s environmental problems
are costing children healthy yearsof life. In most cases – including
with waste and pollution – thesame issues that are damaging
the planet in the long run are also
damaging children’s lives today.
Governments at the national,
regional and local level need tolead on improvements to children’s
environments today, by reducing
waste, air and water pollution,and by ensuring high-quality
housing and neighbourhoods
where children can live, develop
and thrive.

Governments and policymakers
should make sure that the needsof children are built into decision
making. Children are more
affected than adults by certain
environmental risks, because
their bodies are still developing;
and the needs they have of theirenvironments are distinct. All
countries should ensure thatpolicies are child sensitive, in
accordance with the United
Nations Convention on the Rightsof the Child. Examples can betaken from those governmentsthat have already implemented
child rights impact assessments
for all policies – and from themany governments that arepresently seeking to make theirenvironments more child friendly.
Adaptation to climate change
should also be at the forefront ofaction for both governments andthe global community, and acrossvarious sectors from education
to infrastructure. Efforts should
be child sensitive and include theconstruction of children’s adaptive
capacity.

Children will face today’senvironmental problems for the
longest time; but they are also
the least able to influence thecourse of events. Adult decision
makers at all levels, from parents
to politicians, must listen to theirperspectives and take them into
account when designing policies
that will disproportionately affectfuture generations. Throughexamples such as child andyouth parliaments and citizens’
assemblies, children should be
involved in environmental debatesand decisions, and in designing
their immediate environments.

2. Improve environments
for the most vulnerable
children
The COVID-19 pandemic hasrevealed stark inequalities both
between and within countries.
Children in poor families tend
to face greater exposure toenvironmental harm than dochildren in richer families.
This entrenches and amplifies
existing disadvantage. To reduce
inequalities, national, regional
and local governments andauthorities should prioritize
investments designed to improve
the quality of housing andneighbourhood conditions forthe poorest families, so that all
children have environments thatare fit for them to grow up in.

5. Take global responsibility,
now and for the future
Environmental impacts have norespect for national borders. Air
pollution produced within one
country harms neighbouring
countries and the entire world.
Policies and practices must
safeguard the natural environment
on which children depend.
Governments and businesses,
through regulations and/or
incentives, should identify andmitigate their global impact on theenvironment. Governments shouldtake effective action now to honour
the environmental commitments
they have made to the Sustainable
Development Goals, including to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions
by 2050.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

7 5

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

7 6

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

F O R E W O R D

NOTES AND REFERENCESI N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

7 7

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1The UN’s common agenda can befound at <https://www.un.org/en/
content/common-agenda-report/
assets/pdf/Common_Agenda_
Report_English.pdf>, accessed 14
March 2022.

2

Prüss-Üstün, A., Wolf, J., Corvalán,C., Bos, R. and Neira, M. (2016).
Preventing Disease throughHealthy Environments: A global
assessment of the burden of disease
from environmental risks, 2nd ed.
Geneva: World Health Organization.

3

4

Hickman, C., Marks, E., Pihkala, P.,
Clayton, S., Lewandowski, R. E.,
Mayall, E. E., Wray, B., Mellor, C.
and van Susteren, L. (2021). Climate
anxiety in children and young
people and their beliefs about
government responses to climatechange: A global survey. The Lancet
Planetary Health, 5(12), e863–e873,<https://doi.org/10.1016/S25425196(21)00278-3>, accessed 10
February 2022.
Resolution 48/13 of the Human
Rights Council.

6

The ruling can be found at<https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_
layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/
SessionDetails1.
aspx?SessionID=1351&Lang=en>,
accessed 10 February 2022.

8

9

7 8

11

Australia, Finland, France, Portugal,
the United Kingdom and the UnitedStates.

5

7

10

UNICEF (2021). Making Climate
and Environment Policies for & withChildren and Young People. Climate
and Environment Discussion Paper
No. 21. New York: UNICEF.
For Greta Thunberg’s full speech at
the World Economic Forum, watch
this video: <https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=U72xkMz6Pxk>,
accessed 1 March 2022.

12

R E P O R T

Harnung Scholten, R., Møller,P., Jovanovic Andersen, Z.,
Dehlendorff, C., Khan, J., Brandt,
J., Ketzel, M., Knudsen, L. E. andMathiesen, L. (2021). Telomere
length in newborns is associatedwith exposure to low levels of
air pollution during pregnancy.
Environment International, 146,
106202, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2020.106202>, accessed 10
February 2022.
Leichtfried, V., Mair-Raggautz, M.,
Schaeffer, V., Hammerer-Lercher,A., Mair, G., Bartenbach, C.,
Canazei, M. and Schobersberger,
W. (2015). Intense illuminationin the morning hours improved
mood and alertness but not mental
performance. Applied Ergonomics,
46, 54–59, <https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.07.001>,
accessed 10 February 2022.

13

Hoel, D. G., Berwick, M., de Gruijl,
F. R. and Holick, M. F. (2016). The
risks and benefits of sun exposure
2016. Dermato-Endocrinology,
8(1), e1248325, <https://doi.org/1
0.1080/19381980.2016.1248325>,
accessed 10 February 2022.

14

Franz, N. (2020). Impact of noiseand light pollution on sleep inpreschoolers. Thesis for Masterof Public Health, University ofWashington.

15

Smolensky, M. H., SackettLundeen, L. L. and Portaluppi, F.
(2015). Nocturnal light pollution andunderexposure to daytime sunlight:
Complementary mechanismsof circadian disruption andrelated diseases. Chronobiology
International, 32(8), 1029–1048,<https://doi.org/10.3109/074205
28.2015.1072002>, accessed 10
February 2022.

The general comment dedicatedwebsite can be found at <https://childrightsenvironment.org/
about>, accessed 10 February2022.

I N N O C E N T I

Lelieveld, J., Klingmüller, K.,
Pozzer, A., Pöschl, U., Fnais, M.,
Daiber, A. and Münzel, T. (2019).
Cardiovascular disease burden
from ambient air pollution in Europe
reassessed using novel hazard ratio
functions. European Heart Journal,
40(20), 1590–1596, <https://doi.
org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehz135>,
accessed 10 February 2022.

C A R D

1 7

16

Stansfeld, S. and Clark, C. (2015).
Health effects of noise exposurein children. Current Environmental
Health Reports, 2(2), 171–178,<https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572015-0044-1>, accessed 10 February
2022.

17

Theakston, F. and World HealthOrganization (Eds.) (2011). Burdenof Disease from Environmental
Noise: Quantification of healthy life
years lost in Europe. World HealthOrganization, Regional Office forEurope.

18

Rees, N. and Fuller, R. (2020). The
Toxic Truth: Children’s exposure
to lead pollution undermines a
generation of future potential,<https://www.unicef.org/
media/73246/file/The-toxic-truthchildren%E2%80%99s-exposure-tolead-pollution-2020.pdf>, accessed
10 February 2022.

19

Rees and Fuller (2020).

20

Canfield, R. L., Gendle, M. H.
and Cory-Slechta, D. A. (2004).
Impaired neuropsychological
functioning in lead-exposed children.
Developmental Neuropsychology,
26(1), 513–540, <https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15326942dn2601_8>,
accessed 10 February 2022.

21

Nkomo, P., Naicker, N., Mathee, A.,
Galpin, J., Richter, L. M. and Norris,
S. A. (2018). The association between
environmental lead exposure
with aggressive behavior, anddimensionality of direct and indirect
aggression during mid-adolescence:
Birth to Twenty Plus cohort. Scienceof the Total Environment, 612,
472–479, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2017.08.138>, accessed 10
February 2022.

22

Khanna, M. M. (2015). Boys, notgirls, are negatively affected on
cognitive tasks by lead exposure: A
pilot study. Journal of Environmental
Health, 77(6), 72–77.

23

Chetty, C. S., Vemuri, M. C.,
Reddy, G. R. and Suresh, C. (2007).
Protective effect of 17-β-estradiol
in human neurocellular models oflead exposure. Neurotoxicology,
28(2), 396–401, <https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neuro.2006.03.012>,
accessed 10 February 2022.

24

Liu, Y., Téllez-Rojo, M. M., Sánchez,
B. N., Zhang, Z., Afeiche, M.
C., Mercado-García, A., Hu, H.,
Meeker, J. D. and Peterson, K. E.
(2019). Early lead exposure andpubertal development in a Mexico
City population. Environment
International, 125, 445–451,<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2019.02.021>, accessed 10
February 2022.

25

Rees and Fuller (2020).

26

US Food and Drug Administration(FDA) (2020). Lead in food,
foodwares, and dietary
supplements, <https://www.fda.
gov/food/metals-and-your-food/lead-food-foodwares-and-dietarysupplements>, accessed 10
February 2022.

27

Eichler, A., Gramlich, G., Kellerhals,T., Tobler, L. and Schwikowski, M.
(2015). Pb pollution from leaded
gasoline in South America in thecontext of a 2000-year metallurgicalhistory. Science Advances, 1(2),e1400196, <https://doi.org/10.1126/
sciadv.1400196>, accessed 10
February 2022.

28

Angelon-Gaetz, K. A., Klaus, C.,
Chaudhry, E. A. and Bean, D. K.
(2018). Lead in spices, herbal
remedies, and ceremonial powders
sampled from home investigations
for children with elevated bloodlead levels — North Carolina,
2011–2018. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report, 67(46), 1290–1294,<https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.
mm6746a2>, accessed 10 February
2022.

29

United States Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (2012).
Low Level Lead Exposure Harms
Children – A renewed call forprimary prevention: Report of theAdvisory Committee on Childhood
Lead Poisoning Prevention. Atlanta,
United States Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.

30

Téllez-Rojo, M. M., BautistaArredondo, L. F., Trejo-Valdivia, B.,
Cantoral, A., Estrada-Sánchez, D.,
Kraiem, R., Pantic, I., Rosa-Parra,A., Gómez-Acosta, L. M., RomeroMartínez, M., Cuevas-Nasu, L.,
Shamah-Levy, T., Fuller, R. andTamayo-Ortiz, M. (2019). Reportenacional de niveles de plomo ensangre y uso de barro vidriado en
población infantil vulnerable. Salud
Pública de México, 61(6), 787,
<https://doi.org/10.21149/10555>,
accessed 10 February 2022.

31

World Bank (2021). World Bank
Databank: Agricultural land (%of land area). <https://data.
worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.
AGRI.ZS>, accessed 14 March
2022.

32

Hitzhusen, F. J. (1993). Landdegradation and sustainabilityof agricultural growth: Someeconomic concepts and evidence
from selected developing
countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems& Environment, 46(1), 69–79,<https://doi.org/10.1016/01678809(93)90014-G>, accessed 10
February 2022.

33

Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change and Edenhofer,
O. (Eds). (2014). Climate Change
2014: Mitigation of climate change.
Working Group III contribution to
the Fifth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

34

UNICEF (2021). The Climate Crisis
is a Child Rights Crisis: Introducing
the Children’s Climate Risk
Index, <https://www.unicef.org/
media/105376/file/UNICEF-climatecrisis-child-rights-crisis.pdf>,
accessed 10 February 2022.

35

36

Landrigan, P. J., Fuller, R., Acosta,
N. J., Adeyi, O., Arnold, R., Baldé,A. B. et al. (2018). The Lancet
Commission on pollution andhealth. The Lancet, 391: 462–512.

37

Grandjean, P. and Landrigan, P. J.
(2014). Neurobehavioral effects ofdevelopmental toxicity. The Lancet
Neurology, 13, 330–338;
Grandjean, P. and Landrigan, P. J.
(2006). Developmental neurotoxicity
of industrial chemicals. The Lancet,
368, 2167–2178.

38

Grandjean and Landrigan (2014).

39

Lanphear, B. P. (2015). The impact
of toxins on the developing brain.
Annual Review of Public Health, 36,
211–230, <https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-publhealth-031912-114413>,
accessed 16 February 2022.

40

Choi, G., Villanger, G. D., Drover,
S. S. M., Sakhi, A. K., Thomsen, C.,
Nethery, R. C. et al. (2021). Prenatal
phthalate exposures and executivefunction in preschool children.
Environment international, 149,
106403, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2021.106403>, accessed 16
February 2022.

41

Skogheim, T. S., Villanger, G.
D., Weyde, K. V. F., Engel, S. M.,
Surén, P., Øie, M. G. et al. (2020).
Prenatal exposure to perfluoroalkyl
substances and associations withsymptoms of attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder and cognitive
functions in preschool children.
International Journal of Hygieneand Environmental Health, 223(1),80–92, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijheh.2019.10.003>, accessed 16
February 2022.

42

Skogheim, T. S., Weyde, K. V. F.,Engel, S. M., Aase, H., Surén, P.,
Øie, M. G. et al. (2021). Metal andessential element concentrations
during pregnancy and associations
with autism spectrum disorderand attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder in children. Environment
International, 152, 106468,<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2021.106468>, accessed 16
February 2022.

Roberts, J. R., Dawley, E. H. andReigart, J. R. (2019). Children’s
low-level pesticide exposureand associations with autism
and ADHD: A review. PediatricResearch, 85(2), 234–241, <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-0180200-z>, accessed 10 February2022.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

7 9

43

44

45

8 0

Skogheim, T. S., Weyde, K. V. F.,
Aase, H., Engel, S. M., Surén, P.,
Øie, M. G. et al. (2021) Prenatal
exposure to per-and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) and associations
with attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder and autism spectrum
disorder in children. Environmental
Research, 202, 111692, <https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.111692>,
accessed 16 February 2022.
Kamai, E. M., Villanger, G. D.,
Nethery, R. C., Thomsen, C., Sakhi,
A. K., Drover, S. S. M. et al. (2018)
Gestational phthalate exposure
and preschool attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder in Norway.
Environmental Epidemiology,
5(4),e161, <https://pubmed.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/34414345/>; Engel, S.
M., Villanger, G. D., Nethery, R. C.,
Thomsen, C., Sakhi, A. K., Drover, S.
S. et al. (2018). Prenatal phthalates,
maternal thyroid function, and riskof attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder in the Norwegian Motherand Child Cohort. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 126(5),057004, <https://doi.org/10.1289/
EHP2358>; Choi, G., Keil, A.,
Richardson, D. B., Daniels, J. L.,
Hoffman, K., Villanger, G. D. et
al. (2021). Pregnancy exposure toorganophosphate esters and therisk of attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder in the Norwegian mother,father and child cohort study.
Environment International, 154,<https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/
S0160412021001744>, all accessed
16 February 2022.
Choi, G., Villanger, G. D., Drover,
S. S. M., Sakhi, A. K., Thomsen, C.,
Nethery, R. C. et al. (2021). Prenatal
phthalate exposures and executivefunction in preschool children.
Environment international, 149,
106403, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2021.106403>, accessed 16
February 2022.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

46

Klepeis, N. E., Nelson, W., Ott,
W., Robinson, J., Switzer, P.,
Behar, J., Hern, S., Engelmann,
W. (2001). The National Human
Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a
resource for assessing exposure toenvironmental pollutants. Journal of
Exposure Science & Environmental
Epidemiology, 11(3), 231–252.

54

Chawla, L., Keena, K., Pevec,
I. and Stanley, E. (2014). Greenschoolyards as havens fromstress and resources forresilience in childhood andadolescence. Health & Place, 28,
1–13, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
healthplace.2014.03.001>,
accessed 10 February 2022.

47

Bearer, C.F. (1995). Environmental
Health Hazards: How Children Are
Different from Adults. The Future ofChildren, 5(2), 11–26.

55

48

Antova, T., Pattenden, S.,
Brunekreef, B., Heinrich, J., Rudnai,
P., Forastiere, F., Luttmann-Gibson,
H., Grize, L., Katsnelson, B. andMoshammer, H. (2008). Exposure
to indoor mould and children’s
respiratory health in the PATY
study. Journal of Epidemiology &Community Health, 62(8), 708–714,<https://www.doi.org/10.1136/
jech.2007.065896>, accessed 10
February 2022.

49

Mudarri, D. and Fisk, W. J. (2007).
Public health and economic impactof dampness and mold. Indoor Air,
17(3), 226–235, <https://doi.org/1
0.1111/j.1600-0668.2007.00474.x>,
accessed 10 February 2022.

Faber Taylor, A. and Kuo,
F. E. (2009). Children withattention deficits concentratebetter after walk in the park.
Journal of Attention Disorders,
12(5), 402–409, <https://doi.
org/10.1177/1087054708323000>;
Kuo, F. E. and Faber Taylor, A.
(2004). A potential natural treatment
for attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder: Evidence from a national
study. American Journal of Public
Health, 94(9), 1580–1586, <https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.94.9.1580>;
Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E. and Sullivan,
W. C. (2001). Coping with ADD:The surprising connection to green
play settings. Environment andBehavior, 33(1), 54–77, <https://doi.
org/10.1177/00139160121972864>,
all accessed 10 February 2022.

56

Kwon, O.-H., Hong, I., Yang, J.,
Wohn, D. Y., Jung, W.-S. and Cha,
M. (2021). Urban green space andhappiness in developed countries.
EPJ Data Science, 10(1), 28,<https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/
s13688-021-00278-7>, accessed 10
February 2022.

57

Atkins, S., Husain, S. and Storey,
A. (1991). The Influence of Street
Lighting on Crime and Fear of Crime(Crime Prevention Unit Paper No.
28). London: Home Office.

58

Gehl, J. (2013). Cities for People.
Washington, DC: Island Press;
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Lifeof Great American Cities. New York:
Random House.

59

Stafford, L. and Baldwin, C.
(2018). Planning walkableneighborhoods: Are we overlooking
diversity in abilities and ages?
Journal of Planning Literature,33(1), 17–30, <https://doi.
org/10.1177/0885412217704649>,
accessed 10 February 2022.

50

OECD Affordable Housing
Database. <https://www.oecd.org/
housing/data/affordable-housingdatabase/housing-conditions.
htm>, accessed 15 March 2022

51

Goux, D. and Maurin, E. (2005). The
effect of overcrowded housing onchildren’s performance at school.
Journal of Public Economics, 89(5),797–819, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpubeco.2004.06.005>, accessed
10 February 2022.

52

Measured as language andmathematics test scores.

53

Louv, R. (2008). Last Child in the
Woods: Saving Our Children fromNature-Deficit Disorder. Chapel Hill,
NC: Algonquin Books.

C A R D

1 7

60

61

62

63

64

65

Stafford, L., Adkins, B. and Franz, J.
(2020). Bounded at the driveway’s
edge: Body-space tensions
encountered by children withmobility impairments in moving
about the neighbourhood street.
Children’s Geographies, 18(3),298–311, <https://doi.org/10.1080/1
4733285.2019.1635992>, accessed
10 February 2022.
Jones-Rounds, M. L., Evans, G.
W. and Braubach, M. (2014). Theinteractive effects of housing
and neighbourhood quality
on psychological well-being.
Journal of Epidemiology andCommunity Health (1979-), 68(2),171–175, <https://www.jstor.org/
stable/43281707>, accessed 10
February 2022.
Bartlett, S. (1999). Children’s
experience of the physicalenvironment in poor urban
settlements and the implications
for policy, planning and practice.
Environment and Urbanization, 11(2),63–74, <https://doi.org/10.1177/09
5624789901100207>, accessed 10
February 2022.
Fyhri, A., Hjorthol, R., Mackett,
R. L., Fotel, T. N. and Kyttä, M.
(2011). Children’s active travel
and independent mobility infour countries: Development,social contributing trends andmeasures. Transport Policy, 18(5),703–710, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tranpol.2011.01.005>, accessed 10
February 2022.
Alparone, F. R. and Pacilli, M. G.
(2012). On children’s independent
mobility: The interplay ofdemographic, environmental, andpsychosocial factors. Children’s
Geographies, 10(1), 109–122,<https://doi.org/10.1080/14733
285.2011.638173>, accessed 10
February 2022.

66

Keten, A. (2020). Death in childhood
and adolescence: Accident! Journalof Family Medicine and Primary
Care, 9(8), 3807–3809, <https://doi.
org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_465_20>,
accessed 10 February 2022.

67

Targino, A. C., Gibson, M. D.,
Krecl, P., Rodrigues, M. V. C.,
dos Santos, M. M. and de PaulaCorrêa, M. (2016). Hotspots ofblack carbon and PM2.5 in an urban
area and relationships to trafficcharacteristics. Environmental
Pollution, 218, 475–486,<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2016.07.027>, accessed 10
February 2022.

68

Karsten, L. (2005). It all used tobe better? Different generations
on continuity and change inurban children’s daily use of
space. Children’s Geographies,
3(3), 275–290, <https://doi.
org/10.1080/14733280500352912>,
accessed 10 February 2022.

69

Hartley, C. A. and Somerville,
L. H. (2015). The neuroscienceof adolescent decision-making.
Current Opinion in Behavioral
Sciences, 5, 108–115, <https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.09.004>,
accessed 10 February 2022.

70

Global Burden of Disease
Collaborative Network (2021).
Global Burden of Disease Study
2019 (GBD 2019). Seattle, Institutefor Health Metrics and Evaluation(IHME).

71

Hillman, M., Adams, J. andWhitelegg, J. (1990). One False
Move: A study of children’s
independent mobility. London:
Policy Studies Institute.

72

O’Brien, M., Jones, D. and Sloan,
D. (2000). Children’s independent
spatial mobility in the urban
public realm. Childhood, 7(3),257–277, <https://doi.org/10.1
177/0907568200007003002>;
Andersson, E., Malmberg, B. andÖsth, J. (2012). Travel-to-school
distances in Sweden 2000–2006:
Changing school geography withequality implications. Journalof Transport Geography, 23,
35–43, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jtrangeo.2012.03.022>; Fyhri, A.,
Hjorthol, R., Mackett, R. L., Fotel, T.
N. and Kyttä, M. (2011). Children’s
active travel and independent
mobility in four countries:
Development, social contributing
trends and measures. Transport
Policy, 18(5), 703–710, <https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.01.005>;
Kyttä, M., Hirvonen, J., Rudner,J., Pirjola, I. and Laatikainen, T.
(2015). The last free-range children?
Children’s independent mobility
in Finland in the 1990s and 2010s.
Journal of Transport Geography, 47,
1–12, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jtrangeo.2015.07.004>, allaccessed 16 February 2022.

73

Michail, N., Ozbil, A., Parnell, R.
and Wilkie, S. (2021). Children’s
experiences of their journey toschool: Integrating behaviourchange frameworks to inform therole of the built environment in
active school travel promotion.
International Journal ofEnvironmental Research and Public
Health, 18(9), 4992, <https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph18094992>,
accessed 16 February 2022.

74

Fusco, C., Moola, F., Faulkner,G., Buliung, R. and Richichi, V.
(2012). Toward an understandingof children’s perceptions of
their transport geographies:(Non)active school travel andvisual representations of thebuilt environment. Journal ofTransport Geography, 20(1),62–70, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jtrangeo.2011.07.001>, accessed 16
February 2022.

Brown, B., Mackett, R., Gong,
Y., Kitazawa, K. and Paskins, J.
(2008). Gender differences inchildren’s pathways to independent
mobility. Children’s Geographies,
6(4), 385–401, <https://doi.
org/10.1080/14733280802338080>,
accessed 10 February 2022.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

8 1

75

76

Ross, N. J. (2007). ‘My journeyto school …’: Foregrounding themeaning of school journeys andchildren’s engagements andinteractions in their everyday
localities. Children’s Geographies,
5(4), 373–391, <https://doi.
org/10.1080/14733280701631833>,
accessed 16 February 2022.
Egli, V., Mackay, L., Jelleyman, C.,
Ikeda, E., Hopjins, S. and Smith,M. (2020). Social relationships,
nature, and traffic: findings froma child-centred approach tomeasuring active school travel
route perceptions. Children’s
Geographies, 18(6), 667–683,<https://doi.org/10.1080/147332
85.2019.1685074>, accessed 16
February 2022.

77

Ross (2007).

78

Michail et al. (2021).

79

Ross (2007).
Fusco et al. (2012).

81

World Meteorological Organization(2021). WMO Atlas of Mortality andEconomic Losses from Weather,
Climate and Water Extremes(1970–2019), <https://library.
wmo.int/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=21930#.Yh4YwjMI2w>, accessed 10 February
2022.

82

Gibbs, L., Nursey, J., Cook, J.,
Ireton, G., Alkemade, N., Roberts,
M., Gallagher, H. C., Bryant, R.,
Block, K. and Molyneaux, R. (2019).
Delayed disaster impacts on
academic performance of primaryschool children. Child Development,
90(4), 1402–1412, <https://doi.
org/10.1111/cdev.13200>, accessed
10 February 2022.

83

Xiong, X. U., Harville, E. W.,
Buekens, P., Mattison, D. R., ElkindHirsch, K. and Pridjian, G. (2008).
Exposure to Hurricane Katrina, posttraumatic stress disorder and birthoutcomes. The American Journalof the Medical Sciences, 336(2),
111–115, <https://doi.org/10.1097/
MAJ.0b013e318180f21c>,
accessed 10 February 2022.

I N N O C E N T I

85

86

80

8 2

84

R E P O R T

87Orengo-Aguayo, R., Stewart, R.
W., de Arellano, M. A., SuárezKindy, J. L. and Young, J. (2019).
Disaster exposure and mental
health among Puerto Rican youths
after Hurricane Maria. JAMA
Network Open, 2(4), e192619–
e192619, <https://doi.org/10.1001/
jamanetworkopen.2019.2619>,
accessed 10 February 2022.
Xiong et al. (2008); Lai, B. S.,
Beaulieu, B., Ogokeh, C. E., SelfBrown, S. and Kelley, M. L. (2015).
Mother and child reports ofhurricane related stressors: Data
from a sample of families exposed
to Hurricane Katrina. Child & Youth
Care Forum, 44, 549–565, <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-014-92893>, accessed 10 February 2022.
Lochman, J. E., Vernberg, E.,
Powell, N. P., Boxmeyer, C. L.,
Jarrett, M., McDonald, K., Qu, L.,
Hendrickson, M. and Kassing, F.
(2017). Pre–post tornado effects on
aggressive children’s psychologicaland behavioral adjustment throughone-year postdisaster. Journalof Clinical Child & Adolescent
Psychology, 46(1), 136–149,<https://doi.org/10.1080/153744
16.2016.1228460>, accessed 10
February 2022.
Usami, M., Iwadare, Y., Watanabe,K., Kodaira, M., Ushijima, H.,
Tanaka, T. and Saito, K. (2016).
Long-term fluctuations in traumatic
symptoms of high school girls
who survived from the 2011 Japantsunami: Series of questionnairebased cross-sectional surveys.
Child Psychiatry & Human
Development, 47(6), 1002–1008,<https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578016-0631-x>, accessed 10 February
2022.

88

World Wildlife Fund (2020). Fires,
Forests and the Future: A crisis
raging out of control? Gland,
Switzerland: WWF.

89

Holm, S. M., Miller, M. D., andBalmes, J. R. (2021). Health effectsof wildfire smoke in children andpublic health tools: a narrative
review. Journal of exposure science& environmental epidemiology,
31(1), 1–20..

90Holm et al. (2021).

C A R D

1 7

91

Williamson, B., Markham, F. andWeir, J. K. (2020). Aboriginal
Peoples and the Response to
the 2019–2020 Bushfires. ANUWorking Paper Series No. 134/2020.
Canberra: Australian National
University.

92

Ducy, E. M. and Stough, L.
M. (2021). Psychologicaleffects of the 2017 California
wildfires on children and youth
with disabilities. Research indevelopmental disabilities, 114,
103981.

93

International Panel on Climate
Change (2022). Climate Change
2022: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability, <https://report.
ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC _ AR6 _WGII _ SummaryForPolicymakers.
pdf>, accessed 15 March 2022.

94

United Nations Environment
Programme (2021). Food Waste
Index Report 2021. Nairobi: UNEP.

95

Zhang, B., Huo, X., Xu, L., Cheng, Z.,
Cong, X., Lu, X. and Xu, X. (2017).
Elevated lead levels from e-waste
exposure are linked to decreased
olfactory memory in children.
Environmental Pollution, 231, 1112–
1121, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2017.07.015>, accessed 10
February 2022.

96

Xu, L., Huo, X., Liu, Y., Zhang, Y.,
Qin, Q. and Xu, X. (2020). Hearing
loss risk and DNA methylation
signatures in preschool children
following lead and cadmium
exposure from an electronic waste
recycling area. Chemosphere, 246,
125829, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemosphere.2020.125829>,
accessed 11 February 2022.

97

Forti, V., Balde, C.P., Kuehr, R.
and Bel, G. (2020), The Global
E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities,
flows and the circular economy
potential. Bonn, Geneva andRotterdam: United Nations
University/United Nations Institutefor Training and Research,
International Telecommunication
Union, and International Solid
Waste Association, p. 55.

98

World Health Organization(2021). Children and Digital
Dumpsites: E-waste exposureand child health, <https://www.who.int/publications/i/
item/9789240023901>, accessed
16 February 2022.

99

World Health Organization (2021).

100 Zhang, Y., Huo, X., Cao, J., Yang, T.,
Xu, L. and Xu, X. (2016). Elevatedlead levels and adverse effects
on natural killer cells in children
from an electronic waste recycling
area. Environmental Pollution, 213,
143–150, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envpol.2016.02.004>, accessed 11
February 2022.
101

108 Rousell, D. and Cutter-MackenzieKnowles, A. (2020). A systematic
review of climate change education:
Giving children and young peoplea ‘voice’ and a ‘hand’ in redressing
climate change. Children’s
Geographies, 18(2), 191–208,<https://doi.org/10.1080/147332
85.2019.1614532>, accessed 11
February 2022.
109 In PISA 2018, global issues include
seven items: climate change andglobal warming; global health;migration; gender inequality;international conflicts; hunger or
malnutrition; causes of poverty.
110

Chan, H.-W., Pong, V. and Tam,
K.-P. (2019). Cross-nationalvariation of gender differences inenvironmental concern: Testing thesociocultural hindrance hypothesis.
Environment and Behavior,
51(1), 81–108, <https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013916517735149>,
accessed 11 February 2022.

111

OECD (2020), PISA 2018 Results,
Volume VI: Are Students Ready toThrive in an Interconnected World?,<https://doi.org/10.1787/d5f68679en>, accessed 11 February 2022.

112

Statistically significant odds ratios
after controlling for students’gender, immigrant background andsocio-economic profile.

113

For further information, see<https://www.childrensparliament.
org.uk/climate-change-for-theclimate-assembly>, accessed 11
February 2022.

Forti et al. (2020).

102 World Health Organization (2021).
Soaring e-waste affects the healthof millions of children, WHO warns,<https://www.who.int/news/
item/15-06-2021-soaring-e-wasteaffects-the-health-of-millions-ofchildren-who-warns>, accessed 11
February 2022.
103 Ritchie, H. (2019). How do CO2emissions compare when we
adjust for trade?, Our World in
Data, <https://ourworldindata.
org/consumption-based-co2>,
accessed 11 February 2022.
104 Clarke, J., Heinonen, J. andOttelin, J. (2017). Emissions in a
decarbonised economy? Global
lessons from a carbon footprint
analysis of Iceland. Journal of
Cleaner Production 166, 1175–
1186, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.08.108.>105 Karsten (2005).
106 Children’s Worlds Project (2020).
The Children’s Worlds Survey
Wave III. Jerusalem: Children’sWorlds Project.
107 We recognize that there may
be gendered inequalities in thelikelihood of children being exposed
to environmental risks. However,as these relate to socio-cultural
norms around gender, they do not
fall under our definition of the ‘built’environment.

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D1 7

8 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Innocenti Report Card 17 wasconceptualized, researched and written by
Eszter Timar, Anna Gromada, Gwyther Rees
and Alessandro Carraro with contributions
from Dominic Richardson, Gunilla Olsson,
Celine Little, Dagna Rams, Gro Villanger,
Nicole Quattrini, Tim Huijts, Mirza Balaj andTerje Eikemo.
A panel of advisers and UNICEF reviewers
provided quality assurance. Additional
support and advice were provided by David
Anthony (UNICEF Innocenti), Michael
Brauer (School of Population and Public
Health), Kristen Cordero (Children’s
Environmental Rights Initiative), Fiona Tang
(University of Sydney), Amenawon Njilan
Esangbedo (UNICEF Geneva), UNICEF
Ghana Country Office and all UNICEF
National Committees. We thank colleagues
from UNICEF New York – Jasmina Byrne,
Nick Rees, Cristina Colon, Solrun
Engilbertsdottir, Sophie Lee, Gautam
Narasimhan, Desiree Raquel Narvaez,
Thomas Sayers, Leah Selim, Tom
Slaymaker, Abheet Solomon, Jeremy
Sprigge, Amy Wickham, Danzhen You –for their feedback and suggestions.
Administrative support at the UNICEF Officeof Research – Innocenti was provided by
Cinzia Iusco Bruschi and Lisa Gastaldin.
Editorial production was led by Sarah
Marchant, and communication andoutreach by Kathleen Sullivan, Celine Little
and Patrizia Faustini.
Our special thanks go to the young people
from Canada, Chile, Mexico, Spain and
Sweden who participated in consultationsin the early stages of writing this report.

8 4

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

Report Card 17 team at the UNICEF Officeof Research – Innocenti:
Alessandro Carraro, PhD, Social andEconomic Policy consultant.
Maria Rosaria Centrone, MA, Social andEconomic Policy consultant.
Anna Gromada, PhD, Social and Economic
Policy consultant.
Gwyther Rees, PhD, Social and Economic
Policy Manager
Dominic Richardson, PhD, Social andEconomic Policy Chief
Eszter Timar, MSc, Social and Economic
Policy consultant.

Report Card 17 contributors:
Gunilla Olsson, UNICEF Office of Research– Innocenti.
Celine Little, UNICEF Office of Research –Innocenti.
Dagna Rams, University of Lausanne.
Gro Dehli Villanger, Norwegian Institute of
Public Health, Oslo, Norway
Mirza Balaj, Centre for Global HealthInequalities Research (CHAIN)
Terje Andreas Eikemo, Centre for Global
Health Inequalities Research (CHAIN)
Tim Huijts, Centre for Global HealthInequalities Research (CHAIN)
Nicole Quattrini, Centre for Global HealthInequalities Research (CHAIN).

C A R D

1 7

Expert advisory board:
Terje Andreas Eikemo, Centre for Global
Health Inequalities Research (CHAIN)
Lia Karsten, University of Amsterdam
Isabelle Kolebinov, Child Rights
International Network
Tama Leventhal, Tufts University
Jamie Morrison, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Ann Sanson, University of Melbourne
Jonas Schubert, Terre des Hommes
International Federation
Kam Sripada, Centre for Digital Life
Norway.

The full text and related materials can be
downloaded from the UNICEF Office of
Research – Innocenti website:www.unicef-irc.org

Previous issues in this series:
Innocenti Report Card 1
A League Table of Child Poverty in Rich Nations
Innocenti Report Card 2
A League Table of Child Deaths by Injury in Rich Nations
Innocenti Report Card 3
A League Table of Teenage Births in Rich Nations
Innocenti Report Card 4
A League Table to Educational Disadvantage in Rich Nations
Innocenti Report Card 5
A League Table of Child Maltreatment Deaths in Rich Nations
Innocenti Report Card 6
Child Poverty in Rich Countries 2005
Innocenti Report Card 7
Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of childwell-being in rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 8
The Child Care Transition: A league table of early childhood
education and care in economically advanced countries
Innocenti Report Card 9
The Children Left Behind: A league table of inequality in childwell-being in the world’s rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 10
Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty inthe world’s rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 11
Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A comparative overview
Innocenti Report Card 12Children of the Recession: The impact of the economic crisis on
child well-being in rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 13
Fairness for Children: A league table of inequality in childwell-being in rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 14
Building the Future: Children and the Sustainable Development
Goals in rich countries
Innocenti Report Card 15
An Unfair Start: Inequality in children's education inrich countries
Innocenti Report Card 16
Worlds of Influence: Understanding what shapes
child well-being in rich countries

E X E C U T I V E

S U M M A R Y

UNICEF Office of Research – InnocentiVia degli Alfani 58
50121 Florence, Italy
Tel: +39 055 2033 0
Fax: +39 055 2033 220
researchpublications@unicef.org
www.unicef-irc.org© United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
May 2022@UNICEFInnocenti on Twitter, LinkedIn,
Facebook, Instagram and YouTube

I V

I N N O C E N T I

R E P O R T

C A R D

1 7

ISBN: 9788865220641