Seven Realms of Children's Participation

Journal of Environmental Psychology (2002) 22, 157^169 0272-4944/02/$-see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0248, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

SEVEN REALMS OF CHILDREN’S PARTICIPATION

1 2 MARK FRANCIS AND RAY LORENZO 1University of California, Davis, U.S.A. 2Milano, Italy

Abstract

Children’s participation in cityplanning and design has enjoyed increased interest among policymakers, designers, and researchers. This activitybuilds on a well-established bodyof research and practice that suggests that urban environments are best planned with the direct participation of children and youth. We believe that this work has reached a stage of maturityin need of critical re£ection and review so that it can be more e¡ective in the future. This paper presents a historical and critical review of children’s participation in cityplanning and design. Past participatorye¡orts with children are discussed as seven realms or approaches to their child participation. We characterize these realms as advocacy, romantic, needs, learning, rights, institutionalization, and proactive. We propose a seventh, proactive realm as a more integrative and e¡ective wayto involve children in design and planning. Utilizing the authors’ own projects as brief case studies as well as research of others, bene¢ts as well as limits to participation are identi¢ed. Special emphasis is placed on developing critical theorythat can be used in future research and practice. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd

Introduction children and youth. While there are important de- velopmental di¡erences and methods that work best The participation of children in citydesign has be- with di¡erent age groups, the principles relate to all come increasinglypopular and common. Manyci- ages from earlychildhood to adolescence. Planning ties from Berkeley, California to Milan in Italy is meant to include all activities of the design and have involved children in cityplanning and design planning process including programming, design, processes. Some cities have also implemented chil- planning, construction, and evaluation. Research dren’s ideas into plans and policies. Inter and policyhas addressed the needs of children national organizations such as UNICEF promote growing up in cities (Ward, 1978; Lynch, 1978) and children’s participation as the best wayto make in the country(Ward, 1988). These have included cities more friendlyand sustainable (UNICEF, studies of playgrounds (Perez & Hart, 1980) and 2000). At the same time, considerable research playground safety (Frost, 1985), schoolyards (Adams, has been done on the value of children’s parti- 1990; Young, 1990; Ward Thompson, 1995), preschools cipation in planning and design (Hart, 1992). (Fjrtoft & Sageie, 2000), and neighbourhood spaces This research and action has matured to a point (Francis et al., 1984, Homel & Burns, 1987). In addi- where it can bene¢t from a more historical and tion, researchers have examined more non-tradi- critical review. tional settings including healing landscapes (Marcus & Barnes, 1999; Aiken et al., 1995), the rela- tionship between children and plants (Moore, 1993; Research on children,participation Harvey, 1989; AHS, 1994), children and animals and city design (Melson et al., 1991), and children and gardens (Jekyll, 1990). Studies have also explored child-friendly Past work has addressed a number of urban settings cities (Horelli, 1998), new urbanism (Calthorpe, 1993), important for children. Bychildren we include both and healthylandscapes (Bedard, 2000). 158 M. Franas and R. Lorenzo

TABLE 1 TABLE 2 A typology of designed and planned places for children Some dimensions of child-friendly environments drawn from past research Institutional places Daycare Accessibility Schools Diversity Schoolyards Control Sports parks Mixed use Theme parks Adventure Public spaces Safe but not without risk Streets Meaning Sidewalks Autonomy Parks Socialization Trails Convivial Malls Serendipity Waterfronts Participation Beaches Private spaces Home Cars Found places Vacant lots discoveries of the importance of naturalistic play Natural areas (Hart, 1978; Deveraux, 1991; Wood, 1993) and chan- Waterfronts ging memories of childhood (Cooper, 1978; Korpela, Street corners 1991; Sobel, 1990). Research has focused on children’s Found/o¡ limits paces Discovery/adventure places fears of cityplaces (Woolley et al., 2000), perceived Vacant lots and actual crime (White et al., 1987), and tra⁄c Wilderness (Sandels, 1975). This research has identi¢ed some es- Urban wilderness sential ingredients in creating environments for Natural areas children. See Table 2 for some of the dimensions New and innovative Communitygardens needed for child-friendlyenvironments. School gardens There is also now much good theoryon the impor- Cityfarms tance of healthyand accessible cities for children Greenways (Gaster, 1991). This includes general theories of chil- Skate parks dren and cites (Parr, 1967; Noschis, 1995) theories of Town trails Front porches the geographyof childhood (Hart, 1978; Nabhan & Cyberspace Trimble, 1994; Holloway& Valentine, 2000) and more basic psychological theories (Gorlitz et al., 1998; Wohlwill & Heft, 1987). In addition, some studies have been focused on children experience and sense of place and place attachment (Hiss, 1990). Past research has explored a wide varietyof Others have examined environmental problems places for children including traditional public facing children such as toxic materials and spaces such as schools, parks, playgrounds and the health e¡ects of pollution (Roberts & streets (Brown & Burger, 1984; Altman & Zube, Dickey, 1995; Sattertwaite et al., 1996). More 1989; Carr et al., 1992; Spencer 1987) and newer, recentlystudies have explored the growing more innovative forms such as communitygardens, dependence of children on cyberspace (Valentine & natural areas and greenways (AHS 1994; Francis et Holloway, 2000). al., 1984). The success of these places has also been found to depend on the active involvement in children and other users in their initiation, design and management. Table 1 presents a typology of some of Children and participation the urban places most important for children today. A varietyof issues have been identi¢ed that face What began largelyas an advocacyprocess on the children growing up in cities today. They include part of adults to expose the needs and defend the more fundamental issues such as the disappearance rights of children in design and planning has now of childhood (Winn, 1983; Postman, 1994) and a become more of an accepted and mainstream ap- child’s right to play(Rivkin, 1995). These also include proach to planning. While not all environments are Realms of Children’s Participation 159

trol over their dailylives. We refer here principally to childhood in developed countries, although there are some signs that these issues are entering the lives of children in developing countries as well. In the western world including the United States and manyparts of Europe, childhood has become increasinglystructured and controlled leading some to suggest that childhood no longer exists. Child- hood today¢nds little time or place in the contem- porarycity(Lorenzo, 1992, Francis, in preparation). This has resulted in part from parents’ fears about the safetyand securityof their children (Blakely, 1994; Frost, 1995; Watt & Stenson, 1998; Scott et al., 1998; Harden, 2000). Problems of environmental pol- FIGURE 1 One purpose of participation is to empower children in lution and toxics have also fueled this concern the making and management of places theyuse (Rebecca Sever- (Roberts & Dickey, 1995; Sattertwaite et al., 1996). It son) also results from the ‘adultization’ of childhood where children’s time is ¢lled with organized activities such as sports, music and scheduled activities. planned with children in mind or with them directly Increasinglychildren’s lives are spent in institu- involved, more and more communities are attempt- tions notablyschools and daycarecenters. When ing to include children in design and planning of not in institutional settings, children are, in most environments theyuse. This has been a slow evolu- cases, under adult supervision at home, in malls, tion involving several stages or distinct realms of or in more privatized public places (McKendrick children’s participation. et al., 2000). Much of their unstructured time is Children’s participation like participation in de- spent at home or school in front of computers. Play- sign and planning in general has evolved through grounds have become more ordinaryand less chal- several distinct stages from tokenism to more e¡ec- lenging (Deveraux, 1991). Rarelydo children use tive participation to institutionalization (Hart, 1992; playgrounds without adult supervision today. Francis, 1999). Advances in thinking and methods in As children are driven more and more to places user participation in general have aided this evolu- theyuse, the amount of childhood life is spent in tion (Davido¡, 1965; Arnstein, 1969). Signi¢cant pro- cars, often stuck in tra⁄c (Alexander, 1993). Tra⁄c gress has been made on techniques that e¡ectively congestion and danger have kept children from involve children in design and planning (Moore et using citystreets in countries such as the United al., 1987; Lepore & Lorenzo, 1990, 1993). States, Britain and Italy. According to data released Additionally, better practices aided by empirical at an international conference in Turin on transport research and theoretical advances have made more systems, Italians in 2000 were found ‘to spend an convincing arguments for the value of children’s average seven years of their lives sitting in their participation (Chawla, 2001; Hart, 1997; Moore, cars and two years in the desperate search for park- 1990). Funding that supports participation in design ing space’. Some three billions hours are reported to and planning has become more readilyavailable and be lost in tra⁄c jams and the average time spent in policythat requires participation is more common getting from home to work has risen from 45 min in (Figure 1). 1994 to over an hour and a quarter in 2000. On the same day, new car sales in Italy were reported to have increased for the third month in a row increas- The changing culture and place of childhood ing 5?6 per cent over the same period in 1999’ (IHT, 2000). Recent research has shown that in several The development and requirements for participation Italian cities such as Milan and (even) ‘LIVABLE’ has been directlye¡ected bythe changing place of Siena, more than 70 per cent of children are driven childhood (Holloway& Valentine, 2000). Children’s to elementaryand middle schools bytheir parents. lives have become more structured and controlled The implications of this changing culture of (Amato, 1989). Their access to the outdoors is more childhood for participation are signi¢cant. As chil- limited and their use of structured places has in- dren’s lives have become more institutionalized so creased. The result is that manychildren lack con- has children’s participation. It requires planners 160 M. Franas and R. Lorenzo and parents to rethink and modifypast approaches and environments (Lorenzo 1983, 1985). This work to make children stronger advocates for their needs contributed concepts to the children’s rights move- in planning. ment pointing out important individual as well as institutional bene¢ts of participation (Boulding, 1969; Nicholson & Lorenzo, 1980). A common method The seven realms of children’s participation used in this period as well as the needs realm is environmental autobiographywhere adults were asked Looking back at the more than 30-year history of to remember and draw their favorite childhood children’s participation in design and planning, sev- places (Chawla, 1986; Soebel, 1990). Progress during eral stages or realms are evident. While there is sig- this period was celebrated at the ‘Childhood City’ ni¢cant overlap between each of the periods and sessions at the annual meetings of the Environmen- participants, there are unique di¡erences as well. tal Design Research Association (EDRA), at Inter- Each period has its own history, identity, theory national Futurists Conventions, and was published and methods. The development of each realm can in the Childhood City Newsletter (later to become also be traced to changes in the political and cultur- Children’s Environments Quarterly). One limitation al context. of this approach is that it often ignored adult input Some participatoryplanners have remained com- as part of the participatoryprocess, leading adult mitted to speci¢c realms while others have contrib- decision makers to overrule the children’s ideas. uted to the development of new approaches or While this approach to children’s participation been worked in multiple realms. This is due to the nature not found to be realistic in the context of childhood of environmental psychology and city design where today, it has led to the development of an under- people’s disciplinarybackground range from psy- standing of important concepts of childhood. Much chologyto landscape architecture, child develop- of this ideological focus continues todayand can be ment to planning, geographyto urban design. found within other realms of practice and theory While closelyrelated, an understanding of the spe- (Figure 2). cial characteristics of each realm mayprovide a Advocacy realm: ‘p1anners for children’. This peri- useful starting point to more e¡ective children’s od, overlapping to a large degree with the romantic participation in the future. Each will be brie£ydis- period, grew out the advocacyplanning movement. cussed including its contributions and limitations. It resulted from planning projects in the 1960s Table 3 summarizes some the similarities and di¡er- where citizens were not allowed to have a sayin ences of each. projects that a¡ected their lives. First with adults and later with children, planners became advocates Romantic realm: ‘children as planners’ Children’s for the needs of the poor and powerless. While many participation has its earlyroots in an ideological of these e¡orts resulted more in stopping projects period that saw children as a distinct life stage. It such as inner cityhighwaysand urban renewal pro- viewed children as active designers and planners jects than developing new plans and proposals, with design ideas di¡erent and often better than some led to positive changes such as the provision adults. We call this the romantic period as manybe- of recreational space for children. A major limita- lieved that if onlykids were the planners then envir- tion with this approach is that it was not holistic onments would be more successful. This grew out of and ignored the o⁄cial decision making process. the work of a number of innovative designers and Other limitations included that children were ‘advo- researchers in the 1960s and early1970s including cated for’ not directlyinvolved in the design pro- Spivak (1969), Moore (1990, 1993; Moore & Way cess. Professionals active in the realm include 1997), and Nicholson (1971). Theysought to involve Bishop (1992), Goodey(1979), and Hester (1999). They children as planners and designers of playgrounds, contributed important techniques that showed how communitygardens, schools, and other places. It citizens and children could be e¡ectivelyinvolved in also grew out of earlyresearch on adventure play- large and complex design and planning projects. grounds in Britain and Denmark where children RandyHester (1999) has provided a useful social built their own playenvironments (Cooper, 1970). historyof the advocacyplanning movement and its This led some to conclude that children were the keyparticipants. (Figure 3). best designers and builders of environments for themselves. An additional emphasis emerged during Needs realm: ‘social scientists for children’.This has this period was ‘children as futurists’ where chil- been the most active and published research-based dren and youth were asked to image future cities periods of children’s participation with work appearing Realms of Children’s Participation 161

TABLE 3 The seven realms of children’s participation in city design and planning 1. Romantic Approach ‘Children as Planners’,‘Children as Futurists’ TheoryPlanning Children ‘by’children. de¢ne and make their own future, often without adult involvement. Much of the ‘rights’ movement grew out of this approach. Objectives Child de¢ned cities. Audience Schools, Communities, Architects and Planners, Futurists Keyparticipants Individuals: Mayer Spivak, Nanine Clay,Simon Nicholson, RayLorenzo Organizations: World’s Futures Society, World Wildlife Fund, Childhood City Research advances Contributed important concepts and case studies Design advances Provided useful ideas about what cities would be like if planned entirelybychildren. De- veloped innovative methods and proposed children’s participation as a global issue. Limitations Relied on children to envision and make their own communities, future environments, etc. Did not typically involve adults in process. Status Still practiced bythose seeking more child-generated idea of the future. Visioning has become the standard ¢rst step in o⁄cial participatoryprocess such as Agenda 21.

2. Advocacy Approach ‘Planners for Children’ TheoryPlanning ‘for’ children with needs plannersadvocated byadult Objectives Represent the interests of children byadvocating their needs as adult professionals Audience Citizen group; public planning bodies making decisions and plans that e¡ect children’s lives Keyparticipants Individuals: Paul Hogan, Je¡ Bishop, Karl Linn, RandyHester Organizations: Planners Network, Association of CommunityDesign Centers, Congress for New Urbanism, some private and public ¢rms Research advances Developed politicallysophisticated methods and theories of participation Limitations Not holistic. Often created separate plans and places. No attempt at consensus building with other interests. Outside those being ‘advocated for’. Status Largelyreplaced byother realms

3. Needs Approach ‘Social Science for Children’ TheoryResearch-based approach that addresses children’s needs Objectives De¢ne the spatial needs of children and incorporate them into design Audience Largelyacademic but has expanded to include design and policymakers Participants Individuals: Kevin Lynch, Roger Hart, Clare Cooper Marcus, Florence Ladd, Robin Moore, Joost van Andel, PatsyOwens, Louise Chawla, GaryMoore Organizations: Envir- onmental Design Research Association; American Horticultural Society; Urban Parks In- stitute Research advances Contributed key¢ndings and principles about what makes good environments for children Limitations Sometimes did not recognize the importance of children’s participation in advancing knowledge Status Still an energetic part of environmental design research

4. Learning Approach ‘Children as Learners’ TheoryParticipation through environmental education and learning Objectives Learning outcomes of participation is as important as physical changes; Architects teach children about architecture; Audience Teachers; Environmental Educators Participants Individuals: Doreen Nelson, Elaine Adams, Sharon Stine, WendyTitman, Susan Goltsman Organizations: Landscapes for Learning; American Institute of Architects Research advances Has contributed important methods Design advances Increased use of natural environment and vegetation in outdoor places for children. Limitations Designers and decision makers do not always utilize research knowledge; children are fre- quentlynot directlyinvolved in social science research. Built projects not an important goal. Process changed perceptions and skills but not manyphysical places. Status A specialized but active part of child participation projects

(continued on next page) 162 M. Franas and R. Lorenzo

Table 3 (continued)

5. Rights Approach ‘Children as Citizens’ TheoryChildren have rights that need to be protected Objectives Mandate children’s participation in planning and citydecision-making Audience Cityo⁄cial; International organizations Participants Roger Hart, David Sattertwaite, Sheri Bartlett, Robin Moore Organizations: IPA; UNI- CEF; Childwatch International; Save the Children; RayLorenzo innocenti Institute of Florence Research advances Has developed useful new methods Design advances Has created child developed plans for neighborhoods and cities Limitations Tends to focus more on children’s rights and less on their environmental needs Status Popular in manycountries due to United Nations mandate and support from international aid organizations

6. Institutionalization Approach ‘Children as Adults’ TheoryPlanning but within ‘by’children institutional boundaries authorities, set byadults, and clients Objectives Mandated/required child participation Audience Typically o⁄cial city plans and programs Participants Individuals: Cityo⁄cials; child advocates Organizations: Children CityCouncil, UNICEF, Childwatch International, National organizations concerned with children Research advances Useful methods Design advances Numerous case studies Limitations Tends to create limited results or results counter to what children reallywant Status Becoming more of the standard wayof child participation today

7. Proactive Approach ‘Participation with Vision’ TheoryPlanning ‘with’ children. Combines research, participation and action to engage children and adults in planning and design. Children are active participants in process but designers/planners playan important role. Objectives Develop participatoryplans and designs with children that incorporate their ideas and needs. Plans should be focused on strong vision of both empowering children and making substantive changes to the cityenvironment. Audience Children; communityorganizations; design professionals Participants Individuals: RandyHester, Marcia McNally,Laura Lawson, Susan Goltsman, Daniel Iaco- fano Organizations: Japan/Taiwan Group; CommunityDesign Centers, some private and public ¢rms, non-pro¢t organizations Design advances Contributing useful theoryand methods Limitations Not always possible in every project; Requires designers/planners with special training and skills Status Becoming a more common form of participation

in journals such as Children’s Environments, Child- (Cobb, 1977; Chawla, 1986; Nabhan & Trimble, 1994), hood, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Environ- plants (Moore, 1993), and vegetation for children ment and Behavior, BEE: Bulletin for Environmental (Harvey, 1989; Moore & Wong, 1999; Fjrtoft & Sa- Education and Streetwise. It seeks to use environ- gele, 2000). It also includes research that has demon- mental psychology research to advance thinking strated the di¡erences of children growing up in about children’s environments. It is an area of parti- rural and urban environments (Ward, 1978, 1988; cipatoryactivitymade possible bysigni¢cant ad- Lynch, 1978). In addition studies have shown the im- vances in research on the environmental and place portance of the larger neighborhood environment as needs of children and youth (Hart, 1978; Heft & a setting for children (van Andel, 1985; Homel & Wohlwill, 1987; Gorlitz et al., 1998). Researchers have Burns, 1987) and the needs of adolescents in built shown that children have unique needs that should and natural environments (Owens, 1988; Childress, be considered in designing environments. This has 2000). This research has resulted from the often in- included studies that show the importance of nature terdisciplinarywork of geographers, psychologists, Realms of Children’s Participation 163

FIGURE 4 Social science methods such as behavior mapping have been used to evaluate open spaces that children use. Village Homes in Davis California (Mark Francis)

(1985), Owens (1988), Chawla (1986, 1995, 2001), and Moore (1985). Several design ¢rms such as Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman (MIG) in Berkeleyin the United States (Moore et al., 1987) and non-pro¢t organizations such the Children’s Environments Research Group at CityUniversityof New York and Natural Learning at North Carolina State Universityhave

FIGURE 2 A goal of ‘children as planners’ is to make them advo- worked largelyin this realm. Advances in research cates for themselves in the design process. Children evaluating on children’s environments have been presented at design proposals with better, equal, or worse ratings (RayLoren- annual meetings of the Environmental Design Re- zo) search Association (EDRA) and International Asso- ciation for the Studyof People and their Physical Surroundings (IAPS) and published in the journal Children’s Environments. A limitation with this approach is that it assumes that good social science alone can identifychildren’s spatial needs and that children themselves do not need to be directlyinvolved in the design process (Figure 4).

Learning realm: ‘children as learners’. A more recent period of children’s participation involves environmental learning and education as a central focus of participatoryprocess. As more and more studies have documented that learning is an important out- come of planning and childhood experience (Carr & Lynch, 1969, Chawla, 1995; Lepore & Lorenzo, 1989), FIGURE 3 Adults viewing Children’s models of housing and open planners have worked to incorporate this into parti- space Italy(RayLorenzo) cipatoryprocesses with children. Keyparticipants in this realm include Adams (1990) and Moore (Moore & Wong, 1997). Examples of projects that sociologists, landscape architects, planners includ- have incorporated this approach include architec- ing Lynch (1978), Hart (1978, 1992, 1997), Cooper tural appreciation, built environment education, (1970), Marcus and Barnes (1999), Ladd (1978), and learning from landscapes (Adams, 1990, Titman, Moore (1990, 1993 Moore & Wang, 1997), van Andel 1994, Moore & Wong, 1997, Stine, 1999). This 164 M. Franas and R. Lorenzo

FIGURE 6 Children presenting their design ideas to adults in Italy (RayLorenzo)

FIGURE 5 Children photographing a studysite in Italyis an example of ‘children as learners’ (RayLorenzo) approach often leads to learning and social change the process. Participation is now generallyrequired but not improved or changed environments. Chil- in manyurban development projects in developed dren are often not directlyinvolved in the decision- countries (Lansdown, 2000). Well intended, this making process relying more on professionals or realm often ignores the importance of more sponta- teachers to set the design or curriculum agenda neous and child-centered participation. It often re- (Figure 5). sults in limited environmental change or ideas that run counter to what children reallywant. It can also Rights realm: ‘children as citizens’. A more recent lead to proposals and ideas not supportive of good movement has been to de¢ne and work to guarantee environments for children such as ‘Not in MyBack children’s rights in urban environments. First pro- Yard’ (NIMBYism) or cultural separation (Figure 7). posed byorganizations such as the International Association for the Child’s Right to Play(IPA), a Proactive realm: ‘participation with vision’. The child’s right to playwas later adopted bythe United more recent realm is what is called ‘proactive parti- Nations in the Convention on Child Rights within a cipation’ (Francis, 1999). This re£ects our current broad set of children’s rights (1989). This has been thinking and practice of participation as a commu- an important evolution in thinking and practice in nicative and visionaryprocess. It moves beyond tra- children’s participation were children are seen as ditional forms of children’s participation that simply fullyempowered participants (UNICEF, 1996; Bar- involves children to one directed at empowering tlett, 1999; Bartlett et al., 1999). It involves principles children and adults to reinvent childhood and the of democracy, rights, and empowerment (Hart, 1992). places that support it. It recognizes children as chil- People active in developing this realm include Hart dren not just young adults that must behave and (1997), Sattertwaite et al., (1996), Bartlett (1999), participate as adults. It attempts to not be just nos- Moore (1990), Rivkin (1995) and Chawla (2001). Ex- talgic about childhood but seeks to ¢nd ways to use amples of projects of children’s rights include Chil- planning and design to recreate childhood. It also dren’s CityCouncils and Child FriendlyCities, incorporates the idea of a more child-centered or both supported byUNICEF. The UNESCO led pro- naturalistic childhood (Wood, 1993). Proactive prac- ject ‘Growing Up in Cities’ is a current example of tice with children takes advances in concepts about cross-cultural research and action taking place in what makes good environments for children and several parts of the world (Chawla, 2001). A limita- combines them with correct principles and methods tion with this approach is that it tends to focus intended to generate genuine children and adult more on children’s rights and less on their environ- participation in the planning process. This realm re- mental needs (Figure 6). cognizes participation as a communicative, educa- Institutional Realm: ‘children as adults’. Recently, tional activity(Herrinton, 1999). An important children participation, like its adult counterpart, bene¢t of this approach to children’s participation has been moving toward an institutional period. is increased perceived control (Francis, 1989). The Here children are often treated like adults, ex- sustainable cities movement is a useful allyfor this pected to have the same knowledge and power in realm of child participation (Lorenzo, 1998, 1999a, b, Realms of Children’s Participation 165

FIGURE 8 Italian children developing a plan for a new park using FIGURE 7 On this map children project their fear of a completely urbanized Italy(RayLorenzo) collage techniques (RayLorenzo)

2000, Local Environment, 2001; Driskell, 2001). Lim- While not designed speci¢callyas a child-oriented itations include that this approach maynot be pos- environment, it has been found to provide impor- sible in everysituation and that planners and tant opportunities and spaces for children (Francis, designers need special training to work in this fash- 1985). Open channel drainage collects all rainwater ion (Francis, 1999) (Figure 8). on the surface of the neighborhood landscape and uses weirs and small ponds to return it to the water table, rather than more expensive storm drain Some examples of proactive participation from systems. This provides for water play for children the United States and Italy and a more naturalistic landscape. Most plants are either native or edible increasing its habitat and To illustrate the more proactive mode of children wildlife value. Bird and insect life is abundant. The participation, we o¡er two brief examples from our design of the neighborhood also includes the provi- own participatorywork in California and Italy. sion of unstructured playareas such as vineyards, orchards, and natural areas with a high level of play Children in a Sustainable CommunityFVillage value. Homes, Davis, California Children were directlyinvolved in the design of the neighborhood landscape including common U.S.A. Village Homes was designed and developed in areas and the Village playground. In designing the the late 1970s as a model ecological and sustainable playground, children’s use of existing spaces in the community(Corbett & Corbett, 2000; Francis, 2001). neighborhood was mapped (Francis, 1988). They 166 M. Franas and R. Lorenzo were also asked to draw maps of their favorite outdoor places. In addition, children aged 8^12 were gi- ven instant cameras and asked to take photographs of their favorite outdoor places. This map of ‘favorite places’ was particularlyuseful in developing design ideas for the playground. Design workshops were also held with parents where the results of the research were discussed and children presented their own design ideas. This involved a proactive process between children and adults where design di¡erences were clari¢ed and negotiated. Other common landscapes were designed with children’s participation. For example, rather than designing and building the common areas between houses, the developers Mike and JudyCorbett set FIGURE 9 The goal of participation is ultimatelyto make good aside the construction funds and had the new resi- places for children. Children gardening in Village Homes, Davis, California. (Mark Francis) dents design what theywanted (Francis, 2001). As a result, each common area is di¡erent. Ones with fa- milies with small children included custom-built playequipment while ones with older residents of- nerf’ type streets. A historic farmhouse has been ten have vegetable gardens (Figure 9). saved and will be developed into a children’s urban farm and environmental education center. New Children’s participation in a city planFEmpoli, Italy buildings with innovative mixed uses were built around two new piazzas. The success of this process Perhaps more than anyother western country,Italy was recognized bythe Italian government in 1999 has recentlyo⁄ciallyembraced children’s participa- when Empoli was awarded a ¢rst prize for ‘Sustain- tion in planning. In the last ¢ve or six years, major able Cities’ for small cities. The jurycited the ‘Chil- architecture journals in Italyhave devoted issues to dren’s Participation’ component of the plan as a children’s participation. The Italian Architects As- ‘most e¡ective vehicle towards city-wide acceptance sociation and National Planning Association have of sustainable principles and practices’ (for more in- signed a national agreement with Ministryof Envir- formation see www.comune.empoli.¢.it). onment for a national campaign including sponsor- ing projects and design competitions, training, and conferences on children’s participation. There are Conclusion and future directions currentlyhundreds of Italian cities in which some form of children’s participation is transforming the Clearlythe state of the art of children’s participa- urban landscape or the perception of children’s tion has advanced beyond isolated romantic e¡orts needs and rights in planning. and projects to more common and even national in- One such example is the Cityof Empoli, a cityof itiatives. While becoming more institutionalized and 48,000 near Florence. Cityo⁄cials decided to devel- mainstream, child participation is a major area of op a new cityplan through a major investment in environmental design proactive and research today. children and youth participation. Citywide surveys Yet considerable research and practice is needed to were carried out in the City’s High Schools and expand its in£uence. For example, we need a larger two pilot neighborhood workshops involving four number of empirical studies that show the impor- elementaryand four middle school classes in the tance of children’s participation in making good en- planning of two peripheral ‘problem’ neighborhoods. vironments. The children’s participation served as a catalyst for Future research and practice in children’s partici- the involvement of adults in the cityplan. The chil- pation in planning and design will draw to some de- dren’s ideas and citywide consultation process led to gree from all past realms. What has been important numerous changes in the City’s original general is that past work has attempted to integrate the plan. For example, development proposals were re- best principles and practices from environmental duced in some areas to allow for increased pedes- design and environmental psychology in the making trian areas and greenways for children. Several of children’s environments. Yet a central question streets have been converted into child friendly‘woo- with this work remains. Is children’s participation Realms of Children’s Participation 167 a wayto create a more democratic world? Or is it a Blakely, K. S. (1994). Parents’conceptions of social dangers wayto simplyto create better places for children? in the urban environment. Children’s Environments This dilemma must be addressed in order for future Quarterly 11, 1: 16^25. Boulding, E. (1979). Children’s Rights and the Wheel of Life. practice to lead to positive environmental and com- New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. munitychange. Nevertheless, participation promises Brown, J. & Burger, C. (1984). Playground designs and pre- to be an important and vigorous part of research school children’s behavior. Environment and Behavior. and action in the future. 16, 599^626. Calthorpe, P. (1993). The Next American Metropolis. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Carr, S. & Lynch, K. (1968). Where learning happens. Dae- dalus. 97, 4. Notes Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. & Stone, A. (1992). Public Space. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress. Reprint requests and correspondence should be addressed Chawla, L. R. (1986). The ecologyof environmental mem- to Mark Francis, Department of Environmental Design, ory. Children’s Environments. 3, 4: 34^42. Universityof California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A. Chawla, L. R. (1995). Revisioning childhood, nature, and E-mail: [email protected]; http://Ida.ucdavis.edu/fa- the city. In K. Noschis, (Ed.), Children and the City. culty/francis.html; (530) 752-6031 (O⁄ce); (530) 752-1392 Lausanne: Comportements, pp. 101^108. (Fax). RayLorenzo, Abcitta cooperative Milano, via pina- Chawla, L. R. (Ed.) (2001). Growing Upin an Urbanizing monte de vimercate E Milano, Italy. E-mail: abcitta@li- World. London: Earthscan Publications. bero.it, 39-75-5003125 (Studio/Fax). Childress, H. (2000). Landscapes of Betrayal, Landscapes of Joy: Curtisville in the Lives of Its Teenagers. Syracuse: State Universityof New York. Cobb, E. (1976). The Ecology of Imagination in Childhood. References New York: Columbia UniversityPress. Cooper, C. (1970). Adventure playgrounds. Landscape Ar- Adams, E. (1990). Learning through Landscapes: A Report chitecture. October, 60, 18^29. on the Use, Design, Management, and Development of Corbett, J. & Corbett, M. N. (2000). Designing Sustainable School Grounds. London: Learning Through Land- Communities: Learning from Village Homes. Washing- scapes Trust. ton, DC: Island Press. Aiken, K., Bowns, C. & Francis, M. (1994). Healing Envir- Davido¡, P. (1965). Advocacyand pluralism in planning. onments: A Collection of Case Studies. Davis, CA: Cen- Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 21, 331^ ter for Design Research, Universityof California 338. Davis. Deveraux, K. (1991). Children of nature. UC Davis Maga- Alexander, J. (1993). The external costs of escorting chil- zine. 9, 20^23. dren. In M. Hillman, (Ed.), Children, Transport and Driskell, D. (2001). Creating Better Cities with Children and Quality of Life. London: PolicyStudies Institute, pp. Youth. London: Earthscan Publications. 77^81. Altman, I. & Zube, E., Eds. (1989). Public Places and Eberbach, C. (1992). Children’s gardens: the meaning Spaces. Volume 10: Human Behavior and the Environ- of place. In D. Relf, (Ed.). The Role of Horticulture ment. New York: Plenum. in Human Well Being. Portland: Timber Press, Amato, P. R. (1989). Who cares for children in public pp. 000^000. places: naturalistic observation of male and female Fishwick, L. & Vining, J. (1992). Toward a phenomenology caretakers. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 51, of recreation place. Journal of Environmental Psychol- 981^990. ogy, 12, 57^63. AHS (American Horticultural Society) (1994). Proceedings Fjrtoft, I. & Sageie, J. (2000). The natural environment as of the Children, Gardens and Plants Symposium. Alex- a playground for children: Landscape description and andria, VI: AHS. analyses of a natural playscape. Landscape and Urban Arnstein, S. (1969). The ladder of citizen participation. Planning. 48, 83^97. JournaloftheAmericanInstituteofPlanners.35, 216^ Francis, M. (1985). Children’s use of open space in 224. Village Homes. Children’s Environments Quarterly. 1, Bartlett, S. (1999). How urban design can support chil- 4: 36^38. dren’s rights. UNCHS. 5, 2. The United Nations Centre Francis, M. (1988). Negotiating between children and for Human Settlements. adult design values in open space projects. Design Bartlett, S., Hart, R., Satterthwaite, D., de la Barra, X. & Studies. 9: 67^75. Missair, A. (1999). Cities for Children: Children’s Rights, Francis, M. (1989). Control as a dimension of public space Poverty and Urban Management. London: Earthscan. quality. In I. Altman & E. Zube, (Eds), Public Places Bedard, M. (2000). HealthyLandscapes: Guidelines for and Spaces. Vol. 10. New York: Plenum, pp. 147^172. Therapeutic CityForm. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Francis, M. (1999). Proactive practice: visionarythought Universityof California, Davis. and participatoryaction in environmental design. Bishop, J., Adams, E. & Kean, J. (1992). Children, Environ- Places. 12, 1: 60^68. ment & Education: Personal Views of Urban Environ- Francis, M. (2001). Village Homes: A Place-based Case mental Education in Britain. Children’s Environments Study. Washington DC: Landscape Architecture Foun- Quarterly. 9, 49^67. dation. 168 M. Franas and R. Lorenzo

Francis, M. (In preparation). The childhood of imprison- Lepore, L. & R. Lorenzo (1989). Scopriamo l’ambiente urba- ment. Book manuscript in progress. no. (Discovering the Urban Environment). in Quaderno Francis, M., Cashdan, L., & Paxson, L. (1984). Community di educazione ambientale n. 1, WWF-Italia, Rome, Open Spaces. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 1989. Frost, J. C. (1995). Historyof playground safetyin Ameri- Lepore, L. & R. Lorenzo. (1990). Immaginiamo il futuro. ca. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 2, 4: 13^23. (Let’s Imagine the Future). Quaderno di Educazione Gaster, S. (1991). Urban children’s access to their neighbor- Ambientale. 10, WWF-Italia, Roma, 1990. hoods: changes over three generations. Environment Lepore, L. & R. Lorenzo. (1993). Come riconquistare le nos- and Behavior. 23, 70^85. tre citta' , (How to Win Back our Cities). Quaderno di Goodey, B. (1979). Towards new perceptions of the environ- Educazione Ambientale 22, WWF-Italia, Rome. ment: Using the town trail. In D. Appleyard (Ed.). The Local Environment. (2001). Special Issue on Children, Youth Conservation of European Cities. Cambridge: The MIT and Sustainable Cities. 6, l. February. Press. Lorenzo, R. (1983). Communitycontext, future perspective Gorlitz, D., Harlo¡, H. J., May, G. & Valsiner, J. (Eds.). and participation. Childhood City Quarterly. (1998). Children, Cities and Psychological Theories: Lorenzo, R. Gruppo futuro: children designing their neigh- Developing Relationships. New York: Walter De borhood’s futures,inArchitecture Multilple and Com- Gruyter. plex, Sansoni Editore, Florence. 1985. Harden, J. (2000). There’s no place like home: The public/ Lorenzo, R. (1992). Too Little Time and Space for Childhood. private distinction in children’s theorizing of risk Florence, Italy: Studi Innocenti, Istituto degli Inno- and safety. Childhood. 7, 1. centi. UNICEF International Child Development Cen- Hart, R. (1978). Children’s Experience of Place. New York: tre. Irvington. Lorenzo, R. (1995). La citta' dell’infanzia: parole, programmi, Hart, R. (1992). Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to ricerche, partecipazione e-speriamoFprogetti concreti. Citizenship. Innocenti EssayNo. 4. Florence, Italy: (The City of Childhood: Words, programmes, research, UNICEF International Child Development Center. participation andFlet’s hopeFbuilt projects). Paesaggio Hart, R. (1997). Children‘s Participation: The Theory and Urbana. 3. Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community De- Lorenzo, R. (1998). La citta' sostenibile: partecipazione, luogo, velopment and Environmental Care. London: Earthscan comunita' . (The Sustainable City: Participation, Place and New York: UNICEF. and Community). Milano, Italy: Ele'uthera. Harvey, M. (1989). Children’s experience with vegetation. Lorenzo, R. (1999). Al progettista il compito di superare le Children’s Environments Quarterly. 6, 1: 36^43. fratture della ‘citta' degli adulti. (A task for the planner: Heft, H. & Wohlwill, F. (1987). Environmental cognition in Adjust the ‘Fractures’ Made in the City of Adults). Edili- children. pp. 175^203 in D. Stokols and I. Altman zia e Territorio. Settimanale di Il Sole 24 Ore. 4, 25^30. (Eds.). Handbook of Environmental Psychology. Vol . 1, Lorenzo, R. (1999). L’interazione tra soggetti diversi: bambini pp. 175^203. New York: Wiley. ed adulti all’interno dei processi di piani¢cazione parte- Herrington, S. (1999). Playgrounds as community land- cipata. (The interaction between di¡erent urban actors: scapes. Built Environment. 25, 25^34. children and adults in processes of participatory plan- Hester, R. (1999). Refrain with a view. Places. 12, 1. ning in The Adriano Neighborhood: inhabitants design Hiss, T. (1990). The Experience of Place. New York: Knopf. their city). Milano: Il Quartiere Adriano, gli Abitanti Holloway, S. & Valentine, G. (Eds), (2000). Children’s Geo- Progettano la Citta' . (a cura di Monica Vercesi). Milano, graphies: Living, Playing, Learning and Transforming Italy: Franco Angeli. Everyday Worlds. London: Routledge. Lorenzo, R. (2000). In citta' ci abito anch’io. Una guida ad Homel, R. & Burns, A. (1987). Is this a good place to grow una progettazione urbana attenta alle esigenze dei bam- up in: neighborhood qualityand children’s evalua- bini. (I Live in This City, Too: A Guide for Child tions. Landscape and Urban Planning. 14, 101^116. Friendly Urban Design) Perugia, Italy: Edizioni Guer- Horelli, L. (1998). Creating child-friendlyenvironments: ra. case studies on children’s participation in three Eur- Lynch, K. (1978). Growing Up in Cities. Cambridge: The opean countries. Childhood. 5, 2: 225^239. MIT Press. IHT (International Herald Tribune) (2000). Children and McKendrick, J. H., Fielder, A. V. & Bradford, M. G. (2000). cars. November 7. Privatization of collective playspaces in the United Jekyll, G. (1990). Children & Gardens. Su¡olk: Antique Col- Kingdom. Childhood. 7, 295^314. lector’s Club. Marcus, C. C. & Barnes, M. (Eds). (1999). Healing Gardens, Korpela, K. (1991). Adolescents’ and adults’ favourite New York: Wiley. places. In T. Niit, M. Raudsepp & K. Liik (Eds), Envir- Melson, G. F., Peet, S. Sparks, C. (1991). Children’s attach- onment and Social Development: Proceedings of the ment to their pets: links to socio-emotional develop- East-West Colloquium in Environmental Psychology. Tal- ment. Children’s Environments Quarterly. 8, 2: 55^65. linn: Publisher. pp. 76^83. Moore, G. T. (1985). State of the art in playenvironment Ladd, F. C. (1978) Citykids in the absence of ... In R. research and applications. In J. Frost (Ed.), When Chil- Kaplan & S. Kaplan, (Eds), Humanscape: Environ- dren Play. Wheaton, MD: Association for Childhood ments for People. North Scituate, MA: DuxburyPress, Education International, pp. 171^192. pp. 77^81. Moore, R. C. (1990). Childhood’s Domain: Play and Place in Lansdown, G. (2000). Promoting Children’s Participation Child Development. Berkeley: MIG Communications. in Democratic Decision-Making. Florence: UNICEF Moore, R. C. (1993). Plants for Play.Berkeley:MIGCom- Innocenti Research Center. munications. Realms of Children’s Participation 169

Moore, R. C. & Wong, H. H. (1997). Natural Learning. Ulrich, R. S., Simmons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Berkeley: MIG Communications. Miles, M. A. & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress-recoverydur- Moore, R. C., Goltsman, S. & Iacofano, D. (1987). The Play ing exposure to natural and urban environments. for All Guidelines: Planning Design and Management of Journal of Environmental Psychology. 11, 201^230. Outdoor Settings for all Children. Berkeley, CA: MIG UNICEF. (1992). New Vision for Urban Children and Fa- Communications. milies. International Meeting of Mayors, Urban Plan- Nabhan, G. P. & Trimble, S. (1994). The Geography of Child- ners and PolicyMakers. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti hood: Why Children Need Wild Places. New York: Bea- Research Center. con Press. UNICEF. (1996). Children’s Rights and Habitat: Report of the Nicholson, S. (1971). How not to cheat children: the theory Expert Seminar. February1^2, 1996. New York: United of loose parts. Landscape Architecture, 61, 30^34. Nations Children’s Fund. Nicholson, S. & Lorenzo, R. (1980). The political implica- UNICEF. (2000). Towards Child-Friendly Cities. New York: tions of children’s participation. Ekistics. March^ United Nations Children’s Fund. April. Valentine, G. (1999). Oh please, Mum, oh please, Dad: ne- Noschis, K. (1995). Children and the City. Lusanne: Com- gotiating children’s spatial boundaries. In L. McKie, portements. S. Browlby& S. Gregory. Gender, Power and the House- Owens, P. E. (1988). Natural landscapes, Gathering places, hold. New York: Macmillian, pp. 137^157. and prospect refuges: Characteristics of outdoor Valentine, G. & Holloway, S. L. (2000). Transforming cyber- places valued byteens. Children’s Environments Quar- space: children’s interventions in the new public terly. 5, 17^24. sphere. In S. L. Holloway& G. Valentine, (Eds), Chil- Parr, A. (1967). The child in the city: urbanity and the ur- dren’s Geographies: Living, Playing, Learning and Trans- ban scene. Landscape. 16, 3^5. forming Everyday Worlds. London: Routledge. pp. 000^ Perez, C. & Hart, R. (1980). Beyond playgrounds: children’s 000. accessibilityto the landscape. In Wilkinson, P. F., van Andel, J. (1985). E¡ects on children’s outdoor behavior (ed.), Innovations in Play Environments. New York: St. of physical changes in Leiden neighborhood. Chil- Martin’s Press, pp. 252^71. dren’s Environments Quarterly. 1, 46^54. Postman, N. (1994). The Disappearance of Childhood. New Van Vliet, W. (1983). An examination of the home range of York: Dell Books. cityand suburban teenagers. Environment and Beha- Rivkin, M. S. (1995). The Great Outdoors: Restoring Chil- vior. 15, 567^588. dren’s Right to Play Outside. Washington, DC: National Ward, C. (1978). The Child in the City. New York: Pantheon. Association for the Education of Children. Ward, C. (1988). The Child in the Country. London: Robert Roberts, J. W. and Dickey, P. (1995). Exposure of Hale. children to pollutants in house dust and indoor air. Ward Thompson, C. (1995). School playground design: Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicol- a projective approach with school pupils and ogy. 25, 4^9. sta¡. Landscape Research. 20, Winter., 24^140. Sandels, S. (1995). Children in Tra⁄c. London: Paul Elek. Watt, P. & Stenson, K. (1998). The street: it’s a bit dodgy Sattertwaite, D., Hart, R., Levey, C., Mitlin, D., Ross, D., around there: safety, danger, ethnicity and young peo- Smit, J. & Stephens, C. (1996). The Environment for ple’s use of public space. In S. Watson & G. Valentine, Children: Understanding and Acting on the Environ- (Eds), Cool Places: Geographies of Youth Culture. Lon- mental Hazards that Threaten Children and Their Par- don: Routledge, pp. 249^265. ents. London: Earthscan. White, M., Kasl, S, Zahner, G. E. P. & Will, J. C. (1987). Scott, S., Jackson, S. & Backett-Milburn, K. (1998). Swings Perceived crime in the neighborhood and the mental and roundabouts: Risk, anxietyand the everyday health of women and children. Environment and Beha- world of children. Sociology. 32, 689^705. vior. 19, 588^613. Sobel, D. (1990). A place in the world: adults’ memories of Winn, M. (1983). Children without Childhood. New Yo r k : childhood’s special places. Children’s Environments Pantheon. Quarterly. 7, 4: 5^12. Wohlwill, J. & Heft, H. (1987). The physical environment Spencer, C. P. (1987). Children and their environment: the and the development of the child. In D. Stokols & I. current state of research. Journal of Environmental Altman, (Eds), Handbook of Environmental Psychology. Psychology. 7, 177^188. New York: Wiley. pp. 281^328. Spencer, C. P. (1998). Children, cities and psychological Woolley, H., Dunn, J., Spencer, C. P., Short, T. & Rowley, G. theories: developing relationships. Journal of Environ- (2000). Children describe their experiences of the city mental Psychology. 18, 429^433. centre: a qualitative studyof the fears and concerns Spivack, M. (1969). The political collapse of a playground. which maylimit their full participation. Landscape Landscape Architecture, 59: 288^292. Research. 24, 287^301. Stine, S. (1997). Landscapes for Learning. New York Wiley. Wood, D. (1993). Ground to stand on: some notes Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E. & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Coping on the kid’s dirt play. Children’s Environments. 10, with ADD: the surprising connection to green play 3^18. settings. Environment and Behavior. 33, 54^77. Yo u n g , K . ( 19 9 0 ). Learning Through Landscapes: Using Titman, W. (1994). Special Places, Special People: The Hid- School Grounds as an Educational Resource. Winche- den Curriculum of School Grounds. Surrey: World Wild- ster, Hampshire, United Kingdom: Learning Through life Fund. Landscapes Trust.