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, de- signers, 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

Load more