Social & Cultural

ISSN: 1464-9365 (Print) 1470-1197 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rscg20

‘Walking … just walking’: how children and young people's everyday pedestrian practices matter

John Horton, Pia Christensen, Peter Kraftl & Sophie Hadfield-Hill

To cite this article: John Horton, Pia Christensen, Peter Kraftl & Sophie Hadfield-Hill (2014) ‘Walking … just walking’: how children and young people's everyday pedestrian practices matter, Social & , 15:1, 94-115, DOI: 10.1080/14649365.2013.864782

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2013.864782

© 2013 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis

Published online: 02 Dec 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 844

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 22 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rscg20

Download by: [94.8.43.212] Date: 17 October 2016, At: 10:17 Social &Cultural Geography,2014 Vol. 15, No. 1, 94–115, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2013.864782

‘Walking ... just walking’: how children and young people’severyday pedestrian practices matter

John Horton1 ,Pia Christensen2 ,Peter Kraftl3 &Sophie Hadfield-Hill 4 1 Centre for Children andYouth,The University of Northampton, Park Campus, Boughton Green Road, Northampton, NN2 7AL, United Kingdom, [email protected]; 2 School of Education, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT,United Kingdom, [email protected]; 3 Department of Geography, University of Leicester,Leicester Road, Leicester,LE1 7RH,United Kingdom, [email protected] and 4 Centre for Children and Youth, The University of Northampton, Park Campus, Boughton Green Road, Northampton, NN27AL, United Kingdom, sophie. hadfi[email protected]

This paper considers the importance of walking for many children and young people’s everyday lives, experiences and friendships. Drawing upon research with 175 9- to 16-year- olds living in new urban developments in south-east England, we highlight key characteristics of (daily,taken-for-granted, ostensibly aimless) walking practices, which

were of constitutive importance in children and young people’sfriendships, communities and . These practices were characteristically bounded, yet intense and circuitous. They were vivid, vital, loved, playful, social experiences yet also dismissed, with ashrug, as ‘just walking’. We argue that ‘everyday pedestrian practices’ (after Middleton 2010, 2011) like these require critical reflection upon chief social scientific theorisations of walking, particularly the large body of literature on children’sindependent mobility and the rich, multi-disciplinary line of work known as ‘new walking studies’. In arguing that these lines of work could be productively interrelated, we propound ‘just walking’—particularly the often-unremarked way it matters—as akind of phenomenon which is sometimes done a disservice by chief lines of theory and practice in social and cultural geography.

Key words: children’sgeographies, walking, mobility,children’sindependent mobility, new walking studies, children and young people

Preface Introduction

An interview with a10-year-old living in anew In this paperweconsiderthe importance of urban development in south-east England. ‘walking ... just walking’ formanychildren andyoung people’s everyday lives. We will Interviewer: Okay,and what did you play ...? show how, in ourresearchwith175 9- to Simon 1 :Weplayedwalking ... justwalking 16-year-oldslivinginnew urbandevelopments around. in south-east England, some particular

© 2013 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Children and young people’severyday pedestrian practices 95

(daily,taken-for-granted, ostensibly aimless) our work within the multi-disciplinary con- formsofwalking were centraltothe lives, ceptualisations and practicesofnew walking experiencesand friendshipsofmostchildren studies. In both cases,weown up to akind of andyoung people.The main body of thepaper ambivalence; asense that each body of work highlightskey characteristicsofthese walking has been valuable in providing avocabulary practices, andtheir constitutive role in these and imperative for studying walking, but also children andyoung people’s social andcultural afeeling that each seemssomehow ill-suited to geography.Overthe course of thepaper we will studying thekinds of everyday walking arguethat‘everyday pedestrian practices’ (after practices—just walking—thatare fore- Middleton2010, 2011)likethese requireusto grounded in this paper.Inboth cases, too, we thinkcriticallyabout twobodiesofgeographi- suggestthat our ambivalence might prompt caland social scientificresearch. On onehand, some broader challengesfor social and we will arguethatthe largebodyofresearchon cultural geographers. children’s spatialrange andindependent mobi- lity couldbeconceptually enlivened and extended to acknowledgebodily, social,socio- Children’sindependent mobilityand technicaland habitual practices. On theother spatial range hand,wewillsuggest that theempirical details of such practicesshouldpromptcriticalreflec- Themostextensive andimmediately salient tion uponthe wonderfullyrich, multi-disciplin- body of research relating to children andyoung aryvein of conceptualisationlatterly termed people’s walkingpractices is social scientific ‘new walkingstudies’ (Lorimer 2011). Indeed, work on children’s independentmobilityand in conclusion we shallargue that thetheoretical spatialrange (see Hillman, Adamsand White- vivacity of walkingstudies,and theconcernsof legg 1990). Over thelastthree decadesmany more appliedempirical approaches,suchas social scientists have investigated this topic, work on children’s independentmobility,could oftenwithafocusonurban neighbourhood productively be interrelated.Insodoing we ,and oftenapplyingmethods and open outawiderchallenge to social andcultural concepts from environmentalpsychologyor geographers,toexpeditethiskindofinter- transportgeography (Mackett et al.2007; relation in otherresearchcontexts. Matthews 1992).Thisconceptual-methodo- logicalframe hasaffordedresearchexploring children andyoung people’s walkingindiverse Twoapproaches to pedestrian practices (thoughtypically minority world) contexts (Carver, Watson,Shawand Hillman2013; In this section, we position our concern with Fyhrietal. 2011; Pacilli,Giovannelli, Prezza children and young people’s‘just walking’in andAugimeri2013).Thisbodyofworkhas relationtotwo bodies of work which have been importantincalling forresearchon framed many geographical and social scientific children andyoung people’s walkingroutines, encounters with everyday pedestrian practices. behaviours andboundaries. Apartfromdevel- First,wereflect upon thelarge bodyof opingwidelyusedterminologies,techniques geographical work dealing with children and andtechnologiesfor mappingand evaluating youngpeople’sneighbourhood spatial range everyday mobilities (Badland,Oliver, Duncan and independent mobilities. Second, we locate andSchantz 2011),researchers in this area have 96 JohnHorton et al. made importantwider contributionstounder- simplistic notions of space, and of journeying standingsofchildrenand youngpeople’s from place-to-place. Many critics have noted geographies; forexample by evidencing gen- how longstanding research methods dealing deredand class-basedinequalitiesinspatial with practicestend to represent range(Brownetal. 2008;Matthews1987), spaces as containers for action,and under- consequences of shifting social-historicalnorms stand mobility as afairly bare processof (e.g.automobility, family practicesor‘stranger ‘getting from A-to-B’ (Cresswell 2010; Spin- danger’) forindependent mobilities (Karsten ney 2009). We agree with Barker (2009) and 2005;Mattson 2002;McDonald2008),health Barker,Kraftl, Horton and Tucker (2009) that implications of limitedindependent mobilities this critique certainlypertains to many classic (Villanuevaetal. 2012)orimpacts of policy studies of children’sindependent mobility and andurban planning interventions(O’Brien, family transport practices. Barker’s(2008, Jones, Sloanand Ristin 2000;Villanuevaetal. 2011) work has been important and distinc- forthcoming).Thisworkwas instrumental in tive in revealingthe complex social, familial, shapingthe concerns of subsequent geographi- bodily,affective and sociotechnical processes calworkwithchildrenand youngpeople; as is which constitute, and matter to, family car evident, forinstance, in thewell-established journeys. We agree with Mitchell, Kearns and line of research on young people’soften Collins (2007) and Ross (2007) that children transgressivemobilities in urbanpublicspaces and youngpeople’s pedestrian mobilities could (see Matthews,Taylor, Percy-Smithand Limb be productivelyexplored in asimilar way,but 2000;Valentine 1996). we worrythat calls for conceptual experimen- However,wealso write from several related tation in this research context have typically anxietieswith the treatment of walking within gone unheeded. As in Schwanen, Banister and this context.First, we note that many studies Anable’s(2012)critiques of transport scholar- within this contextostensibly deal with ship, we suggestthat the apparent disconnect walking,but rarelyfocus on practicesof between traditionally empirical and concep- walking itself.Although countless studies have tually experimental work in this context raises produced metrics of distances walked and some broaderchallenges forsocialand maps of spatial ranges, these analyses have cultural geographers, whichare followed rarely qualitatively explored the actual prac- through in our conclusion. tices of walking—what happens during those Third, accounts of children’s independent distances walked and within those mapped mobility have oftenreproducedsomeproble- ranges—and how such practices matter.We maticallysimplisticcategorisations of identity suggestthat this limited mode of representing andunderstandingsofidentityformation.Itis walking is problematic, not only because of a very common forsuchaccountstopresent clear- generalerasure of qualitative richness but cut analyses of differences in independent specifically because everyday details,complex- mobility by age, gender, social classorethnicity. ities, diversities, eventsand bodilypracticesof Whilethisanalyticalapproachhas produced walking are fundamentally important to the some classicworkand importantdata, therehas lives and experiencesofmany children and tended to be somethingofasilenceabout how youngpeople. Second,similarly, many such identities areconstituted andintersect in accountsofchildren’sindependentmobility practice (see Hopkinsand Pain 2007;Horton have often been predicatedupon rather static, andKraftl 2008), or howdiverse groups of Children and young people’severyday pedestrian practices 97 children andyoung people mayinteractand New walking studies move in complexconstellations(Benwell2013; Christensenand Mikkelsen 2009), in thecourse Lorimer (2011: 30) uses the umbrella term of everyday mobilities.Moreover, it is common ‘new walking studies’ to characterise a‘recent foraccountsofchildren’sindependent mobility push to towards agrounded consideration of to reproduceasomewhat caricatured, ‘cat and walking as asocial practice’ in diverse, multi- mouse’ depictionofpower relationsbetween disciplinaryformsofacademic research and childrenand adults; wherebychildrenand practice over the last decade. The term points young peopleare subject to, and seek to towardsamarvellously eclectic arrayof transgress,adult boundarieswithregardto walking–thinking–writing practices (Ingold their spatialfreedom. Many studies have and Vergunst 2008):drawing upon influences illustratedthiskindofoppositionalspatial as various as situationism, performance art, interaction(seeSarre 2010), but in this paperwe cultural geography,,natural will arguethatchildren andyoung people’s history,rhythmanalysis,phenomenology, flaˆ - mobilities arenot always,only, necessarilyquite neurie, social anthropology,autoethnography, like this.Wewillnotethatthe taken-for-granted urban sociology,actor-networktheory,land- social andsociotechnicalcomplexitiesofevery- scape archaeology,activist interventions, non- daywalking practices(seealsoHorton2012) representational theories or landscape art/ canoften unsettle neat accounts of contestations sculpture.This context has produced some over public space. Fourth,wesuggest that beautiful,haunting, thought-provoking work accounts of children’s independentmobility can on geographies of walking;Jones’s(2005, oftenbealittle uncritical in relation to some 2008) walksthrough inter-tidal ecologiesand contemporary cultural anxietiesand norms. In childhoodspaces,Lorimer and Lund’s(2008) ourreading,wefind it remarkable howmany mountain trails, Pinder’s(2005) urban studiesopenwithtaken-for-granted assertions explorations, Sidaway’s(2009) mapping of lamentingthe ‘historicalfacts’ofchildren’s geopolitical and personal ‘shadows on the decliningopportunities for(‘good’,‘healthy’) path’ andWylie’s(2009)reflections upon outdoormobilityand play.Hereand now, this landscapeand love are notablegeographical discourse—of ‘battery-reared children’, examples close to our hearts. Although diverse ‘bubble-wrappedkids’ or a‘back-seatgener- in their foci,these examples share acommit- ation’ (Romero2010)—issofamiliarand oft- ment to thinking through the practice of repeated as to appear ‘commonsense’. How- walking itself.Indeed, we would argue that a ever,inthispaper we note some somewhat key achievement of new walking studies has differentgeographies andaccountsbychildren been to highlight four characteristics of andyoung people,which wouldseemtounsettle walking practices. First, many new walking thesenormativeassumptions.Specifically,we studies foregroundbodily practicesand multi- will note that children andyoung people who— sensuous experiencesofwalking;noting, for by anymeasure—havealimitedspatial range example, the gait,rhythm and musculature of maystill spendconsiderableamounts of time walking bodies,the complex ways walks are walkingoutdoors, andmay nevertheless engage sensed,orformsofcorporeal training and in rich,playful,social, exploratory, imaginative tactics used by walking bodies in challenging dailywalking practices. terrain. Second, relatedly,there is often an 98 JohnHorton et al. implicit sense of thealways emotional- evidentlymeaningfulorremarkableforms of affective nature of walking; perhapsmost walking. Thereistypically afocus on walking- poignantly visibleinaccountswhich use with-a-point;and oftenthe pointis, precisely, walkingtoreflectauthoethnographically to make,develop or mull upon apoint (a upon connections between landscapes and process which Sinclair(2003) wryly calls memories. Third, there is often asense of the ‘walking-with-a-thesis’). Moreover,new walk- social nature andsociotechnical processof ingstudies oftencentrethe narrativevoicesof walking;highlighting the importanceofsocial theknowing,reflexivewalkers engagedinthese interactions,materialities and non-human sortsofclever, purposeful,thought-provoking agencies with/in walking practices. Fourth, walkingpractices. In this context, then, many newwalking studieshighlight the walking is written and enacted via these political potential, and politicised context, of walkers’intellectual, artistic or politicised many walking practices: vividly described in influences, whichsupplementorintensify the accounts of activist walkinginterventions actofwalking itself;so, in newwalking studies, (Klawiter 1999),and neatly contextualised walkingisrarely just walking. We also note by critiques of the regulation of walking in that newwalking studies frequently highlight public spaces (Namaste 1996). walksand walkingpractices whichare deeply Newwalking studiesthusoffer apotentially affectingand soul-searching forbothpartici- rich conceptual resource whichmight enliven pantsand readers. We mightalsonotea andextendlonger-standing empirical penchant forthe everyday extraordinary, the approaches to transportand mobility—includ- revelatory,and sometimes the sacred and ingthe aforementioned work on children’s spiritual, in many newwalking studies. Each independentmobility. We suggestthatthe of thesetendenciesiswhollyunderstandable; attentivenesstothe bodily,emotional and afterall, thesewalking–writing–thinking sociotechnical characteristicsofwalking pro- practicesare so immediatelycompelling, inter- vide clearcuesfor better understandingthe esting,evocative andwriteable. constitutive rolesofwalking in social and However,inthis paper we wonder about cultural geographies. In making this claim, some other kinds of walking,which have though,wemusthighlight some recent generally fallen outside the ambitofnew critiqueswhich identify severalwaysinwhich walking studies. Because we feel that new theinsightsofnew walkingstudies maynot be walking studies have so far tended to overlook readily accessible beyond the cognoscenti. toomanyvarietiesofwalkers,walking Indeed,despiteour commitment to theprecepts practices and walked spaces which—being of newwalking studies, we have notfound it less obviously artful,wilful,affecting or immediatelyeasytothink aboutchildrenand politicised—may appear less worthy of scho- young people’s just walking usingthisframe of larly attention. Middleton’s(2010: 576) work reference. Like Lorimer(2011), we notethat is especially important here in diagnosing a new walking studieshave overwhelmingly tendency to overlook ‘what could be con- privileged (and probably romanticised)some sidered the less remarkable, unspectacularand very particular kinds of walkers, walking unreported everyday experiences associated practicesand walkedspaces. Onecould with walking’—and awider ‘lack of ... caricature newwalking studiesaspreoccupied systematic empirical exploration of the actual with wilful,artful, activist,cleverand self- practice of walking’—in (and despite) the Children and young people’severyday pedestrian practices 99 burgeoning academic literature on walking. people have barely figured at all in new walking Middleton (2009, 2010, 2011) uses the term studies. Against this grain,this paper focuses ‘everyday pedestrian practices’ to denote these on some key characteristics of children and kindsofhabitual,ostensibly banaland young people’s everyday pedestrian practices. ‘unspectacular’ walking practices. Through We note that these walking practices go on, carefulqualitative research with adult London under the radar of most extant research, and pedestrians, shearguesthatthe everyday alongside normative societal anxieties, adultist pedestrian practices of ‘those who navigate, rules and limits to children andyoungpeople’s negotiate and traverse the citystreets in their spatial freedom (Pain 2006; Valentine 1996). everyday lives’ challenge representations of The methods and context for our research urban walking in policy andacademic encounterwith children and young people’s discourses (Middleton 2010: 579). Middleton walking are outlined in the following section. thus provides an opening for research explor- ing the importanceofeveryday pedestrian practices for social andcultural geographies. Research context and methods We also read her work as having implicit critical bite: how could so social and cultural This paperpresentsdatafromalarge-scale geographers (eventhose operating with new interdisciplinaryethnographicresearchproject, walking studies) have written so little about exploringchildren andyoung people’s everyday everydaywalking?Inthispaper,we livesinnew-build urbandevelopmentsinsouth- developthis sensibility by highlighting the east England(seeAcknowledgements).The kinds of rich social and cultural geographies walkingpractices discussedinthispaper were which becomeapparent when walking prac- contextualised by ageographicallyand histori- tices are afocal point for qualitative research. callyparticularset of policydiscoursesand In particular,wequestionhow everyday urbanplanningpractices.In2003, theUK pedestrian practices matter (or not) to those Government’s SustainableCommunities agenda doing them: how they may simultaneously be inauguratedamajor programmeofinvestment described as intense, loved, vivid, vital, in housebuilding, focusedinfour‘Growth playful, social experienceswhich are central Areas’ in south-east England(ODPM,2003). to friendships yet also dismissed with ashrug Ourproject focused on four case study as taken-for-granted, ordinary andunder- communitiesinone Growth Area,the so called whelming. In our conclusion, we offerthis ‘Milton Keynes/South Midlands’ (‘MKSM’) practice—and mattering—as akindof area.The scaleand speedofurban development phenomenon whichissometimesdonea in Growth Areaswere, initially, substantial: in disservice by chief lines on theory and practice MKSM,morethan30,000new dwellingswere in social and cultural geography. constructedbetween 2005 and2009. We suggestthat everyday pedestrian prac- Our case study communities were chosen as tices of children andyoung people pose an representative of different development types especially stark challenge to extant literature in this planning context. Although the four on walking. As alreadynoted,studies of communities werediverse in demographics, children’sindependentmobility seldom engage design and characteristics, the planningand with the experiencesofwalkers or walking implementationofeachcommunity envi- practices themselves, and children and young sioned,regulatedand affectedchildren and 100 John Horton et al. young people’s walking in similar ways.First, there were relatively few permitted opportu- walking wasidealised in plans foreach nities for children andyoungpeople to walk to community,which sought to construct walk- places out with their communities. able pathways and convivial publicspaces for Research was conductedwith 175 9- to 16- residents. Thisideal was materialisedvia year-olds living (and walking)atthe intersec- planninginterventions which aimed to safe- tionofthese geographiesofpolicy and guard pedestrians and encouragewalking; for planning. Participants from case study com- example viatraffic calming measures, walk- munities wererecruited via schools, youth able civic spaces and ‘shared surface’ thor- groups,community events and word-of- oughfares—drawingon‘Home Zone’ mouth. This paper presents data from two principles (Gill 2006)—wherepedestrians elements of the project: and vehicles could, theoretically, co-exist safely.Second, the original plans for these . Semi-structuredinterviews—175 young communitiesincludeddedicated, walkable people (101 females, 74 males) participated spaces—in the form of playgrounds, commu- in aprogramme of four themed interviews. nity centres, hangouts or multi-use gaming Interviews wereconductedone-to-one or areas—for children and young people.How- withfriendshipgroupsinappropriate ever,ineach community apost-2009 reces- spaces within schools, youth groups, com- sionary slowdown of housing development munity eventsorpublic spaces in each meant that these spaces did not materialise on community.Thispaper drawsupon inter- time, as planned, or at all. Consequently,there views exploring to ‘everyday spaces and were relativelyfew dedicatedspacesfor routines’ and ‘mobility and risk’. In these children and young people at the time of our interviews, maps of the communities were research; in effect,there were few designed on hand and oftenused by participants to destinations for children andyoung people’s orientate and illustratecomments. walking.Third, in each community,local . Guided walks—fifty-one interviewees led concerns about ‘antisocial behaviour’ meant researchers on follow-up tours of key spaces that young people’spresence and congregation and everyday routes within their commu- in public spaces weremonitoredand (literally) nity.The walks wereled by individualsor policed by residents’ associations andpolice friendshipgroups, and conversations were patrols. Moreover, the design principles of the digitally recorded en route. communities included measures intended to ‘design out’ crime and antisocial behaviour. This paper developed from thematicanalysis For example, there were few outdoor seating (using NVivo software) of transcripts from areas (to preclude congregations of ‘gangs’) these activities. Walking emerged as amajor and playspaces weredeliberately positioned to theme; practically every discussion involved be overlooked from all sides by residents. some reflectionupon theimportanceof Fourth, the locations of these communities— everyday walking practices for participants’ at the edges of conurbations, or in isolated, lives, friendships andexperiences in the self-contained ‘village’ locations—and rela- communities. Notably, most participants tively underdeveloped links described akind of outdoor walking practice meant that families were typically heavily whichwas aregular (more-or-lessdaily) reliant upon automobility.Aswewill note, feature of their lives. Children andyoung people’s everyday pedestrian practices 101

Children and young people’severyday in these communities.Asinmany previous pedestrian practices in new communities minority world studies (see Barker 2009) most participants werechauffeured, transported or In the following analysis,weoutline seven accompanied on journeys to school, shops, recurring characteristics of theirwalking leisure venues, recreational spaces andmost practices, as illustrated by qualitative data. spaces ‘outside’the community.Inour case These characteristicsare loosely grouped into study communities,children andyoung people two sections.First, we outline the chiefspatial- were universally,and in some cases pro- temporal characteristics of children and young foundly,restrictedintermsofwherethey were people’swalking, noting its boundedness, allowedtogowithout an adult. Most intensity and circuitousness .Second,wehigh- participants described three kinds of rules light some ways in which this walking was of through which parents/carersdelimited their constitutive importance for children and young mobilities. First, all participants reported rules people’s social andculturalgeographies, about spatial limits: all described a‘boundary’ through its characteristic sociality, narrativity, beyond which they werenot allowedtogo playfulness and taken-for-grantedness.Inso without adult accompaniment. Parental rules doing, we argue that these walking practices significantlylimitedparticipants’ spatial (particularly the ways they matter to children range, with one-in-five allowednofurther and young people)prompt critical reflection than 50 minany direction from their home. upon the key approaches to walking previously The parameters of theboundaryset by outlined, being inadequately described in most parents/carers typicallycorresponded to a studies of independentmobility,and over- combination of (i) the builtedge of the new looked by new walking studies. housing development;(ii) busy roadswhich should not be crossed; (iii) boundaries of parents’ knowledge and friendshipnetworks Spatial-temporal characteristics of within the community (i.e. many participants children and young people’swalking were not allowed to go to places adults ‘do not know’, or where there are no people that In this section, we highlight recurring spatial- parents/carers know); (iv) parts of the com- temporal characteristics—boundedness, inten- munity where, in parents’ opinions, there was sity and circuitousness —which characterised some risk of encountering ‘unsafe’ or ‘dodgy’ the everyday pedestrian practices of children people.Asinthe following discussion,these and young people who participated in our rules were often interconnected. study.Akey finding was that these children and young people were intensely boundedby Rose (10): [Pointing at map] Idon’tgothere ... parents/carers butneverthelessintensely because my mum, because my mum doesn’tlike me mobile within these boundaries. going there ... I’m not allowed to go [there] on my own. Fahy (10): No, neither am I. Not down there i. Boundedness because ... the cars just zoom past there ... so I’m allowed from there round to about there with Children and young people’s mobilities were, friends. Probably to just around there, because I’m in many ways, intensely boundedand limited not really allowed to go down the bottom [of the 102 John Horton et al. community] ... because my mum doesn’treally mum, went down this, near the park ... phoned my think that I’m safe ... because there’sloads of mum, told her that Iwas abit scared but she said to people just that, they’re like, well how to, how can I come back ... and Iwas okay. put it? Well they look like. Rose: Unsafe people. Parents/carers wereevidentlyliable to call Fahy: Yeah, like they’re, they look unsafe ... their child home at short notice; as Harry Rose: And they look. notes, outdoor play could thus be curtailed Fahy: They look really just. abruptly and unpredictablyatany time. Rose: Kind of weird and you kind of, the sort of person that you’d want to keep away from. Harry (11): Iuse my phone [when] just walking around the area, just in case Ineed to go home if Second,all respondentsreported parental there’ssomething just come up then or if Ineed to rules relating to time spent outdoors. These come home about that time, certain times ... rules were invariably articulatedinterms of (i) straightaway. having to ‘be in’ by aspecific time; (ii) having Interviewer: Okay,soyour mum or dad would ring to ‘be in’ by mealtimeorother family routine and get you to come home? or obligation; (iii)‘free-time’ being structured Harry: Yeah. and limited by familyroutines and the logistics of scheduling visits and activities and/or (iv) Such rulesare familiarfrommanyprevious not being allowedtostay out ‘after dark’. studies of children andyoung people’s inde- Third, moreover,outdoor play and indepen- pendentmobility(seeBrown et al.2008; dent mobilitywas conditional on being Hillman, Adamsand Whitelegg1990; Mat- contactable at all times. As Sarah andCollette thews1987).However,likeBenwell (2013), explained, many participants were only our research leadsustoquestionanassump- allowedout on conditiontheycarried a tion—commonplace in many of theseprevious mobile phone at all times. studies—thatchildrenand youngpeoplewill invariably experience such rulesasnegative, Sarah (11): I’m allowed to go [out], as long as I’ve andseektoresistthese adultist impositions. In got my mobile ... our research it wasoverwhelminglythe case Interviewer: What age were you allowed amobile that participants abided by theserules,and phone? generallyacceptedthe logics of risk which Sarah: Eight. underlaythem. As is evidentinmuchofthe Collette (11): Eight. qualitative material used throughout this paper, Sarah: Because that’swhen Istarted going out to children andyoung people readilyincorporated play. parents’ discourses of risk into theirown talk Interviewer: When would you use your phone? aboutthe community: so that,for example, Sarah: In emergencies. Sarahand Collette’s discussion therewas an Collette: Er,when the gypsies are about and like if easy slippage betweenmothers’and daughters’ there’sateenager following you or someone you anxieties. In many cases, participants seemed to don’tknow following you. That’d be scary ... My be as reassuredbyparentalrules,limitsand mum normally rings me but if I’m in trouble Ido contactability as were theparents/carersthem- ring her ... Once Igot scared when Iwas, Ithink it selves.These data thus challengeustoresistthe was eight and Igot really scared so Iphoned my jump to relativelyneatcritical positionsor Children andyoung people’s everyday pedestrian practices 103 normativeassumptions aboutchildrenand In allcommunities, many participants youngpeople’ independentmobilities; in this reported walkingfor long durationsand case,atleast,participantsactivelyengaged distances—though always within their bound- with, andseemed to value, restrictions ary—during their free time. Often groupsof ‘imposed’byparents/carers. walkers were accompaniedbyoutriding cyclists or scooters.Someparticipants described how they wouldspend ‘all day’or ii. Intensity of movement ‘all thetime’walking outdoors, weather permitting; others, like Zedand Daniel, We also questionanassumption—again, describedbeingphysicallytired by the commonplace in literature on independent physicality,duration and regularity of their mobilities—that intenselyrule-boundand walking. regulated spatial ranges necessarily limitthe degree to which children and young people Zed (11): We’re not allowed to get too far from move around.Although,inour study,partici- [home] because, you know,dangerous, you never pants were oftenprofoundly restricted in know what’soutside. terms of where they were allowed to go Oliver (10): [but] you can just go really far. without aparent/carer,itwas also the case Zed: Yeah, your legs ache, oh they’re tired, you feel that, within their ‘boundary’, many children like your legs are going to drop off and then, you and young peoplewere remarkably and know,get away from you. intenselymobile, spending significant periods Interviewer: Andhow long wouldyou stay outfor? of their everyday lives on the move. Although Zed: Oh my God, oh. participants were typically spatially confined, Oliver:Two andahalf hours. most were allowedtospend substantial Zed: No,doublethatthank you. periods outdoors each day within the per- Oliver:Probably ... mitted boundary.Walking thus emerged as a Zed: Timesthatbytwo. key everyday activity—often, as for Felicity and Robert, an all-day activity—formost Through substantial, daily periodsspent participants, even those confined within avery engagedineveryday pedestrian practices small permitted spatial range. such as these,many participants reported that they hadbeen, and knew, ‘everywhere’ or Felicity (12): We come out of there going on this big ‘all the way around’within theirboundary. long walk where it goes all like that, we come along and then we get to the road, we cross over,we’ve got Collette (11): Iwalk around alot with afriend ... all the, we keep going until, keep going and I’ve walked, just end up walking round the village keep going. so Ithink I’ve been everywhere. Interviewer: Until when? Felicity: Oh, until we feel like it, then we’ll turn Millie (10): Sometimes we just go all the way round. around. Interviewer: What’slike the longest you’ve been Adesh (11): We go all the way around, like out for? walking around or we stay in one place. Robert (12): Aday ... awhole day.Like from ten- Interviewer: Do you go on your bikes or? ish to like eight. Adesh: We used to but haven’tgot abike anymore. 104 John Horton et al.

Lara (12): Yeah, I’ve been all around before ... iii. Circuitousness Like on foot. Suzie (12): Ijust go everywhere. Participants’ everyday walking was typically not destination-focused; walking was not, for Indeed—contrarytomostacademicreadingsof these children andyoung people, most parental rules—many participants,likeSuzie importantly an instrumental means of getting andHayden, describedhow they valued the ‘from A-to-B’. As alreadydiscussed, partici- freedom they were permitted within their pants were typically driven, bussed or escorted narrow permittedboundaries. Some partici- to many key destinations. Moreover,asout- pants, like Liz, reported howthe parents/carers lined in the research context section, there whohad setstringent rulesabout spatialrange were actually relativelyfew destinations to nevertheless activelyencouraged extensive which young people could walk in the four mobility within this permittedboundary. communities. Spaces designed for children and young people were few andfar between and, Suzie(12):Ilike that [parents]trust me andIlike it as already noted, most young people described howIcanjust, like do,Ipretty much have the how they wereconstantly moved on and on freedom to do what Iwantand like be thepersonI the move from destinations like playgrounds, want to be andstuff, so Ithink it’s,Ithink it’s shops and street corners. Instead, participants great. like Billieand Rose described akind of Hayden (12):Samehere ... Even me and ... my ‘wanderingaround’: they werenot walking friend,he’sonly eight ... We have alot of freedom to particularactivities andspaces,but rather as longaswedon’tgooutside [boundary]. the walking itself was regularly the chief

activity.Inthe absence of spaces to hang out or Liz (11): [Mum] says that we need to get some fresh play,walking itself was an important means of air and she says ‘get your backside off the couch, entertaining oneself. We note that this kind of turn the TV off and you’re outside, get out’ and, and everyday,circuitous walking activity—notjust ... Ialways say ‘can we go to the park?’ And she amatter of walking ‘from A–to-B’; not even always says ‘yes’. setting out for aspecific destination—has largely been overlooked in studies of children’s Taking these pointstogether,our research independent mobility (and see Bissell (2013) leadsustoreflect that,while many previous, on the broader overlooking of ‘pointless’, aforementionedstudies havemapped and circuitous,neighbourhood-scaled mobilities measuredthe boundariesofchildrenand within sociological and geographical studies young people’sindependent mobilities, there of transport andmobilities). has rarely been considerationofwhat is done withinthoseboundaries—and howthese Billie (16):Ithinkpeopleour agedon’t sort of ... practices matter to children and young hang out. There’snot alot of us that sort of come people. In our research,atleast,the very together andmeetinone place ... We’llgofor awalk narrowparametersofpermitted activity still butwedon’t go ‘ohI’llsee [you]atthe park then’, afforded considerabledegreesofmobility ‘yeah, okay’ ... it’s more wanderingaround. whichwerevalued as having constitutive importancefor participants’ social and cul- Rose (10): We’re constantly trying to find away to turalgeographies. entertain ourselves outside, because the field hasn’t Children andyoung people’s everyday pedestrian practices 105 got anything, the park we’ve been to heaps of times iv.Sociality and also there’snothing to do because even though we’ve got lots of outdoor things that we can do like Like Christensenand Mikkelsen (2009),we frisbee and stuff ... we can’tnormally do [them] suggestthatthe notion of independent mobility much because there’scars around and we don’t is oftenmisleadingasitdisguises allmannerof want to hit them, ... [Outdoors] we don’treally,we social,sociotechnicaland collaborativeprac- don’tnecessarily play games, it’smore like, just kind tices—themultiple‘companionships’—which of messing about, not like, like being stupid messing constitute mobilities in practice. Certainly, about ... it’snot necessarily games, it’sjust like, children andyoung people rarely walked just playing basically. alone, andtheir everyday pedestrian practices were centraltotheir friendshipswithinthe This walkinggenerally involved multiple, communities.Walking was‘just’ what repetitiouscircuitswithinparticipants’ per- friendship pairsorgroupsdid,more-or-less mitted boundaries.While theroutes and everyday,and it wasthrough circuitous walking routines typicallycorrespondedtothe locations (within participants’permitted boundaries) that of friends’ houses,itwas also notablethat friendshipswereconstituted andplayed-outin many participantstendedtofavourroutes practice.Manyfriendshipgroups, like Izzy and throughrelatively‘quiet’,‘back’spaces. Spaces herfriends,talkedabout ‘their’walk: aroute like courtyards,alleyways,drainagechannels whichtheywould habitually andrepeatedly andstreetcorners were evidentlyvaluedas walk,given theopportunity. spaces to meet,walkand socialise, slightly out- of-the-way of othergroupsofyoung people. Izzy (9): My friends Elicia, Rachel, Bethany and

Faith and sometimes Ethan also, well we are very Collette (10): We like it over there [in courtyard car close friends, all of us in our class and we just go park] because there’slike loads of places where round the village alot ... It’sour walk ... Rachel there’slike, there’sthe back bits that are really quiet and Bethany are just round the corner from me ... and you can play games and stuff, but you can’tplay and then IgotoFaith’shouse ... then we come back ball games because you’re not allowed. down to go and get Elicia and Ethan because they’re quite late, all the time.

Walking as constitutive of social and Somefriendshipgroups, likeCollette and cultural geographies Sarah, discussedhow they woulduse mobile phones to ‘arrange adate’ to walk with friends. In this section, we consider how these Interviewer: Do you meet your friends inside or bounded, intense, circuitouswalking practices outside? were of constitutive importanceinchildren Collette (11): Outside mostly. andyoung people’s social andcultural Sarah (11): We,sometimes we arrange adate, like at geographies. In particular,research partici- school, like ‘Aiden, I’ll come and call for you pantsfrequentlydescribed howthe rich tonight’ or ‘do you want to come and call for me?’, sociality, narrativity and playfulness—but things like that. also the taken-for-grantedness —of everyday pedestrian practicescoheredand animated More typically,though,friendshipgroups friendshipgroups. would routinely walk around the same route, 106 John Horton et al.

‘knocking for each other’ in roughly the same Jane: No, it just happened ... Me and Mel, Jennifer order: Harriet, Alice and Emma’sdaily ‘rota’ and Cath or Hazel were just walking past and we was typical of this kind of habitual process(see just saw all the boys so we just went over. also Bissell 2013; Middleton 2012; Schwanen, Banister and Anable 2012).Walking was thus Sometimes theseencounters couldbring amore-or-less unremarked, but nonetheless together youngpeopleofdifferent ages,or central constituent of friendshipsand in the from differentparts of thecommunity.Strik- dailyroutines(alongsidegettingchanged, ingly, as they describedhow thesepedestrian coming home from school,and so on). encounters mattered (enoughtocallthema ‘reunion’, at least),participantsdescribed Harriet (12): We knock for each other but mostly numerouswaysinwhich youngpeopletook Alice calls for us, yeah because it’slike alittle ... responsibility andcared forone another. In an Alice (12): Circuit. echo of thekinds of small, supportive bodily Harriet: Rota. practicesand considerateinterpersonal gestures Alice: Rota, yeah ... noted amonghill-walkers by Macpherson Harriet: And she waits in for abit while we get (2011),children andyoung people took changed. We have to get changed out of our school responsibility forfriends andfellowwalkers gear. in arange of quitetouchingways, as in the Alice: Or sometimes they,Ilet them go and get followingthree quotations.Whilstwalking,for changed, we have like something to eat first and example, children andyoung people habitually then, and then they knock for me and then we like worked together to keep each othersafe: all play out because I’m ready,because Idon’thave lookingout forone another, collaboratively to get changed. checking theirsurroundingsand lookingafter Emma (12): We usually do. one another’spossessions.

In these groups, some young people cycled, Ella (10): Like when there’sacar coming my brother scooted or skateboarded alongside walkers; will always warn me because my skateboard’sso, so however,itwas usually the case that the pace, noisy,somybrother has to come out with me and route and pattern of these groups’ mobilities ... he makes sure that I’m safe if there’sacar was set by those walking (cf Spinney 2009 on coming and Imake sure he’ssafe if there’sacar geographies of cycling). It was also the case coming. that different friendship groups met, mingled and interacted in the course of theireveryday Emma (12): And we always check, like down the walks. This could sometimes result in larger alley if we’re like just up between the gates then and groups moving together through he commu- if we are tempted to go [to nearby shop] we always nity,asinthe ‘reunion’ described by Jane. check to see if we can see any people for about, we check for about two minutes to see if like some Jane (14): Well Ithink it was about, before the people just come out the bushes or something. summer we had like alittle Year Six reunion, you remember on that grass? ... Like all the boys were Liz (10): If I’m with [walking] Felicity then I there, all the girls were there, it was really freaky. sometimes, one of us goes in [the shop], one of us Interviewer: Wasitanorganised thing or did it just stays outside. And then we swap over.Yeah, and it’s happen by chance? like ‘oh hurry up, it’slike freezing out here’ [laughs]. Children andyoung people’s everyday pedestrian practices 107

Thesegestures of care andresponsibility by adults, being moved on by older young contrast markedly with popularrepresen- people (or, in turn,movingonyounger tations of ‘antisocial’ young people in public children), choosing to move on to avoid spaces.Itisrare to see this kind of care and conflict, or pre-emptively moving on out of a socialityacknowledgedingeographical feeling or expectationthat they will be asked research about young people’smobilities in to move.Natalia and Lizprovided two publicspace which, as already discussed, tend examples. to foreground young people’s spatial limits, disputes over spaces andcapacities for Natalia (11): The park and the shop are where like, resistive agency.Itwas also notable that usually where the teenagers hang out, so I’d like children and young people’swalking practices limit my time if Igotothe shop because ... Iget a demonstrated generosity and consideration bit worried, so if Igotothe shop and they’re there I towardsothers withintheir communities. As just quickly turn around and go. Ijust limit my time two examples, consider Rick’sconsideration going there. towardsfriendswho have more constrained spatialranges and Lara’s discussionof Liz (10): We sometimes play out on this path, on the importance of ‘considerate’ cycling and our bikes and that, but because there are some walking. people that live there which Idon’tlike that much, they sometimes come out and then, sometimes ... Rick (10): Idon’tgothere alot because my friend we don’tget like told off, it’sjust we, we do have to lives around here, so Ikind of have to ... He’sonly like move at certain points, because some people are allowed around [indicates on map], so we usually on theirbikes or justwalking theirdog or play there and there’salittle open space, so we just everything. get aball and kick around in it. In summary, theseexamples—of both Lara (9): [Me and] my two friends ... Igoonmy responsibilities andanimosities—demonstrate bike but ... [we] never like go like that [side by themutuallyconstitutivenature of just side], we always stay in aline, single file. Idoprefer walking andall manner of sociabilities. They going on the road because Ijust feel like I’m not also indicate the relational manner in which going to bump into someone walking. Idon’tlike walking/sociability is produced in everyday going on the footpaths because alot ... are really experiences: through inter-personal, intra- narrow so if there’speople walking in front of me generational and inter-generational relations. ... Ihave to go on to the road ... to be considerate.

However,asValentine (2008) observes, every- v. Pedestrian knowledges and narratives dayurban encounters arenot necessarily productive of singularlypositive experiences. Through their walking practices, many par- We foundthat walking practicescould also be ticipants haddeveloped aclose, detailed part andparcel of tensionsbetween different knowledge of the built environment of their social groups withincommunities. Most community.Ininterviews, they detailed participants describedhow theirwalking numerous routes, quirks,features and‘secret’ practices were characterised by an experience places, which were hitherto unknownto(us as) of always moving on: whether being moved on adults within thecommunity.Asinthe 108 John Horton et al. followingquotations,manyparticipants Harriett (12): No, not afew. demonstratedakeenawareness of useful Emma: Quite afew. pedestrian short cuts within theirspatial range. Alice (12): Not afew,loads ... Loads! Harriett: Abox of lager and some bottles and some Natalie(13): Icut across thefield. Yeah ... Isortof cans. made alittlegap wherethe fenceis ... so like Icome Emma: Behind atree down there. underthe fenceand Iliterally just cutacrossthe field. Harriett: We got abit scared so we legged it. [Laughter] Imogen (10): We go down there, down there, down there, to there or we go that way. In interviews, participants seemed proud to Izzy (14): Cut through the park ... share these detailed knowledges with research- Neil (11): So there’sacut through between the ers and each other.They had developed arich houses there you can go through? array of narratives and in-jokes through and Imogen: We go, we walk along there. about their walkingpractices. Humour, Izzy: We go around the back. gossip and stories wereevidently akey feature Imogen: Because we, we took, we thought we’d ... of their pedestrian practicesand friendships [walk] by the road and we were so scared because (see Macpherson 2008 on walking humour). the cars were so near us we, never do that. For example, most interviewsfeatured some discussionwhereparticipants recounted stor- This close, pedestrian-pacedapprehension of ies about notable or amusing walksand the communities (see also Fuller et al. 2008; incidents. Jessica and Jack’sencounters with Horton,Kraftl and Tucker 2011) was also an ice cream van,afarmer and cows, and manifest in childrenand young people’s Alice, Harriett andEmma’sincident with a remarkably acute observations of flora and skateboarder,were just twoexamples of the fauna, and also more illicit spaces and goings- way in which communities werenarrated and on, within the community. enlivenedaswalks were recollected.

Sarah (11): [pointing to map] you come down there, Jessica (9): Do you remember ... Well one time ... this is my normal way,come round here and then me and my friend [went] chasing the ice-cream van ... there’sametal gate ... and then you just cross it all the way around the village ... but he wouldn’t and then go down ... and then there’s, like you [can stop. Because he didn’tsee us and he was playing see] the river and you’ve got geese there, you’ve got the music too loud! ... My brother got nearly shot loads of different multi-coloured birds that are by the farmer ... because [the farmer] was trying to really funky. shoot abird, he missed ... and my brother was in Anne-Marie (11): Well sometimes we just go and the field ... so he quickly ran out the field because look around to see if there’sany like animals like he was worried the farmer was aiming at him rather rabbits, so we can have alook ... or foxes ... than at the birds! There we, we spend alot of time, we’d be in there Jack (9): Iheard like ... Iwent down to the other like nearly every day. side of the field Isee the farmer chasing bulls in his tractor.All you heard was ‘moo’! Emma (12): Yeah, behind one tree, once we were playing out and once we all went near the gate and Alice (12): Yeah, like afew days ago ... there was then we just seen afew cans behind atree. these skateboarders [laughs]. Children andyoung people’s everyday pedestrian practices 109

Harriett (12): Oh yeah. Iwouldn’tbefamiliar,Iwouldn’treally feel that like Emma (12): Oh yeah, there was skateboarders. great if Iwas walking past the council houses Alice: And we thought one of them was like. because apparently,you know like how people say Harriett: Following us. that not as nice people live in the council houses so I Alice: Following us so we kept on. ... would feel uncomfortable. Harriett: So we legged it up our street and then I Rose (10): Iprobably wouldn’tfeel that safe [there] went [to] hide behind the bush and then he just because ... you feel you’re in the middle of nowhere carried on walking because where. because there’sjust people’shouses that you don’t Emma: Ithink he went [to the shop] or something, know,and ... then they’ve got the haunted house somewhere ... and then the dark woods where there’slike foxes and Interviewer: So he wasn’tactually following you? badgers and stuff like that and birds. Alice: No, no, Harriett was like ‘he could be taking, he could be taking the quick way for us’. In some cases,such as ‘the haunted house’ in [Laughter] one community,these narratives were central Alice: And we’re like, ‘Harriett how could he, he to the popular naming of specificfeatures of don’teven know where we live?!’ the built environment: such that, for example, Harriett: Yeah, but he might, he might see. that the name ‘the haunted house’ is now Emma: That was afun day. widely used, by young people and adults alike, [Laughter] when talkingabout aparticularderelict building on the edge of one of the case study Through anecdotes likethese,itwas evident communities. Indeed, arguably, it was in these that walking was an important in children and ways—throughwalking narratives—thatthese youngpeople’sknowledges and relationships ‘new’ communities gainedmeaning as places. to their community, as well as anostalgically All four of our case study communities were remembered part of the shared heritage of built on land previously designatedas‘green friendshipgroups. Through their walks, belt’ or agricultural fields.Young people’s participants also shared and developed presence—as walkers—was therefore consti- rumoursand stories about the community. tutive of akind of emergent liveliness in these For example tales of angry farmers (as above) communities, as they gainednew histories and or the menacing men in white vans, haunted memories, and as meanings solidified around locations, and‘dodgy’ ‘councilhouses’ shared acts of naming, experiences, myths, recurred, with remarkableconsistency,inall fears and gossip. These pedestrian narratives— four case study communities. sometimes shared with and repeated by adults, sometimes not—are part and parcel of the Jack (9): Becauseguess what happened to me,Iwas socialities we referenced earlier, which,aswe runningacrossthe road butthere’s alittlebit that’s argued, are mutually constituted with walking notsafebecause Igot ... followed by aman in abig diverse walking practices. whitetruck ... andithad,and it hadanorangelight on.Mymum’s mate gotchasedbythe same vanand theman,the manhas ahoodsoyou can’tsee hisface. vi. Playfulness

Felicity (12): There’ssome like paths Idon’tgo Many participants explicitly described their down. Apparently there’ssome council houses and walking practicesasaform of play.That is, 110 John Horton et al. they wereoften not setting out to play,or Childrenand youngpeoplearticulated their walking to play spaces,but walking itself was enjoymentofwalking-play in diverseways, for portrayed as enjoyable and playful per se.Even exampleinterms of its‘adventurous’,stress- among older participants, there was some relievingorenergy-boosting properties. slippage between theterms‘walking’ and ‘playing’(as in the prefatory phrase ‘playing Anne-Marie(11): [I likeplaying andwalking] just walking around’). It seemed that walking because it’s like adventurous, youget to go andsee, itself was enjoyedasplayful, and for affording look around becausethere’s alllike, it’s,it’sall playful affects,experiencesand interactions. differenttolikethe park ... Becauseit’sadventurous This potentially playful character of walking andit’slike, you’researching outnew stuffthatyou was most visibleinthe way in which some didn’t know. friendship groups haddeveloped walking- based games through their walks. In these Suzie (12): When I’m feeling stressed out and stuff I instances,such as Alice, Harriett and Emma’s go for awalk and Itend to go to the woods ... and ‘Ghostbusters’ game, gameswereenacted in ... the fields ... Ilike going on the walks ... Yeah, and through circuitous walking,oraswalking Ilike going all the way round and then we, we come morphedinto playing morphedinto walking. about here on the field and then walk down and In the process, everyday spaces of the commu- up again. So Ilike walks. nity could be enlivened and re-imagined(in ways which were sometimes little opaqueto vii. Taken-for-grantedness, or ‘just’-ness adult onlookers; see also Horton 2012),inthis case through the playful imagining of ghosts For allofthat, thechildren andyoung people and ghostbusters around cars. we encounteredinour research overwhel- mingly seemed to take-for-granted,and depre- Alice (12): Andweplaythis game called cate theimportanceof, theireverydaywalking Ghostbusters ... practices. Forall that walkingpractices were Harriett (12): It’sanew one and there’sone centraltofriendships,toplayand to the ghostbuster and two ghosts and. imagining and enlivening of communities, Emma (12): It’sareally fun game. participants’talkabout walkingtendedto Harriett: And we have to hide, the ghosts have to involvethe prefix‘just’: as in,whattheywere hide behind [cars] and the ghostbuster has to come describingwas just walking; walkingwas just round and they go [noise] when they see someone what they did. and then, there’sabase because Rachel’sfront garden’slike grass and then ... it’skind of like Interviewer: Do you tend to stay in one place or curved and then there’slike astony area with atree would you move around lots? and we use that stony area with atree as abase. Paula (10): We move, we move around ... [Laughter] Rachel (10): We’d probably just walk around the Harriett: And sometimes like we use objects like village and chat. once Ibought out acoat and that was like, the Paula: We don’treally,wedon’treally actually stay invisibility cape where you could hold it up and. somewhere, we just walk around. Alice: And then like. Anne-Marie (11): Ilike just walking round because Harriett: And then walk around to look for the it’snice to just like see people ... Well sometimes Ghostbusters ... So it is agood game. we’re ... near my friend’shouse ... we kind of like, Children andyoung people’s everyday pedestrian practices 111 we kind of like just walk any,like anywhere, any walking practices discussed in this paper serve route really. as akind of antithesis of the walking practices foregrounded by many newwalking studies. This just-ness was acharacteristic of many For the children andyoung people,walking participants’ talkabout walking, but it is was just what they did, and appeared to require difficult to pinpoint exactly what lay behind little fanfare or commentary.Notwithstanding it: perhaps aslightly evasivedesire to preserve our interestasgeographical researchers, these some of themystique of theirfriendship walkers seemed fairly reluctant to make much activities when talking with adult researchers; of aclaim about the importanceoftheir perhaps adisinclination to credit walking with everyday walks (because, again, it was just anyspecial importance;perhapsareflex walking). So while we have spent alargepart of defenceoftheir behaviour,inacontext where this section implicitly arguing that studies of youngpeople’spresence in public space is too- children andyoung people’sindependent often assumed to be menacing;perhaps mobility could acknowledge some character- bemusement, or the challenge of verbalising istics of walking—narratives, knowledges, everyday,take-for-granted activities, friend- details, everydayness, socialities, bodily prac- ships and experiences. tices—which areroutinelydiscussed in new walking studies, we wonder to what extent new Harry (11): [I’ve] been to Ithink every area because, walking studies could accommodate this sense don’tknow,Ijust walk round alot ... Yeah, Ijust of just walking.Thisworry pervades the walk round and look round ... Yeah, I, I’ve just, I concluding remarks that follow. just usually walk, walk in there and just not really doing stuff there, just walk round. Conclusions Emma (12): Oh ... there’sawalk that Ilike to go ... Just like awalk ... all the way over [the In this paperwehavehighlighted keycharac- community] ... just going on awalk. teristicsofchildrenand youngpeople’severyday pedestrian practicesinone geographicalcon- This notion of just,which suffused so many text. These practices—‘just walking’—were respondents’ accounts of walking,returns us to characteristically bounded,yet intense and ourearlier discussion(viathe work of circuitous,and constitutedsocialand cultural Middleton2010) of everydaypedestrian geographiesthrough their sociality , narrativity , practices which pose achallenge to many playfulness and taken-for-grantedness. recenttheorisations of walking.The routine, Throughout,wehavedescribed howpaying circuitous walksdescribed in this paper were, attentiontothis‘just walking’ hasunsettled our evidently, considered pretty normaland faithinsomechief geographicalconceptualis- unspectacular—just walking—even by those ations of walking. We have argued that research who participated in them. In this respect, these on children’s independentmobilities—in many particular geographies of walking seem to sit respects adirectantecedentfor ourwork, uncomfortably against thewilled, artful, individually andcollectively—has seldom dis- deeplyaffecting, manifestlypoliticised walking closed thekinds of richness,diversity,intensity, practices which havefeatured in many new sociabilityand sheer mattering whichwere walking studies. We might even say that the evidentwhenparticipants spokeof‘just 112 John Horton et al. walking’ in ourproject.Thishas occasioned short, we worrythat neither studiesofyoung unease aboutthe limitedconceptual-methodo- people’s mobilities nor newwalkingstudies logicalexperimentation in this specificresearch quite does justicetothe everyday pedestrian context(on transportscholarship more gener- practicesforegroundedinthispaper. ally,see Schwanen,Banisterand Anable 2012). These anxieties lead us to atwo-fold It hasalsopromptedustoworry aboutthe conclusion.First,inour specificempirical- normativityofassumptions aboutindependent conceptual context of children and young mobilities within this body of research,tothe people’s mobilities—and thinking viaMiddle- extent that it feelsslightlydaringtoreportthat, ton’s‘everyday pedestrian practices’—wecall in ourstudy,mostyoung people were not forthe theoreticalvivacityofnew walking engagedintransgressive,oppositionalmobili- studiesand the concerns of more applied ties;someyoung people actively engagedwith, empiricalresearchtobeinterrelatedinmore and valued,parents’/carers’rules aboutmobi- ways,inmorecontexts, viamoreempiricaland lity;despite sometimesveryrestrictive spatial conceptual work.Weanticipatethatsucha boundaries,mostchildrenand youngpeople move will afford allmannerofnovel insights spent considerable periodsoftimeplaying and andquestions,not leastaround: theconstitution walkingoutdoors.Wedonot wish to romanti- of diversesocialand cultural inclusions and cise theseparticular, situated experiences,but exclusions viawalking practices; intersections we nowwonderwhy social andcultural betweenwalkingpractices andgeographies of geographiessuchasthese aresoinfrequently age, gender,class,ethnicity,disability, family or reported in alarge literature whichisostensibly friendship;orplanningand policy implications about children andyoung people’s walkingin of thekinds of pedestrian practiceshighlighted minorityworld neighbourhoodcontexts. here.Second, we suggestthatthe kindsof We have also argued that theseyoung people’s geographiesforegroundedinthis papermight accounts of walkingpromptsomeambivalence posebroader challenges forsocialand cultural when juxtaposed with ‘new walkingstudies’ geographers. We propound ‘justwalking’— scholarship. Conceptualisations drawnfrom particularlythe often-unremarked wayit newwalkingstudies—onthe bodily,social, matters —asakind of phenomenon whichis sociotechnical andhabitualcharacteristics of sometimesdoneadisservice by chieflines of walking—have provided us with importantcues theory and practice in social and cultural fordevelopingcareful, novelunderstandingsof geography. Ourspecific unease in this empirical children andyoung people’s social andcultural case might challengesocialand cultural geographiesinour research.However,weare geographers, more broadly, to consider whether left wonderingatthe overwhelming absenceof otherlineagesofresearchand conceptualisation children andyoung people—asparticipantsor do asimilar disservice to thesocialand cultural objectsofenquiry—fromnew walkingstudies. geographiestheyare purportedly about. The Moreover,toacertainextentwewonderhow latent awkwardness of this paper’sjuxtaposi- readilynew walkingstudies couldaccommo- tion of nascent conceptualisation(newwalking date the sense of just walking—taken-for- studies), longstanding empiricalwork(chil- granted, largelyunremarked, discussedwitha dren’s independent mobility)and young shrug—articulatedinthis paper,given the people’s ownarticulationof just walking may emphasisonvividly evocative, knowing, also prompt reflection: how come thesedifferent ‘walking-with-a-thesis’critiqued earlier.In registerssometimes feel so irreconcilable,when Children andyoung people’s everyday pedestrian practices 113 they areostensiblyabout thesamething? In our Benwell, M. (2013) Rethinking conceptualisations of work we have foundthe tensions andinter- adult-imposed restriction and children’s experiences of relationsbetween theseregisters to be pro- autonomy in outdoor space, Children’s Geographies 11: 28–43. ductiveinopening outwider pointsof Bissell, D. (2013) Pointless mobilities: rethinking proxi- discussion andcriticalreflection on research in mity through the loops of neighbourhood, Mobilities 8: ourfield. We challengesocialand cultural 349–367. geographers to expedite this kind of inter- Brown, B.,Mackett, R.,Gong, Y.,Kitazawa, K. andPaskins, relation in otherresearchcontexts. J. (2008) Gender differences in children’spathwaysto independent mobility, Children’s Geographies 6: 385–402. Acknowledgements Carver,A., Watson, B., Shaw,B.and Hillman, M. (2013) Acomparisonstudy of children’sindependentmobility in England and Australia, Children’s Geographies 11: This paper emerged from the New Urbanisms, 461–475. New Citizens project: afour-year collaboration Christensen, P. and Mikkelsen, M. (2009) Is children’s between the Universities of Warwick, Leicester independentmobility really independent?, Mobilities 4: and Northampton, funded by the Economic 37–58. Cresswell, T. (2010) Towards apolitics of mobility, and SocialResearchCouncil(RES-062-23- Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 28: 1549).Wegratefully acknowledge the support 17–31. of research participants and their families, Fuller,D., Askins, K., Mowl, G., Jeffries, M. and Lambert, schoolsand youth groups. We thank the Editor D. (2008) Mywalks: fieldwork and living geographies, and three anonymous refereesfor positive, TeachingGeography 33: 80–83. Fyhri, A.,Hjorthol, R.,Mackett,R., Fotel, T. andKytta¨ ,M. thoughtful commentsonanearlierdraft. (2011) Children’s active travel andindependent mobility in four countries, TransportPolicy 18:703–710.

Note Gill, T. (2006) Home Zones in the UK: History,policy and impact on children and youth, Children, Youth and 1. To protectparticipants’ identities, allnames are Environments 16: 90–103. pseudonyms and individual urban developments are Hillman, M., Adams, J. and Whitelegg, J. (1990) One not named. FalseMove: AStudy of Children’s Independent Mobility.London: Policy Studies Institute. Hopkins, P. and Pain, R. (2007) Geographies of age: References thinking relationally, Area 39: 287–294. Horton, J. (2012) ‘Got my shoes, got my Poke´ mon’: Badland, H., Oliver,M., Duncan, M. and Schantz, P. spaces of children’spopular culture, Geoforum 43: (2011) Measuring children’s independent mobility: 4–13. comparing objective and self-report approaches, Chil- Horton, J. and Kraftl, P. (2008) Reflections on geographies dren’sGeographies 9: 263–271. of age, Area 40: 284–288. Barker,J.(2008) Men and motors: fathers’ involvement in Horton, J., Kraftl, P. and Tucker,F.(2011) Spaces-in-the- children’s travel, Early Child Development and Care making,childhoods-on-the-move, in Foley, P. and 178: 853–866. Leverett, S. (eds) Children, Places and Spaces.Bucking- Barker, J. (2009) Driven to distraction?Children’s ham: Open UniversityPress, pp. 40–57. experiences of car travel, Mobilities 4: 59–76. Ingold, T. andVergunst, J. (eds)(2008) Ways of Barker,J.(2011) ‘Manic mums’ and ‘distant dads’? Walking: Ethnography and Practice on Foot.Aldershot: Gendered carescapes and the journey to school, Health Ashgate. and Place 17: 413–421. Jones, O. (2005) An emotionalecology of memory,self Barker,J., Kraftl, P.,Horton, J. and Tucker,F.(2009) The andlandscape,inDavidson,J., Bondi, L. andSmith,M. road less travelled?New directions in children’s (eds) Emotional Geographies .Farnham:Ashgate, mobility, Mobilities 4: 1–10. pp. 205–218. 114 John Horton et al.

Jones, O. (2008) Walking tidal time-spaces, part 1. http:// Middleton, J. (2010) Sense and the : exploring the www.youtube.com/watch?v¼ 6TjO6qS8BMI&featu embodied geographiesofurban walking, Social & re¼ plcp (accessed 24 April 2013). Cultural Geography 11: 575–596. Karsten, L. (2005) It allusedtobebetter? Different Middleton, J. (2011) Walking in the city: the geographies generationsoncontinuityand change in urbanchildren’s of everyday pedestrian practices, Geography Compass dailyuse of space, Children’s Geographies 3: 275–290. 5: 90–105. Klawiter,M.(1999) Racing for the cure, walking women, Middleton, J. (2012) ‘I’m on autopilot, Ijust follow the and toxic touring: action within the Bay Area terrain of route’: exploring the habits, routines and decision- breast cancer, Social Problems 46: 104–126. making practices of everyday urban mobilities, Environ- Lorimer,H.(2011) Walking: new forms and spaces for ment and Planning A 43: 2857–2877. studies of walking, in Cresswell, T. and Merriman, P. Mitchell, H., Kearns, R. and Collins, D. (2007) Nuances (eds) Geographies of Mobilities: Practices, Spaces, of neighbourhood: children’s perceptions of the space Subjects.Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 19–34. between home and school in Auckland, New Zealand, Lorimer,H.and Lund, K. (2008) Acollectable topogra- Geoforum 38: 614–627. phy: walking, remembering and recording mountains, Namaste, K. (1996) Genderbashing: sexuality,gender,and in Ingold, T. and Vergunst, J. (eds) Ways of Walking: theregulation of publicspace, Environment and Ethnography and Practice on Foot.Farnham: Ashgate, Planning D: Society and Space 14: 221–240. pp. 318–345. O’Brien, M., Jones, D., Sloan, D. and Ristin, M. (2000) Mackett, R.,Brown,B., Gong,T., Kitazawa,K.and Children’sindependent spatial mobility in the urban Paskins, J. (2007) Children’s independentmovementin public realm, Childhood 7: 257–277. thelocal environment, BuiltEnvironment 33:454–468. ODPM [Office of the Deputy Prime Minister] (2003) Macpherson,H.(2008)‘Idon’t know whytheycallitthe Sustainable Communities.London: ODPM. Lake District they mightaswellcallitthe rock district!’ Pacilli, M.,Giovannelli, I.,Prezza,M.and Augimeri,M. Theworkingsofhumourand laughter in research with (2013) Children andthe publicrealm:antecedentsand membersofvisuallyimpairedwalking groups, Environ- consequences of independentmobility in agroup of 11-to ment andPlanningD:Society andSpace 26:1080–1095. 13-year-old Italian children, Children’sGeographies 11:

Macpherson, H. (2011) Guiding visuallyimpaired walking 377–393. groups: intercorporeal experienceand ethical sensibil- Pain,R.(2006)Paranoidparenting?Rematerializing risk ities, in Pearson, M. and Dodge, M. (eds) Touching Place, andfearfor children, Social &CulturalGeography 7: Placing Touch.Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 131–150. 221–243. Matthews, H. (1987) Gender,home range and environ- Pinder,D.(2005) Arts of urban exploration, Cultural mental cognition, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographies 12: 383–411. Geographers 12: 43–56. Romero, V. (2010) Children’sviews of independent Matthews, H. (1992) Making Sense of Place: Children’s mobility during their school travels, Children, Youth Understanding of Large-Scale Environments.Hemel and Environments 20: 46–66. Hampstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Ross, N. (2007) ‘My journey to school ... ’: foregrounding Matthews, H., Taylor,M., Percy-Smith, B. and Limb, M. the meaning of school journeys and children’s engage- (2000) The unacceptable flaneur: the shopping mall a ments and interactions in their everyday localities, teenage hangout, Childhood 7: 279–294. Children’sGeographies 5: 373–391. Mattson,K.(2002) Children’s(in)dependent mobility and Sarre, S. (2010) Parental regulation of teenagers’ time, parents’ chauffeuringinthe town and countryside, Childhood 17: 61–75. Tijdschrift voor EconomischeenSociale Geografie 93: Schwanen,T., Banister,D.and Anable,J.(2012) 443–453. Rethinking habits and their role in behaviour change: McDonald,N.(2008) Household interaction and chil- the case of low-carbon mobility, Journal of Transport dren’sschool travel, Journal of Transport Geography Geography 24: 522–532. 16: 324–331. Sidaway,J.(2009) Shadows on the path: negotiating Middleton, J. (2009) ‘Stepping in time’: walking, time and geopolitics on an urban section of Britain’sSouth-West space in the city, Environment and Planning A 41: Coast Path, Environment and Planning D: Society and 1943–1961. Space 27: 1091–1116. Children andyoung people’s everyday pedestrian practices 115

Sinclair,I.(2003) Lights Out for the Territory.London: et l’œuvreriche et multidisciplinaire connusousle Penguin. nomde«nouvellese´ tudesdelamarche».Touten Spinney,J.(2009) Cycling the city: mobility,meaning and affirmant queces œuvres pourraient eˆ tremis en method, Geography Compass 9: 817–835. interrelationd’une manie` re productive,noussoute- Valentine, G. (1996) Children should be seen and not nons «rienque marcher» -enparticulie` re la manie` re heard: the production and transgressionofadults’ souventoublie´ edanslaquelleilade la conse´ quence— public space, 17: 205–220. commeune sortedephe´ nome` ne quiest parfois Valentine, G. (2008) Living with difference: reflections on de´ pre´ cie´ epar lesprincipales the´ oriesetpratiques dans geographies of encounter, Progress in Human Geogra- la ge´ ographie socialeetculturelle. phy 32: 323–337. Villanueva, K., Giles-Corti,B., Bulsara, M., McCormack, Mots-clefs: ge´ ographies desenfants,marcher, G., Timperio, A., Middleton, N., Beesley,B.and Trapp, mobilite´ ,mobilite´ inde´ pendante des enfants, nou- G. (2012) How far do children travel from their homes? velles e´ tudes de la marche, enfants et jeunes. Exploringchildren’s activity spaces in their neighbour- hood, Health and Place 18: 263–273. ‘Caminando ... solamente caminando’: como las Villanueva,K., Giles-Corti, B.,Bulsara,M., Trapp, G., practicas peatonales de nin˜ os yjo ´ venes importan Timperio, A.,McCormack,G.and vanNiel, K. (forthcoming)Doesthe walkabilityofneighbourhoods Este articulo se considera la importancia de caminar affect children’s independent mobility?, Children’s para las vidas, experiencias yamistades cotidianas Geographies 11. de muchos nin ˜ os yjo ´ venes. Llevando de una Wylie, J. (2009) Landscape, absence and the geographies investigacio´ ncon 175 personas entre 9a16 an˜ os of love, Transactions of theInstitute of British quienes viven en nuevas viviendas urbanas del sur- Geographers 34: 275–289. este de la Inglaterra, recalcamos caracterı´ sticas claves de las practicas de caminar (diarias, no valoradas,sin propo ´ sito), las cuales fueron de Abstracttranslations importancia constituida el las amistades, comuni-

‘Marcher ... rien que marcher’: Comment les dades ygeografı´ as de jo´ venes. Estas practicas fueron pratiques pie´ tonnes quotidiens des enfants et des atados caracterı´sticamente, pero intensas yenreve- jeunes ont de la conse´ quence sadas. Fueron vividas, vitales, amadas, juguetones, experienciassociales, perotambie´ ndescartadas Cetarticle conside` re l’importance de marcherpourles como ‘solamentecaminando’. Discutimos que vies,expe´ riences, et amitie´ squotidiennes de nom- ‘practicas peatonales cotidianas’ (siguiendo Mid- breuxenfants et jeunes.Nousfaisons usagedela dleton 2010, 2011) como estas requieren reflexiones recherchemene´ eavec175 jeunes de 9a` 16 ans criticas sobre las teorı´ as cientı´ ficas sociales princi- habitant lesagglome´ rationsurbainesdanslesud-est pales de caminar,enparticular la obra de literatura de l’Angleterre pour soulignerles caracte´ ristiquescle´ s de movilidad independiente de nin˜ os ylaobra despratiques pie´ tonnes (quotidiennes, ostensible- interdisciplinaria conocida como ‘nuevos estudios ment sans but) quiavaient uneimportanceconstitu- de caminar’. Al discutir que estas lı´neas de trabajo tive dansles amitie´ s, les communaute´ s, et les pueden ser interrelacionados en una forma produc- ge´ ographies desenfants et desjeunes. Cespratiques tiva, proponemos que ‘solamente caminando’— e´ taient de´ limite´ es de manie` rescaracte´ ristiques, mais particularmente la manera raramente mencionada aussiintensivesetsinueuses. Ellese´ taientdes se importa—como un feno´ meno que aveces se expe´ riencessociales vives, vitales, aime´ es,maisaussi desmerezca por teorı´ as ypracticas principales en rejete´ es avec un haussement dese´ paules,comme «rien geografı´a social ycultural. quemarcher». Nous affirmons quedes «pratiques quotidiennes pie´ tonnes»(apre` sMiddleton 2010, 2011)tellescomme celles-cine´ cessitentdelare´ flexion Palabras claves: geografı´ adenin˜ os,caminar, critique surdes the´ orisations principalesdelascience movilidad,movilidadindependiente de nin˜ os, socialedemarcher,enparticulie` re la grande nuevos estudios de caminar,nin˜ os yjo ´ venes. litte´ rature surlamobilite´ inde´ pendantdes enfants