Children's neighborhood place as a psychological and behavioral domain

Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 51–71

Children’s neighborhood place as a psychological andbehavioral domain

Byungho Min�, Jongmin Lee

Faculty of Architecture, Ajou University, Suwon 442-749, South Korea

Abstract

Interviews of 91 children living in a large high-rise, high-density planned neighborhood of 5277 families reveal that children find most

of their psychologically valued settings within the neighborhood outdoor spaces such as designated play areas and developed parks. They

are aware of differences in experience between such valued ‘places’ and other ‘spaces’. They choose the places because such places offer

some key environmental attributes—spatial, physical, and social—that support behaviors that children want to engage in. Due to these

attributes, behaviors in places are different from behaviors in other spaces, with the former being more purposive, social, creative, and

dependent on particular affordances of the setting. This can be confirmed in a follow-up behavioral analysis of three pairs of most

popular places and their counterpart settings. This observational analysis shows that settings children mention to be important to them

are utilized more often (about twice as much) than their counterparts, showing a variety of behaviors, incorporating more intentional

activities (as opposed to transient, short-lived ones), encouraging group behaviors (as opposed to single-person activities), and providing

children with a sense of their own territorial play area. The study demonstrates that in children’s neighborhood environment, emergence

of such important places is related to use pattern and there are some key attributes and core behaviors greatly contributing to children’s

place experience.

r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: neighborhood, children, place, affordances

1. Introduction

Among the meanings of context is ‘place’. Events andactions occur in places; places are distinctive parts of theearth’s surface that have been created by and thereforehave meaning to the people who live in them (Downs &Liben, 1993, p. 155).

In this paper, children’s ‘neighborhood places’ refer tocommunity open spaces and communal facilities in aneighborhood that children consider as being especiallyimportant to them in terms of psychological, behavioral,and symbolic meanings (Chawla, 1992; Downs & Liben,1993). Such places typically offer some environmentalattributes (e.g. easy access, functional capabilities, etc.) thatchildren find useful for their meaningful experiences. Anassumption is made in this paper that children ably identifywhich settings can provide such attributes and make

distinction between ‘places’ linked to such valued experi-ences and ‘spaces’ associated with either less value or of nouse (refer to the terms, place and space, in Tuan, 1977;Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983). Due to themeanings associated with such places, children tend toshow special affection toward the places and their everydaylife likely becomes dependent on them (Stokols & Shu-maker, 1981; Low & Altman, 1992).One important aspect of such place experience may be

purposive and evaluative use of a place. Canter (1983)emphasizes this: a place is not just looked at but normallyexperienced and evaluated in terms of a specific purposethat an individual has for being in it. That is, children areassumed to have particular intentions or purposes wheninteracting with a setting and the purposes determine theway they behave in it. Therefore, a place is not viewedsolely in terms of its visual or aesthetic characteristics(Scott & Canter, 1997). A place, instead, is purposivelyused and evaluated in terms of whether and how it affordsthe behaviors (Gibson, 1977; Heft, 1988). Therefore, what

ARTICLE IN PRESS

www.elsevier.com/locate/yjevp

0272-4944/$ - see front matter r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.04.003

�Corresponding author. Tel.: +8211 282 2496.

E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Min).

is important to children when using a place is, whatGarling (1998) calls, its ‘informational properties’ regard-ing affordances and opportunities for achieving intendedbehaviors rather than its ‘physical contents’ per se. In thissense, place experience may normally start with using asetting purposively and giving it special personal or groupmeanings.

Children’s neighborhood place experience has long beena subject of many studies and investigated from varyingperspectives. Emphases have been on, for example, inter-view or self-report investigation of children’s important orfavorite places, standardized measurement of effects ofplace on children’s psychological states (e.g. restorativeexperience, attention deficit disorder, etc.), and observa-tional analysis of children’s neighborhood activities (Hole& Miller, 1966; Marcus, 1974; Moore & Young, 1978;Wohlwill & Heft, 1987; Korpela, Kytta, & Hartig, 2002).Much information is now available due to these efforts.Yet, despite this valuable accumulation of information,many have noted that a few core questions still remainunsolved, particularly about possible differences betweenchildren’s experience of settings they especially value andtheir experience of those they do not value as much and,similarly, about relationships between settings they prefer(feel emotionally attached to or consider especiallyimportant to them) and settings they actually use (i.e.possible conflicts between children’s functional realm andtheir conceived realm (Moore, 1979; Chawla, 1992). Withthese questions left unanswered, effects of neighborhoodenvironments on children’s behavior and their placeexperience cannot be addressed comprehensively.

The ambiguity of relationships between the behavioraland psychological realms can be interpreted as arising fromthe lack of empirical evidence dealing with both realmssimultaneously. Studies overall indicate that to children, aneighborhood may consist of settings that are (1) favoredor important but not used well, (2) used well but notfavored or important, (3) favored or important and usedwell, and (4) not favored/important and not used well (seeFig. 1).

Studies of children and neighborhoods show bothcorrespondence and conflict between these two domains.Children show to favor some natural landscapes and playareas which may include parks, woods, waterways, play-grounds, and recreational facilities. Yet, parks andundeveloped natural areas are not used as frequently asthey are mentioned as favored places (Chawla, 1992).Instead, streets, stoops, yards, and waste/vacant areas canserve as better activity settings, although not necessarilypreferred (Eubanks Owen, 1994). Studies indicate thatplace preference varies with gender and age of children(Hart, 1979; Eubanks Owen, 1988; O’Brien, Jones, Sloan,& Rustin, 2000). Young children tend to prefer play areasand sites close to home while teens favor ‘invisible areas’such as undeveloped waste places, vacant areas, andrecreational or commercial facilities. Girls tend to prefersites close to home and green areas while boys tend to favorrather remote settings. In addition, preference and beha-vior may vary with the context of the neighborhood, thesociophysical reality that determines what options areavailable and what restraints are given to children. Forinstance, studies show differing results between urban,suburban, and rural neighborhoods and between commu-nities in different cultures (e.g. children in public housing inMarcus, 1974; rural children in Derr, 2002; suburbanchildren in Schiavo, 1988; urban children in Simmons,1994).In one neighborhood such as a high-rise planned

residential development, children may name designatedplay areas (e.g. playgrounds) when asked about theirpreference. They may indicate that they visit these playareas regularly and hardly go anywhere else (Coates &Sanoff, 1972). Few other alternatives meeting their playneeds may be available while various risks hinder themfrom venturing out to other potential options. As a result,children use the playground and eventually come to like it.Preference and actual use may also converge in a verydifferent neighborhood context, such as in a rural townwhere natural play areas are available, accessible, and safe.Yet, on the contrary, it is plausible that they can diverge invarious other contexts (e.g. some suburban developments,traditional urban residential blocks, and squatter settle-ments) where most children play on the streets or yards andhave very different ideas about preferred places.Scarcity of studies addressing these issues in different

contexts makes it difficult to understand the extent towhich the psychological realm overlaps the behavioralrealm. One approach to this question may be to assumethat two domains differ inherently and try to clarify thedifferences. Yet, another more plausible approach is tomaintain that psychological attachment to a setting isdependent of frequent and meaningful use of the setting(i.e. use makes a difference in preference/importance) andto identify contextual variables intervening into thedivergence (Proshansky et al., 1983; Weisman, Chaudhury,& Diaz Moore, 2001). Our understanding is that therealways are some settings not used but perceived as

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. Settings of psychological importance and settings for actual use.

B. Min, J. Lee / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 51–7152

important by children and some settings frequently visitedbut not considered as important. This opens up a variety ofresearch opportunities regarding influences of environmen-tal features and sociophysical variables on psychologicaland behavioral experiences of children.

Preference and use can diverge, thus, use may notnecessarily lead to preference, since, as Rapoport (1977)suggests, the use value of a setting (i.e. a setting is valueddue to its functional capabilities for some requiredbehaviors) is a necessary but not sufficient condition forits conceptional value (a setting is valued due to meanings,concepts, and psychological gains associated with it). Yet,Rapoport also persuasively argues that conceptional valuecan hardly exist without use value and ‘‘a setting can onlybe seen as suitable for a specific activity and as having somemeanings after it is perceived as a setting’’ (p. 316). In thisassumption, reasons for the divergence between behavioraland psychological realms can be twofold: (1) some settingsare perceived as truly useful (therefore, they are morelikely preferred or considered to be important) while othersettings are not and, (2) some behaviors are truly effectivein making a setting an important/preferred one whileother behaviors are not as effective. One can argue thatfor a setting to be used and favored simultaneously,both conditions should be met. That is, it should beperceived as useful and it should afford such effectivebehaviors.

The first point is dealt with most successfully in terms ofaffordances of a setting (Gibson, 1977; Heft, 1988, 1997;Reed, 1993; Kytta, 2002). Yet, affordances related to aspecific activity are multifold, varying from variousphysical and spatial properties to various psychologicaland social attributes. Studies need to focus on affordanceseffective for the behaviors directly contributing to changesin children’s psychological experience (e.g. preference,attitude, value orientation, etc.). Previously, studies askedchildren about reasons, attributes, and activities associatedwith their preferred settings and identify some significantfeatures linked to the preference. They include environ-mental options (Moore, 1985), environmental manipul-ability (Nicholson, 1971), availability of interesting playresources (Moore, 1974), friends (Korpela et al., 2002), andsecret/hidden places (Marcus, 1974), ability for privacy,functional capability, access and legibility (Weisman et al.,2001), and independent mobility (Kytta, 2004). The extentto which these affordances are applicable to the psycho-logical topography of children in a particular neighbor-hood should be examined further.

Former studies suggest behavioral (preferred activities),social (togetherness with family and friends), and emo-tional (mental well-being) reasons for the preference. Yet,they most strongly emphasize that an important or favoredplace is where children can do what they want to do(Sommer, 1990; Eubanks Owen, 1994; Derr, 2002). Thisfunctional value of a setting is central to children’sconception and categorization of place (Nelson, 1978;Hart, 1979; Pazer, 1992). What they do and how they do it

in a particular place best defines the place for the children.It is critical, at this point, to consider again Canter’s (1983)purposive behaviors and Barker’s goal-involving behavior(also setting-behavior synomorph, Barker, 1968). Beha-viors motivated by goals and purposes are more likely to berelevant to the emergence of psychological place experi-ence. As specific affordances of a setting supports childrento use it purposefully and meet with the goals, childrencome to prefer the setting or consider it as being especiallyimportant to them.The main concern here is to examine these useful

attributes and effective behaviors. It is noteworthy to drawa line between preference and importance. With regard to asetting and behaviors in it, preference and importance maybe related but not necessarily the same. One can prefer asetting (or behavior) while not actually consider it to beimportant (e.g. video games). The opposite may also betrue in that one can think of a setting as being importantbut not necessarily favor it (e.g. a library, homework, etc.).Literature shows little about previous efforts for clarifyingthe relations between these concepts. Studies, instead, haveused them interchangeably (e.g. Malinowski & Thurber,1996; Newell, 1997; Korpela et al., 2002; using preferred orfavorite; Schiavo, 1988; Eubanks Owen, 1994; Lieberg,1994; Gustafson, 2001, using valued, meaningful, orimportant). Given that need is a force that organizesperception and action in such a way as to transforman existing, unsatisfying situation (Murray, 1938,pp. 123–124), importance is more related than preferenceto the actions that one may feel need to be done. Therefore,a study interested in the role of such actions in children’splace experience may as well find importance morerelevant. One may even argue that the confusion betweenpsychological and behavioral domains (Chawla, 1992) isdue in part to the focus on preference. Analysis ofimportance, instead of preference, may have resulteddifferently.This study attempts to examine children’s (ages 7–12)

experience of their neighborhood environment in threequestions. The first question concerns identifying theirplaces of psychological importance: what places in andnear the neighborhood do children consider especiallyimportant to their everyday lives? Do they make distinctionbetween such places and other neighborhood spaces?Where are the places located? The second questionexamines attributes and values with which children imbuetheir important places: why do they consider the placesimportant to them (or more important than other settings)?Do the attributes of such important places differ fromthose of other settings found less important? The thirdquestion focuses on the role of use and a comparativeanalysis of place and space in terms of behavior: how dochildren use the places? Do their behaviors in importantplaces differ from behaviors in other spaces? Overall, thisinquiry attempts to examine possible relations between useand importance of a neighborhood setting and to furtheridentify some specific attributes and core behaviors in the

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. Min, J. Lee / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 51–71 53

setting most relevant to the children’s place–space distinc-tion and the formation of such important places.

2. Methods

2.1. Site and design

The study site, Hansol Village, is one of the many high-rise, high-density apartment housing developments in aplanned new town called Bundang. This new town islocated approximately 15 km south of Seoul in SouthKorea with a population of approximately half a millionpeople. Hansol Village is a public housing projectdeveloped by the Korean Housing Authority. It is one ofthe largest residential projects in Bundang covering288,270m2 (71.2 acres) with a residential density of 214persons per acre. Four heavily traveled city streets, 25–30mwide, encircle the site virtually covering an entire cityblock. The site was first occupied in 1994.

At the time of this study, there existed 51 apartmentbuildings and 5277 middle-class families within this area(approximately 100 families per building). All apartmentbuildings are high-rise, 15–22 stories with two to sixapartments of 42–105m2 on each floor. Over 15,300 peoplereside in Hansol Village, of which about 10% are childrenbetween 7 and 12 years of age (Government Census, 2004).Most of the families (about 92%) comprise of three to fourmembers of parents and children. There are about 450households (about 8%) of single-parent families andpensioned elderly (65 years or older, most of the elderlypopulation in the neighborhood living alone).

Hansol Village has three community centers (residents’meeting rooms, small elderly centers, maintenance offices,kindergardens, etc.), two schools (an elementary and a highschool), seven retail store buildings (neighborhood stores,private academies, and restaurants), and a post office.Public open spaces include two developed neighborhoodparks (Hansol Park and the central park), small hills andwoods, several treed rest areas with wooden pavilions, 16playgrounds, five playfields, and outdoor sports areas(tennis courts). Buildings are clustered around innercourtyards having parking spaces and landscaped restareas. The Hansol site is divided into four sectors by twocrossing central pedestrian paths with 10–17 apartmentbuildings (individually numbered 4–7) in each sector. Thereare schools, play areas, and a garden at the center of thesite. The neighborhood is surrounded by 10–30m widetreed/grassed buffer zones almost all around its periphery.In addition, there are various city amenities within walkingdistance (0.5–1 km) such as city parks, shopping malls,sports centers, schools, and private academies (see Fig. 2).

Hansol Village is typical of many large high-rise, high-density urban housing developments built during the pasttwo decades in Korea. It is typical in its composition offamilies and the proportion of the children population. Ithas a variety of communal open spaces for children’s useplanned in confirmation to building codes, national

housing design standards, and city planning guidelines.Like many other planned neighborhoods in Korea, thearea is clearly bounded by thoroughfares (which seeminglyincreases the residents’ geographical sense of neighbor-hood) with various city facilities in close proximity thatchildren may go to. These characteristics that typify themodern Korean neighborhood make it a suitable site forthis study.The main objective of this study is to address several

important research questions dealing with children’sneighborhood places of psychological importance, attri-butes of the important places, and differences in behaviorsbetween such places and other spaces. Thee questions areaddressed through field interviews and place-centeredbehavioral observations. The interviews deal with the firsttwo questions, asking primarily, ‘Do you have particularplaces that you think are especially important to your dailylife?’ and ‘Why do you think the place is important to you?’Using the preliminary analysis of the interview data, thebehavioral observations are to collect behaviors in bothplaces and their counterpart settings and to compare themto identify differences in use patterns.

2.2. Interview procedure

Between April 10 and May 31, 2004, a team of tworesearchers (interviewer and assistant) conducted 91 fieldinterviews of 7- to 12-year old children living in the studysite. Before the interviews, a walk-through route wasdetermined by moving across the site’s open spaces. Aschedule was constructed showing date and time of theinterviews distributed across different days of week anddifferent times of the day. In order to increase the chancesof finding children outdoors, all interviews were conductedbetween 2 p.m. to 7 p.m. There were altogether 15interview sessions (8 weekday sessions and 7 weekendsessions). One session involved complete circling of thewalk-through route in one day. Each session started atdifferent points of the walk-through route.Two researchers worked together as a team with one

performing the interviews and the other recording data andcontrolling possible interruptions. To begin, they enteredthe neighborhood and walked along the pre-determinedroute. Once a child (or a group of children) using one of thepublic open spaces was spotted an interview was initiatedat the child’s location. When faced with a group ofchildren, data of the most helpful participant was recorded.Once an interview was completed the researchers continuedto walk through the route and repeated the process. Theinterviews were conducted in the children’s natural playingstate be it sitting, crouching or moving around. When thechosen child was sitting or crouching, the interviewer satbeside the child and asked for the interview. When the childwas playing and moving around, the interviewer asked foran interruption. Children passing rapidly or leaving thescene suddenly were excluded. Also excluded were thosewho appeared unhelpful and were younger or older than

ARTICLE IN PRESSB. Min, J. Lee / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 51–7154

the ages the study focused on. The researchers repeated thisprocedure until completing the walk-through route.

Beginning each interview, the researchers identifiedthemselves and asked the child’s age (or grade inelementary school). In order to identify children’s impor-tant places, the interview began by asking, ‘Do you havesome places that you think are especially important to yourdaily life?’ or, ‘Where are the most important places foryou?’ Other detailing questions followed such as, ‘Do youhave any other places that you think are as important asthe one you just mentioned?’ (for every child responding tothe first question with his/her place). For every placementioned, the researchers continued by asking, ‘Why doyou think the place is important to you?’ The children wereasked to give as many responses as they could providingeach one sufficient time for thinking and preparing for theirresponses.

To every child who selected as their choice an outdoorsetting within the study site (excluding indoor settings andall city places outside the site), the interviewers mentionedtwo or three specific names of other settings that theybelieved to be similar in function and location (e.g. 503-playground and 505-playground to every child mentioning506-playground). They also showed 4� 5-inch color photoimages of the comparable settings which they had compiledprior to the interviews. Questions to understand the specificreasons for the responses were presented such as, ‘What doyou think makes your place more important than theseother places in your neighborhood?’ and, ‘Why not these

other places?’ and ‘What makes your special place differentfrom them?’Each interview lasted approximately 20min. Sixty-

two boys and 29 girls participated in the interviews (seeTable 1). They provided a total of 269 responses ofimportant places and 230 reasons for considering them tobe important.

2.3. Observation procedure

The behavioral observations are intended to understandbehavioral characteristics of the places (how often placesare used, for what behaviors, by whom, etc.) and comparethem with behaviors in other comparable neighborhoodsettings (the researchers believed this comparison to be a

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. Hansol Village site map and general views.

Table 1

Number of interviewed children by age and gender

Age Gender Total

Male Female

7 3 3 6 (6.6%)

8 14 1 15 (16.5%)

9 12 5 17 (18.7%)

10 7 8 15 (16.5%)

11 14 5 19 (20.9%)

12 12 7 19 (20.9%)

Total 62 (68.1%) 29 (31.9%) 91 (100.0%)

B. Min, J. Lee / Journal of Environmental Psychology 26 (2006) 51–71 55

better way for highlighting the places’ behavioral char-acteristics than observing only the places).

A preliminary analysis of the interview data helped toidentify most popular places, which were initially defined asthose mentioned by more than nine children. Indoor placessuch as schools and homes were excluded for thisobservational analysis. For each popular outdoor neigh-borhood place listed from the interview data, the approx-imate balancing method (Taylor, Wiley, Kuo, & Sullivan,1998) was employed to determine its counterpart setting tobe observed. Since these counterpart settings were to beselected within Hansol Village, it was not practical orpossible to obtain equivalent or matched settings toperform an experimentation study. Instead, the techniqueemployed here was to obtain comparable settings byapproximately balancing them with the pre-selected placesin terms of their mainly physical and functional features.Thus, for each place, its counterpart setting was selectedfrom those that were similar to the place in terms ofdesignated use (e.g. a playground to a playground),location (preferably in the same quarter, adjacency to thecentral paths, etc.), area size, level of maintenance, andother details of design (play objects/equipments, groundcondition, entryways to the setting, trees and bushes in andaround the setting, fences, etc.).

In addition, other efforts were made to increase thecredibility of the comparison. First, the counterpartsettings were selected from those mentioned by the leastnumber of children (two to zero children) in order tohighlight the comparison. Second, multiple pairs wereconstructed and compared with expectations of the multi-ple comparisons producing some converging results. Third,the selected settings, places and their counterparts, wereobserved in exactly the same manner. One group ofobservers (consisting of three researchers) performed theobservations, employing the same procedure in all thesettings. The observers were trained on five field settingsprior to the study (in similar housing developments otherthan the study site). To avoid possible biases of observationtime and day, the observers conformed to a systematicallyconstructed observation schedule.

This selection process, performed in early June of 2004,resulted in three pairs; 506-playground (mentioned by 17children), 709-playground (15 children), 607-playfield (9children) for popular places and 503-playground (men-tioned by two children), 414-playground (one child), andthe central playfield (mentioned by none) (see Fig. 3). Thenumber before a setting in the figures refers to the numberof apartment building nearest to the setting. The childrennormally called them this way.

The observations took place on four fine-weathered daysin June 9–13, 2004. They were performed during after–school hours when more children were present outdoors.(School is over between 1:30 and 3:00 p.m. in weekdays.Children normally go home or to a friend’s house afterschool, playing PC games and play-stations. Some of themgo out to play outdoors depending on weather and play

conditions. Almost every school-aged child in Korea goesto one or two private academies learning Taekwondo ormusic and arts for 1–2 h after school. They often play withfriends somewhere between school, private academies, andhome.) Each setting was observed three times on differentdays. Each observation took 20min with 10-min pausebetween observations. The observation schedule wasconstructed in such a way that three observations tookplace at different times of the day (see Table 2).Three observers made a team. They were each assigned

different roles, making behavioral maps, photograph-recording of behaviors, and taking notes. They observedand recorded independently. In each case, the observerstook different positions on a roughly triangular formoutside the setting. Different view points were taken forevery observation session. All behaviors were observed andrecorded for exactly 20min.Most of the children’s behaviors proceeded in a

continuous stream. Thus, behaviors were unitized basedon the Barker’s method emphasizing the distinction of thegoals implied in individual behaviors (i.e. Barker’s ‘‘beha-vioral units’’ or his ‘‘unitization of behavior’’, Barker,1963, 1978). Since the observation in this study was place-centered rather than person-centered tracking observationsuch as in Barker’s studies, it had to rely more on, what theresearchers called, contextual observations, by which theobservers took into account the spatial and temporalcontexts of each behavior unit in order to define its goaland meaning. On some occasions, the observers validatedthe goal by an additional observation of continuingbehaviors of the children who were already recorded orby asking them about the behavior after the observations.A total of 18 20-min observational sessions were completedin this manner. Behaviors were recorded on behavioralmaps, photographs, and notes. At the end of the day’sobservations, the observers held a discussion, cross-provedthe records, and compiled the data. Only the data that wererecorded by all three independent observers were analyzedfor the study.

3. Findings

3.1. Places important to children

Ninety-one children who participated in the interviewsnamed 269 settings they believed to be important to them,approximately three settings per child. The number ofplaces each child presented varied from 1 to 7. Althoughthe children were encouraged to mention as many places asthey could think of, 17 of them (18.7%) named only oneplace. Twenty-six children (28.6%) mentioned two places,21 children (23.1%) three places, and 12 children (13.2%)four places, and there were fifteen (16.5%) who providedmore than five.Seventy responses (26.0%) were indoor settings (e.g.

home, school, community center, etc.) whereas theremaining 199 responses (74.0%) mentioned outdoor open


spaces (e.g. playground, school play field, etc.). Of all 269responses, the majority (248 responses, 92.2%) weresettings within the neighborhood (defined physically and

administratively by surrounding city thoroughfares). Thechildren gave only 21 outside-neighborhood responses (e.g.city shopping malls, regional theme parks, etc.). There were

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 3. Selected places and counterparts for comparative observational analysis.

Table 2

Schedule for 18 observations of six selected settings (all p.m.’s)

June 9, 2004 (Wed) 2:50–6:00 June 10 (Thur) 4:00–4:50 June 12 (Sat) 3:00–6:40 June 13 (Sun) 3:20–6:00

709-playground 2:50–3:10 4:30–4:50 5:50–6:10 —

414-playground 3:20–3:40 4:00–4:20 6:20–6:40 —

506-playground 4:30–4:50 — 3:30–3:50 5:10–5:30

503-playground 4:00–4:20 — 3:00–3:20 5:40–6:00

607-playfield 5:40–6:00 — 4:10–4:30 3:20–3:40

Central playfield 5:10–5:30 — 4:40–5:00 3:50–4:10


no age or gender differences in both these indoor–outdoorand inside- or outside-site variables. It was clear that thechildren tended to find their important places amongproximate neighborhood open spaces, regardless of theirage group or gender.

Among 70 indoor setting responses, homes (one’s ownhome and friend’s house) and schools were most frequentlymentioned, by 29 and 15 children, respectively. Otherindoor settings included neighborhood retail store build-ings (particularly those in 4, 6, and 7 neighborhoodquarters) and the community centers. City facilities suchas cinema halls and shopping malls were mentioned byonly a few.

The majority of 199 outdoor setting responses werewithin the bounded Hansol neighborhood area, except for18 responses of city parks and regional theme parks. Yet,given that the neighborhood covered an extensive area,these outdoor places mentioned by the respondents werespread throughout the entire neighborhood. Of theseneighborhood open spaces, Hansol Park, a large neighbor-hood developed park at the northern edge, was mostfrequently mentioned (by 29 children), followed byspinning playground (by 18 children, children called it‘spinning’ because of its spinning play equipment), 506-playground (by 17 children), 709-playground (by 15children), and 607-playfield (by 9 children) (see Table 3,also see Fig. 4 for locations of these places).

Although no particular individual setting was domi-nantly mentioned by the children and data overall reflectedtheir personal variations, the responses tended to concen-trate on designated play areas (125 responses, 46.5%) anddeveloped parks and green areas (49 responses, 18.2%).These two types together constituted about 65% of allmentioned places.

Gender was not a significant factor in the responses.However, age seemed to matter in that there was asignificant difference between younger (7–9 years) andolder (10–12 years) children. The two age groups totaled269 responses of which 109 responses (40.5%) were byyounger children and 160 responses (59.5%) by older ones.Older children preferred undesignated open spaces (vacantareas, corners in the courtyards, and rest areas, 80.0% of25 ‘other open spaces’ responses were by older group),playfields (as a setting for sports and gatherings, 73.1% of26 ‘playfields’ responses were by older group), city andcommunity facilities (65.9% of 41 ‘community facilities’responses), and homes (65.5% of 29 ‘homes’ responses).The younger age group, on the other hand, mentionedplaygrounds, developed parks, and green areas more often.

Although open settings within the neighborhood weregenerally given a high priority, not all such settings wereequally important. There were 16 playgrounds and morewithin and around the neighborhood, which togetherattracted 99 responses (During the interview some childrenmentioned more than two playgrounds). Surprisingly, 78 ofthe responses (almost 80%) chose only six of all 16playgrounds in the study site. In addition, there were five

playfields in the site (excluding the school fields), of whichonly two (607-playfield and 704-playfield) had 16 of 18‘playfield’ votes. The Hansol neighborhood park attracted29 responses alone, as reported above, whereas all otherlandscaped areas, parks, hills, and gardens had only 20responses together. Furthermore, only three of all sevenretail store buildings in the site attracted children’sattention (17 responses for buildings 4, 6, and 7. Nochildren mentioned any of the other four buildings). Votesfor courtyards and vacant areas were marginal, and veryfew children mentioned parking lots, streets, and rest areas.In short, the data substantiated children’s selectiverelationships with some, not all, of the available settings.They had likes and dislikes and differentiated importantsettings from less important ones.The place map, which has individual responses marked

on the site plan, clarified information about locations ofthe children’s important neighborhood places (see Fig. 4).A general observation was that those important placestended to gather around the central zones of the neighbor-hood while there were only a few in the periphery. Mostplaygrounds had at least one or two markings while thoseadjacent to the central paths gained considerably more (e.g.spinning playground, 506-playground, and 8-shaped play-ground). Most of these popular places were designed to beclose to each other, but there were still some settingsamong these clusters that had notably fewer dots (e.g. restareas, some playgrounds, etc.). This was clear when, forexample, 506-playground and 503-playground were com-pared together: the former was relatively popular whereasthe latter were mentioned by only two children althoughthey were adjacent to each other. Similarly, there werethree neighborhood playfields along the central path, butamong them the central playfield was exceptionallyneglected despite its proximity to the popular 8-shapedcentral playground and the school. There was a retail storebuilding at every vehicle/pedestrian entry to the site, butonly one of them had some responses (the one besideapartment building #710). The place map overall impliedthat children’s important places were spatially skewed andthe layout and location was not a large factor. Otherexplanations should be taken into consideration.

3.2. Reasons for importance of place

The reasons for importance of place given by therespondents were varied but short and simple such as, ‘‘Itis just in front of my home’’ or ‘‘It is large and appropriatefor soccer games we often play.’’ Each of the responsesserved to be a unit of analysis. There were all together 297units of reasons, of which 230 were regarding neighbor-hood outdoor places. These 230 reasons varied consider-ably in terms of implications, and they represented bothpresence of positive factors and absence of negative factors.That is, the children considered a setting to be important tothem because things about the setting were eitherencouraging (e.g. the place is closer to home, there is an


interesting play equipment we like, etc.) and less restraining(e.g. because there are fewer interferences there). Positivefactor responses made up the majority, 91.3% of allreasons, and there were only 20 reasons (8.7%) regardingthe negative features (e.g. presence of vehicles, bullies,adults’ interferences, etc.). Yet, it was noteworthy thatinfluences of these negative factors should not be ignoredand it might be the interactive effect of these encouragingand discouraging variables that made a setting animportant one.

Central implications of 230 reasons were listed andanalyzed in terms of six contents categories (see Table 4).They included (1) location and layout of a setting (e.g.proximity to home or other favorite settings, 30.9%), (2)play materials and interesting objects available in the place(27.0%), (3) social opportunities (e.g. meeting and playing

with friends, 19.6%), (4) functional capabilities of thesetting (e.g. functionally good for preferred activities,9.6%), (5) spatial qualities (e.g. size of the setting goodfor certain plays, 4.3%), and (6) fewer physical/socialbarriers (e.g. no territorial conflicts, 8.7%). Data showedthat a setting became important because it was close tohome, school, or other places that children liked, to whichthey had easy daily accesses. In addition, a setting becameimportant because it provided affordances and functionalopportunities for plays children liked to do. A setting alsobecame important because of friends and colleagues whowere always available there who gave a sense of socialsecurity and belonging. Finally, a setting became importantbecause it is the place where children could be free fromoutside controls and interferences. When content-analyzedin terms of these categories, it could be seen that the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Places important to children in 91 interviews, f(%)a

aThe researchers decided to define ‘important places’ as those mentioned by more than nine children (refer to shaded items).


reasons were related to various features in physical andsocial environments of the places and, particularly,physical or social affordances related to both activitieschildren preferred and outcome values the activities couldbring about (e.g. location making it easy to meet and playwith friends, an interesting play element to enjoy and havefun with, a ground flat and wide for soccer games, nointerruptions to playing together with close friends, etc.).

A cross-tabulation analysis of reason (locational, spatial,material, functional, social, and barrier) by type of place(playground, playfield, parks and green areas, and otheropen spaces) showed that the reasons varied with the placetypes (w2 ¼ 35:4, df ¼ 15, po0.005). The reasons were notthe same across different places and, for example, reasonsfor considering playgrounds were different from reasonsfor playfields. When the children considered a playgroundas an important place, they did so mainly because of someinteresting play materials and objects that the playgroundspecifically offered (whereas other playgrounds did not).As for playfields, fewer interferences, size of a playfield,

and functional supports were mentioned more often thanother reasons. For playfields, play materials and objectswere least mentioned, implying that whether a playfieldprovided an equipment to play on was not a significantreason. Similarly, when a park or a green area wasimportant, it was mainly because of behavioral opportu-nities and functional supports of the setting, whichincluded shades or nooks for private gathering, paths forbike riding, and open areas for sports and recreationalactivities. The presence of play materials and objects wasleast influential. As for other neighborhood open spacessuch as courtyards, vacant areas, and rest spaces,locational reasons were mentioned relatively more often(e.g. spatial and/or functional connection to home or otherfavored areas).There was no relation between gender and reasons. Yet,

age showed a direct relation to the reasons (w2 ¼ 20:1,df ¼ 10, po0.05, three levels of age by six categories ofreason). For older children (ages 11–12), reasons regardingfunctional supports (for specific activities) and less inter-ferences (for self-controlled territorial use) were important,whereas among younger children (ages 7–8), there weremore reasons regarding play materials, interesting playobjects, and size of space. This finding suggested that,along with the findings reported above about relationshipbetween age and place type, there was a three-waycorrelation between age, place type, and reason.

3.3. Behavioral observations and comparative analysis

Six settings (three pairs) were selected and observedwhich included three popular places and three counterpartsettings (see Fig. 3). A total of 148 behaviors wererecorded, of which 107 were by elementary school children(72.3%, 99 by children only, seven by children plus adults,and one by children plus adults plus toddlers). There werealso 17 behaviors by toddlers (11.5%, seven by toddlersonly and 10 by toddlers plus adults), three behaviors byteens (ages 13–17), and 21 behaviors by adults only(14.2%). In terms of gender, there were 65 males’behaviors, 53 behaviors by females, and 30 by mixed-gender groups (43.9%, 35.8%, and 20.3%, respectively). Interms of group size, there were 46 single-person behaviors,54 behaviors by two persons, 18 by three, 16 by four, and14 by more than five (31.1%, 36.5%, 12.2%, 10.8%, and9.5%, respectively). When 107 children’s behaviors wereanalyzed separately, these figures changed. There were 48,41, and 18 behaviors by boys, girls, and mixed-genders,respectively (44.9%, 38.3%, and 16.8%). In terms of groupsize, there were 26 single-person behaviors, 39 behaviorsby two children, 16 by three, 14 by four, and 12 by morethan five (24.3%, 36.4%, 15.0%, 13.1%, and 11.2%,respectively).Before focusing on each pair, an integrated comparison

was made between the group of three important places andthe group of three counterpart settings. This analysisresulted in some general differences. There were relatively

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 4. Place map (Dots present responses of important places. This map

does not show homes and city places.)


more cases of behaviors in the place group than thecounterpart group. The observations recorded a total of148 behaviors including passing-through behaviors, ofwhich 102 (68.9%) were collected in three places. Duringthe same observation period, only 46 cases (31.1%) wereobserved in three counterpart settings.

Second, a cross-tabulation analysis of setting by activitytype (1. walking/passing-through, 2. hovering/looking forfun, 3. rest/relax, 4. gathering/socializing/talking, 5. play-ing around doing this and that, 6. using playgroundequipment, 7. sand/dirt play and playing with naturalelements, 8. wheel play/riding bike, 9. simple toy play, 10.ball game/ball play, 11. structured game with or withouttoys) showed that behaviors in the place group differedfrom those in the counterpart group (w2 ¼ 39:4, df ¼ 10,po0.001). First of all, they differed in the variety ofbehaviors. A variety of different activities occurredtogether in the place group whereas the behavioral varietywas considerably limited in the counterpart group. Forexample, all 14 observations grouped to social gatheringand socializing behaviors were made only in the placegroup (see Table 5). There were no toy plays in thecounterpart group. Eleven of all 12 multiplay activities(playing around doing this and that) were in the placegroup. Most notably, the two groups differed in theproportion of walking or passing-through behaviors. Thecounterpart group showed 19 (41.3%) of all 46 observa-

tions to be passing-throughs, whereas in the place groupwalking or passing-throughs occurred only in 7 cases (6.9%of 102 observations). In general, places together tended toshow a variety of plays including many social behaviorsand purposive activities, and the counterpart settingstended to show many transitory, short-lived behaviors.Third, a cross-tabulation analysis of setting by age

evidenced that another difference between the two groupswas in the number of children’s behaviors (and, presum-ably, in the number of children present in the settings aswell) (w2 ¼ 10:79, df ¼ 2, po0.005): The number ofchildren’s behaviors was higher in the place group thanin the counterpart group. There were all together 107children’s behaviors, of which 82 (76.7%) were in theformer and 25 (23.4%) in the latter. Of 102 observationsmade in the former, children’s behavior was 80.4%whereas, of 46 observations made in the latter, it was only54.3%. The main users of the settings differed in thatplaces were used mostly by children, whereas the counter-part settings were used more often by other age groupssuch as adults, toddlers, and teens. This finding demon-strated again that a setting psychologically important tochildren was also a setting being frequently used forvarious plays and thus became a behavioral territory of thechildren.In addition, a t-test of the number of actors per behavior

between the place group and the counterpart setting group

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 4

Reasons for places important to the children

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 f (%)

Locational properties: Proximity to home or

other important settings (e.g. school, friend’s

house, etc.); being near another favorite places

(e.g. retail stores, playfields, etc.); location of

setting that provides privacy/seclusion while

allowing few trespassing.

71 (30.9)

Physical attributes of place Materials and objects: Presence of interesting

play materials; variety of play opportunities;

presence of favored elements and fun objects.

62 (27.0) 165 (71.7)

Presence of positive

factors

Functional supports: Functional and

environmental properties perceived particularly

good for certain activities in mind (e.g. ground

good for in-line skating, shade for taking a rest,

sloped lawns for playing sliding, etc.).

22 (9.6)

Spatial qualities: Size (being spacious enough

and opened for certain preferred plays such as

soccer and social games).

10 (4.3)

Social attributes of place Presence of friends and peers to meet and play

with, being with friends, children’s regular

meeting places, group territories.

45 (19.6)

Absence of negative

factors

No barriers and fewer

restraints

Less likeliness of physical risks (e.g. less danger),

maintenance quality (e.g. no worries about

trash); fewer social Interferences (e.g. fewer

bullies, no adults’ control, etc.), absence of

interruptions (e.g. free from vehicles).

20 (8.7)

Total 230 (100.0)


indicated that the behavior group size was greater in theplace group than in the counterpart settings (t ¼ 2.81,po0.01, with means of 2.59 and 1.89 persons, respectively).There were relatively more single-person behaviors in thecounterpart settings (50.0% of all 46 observations made inthree counterpart settings whereas 22.5% of 102 observa-tions in three places).

Finally, 107 children’s behaviors were separately ana-lyzed in terms of, first, whether the behavior appearedstationed on and prolonged within the particular setting orit rather appeared transient and short-lived across differentsettings and, second, whether it appeared dependent ofspecific affordances of the setting or it rather seemedindependent of the setting’s particular affordances. Threeresearchers individually rated the observed behaviors. Theaveraged inter-rater reliabilities for these measures were89.7% and 92.2%. Results showed that in the place groupthere were considerably more behaviors rated to bestationed or prolonged within the setting whereas in the

counterpart group there were relatively many behaviorsrated to be short-lived or transient (see Table 6). Resultsalso showed that there were more behaviors in the placegroup which appeared dependent of the particular affor-dances of the setting whereas behaviors in the counterpartgroup appeared on the whole less dependent on theaffordances of the particular setting where it occurred.Focused comparisons of each pairs gave more specific

information. The first pair, 506-playground and 503-playground, were located close to each other, both at thesouthern end of the neighborhood. They were of similarsize and both directly connected to the central pedestrianpath running north and south (see Figs. 3 and 4). Both hadlow steel fences and hedge plants all around, with entryways at the corners. The grounds were sand, and there weresome shaded benches at the sides. Both provided basic playequipments such as slides, jungle beams, tires, and playtables, except there were no swings and seesaws in 503-playground.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 5


Behavioral observations first indicated similarity inlocations of behaviors within these two settings. In bothplaygrounds, behaviors tended to cluster around the playequipments or to line up along passing routes connectingentries at both sides. A difference first noted was in theextent to which these playgrounds were used (see Fig. 5).During the observations, 43 behaviors were collected in506-playground whereas only nine behaviors were ob-served in 503-playground. A total of 101 persons wererecorded in 506-playground, and there were only 18persons in 503-playground. In terms of type of behavior,a number of different behaviors were observed in 506-playground including sand/dirt plays, gathering andsocializing, playing this and that (playing around), andrest, as well as playing on play equipments. In 503-playground, the variety of behaviors considerablydwindled, and the children seemed simply focused on theplay equipments. There was difference in user group as wellin that most of the users of 506-playground were children(88% of recorded users) whereas children were only one-third of the users present in 503-playground. This analysisdemonstrated that a setting important to children wasactively occupied and behaviorally claimed by the children

for various activities whereas in its counterpart children’suse tended to be discouraged and mixed with appearancesof other age groups. Overall, 506-playground was provid-ing considerably more affordances, and children wereactively utilizing them (e.g. being closer to other favoriteareas, children already engaged in plays there, sense ofchildren’s territory, etc.).The next pair included 709-playground and 414-play-

ground, both at the northern quarters of the neighborhood(see Fig. 4). They were similar in some basic environmentalfeatures such as entries, play equipments, sand grounds,paved open areas with rest pavilions, and fences. Both werewell linked to nearby communal spaces which included restareas, paths, and lawns. 709-playground was closer to calmand green surroundings near Hansol Park whereas 414-playground was a courtyard type with apartment buildingsand parking lots around it.Behavioral observations of this pair verified that

children’s considering a setting as being important waspositively related to their frequent and active use of thesetting (see Fig. 6). Total amount of use differed betweenthese playgrounds such that there were 31 behaviorsobserved in 709-playground and 10 behaviors in 414-

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 6

General differences of places and counterparts

Selected places Counter parts w2

Frequently used, heavily populated (102 activities,

including passing-through)

Sporadic use, less occupants

(46 activities including passing-through) —

A variety of activities, more cases of social gatherings and

group activities

Many cases of walking and passing-through 39.4 (df ¼ 10)***

Behaviors more stationed on and prolonged within the

setting

Behaviors more transient and short-lived across different

settings

24.3 (df ¼ 1)***

Short-lived 16 (19.5%) Short-lived 18 (72.0%) (Inter-rater reliability:

89.7%)

Stationary 66 (80.5%) Stationary 7 (28.0%) (with 107 observed

behaviors of ages 7–12)

Behaviors more strongly tied to specific affordances of the

setting

Behaviors less dependent of specific affordances of the

setting

4.3 (df ¼ 1)*

E-dependent 52 (63.4%) E-dependent 10 (40.0%) (Inter-rater reliability:

92.2%)

E-independent 30 (36.6%) E-independent 15 (60.0%) (with 107 observed

behaviors of ages 7–12)

Children’s own territory (the ratio of children’s behaviors

was higher)

Mixed users with more adults and toddlers present in the

setting

9.7 (df ¼ 2)**

Adults & toddlers 20 (19.6%) Adults & toddlers 21 (45.7%) (with all 148 observed

behaviors in six settings

including adults’ and

toddlers’ behaviors)

7–9 age 37 (36.3%) 7–9 age 12 (26.1%)

10–12 age 45 (44.1%) 10–12 age 13 (28.3%)

Total 102 (100.0) Total 46 (100.0)

The average number of actors per behavior was greater

ðM ¼ 2:59ÞThe acting group size was smaller ðM ¼ 1:89Þ. More

single-person behaviors

t ¼ 2:81**

*po0.05, **po0.01, ***po0.001.


playground. Only one passing through occurred in theformer whereas four out of 10 activities in the latter werepassing-throughs (see Table 5). Difference in the variety ofbehaviors occurred as well. Various types of behaviorswere observed in 709-playground, including socializing, toyplay, wheel play, ball play, and social games, most of whichwere not shown in 414-playground. Overall, children weremore social and creative in using the former playgroundwhile children in the latter tended to simply rely on whathad been designed and given to them (e.g. play equipments,sand, and pavilion).

Data showed, in addition, that behaviors tended tocluster on some parts of the playground, particularly onplay structures and rest pavilions, while the other areassuch as paved vacant spaces, benches, and sand groundswere used much less. Children seemed to focus on suchspecific and unique features of the playground while theytended to neglect other potential affordances (e.g. thepaved open area) which could easily be replaced with betteroptions available in various other areas of the neighbor-hood (e.g. playfields). Furthermore, 414-playground was,

in effect, designed so that it could be used as a shortcutconnecting apartment buildings and site streets, whichlikely entailed some trespassing and interruption. Althoughthis might help increase children’s accessibility to theplayground, the path as cutting through the setting insteadof running aside it, seemed to make the setting excessivelyopen to the public and endangered children’s uninterruptedterritorial occupation. Despite some similarities in designfeatures, 709-playground and 414-playground apparentlydid not offer equal affordances, which likely made adifference in which playground appeared more importantto the children.This notion, regarding influence of interruption on

otherwise children’s private and territorial use, wassubstantiated by the observations of the next pair, 607-playfield and the central playfield (see Fig. 7). Theseplayfields, not unlike other playfields in the neighborhood,were simple open-air designed sports fields with dirtground. There were basketball goalposts, some benches,and trees at the edges. The open grounds were of a sizelarge enough for children to play casual soccer games and

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 5. Behavioral maps of 506- and 503-playgrounds.


other ball games. In addition to playing ball games,children normally used the grounds as a meeting place andfor riding bikes as well. 607-playfield was located in themiddle of the southern quarters, having 506-playgroundacross the central pedestrian path, neighborhood retailstores and a community center across the street, and twoapartment buildings, 606 and 607, at the corner. Thecentral playfield was at the center of the neighborhood,adjacent to the central pedestrian path, the central park, anatural spring, the 8-shaped central playground, and theelementary school. A notable difference in their designfeatures was that 607-playfield had 3- to 8-feet-high steelwire fences and dense trees around it giving it a physicalenclosure whereas the central playfield had no such fences.

Similar numbers of behaviors were recorded in bothplayfields (28 observations in 607-playfield and 27 in thecentral playfield) (see Table 5). Yet, use patterns differedconsiderably in that the 607-field showed many childrenengaged in various activities including ball games, rests,and social gatherings, whereas the central playfield mostlyserved as a short-cut passage for many residents movingfrom the central path through the field to the northeastquarter of the neighborhood. More than half of theobservations (15 cases) made in the central field werewalking and passing throughs. With trespassing on bikesand wheels included, two-third of the behaviors (18 cases)were passing activities. With hovering behaviors added

(wandering around looking for things to do), about 78%(21 cases) were simple transient behaviors. Except for theseshort-lived passing behaviors, there were only three ballplays by children or teenagers and three other activities byadults riding bikes, sitting for rest, and using the exercisebars. Furthermore, more adults’ behaviors were recordedin the central playfield, 12 (44.4%) of 27 observations,whereas there were only six adults’ behaviors (21.4%) in607-playfield. The average number of actors per case in thecentral playfield was 1.59, as compared to 2.32 in 607-playfield. There were more number of single-personactivities in the central field (18, 66.7%) than in 607-playfield (9, 32.1%).Observational data indicated that residents walking

through the central playfield did not do so randomly butthey consistently took a route that cut through the middleof the playfield. This patterned walking behavior byoutsiders divided the field into two individual pieces whileseverely discouraging children to engage in otherwiseuninterrupted plays in the setting. Despite all amenitiesavailable nearby (pavilions, basketball posts, spacious openground, the popular 8-shaped playground, the centralpark, natural water, and the school), the continuoustrespassing and adults’ occupation made the childrenabandon the central playfield and move to other optionssuch as 607-playfield. The analysis of this pair illustratedthat 607-playfield provided affordances well actualized by

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 6. Behavioral maps of 709- and 414-playgrounds.


children for a variety of group activities. Their use of theaffordances seemed to the setting an important place. Thisanalysis also demonstrated that affordances related tolocation and spatial qualities of a setting (e.g. easy access,proximity to amenities, and size of space) might benecessary but not sufficient condition for the setting to bean important place unless it could offer some psychologicaland social affordances as well such as sense of territorialityand ability of avoiding outside interruption.

4. Discussion

4.1. Children’s places in Hansol neighborhood

Hansol Village is a high-density, high-rise apartmenthousing development in a new town. It is a completelyplanned neighborhood. Although this new town neighbor-hood seems to give its children (ages 7–12) a few options ofwhere to go and what to do, the environment is not

generous enough in encouraging them to exercise volun-tary, independent explorations. Nevertheless, analysis ofimportant places to the children in this neighborhoodshows that even in this restricting environment the majorityof the children studied here have strong psychologicalassociation with their neighborhood’s outdoor places,rather than distant or indoor settings. Outdoor communalspaces are where they find most of their significant lifesettings (about three out of four settings mentioned),demonstrating particularly strong attachment to desig-nated play areas and parks, such as playgrounds, sectionedplayfields, and planned neighborhood parks.Literature is in consensus about the importance of

outdoor environments to neighborhood children. Thepresent analysis is in agreement on this point, showingthat Hansol children had greater interest in outdoor ratherthan indoor settings. Former studies have also noteddifferences in range and type of environments preferred bydifferent age and gender groups. This study shows that

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 7. Behavioral maps of 607-playfield and central playfield.


settings important to 10–12-year old children include moreof city facilities, sports settings, and private vacant areaswhile those for younger children (ages 7–9) normallyinclude playgrounds and green areas. In addition,studies have demonstrated that of the various settingsavailable in the neighborhood, children tend to preferparks and natural areas. Such favoritism to naturalelements is again evident to Hansol children even thoughthe natural features are normally scarce and most of themmanmade.

However, with regard to children’s response to play-grounds and other designed play facilities, previous studiesshow conflicting and rather confusing pictures (see Moore& Young, 1978; Heft & Wohlwill, 1987; Chawla, 1992).For example, children’s use of designed play areas variesconsiderably, from minimal (about 2–15% of behaviorsobserved outdoors, Marcus, 1974; Moore, 1985, about15% of total time spent for outside play, Auslander,Juhasz, & Carrusco, 1977, and about 7% of importantelements shown in drawings, Maurer & Baxter, 1972) tomoderate and even dominant (over 30–40% of behaviorsobserved outdoors, Dresel, 1972; Coates & Sanoff, 1972;Moore & Young, 1978). Results of the present analysisregarding preference for designated play areas cannot beproperly interpreted or compared in view of theseprecedents without taking into consideration the specificenvironments dealt with in these individual studies sincethe environmental variables determine the opportunitiesand restraints that children will experience.

In children’s views, urban neighborhoods and plannedhousing developments are likely characterized by feweroptions and more restraints compared to other forms ofhousing. As the planned neighborhood increases in size (asin the case of Hansol Village), it may provide variousdesigned settings for children’s use such as playgrounds.Yet paralleled to this, various forms of restrictions such asheavy traffic streets, troubled access to distant places, andparents’ apprehensions can also emerge which childrenhave to experience when venturing into some other settingsincluding nearby natural areas and various city facilities.

As the children become accustomed to using suchfamiliar, safe, and comfortable designed play environmentswithin Hansol Village, their psychological value orienta-tions likely get restricted to such customized play settings.Furthermore, it may even appear that one may well believethe outdoor play needs of Hansol children are beingsuccessfully met by these designed settings. Yet, withregards to the needs, it is not very clear in the presentanalysis whether the preference for designated play areas isbecause the variety of such designed settings are trulycapable of satisfying the needs (given that designed playsettings can be a successful surrogate for other options andversatile in providing various needed affordances) or ratherbecause the needs have already been adapted to the designsafter enduring conflicts with the environmental restrictions(given that needs can be tamed by what is given in theenvironment).

4.2. Distinction of place and space

For Hansol children, the neighborhood consists ofselected valued places having special meaning or psycho-logical importance and all other spaces having notably lesssignificance to them. Not only do the data indicate thatthey are capable of making such distinction between eventsin places and events in spaces, but the data also suggestthat events in such cherished places can alone successfullysummarize the entire meanings associated with theirneighborhood experiences. Thus, what must be done firstabout the effort for understanding the neighborhoodchildren is to figure out how they develop the ability forsuch distinctive experiences from their daily transactionswith the environment.Yet, the present data give some reasons to believe that

understanding the distinctive experience is a rathercomplicated matter. It is certainly more complicated thansimply saying the environmental options and restrictionshave led the children to focus on designated play areas andneighborhood parks. The data indicate that, although suchauthorized settings greatly influence the psychologicaltopography of Hansol children, it is not that all suchdesignated settings are equally influential. Instead, thechildren are fairly selective even among such designed playsettings and parks in showing their psychological affection.Data show, for example, that Hansol children focus on justsix of 16 available playgrounds, select only two from a totalof five playfields, and do not give even one vote to the well-maintained central garden. In short, among variousoptions given in and around the neighborhood only afew handful of settings monopolize the children’s attention.This leads us to believe that the distinction between

‘places’ and ‘spaces’ occurs at several different levels. It firstcan occur at a larger scale between the ‘outside’ world and‘within-neighborhood’ world. At lower levels, this type ofdistinction can apply between indoor settings and outdoorsettings (the latter obtained stronger attention in HansolVillage). Children also may have to make such distinctionamong various outdoor settings in a neighborhood. Hansolchildren specifically choose designated play settings andsome natural areas among a spectrum of the approachableand usable alternatives (e.g. tree-lined streets, courtyards,rest areas, etc.). At an even smaller scale, a similardistinction can be made among designated play areas andparks, which results in a few particularly importantplaygrounds, a special park, and some playfields especiallypreferred to other designed play settings.Given this distinction of place and space, the suggestion

that design must provide as many options as possible mayhave to be reconsidered since the options so designed canbe ineffective when unattended or left useless. Previousstudies suggest that providing such environmental optionsdepends on efforts to increase the number of settingsavailable for children and to acquire different environ-mental features having varying potentials for children’s use(Brower & Williamson, 1974; Marcus & Moore, 1976;


Hart, 1979; Moore, 1986). They also emphasize that suchoptions can increase the chance that the neighborhoodtruly becomes amenable to varying needs of children. Sincethe distinction can be individualistic (i.e. different settingsare important to different children), there may be somecredibility in the suggestion that the more options, thebetter for different needs of children. Yet, the presentanalysis points out that this statement is oversimplifying, inthat the options are always differentiated and only a fewchosen settings characterize the entire neighborhood. Thediversity of options can be helpful but not always sufficient.The Hansol Village case shows that each of the respondentschose only three settings, in average, to represent his/herfavored places. Without understanding what places areselected and why, simply providing such environmentaloptions will not always be successful.

4.3. Attributes and behaviors of psychologically important

places

In this analysis the distinctive experience (i.e. thepsychological discrimination between settings) is viewedin parallel with individual reasons manifest in every choiceof such psychologically important places. It is believed thatthese reasons might enable us to understand children’svoluntary decisions for choosing the places, their goalsunderlying the decisions, and the ways whereby theybecome dependent on the chosen places. It is also positedthat the environmental attributes and restrictions areperceived and defined by the goals (see Fig. 8).

The present analysis summarizes the reasons as, largely,presence and absence of physical and social attributes ofthe setting. In this 2� 2 cognitive frame (presence orabsence by physical or social), a child considers theattributes in terms of (1) accessibility to and spatialconnections between the settings (close to home or school,connected to everyday regular activities, and linked play,Moore, 1985), (2) play opportunities and functionalcapabilities (play materials, interesting objects, and func-

tional supports), (3) possibility for privacy and sense ofterritoriality (with no trespassing by others), (4) chance tomeet and play with friends or colleagues (sense ofbelonging and togetherness) , and (5) possible physical orsocial risks in the setting (in terms of danger, maintenance,vehicle interference, bullies, and adults’ control).What is important about analysis of the reasons is, first,

that they indicate environmental features of a setting(spatial, physical, and social) and these environmentalattributes are related to the extent to which the setting isperceived as useful. Data show, for example, thatimportant places provide these attributes and are usedabout twice as much as their counterparts. Data alsoindicate that each of the reasons given by the children isrelated to behaviors that the children are engaged in orhope to engage in (easy access related to frequent visits,spatial connections related to linked plays, privacy forintended private activities, friends to play with, etc.).Children find a certain setting important because they areable to do what they want to do there and the settingprovides the related affordances. This implies, in short,that settings behaviorally useful and functionally suppor-tive are likely to be psychologically valued.Second, these environmental attributes are related not

only to how well a setting is used but also to how differentthe behaviors that occur in the setting can be. The presentanalysis repeatedly indicates the children’s creativity intheir use of the place they mention as being important tothem. It demonstrates that children engage in manydifferent activities in a place some of which seem to emergefrom their effort to create needed affordances within theplace. Data show that their use in the counterpart settings,on the contrary, is limited in the diversity. This creative useis particularly evident in designated play areas and parks sothat a playground, for example, provides settings for suchdiverse behaviors as social gathering, structured games,and bike riding. This may demonstrate Hansol children’sincreased ability for adapting their ever-evolving playneeds to a few selected play settings.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

using the place more often,creative use (using a place for diverse behaviors),dependence on affordances of the place, organized (as opposed to transient) behaviors, social (as opposed to solitary) behaviors, etc.

The options and restrictions are evaluatedin terms of ‘core’ affordances (perceived accessibility, spatially connected settings,

play opportunities and functional supports,privacy and territoriality,friends and colleagues,potential risks, etc.)

The purposes (reasons for place-space distinction) are mostly behavioral or social and require specific environmental attributes.

Purposes & goals (interests, values, intentions, etc.)

Place-dependentactions (‘effective’ behaviors)

Environmentaloptions

Environmental restrictions

Resultingpsychologicalaffection/meaning

Fig. 8. Effects of environment on use and distinction of valued places.


Third, these environmental attributes are related toparticular characters or types of behaviors. With regard toa psychologically important place, children seem todifferentiate between setting-specific behaviors (those ob-served in a setting repeatedly) and behaviors transientacross different settings, place-dependent behaviors (thosedepending on particular affordances of a place) andbehaviors not tied to such affordances, creative ororganized behaviors and behaviors whose goals are notso clearly defined, and social group behaviors and single-person activities. The present analysis makes it clear that itis the former types of behaviors for which the childrensought affordances in their places and that it is thesebehaviors through which the children transform anordinary space to a valued place.

Fourth, all these environmental attributes (i.e. spatial,physical, psychological, and social affordances) are equallyimportant and any one of them should not be under-estimated. It is because, although effects of each attributevary with the setting (i.e. data suggest that reasons differwith the setting type and particular attributes can makemore contributions than others in a particular situation), alack of any one attribute can deter the effects of all otherattributes. The present analysis has put particularly strongemphasis on children’s sense of group territoriality where agroup of children share a play territory where they can playwithout outside controls and protect it from others’intrusions. Given all other necessary attributes, childrencan still give up a place experience due to the lack of thissense of territorial occupation. Similarly, a seeminglyuseful option can be neglected when accessibility isperceived to be a problem. Interesting play opportunitiescan become no more interesting when friends are not easilyfound to share them with. Deficit in any one of these coreaffordances and effective behaviors can severely harm theentire potential values of a setting.

5. Conclusions

This study has dealt with some aspects of the placetheories (Seamon, 1982; Proshansky et al., 1983; Canter,1983, 1997; Weisman et al., 2001), dealing particularly withthe emergence of a child’s psychologically important placeat the neighborhood scale. The present analysis reveals thatchildren can describe their experiences in these importantplaces rather clearly. They can differentiate such valuedexperiences from what they may come across in otherspaces that they consider as being less important to them.They tend to assess the neighborhood environment interms of its influences on this place experience, that is,opportunities and restrictions regarding their effort to use asetting for meaningful behaviors giving it some specialpersonal meanings.

In a high-density planned community such as the onestudied here, children seem to find many of their valuedplaces in neighborhood outdoor settings such as designatedplay areas and developed parks. These communal open

spaces in proximate neighborhood areas are a ‘middlezone’ to the children, which connects the home siteenvironment to the outside unknown worlds and satisfiesmost of the children’s outdoor play needs. This zoneprovides settings where the children feel somewhatchallenged while feeling secured, being enclosed andprivate while also disclosed and public, and satisfyingcurrent needs while developing some future needs. Thepresent analysis suggests that children in such a plannedhousing development show great affection to the author-ized play areas (e.g. playgrounds and parks). Yet thisshould be viewed with some caution since their orientationto the neighborhood designed play settings can be due tothe environmental restrictions that children may have toface whenever moving further out trying to explore someunknown places.The place theorists emphasize that one’s experience of a

place depends on a number of personal and situationalfactors intervening into the process. However, the presentanalysis demonstrates that in their daily neighborhoodexperiences, children tend to focus on a few core attributesof a setting. These include being close to home or school(spatial), play materials and functional supports (physical),and close friends and outside interference (social). It seemsthat the children focus on these environmental qualitiesbecause they are directly related to some core affordancesneeded for some key behaviors that the children believe areimportant in their neighborhood lives. The present analysisattempts to clarify these key behaviors as well. It suggeststhat purposive, creative, and social behaviors which areplace-dependent and tied to specific affordances of aparticular place are particularly effective in a child’s effortfor transforming an anonymous space to a personallyvalued place. There have been controversies in literaturesregarding relations between children’s behavioral andpsychological realms. This study demonstrates that emer-gence of a psychological realm is related to the usability ofthe setting and further suggests that it is related to certaintypes of behaviors which are more effective than others instimulating children’s psychological orientations.These contributors (attributes and behaviors) work for

the child’s place experience in a truly holistic andintegrative way. Underestimating any one can destroy theprocess of the child’s place experience. Particularlyimportant in this sense are environmental restrictions andnegative forces that children believe to be are deterrences intheir purposive behaviors in some potentially usablesettings. Thus, a suggestion can be made that researchersand designers may as well consider not only providing theneeded affordances but also eliminating such obstacles.Our question focuses on how to make a neighborhoodmore amenable to children’s meaningful experiences. Thiscan start with an idea that some core environmentalproperties and key behaviors can make a difference inchildren making such places valued.In this line of research, the present analysis reveals some

questions to be further studied. For instance, there should


be some further theoretical delineation regarding differ-ences between behavior linked to emerging needs orpersonal projects (Little, 1983) and what can be calledsecondary behaviors in terms of its effectiveness for thechildren’s neighborhood place experience. Studies on thisissue will help explain the settings that are used well but notfavored (see Fig. 1). Another theoretical issue to bepursued concerns how the role of behavior changes overtime in shaping the place experience. This transformationalprocess in which the relationship between children’spsychological and behavioral domains varies with timegives another opportunity for future studies (Stokols,1988). The present analysis performed setting-centeredobservations and suggests that a setting in which amultiplicity of activities are pursued becomes a child’spsychologically valued place. Studies employing variousother observational protocols will expand our under-standing of the role of this multifunctionality of a placeto the child’s neighborhood experiences. Another upcom-ing worthy subject to be studied is regarding cyberaffordances, helping children perform their favored activ-ities within cyber spaces. Given that such virtual behaviorsmay influence psychological and/or behavioral domains ofa child’s real life (Valentine & Holloway, 2002), it would bean interesting theoretical pursuit to figure out whether thevirtual setting would be an example of those favored butnot used well or favored and used well.

References

Auslander, N., Juhasz, J. B., & Carrusco, F. F. (1977). The outdoor

behavior of Chicano children in Colorado. Man-Environment Systems,

7, 214–216.

Barker, R. G. (1963). The stream of behavior as an empirical problem. In

R. G. Barker (Ed.), The stream of behavior. New York: Appelton-

Century-Crofts.

Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology: Concepts and methods for

studying the environment of human behavior. Stanford University Press.

Barker, R. G. (1978). Stream of individual behavior. In R. G. Barker, et

al. (Eds.), Habitats, environments, and the human behavior. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brower, S. N., & Williamson, P. (1974). Outdoor recreation as a function

of the urban housing environment. Environment and Behavior, 6,

295–345.

Canter, D. (1983). The purposive evaluation of places: A facet approach.

Environment and Behavior, 15, 659–697.

Canter, D. (1997). The facets of place. In Moore, G.T. & Marans, R.W.

(Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior, and design. vol. 4. Toward

the integration of theory, methods, research and utilization. New

York: Plenum.

Chawla, L. (1992). Childhood place attachments. In I. Altman, & S. M.

Low (Eds.), Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and

research, vol. 12. Place attachment. New York: Plenum.

Coates, G., & Sanoff, H. (1972). Behavior mapping: The ecology of child

behavior in a planned residential setting. In W. J. Mitchell (Ed.),

Environmental design: Research and practice. Los Angeles: University

of California.

Derr, V. (2002). Children’s sense of place in northern New Mexico.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 125–137.

Downs, R. M., & Liben, L. S. (1993). Mediating the environment:

Communication, appropriating, and developing graphic representa-

tions of place. In R. H. Wozniak, & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development

in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dresel, P. (1972). Open space in new urban areas. Open space in housing

areas. National Swedish Institute for Building Research.

Eubanks Owens, P. (1988). Natural landscapes, gathering places, and

prospect refuges: Characteristics of outdoor places valued by teens.

Children’s Environmental Quarterly, 5, 17–24.

Eubanks Owens, P. (1994). Teen places in Sunshine, Australia: Then and

now. Children’s Environments, 11, 292–299.

Garling, T. (1998). Introduction: Conceptualizations of human environ-

ments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 69–73.

Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw, & J.

Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gustafson, P. (2001). Roots and routes: Exploring the relationship

between place attachment and mobility. Environment and Behavior, 33,

667–686.

Hart, R. A. (1979). Children’s experience of place: A developmental study.

New York: Irvington Press.

Heft, H. (1988). The development of Gibson’s ecological approach to

perception: A review essay. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8,

325–334.

Heft, H. (1997). The relevance of Gibson’s ecological approach to

perception for environment-behavior studies. In: Moore, G.T., &

Marans, R.W. (Eds.), Advances in environment, behavior and design.

vol. 4. Toward the integration of theory, methods, research and

utilization. New York: Plenum.

Heft, H., & Wohlwill, J. F. (1987). Environmental cognition in children. In

D. Stokols, & I. Altman (Eds.),Handbook of environmental psychology,

vol. 1. New York: Wiley.

Hole, V., & Miller, A. (1966). Children’s play on housing estates: A

summary of two BRS studies. Architect’s Journal, 143, 1529–1536.

Korpela, K., Kytta, M., & Hartig, T. (2002). Restorative experience, self-

regulation and children’s place preferences. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 22, 387–398.

Kytta, M. (2002). The affordances of children’s environments. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 22, 109–123.

Kytta, M. (2004). The extent of children’s independent mobility and the

number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly

environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 179–198.

Lieberg, M. (1994). Appropriating the city: Teenagers’ use of public space.

In S. J. Neary, M. S. Symes, & F. E. Brown (Eds.), The urban

experience: A people—environment perspective. London: E & FN Spon.

Little, B. R. (1983). Personal projects: A rationale and method for

investigation. Environment and Behavior, 15, 273–309.

Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry.

In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Human behavior and environment:

Advances in theory and research, vol. 12. Place attachment. New York:

Plenum.

Malinowski, J. C., & Thurber, C. A. (1996). Developmental shifts in the

place preferences of boys aged 8–16 years. Journal of Environmental


Marcus, C. C. (1974). Children’s play behavior in a low-rise inner-city

housing development. In: Moore, R. C. (Ed.), Childhood city, in:

Carson, D.H. (General Ed.), Man-environment interactions. Strouds-

burg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

Marcus, C. C., & Moore, R. C. (1976). Children and their environments:

A review of research 1955–1975. Journal of Architectural Education, 29,

22–25.

Maurer, R., & Baxter, J. C. (1972). Images of the neighborhood and city

among Black-, Anglo- and Mexican-American children. Environment

and Behavior, 4, 351–388.

Moore, G. T. (1985). State of the art in play environment research and

applications. In J. L. Frost, & S. Sunderlin (Eds.), When children play.

Wheaton, MD: Association for Childhood Education International.

Moore, G. T. (1986). Neighborhood play environments: Design princi-

ples for latchkey children. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 3,

13–23.


Moore, R. C. (1974). Patterns of activity in time and space: The ecology of

a neighborhood playground. In D. Canter, & T. Lee (Eds.),

Psychology and the built environment. London: Architectural Press.

Moore, R. C. (1979). Managing urban space in the interest of children.

Paper presented at The Child in the City Program, Toronto.

Moore, R. C., & Young, D. (1978). Childhood outdoors: Toward a social

ecology of the landscape. In: I. Altman, & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.),

Human behavior and environment, vol. 3. Children and the environment.

New York: Plenum.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Nelson, K. (1978). Semantic development and the development of

semantic memory. In K. E. Nelson (Ed.), Children’s language. New

York: Gardner Press.

Newell, P. B. (1997). A cross-cultural examination of favorite places.

Environment and Behavior, 29, 495–514.

Nicholson, S. (1971). How not to cheat children: The theory of loose parts.

Landscape Architecture, 62, 30–34.

O’Brien, M., Jones, D., Sloan, D., & Rustin, M. (2000). Children’s

independent spatial mobility in the urban public realm. Childhood, 7,

257–277.

Pazer, S. (1992). The development of place categorization in children.

Children’s Environments, 9, 14–26.

Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place identity:

Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental


Reed, E. S. (1993). The intention to use a specific affordance: A conceptual

framework for psychology. In R. H. Wozniak, & K. W. Fischer (Eds.),

Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schiavo, R. S. (1988). Age differences in assessment and use of a suburban

neighborhood among children and adolescents. Children’s Environ-

mental Quarterly, 5, 4–9.

Scott, M. J., & Canter, D. (1997). Picture or place? A multi sorting

study of landscape. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17,

263–281.

Seamon, D. (1982). The phenomenological contribution to environmental

psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 119–140.

Simmons, D. A. (1994). Urban children’s preferences for nature:

Lessons for environmental education. Children’s Environments, 11,

28–40.

Sommer, B. (1990). Favorite places of Estonian adolescents. Children’s

Environmental Quarterly, 7, 32–36.

Stokols, D. (1988). Transformational processes in people–environment

relations. In J. E. McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: A transac-

tional view of settings. In J. H. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social

behavior, and the environment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Growing

up in the inner city: Green spaces as places to grow. Environment and

Behavior, 30, 3–27.

Tuan, Yi.-Fu. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. The

University of Minnesota Press.

Valentine, G., & Holloway, S. L. (2002). Cyberkids: Exploring

children’s identities and social networks in on-line and off-line

worlds. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92,

302–319.

Weisman, G., Chaudhury, H., & Diaz Moore, K. (2001). Theory and

practice of place: Toward an integrative model. In R. Rubenstein, M.

Moss, & M. Kleban (Eds.), The many dimensions of aging: Essays in

honor of Powell Lawton. New York: Springer.

Wohlwill, J. F., & Heft, H. (1987). The physical environment and the

development of the child. In I. Altman, & D. Stokols (Eds.),Handbook

of environmental psychology, vol. 1. New York: Wiley.


Children's neighborhood place as a psychological and behavioral domain

Documents

Transcript of Children's neighborhood place as a psychological and behavioral domain