This article was downloaded by: [Cassandra Kotsanas]On: 07 October 2013, At: 19:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Urbanism: International Researchon Placemaking and Urban SustainabilityPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjou20

Honouring young children’s voices toenhance inclusive communitiesKylie Smith a & Cassandra Kotsanas aa Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne ,Melbourne , AustraliaPublished online: 03 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: Kylie Smith & Cassandra Kotsanas , Journal of Urbanism: International Research onPlacemaking and Urban Sustainability (2013): Honouring young children’s voices to enhance inclusivecommunities, Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, DOI:10.1080/17549175.2013.820211

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2013.820211

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, orsuitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Honouring young children’s voices to enhance inclusive communities

Kylie Smith* and Cassandra Kotsanas

Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Children’s environments and their ability to interact with them have impacts upon theirwell-being and sense of identity. Creation of participatory methodologies for childrenof all ages and particularly for children under five years of age is a step towardsunderstanding what is necessary to create inclusivity and towards addressing the ineq-uity faced by young children in their environments. This article will draw on datafrom a research project with an inner-urban local government body in Victoria, Austra-lia, that aimed to support young children’s participation within the local governmentand the community. These data demonstrate how participatory methods can be usedwith children under five outside of typical early-childhood institutions; the article alsoanalyses the data in terms of the specific experiences of dependent young children inan urban environment and the related effects on their well-being and mobility.

Keywords: child participation; urban environment; inclusive communities; mobility;dependence

IntroductionChildren’s environments – including their home, the places they frequent, and the naturaland built environment – are important to their well-being (Driskell, Bannerjee, andChawla 2001). This has been demonstrated in numerous ways by studying the effects ofchildren’s environments on their activity levels (Giles-Corti 2009), their physical andmental health (McAllister 2008), their opportunities to interact with others, their feelingsof belonging and community (Kernan 2010), and their connections to place (Lim andBarton 2010). Such studies have been conducted on children through traditional methodssuch as observation and parent surveys, and are increasingly conducted with childrenthrough participatory methodologies. This article explores how children in their earlychildhoods can contribute to understanding about environments by drawing from datacollected with a small group of preschool-aged children in home-based care about theurban environments they frequent. From these data the paper will go on to discuss howsuburban and urban environments potentially marginalise young children in terms of theirmobility and engagement with spaces, and how their participatory involvement mayassist in addressing such inequity.

Research methods involving children have broadened the possibilities of understand-ing how home, educational, and local environments impact on children’s lives. Youth andchildren in middle childhood are more likely than children in early childhood to beinvolved in research in general, and in research about environments. Since the mid-1990sthere have been a large number of projects with children and youths in different commu-nities around the world seeking to identify what young people’s experiences of their envi-

*Corresponding author. Email: kylieas@unimelb.edu.au

Journal of Urbanism, 2013http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2013.820211

! 2013 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

ronments are and how any issues might best be addressed. This type of research has beenparticularly prevalent in a development context and with children living in disadvantagedand low socio-economic areas (Kruger 2002). This body of research has consistentlydemonstrated that children are capable of sharing their views, of expressing their livedexperiences to others, and of highlighting issues that affect them as young people andaffect their wider community. As such, one result of these types of projects has been tocreate recognition that the contributions children make, when they are asked, have thepotential to increase the quality of life for children and for others (Gallagher 2004).

There has been little research conducted with children below school age in regard toenvironments, despite the increasing recognition of the valuable insight children are ableto provide and the understanding that making environments “child friendly” makes themmore inclusive to all. There is an even greater paucity of work involving children underfive regarding their environment outside of early-childhood settings. There is a significantand valuable body of existing research on children’s independent mobility; however, as itis concerned with independence it has typically been conducted with older children andyouths. There is a need for research that also represents the mobility of dependent chil-dren, because focusing only on what children are able to do independently of adults risksperpetuating adult/child, independent/dependent and citizen/non-citizen binaries, whichcollectively suggest that there is no place for the citizenship contributions of members ofthe community who are not capable of independent access. Young children are seen asfuture citizens rather than as current citizens. Without a parallel focus on dependentmobilities, interest in independent mobility also contributes inadvertently to the continuedseparation of adult and child worlds and the commoditisation and institutionalisation ofchildren’s care and education, and negates the concept of inclusive community building(Haider 2007).

This research started with two key premises. The first was that under the UnitedNations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations 1989) children have therights to be consulted and heard in matters affecting them:

• The right to express their views on all matters affecting them and for their views tobe taken seriously (Article 12)

• The right to freedom of expression, including freedom to seek, receive, and impartinformation and ideas of all kinds through any media they choose (Article 13)

• The right to education that promotes children’s emotional, intellectual, and physicaldevelopment; that fosters awareness and understanding of parents’ roles and of theimportance of cultural identity, language, and values; and that prepares children fora responsible life in society (Article 29) (see Ackroyd and Pilkington 1999; Moss2007)

Specifically, General Comment No. 7 (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child2005) acknowledges that even the youngest children are able to form views and have theright to be consulted in matters that affect them in daily life at home and in the commu-nity. It states that the young child’s right to express their views and feelings should betaken into account in “the development of policies and services, including throughresearch and consultations” (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 2005, p. 7), andit stresses that these are the rights of all children, irrespective of their age. This created aplatform in the work for the participation of children under eight years of age in a rangeof areas, including environments.

2 K. Smith and C. Kotsanas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

The second premise was that young children are active agents and competent meaningmakers in their own lives (Kotsanas 2009; MacNaughton, Hughes, and Smith 2008).Children have different experiences from adults and need an opportunity to speak aboutthese experiences and be listened to. Incorporating the concept of children as social actorsand agents and seeking their views is a means towards “creating better conditions forchildhood” (Smith 2007, 152), which in turn has a role in creating better conditions forsociety as a whole.

Children’s participation in research about their environmentsThere is body of work which highlights effective methods of engaging children andyoung people in consultations about the environment that places significance on indepen-dent mobility and describes some common themes that characterise the contributions ofchildren over five about their environment (e.g. Berglund 2008; Bjorklid and Nordstrom2007; Christensen and O’Brien 2003a; Cunningham, Jones, and Dillon 2003; Gallagher2004; Giles-Corti 2009; Jansson 2008; Kruger 2002; Rutner and Malone 2011; Nord-strom 2010; Torres and Lessard 2007) and includes a small number of studies about envi-ronments with children under five (Malone 2010; Waller 2006). This article will makereference to similar methods that have been used to include young children and considerthe limitations of independent mobility in relation to the participation of children in earlychildhood.

Facilitating participationMethodologies have been used in research with very young children in early-childhoodsettings to determine how children experience and perceive their educational and careexperiences to improve the quality of provision (e.g. Cook 2008; Håøy 2005; Hendersonand MacNaughton 2008; Stephen 2003; Warming 2003) and, in a small number of stud-ies, to participate in the design of spaces. One of the most widely known frameworks inparticipatory research with children in early childhood is the mosaic approach (Clark andMoss 2001), which was developed in 1999 as a means of listening to the perspectives ofyoung children about their lives through multiple methods, including traditional method-ologies such as interviewing and observation, alongside participatory tools including pho-tography, book making, tours, mapping, and a “magic carpet” reflective activity. Themosaic approach has been used in two projects (Clark 2007; Clark and Moss 2005) tofacilitate the participation of children from three to six years old in the design of outdoorand indoor spaces such as playgrounds, buildings, and classrooms in their educationalsettings. Clark (2007) commented in the conclusion of the later study that a key findinghad been “the extent to which young children are acute observers and explorers of theirimmediate environments” (p. 40). This comment epitomises the gap in the participatoryresearch about environments – for, whilst the methods appear to translate successfully tothe younger age group, young children are routinely limited to providing perspectivesabout their “immediate environments,” namely early-childhood institutions.

Independent mobilityThe increase in research about children’s mobility, and particularly independent mobility,is linked to concerns about the lessened mobility modern children experience in compari-son to previous generations. This is attributed to increased fear for children’s safety and

Journal of Urbanism 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

well-being, which has led to more sheltered and sedentary behaviours in children andyouths, who are less likely to be permitted to go out and play without adult supervision(Little and Wyver 2008). Research about independently mobile children has thus beenabout their activity levels and health – such as whether they walk to school, ride bikes,play in the park, and so on – and about the circumstances of their lives that permit orinhibit the ability to be independently mobile (Berglund 2008; Bjorklid and Nordstrom2007; Giles-Corti 2009; Mikkelsen and Christensen 2009; Nordstrom 2010; Rudner andMalone 2011). This research rarely focuses upon children under five, possibly becausechildren this young have not historically possessed the same degree of independentmobility that is being eroded or lost.

Whilst research of this kind tends to exclude the youngest children, it has been impor-tant in demonstrating how children have specific, often different yet highly valid perspec-tives and opinions about the environments they live in. Additionally, it has helped withthe recognition that the factors that make an environment more child friendly are likelyto enhance the well-being of all members of that community. There are some commonthemes in the varied research with school-age children and youths about their environ-ments, including: housing; basic services; safety; roads and traffic; family and commu-nity; participation in planning and development; and the natural and built environments(Cunningham, Jones, and Dillon 2003; Horelli 2007; Nordstrom 2010). These themesseem to be broadly covered by groups of children in diverse living conditions in differentcountries around the world, though they are culturally relative and given differentpriorities (Horelli 2007; Nordstrom 2010).

It is indicated that independent mobility has positive effects for children, such asincreased autonomy, self-confidence, social interactions, and experiences with theenvironment (Christensen and O’Brien 2003b; Torres and Lessard 2007) that make themmore “streetwise” (Malone 2010), which then contributes to their safety and theirwell-being. The positive benefits and the research in which these benefits have beendemonstrated have supported the appreciation that children with independent mobility arewell placed to comment on the factors that make environments more child friendly. Olderchildren are assumed to be more complex in their understandings and better able toarticulate their thoughts, and they are accepted as having collective lives and cultureswith their peers that are separate from those of adults. Very young children, on the otherhand, are characterised by their dependence upon adults, are regularly in the presence ofadults, and are more likely to communicate in less adult-like ways; and thus it is deemedboth possible and easiest to understand their needs and perspectives through methodssuch as observing them (Kotsanas 2009).

However, in the small number of studies that involve young children who are notindependently mobile, it was possible to categorise their responses into themes similar tothose that older children typically raise. Younger children’s perspectives were, however,influenced by experiences characterised by dependency or interdependency with adultsand siblings. In research about the child friendliness of a particular Australian city,four-to-eight-year-olds raised the common theme of safety, but their concerns were oftenlinked to those of their parents, for example by saying they couldn’t leave their gardensbecause “My dad says it’s unsafe” or “Mum is scared I may get hurt.” (Malone 2010,21). Whilst a valuable concept, a limitation of independent mobility is that it rests heavilyon the Western ideal of independence and also fails to recognise the social aspect ofchildren’s mobility: their interdependence with adults and with peers (Mikkelsen andChristensen 2009).

4 K. Smith and C. Kotsanas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

Similarly, on a philosophical and political level, the general disdain for dependencestigmatises childhood as a state of being (George 2009) and maintains understandings ofchildren only as “becoming” adults and future citizens, rather than as citizens in theirown right in the present. Researchers and theorists – particularly those associated withthe “new sociology of childhood” – have interrogated the understandings of children as“beings” and “becomings” at length, and explored the effects of these positions onchildren’s participation and citizenship (e.g. Coady 2008; Corsaro 2005; James, Jenks,and Prout 1998; Mayall and Zeiher 2003; Mayall 2008; Prout and James 1990; Uprichard2008; Woodhead 2005). This article takes up the position that children (and adults) aresimultaneously being and becoming, and that employing broader temporal (Uprichard2008) and generational (Mayall and Zeiher 2003; Mayall 2008) perspectives enablesinterdependence and intergenerational inclusivity to be better accounted for.

Respecting children as citizens in local governmentThe research data in this article are drawn from a small sample that was a component ofa larger project with an inner-urban local government body in Victoria, Australia. Thesedata demonstrate how participatory methods can be used with children under the age offive years outside of typical early-childhood institutions; the article also analyses the datain terms of the specific experiences of being young children in an urban environment andthe related effects on their well-being.

BackgroundIn Australia, in the state of Victoria, all local governments are required to have aMunicipal Early Years Plan (MEYP). An MEYP is a local-area plan designed to providea strategic direction for the development and coordination of early-childhood educational,care, and health programs, activities, and other local developments that impact on chil-dren zero to six years old in a municipality. This plan is about working in partnershipwith communities to improve health and well-being outcomes for young children –specifically, to:

• Increase support for young children and their families• Focus on vulnerable families• Enable ease of access to services• Increase the responsiveness of services and efficient use of other resources, by

increasing service integration and collaboration

Through this plan, the City of Port Phillip, located on the northern shore of PortPhillip Bay, south of the Melbourne Central Business District in Victoria, Australia, madea commitment to developing partnerships with children. Their vision statement is:

Port Phillip, a city where childhood is honoured and all children are cherished and supportedas active citizens with a voice of their own, secure in their identity and culture; where theyare able to play, learn and contribute to their environments, surrounded by nurturing adultsand supportive communities. (City of Port Phillip 2005, 3)

The five guiding principles of this vision, outlined in the City of Port Phillip’s MEYP,included:

Journal of Urbanism 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

• Honouring childhood• Valuing play• Respecting children as active citizens• A child’s right to grow in healthy and supportive community environments• The importance of family (City of Port Phillip 2005, 5)

Out of these principles, five goals were developed as a way to put the vision of theMEYP into practice. The goals were:

• Promote a whole-child perspective• Increase children’s participation• Improve child development, health, and well-being• Work in partnership to achieve a fully integrated approach• Build on research evidence (City of Port Phillip 2005, 5)

To facilitate the implementation of the MEYP, and particularly to achieve respect forchildren’s active citizenship, the City of Port Phillip collaborated with the Centre forEquity and Innovation in Early Childhood at the University of Melbourne to conductaction research (Carr and Kemmis 1986; Kemmis and McTaggart 1988; MacNaughtonand Hughes 2009) with their employees and affiliated services.

The City of Port Phillip invited people working for or with the city to participate inthis action research. Thirty-five adults participated in the action research sessions of aproject called Respecting Children as Citizens in Local Government: Participation in Poli-cies and Services. Of these participants, 27 were employed directly by the City of PortPhillip and 8 were working in organisations providing services to the local community.Two research groups ran consecutively during the 12-month period of the project. Eachresearch group participated over a five-month period in an action research cycle, whichincluded five research meetings, research email bulletins, and individual mentoring. Theaction research meetings provided time and space for participants to reflect on their ownpractices and the possibilities for change and to talk through and about the changes thatwere made and the effects for them, their work, and the children in the City of PortPhillip. During the research meetings, participants were asked to reflect on:

• How they currently understand the concept of child participation• How children currently participate in their work area• The possible ways children could participate in their work environment• What they could do differently in their work environment to ensure that children

could participate

This reflection process supported participants in developing a question about how theymight rethink, re-imagine, or reconceptualise how children could participate in the City ofPort Phillip. From this question, participants created a mini-project to support changes inpolicy or practice that would support child participation. Twenty-one mini-projects werecompleted as part of the action research process. Through 11 of these mini-projects, 152children had opportunities to express their ideas, views, and concerns about living in theCity of Port Phillip and the services that they used by or for the City of Port Phillip. Theoutcomes of these projects created or supported major shifts in the participants’ thinkingrelated to their image of the child and how they support children’s citizenship and partici-pation in the City of Port Phillip. This article draws data from Mini-Project 5, which was

6 K. Smith and C. Kotsanas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

undertaken by two participants from the action research sessions, in collaboration withfour children and their home-based carer.

Mini-Project 5This project grew out of collaboration between two participants working in different areasof local government.

• Bec1 is a sustainable-transport officer in the Environment & Renewal area of theCity of Port Phillip. This role involves both transport planning and community-based behaviour-change programs. Projects include pedestrian and cyclingadvocacy, infrastructure changes to favour active transport modes of walking andcycling, and policy development.

• Georgia is the coordinator of Home Based Child Care. This accredited serviceresponds to community needs as an alternative to centre-based childcare. Theservice is provided in the carer’s home and is a flexible childcare service with asmall-group setting. This service allows for home-based childcare in an environ-ment that caters to families with a variety of needs.

The mini-project came about as Bec wanted to explore how to engage and docu-ment children’s views on barriers and issues surrounding access and mobility withrespect to community facilities and events adjoining busy roads in the City of PortPhillip. This would build on preliminary work done through the Greenlight Project, astudy that examined why children and adults experienced difficulties crossing busy ormajor roads. During the action research meetings, these two participants began todiscuss how they might work together on a project. Bec did not work directly withchildren, and Georgia, though coordinator of Home Based Child Care, had limitedcontact with children, but she did know home-based child carers who might be inter-ested in consulting with children. This is significant as it highlights that all adults canand should take responsibility for providing opportunities for young children to partic-ipate in decision making regardless of their role and regular contact with children.Deciding to work alongside someone who was familiar to the children was also anethical choice that recognized that children would be provided with the best opportu-nities to participate fully by someone they know and trust. Together, Bec and Georgiaagreed on the research question:

What are children’s views on barriers and issues surrounding access and mobility to commu-nity facilities and events adjoining busy roads in the City of Port Phillip?

To investigate this question, sub-questions were developed, appropriate to the age ofthe children involved. The sub-questions included:

• What do you like about this place?• What are your favourite things here?• What do you like to do here?• What would you like to do more of?• What don’t you like?• What would you like to change?

Journal of Urbanism 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

It was intended that the research question could be addressed by these sub-questionsas the adults asked children about their preferences, ideas, and concerns at strategicpoints of each journey, for example at times when the children were accessingcommunity facilities, were being mobile, or were near to or using busy roads.

Four children between two and five years old were consulted in this project. Oneadult, Lynn, the home-based child carer who was employed to care for these children,was also part of the project. Ethical engagement with children was placed at the core ofthis research project by creating processes that supported children’s diverse abilities andby providing safe and respectful opportunities for children to speak and share ideas. Inthis mini-project, ethical engagement was achieved by supporting known adults to consultwith children in familiar contexts, and by using interviews, photographs, and children’sdrawings as techniques for consulting with children (Fargas-Malet et al. 2010;MacNaughton and Smith 2008; Morrow 2005).

Table 1. Data and subject matter.

Photographs Drawings Interviewresponses

Trip 1: ElwoodCanal

Peppercorn tree 11 1 2Walking on the footpath 9Sports field and cricketpitch

8 1

Tree stump 8 3Birds 4 2Canal 4 1Parked cars 4 2Drawing at Lynn’s 3Seat at the park 2 1Dirt path by the canal 2Scott St bridge 1 1Concrete slab 1Workmen 1Dog poo 1Smell 1

Trip 2: Ripponleatrain station andjourney toBalaclava

Crossing the road 29 9Watching the trains 14 1 3Seat at the train station 6 1 3Walking on the footpath 5Reserve by the trainstation

2 1

Stairwell 2Watching trucks 1

Total 114 2⁄ 31⁄Both drawings

containedmore than one

theme

8 K. Smith and C. Kotsanas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

ResultsData were collected with children out in the community on two separate outings onconsecutive Wednesdays in April 2007. These journeys were made on foot and visitedplaces that the children regularly frequented with Lynn. The first Wednesday, the childrenwalked to the Elwood Canal, and on the second Wednesday they walked to the Ripponleatrain station and to Balaclava, a nearby suburb. These trips were chosen in relation to theresearch question as they included popular community routes and spaces in the area andalso adjoined busy roads.

The data-set consisted of two group interviews during the journeys to and from theElwood Canal, Ripponlea Station, and Balaclava and at these places; 114 photographstaken by children and adults of the spaces and places children talked about and accessed;and 2 children’s drawings of the spaces and places they visited, which were completedon their return. A full list of the data and the subjects they concerned is presented inTable 1.

There were key themes that the children spoke about, drew, and photographed inresponse to the research questions asked whilst at, or journeying to, each public space.Children showed preferences toward nature and natural spaces, some features of the builtenvironment, and the people they encountered and could spend time with in these publicspaces. They disliked traffic and parked cars, had difficulty crossing busy roads andwalking together as a group on the footpath, and identified unpleasant smells. Children’sresponses to the interview questions for each trip can be seen in Table 2.

DiscussionThe data provided for this mini-project make a significant contribution to the existingwork in the area of children’s perspectives on their environments in a number of keyareas, by demonstrating that the young children in this project:

• Had connections to places outside of early-childhood settings and designatedchildren’s areas in the community (such as playgrounds), and had observations,preferences, concerns, and ideas for the improvement of these places

• Shared concern in some themes similar to those that characterise research witholder, independently mobile children, and thus were capable of making acute andsophisticated contributions based on their lived experiences when facilitated in anappropriate manner

• Had particular experiences with their environments related to being young anddependent on adults, including specific difficulties, and expressed a joy in theirdependency or interdependency whilst out in public places with adults and peers

Connections to community spacesMuch of the prior research with young children and environments has been conducted inearly-childhood settings. One factor that makes this project especially significant is thatthe participating children were not in attendance at a formal early-childhood institution;rather they were cared for in a small, multi-aged group in the home of a professionalhome-based carer. Because of this fact, this group of children were out in their commu-nity more routinely than same-aged children in other forms of care. They were also partof a group of young peers (possibly but not necessarily siblings) accompanied by a single

Journal of Urbanism 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

Table2.

Children’sresponsesto

interview

questio

ns.

Destin

ation

Whatdo

youlik

eaboutthisplace?

Whatareyour

favourite

things

here?

Whatdo

you

liketo

dohere?

Whatwould

youlik

eto

domoreof?

Whatdon’t

youlik

e?Whatwould

youlik

eto

change?

Trip

1:Elwoodcanal

Our

chair

The

stum

pjump

Running

onthegrass

Nomorecars

onScottst

bridge

Dog

poo

The

stum

pto

jump

Feedingthe

ducks

Jumping

off

thestum

pNomorecars

where

weplay

Smell

The

working

men

Playingunder

thetree

Toomany

cars

The

ducksand

white

birds

The

spaceunder

ourtree

(peppercorntree)

Trip

2:Ripponlea

trainstation&

journeyto

Balaclava

Watchingforthe

trains

Sitting

onthe

chair

Running

across

tothe

train

Moregreen

timeto

walk

The

fastcars

Moregreentim

e

Watchingoutfor

thetrucks

The

train

Sitting

onthis

chairwith

my

friend

The

trucks

and

cars

aretoo

fast

Toomuchto

look

outfor

Not

tohave

tolook

outforthegreen

arrow

andtheredarrow

andthe

trucks

andthecars

Sitting

here

onthespecialseat

The

truck

windblow

smyhatoff

Not

tohave

towaitin

themiddleof

thebigroad

forthegreenman

Not

tofeel

scared

onthebigroad.

10 K. Smith and C. Kotsanas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

non-related adult, which provides findings specific to this kind of group, in addition tofindings that may be relevant to children out in the community with parents and siblings.

The action researchers Bec and Georgia accompanied the children and their carerLynn to places that they frequent as part of their daily experiences in home-based care.

Photo 1. White bird.

Photo 2. Peppercorn tree.

Journal of Urbanism 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

The places were chosen by the adults involved in the project; however, as can be seen inthe data, they are places which the children were very familiar with and fond of.Significantly, of the three destinations, none were formal “children’s spaces” such asplaygrounds; rather they were spaces designed and used for various purposes by all

Photo 3. Peppercorn tree.

Photo 4. Side of the path.

12 K. Smith and C. Kotsanas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

Photo 5. Watching the trains.

Photo 6. Watching the trains.

Journal of Urbanism 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

members of the community. The children exhibited strong personal and collectiveconnections to all of these spaces. The visits to the Elwood Canal and the Ripponlea trainstation demonstrate the children’s connection to both natural and built environments,especially in response to the research sub-questions What do you like about this place?,What are your favourite things here?, and What do you like to do here?

On the trip to Elwood Canal, children identified the natural spaces as places theyliked. The children listed a large tree stump, birds, and trees as things they enjoyedengaging with. The children talked about “the stump to jump” and took or posed in manyphotographs of the group, talking turns to jump the small distance onto the grass. Thestump was a space that Lynn identified as one where the children spent a great deal oftime exploring. The children mentioned liking the birds at the canal. They said “theducks and white birds” and took photographs of these, for example Photo 1.

The children also talked about the peppercorn tree at the canal. They specifically said“the space under our tree.” The children showed Georgia and Bec “their” tree when theywent to visit the canal for the consultation, as seen in Photos 2 and 3.

Children were invited to complete a drawing on their return from each outing. Onechild (age three) chose to contribute two drawings as research data. Both drawingsrespond to the sub-question for children, “What are your favourite things here?” Thechild’s drawings represent the places that the group visited and align with thephotographic and interview data. Lynn asked the child about the content of the picturesand wrote a caption based on the child’s response. Drawing 13 is accompanied by thecaption, “The Elwood Canal & the peppercorn tree.”

Lynn, Bec, and Georgia also took photographs of the spaces the children played inbut did not talk about. Some of these spaces were also natural spaces. For example, thereis a walking and cycling path next to the canal. On the side of the path is a dirt and

Photo 7. Scott St bridge and parked cars.

14 K. Smith and C. Kotsanas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

garden area. The children were really interested in this space and stopped to take time toexplore the dirt, stones, and sticks in this area, as seen in Photo 4.

The children also showed Bec and Georgia a concrete slab and the cricket pitch in arecreational reserve as spaces that they enjoyed running and jumping on. One of the chil-dren also talked about running on the grass. These spaces again highlight that childrendon’t always need spaces with purpose-built equipment such as climbing structures andswings. Other research with children has consistently demonstrated that children desire,

Photo 8. Scott St bridge and parked cars.

Journal of Urbanism 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

and sometimes express preferences for, open and unstructured places in which to play, aswell as playgrounds (e.g. Chawala 2002; Jansson 2008; Ramussen and Smidt 2003). Sim-ilarly, in relation to the built environment, the children expressed pleasure in seeing thetrains at the station. Photos 5 and 6 show that the cyclone fencing around the platformprovided children with an unobstructed view of the train whilst positioning them safelyaway from the edge of the platform.

The children’s recreational use of the train station – that they liked “watching thetrains” – differs from the commuting activities of other train users in the community.However, as this was a popular pastime for these children, it is important to considerhow spaces may continue to support non-traditional users such as young children. Draw-ing 14, with the caption “Ripponlea train station featuring train, trees & bench at front,”highlights how the area surrounding the station was important to the child, including thelandscaping and a place to sit with a view of the trains.

Themes shared with older children about environmentsThe young children in this project shared their perspectives on their environment in waysthat can be matched with the themes commonly found in research with older children,for example their interest in natural and built spaces such as the peppercorn tree and thetrain station.

Traffic and parked cars were mentioned by children in this project, and are a commontheme in research with older children (e.g. Bjorklid and Nordstrom 2007; Cunningham,

Photo 9. Five abreast.

16 K. Smith and C. Kotsanas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

Jones, and Dillon 2003). Three children spoke about the cars in and around the areaswhere they walk. They said, for example, “No more cars on Scott Street Bridge.” Thechildren took Bec and Georgia to see the Scott Street Bridge and also showed Bec andGeorgia all the cars that were parked near the canal or driving past (Photos 7 and 8).

One of the children said “Too many cars,” while another child said they wanted “Nomore cars where we play.” This raises questions for the local authorities about the designof the city that need to be considered in planning and zoning laws regarding where cars

Photo 10. Red signal.

Journal of Urbanism 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

Photo 11. Halfway across.

Photo 12. Halfway across.

18 K. Smith and C. Kotsanas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

can park in relation to public spaces such as parks and playgrounds. Similarly to researchwith older children as participants, in this project children also expressed concerns abouttheir safety crossing the road and the traffic on major roads. This will be discussedfurther in the following section.

Insights about being young and dependentThere were specific insights in this research about the children’s interactions with theenvironment as part of a group of children accompanied by a carer. There were a numberof factors that children enjoyed about their dependency and inter-dependency with thegroup, and a number of difficulties that were specific to their mobility as a dependentgroup.

The key aspect about dependence and interdependence that children enjoyed was thefact that they shared their experiences and environments with people who were close tothem. They talked and took photographs of each other playing, and sitting together for arest, a snack, and a drink, and to watch the trains. In relation to what was likeable abouttheir walk to the train station, one child said “Sitting on the chair with my friends.” Animportant consideration that is necessary to facilitate this type of activity for this groupof children was the provision of benches and seats that could seat four young childrenand an adult. There was a chair or bench that served this purpose for this group ofchildren at both the canal and train-station destinations, and this was clearly valued bythe children, who photographed, drew, and talked about these seating areas.

Similarly, Lynn, the adult who cared for the children, raised an issue about the widthsof footpaths in the areas where they walked. When taking children out, one of the mainfactors Lynn considered was safety. Holding hands was a strategy Lynn used to ensure

Drawing 13. Elwood canal.

Journal of Urbanism 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

that the children stay together and that they are safe from traffic. However, as not allfootpaths in the City of Port Phillip are wide enough for four children and one adult towalk five abreast, managing four young children in busy streets can become difficultand restrict children’s mobility in the community. Photo 9 shows a pathway thataccommodates the mobility of these children, whilst other photos showed how pathwaywidth could restrict this mobility when the group could not walk five abreast.

Finally, there were data about children’s experiences crossing a busy arterial road ontheir walks. Lynn and the children took Bec and Georgia on their journey to show andtalk about the difficulties in being mobile and safe at this intersection. Feeling safe forchildren and adults was a major issue in the conversations with Lynn and the childrenand is highlighted in the photographs taken by Bec as the group crossed the road. Twoissues about safety emerged: the time needed to cross the road, and the traffic.

The length of time that the signal indicates to cross the road safely was not longenough for the group to cross all the way over the intersection. In fact the group was notable to get even halfway across before the signal light had changed to red. This can beseen in Photo 10.

This means that the children were stuck in the middle of the road until the pedestrianlights became green again. When asked what the children would like to change, one ofthe children said “Not have to wait in the middle of the big road for the green man,” andtwo children spoke about more time to walk. Interlinked with the issue of having insuffi-cient time to cross the road is the concern regarding the cars and trucks that then drivepast the children while they are stuck halfway across the intersection, as seen in Photos11 and 12.

Drawing 14. Ripponlea train station.

20 K. Smith and C. Kotsanas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

Five comments by children highlighted their concern related to safety and the traffic:

• “Not have to look out for the green arrow and the red arrow and the trucks and thecars”

• “The trucks and cars are too fast”• “The fast cars”• “Too much to look out for”• “The truck wind blows my hat off”

These two issues are examples of the concerns raised in the work that preceded thisaction research, the Greenlight Project (City of Port Phillip 2007). The Greenlight Projectcalled for a cultural shift where pedestrians are given priority at signalized crossings onmajor roads. Two of the Greenlight Project’s recommendations are relevant to the datacollected with these young children:

• Adjust pedestrian crossing speeds to 0.7 m/s (the current standard in Victoria is 1.2m/s)

• Advocate the removal of staged pedestrian crossings (City of Port Phillip 2007)

The enactment of these recommendations would address the issues raised by the chil-dren and Lynn. It is important that children’s experiences and concerns for their safety –in their own words and methods – are communicated to policy makers in support ofrecommendations from reports such as the Greenlight Project as it is a powerful meansfor reiterating the need for the improvements.

Dependency and interdependency in inclusive communitiesThis mini-project, with a small group of children under five, has highlighted both thatyoung children can participate in consultation about their environments when facilitatedin appropriate ways, and that if cities are to become more inclusive and intergenerationalas well as child friendly the interactions with and between all community groups in thesepublic spaces are necessary. It also provides a beginning point for reconsidering depen-dence in terms of mobility and environmental use, which is relevant to children, families,and carers as well as to other groups who may not be independently mobile.

The participatory methodology in this project recognised young children as activecitizens with valuable perspectives on their environments and was intended to createconditions for children to contribute successfully. Researchers facilitated children’s partic-ipation by joining the children and their carer in their regular daily activities rather thanapproaching children as strangers or inviting children into unfamiliar spaces. Data werecollected by methods that allowed children to demonstrate their expertise, to communi-cate through different media – not strictly verbal – and to participate within the contextof the spaces of interest rather than having to respond to abstract ideas. These conditionsallowed children to comment on their experiences in their local environment, whichaddressed the research question by highlighting the barriers and issues with access andmobility in their community.

Some of the issues raised by this group of children can be considered in terms ofhow the environment privileges or excludes different users and uses. It is possible todraw on these data to suggest that cars are privileged over pedestrians. Kearns, Collins,and Neuwelt (2003) suggest that walking has become counter-cultural and low-status as

Journal of Urbanism 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

an activity, one that is associated with powerlessness, marginalised and accentuated bythe poor accessibility of footpaths and crossings. In line with international trends, theCity of Port Phillip, where this research was conducted, has committed to prioritisingpedestrians, cyclists, and public-transport users, as described in their current Walk Plan(City of Port Phillip 2005, 2007). However, at the time this research was undertaken, theprivileged status of cars over pedestrians was illustrated by children’s comments aboutcrossing a busy road and in relation to the cars driving and parked around the spaces thatthey explore and play in. These play spaces were not designated children’s spaces butcommunity areas. Other community users of the walking trail by the canal, the publicreserve with the peppercorn tree, and the sports ground with its cricket pitch may there-fore share the traffic and parking issues raised by the children. The privileging of vehiclesover pedestrians and other road users also suggests that commuting and business-relatedmobility is valued more highly than recreational mobility. This impacts all communitygroups, but particularly young children, whose “work” and ways of interacting with theworld are commonly considered merely “play,” in contrast to “adult” activity, and thusdismissed as unimportant (Ailwood 2003). However, in light of the pleasure the childrendisplayed and described whilst watching the trains, it is necessary to consider all usesand users of community spaces and services.

Whilst some of the children’s issues are shared with pedestrians more broadly, therewere exclusions that were specific to being a young child accessing the environment in agroup, such as the widths of footpaths, the provision of seating, and the time allowed forcrossing the road. In modern Australian society it is increasingly common for children toparticipate in institutionalised care and education, which has an effect on the frequencyof groups of children being out in the community. Creating a child-friendly and accessi-ble community and environment has relevance for all children, regardless of whether theyattend formal education or care settings. Research conducted by Kernan 2010 showedthat

the peripheral outdoors on the borders of ECEC [early childhood education and care]settings, as well as the routes and journeys between ECEC settings and home, or betweenECEC settings and local parks and other public places, were significant sites for children’severyday play-life outdoors. This points to the advisability of an all-encompassing view ofplayable space in the city (Gill 2008) which is not limited to dedicated play spaces or otherspaces for children, such as ECEC settings (205).

ConclusionAn emphasis on playable space rather than dedicated children’s space is important in con-sidering planning for inclusive communities, as the children in this project showed bytheir preferences for a tree stump, the dirt by the side of a path, and the public space nextto the train station. Similarly to the concerns about children’s decreasing independentmobility, health and well-being, the mobility of “dependent” children, including access tocommunity spaces, should be investigated further.

An outcome of young children’s dependency that impacts how we think about envi-ronments is the fact that their access to community spaces will always occur within inter-generational interactions. As children and adults engage together with community spaces,it is necessary for environments to be designed inclusively. Inclusive design “emphasisesuse by as many people as possible regardless of age, ability, and economic or ethnic

22 K. Smith and C. Kotsanas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

background” (Haider 2007, 83); as such, creating inclusivity requires sensitivity to chil-dren, as groups and as individuals (Christensen and O’Brien 2003b), in addition to otherusers. Creation of participatory methodologies for children of all ages, such as those usedin this project, is a step towards understanding what is necessary to create inclusivity andthus towards addressing the inequity faced by young children in their environments.

Note1. Pseudonyms have been used.

ReferencesAckroyd, J., and A. Pilkington. 1999. “Childhood and the Construction of Ethnic Identities in a

Global Age: A Dramatic Encounter.” Childhood 6 (4): 443–454.Ailwood, J. 2003. “Governing Early Childhood Education through Play.” Contemporary Issues in

Early Childhood 4 (3): 286–299.Berglund, U. 2008. “Using children’s GIS Maps to Influence Town Planning.” Children, Youth and

Environments 18 (2): 110–132.Bjorklid, P., and M. Nordstrom. 2007. “Environmental Child-Friendliness: Collaboration and

Future Research.” Children, Youth and Environments 17 (4): 2007.Carr, W., and S. Kemmis. 1986. Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research.

Melbourne: Deakin University Press.Chawala, L. 2002. Growing up in an Urbanising World. London: UNESCO.Christensen, P., and M. O’Brien, eds. 2003a. Children in the City: Home, Neighbourhood and

Community, The Future of Childhood Series. Oxon, UK: Routledge.Christensen, P., and M. O’Brien. 2003b. “Children in the City: Introducing New Perspectives.” In

Children in the City: Home, Neighbourhood and Community, edited by P. Christensen andM. O’Brien. Oxon, UK: Routledge.

City of Port Phillip. 2005. “Walk Plan 2011-2020 Feet First: Making Pedestrians the Priority.”viewed 15 August 2012, http://www.enviroehub.com.au/uploads/policies-and-strategies/Walk-Plan_FeetFirst_v16.pdf.

City of Port Phillip. 2005. “Creating a Child-friendly Port Phillip: Framework for Action.” viewed2 February 2011, <http://portphillip.vic.gov.au/default/Framework_for_Action.pdf>.

City of Port Phillip. 2007. “The Greenlight Project Report.” viewed 2 February 2011, <http://port-phillip.vic.gov.au/default/CommunityGovernanceDocuments/Greenlight_Project_report.pdf>.

Clark, A. 2007. Early Childhood Spaces: Involving Young Children and Practitioners in theDesign Process. The Hague, The Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation.

Clark, A., and P. Moss. 2005. Spaces to Play: More Listening to Young Children Using the MosaicApproach. London: National Children’s Bureau.

Clarke, A., and P. Moss. 2001. Listen to Young Children: The Mosaic approach. London: NationalChildren’s Bureau.

Coady, M. 2008. “Beings and Becomings: Historical and Philosophical Considerations of the Childas Citizen.” In Young Children as Active Citizens: Principles, Policies and Pedagogies, editedby G. MacNaughton, P. Hughes, and K. Smith. UK: Cambridge Scholars Newcastle.

Cook, P. 2008. “Whose Language is Group Time Anyway?.” In Young Children as Active Citizens:Principles, Policies and Pedagogies, edited by G. MacNaughton, P. Hughes, and K. Smith.Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.

Corsaro, W. A. 2005. The Sociology of Childhood. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Cunningham, C. J., M. A. Jones, and R. Dillon. 2003. “Children and Urban Regional Planning:

Participation in the Public Consultation Process through Story Writing.” Children’s Geogra-phies 1 (2): 201–221.

Driskell, D., K. Bannerjee, and L. Chawla. 2001. “Rhetoric, Reality and Resilience: OvercomingObstacles to Young people’s Participation in Development.” Environment and Urbanization 13(1): 77–89.

Fargas-Malet, M., D. McSherry, E. Larkin, and C. Robinson. 2010. “Research with Children:Methodological Issues and Innovative Techniques.” Journal of Early Childhood Research 8(2): 175–192.

Journal of Urbanism 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

Gallagher, C. B. 2004. “Our Town’: Children as Advocates for Change in the City.” Childhood 11(2): 251–262.

George, S. 2009. Too Young for Respect? Realising Respect for Young Children in their EverydayEnvironments. The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation.

Giles-Corti, B. 2009. “Encouraging Walking for Transport and Physical Activity in Children andAdolescents: How Important is the Built Environment?” Sports Medicine 39 (12): 995.

Gill, T. 2008. “Space-Oriented Children’s Policy: Creating Child-Friendly Communities to ImproveChildren’s Well-Being.” Children and Society 22 (2): 136–142.

Haider, J. 2007. “Inclusive Design: Planning Public Urban Spaces for Children.” Municipal Engi-neer 160 (2): 83–88.

Håøy, A. 2005. “Children’s Say in Early Childhood education.” Journal of Australian Research inEarly Childhood Education 12 (1): 59–68.

Henderson, G., and G. MacNaughton. 2008. “The Learning Committee: Children’s Voices in Plan-ning Early Childhood Curriculum.” In Young Children as Active Citizens: Principles, Policiesand Pedagogies, edited by G. MacNaughton, P. Hughes, and K. Smith. Newcastle: CambridgeScholars.

Horelli, L. 2007. “Constructing a Theoretical Framework for Child-Friendliness.” Children, Youthand Environments 14 (4): 267–292.

James, A., C. Jenks, and A. Prout. 1998. Theorising Childhood. Oxford, UK: Policy Press.Jansson, M. 2008. “Children’s Perspectives on Public Playgrounds in Two Swedish Communities.”

Children, Youth and Environments 18 (2): 88–109.Kearns, R. A., D. C. A. Collins, and P. M. Neuwelt. 2003. “The Walking School Bus: Extending

children’s Geographies.” Area 35 (3): 285–292.Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart. 1988. The Action Research Planner. Victoria: Deakin University.Kernan, M. 2010. “Space and Place as a Source of Belonging in Urban Environments: Considering

the Role of Early Childhood Education and Care Settings.” European Early Childhood Educa-tion Research Journal 18 (2): 199–213.

Kotsanas, C. 2009. “Sustaining Children’s Participation in Early Childhood Settings? Discourse,Power and the ‘Danger’ of Participation Practices.” Masters of Education diss., University ofMelbourne.

Kruger, J. S. 2002. “‘We Know Something Someone doesn’t Know’: Children Speak out on LocalConditions in Johannesburg.” Environment and Urbanization 14 (2): 85–96.

Lim, M., and A. C. Barton. 2010. “Exploring Insideness in Urban children’s Sense of Place.”Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (3): 328–337.

Little, H., and S. Wyver. 2008. “Outdoor Play - Does Avoiding the Risks Reduce the Benefits?”Australian Journal of Early Childhood 33 (2): 33–40.

MacNaughton, G., and P. Hughes. 2009. Doing Action Research in Early Childhood Studies: AStep by Step Guide. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

MacNaughton, G., and K. Smith. 2008. “Engaging Ethically with Young Children: Principles andPractices for Consulting Justly with Care.” In Young Children as Active Citizens: Principles,Policies and Pedagogies, edited by G. MacNaughton, P. Hughes, and K. Smith, 31–43.Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.

MacNaughton, G., P. Hughes, and K. Smith, eds. 2008. Young Children as Active Citizens: Princi-ples, Policies and Pedagogies. Newcastle, Australia: Cambridge Scholars.

Malone, K. 2010. “Freeing Children to Contribute: Building Child-Friendly Cities in the Asia-Paci-fic Region.” Early Childhood Matters 115: 20–25.

Mayall, B. 2008. Towards a Sociology for Childhood: Thinking from children’s Lives. Bucking-ham, UK: Open University Press.

Mayall, B., and H. Zeiher, eds. 2003. Childhood in Generational Perspective. London: BedfordWay papers; Institute of Education, University of London.

McAllister, C. 2008. “Child Friendly Cities and Land Use Planning: Implications for children’sHealth.” Environments 36 (3): 45.

Mikkelsen, M. R., and P. Christensen. 2009. “‘Is children’s Independent Mobility ReallyIndependent? A Study of children’s Mobility Combining Ethnography and GPS/Mobile PhoneTechnologies.” Mobilities 4 (1): 37–58.

Morrow, V. 2005. “Ethical Issues in Collaborative Research with Children.” In Ethical Researchwith Children, edited by A. Farrell, 150–165. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

24 K. Smith and C. Kotsanas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

Moss, P. 2007. “Multiplicity, Democracy and Dialogue: From an Early Childhood Education ofPredictable Outcomes to a Childhood Education of Uncertain Possibilities.” InternationalJournal of Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood 5 (1): 20–36.

Nordstrom, M. 2010. “Children’s Views on Child-Friendly Environments in Different Geographi-cal, Cultural and Social Neighbourhoods.” Urban Studies 47 (3): 514.

Prout, A., and A. James. 1990. “A New Paradigm for the Sociology of Childhood? Provenance,Promise and Problems In Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood, edited by A. James andA. Prout. Basingstoke, UK: The Falmer Press.

Ramussen, K., and S. Smidt. 2003. “Children in the Neighbourhood: The Neighbourhood in theChildren.” In Children in the City: Home, Neighbourhood and Community, edited byP. Christensen and M. O’Brien, 82–100. Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Rudner, J., and K. Malone. 2011. “Childhood in the Suburbs and the Australian Dream: How HasIt Impacted children’s Independent Mobility?” Global Studies of Childhood 1 (3): 207–225.

Smith, A.B. 2007. “Children and Young People’s Participation Rights in Education.” InternationalJournal of Children’s Rights 15: 147–164.

Stephen, C. 2003. “What Makes All-Day Provision Satisactory for Three and Four Year Olds?”Early Childhood Development and Care 173 (6): 577–588.

Torres, J., and M. Lessard. 2007. “Community Design with Children in Montreal andGuadalajara.” Municipal Engineer 160 (ME2): 71–76.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. 2005. General comment no. 7: Impementing childrights in early childhood. viewed 5 August 2013, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/comments.htm

United Nations. 1989. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Geneva: United Nations.Uprichard, E. 2008. “Children as ‘Being and Becomings’: Children, Childhood and Temporality.”

Children & Society 22: 303–313.Waller, T. 2006. “”Don’t Come Too close to My Octopus Tree”: Recording and Evaluating Young

children’s Perspectives on Outdoor Learning.” Children, Youth and Environments 16 (2):75–104.

Warming, H. 2003. “Quality of Life from a child’s Perspective.” International Journal of PublicAdministration 26 (7): 815–829.

Woodhead, M. 2005. “Early Childhood Development: A Question of Rights.” InternationalJournal of Early Childhhood 37 (3): 79–98.

Journal of Urbanism 25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

assa

ndra

Kot

sana

s] a

t 19:

18 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

013