1

How participatory processes impact children and contribute to

planning: A case study of neighbourhood design from Boulder,

Colorado, USA

Author Manuscript, published in Journal of Urbanism: International

Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17549175.2015.1111925

Victoria Derr Program in Environmental Design, University of Colorado, Boulder, U.S.A.

Ildikó G. Kovács School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Canada

Abstract

Young people have much to offer urban planning yet are not often included in such

processes. A unique partnership in Boulder provides a venue for young people’s

participation in city planning. Boulder is in many ways a learning laboratory with

progressive ideals and sustainability thinking. As the city began planning for its

comprehensive housing strategy, tensions about the future of density within the city

emerged. Participatory planning can have significant impacts on children and can also

contribute new ideas to planning processes. In this study, young people demonstrated

attitudinal changes toward government, increased recognition of diverse needs within a

city, and integration of social and environmental sustainability into their

recommendations for neighbourhood planning.

Keywords: urban sustainability, child friendly cities, density, liveable communities,

participatory planning

Introduction

Public engagement is a central component of sustainability: when people help

shape their city, they have greater ownership and commitment to its care and

preservation, which ultimately influences the sustainability of a place (Wheeler 2013).

In order to fully meet sustainability goals, urban development processes and outcomes

2

need to be equitable and socially just (Carroll, Witten, and Kearns 2011; Mueller and

Dooling 2011). This entails participatory planning and the inclusion of all members of

society, especially marginalized groups. Mueller and Dooling (2011) emphasize the

importance of planning that is grounded in existing communities rather than primarily

focused on new residents. While half of the world’s children reside in urban

environments, they are not typically included in planning processes nor in the academic

literature promoting social justice in planning (UNICEF 2012). Child-friendly cities

thus extend social justice via public engagement to include the rights of children and

youth to participate in planning and local decision-making.

Rochecouste and Pearson (2014: 44) suggest that a clearer focus on “people and

place” within urban planning, rather than on design or the built environment itself,

would lead to more resilient and sustainable futures. This paper explores a specific

realm of “people and place” within urban planning – that of increasing urban density

and affordable housing options – by asking children and youth about their current

neighbourhoods as well as their ideas and visions for increasing density within one

neighbourhood in the moderately-dense city of Boulder, Colorado, USA. Young

people’s participation in planning brought a less represented voice to a controversy

concerning how to increase density within the city during the early stages of the city’s

Comprehensive Housing Strategy.

Child-Friendly Cities

Child-Friendly Cities provide a framework for children’s participation in urban

planning and help to broaden the dialogue among residents within a city. Children’s

rights to participation are institutionalized in some countries and are supported

worldwide through UNICEF’s Child Friendly Cities Initiative (UNICEF 2013). In the

1990s, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s

3

(UNESCO’s) Growing up in Cities project began a process for the inclusion of children

in community planning (Chawla 2002) that has been a model for other initiatives

throughout the world. Children who participated in Growing Up in Cities expressed a

common desire for basic services, a variety of activity settings and places to play,

freedom from physical dangers, natural and diverse green spaces, freedom of

movement, and peer gathering spaces (Chawla 2002). These same basic desires have

been further supported by additional research (e.g., Broberg et al. 2013; Carroll et al.

2011; Malone 2013; Ramezani and Said 2013; Whitzman and Mizrachi 2009) (Figure

1). In the initial Growing Up in Cities research, children were ages 9-15. Other studies

(e.g., Malone 2013; Nicotera 2008; Shaffer, Bauer, and Hall 2013) have effectively

included children ages 4 to 15. U.S. grades 3 to 10 (ages 8 to 15) are a common age

range for participation because of these children’s developmental readiness and interest

(Chawla 2002).

In addition, studies repeatedly report children’s desire to participate in city

planning and to be respected within their communities (Chawla 2009; Malone 2013;

Whitzman and Mizrachi 2009). Recent research further suggests that children are

interested in opportunities for active care and stewardship of the places where they live

(Chatterjee 2005; Malone 2013). Child-friendly cities also recognize that children have

the right to access all public spaces, not just those specifically designed for children

(Bourke 2014; Breitbart 2014; Lynch 1977). As well, child-friendly cities promote

children’s rights to be welcomed and to express themselves freely within these spaces

(Derr et al. 2013; Hart 2014). Young people’s rights to public spaces are linked to

healthy social development and well-being (Bourke 2014; Gleeson and Sipe 2006).

Child-friendly cities thus support young people’s participation in physical planning and

decision-making within local government (Driskell 2002).

4

Urban Intensification in American Cities

Cities around the world are including increased density and compact form within their

sustainability goals. New Urbanist, Compact City, and other movements provide

alternatives to urban sprawl and attempt to address environmental, economic, and social

sustainability dimensions through the design of compact, dense, green, mixed-use

environments that enable social interactions, sustainable modes of transportation, and

increased access to services (Wegmann and Chapple 2014; Neuman 2005; Wheeler

2013). Density is believed to alleviate impacts such as greenhouse gasses and vehicle

miles travelled while providing benefits such as land use preservation, increased

affordability, and social capital (Bramley and Power 2006; Wegmann and Chapple

2014; Yang and O’Neill 2014).

Many small and mid-sized cities in the United States thus are intensifying land

use as a means to achieve more sustainable development. Historian Monkkonen (1990)

argues that while the United States is predominantly an urban nation, its identity

remains largely rural. This contradiction makes its way into urban planning that seeks

to increase density and minimize sprawl. Across the U.S., planning that seeks to

increase density raises concerns about human well-being and preservation of character

and sense of place. These concerns stem in part from previous studies that have found

increased density results in social withdrawal (Bramley and Power 2009; Carroll, et al.

2011), higher levels of stress and dissatisfaction (Bramley and Power 2009),

neighbourhood crime (Carroll et al. 2011; Kearns and Collins 2006), traffic pollution

(Freeman and Tranter 2011), and loss of urban green-spaces (Kearns and Collins 2006;

Wheeler 2013). These issues also resonate with parental concerns for children’s safety

(e.g., Cox 2013; Stewart, Vernez Moudon, and Claybrooke 2012). However, the

majority of studies exploring the impacts of density on children are set in cities outside

5

the United States that have different histories and structures than the majority of

American cities undergoing densification today (e.g. Carroll et al. 2011; Ergler and

Kearns 2013; Kearns and Collins 2006; Min and Lee 2006; Whitzman and Mizrachi

2009). Within the U.S. context, these issues are much discussed in social media, but

little research systematically studies their significance.

Similarly, while much urban development is designed to attract the “creative

class,” Millennials, and homeowners without children, the percentage of families with

children in cities is growing in the U.S. (Florida 2011; Phillips 2013). Families and

children are among the least heard or considered in new urban developments.

Prominent journalists have questioned whether children belong in cities (DePillis 2014),

suggesting instead that cities should cater to younger, well-educated adults with

“healthy incomes” who can support urban development and economic growth. DePillis

(2014) questions the value to cities of families who cost money through the services

they require. Thus, who has a say in how cities develop continues to be contested

terrain. Yet participation of a broad range of voices, including those from children, is

an important aspect of sustainability. Tisdall and Bell (2008) suggest that it is precisely

because children are some of the highest users of public services that they should also

participate in the processes that influence these services. Young people not only have a

right to contribute to the places they inhabit and will ultimately inherit, but their

involvement also can lead to greater dialogue and discussion about the liveability of a

city and can offer fresh perspectives for how to address urban issues.

Involvement of young people within the planning process not only addresses

children’s rights and interest in participating in decisions that affect their lives, it also

helps broaden the types of voices within the process. The process of neighbourhood

design within Boulder is used to exemplify this because it is one of the few cities in the

6

United States that has an institutionalized framework for young people’s participation,

thus providing a model for how young people can be integrated into city planning. The

case of how young people engaged in neighbourhood design is particularly significant

because it illustrates the importance of diverse voices in planning processes, particularly

those that address controversial topics such as setting the framework for urban infill for

increased density.

Research Approach and Methods

Framework and Site Selection

Boulder, Colorado is a city of nearly l02, 000 residents (City of Boulder 2014a),

located just below the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. In 1898, Boulder began setting

aside land for preservation, and in 1967, Boulder citizens approved a sales tax for the

purchase of open space land (City of Boulder 2014b). Environmental sustainability has

thus been a value of the city for many decades, with environmental, economic and

social sustainability goals identified in the city’s Comprehensive Master Plan (City of

Boulder 2010). Among these goals are an engaged community that is inclusive,

cooperative, and innovative (City of Boulder 2010). The city also supports the United

Nations framework for child-friendly cities through its Growing Up Boulder initiative

(Derr et al. 2013).

Growing Up Boulder (GUB) is a child- and youth-friendly city initiative that

began in 2009, with the partnering of the City of Boulder, Boulder Valley School

District, and the Program in Environmental Design at the University of Colorado. The

initiative also includes other youth-serving organizations to increase its reach and scope

(Derr et al. 2013). Growing Up Boulder is based on the methods and approaches of

Growing Up in Cities (Chawla 2002; Driskell 2002), which used a participatory

planning framework. Participatory planning gives voice to people who will be most

7

affected by decisions, including young people, and it draws on the knowledge,

experience, and perspectives of people who inhabit the planning area. GUB has used

many of the methods employed by Growing Up in Cities (Derr et al. 2013; Driskell

2002) but also draws from new innovations in participatory design (Derr et al. 2013;

GUB 2014). As a partnership, city leaders often identify projects they would like young

people to engage with in the planning process. It is then largely up to GUB staff to

identify partners appropriate for the particular planning topic and to carry out the

outreach and analysis.

In anticipation of the city’s Comprehensive Housing Strategy, the City of

Boulder asked GUB to explore the question, “what does child-friendly, dense,

affordable housing look like for the City of Boulder?” For the city, the housing

strategy seeks to identify mechanisms to strengthen affordable housing for low- to

moderate-income households, expand housing options for middle-income households,

and explore innovations in housing options (City of Boulder 2014a). Increasing

housing options within Boulder will require infill and increased density because the

city’s growth is bounded by surrounding open space.

The City of Boulder is often considered progressive in its planning initiatives.

Yet even within such a city, conflicts emerge when planning for the city’s future. On

the one hand are voices wanting to limit growth and infill (e.g., Renfroe 2014) and on

the other are those wishing to intensify land use to provide a liveable city, where those

with low- to-moderate income can both work and live (e.g., Keasling 2014, Poinsatte

2014).

Growing Up Boulder chose to develop outreach that would address the

comprehensive housing strategy’s goals by focusing on density and affordability while

also emphasizing young people’s ideas for child-friendly neighbourhood design. GUB

8

chose a single site because it would provide an intelligible scale for both primary and

secondary school students while being large enough to begin to consider the integration

of housing into a larger neighbourhood and urban fabric. The entire site included 40

acres of land for potential development as well as 20 acres of riparian corridor and

floodplain along Boulder Creek that would remain largely undeveloped. The site is

currently home to Athens Court, which provides graduate student and family housing

for the University of Colorado. Adjacent to the housing site are single family homes

and Whittier International Elementary School (a primary school) to the north and

Boulder High School (a secondary school) to the west (Figure 2). Further from the site

but still in the primary school catchment area is a mobile home park, large apartment

complex, co-housing site, and public housing site. Primary school students lived in all

housing types.

In September of 2013, Boulder experienced a 100-year flood and “1000-year

rain” event (Brennan and Aquilar 2013). The entire Boulder community was impacted

by the flood, with evacuations, significant home damage from flooding and debris, and

home and property loss. Families in Athens Court were evacuated (Brennan and Aquilar

2013). This experience resulted in heightened interest in flood mitigation and

protection at the start of the project.

Project Overview

During the fall of 2013, both primary and secondary school students participated in a

“Great Neighbourhoods” curriculum. A total of 52 primary school students (ages 8-9)

and 16 secondary school students (ages 14-15) participated in the study. Ages were

selected to represent potential differences in perspectives between primary and

secondary school students. In its work, GUB uses the term “young people” to refer to

9

people under the age of 18. This provides a single term for mixed ages of children but

is socially more tenable to secondary school students.

Primary school students attend a school which receives federal assistance

because it has a higher than average percentage of students who receive free or reduced

cost lunches and are English language learners. These are general socioeconomic

measures used in U.S. schools as proxies for income levels that are not fully adequate to

support a family (BVSD 2014). The secondary school students who participated in this

process were a part of the Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) program,

which provides mentoring and support for students who wish to attend university for

post-secondary education but whose families may not have. In Boulder, these students

tend to come from recently immigrated, ethnically diverse, and/or low-income families.

GUB consistently targets school programs and classrooms that reach a greater

proportion of children from low-income and ethnically diverse families to help bring

Boulder’s least heard voices to city planning (Derr et al. 2013). GUB’s approach and

lessons learned in working with youth from marginalized populations are described in

detail in a previous publication (Derr et al. 2013). GUB also seeks school partners

whose curricula is sufficiently flexible and aligned with particular planning topics so

that the project is meaningful for teachers, students, and the city.

Primary school students engaged in a diversity of methods to consider their

existing neighbourhoods, modes of transportation and places they travel (through

drawings), understand exemplary neighbourhoods (through independent research,

presentations, films, and field trips), and to develop recommendations for the Athens

Court housing site as a case study in increased density (through drawings, three-

dimensional models, and digital presentations) (Table 1, Figure 3). Following their

presentations, students wrote reflection papers about what they had learned. Secondary

10

school students also learned about sustainable neighbourhood design, used photography

to analyse the housing site, and developed presentations for city and university staff

(Table 1, Figure 3). Due to differences in available time and age of participants,

primary school students participated in more methods than secondary school students.

GUB staff developed and adapted methods in collaboration with teachers to adapt to

students’ learning and interests and to make the methods as relevant and accessible as

possible.

In the spring of 2014, primary and secondary school students shared their ideas

and participated in a series of design reviews and dialogues with undergraduate students

at the University of Colorado’s Program in Environmental Design. The undergraduate

students were enrolled in a praxis studio that was exploring the same question of how to

design child-friendly, dense, affordable housing. University architects, city planners

and urban designers also participated in final design reviews with the secondary school

students. Results of this praxis are reported elsewhere (Derr 2015; GUB 2014). In the

fall of 2014, the results of both stages of the project were shared through a written

report (GUB 2014) and public presentation to approximately 20 city representatives,

including those from Boulder’s housing division, community planning department,

planning board, and design board to help further integrate young people’s ideas into the

Comprehensive Housing Strategy.

Project Introduction. As an introductory activity children were asked to individually

create a picture of their home, its surroundings, and their favourite nearby places.

Children were instructed to draw their home and then to draw pictures that represented

school, after-school, and weekend activities. These drawings were important for

establishing children’s knowledge about places and neighbourhoods as a starting point

for engagement. They were used to prime students for participation and to engage in

11

discussion about the types of housing students currently reside within more than to

collect data to be used in the housing strategy.

After these initial drawings, GUB staff introduced the topic of density through a

presentation. GUB staff used an interactive presentation to develop a definition of

dense, affordable housing. The presentation used visual examples of varying housing

types, building heights, configurations of yards versus shared green space, and cities

with varying densities. The presentation was given to both primary and secondary

school students and was adapted to be age appropriate for each group.

Field Trips with Photovoice. Primary school students visited an award-winning

affordable infill development, Red Oak Park (ULI 2014), that was within walking

distance from the students’ school. Secondary school students visited the Athens Court

housing site to learn about the history of its development, modifications over time,

placement in the floodplain, and renovations after the flood. Both primary and

secondary school students used the photovoice method to identify aspects of the

existing housing site they liked or would change. In this method students photographed

details of the physical environment and framed them in green to designate areas they

liked, or red for areas they did not like (Derr et al. 2013).

Guest Lectures and Films. Both primary and secondary school students watched

the film The Nature of Cities, which presents exemplary neighbourhood design from

Europe and the United States. Primary school students also worked with professionals

and parents with relevant professions. These visitors were architects, engineers, and

flood mitigation specialists. They worked with small groups of children to develop

their ideas during initial stages of design.

Models. Primary school students created models (a single model per class for a

total of 3) to communicate and synthesize their most salient and important ideas for

12

dense, affordable housing in Boulder. Students worked together to determine

appropriate materials for the model; to determine design details, such as locations of

various elements, colours and materials; and to build the model. Models were made

from recycled and repurposed materials, with some labelling of elements.

Digital Presentations. Both primary and secondary school students worked in

groups within their individual classrooms to develop a digital presentation using

software such as Power Point or Prezi. Each group had team members conduct

independent research that represented housing and mixed use, landscape, and

transportation. Students used images and text to describe their recommendations for

dense, affordable housing. Students presented their ideas to city staff, city council

members, and university faculty and school administrators at the end of the project.

Reflection Essays. After their final presentations, primary school students

provided written reflections on the following questions: (1) What was your favourite

part of the project and why?; (2) What have you learned about designing dense,

affordable housing?; (3) What makes a child-friendly community?; and (4) What were

your greatest challenges doing this project, and how did you work to overcome them?

Students completed specific answers to these questions in 1-3 sentences. As an

example, in response to the question about her favourite part of the project, one student

wrote, “My favourite part was when we built the Athens Court model because I enjoyed

making trees and everyone worked together!”

Child-friendly Cities Assessments. In addition to the project-specific methods,

both primary and secondary school students completed pre- and post-project

assessments using a subset of questions from the Child-Friendly Cities and

Communities Assessment Toolkit (IRC/CERG 2011). Pre-tests were administered on

the first day of the project. Post-tests were given after the final presentation to city

13

officials. The 3-item questionnaire addressed children’s level of participation and

citizenship:

(1) “I help with projects to change my community;”

(2) “I am involved in planning or decisions for the community;” and

(3) “The government (city council, mayor, etc.) asks me my opinions about my

life or my community.”

Questions were answered on a 3-point Likert scale, with the options ‘Never

True,’ ‘Sometimes True,’ and ‘Mostly True.’ This 3-point scale was part of the original

tool and makes the assessment more accessible for children and youth than a 5-point

scale.

Limitations of the Study. While GUB seeks out partners that bring diverse

perspectives to participatory processes, this research is limited in its relatively small

number of students who do not necessarily represent all demographics or perspectives

within the city. Young people also participated within their classroom environments

and thus could be influenced by others’ ideas and opinions or the opinions of experts

and exemplary materials, such as case studies and films. While a limitation in research,

hearing others ideas and learning from each other are central purposes of participatory

planning. This research is also situated in a particular city, with its own political and

geographic contexts. Results might differ in other cities of varying sizes and contexts.

Analysis

Models and Digital Presentations. We used content analysis to generate data-

driven themes (Glaser and Strauss 1967). We tallied how frequently themes were

presented in the models and presentations, thus suggesting issues of greatest salience to

the most youth.

14

Reflection Papers. We analysed primary school students’ reflection papers

using content analysis of individual responses (Glaser and Strauss 1967). For each

question, we counted the number of individual responses in each theme. If the same

individual represented a theme more than once, we counted it only once. We then sorted

themes based on frequency, again to show themes that most commonly emerged from

children.

Child-friendly Cities Assessments. To analyse the assessments, we used

descriptive statistics. Because our data did not meet assumptions of normality, we used

the non-parametric independent samples Mann-Whitney test to assess the difference

between pre- and post-test scores using statistics software (SPSS ver. 22). We used an

independent samples test because the majority of participants’ pre- and post-test scores

were anonymous, and therefore could not be paired.

Results

Benefits of Young People’s Participation

In their final reflections, a total of 42 primary school children answered the

question “What have you learned about dense, affordable housing?” The majority of

answers fit into one or more of three sustainability categories: environmental

sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability (Table 2). The majority

of primary school students defined “dense, affordable housing” with a literal definition,

such as “dense means houses are close together, and affordable means you can pay it”

or “I learned dense, affordable housing can be close together and cheap but still

comfortable.”

Roughly a quarter of primary school students defined “dense, affordable

housing” as “meeting diverse needs.” Other similar statements include “different

people like different kinds of homes” or “you need different housing for different

15

people.” Their understanding of these differences extended to housing type and size;

types and costs of materials used in building a home; and types of yards, landscaping,

and nearby amenities people desire. This understanding came from hearing about other

students’ homes, through their initial drawings; through discussions of housing

materials; and through peer-to-peer dialogue in making decisions and compromising in

order to construct a single physical model of the neighbourhood.

In their final reflections, primary school students were also asked to describe

what makes a child-friendly community. As with their housing recommendations, the

most frequent response was that child-friendly cities provide ample parks and

playgrounds, as well as pools and play equipment (Table 3). These responses were

focused on physical infrastructure rather than opportunities for play. Nature was

consistently mentioned as an element of play spaces in child-friendly cities (“a big

playground and skate park for older kids, and a lot of trees to climb and play in”), as

well as its own category (“the delicious fruits in our garden”). The next most common

response was for safety features (Table 3). Among these, the majority requested

freedom from cars: “Somewhere where you are safe where a lot of fun things are. And

cars are kept away.” Children emphasized physical infrastructure more often than

social factors in their descriptions of child-friendly cities; however, a small number of

children did identify respectful and friendly people as components of child-friendly

cities – “showing respect and cooperating makes a child-friendly community”(Table 3).

Methods of Participation

Primary school students most enjoyed making models. This was partially because it

provided the opportunity to make things but also because of the team work and

cooperation it provided: “My favourite was when we made the Athens Court model

because you got to share ideas and build the model and you had to cooperate because

16

everybody helped.” The remaining responses were spread over a number of activities,

including field trips, drawing, watching an urban design video, or making presentation

slides.

Greatest Challenges

Students found model-making to be the most challenging process with decision making

(e.g., selecting materials, placing and prioritizing elements) a close second. Team work

(including compromise, cooperation, and listening) was the most common means of

overcoming challenges, followed by application of a specific skill. The most

challenging activity (model-making) was also the most favoured. As one primary

student reflected, “My challenge was thinking of our design because everybody

disagreed. I overcame this challenge by civil discourse.” These results suggest a

diversity of methods may be important in reaching children with different skills and

interests, but also that group projects are important in learning about team work and

decision making.

Child-Friendly City Assessments

Forty-eight primary-school children completed the Child Friendly Cities (CFC)

questionnaire. Due to missing data item two had 47 responses, while item three had 46

post-assessment responses. Primary school students reported significantly higher levels

of participation in community projects (item one, p < 0.05), involvement in planning

and decision-making (item two, p < 0.001), and a belief that the government cares about

their life and their community (item three, p < 0.001) during post-tests (Table 4).

Fifteen secondary school students completed the CFC pre-assessment

questionnaire, and sixteen secondary school students completed the post-assessments.

Secondary school students reported slight, but statistically insignificant increases in

their levels of community involvement (item one) and participation in decision making

17

(item two) during post-tests. A significant difference was found between pre and post-

test results for the statement “The government asks me my opinions about my life or my

community” (p < 0.05) (Table 4).

Young People’s Contributions to Planning for Density

Overall, primary and secondary school students provided a great deal of overlap in their

recommendations. Both groups most frequently requested diverse natural areas

integrated into play and recreation spaces and also called for features that promote

sustainability, mixed use, and safety (Table 5). Children and youth repeatedly requested

an integration of features rather than discrete zones of use by different ages. They also

wanted to see natural features woven through the development, through plantings,

gardens, fruit trees, and wild zones (Figures 4 and 5). These features were all within the

housing site and in a short walking distance and so would allow for independent

mobility. Students also requested that play areas be accessible from housing areas

without crossing roads.

A common primary student recommendation for flood mitigation was the use of

hills and berms to create a natural rise in topography to keep waters away from the

housing site (Figure 5, foreground). This feature was of particular interest to children

because it also had the potential to be used for sledding, biking, rolling and other active

play during low-water periods (Figure 6).

Students also recommended diverse housing types, generally preferring a 4-

storey limit. They requested bright and diverse colours for homes, “so people don’t get

lost in a maze if there are identical homes.” Students also expressed an awareness of the

importance of maintenance and stewardship, as represented by this third grader:

“Everyone who eats from our garden needs to take care of it.” Through their models,

students also presented a variety of ways to organize features, sometimes using a u-

18

shape or circular arrangement. One student reflected, “I am most proud that our houses

are [organized] in circles, and that we have two different housing types.” This concept

was later rendered by a university student (Figure 7).

Discussion

How the Process Impacted Children

One of the strengths in the participatory process was the number of opportunities for

dialogue. Throughout the entire process, primary school students had opportunities to

discuss issues with Growing Up Boulder’s undergraduate and graduate interns and staff,

with housing planners, architects and managers, city council members and city planners.

Each group also had on-going dialogue with undergraduate design students and faculty.

Frequently participatory planning gives emphasis to physical features and tangible

outcomes, yet the young people in this study also valued many intangible outcomes.

This is consistent with other participatory processes with children, which identify

benefits of feeling heard, having opportunities for dialogue or perceiving new pathways

for life (Chawla 2009; Nicotera 2014). Based on more than 20 years of research in

children’s participation, Hart (2014) suggests that such dialogue is important between

peers as well as among children, adults and professionals. Both primary and secondary

school students in this study valued these experiences, with more than a third of primary

school students saying it was their favourite part of the entire process.

Also of significance were the impacts on secondary school students. In the

child-friendly assessments, secondary school students’ responses were lower than

primary school students for all measures that relate to feeling heard and making

contributions both before and after the project. Primary school students more openly

express their enthusiasm for the participatory process than their more reserved older

counterparts. This effect is not particularly surprising. For primary school students, the

19

opportunity to participate in field trips and model-making and to share their views was

exciting. They saw the process as engaging and contributing to the city where they live.

Secondary school students have a more nuanced and critical understanding of the actual

contributions they are making. Yet participation in the project had a high level of

significance on secondary school students’ views of being heard by government. This

difference in their response helps demonstrate the importance of processes that allow

youth to be heard. This can be particularly important for youth, who frequently feel

alienated and excluded from broader society. In her critique of child-friendly cities

research, Freeman (2006, 77) emphasizes that feeling included matters “because the

public realm is where children and young people learn about society, where they

explore it, observe it, absorb its values, and gain a sense of belonging.”

Secondary school students may have had a significant response to the question

of whether the government listens because city representatives came to their classroom,

actively listened, asked questions, and showed that they cared. For many students, this

was their first contact with “the city.” In a previous planning initiative, Growing Up

Boulder engaged two similar cohorts of secondary school students. One of the groups

similarly presented information to city staff and had opportunities for dialogue with

small groups of city council and city staff members. The second group, due to

extenuating circumstances, did not receive this connection to city representatives. The

former group showed a dramatic increase in their belief that the city listened to their

ideas. In the latter, there was no such increase. While other factors may have also

contributed to these differences, such as variations in children’s interest in the project,

GUB learned the importance of providing this direct connection between students and

city representatives. The results presented in this article similarly suggest the

importance of this interaction in shaping young people’s views of city government.

20

This may be particularly significant for secondary school students in the AVID

program. Research on young people’s (ages 8 to 14) resilience has found that while

children may have social capital among their peers and families, they can often lack the

bridging capital which may help them succeed (Hill et al. 2008). Changes in young

people’s perceptions as to whether the city is listening to their ideas or concerns may

help provide important bridges for participation or social services that can support

young people’s social resilience.

Secondary school students did not show significant change in the direction of

their responses for the other questions. These questions also were less directly linked to

project outcomes. Students engaged in a planning process directly with the city, but

they did not have opportunities to make tangible changes to a place. The long time

frame of such a planning initiative is also hard for young people; secondary school

students may be adults by the time a strategy is adopted or implemented. Thus, it is not

particularly surprising that students showed little change in their response to these

questions. The child-friendly assessments provide consistent data across GUB’s work;

however, the questions do not fully address the benefits students received from the

project. For example, some secondary school students expressed interest in pursuing a

post-secondary degree in environmental design as a result of their exposure to the

project. GUB plans to develop a more effective assessment tool to address this gap.

Both primary and secondary school students responded positively to

opportunities to engage in meaningful dialogue and decision-making. Frequently young

people are viewed as future citizens, not as existing citizens who possess creative and

constructive ideas (Breitbart 2014; Nicotera 2014). This study suggests that young

people are more than capable of meaningful contributions.

Contributions to Neighbourhood Design for Increased Density

21

Students’ recommendations for child-friendly cities are consistent with previous

studies (e.g., Chawla 2002). Both primary and secondary school students wanted

diverse natural features for play and “hanging out” as well as diverse kinds of

recreational and mixed use spaces. They also desired independent mobility and the

ability to contribute to their community. Young people were open to diverse housing

options, with access to play spaces, friends, and urban amenities all being more

important than housing type. While many of their suggestions fit within the broader

literature of child-friendly cities, they also had specific, place-based recommendations

that can help inform site design and planning in Boulder, such as for flood mitigation or

courtyard design to facilitate social gathering.

Many children’s recommendations (Table 5) came from children’s study of

model neighbourhoods through film and presentations. While this approach might bias

children’s thinking, it also helps them make informed choices. When students saw an

idea that resonated with them, they frequently would take this idea further and provide

reasons for this preference that extended beyond the initial design or function. For

example, while children learned about berms and hills as flood mitigation strategies,

they specifically recommended that these be used for multiple functions – flood

mitigation but also sledding and rolling – and so also recommended specific placement

of these hills to facilitate these uses (Figure 5, foreground). As a second example,

primary school children recommended bright coloured housing, which they saw in the

Red Oak neighbourhood; however, they wanted bright colours specifically for way-

finding, so that they could find their own homes and identify friends’ homes, too. The

secondary students did not tour this housing site but similarly wanted bright housing.

When we asked secondary students why they wanted colour, they spoke of coloured

houses they had seen in other neighbourhoods or cities and expressed an aesthetic

22

preference. Similarly, while many urban design examples showed pedestrian and bike

lanes separated from cars, the students’ recommendations were quite specific to their

experience of Boulder and they were able to identify problems in existing

neighbourhoods, such as parking within mixed use spaces or conflicts on current bike

and pedestrian lanes.

The ideas reflected in Table 5 are thus a composite of children’s learning about

urban design as well as their own reflections of what they would like to see in their own

neighbourhoods. Their specificity also will contribute to the city’s thinking about its

new Design Excellence Initiative (initiated in 2015 in response to residents’ concerns

about housing typologies and design) and will inform upcoming comprehensive plan

updates in 2015. Unique contributions that the primary and secondary students made

include the desire for greater social integration; safer access points to the creek,

interactive creek access, and more opportunities to cross the creek; berms for play as

well as flood mitigation; the integration of green spaces, gardens, and play spaces

throughout the housing areas; greater recreation opportunities near housing areas; and a

desire for affordable mixed uses within safe walking distances. Young people in this

study reflected their ideas for function but also design and form of the neighbourhood

through their three-dimensional models. One member of the Boulder Design Advisory

Board reflected that their ideas were new and refreshing and that the challenge will be

for adults to maintain their character as designs are rendered by adults.

Both primary and secondary recommendations are consistent with other studies

in which young people expressed the desire to be integrated into the city (Bourke 2014;

Breitbart 2014; Lynch 1977). Students expressed interest, enthusiasm and innovation

for designs that promote sustainability, build community, and promote efficiency. Both

groups of students wanted to be integrated into society and to have natural and social

23

processes integrated and visible. This is consistent with recent writings that highlight

the significance of this desire for integration, both social (e.g., Bourke 2014; Breitbart

2014) and natural (Astbury 2013). In public spaces, children are more likely to

participate in adult-sanctioned activities, such as meeting friends, talking, or having a

picnic, rather than participate in child-governed, spontaneous play (Bourke 2014). In

order to create child-friendly neighbourhoods that facilitate social integration, more

attention and “permission” to play (as per Bourke 2014) may be needed.

Education for Sustainability

This research builds on the existing notion that child-friendly cities should provide

opportunities for young people to care for and steward their places (Chatterjee 2005;

Malone 2013; Ramezani and Said 2013). Young people in this study thought about

their city in a holistic way, from appropriate use of materials, to renewables and

efficiencies, to recognizing and celebrating the diverse needs of residents. They created

innovative solutions to flood mitigation, with a desire for integration of sustainable and

natural features into the entire fabric of the city. From this standpoint, participants in

this project expressed many of the city’s sustainability goals.

The outcomes of this project are consistent with principles of effective

sustainability education, by providing opportunities for whole-systems thinking and

inviting students to play an active role in considering a sustainable future (Cloud 2014).

Models that promote participatory planning for sustainable cities can enrich the field of

sustainability education by cultivating citizens that understand and can positively

influence a more sustainable society. Longitudinal studies could deepen our

understanding of the long term impacts of participatory planning in this regard.

Understanding the Diverse Needs of a City

24

Both primary and secondary school students came away from the project with an

increased understanding of density and diverse needs within a city. Nearly a quarter of

primary school students also showed a more nuanced understanding of diverse people’s

needs for housing and amenities within a city in their reflection writings. This level of

understanding was probably greater than that represented solely by reflection writings

among the primary school students, since written reflections can be challenging for 8-9

year olds in general, and English language learners in particular. Secondary school

students also demonstrated this understanding in the types of amenities they

recommended in their presentations.

The significance of understanding diverse needs can be seen when contrasting

young people’s understanding with the debate among adults about housing design. The

city’s director of community planning said that he wished many more young people,

and adults, could participate in the participatory processes GUB facilitated, so that

public meetings could shift away from individuals advocating their own positions to

genuine dialogue and active listening. The project offered an opportunity for young

people to learn a more balanced view of citizenship. It also helped young people move

from more dichotomous views common in the public realm to more nuanced

understandings of the complexity of problems. Previous research similarly has

demonstrated that when children participate in public planning processes, they

frequently consider the needs and interests of individuals and groups other than

themselves (Chawla 2002; Derr et al. 2013). In reflecting on the process, city staff

contrasted children’s inclusive thinking with adults who tend to advocate for property

values or personal interests. Through their involvement in the GUB initiative, many

city staff have come to believe that children help facilitate a shift to a process which

supports listening and mutual learning. Future participatory research that involves

25

young people in the consideration of how to incorporate child friendliness into

increased density and development within cities is of significance both within the U.S.

context and internationally. While this study found general consistency with the

elements of a child-friendly city, there were also place specific details that children

provided. Thus continued engagement of children and youth not only could directly

benefit children as citizens but also could help identify shared or divergent features of

child-friendly cities in varying contexts, based on a city’s size, culture, geographic

location, and historic and political contexts.

Conclusion

This paper also emphasizes the value young people bring to participatory

processes and practical solutions to contemporary problems. Participatory planning has

inherent value in creating more sustainable cities. It also offers the potential to

significantly shape young people’s view of government and their role in influencing the

design of their cities. The students in this project demonstrated that they can understand

complex problems, make informed suggestions, and engage in dialogue with a diversity

of other people. It is important for children to develop competence and confidence that

they can learn about and contribute to complex problems in a civic process. It is equally

important for city agencies to value these contributions. This project helped achieve

both these objectives. Future research should include longitudinal studies, which would

help identify the strength of participatory impacts to children over time. Longitudinal

studies over the course of a planning process, from participation through plans, designs

and built neighbourhoods, would also further our understanding of how children’s ideas

might take form in the built environment. Such research could further develop the ways

that children’s participation might contribute to urban planning processes.

26

As young people in this study have defined them, child-friendly cities provide

their citizens with playful spaces, access to nature, sustainable and healthy modes of

transportation, and increased social capital. This research further emphasizes that

young people want to be integrated into city life, not separated from it. These findings

emphasize the need to develop dense and affordable housing where child-friendly urban

characteristics are maintained. Increased density is a reality for many cities. Finding

ways to support child-friendliness within this context thus is a sustainability challenge

and an ethical imperative. More research is necessary to explore the true impacts of

moderate and high density on child-friendly neighbourhoods, especially within the

context of land use changes consistent with those in the United States.

Young people are one stakeholder group among many within an urban planning

process. Yet “the activation of children as political actors has radical potential – to

change the political and policy-making process and outcomes” (Tisdall and Bell 2008:

115). Leaders who recognize the inherent value of young people’s contributions, as well

as the importance of empowering citizens who can work together to solve complex

problems, can influence this potential within their cities.

27

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the many partners who helped make this project a

reality, including Growing Up Boulder coordinator Mara Mintzer; Growing Up Boulder

intern Nathalie Doyle and graduate student Flaminia Martufi; Whittier International

Elementary School teachers Cathy Hill, Lisa O’Brien, Tamar Van Vliet; and Boulder

High School teacher Jennifer Douglas-Larsson; the City of Boulder’s Executive

Director of Community Planning and Sustainability, David Driskell; the University of

Colorado’s Campus Architect, Tom Goodhew; and the many children and youth who

contributed their enthusiasm and ideas to this project The authors thank GUB interns

Nathan Brien, Travis Cobb, Grayson O’Roark, Ivan Patino, and Emily Tarantini for

their assistance with data analysis and presentation of results. The authors also

acknowledge the many partners and people who contribute to Growing Up Boulder,

especially Professors Emeritae Willem van Vliet and Louise Chawla, whose vision has

made this initiative possible.

References

Astbury, Janice. 2013. “Interactive Urban Landscapes for Well-Being and

Sustainability.” In Landscape, Well-Being and Environment,edited by Richard Coles,

and ZoeMillman, 72-86. Abington: Routledge.

Bourke, Jackie. 2014. “‘No Messing Allowed’: The Enactment of Childhood in Urban

Public Space from the Perspective of the Child.” Children, Youth and Environments

24(1): 25-52. Retrieved June 27, 2014 from

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=chilyoutenvi.

BVSD. 2014. Boulder Valley School District: Whittier International Elementary

School. Accessed on April 8, 2014, from

http://www.bvsd.org/elementary/whittier/Pages/whittier.aspx.

Brennan, Charlie, and John Aguilar. 2013. “Eight Days, 1,000-year Rain, 100-year

Flood: The Story of Boulder County’s Flood of 2013.” The Daily Camera. Accessed on

May 25, 2014, fromhttp://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder-

flood/ci_24148258/boulder-county-colorado-flood-2013-survival-100-rain-100-year-

flood.

28

Bramley, Glen, and Sinead Power. 2009. “Urban Form and Social Sustainability: The

Role of Density and Housing Type.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and

Design 36: 30-48. DOI:10.1068/b33129

Broberg, Anna, Marketta Kyttä, and Nora Fagerholm. 2013. “Child-Friendly Urban

Structures: Bullerby Revisited.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 35: 110-120.

Breitbart, Myrna Margulies. 2014. “Inciting Desire, Ignoring Boundaries and Making

Space: Colin Ward’s Considerable Contribution to Radical Pedagogy, Planning and

Social Change.” In Education, Childhood and Anarchism: Talking Colin Ward, edited

by Catherine Burke and Ken Jones, 175-185. Abingdon: Routledge.

Carroll, Penelope, Karen Witten, and Robin Kearns. 2011. “Housing Intensification in

Auckland, New Zealand: Implications for Children and Families.” Housing Studies

26(3):353-367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2011.542096.

Chatterjee, Sudeshna. 2005. “Children’s Friendship with Place: A Conceptual Inquiry.”

Children, Youth and Environments 15(1):1-26.

Chawla, Louise. 2002. Growing Up in an Urbanizing World. New York:

UNESCO/Earthscan Publications.

Chawla, Louise. 2009. “Participation as Capacity Building for Active Citizenship.” Les

Ateliers de L’Ethique4(1): 69-76.

City of Boulder. 2010. “Section 1: Core Values, Sustainability Framework, and General

Policies.” Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. Accessed from the internet on June 6,

2014. https://bouldercolorado.gov/planning/boulder-valley-comprehensive-plan

City of Boulder. 2014a. Comprehensive Housing Strategy. Accessed on June 6, 2014,

from https://bouldercolorado.gov/housing/comprehensive-housing-strategy.

City of Boulder. 2014b. Parks and Recreation History. City of Boulder website.

Accessed on May 25, 2014, from http://www.bouldercolorado.gov.

Cloud, Jaimie. 2014. “The Essential Elements of Education for Sustainability

(EfS).”The Journal of Sustainability Education. Accessed on July 18, 2014 from

http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/spring-2014-the-state-of-the-field/

Cox, A.J. 2013. Shared-Use Pathways Located in Natural Settings within the Urban

Context: A Multiple Case Study Exploring How Design Affects Use by Children.

Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carolina State University. Raleigh, N.C.

DePillis, P. 2014. “It’s Hard to Build Cities for Kids, But Do We Really Need Them?”

The Washington Post, August 18, 2014. Accessed on September 2, 2014 from

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/08/19/its-hard-to-build-cities-

for-kids-but-do-they-really-need-them/

29

Derr, V. 2015. Integrating Community Engagement and Children’s Voices into Design

Education and Community Planning. Co-Design: The International Journal of

CoCreation in Design and the Arts. DOI: 10.1080/15710882.2015.1054842.

Derr, Victoria, Louise Chawla, Mara Mintzer, Debra Flanders-Cushing, and Willem van

Vliet.2013. “A City for All Citizens: Integrating Children and Youth from Marginalized

Populations into City Planning.” Buildings 3: 482-505. Doi:10.3390/buildings3030482.

Driskell, David. 2002. Creating Better Cities for Children and Youth: A Manual for

Participation. London: Earthscan Publications.

Ergler, Christina, and Robin Kearns. 2013. “Children as Explorers: Revealing

Children’s Views on Well-Being in Intensifying Urban Environments.” In Landscape,

Well-being and Environment, edited by Richard Coles, and Zoe Millman, 184-199.

Abingdon: Routledge.

Field, Andy. 2005. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: Sage Publications.

Florida, R. 2011. “The Creative Class.” In The City Reader, 5th Edition, edited by

Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout, 143-149. Routledge.

Freeman, Claire. 2006. “Colliding Worlds: Planning with Children and Young People

for Better Cities.” In Creating Child Friendly Cities: Reinstating Kids in the City, edited

by Brendan Gleeson, and Neil Sipe, 69-85. Abingdon: Routledge.

Freeman, Claire, and Paul Tranter. 2011. Children and Their Urban Environment:

Changing Worlds. London: Earthscan Publications.

Glaser, Barney, and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory:

Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine.

Gleeson, Brendan, and Neil Sipe. 2006. “Reinstating Kids in the City.” In Creating

Child Friendly Cities: Reinstating Kids in the City, edited by Brendan Gleeson and Neil

Sipe, 1-10. Abingdon: Routledge.

Growing Up Boulder (GUB). 2014. Growing Up Boulder’s website. Accessed on May

25, 2014 from http://www.growingupboulder.org.

Hart, Roger. 2014. “Children, Self-governance and Citizenship.” In Education,

Childhood and Anarchism: Talking Colin Ward, edited by Catherine Burke and Ken

Jones, 123-138. Abingdon: Routledge.

Hill, M., K. Turner, M. Walker, A. Stafford and P. Seamon. 2008. “Children’s

Perspectives on Social Exclusion and Resilience in Disadvantaged Urban

Communities.” In Children, Young People and Social Inclusion: Participation for

What?, edited by E.K.M. Tisdall, J.M. Davis, M. Hill and A. Prout, 39-56.

IRC/CERG.2011. Child-Friendly Cities and Communities Assessment Toolkit.

Accessed on June 6, 2014 from: http://www.childwatch.uio.no/projects/activities/child-

friendly-cities-and-communities-research-project/finaltoolkit2011.html

30

Kearns, Robin, and Damian Collins. 2006. “Children in the Intensifying City: Lessons

from Auckland’s Walking School Buses.” In Creating Child Friendly Cities:

Reinstating Kids in the City, edited by Brendan Gleeson and Neil Sipe, 105-120.

Abingdon: Routledge.

Keasling, C. 2014. “Corey Keasling: Can I Live Here Too?” Daily Camera Opinion:

Letters to the Editor. December 2, 2014. Accessed on December 2, 2014 from

http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_27052433/corey-keasling-can-i-live-here-too

Lynch, Kevin. 1977. Growing Up in Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Malone, Karen. 2013. “‘The Future Lies in Our Hands:’ Children as Researchers and

Environmental Change Agents in Designing a Child-friendly Neighbourhood.” Local

Environment 18(3): 372-395.

Min, Byungho, and Jongmin Lee. 2006. “Children’s Neighborhood Place as a

Psychological and Behavioural Domain.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26:51-

71.

Monkkonen, E. H. 1990. America Becomes Urban: The Development of U.S. Cities and

Towns, 1780-1980. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Mueller, Elizabeth J., and Sarah Dooling. 2011. “Sustainability and vulnerability:

Integrating Equity into Plans for Central City Redevelopment.” Journal of Urbanism:

International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 4(3): 201-222. DOI:

10.1080/17549175.2011.633346.

Neuman, Michael. 2005. “The Compact City Fallacy.” Journal of Planning Education

and Research 25:11-26. DOI: 10.1177/0739456X04270466

Nicotera, Nicole. 2008. “Building Skills for Civic Engagement: Children as Agents of

Neighborhood Change.” Journal of Community Practice 16(2): 221-242.

Phillips, S. 2013. “Families Aren’t Leaving Cities, They’re Just Getting Smaller.”

Planetizen, November 18, 2013. Accessed from the internet on December 7, 2014,

http://www.planetizen.com/node/66566

Poinsatte, F. 2014. “Take Another Look at Density.” Daily Camera Opinion: Letter to

the Editor, September 5, 2014. Accessed on December 2, 2014 from

http://www.dailycamera.com/guest-opinions/ci_26468759/take-second-look-at-density

Ramezani, Samira, and Ismail Said. 2013. “Children’s Nomination of Friendly Places in

an Urban Neighbourhood in Shiraz, Iran.” Children’s Geographies 11(1): 7-27.

Renfroe, J. 2014. “Too Much Density.” Daily Camera Opinion: Letter to the Editor,

November 24, 2014. Accessed on December 2, 2014 from

http://www.dailycamera.com/letters/ci_27002410/judy-renfroe-too-much-density

31

Rochecouste, G. and L.J. Pearson. 2014. “Delivering resilient, sustainable cities is all

about people and place.” In Resilient Sustainable Cities: A Future, edited by Leonie J.

Pearson, Peter W. Newton, and Peter Roberts, 44-51. New York: Routledge.

Shaffer, L., A. Bauer, A. Hall. 2013. “Preschoolers as City Planners: A Story of Civic

Engagement from Boulder, Colorado.” Exchange: 70-75.

Stewart, O., A. Vernez Moudon, C. Claybrooke. 2012. “Common ground: Eight factors

that influence walking and biking to school.” Transport Policy 24: 240-248.

Tisdall, E.K.M. and R. Bell. 2008. “Included in Governance? Children’s Participation

in ‘Public’ Decision Making.” In Children, Young People and Social Inclusion:

Participation for What?, edited by E.K.M. Tisdall, J.M. Davis, M. Hill and A. Prout,

103-119.

Urban Land Institute (ULI). 2014. “Red Oak Park – 2012 Global Award for Excellence

Winner.” Accessed from the internet on December 7, 2014, http://uli.org/global-awards-

for-excellence/red-oak-park-2012-global-award-for-excellence-winner/

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2013. “Child-Friendly Cities Initiative.”

Accessed from the internet on January 22, 2014, http://childfriendlycities.org.

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2012. Children in an Urban World. The

State of the World’s Children. New York. Accessed from the internet on December 27,

2014, www.unicef.org.

Wegmann, Jake, and Karen Chapple. 2014. “Hidden Density in Single-Family

Neighborhoods: Backyard Cottages as an Equitable Smart Growth Strategy.” Journal

of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 7(3):

307-329.

Wheeler, Stephen M. 2013. Planning for Sustainability: Creating Livable, Equitable

and Ecological Communities. New York: Routledge.

Whitzman, Carolyn, and Dana Mizrachi. 2009. “Final Report. Vertical Living Kids:

Creating Supportive High-rise Environments for Children in Melbourne, Australia.”

Accessed from the internet on May 26, 2014,

http://www.abp.unimelb.edu.au/files/miabp/docs/vertical-living-kids.pdf.

Yang, Yizhao, and Kelly O’Neill. 2014. “Understanding Factors Affecting People’s

Attitudes Toward Living in Compact and Mixed-Use Environments: A Case Study of a

New Urbanist Project in Eugene, Oregon.” Journal of Urbanism: International

Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 7(1): 1-22.

32

Table 1. Methods employed with each school group

Primary School Secondary School

Drawings

Presentations and films about exemplary neighborhoods, green building, and green cities

Model making

Field trips with photovoice

Independent research

Reflection Writing

Presentations to city staff and officials

Dialogue with university undergraduates

Dialogue with university architects and city staff

Child-friendly cities assessment

33

Table 2. Primary Students’ Responses to “What have you learned about dense, affordable housing?” (N=43). Individual responses may be represented in more than one category.

Response sub-category Frequency (%)*

Description of dominant responses

Environmental Sustainability

22 (51%)

Requires less land or resources More energy efficient More use of sustainable modes of transport

Social Sustainability 22 (51%) Meets the diverse needs of people Has shared social space available Mixed use (retail and housing close together) Pedestrian and bicycle friendly

Economic sustainability 19 (44%) More affordable because: Building material and land costs are

lower

Bills are lower (due to energy efficiency)

34

Table 3. Primary Students responses to “What makes a child-friendly community?”

(N=45). Individual responses may be represented in more than one category

Category Number of Responses (%)

Parks, playgrounds, pools, and play equipment (physical spaces)

38 (84%)

Safety, especially freedom from cars

24 (53%)

Opportunities for play

11 (24%)

Nature

9 (20%)

Healthy habits (such as exercising and not smoking)

8 (18%)

Respect, cooperation, friendly people

6 (13%)

Social opportunities

2 (4%)

No pollution

2 (4%)

Commercial spaces

1 (2%)

Diverse housing

1 (2%)

35

Table 4. Independent-samples Mann Whitney test results for CFC Assessment scores of

primary and secondary school students

Item Group Pre-test (0-2

Likert scores)

Post-test (0-2

Likert scores)

Significance.

(1) “I help with projects to change my community”

Primary School Mdn = 1

N = 48

Mdn = 2

N = 48

0.029

Secondary School

Mdn = 1

N = 15

Mdn = 1

N = 16

Ns

(2) “I am involved in planning or decisions for the community”

Primary School Mdn = 1

N = 48

Mdn = 2

N = 47

0.002

Secondary School

Mdn = 1

N = 15

Mdn = 1

N = 16

Ns

(3) “The government (city council, mayor, etc.) asks me my opinions about my life or my community”

Primary School Mdn = 1

N = 48

Mdn = 2

N = 46

0.001

Secondary School

Mdn = 0

N = 15

Mdn = 1

N = 16

0.015

36

Table 5. Summary of Student Recommendations for Dense, Affordable Housing

(Items are listed in the order of frequency with which they were requested)

Elements Primary School Student Recommendations

Secondary School Student Recommendations

Natural Gardens, diverse & abundant vegetation, animals, hills, fruit trees, access to creek for play

More wild spaces, diverse & abundant vegetation, garden

Play and Recreation Play equipment, picnic & gathering areas, nature & water play, indoor & outdoor recreation facilities

Play equipment, picnic & gathering areas, nature play, indoor & outdoor recreation facilities, hang-out spaces by the creek

Sustainability Flood mitigation & play, recycling center, roof garden, solar panels, bike & walking paths, alternative transportation options, water efficiency, green roofs

Flood mitigation, bike, walking, long-boarding paths, alternative transportation options

Mixed Use Coffee shops, community centers, ice cream shops, pet care

Coffee shops, community centers, ice cream shops, and affordable teen hangout spaces with food

Housing Apartments, co-housing, single-family homes, townhomes, colorful buildings

2-4 storeys high, front & back yards, underground parking, colorful buildings

Safety & Health Clear separation of bikes & cars, no smoking, safety from cars, personal safety, opportunities for exercise

Clear separation of bikes & cars, personal safety

37

List of Figures

Figure 1. Characteristics of a Child-Friendly City

Figure 1. Child-Friendly Cities provide young people with: Access to health & basic services

Safe & secure environments

Natural & diverse green spaces

Freedom of movement (independent

mobility)

Peer gathering spaces

Integration into their community, not just

to child-designated spaces

Opportunities to participate in the design

and planning of their community

Opportunities to learn about and care for

their community

38

Figure 2. Context Map

39

Figure 3. Timeline and overview of methods

40

Figure 4. Primary school student model showing array of green features

41

Figure 5. Primary school student model showing hills for flood mitigation and play

42

Figure 6. Primary school student recommendations for hills as flood mitigation and

play, as rendered by university student (courtesy Nathalie Doyle)

43

Figure 7. Primary school student preference for housing arrangements, as rendered by

university student (courtesy Shane Powers)