Journal of Environmental Psychology (2002) 22, 157^169

0272 - 4944/02/$-see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd

doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0248, available online at [Link] on

SEVEN REALMS OF CHILDREN’S PARTICIPATION

MARK FRANCIS1 AND RAY LORENZO2

1
University of California, Davis, U.S.A.
2
Milano, Italy

Abstract

Children’s participation in city planning and design has enjoyed increased interest among policy makers, de-
signers, and researchers. This activity builds on a well-established body of research and practice that suggests
that urban environments are best planned with the direct participation of children and youth. We believe that
this work has reached a stage of maturity in need of critical re£ection and review so that it can be more
e¡ective in the future.
This paper presents a historical and critical review of children’s participation in city planning and design.
Past participatory e¡orts with children are discussed as seven realms or approaches to their child participa-
tion. We characterize these realms as advocacy, romantic, needs, learning, rights, institutionalization, and
proactive. We propose a seventh, proactive realm as a more integrative and e¡ective way to involve children
in design and planning. Utilizing the authors’ own projects as brief case studies as well as research of others,
bene¢ts as well as limits to participation are identi¢ed. Special emphasis is placed on developing critical
theory that can be used in future research and practice. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd

Introduction children and youth. While there are important de-

velopmental di¡erences and methods that work best
The participation of children in city design has be- with di¡erent age groups, the principles relate to all
come increasingly popular and common. Many ci- ages from early childhood to adolescence. Planning
ties from Berkeley, California to Milan in Italy is meant to include all activities of the design and
have involved children in city planning and design planning process including programming, design,
processes. Some cities have also implemented chil- planning, construction, and evaluation. Research
dren’s ideas into plans and policies. Inter and policy has addressed the needs of children
national organizations such as UNICEF promote growing up in cities (Ward, 1978; Lynch, 1978) and
children’s participation as the best way to make in the country (Ward, 1988). These have included
cities more friendly and sustainable (UNICEF, studies of playgrounds (Perez & Hart, 1980) and
2000). At the same time, considerable research playground safety (Frost, 1985), schoolyards (Adams,
has been done on the value of children’s parti- 1990; Young, 1990; Ward Thompson, 1995), preschools
cipation in planning and design (Hart, 1992). (Fj
rtoft & Sageie, 2000), and neighbourhood spaces
This research and action has matured to a point (Francis et al., 1984, Homel & Burns, 1987). In addi-
where it can bene¢t from a more historical and tion, researchers have examined more non-tradi-
critical review. tional settings including healing landscapes
(Marcus & Barnes, 1999; Aiken et al., 1995), the rela-
tionship between children and plants (Moore, 1993;
Research on children, participation Harvey, 1989; AHS, 1994), children and animals
and city design (Melson et al., 1991), and children and gardens
(Jekyll, 1990). Studies have also explored child-friendly
Past work has addressed a number of urban settings cities (Horelli, 1998), new urbanism (Calthorpe, 1993),
important for children. By children we include both and healthy landscapes (Bedard, 2000).
158 M. Franas and R. Lorenzo

TABLE 1 TABLE 2
A typology of designed and planned places for children Some dimensions of child-friendly environments drawn from
past research
Institutional places
Daycare Accessibility
Schools Diversity
Schoolyards Control
Sports parks Mixed use
Theme parks Adventure
Public spaces Safe but not without risk
Streets Meaning
Sidewalks Autonomy
Parks Socialization
Trails Convivial
Malls Serendipity
Waterfronts Participation
Beaches
Private spaces
Home
Cars
Found places
Vacant lots discoveries of the importance of naturalistic play
Natural areas (Hart, 1978; Deveraux, 1991; Wood, 1993) and chan-
Waterfronts ging memories of childhood (Cooper, 1978; Korpela,
Street corners
1991; Sobel, 1990). Research has focused on children’s
Found/o¡ limits paces
Discovery/adventure places fears of city places (Woolley et al., 2000), perceived
Vacant lots and actual crime (White et al., 1987), and tra⁄c
Wilderness (Sandels, 1975). This research has identi¢ed some es-
Urban wilderness sential ingredients in creating environments for
Natural areas
children. See Table 2 for some of the dimensions
New and innovative
Community gardens needed for child-friendly environments.
School gardens There is also now much good theory on the impor-
City farms tance of healthy and accessible cities for children
Greenways (Gaster, 1991). This includes general theories of chil-
Skate parks
dren and cites (Parr, 1967; Noschis, 1995) theories of
Town trails
Front porches the geography of childhood (Hart, 1978; Nabhan &
Cyberspace Trimble, 1994; Holloway & Valentine, 2000) and
more basic psychological theories (Gorlitz et al.,
1998; Wohlwill & Heft, 1987). In addition, some stu-
dies have been focused on children experience and
sense of place and place attachment (Hiss, 1990).
Past research has explored a wide variety of Others have examined environmental problems
places for children including traditional public facing children such as toxic materials and
spaces such as schools, parks, playgrounds and the health e¡ects of pollution (Roberts &
streets (Brown & Burger, 1984; Altman & Zube, Dickey, 1995; Sattertwaite et al., 1996). More
1989; Carr et al., 1992; Spencer 1987) and newer, recently studies have explored the growing
more innovative forms such as community gardens, dependence of children on cyberspace (Valentine &
natural areas and greenways (AHS 1994; Francis et Holloway, 2000).
al., 1984). The success of these places has also been
found to depend on the active involvement in chil-
dren and other users in their initiation, design and
management. Table 1 presents a typology of some of Children and participation
the urban places most important for children today.
A variety of issues have been identi¢ed that face What began largely as an advocacy process on the
children growing up in cities today. They include part of adults to expose the needs and defend the
more fundamental issues such as the disappearance rights of children in design and planning has now
of childhood (Winn, 1983; Postman, 1994) and a become more of an accepted and mainstream ap-
child’s right to play (Rivkin, 1995). These also include proach to planning. While not all environments are
 Realms of Children’s Participation 159

trol over their daily lives. We refer here principally

to childhood in developed countries, although there
are some signs that these issues are entering the
lives of children in developing countries as well.
In the western world including the United States
and many parts of Europe, childhood has become
increasingly structured and controlled leading some
to suggest that childhood no longer exists. Child-
hood today ¢nds little time or place in the contem-
porary city (Lorenzo, 1992, Francis, in preparation).
This has resulted in part from parents’ fears about
the safety and security of their children (Blakely,
1994; Frost, 1995; Watt & Stenson, 1998; Scott et al.,
1998; Harden, 2000). Problems of environmental pol-
FIGURE 1 One purpose of participation is to empower children in lution and toxics have also fueled this concern
the making and management of places they use (Rebecca Sever-
(Roberts & Dickey, 1995; Sattertwaite et al., 1996). It
son)
also results from the ‘adultization’ of childhood
where children’s time is ¢lled with organized activ-
ities such as sports, music and scheduled activities.
planned with children in mind or with them directly Increasingly children’s lives are spent in institu-
involved, more and more communities are attempt- tions notably schools and daycare centers. When
ing to include children in design and planning of not in institutional settings, children are, in most
environments they use. This has been a slow evolu- cases, under adult supervision at home, in malls,
tion involving several stages or distinct realms of or in more privatized public places (McKendrick
children’s participation. et al., 2000). Much of their unstructured time is
Children’s participation like participation in de- spent at home or school in front of computers. Play-
sign and planning in general has evolved through grounds have become more ordinary and less chal-
several distinct stages from tokenism to more e¡ec- lenging (Deveraux, 1991). Rarely do children use
tive participation to institutionalization (Hart, 1992; playgrounds without adult supervision today.
Francis, 1999). Advances in thinking and methods in As children are driven more and more to places
user participation in general have aided this evolu- they use, the amount of childhood life is spent in
tion (Davido¡, 1965; Arnstein, 1969). Signi¢cant pro- cars, often stuck in tra⁄c (Alexander, 1993). Tra⁄c
gress has been made on techniques that e¡ectively congestion and danger have kept children from
involve children in design and planning (Moore et using city streets in countries such as the United
al., 1987; Lepore & Lorenzo, 1990, 1993). States, Britain and Italy. According to data released
Additionally, better practices aided by empirical at an international conference in Turin on transport
research and theoretical advances have made more systems, Italians in 2000 were found ‘to spend an
convincing arguments for the value of children’s average seven years of their lives sitting in their
participation (Chawla, 2001; Hart, 1997; Moore, cars and two years in the desperate search for park-
1990). Funding that supports participation in design ing space’. Some three billions hours are reported to
and planning has become more readily available and be lost in tra⁄c jams and the average time spent in
policy that requires participation is more common getting from home to work has risen from 45 min in
(Figure 1). 1994 to over an hour and a quarter in 2000. On the
same day, new car sales in Italy were reported to
have increased for the third month in a row increas-
The changing culture and place of childhood ing 5?6 per cent over the same period in 1999’ (IHT,
2000). Recent research has shown that in several
The development and requirements for participation Italian cities such as Milan and (even) ‘LIVABLE’
has been directly e¡ected by the changing place of Siena, more than 70 per cent of children are driven
childhood (Holloway & Valentine, 2000). Children’s to elementary and middle schools by their parents.
lives have become more structured and controlled The implications of this changing culture of
(Amato, 1989). Their access to the outdoors is more childhood for participation are signi¢cant. As chil-
limited and their use of structured places has in- dren’s lives have become more institutionalized so
creased. The result is that many children lack con- has children’s participation. It requires planners
160 M. Franas and R. Lorenzo

and parents to rethink and modify past approaches and environments (Lorenzo 1983, 1985). This work
to make children stronger advocates for their needs contributed concepts to the children’s rights move-
in planning. ment pointing out important individual as well as
institutional bene¢ts of participation (Boulding,
1969; Nicholson & Lorenzo, 1980). A common method
The seven realms of children’s participation used in this period as well as the needs realm is en-
vironmental autobiography where adults were asked
Looking back at the more than 30 -year history of to remember and draw their favorite childhood
children’s participation in design and planning, sev- places (Chawla, 1986; Soebel, 1990). Progress during
eral stages or realms are evident. While there is sig- this period was celebrated at the ‘Childhood City’
ni¢cant overlap between each of the periods and sessions at the annual meetings of the Environmen-
participants, there are unique di¡erences as well. tal Design Research Association (EDRA), at Inter-
Each period has its own history, identity, theory national Futurists Conventions, and was published
and methods. The development of each realm can in the Childhood City Newsletter (later to become
also be traced to changes in the political and cultur- Children’s Environments Quarterly). One limitation
al context. of this approach is that it often ignored adult input
Some participatory planners have remained com- as part of the participatory process, leading adult
mitted to speci¢c realms while others have contrib- decision makers to overrule the children’s ideas.
uted to the development of new approaches or While this approach to children’s participation been
worked in multiple realms. This is due to the nature not found to be realistic in the context of childhood
of environmental psychology and city design where today, it has led to the development of an under-
people’s disciplinary background range from psy- standing of important concepts of childhood. Much
chology to landscape architecture, child develop- of this ideological focus continues today and can be
ment to planning, geography to urban design. found within other realms of practice and theory
While closely related, an understanding of the spe- (Figure 2).
cial characteristics of each realm may provide a Advocacy realm: ‘p1anners for children’. This peri-
useful starting point to more e¡ective children’s od, overlapping to a large degree with the romantic
participation in the future. Each will be brie£y dis- period, grew out the advocacy planning movement.
cussed including its contributions and limitations. It resulted from planning projects in the 1960s
Table 3 summarizes some the similarities and di¡er- where citizens were not allowed to have a say in
ences of each. projects that a¡ected their lives. First with adults
and later with children, planners became advocates
Romantic realm: ‘children as planners’ Children’s
for the needs of the poor and powerless. While many
participation has its early roots in an ideological
of these e¡orts resulted more in stopping projects
period that saw children as a distinct life stage. It
such as inner city highways and urban renewal pro-
viewed children as active designers and planners
jects than developing new plans and proposals,
with design ideas di¡erent and often better than
some led to positive changes such as the provision
adults. We call this the romantic period as many be-
of recreational space for children. A major limita-
lieved that if only kids were the planners then envir-
tion with this approach is that it was not holistic
onments would be more successful. This grew out of
and ignored the o⁄cial decision making process.
the work of a number of innovative designers and
Other limitations included that children were ‘advo-
researchers in the 1960s and early 1970s including
cated for’ not directly involved in the design pro-
Spivak (1969), Moore (1990, 1993; Moore & Way
cess. Professionals active in the realm include
1997), and Nicholson (1971). They sought to involve
Bishop (1992), Goodey (1979), and Hester (1999). They
children as planners and designers of playgrounds,
contributed important techniques that showed how
community gardens, schools, and other places. It
citizens and children could be e¡ectively involved in
also grew out of early research on adventure play-
large and complex design and planning projects.
grounds in Britain and Denmark where children
Randy Hester (1999) has provided a useful social
built their own play environments (Cooper, 1970).
history of the advocacy planning movement and its
This led some to conclude that children were the
key participants. (Figure 3).
best designers and builders of environments for
themselves. An additional emphasis emerged during Needs realm: ‘social scientists for children’. This has
this period was ‘children as futurists’ where chil- been the most active and published research-based
dren and youth were asked to image future cities periods of children’s participation with work appearing
 Realms of Children’s Participation 161

TABLE 3
The seven realms of children’s participation in city design and planning
1. Romantic
Approach ‘Children as Planners’, ‘Children as Futurists’
Theory Planning ‘by’ children. Children de¢ne and make their own future, often without adult
involvement. Much of the ‘rights’ movement grew out of this approach.
Objectives Child de¢ned cities.
Audience Schools, Communities, Architects and Planners, Futurists
Key participants Individuals: Mayer Spivak, Nanine Clay, Simon Nicholson, Ray Lorenzo Organizations:
World’s Futures Society, World Wildlife Fund, Childhood City
Research advances Contributed important concepts and case studies
Design advances Provided useful ideas about what cities would be like if planned entirely by children. De-
veloped innovative methods and proposed children’s participation as a global issue.
Limitations Relied on children to envision and make their own communities, future environments, etc.
Did not typically involve adults in process.
Status Still practiced by those seeking more child-generated idea of the future. Visioning has be-
come the standard ¢rst step in o⁄cial participatory process such as Agenda 21.

2. Advocacy
Approach ‘Planners for Children’
Theory Planning ‘for’ children with needs advocated by adult planners
Objectives Represent the interests of children by advocating their needs as adult professionals
Audience Citizen group; public planning bodies making decisions and plans that e¡ect children’s
lives
Key participants Individuals: Paul Hogan, Je¡ Bishop, Karl Linn, Randy Hester Organizations: Planners
Network, Association of Community Design Centers, Congress for New Urbanism, some
private and public ¢rms
Research advances Developed politically sophisticated methods and theories of participation
Limitations Not holistic. Often created separate plans and places. No attempt at consensus building
with other interests. Outside those being ‘advocated for’.
Status Largely replaced by other realms

3. Needs
Approach ‘Social Science for Children’
Theory Research-based approach that addresses children’s needs
Objectives De¢ne the spatial needs of children and incorporate them into design
Audience Largely academic but has expanded to include design and policy makers
Participants Individuals: Kevin Lynch, Roger Hart, Clare Cooper Marcus, Florence Ladd, Robin
Moore, Joost van Andel, Patsy Owens, Louise Chawla, Gary Moore Organizations: Envir-
onmental Design Research Association; American Horticultural Society; Urban Parks In-
stitute
Research advances Contributed key ¢ndings and principles about what makes good environments for chil-
dren
Limitations Sometimes did not recognize the importance of children’s participation in advancing
knowledge
Status Still an energetic part of environmental design research

4. Learning
Approach ‘Children as Learners’
Theory Participation through environmental education and learning
Objectives Learning outcomes of participation is as important as physical changes; Architects teach
children about architecture;
Audience Teachers; Environmental Educators
Participants Individuals: Doreen Nelson, Elaine Adams, Sharon Stine, Wendy Titman, Susan Goltsman
Organizations: Landscapes for Learning; American Institute of Architects
Research advances Has contributed important methods
Design advances Increased use of natural environment and vegetation in outdoor places for children.
Limitations Designers and decision makers do not always utilize research knowledge; children are fre-
quently not directly involved in social science research. Built projects not an important
goal. Process changed perceptions and skills but not many physical places.
Status A specialized but active part of child participation projects

(continued on next page)

162 M. Franas and R. Lorenzo

Table 3 (continued)

5. Rights
Approach ‘Children as Citizens’
Theory Children have rights that need to be protected
Objectives Mandate children’s participation in planning and city decision-making
Audience City o⁄cial; International organizations
Participants Roger Hart, David Sattertwaite, Sheri Bartlett, Robin Moore Organizations: IPA; UNI-
CEF; Childwatch International; Save the Children; Ray Lorenzo innocenti Institute of
Florence
Research advances Has developed useful new methods
Design advances Has created child developed plans for neighborhoods and cities
Limitations Tends to focus more on children’s rights and less on their environmental needs
Status Popular in many countries due to United Nations mandate and support from interna-
tional aid organizations

6. Institutionalization
Approach ‘Children as Adults’
Theory Planning ‘by’ children but within institutional boundaries set by adults, authorities, and
clients
Objectives Mandated/required child participation
Audience Typically o⁄cial city plans and programs
Participants Individuals: City o⁄cials; child advocates Organizations: Children City Council, UNICEF,
Childwatch International, National organizations concerned with children
Research advances Useful methods
Design advances Numerous case studies
Limitations Tends to create limited results or results counter to what children really want
Status Becoming more of the standard way of child participation today

7. Proactive
Approach ‘Participation with Vision’
Theory Planning ‘with’ children. Combines research, participation and action to engage children
and adults in planning and design. Children are active participants in process but de-
signers/planners play an important role.
Objectives Develop participatory plans and designs with children that incorporate their ideas and
needs. Plans should be focused on strong vision of both empowering children and making
substantive changes to the city environment.
Audience Children; community organizations; design professionals
Participants Individuals: Randy Hester, Marcia McNally, Laura Lawson, Susan Goltsman, Daniel Iaco-
fano Organizations: Japan/Taiwan Group; Community Design Centers, some private and
public ¢rms, non-pro¢t organizations
Design advances Contributing useful theory and methods
Limitations Not always possible in every project; Requires designers/planners with special training
and skills
Status Becoming a more common form of participation

in journals such as Children’s Environments, Child- (Cobb, 1977; Chawla, 1986; Nabhan & Trimble, 1994),
hood, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Environ- plants (Moore, 1993), and vegetation for children
ment and Behavior, BEE: Bulletin for Environmental (Harvey, 1989; Moore & Wong, 1999; Fj
rtoft & Sa-
Education and Streetwise. It seeks to use environ- gele, 2000). It also includes research that has demon-
mental psychology research to advance thinking strated the di¡erences of children growing up in
about children’s environments. It is an area of parti- rural and urban environments (Ward, 1978, 1988;
cipatory activity made possible by signi¢cant ad- Lynch, 1978). In addition studies have shown the im-
vances in research on the environmental and place portance of the larger neighborhood environment as
needs of children and youth (Hart, 1978; Heft & a setting for children (van Andel, 1985; Homel &
Wohlwill, 1987; Gorlitz et al., 1998). Researchers have Burns, 1987) and the needs of adolescents in built
shown that children have unique needs that should and natural environments (Owens, 1988; Childress,
be considered in designing environments. This has 2000). This research has resulted from the often in-
included studies that show the importance of nature terdisciplinary work of geographers, psychologists,
 Realms of Children’s Participation 163

FIGURE 4 Social science methods such as behavior mapping have

been used to evaluate open spaces that children use. Village
Homes in Davis California (Mark Francis)

(1985), Owens (1988), Chawla (1986, 1995, 2001), and

Moore (1985). Several design ¢rms such as Moore,
Iacofano, Goltsman (MIG) in Berkeley in the United
States (Moore et al., 1987) and non-pro¢t organiza-
tions such the Children’s Environments Research
Group at City University of New York and Natural
Learning at North Carolina State University have
FIGURE 2 A goal of ‘children as planners’ is to make them advo- worked largely in this realm. Advances in research
cates for themselves in the design process. Children evaluating on children’s environments have been presented at
design proposals with better, equal, or worse ratings (Ray Loren- annual meetings of the Environmental Design Re-
zo)
search Association (EDRA) and International Asso-
ciation for the Study of People and their Physical
Surroundings (IAPS) and published in the journal
Children’s Environments. A limitation with this ap-
proach is that it assumes that good social science
alone can identify children’s spatial needs and that
children themselves do not need to be directly in-
volved in the design process (Figure 4).

Learning realm: ‘children as learners’. A more re-

cent period of children’s participation involves envir-
onmental learning and education as a central focus
of participatory process. As more and more studies
have documented that learning is an important out-
come of planning and childhood experience (Carr &
Lynch, 1969, Chawla, 1995; Lepore & Lorenzo, 1989),
FIGURE 3 Adults viewing Children’s models of housing and open planners have worked to incorporate this into parti-
space Italy (Ray Lorenzo) cipatory processes with children. Key participants
in this realm include Adams (1990) and Moore
(Moore & Wong, 1997). Examples of projects that
sociologists, landscape architects, planners includ- have incorporated this approach include architec-
ing Lynch (1978), Hart (1978, 1992, 1997), Cooper tural appreciation, built environment education,
(1970), Marcus and Barnes (1999), Ladd (1978), and learning from landscapes (Adams, 1990, Titman,
Moore (1990, 1993 Moore & Wang, 1997), van Andel 1994, Moore & Wong, 1997, Stine, 1999). This
164 M. Franas and R. Lorenzo

FIGURE 6 Children presenting their design ideas to adults in Italy

(Ray Lorenzo)
FIGURE 5 Children photographing a study site in Italy is an exam-
ple of ‘children as learners’ (Ray Lorenzo)

approach often leads to learning and social change the process. Participation is now generally required
but not improved or changed environments. Chil- in many urban development projects in developed
dren are often not directly involved in the decision- countries (Lansdown, 2000). Well intended, this
making process relying more on professionals or realm often ignores the importance of more sponta-
teachers to set the design or curriculum agenda neous and child-centered participation. It often re-
(Figure 5). sults in limited environmental change or ideas that
run counter to what children really want. It can also
Rights realm: ‘children as citizens’. A more recent
lead to proposals and ideas not supportive of good
movement has been to de¢ne and work to guarantee
environments for children such as ‘Not in My Back
children’s rights in urban environments. First pro-
Yard’ (NIMBYism) or cultural separation (Figure 7).
posed by organizations such as the International
Association for the Child’s Right to Play (IPA), a
Proactive realm: ‘participation with vision’. The
child’s right to play was later adopted by the United
more recent realm is what is called ‘proactive parti-
Nations in the Convention on Child Rights within a
cipation’ (Francis, 1999). This re£ects our current
broad set of children’s rights (1989). This has been
thinking and practice of participation as a commu-
an important evolution in thinking and practice in
nicative and visionary process. It moves beyond tra-
children’s participation were children are seen as
ditional forms of children’s participation that simply
fully empowered participants (UNICEF, 1996; Bar-
involves children to one directed at empowering
tlett, 1999; Bartlett et al., 1999). It involves principles
children and adults to reinvent childhood and the
of democracy, rights, and empowerment (Hart, 1992).
places that support it. It recognizes children as chil-
People active in developing this realm include Hart
dren not just young adults that must behave and
(1997), Sattertwaite et al., (1996), Bartlett (1999),
participate as adults. It attempts to not be just nos-
Moore (1990), Rivkin (1995) and Chawla (2001). Ex-
talgic about childhood but seeks to ¢nd ways to use
amples of projects of children’s rights include Chil-
planning and design to recreate childhood. It also
dren’s City Councils and Child Friendly Cities,
incorporates the idea of a more child-centered or
both supported by UNICEF. The UNESCO led pro-
naturalistic childhood (Wood, 1993). Proactive prac-
ject ‘Growing Up in Cities’ is a current example of
tice with children takes advances in concepts about
cross-cultural research and action taking place in
what makes good environments for children and
several parts of the world (Chawla, 2001). A limita-
combines them with correct principles and methods
tion with this approach is that it tends to focus
intended to generate genuine children and adult
more on children’s rights and less on their environ-
participation in the planning process. This realm re-
mental needs (Figure 6).
cognizes participation as a communicative, educa-
Institutional Realm: ‘children as adults’. Recently, tional activity (Herrinton, 1999). An important
children participation, like its adult counterpart, bene¢t of this approach to children’s participation
has been moving toward an institutional period. is increased perceived control (Francis, 1989). The
Here children are often treated like adults, ex- sustainable cities movement is a useful ally for this
pected to have the same knowledge and power in realm of child participation (Lorenzo, 1998, 1999a, b,
 Realms of Children’s Participation 165

FIGURE 7 On this map children project their fear of a completely FIGURE 8 Italian children developing a plan for a new park using
urbanized Italy (Ray Lorenzo) collage techniques (Ray Lorenzo)

2000, Local Environment, 2001; Driskell, 2001). Lim- While not designed speci¢cally as a child-oriented
itations include that this approach may not be pos- environment, it has been found to provide impor-
sible in every situation and that planners and tant opportunities and spaces for children (Francis,
designers need special training to work in this fash- 1985). Open channel drainage collects all rainwater
ion (Francis, 1999) (Figure 8). on the surface of the neighborhood landscape and
uses weirs and small ponds to return it to the water
table, rather than more expensive storm drain
Some examples of proactive participation from systems. This provides for water play for children
the United States and Italy and a more naturalistic landscape. Most plants are
either native or edible increasing its habitat and
To illustrate the more proactive mode of children wildlife value. Bird and insect life is abundant. The
participation, we o¡er two brief examples from our design of the neighborhood also includes the provi-
own participatory work in California and Italy. sion of unstructured play areas such as vineyards,
orchards, and natural areas with a high level of play
Children in a Sustainable CommunityFVillage value.
Homes, Davis, California Children were directly involved in the design of
the neighborhood landscape including common
U.S.A. Village Homes was designed and developed in areas and the Village playground. In designing the
the late 1970s as a model ecological and sustainable playground, children’s use of existing spaces in the
community (Corbett & Corbett, 2000; Francis, 2001). neighborhood was mapped (Francis, 1988). They
166 M. Franas and R. Lorenzo

were also asked to draw maps of their favorite out-

door places. In addition, children aged 8^12 were gi-
ven instant cameras and asked to take photographs
of their favorite outdoor places. This map of ‘favorite
places’ was particularly useful in developing design
ideas for the playground. Design workshops were
also held with parents where the results of the re-
search were discussed and children presented their
own design ideas. This involved a proactive process
between children and adults where design di¡er-
ences were clari¢ed and negotiated.
Other common landscapes were designed with
children’s participation. For example, rather than
designing and building the common areas between
houses, the developers Mike and Judy Corbett set FIGURE 9 The goal of participation is ultimately to make good
aside the construction funds and had the new resi- places for children. Children gardening in Village Homes, Davis,
California. (Mark Francis)
dents design what they wanted (Francis, 2001). As a
result, each common area is di¡erent. Ones with fa-
milies with small children included custom-built
play equipment while ones with older residents of- nerf’ type streets. A historic farmhouse has been
ten have vegetable gardens (Figure 9). saved and will be developed into a children’s urban
farm and environmental education center. New
Children’s participation in a city planFEmpoli, Italy buildings with innovative mixed uses were built
around two new piazzas. The success of this process
Perhaps more than any other western country, Italy was recognized by the Italian government in 1999
has recently o⁄cially embraced children’s participa- when Empoli was awarded a ¢rst prize for ‘Sustain-
tion in planning. In the last ¢ve or six years, major able Cities’ for small cities. The jury cited the ‘Chil-
architecture journals in Italy have devoted issues to dren’s Participation’ component of the plan as a
children’s participation. The Italian Architects As- ‘most e¡ective vehicle towards city-wide acceptance
sociation and National Planning Association have of sustainable principles and practices’ (for more in-
signed a national agreement with Ministry of Envir- formation see [Link].¢.it).
onment for a national campaign including sponsor-
ing projects and design competitions, training, and
conferences on children’s participation. There are Conclusion and future directions
currently hundreds of Italian cities in which some
form of children’s participation is transforming the Clearly the state of the art of children’s participa-
urban landscape or the perception of children’s tion has advanced beyond isolated romantic e¡orts
needs and rights in planning. and projects to more common and even national in-
One such example is the City of Empoli, a city of itiatives. While becoming more institutionalized and
48,000 near Florence. City o⁄cials decided to devel- mainstream, child participation is a major area of
op a new city plan through a major investment in environmental design proactive and research today.
children and youth participation. Citywide surveys Yet considerable research and practice is needed to
were carried out in the City’s High Schools and expand its in£uence. For example, we need a larger
two pilot neighborhood workshops involving four number of empirical studies that show the impor-
elementary and four middle school classes in the tance of children’s participation in making good en-
planning of two peripheral ‘problem’ neighborhoods. vironments.
The children’s participation served as a catalyst for Future research and practice in children’s partici-
the involvement of adults in the city plan. The chil- pation in planning and design will draw to some de-
dren’s ideas and citywide consultation process led to gree from all past realms. What has been important
numerous changes in the City’s original general is that past work has attempted to integrate the
plan. For example, development proposals were re- best principles and practices from environmental
duced in some areas to allow for increased pedes- design and environmental psychology in the making
trian areas and greenways for children. Several of children’s environments. Yet a central question
streets have been converted into child friendly ‘woo- with this work remains. Is children’s participation
 Realms of Children’s Participation 167

a way to create a more democratic world? Or is it a Blakely, K. S. (1994). Parents’ conceptions of social dangers
way to simply to create better places for children? in the urban environment. Children’s Environments
This dilemma must be addressed in order for future Quarterly 11, 1: 16^25.
Boulding, E. (1979). Children’s Rights and the Wheel of Life.
practice to lead to positive environmental and com- New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
munity change. Nevertheless, participation promises Brown, J. & Burger, C. (1984). Playground designs and pre-
to be an important and vigorous part of research school children’s behavior. Environment and Behavior.
and action in the future. 16, 599^626.
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The Next American Metropolis. New
York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Carr, S. & Lynch, K. (1968). Where learning happens. Dae-
dalus. 97, 4.
Notes Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. & Stone, A. (1992). Public
Space. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Reprint requests and correspondence should be addressed Chawla, L. R. (1986). The ecology of environmental mem-
to Mark Francis, Department of Environmental Design, ory. Children’s Environments. 3, 4: 34^42.
University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A. Chawla, L. R. (1995). Revisioning childhood, nature, and
E-mail: mofrancis@[Link]; [Link] the city. In K. Noschis, (Ed.), Children and the City.
culty/[Link]; (530) 752 - 6031 (O⁄ce); (530) 752 -1392 Lausanne: Comportements, pp. 101^108.
(Fax). Ray Lorenzo, Abcitta cooperative Milano, via pina- Chawla, L. R. (Ed.) (2001). Growing Up in an Urbanizing
monte de vimercate E Milano, Italy. E-mail: abcitta@li- World. London: Earthscan Publications.
[Link], 39 -75 -5003125 (Studio/Fax). Childress, H. (2000). Landscapes of Betrayal, Landscapes of
Joy: Curtisville in the Lives of Its Teenagers. Syracuse:
State University of New York.
Cobb, E. (1976). The Ecology of Imagination in Childhood.
References New York: Columbia University Press.
Cooper, C. (1970). Adventure playgrounds. Landscape Ar-
Adams, E. (1990). Learning through Landscapes: A Report chitecture. October, 60, 18^29.
on the Use, Design, Management, and Development of Corbett, J. & Corbett, M. N. (2000). Designing Sustainable
School Grounds. London: Learning Through Land- Communities: Learning from Village Homes. Washing-
scapes Trust. ton, DC: Island Press.
Aiken, K., Bowns, C. & Francis, M. (1994). Healing Envir- Davido¡, P. (1965). Advocacy and pluralism in planning.
onments: A Collection of Case Studies. Davis, CA: Cen- Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 21, 331^
ter for Design Research, University of California 338.
Davis. Deveraux, K. (1991). Children of nature. UC Davis Maga-
Alexander, J. (1993). The external costs of escorting chil- zine. 9, 20^23.
dren. In M. Hillman, (Ed.), Children, Transport and
Driskell, D. (2001). Creating Better Cities with Children and
Quality of Life. London: Policy Studies Institute, pp.
Youth. London: Earthscan Publications.
77^81.
Altman, I. & Zube, E., Eds. (1989). Public Places and Eberbach, C. (1992). Children’s gardens: the meaning
Spaces. Volume 10: Human Behavior and the Environ- of place. In D. Relf, (Ed.). The Role of Horticulture
ment. New York: Plenum. in Human Well Being. Portland: Timber Press,
Amato, P. R. (1989). Who cares for children in public pp. 000^000.
places: naturalistic observation of male and female Fishwick, L. & Vining, J. (1992). Toward a phenomenology
caretakers. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 51, of recreation place. Journal of Environmental Psychol-
981^990. ogy, 12, 57^63.
AHS (American Horticultural Society) (1994). Proceedings Fj
rtoft, I. & Sageie, J. (2000). The natural environment as
of the Children, Gardens and Plants Symposium. Alex- a playground for children: Landscape description and
andria, VI: AHS. analyses of a natural playscape. Landscape and Urban
Arnstein, S. (1969). The ladder of citizen participation. Planning. 48, 83^97.
Journal of the American Institute of Planners. 35, 216^ Francis, M. (1985). Children’s use of open space in
224. Village Homes. Children’s Environments Quarterly. 1,
Bartlett, S. (1999). How urban design can support chil- 4: 36^38.
dren’s rights. UNCHS. 5, 2. The United Nations Centre Francis, M. (1988). Negotiating between children and
for Human Settlements. adult design values in open space projects. Design
Bartlett, S., Hart, R., Satterthwaite, D., de la Barra, X. & Studies. 9: 67^75.
Missair, A. (1999). Cities for Children: Children’s Rights, Francis, M. (1989). Control as a dimension of public space
Poverty and Urban Management. London: Earthscan. quality. In I. Altman & E. Zube, (Eds), Public Places
Bedard, M. (2000). Healthy Landscapes: Guidelines for and Spaces. Vol. 10. New York: Plenum, pp. 147^172.
Therapeutic City Form. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Francis, M. (1999). Proactive practice: visionary thought
University of California, Davis. and participatory action in environmental design.
Bishop, J., Adams, E. & Kean, J. (1992). Children, Environ- Places. 12, 1: 60^68.
ment & Education: Personal Views of Urban Environ- Francis, M. (2001). Village Homes: A Place-based Case
mental Education in Britain. Children’s Environments Study. Washington DC: Landscape Architecture Foun-
Quarterly. 9, 49^67. dation.
168 M. Franas and R. Lorenzo

Francis, M. (In preparation). The childhood of imprison- Lepore, L. & R. Lorenzo (1989). Scopriamo l’ambiente urba-
ment. Book manuscript in progress. no. (Discovering the Urban Environment). in Quaderno
Francis, M., Cashdan, L., & Paxson, L. (1984). Community di educazione ambientale n. 1, WWF-Italia, Rome,
Open Spaces. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 1989.
Frost, J. C. (1995). History of playground safety in Ameri- Lepore, L. & R. Lorenzo. (1990). Immaginiamo il futuro.
ca. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 2, 4: 13^23. (Let’s Imagine the Future). Quaderno di Educazione
Gaster, S. (1991). Urban children’s access to their neighbor- Ambientale. 10, WWF-Italia, Roma, 1990.
hoods: changes over three generations. Environment Lepore, L. & R. Lorenzo. (1993). Come riconquistare le nos-
and Behavior. 23, 70^85. tre citta', (How to Win Back our Cities). Quaderno di
Goodey, B. (1979). Towards new perceptions of the environ- Educazione Ambientale 22, WWF-Italia, Rome.
ment: Using the town trail. In D. Appleyard (Ed.). The Local Environment. (2001). Special Issue on Children, Youth
Conservation of European Cities. Cambridge: The MIT and Sustainable Cities. 6, l. February.
Press. Lorenzo, R. (1983). Community context, future perspective
Gorlitz, D., Harlo¡, H. J., May, G. & Valsiner, J. (Eds.). and participation. Childhood City Quarterly.
(1998). Children, Cities and Psychological Theories: Lorenzo, R. Gruppo futuro: children designing their neigh-
Developing Relationships. New York: Walter De borhood’s futures, in Architecture Multilple and Com-
Gruyter. plex, Sansoni Editore, Florence. 1985.
Harden, J. (2000). There’s no place like home: The public/ Lorenzo, R. (1992). Too Little Time and Space for Childhood.
private distinction in children’s theorizing of risk Florence, Italy: Studi Innocenti, Istituto degli Inno-
and safety. Childhood. 7, 1. centi. UNICEF International Child Development Cen-
Hart, R. (1978). Children’s Experience of Place. New York: tre.
Irvington. Lorenzo, R. (1995). La citta' dell’infanzia: parole, programmi,
Hart, R. (1992). Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to ricerche, partecipazione e-speriamoFprogetti concreti.
Citizenship. Innocenti Essay No. 4. Florence, Italy: (The City of Childhood: Words, programmes, research,
UNICEF International Child Development Center. participation andFlet’s hopeFbuilt projects). Paesaggio
Hart, R. (1997). Children‘s Participation: The Theory and Urbana. 3.
Practice of Involving Young Citizens in Community De- Lorenzo, R. (1998). La citta' sostenibile: partecipazione, luogo,
velopment and Environmental Care. London: Earthscan comunita'. (The Sustainable City: Participation, Place
and New York: UNICEF. and Community). Milano, Italy: Ele'uthera.
Harvey, M. (1989). Children’s experience with vegetation. Lorenzo, R. (1999). Al progettista il compito di superare le
Children’s Environments Quarterly. 6, 1: 36^43. fratture della ‘citta' degli adulti. (A task for the planner:
Heft, H. & Wohlwill, F. (1987). Environmental cognition in Adjust the ‘Fractures’ Made in the City of Adults). Edili-
children. pp. 175^203 in D. Stokols and I. Altman zia e Territorio. Settimanale di Il Sole 24 Ore. 4, 25^30.
(Eds.). Handbook of Environmental Psychology. Vol. 1, Lorenzo, R. (1999). L’interazione tra soggetti diversi: bambini
pp. 175^203. New York: Wiley. ed adulti all’interno dei processi di piani¢cazione parte-
Herrington, S. (1999). Playgrounds as community land- cipata. (The interaction between di¡erent urban actors:
scapes. Built Environment. 25, 25^34. children and adults in processes of participatory plan-
Hester, R. (1999). Refrain with a view. Places. 12, 1. ning in The Adriano Neighborhood: inhabitants design
Hiss, T. (1990). The Experience of Place. New York: Knopf. their city). Milano: Il Quartiere Adriano, gli Abitanti
Holloway, S. & Valentine, G. (Eds), (2000). Children’s Geo- Progettano la Citta'. (a cura di Monica Vercesi). Milano,
graphies: Living, Playing, Learning and Transforming Italy: Franco Angeli.
Everyday Worlds. London: Routledge. Lorenzo, R. (2000). In citta' ci abito anch’io. Una guida ad
Homel, R. & Burns, A. (1987). Is this a good place to grow una progettazione urbana attenta alle esigenze dei bam-
up in: neighborhood quality and children’s evalua- bini. (I Live in This City, Too: A Guide for Child
tions. Landscape and Urban Planning. 14, 101^116. Friendly Urban Design) Perugia, Italy: Edizioni Guer-
Horelli, L. (1998). Creating child-friendly environments: ra.
case studies on children’s participation in three Eur- Lynch, K. (1978). Growing Up in Cities. Cambridge: The
opean countries. Childhood. 5, 2: 225^239. MIT Press.
IHT (International Herald Tribune) (2000). Children and McKendrick, J. H., Fielder, A. V. & Bradford, M. G. (2000).
cars. November 7. Privatization of collective playspaces in the United
Jekyll, G. (1990). Children & Gardens. Su¡olk: Antique Col- Kingdom. Childhood. 7, 295^314.
lector’s Club. Marcus, C. C. & Barnes, M. (Eds). (1999). Healing Gardens,
Korpela, K. (1991). Adolescents’ and adults’ favourite New York: Wiley.
places. In T. Niit, M. Raudsepp & K. Liik (Eds), Envir- Melson, G. F., Peet, S. Sparks, C. (1991). Children’s attach-
onment and Social Development: Proceedings of the ment to their pets: links to socio-emotional develop-
East-West Colloquium in Environmental Psychology. Tal- ment. Children’s Environments Quarterly. 8, 2: 55^65.
linn: Publisher. pp. 76^83. Moore, G. T. (1985). State of the art in play environment
Ladd, F. C. (1978) City kids in the absence of . . . In R. research and applications. In J. Frost (Ed.), When Chil-
Kaplan & S. Kaplan, (Eds), Humanscape: Environ- dren Play. Wheaton, MD: Association for Childhood
ments for People. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press, Education International, pp. 171^192.
pp. 77^81. Moore, R. C. (1990). Childhood’s Domain: Play and Place in
Lansdown, G. (2000). Promoting Children’s Participation Child Development. Berkeley: MIG Communications.
in Democratic Decision-Making. Florence: UNICEF Moore, R. C. (1993). Plants for Play. Berkeley: MIG Com-
Innocenti Research Center. munications.
 Realms of Children’s Participation 169

Moore, R. C. & Wong, H. H. (1997). Natural Learning. Ulrich, R. S., Simmons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E.,
Berkeley: MIG Communications. Miles, M. A. & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress-recovery dur-
Moore, R. C., Goltsman, S. & Iacofano, D. (1987). The Play ing exposure to natural and urban environments.
for All Guidelines: Planning Design and Management of Journal of Environmental Psychology. 11, 201^230.
Outdoor Settings for all Children. Berkeley, CA: MIG UNICEF. (1992). New Vision for Urban Children and Fa-
Communications. milies. International Meeting of Mayors, Urban Plan-
Nabhan, G. P. & Trimble, S. (1994). The Geography of Child- ners and Policy Makers. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti
hood: Why Children Need Wild Places. New York: Bea- Research Center.
con Press. UNICEF. (1996). Children’s Rights and Habitat: Report of the
Nicholson, S. (1971). How not to cheat children: the theory Expert Seminar. February 1^2, 1996. New York: United
of loose parts. Landscape Architecture, 61, 30^34. Nations Children’s Fund.
Nicholson, S. & Lorenzo, R. (1980). The political implica- UNICEF. (2000). Towards Child-Friendly Cities. New York:
tions of children’s participation. Ekistics. March^ United Nations Children’s Fund.
April. Valentine, G. (1999). Oh please, Mum, oh please, Dad: ne-
Noschis, K. (1995). Children and the City. Lusanne: Com- gotiating children’s spatial boundaries. In L. McKie,
portements. S. Browlby & S. Gregory. Gender, Power and the House-
Owens, P. E. (1988). Natural landscapes, Gathering places, hold. New York: Macmillian, pp. 137^157.
and prospect refuges: Characteristics of outdoor Valentine, G. & Holloway, S. L. (2000). Transforming cyber-
places valued by teens. Children’s Environments Quar- space: children’s interventions in the new public
terly. 5, 17^24. sphere. In S. L. Holloway & G. Valentine, (Eds), Chil-
Parr, A. (1967). The child in the city: urbanity and the ur- dren’s Geographies: Living, Playing, Learning and Trans-
ban scene. Landscape. 16, 3^5. forming Everyday Worlds. London: Routledge. pp. 000^
Perez, C. & Hart, R. (1980). Beyond playgrounds: children’s 000.
accessibility to the landscape. In Wilkinson, P. F., van Andel, J. (1985). E¡ects on children’s outdoor behavior
(ed.), Innovations in Play Environments. New York: St. of physical changes in Leiden neighborhood. Chil-
Martin’s Press, pp. 252^71. dren’s Environments Quarterly. 1, 46^54.
Postman, N. (1994). The Disappearance of Childhood. New Van Vliet, W. (1983). An examination of the home range of
York: Dell Books. city and suburban teenagers. Environment and Beha-
Rivkin, M. S. (1995). The Great Outdoors: Restoring Chil- vior. 15, 567^588.
dren’s Right to Play Outside. Washington, DC: National Ward, C. (1978). The Child in the City. New York: Pantheon.
Association for the Education of Children. Ward, C. (1988). The Child in the Country. London: Robert
Roberts, J. W. and Dickey, P. (1995). Exposure of Hale.
children to pollutants in house dust and indoor air. Ward Thompson, C. (1995). School playground design:
Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicol- a projective approach with school pupils and
ogy. 25, 4^9. sta¡. Landscape Research. 20, Winter., 24^140.
Sandels, S. (1995). Children in Tra⁄c. London: Paul Elek. Watt, P. & Stenson, K. (1998). The street: it’s a bit dodgy
Sattertwaite, D., Hart, R., Levey, C., Mitlin, D., Ross, D., around there: safety, danger, ethnicity and young peo-
Smit, J. & Stephens, C. (1996). The Environment for ple’s use of public space. In S. Watson & G. Valentine,
Children: Understanding and Acting on the Environ- (Eds), Cool Places: Geographies of Youth Culture. Lon-
mental Hazards that Threaten Children and Their Par- don: Routledge, pp. 249^265.
ents. London: Earthscan. White, M., Kasl, S, Zahner, G. E. P. & Will, J. C. (1987).
Scott, S., Jackson, S. & Backett-Milburn, K. (1998). Swings Perceived crime in the neighborhood and the mental
and roundabouts: Risk, anxiety and the everyday health of women and children. Environment and Beha-
world of children. Sociology. 32, 689^705. vior. 19, 588^613.
Sobel, D. (1990). A place in the world: adults’ memories of Winn, M. (1983). Children without Childhood. New York:
childhood’s special places. Children’s Environments Pantheon.
Quarterly. 7, 4: 5^12. Wohlwill, J. & Heft, H. (1987). The physical environment
Spencer, C. P. (1987). Children and their environment: the and the development of the child. In D. Stokols & I.
current state of research. Journal of Environmental Altman, (Eds), Handbook of Environmental Psychology.
Psychology. 7, 177^188. New York: Wiley. pp. 281^328.
Spencer, C. P. (1998). Children, cities and psychological Woolley, H., Dunn, J., Spencer, C. P., Short, T. & Rowley, G.
theories: developing relationships. Journal of Environ- (2000). Children describe their experiences of the city
mental Psychology. 18, 429^433. centre: a qualitative study of the fears and concerns
Spivack, M. (1969). The political collapse of a playground. which may limit their full participation. Landscape
Landscape Architecture, 59: 288^292. Research. 24, 287^301.
Stine, S. (1997). Landscapes for Learning. New York Wiley. Wood, D. (1993). Ground to stand on: some notes
Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E. & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Coping on the kid’s dirt play. Children’s Environments. 10,
with ADD: the surprising connection to green play 3^18.
settings. Environment and Behavior. 33, 54^77. Young, K. (1990). Learning Through Landscapes: Using
Titman, W. (1994). Special Places, Special People: The Hid- School Grounds as an Educational Resource. Winche-
den Curriculum of School Grounds. Surrey: World Wild- ster, Hampshire, United Kingdom: Learning Through
life Fund. Landscapes Trust.