L. I. Johnson MSc Dissertation 2017 by JOHNSON Louise Ida

How can design encourage more free, unstructured and independent play in the outdoors? Louise Ida Johnson MSc Landscape Architecture - University of Edinburgh Dissertation

Abstract Unstructured, exploratory time in the outdoors is a vital part of play and child development however children today are experiencing increasingly restricted access to the outdoor environment. They are growing up in a society which is becoming detached from the natural world and this is having drastic impacts on childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s physical and mental well being. However, considering that they have the potential to rectify mistakes of previous generations, they are also central to future sustainable development. Fostering a better relationship between the young and the environment by encouraging more free, unstructured play in the public realm is therefore vital to the health of future society. The purpose of this study is to explore and understand how children are using their local outdoor environment for play and to examine how design of the local neighbourhood may affect this usage. The methodology involved group based activities, carried out in three different study areas which represent an urban, suburban and rural demographic. The children in the study were found to spend considerable amounts of time supervised by an adult or indoors. However, the results begin to suggest that the design quality of the environment is related to how much a child can access the outdoors and that offering children more independence and responsibility increases how much they value and interact with their environment. The conclusion begins to question the value of officially designated play spaces, suggesting that children might be more drawn to informal landscapes which are more capable of accommodating free, unstructured play.

Cover image: <http-//madebyfieldwork.com/images/the-wild-network/twn-grid-image-1 > Accessed 2017 03 23. Above image: <https-//coolcamping.com/system/images/22283/badgells-wood-camping-south-east-england-kent-large> Accessed 2017 03 23.

CONTENTS 6-11 I n t r o d u c t i o n

- Background - Importance

12-13 R e s e a r c h - A i m s & O b j e c t i v e s 14-29 L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w - The importance of contact with nature - How can design encourage more contact with nature?

- The importance of freedom to roam + taking reasonable risks - How can design encourage children to independently access the outdoors more?

- Understanding social and cultural influences on freedom to roam - Gender - Socio economic status - Social attitudes in community

- The importance of involving children in design

30-35 M e t h o d o l o g y 38-43 S t u d y a r e a s

- Warninglid, Sussex - Dulwich, London - Currie, Edinburgh

44-93 R e s u l t s 94-103 A n a l y s i s 104-106 D i s c u s s i o n a n d C o n c l u s i o n

Introduction

Image: <http-//www.hdg.de/lemo/img/galeriebilder/deutscheeinheit/1992_umweltkonferenz-rio_foto_LEMO-F-4-151_bbst> Accessed 2017 03 23.

At the United Nations Conference of Environment and Development in 1992, Agenda 21 established aims for sustainable development, with children and youth identified as a target group for realising this vision (Chawla, 2002. Lester and Russell, 2008). It has long been established that play is central to healthy development; children’s engagement with nature and the outdoors in particular is vital for physical and mental health. However, there is rising concern that ‘children are disappearing from the outdoors at a rate that would make the top of any conservationists list of endangered species if they were any other member of the animal kingdom.’ (Gill, 2005). Their conspicuous absence is evidence that children are becoming increasingly more disconnected from the outdoors and detached from the natural world. They are suffering from ‘nature deficit disorder’ (Louv, 2005, p10), which is now a serious modern paediatric health problem. There are growing concerns that this will have a significant long term impact on the future adult generation (CAPT, 2002).

Image: <https://iudblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/rebuilding1> Accessed 2017 03 23.

Background

The 20th century is sometimes referred to as the ‘century of the child.’ (Chawla, 2002. Hendricks, 2011.) At the end of the 19th century the state started to differentiate between adults and children with new laws being introduced against child labour and to establish requirements for education (Hendricks, 2011). The turn of the century saw child welfare rapidly grow in importance, with a movement to give better quality care and facilities to children. At the same time, major changes in society and culture led to urbanisation and a rise in car ownership. These factors gradually started to reduce opportunities for children to play freely and safely outdoors. By the mid 20th century children had moved away from informal play spaces, such as the street, instead becoming increasingly confined to designated, standardised spaces for play (Frost, 2006). In the 1960s, figures such as Lady Allen of Hurtwood drew attention to the fact that ‘vast rebuilding schemes’ (Allen, 1968, p11), were interfering with children’s spontaneous play, confining them increasingly to allocated places for play,

which were designed with an ‘antiseptic approach’ which ‘kills play stone dead.’ (Allen, 1968, p18). In 1968, the seminal book ‘Planning for Play’ drew awareness to the fact that whilst some ‘civilised countries enjoy better living conditions, there still remains immense emotional poverty and privation’ (Allen, p11) amongst children in modern society. Allen used this book to advocate a design approach which catered better to children’s needs for play. However, since then, little has changed to alter public spaces for children in the last half century and the issue still remains problematic (Churchman, 2003. Hendricks 2011. Hillman, 2006). Today, more and more children are living in poverty and under environmental risk (Chawla, 2002); in fact children in western societies are even more deprived of access to the outdoors than in the developing world (Hendricks, 2011). Worldwide, development planning still fails to meet children’s needs and young people’s use of open space is severely limited (Churchman, 2003. Frost, 2006. Gill, 2005. Hendricks, 2011. Hillman, 2006. Louv, 2005. Woolley, 2006.)

Image: <http://www.play-scapes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/lady-allen-hurtwood-planning-for-play> Accessed 2017 03 23.

Introduction

Image: Children-on-mud-walk-Box-Hill-ÂŠ-National-Trust-Images-John-Millar. <http/nationaltrust.org> Accessed 2017 03 23.

Importance

Unstructured, exploratory time in the outdoors is a vital part of child development. Worldwide, children are experiencing more restricted access to the outdoor environment and it is thought to be having drastic impacts not only on society as a whole but specifically on children’s healthy development (Acar, 2013. Gill, 2007. Hendricks, 2011. Lester and Russell, 2008. Louv, 2005. Woolley, 2006.). In 1968, Allen observed that as they were becoming more restricted in play outdoors, there was ‘more depression, more mental illnesses, more violence, more delinquency, and more drug taking’ (Allen, 1968, p11) than ever before amongst children and adolescents. Allen’s observations failed to spark any substantial reactionary changes. High crime rates and psychological problems continue to correlate with a lack of open green space (Chawla, 2002. Churchman, 2003. Hendricks, 2011. Louv, 2005. Woolley 2006).

In 2004 Medco Health Solutions found that between 2000 and 2003 there was a 49 percent increase in the use of psychotropic drugs prescribed for children (Louv, 2005). Physical and mental malaise is also evident in the current child obesity epidemic, costing health systems millions and having a drastic impact on the development of the next adult generation (Chawla, 2002. Frost, 2006. Hendricks, 2011. Louv, 2005. Woolley, 2006). In short, the rate of physical and emotional illness is growing at the same time as access to outdoor green spaces is shrinking (Louv, 2005). Several authors outline the importance of securing children’s health, both mental and physical, for the health of society and the environment. Louv states; ‘Children carry the seeds of the future.’ (2005, p154). They are pioneers, and have tremendous potential to rectify the mistakes of previous generations. Therefore one could argue that children have a mutually dependent relationship with the environment. Preservation of the latter relies on the

relationship between the young and nature (Louv, 2005. Churchman, 2003); They are central to future sustainable development. (Chawla, 2002, p25) The Convention of the Rights of the Child is designed to ensure protection from harm and provision of fundamental requirements (Chawla, 2002. Cunningham and Jones, 2006. Hillman, 2006. Lester & Russell, 2008). Free outdoor play is one of these requirements; it is vital for healthy development, (Acar, 2013. Allen, 1968. Cunningham and Jones, 2006. Frost, 2006. Gill, 2005. Hendricks, 2011. Lester & Russell, 2008. Louv, 2005. Moore, 1985. 2014. Valentine and McKendrick, 1997. Woolley, 2006.) and therefore, it is also an essential investment into the health of the future adult generation. (Churchman, 2003. Cunningham and Jones, 2006. Frost, 2006. Lester and Russell, 2008. Louv, 2005.) It can be argued that by neglecting this basic need, society fails to defend itself from serious mental and physical health problems in the future (Allen, 1968) and members who are disconnected with the natural environment and the ‘fragile life systems which support human life’. (Chawla, 2002.)

Introduction

Aims & Objectives

Image: <http-//circleofliferediscovery.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/20150407_141132> Accessed 2017 03 23.

Aims

The purpose of the study is firstly to explore and understand how older children between the ages of 10 – 12 who are beginning to crave a level of independence, develop social skills and become more curious (Cunningham & Jones, 2006. Hendricks, 2011. Louv, 2005.) are using their local outdoor environment for play in the UK. Secondly, to examine how design or structure of the local environment may affect this usage or encourage children to use the outdoors as a play realm more freely and independently.

Objectives

- To find out how much children play outdoors freely nowadays. - What factors affect children’s freedom to play outdoors? - How do design and physical structure of the neighbourhood impact children’s access to the outdoors as a play realm for free, unstructured and independent play?

Literature Review

This literature review looks firstly at the importance of childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s contact with nature as a key type of free, unstructured play, what influences childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s relationship with the natural world and how design can encourage more interaction. Secondly, it investigates the freedom to roam and to take reasonable risks in the outdoors, which are major parts of informal, unstructured and unsupervised play. Thirdly, physical, social and cultural factors are analysed as limiting factors to childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s access to the outdoor environment. Design approaches are analysed in parallel for possible solutions. Finally, it addresses the value and importance of giving children a more influential voice in the design process.

Contact with nature

During the last half of the 20th century, societies, economies and human settlements have become significantly restructured and this has drastically changed our relationship with the planet. (Chawla, 2002) As a result, it can be argued that we have completely detached from nature and the environment (Louv, 2005) Whilst several authors explain how children are naturally drawn to nature and the outdoors, (Acar, 2013. Allen, 1968. Hendricks, 2011. Matthews et al. 2000. Moore, 2014. Lester and Russell, 2008. Louv, 2005.) others also argue that the way daily life is structured today particularly limits children from contact with the natural environment. (Churchman, 2003. Hendricks, 2011. Hillman, 2006. Lester and Russell, 2008.) Therefore, children today are growing up in a society which is becoming more and more isolated from the natural world. (Acar, 2013. Louv, 2005. Lester and Russell, 2008. Matthews et al, 2000. Moore, 2014.) All the literature recognises the value and importance of reconnecting children with the natural environment. Although authors such as Hendricks (2011) suggests that some studies which claim to prove the connection between nature experience and motor development in children are sometimes flawed or slightly biased, others emphasise that even so, 16

there are growing research links between mental, physical and spiritual health and contact with nature. (Acar, 2013. Lennard and Crowhurst, 1992. Lester and Russell, 2008. Louv, 2005. Moore, 2014.) Chawla quotes the Principle from the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in 1992; ‘human beings are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.’ (2002, p22) Therefore, not only is nature and the outdoors vital for child development, it is every human being’s right. (Acar, 2013. Chawla, 2002. Churchman, 2003. Cunningham & Jones, 2006. Hillman, 2006. Lester and Russell, 2008. Louv, 2005. Moore, 2014.) Whilst all of the literature considers connection with nature as the central and one of the most dominant aspects of healthy child development, some assert that children need to have a balance of both nature and built things. (Churchman, 2003. Hendricks, 2011.) Whilst Louv (2005) argues that immersion in the natural environment is essential, Moore (2014) strongly emphasises the importance of direct contact with nature and Acar (2013) states ‘interaction with natural environments is critical.’(p299), other authors put more value on the experience of variety of spaces in the public realm; both natural and man made.

(Churchman, 2003. Gill, 2007. Hendricks, 2011. Lennard and Crowhurst 1992. Woolley, 2006.) Hendricks (2011) summarises these viewpoints; nature is of high value, but it is important to note that children cannot be offered only nature. Across some of the literature, there is an emphasis on encouraging children to take up environmental concerns. (Chawla, 2002. Churchman, 2003. Frost, 2006. Valentine and McKendrick, 1997.) Chawla (2002) emphasises the importance of a design approach that recognises the ‘positive effects of interaction with nature on health, mental stamina and creativity,’ noting that this provides a ‘foundation for environmental stewardship.’ (p17) Frost (2006) also emphasises the importance of alerting children to nature’s value and gradual destruction. On the other hand, Hendricks (2011) criticises this ‘desire to transmit the burden of saving the earth’ to children. Allen (1968) quotes Einstein; ’..he who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe is as good as dead; his eyes are closed’ (p11) Both Louv (2005) and Hendricks (2011) agree; they both state that in order to positively engage children with the environment and the planet, they need to associate nature with ‘wonder and joy’ rather than ‘fear and apocalypse’ (Louv, 2005, p143)

Overall the literature places a lot of importance on the role of nature. In 1968, Allen recognised that we forget that ‘twilight, shadow and beauty’ in nature are ‘as important to a child as food and air.’(p11) There remains today in current literature, an emphasis on children’s contact with nature as a vital part of healthy development.

Image: <http-//www.samuelandson.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/View-through-Trees> Accessed 2017 03 23.

Literature Review

Image: <http-//www.wisconsinlandtrusts.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/tempKids-playing-in-creek> Accessed 2017 03 23.

How can design encourage more contact with nat ure?

Authors take varying approaches to incorporation of nature for children in the public realm. Some literature suggests small scale interventions such as integrating design elements of ‘wilderness’ into city schools and parks (Frost, 2006 p4) whilst others such as Acar (2013) focus on play space design which incorporate nature. Hendricks (2011) advocates a wider strategy but emphasises that intervention needs to start by connecting children to nature in the playground. However, she criticises the design of ‘nature play’ spaces which can often lack awareness of what children actually want and need, creating a superficial sense of nature. Louv (2005) and Hendricks (2011) both state that nature in play should be living whilst Chawla (2002) agrees, quoting Lynch who emphasised the importance of exchanges with ‘life fostering environments’ in play (p23). Louv (2005) suggests the broadest strategy, advocating a ‘child friendly green urbanism’ where whole settlements are designed to reconnect people and nature. (p245) He talks about introducing bio-diverse natural corridors which connect through the urban fabric and also mentions how ‘empty’ plots of land actually contain a lot of diversity, pointing out how urban design could make use of these zones. Finally, considering that Woolley

(2006) identifies that 3.8 million households are projected to be built by 2021 in the UK; this could be a valuable opportunity to develop a better, more accessible green space strategy. Overall, nature plays a vital role in children’s contact with the outdoors. Both small and more broad interventions have the potential together to introduce more contact with the natural environment.

Literature Review

The importance of freedom to roam + taking reasonable risks

Freedom to roam and taking risks is vital for healthy child development (Allen, 1968. Churchman, 2003. Frost, 2006. Gill, 2005. Hendricks, 2011. Lennard and Crowhurst, 1992. Lester and Russell, 2008. Louv, 2005. Moore, 1986. Valentine and McKendrick, 1997. Woolley, 2006.) especially given that the public realm can provide a valuable education about human relationships and society and help build confidence, physical and social skills. (Churchman, 2003. Gill, 2005. Hendricks, 2011. Lennard and Crowhurst, 1992. Lester and Russell, 2008. Louv, 2005. Valentine and McKendrick, 1997. Woolley, 2006.) However several authors have noted that ‘childhood is becoming undermined by risk aversion’ (Gill, 2007. p10) Concern about the safety of children playing outside has meant that they have become increasingly restricted in spatial independence outdoors (Churchman, 2003. Gill, 2007. Hillman, 2006. Louv, 2005. Valentine and McKendrick, 1997) There are several causing factors however parental anxiety has been cited as one of the major influences on the decline of independent outdoor play. (Moore, 1989. Valentine and McKendrick, 1997.) Fear of risk from traffic, crime and ‘stranger danger’ is cited as the main factor which prevents parents from allowing their

Image: <http-//cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/food/assets_c/2012/03/CITIES-Playgrounds-POST-thumb-615x303-81607> Accessed 2017 03 24

children to engage in nature, any activity which involves an element of risk or to roam independently around their neighbourhood. (Acar, 2013. Frost, 2006. Gill, 2005. Hendricks, 2011. Lennard and Crowhurst, 1992. Lester and Russell, 2008. Louv, 2005. Matthews et al, 2000. Moore, 1986. Valentine and McKendrick, 1997. Woolley and Griffin, 2015.) Although the literature does not deny that venturing into the outdoors can occasionally involve some negative consequences (Churchman, 2003. Gill, 2007. Hendricks, 2011. Lester and Russell, 2008.) most authors assert that the reality is the majority of these fears is exacerbated by the media and word of mouth (Gill, 2007. Lester and Russell, 2008. Valentine and McKendrick, 1997. Woolley, 2006. Woolley and Griffin, 2015.) Frost (2006) particularly asserts that the view that children should be sheltered from all risk is a common misconception of adults. Especially in middle childhood, children need freedom to roam in order to establish a self beyond adult control and supervision (Churchman, 2003. Gill, 2007. Hendricks, 2011.) and this element of fear particularly limits the amount of time that a child can be unsupervised outside, therefore limiting social and environmental

experiences at a time when children need to be moving outside and exploring and interacting with the environment as much as possible. (Acar, 2013. Chawla, 2002. Gill, 2007. Lester and Russell, 2008.) Some of the literature asserts that in fact by restricting children, adults pose a greater risk to the physical and psychological health of children (Acar, 2013. Gill, 2007. Hendricks, 2011. Hillman, 2006. Louv, 2005. Valentine and McKendrick, 1997. Woolley and Griffin, 2015.) By ‘wrapping a blanket too tightly,’ children lose their ability to measure actual danger (Louv, 2005, p130) and by separating children from the outdoors, they cannot experience neighbourhood life at first hand. Many explain how this can mean that a child will not know how to be part of the community or develop any skills in participating in local society as adults. (Churchman, 2003. Hendricks, 2011. Lester and Russell, 2008.) By restricting them to a designated play area with ‘overzealous, excessive’ health and safety regulations, (Frost, 2006) children can become alienated and bored with their outdoor environment as there are not enough stimulating activities to do. (Chawla, 2002. Churchman, 2003.) This

standardisation and regulation is cited by some authors as a major cause of the general shift from outdoor to indoor play, which often involves a computer or a television (Cunningham and Jones, 2004. Gill, 2007. Lester and Russell, 2008.) Whilst some literature argues that these technologies, when used appropriately, can serve as an informal play realm for children to explore and engage with independently, (Cunningham and Jones, 2004. Gill, 2007. Lester and Russell, 2008.) all the literature recognises that ‘virtual reality cannot replace real life’ and overdependence on computers and sedentary lifestyles are linked with obesity and mental health problems (Gill, 2007. Hendricks, 2011. Lester & Russell, 2008. Louv, 2005.) However, whilst too much engagement in virtual realities is a problem most literature agrees that this is a symptom, not a cause, of children’s loss of independence and freedom to roam in the outdoors. Overall, the principal cause highlighted throughout is parental anxiety and excessive health and safety regulations, which, although sometimes warranted, significantly restricts children’s independent access to their local neighbourhood and freedom to roam.

Literature Review

Image: <http://www.sustrans.org.uk/policy-evidence/the-impact-of-our-work/home-zone-project-helps-communities-redesign-theirstreets> Accessed 2017 03 24.

How can design encourage children to independently access the outdoors more?

Generally, the literature agrees that ‘children will play anywhere’ (Acar, 2013. Allen, 1968. Churchman, 2003. Lester and Russell, 2008. Woolley, 2006.) and that permitting them to do so as much as possible allows them to engage with necessary risks, encourages better development and makes them more capable of coping with potentially hazardous or difficult conditions. (Churchman, 2003. Frost, 2005. Hendricks, 2011.) All the literature agrees that design to improve shared public spaces can have a positive impact on children in the community. Louv (2005) and Hendricks (2011) agree that ensuring the quality of public parks and spaces for people of all ages and interests can create more social cohesion and reduce crime and delinquency. For example, with security in numbers, and a stronger sense of trust in the local neighbourhood, parents are more like to permit their child to go to a park independently. (Acar, 2013. CABE Space,

2004. Churchman, 2003. Chawla, 2002. Hendricks, 2011.) Overall, making the whole neighbourhood safer for children through design encourages more outdoor play. Woolley (2006) notes how the ‘Home zones’ policy introduced in the UK in 2005 had begun to have a positive effect on communities nationwide. The principal of the policy is to provide more opportunities for children to play safely in their neighbourhood, integrating footpaths and cycle ways into where social activities can take place. Hendricks (2011) explains; if children can take up the use of their immediate outdoor surroundings, they can get to know their neighbours and develop stronger social ties, creating more social cohesion and calming parent anxiety. Lennard and Crowhurst (1992), Chawla (2002) and Churchman (2003) assert that urban settlements in particular have the potential to be the best developed social economies if designed appropriately – proximity of housing units, transport

networks and a range of facilities means that children have the potential to interact with a wide network of social support. Some literature argues that encouraging free and independent play outdoors requires challenging the wider social, cultural and political attitudes towards children as well as design intervention. (Cunningham and Jones, 2006. Gill, 2007. Hillman, 2006. Louv, 2005. Valentine and McKendrick, 1997. Woolley and Griffin, 2015.) Valentine and McKendrick (1997) state that children are no more likely to play outdoors if there are better opportunities in the neighbourhood if parental anxieties are not challenged. Gill advocates social intervention with community focused projects whilst Louv (2005) asserts that legislation and policies should be challenged. However, these authors agree that although design cannot force change, it has the potential to improve accessibility and social cohesion. Alongside political and cultural intervention, design can challenge the ‘culture of fear’ (Gill, 2007) amongst parents and cultural attitudes towards children in society.

Literature Review

Understanding social and cultural influences on freedom to roam

Gender The literature also understands that as well as physical design, gender distinctions by parents and culture, geographical location and the economic and social condition of the neighbourhood play key determining factors in a child’s independent outdoor play. (Churchman, 2003. Hendricks, 2011. Lester and Russell, 2008. Moore, 1989. Woolley and Griffin, 2015.) The geographical type of neighbourhood (rural, suburban, urban) will affect the physical structure of the area and therefore the child’s experience of the local environment. A lot of literature focuses on children in urban areas. Some state that rural children have more access to open, natural spaces for play, (Acar, 2013. Churchman, 2003.) however other authors challenge this idea, identifying problems of disconnection, isolation and exclusion in rural areas. (Lester and Russell, 2008. Matthews et al, 2000.) This difference in opinion indicates that this is a complex factor which is inter-related with other complex social and cultural factors.

Whilst Valentine and McKendrick recognise that parents may be starting to understand children’s ability to play safely outdoors in a less gendered way, most literature agrees that boys are allowed greater independence and range than girls. (Acar, 2013. Hendricks, 2011. Moore, 1986. Woolley and Griffin, 2015.) Gender therefore may partly determine the restriction on a child’s access to the outdoors. Socio economic status The socio economic status of a neighbourhood can also have an effect on a child’s access to the outdoors. Some literature states that the decline in free outdoor play can be seen across all social classes. (Churchman, 2003. Valentine and McKendrick, 1997.) However others note that middle class children may generally be engaged in more institutional, organised activities whilst children from families with lower incomes may be spending more time in the local neighbourhood. (Chawla, 2002. Churchman, 2003. Lester and Russell 2008. Valentine and McKendrick, 1997.)

Community The cultural attitude towards children in a community is also a key determining factor (Chawla, 2002. Churchman, 2003. Hendricks, 2011. Woolley, 2006.) Whether they are welcomed, tolerated or unwelcome plays an important role in their use of public space and how much they view their neighbourhood as a ‘play realm’. Woolley’s article (2006) specifically points out that older children and teenagers are under catered for and in some cases are actually banned from using public spaces. Violence and crime is often associated with young people and in the UK several acts have been passed which give police authority to arrest, control or impose a curfew on young people who may be behaving anti socially. She points out that this policy is particularly negative and that we should instead be communicating with young people as opposed to out casting them. Chawla (2002) supports this, arguing that these types of policies alienate children and exacerbate the problem. Lack of appreciation of children as members of a local community with a right to access the public realm also contributes to the disappearance of children and young people from the outdoors. (Churchman, 2003. Lester and Russell, 2008. Lennard and Crowhurst, 1992. Matthews et al., 2000)

Overall the physical and social qualities of a neighbourhood are interlinked (Chawla, 2002) Factors influencing a child’s access to the outdoors can be complex (Woolley and Griffin, 2015.) and there is no one universal determining factor in a child’s interaction with their local environment. (Chawla, 2002. Woolley and Griffin, 2015. Matthews et al, 2000.) However, the literature review indicates that design alongside cultural and social attitudes can play an influential role in children’s use of the outdoors.

Image: <https://timrgill.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/lupton-play> Accseed 2017 03 24.

Literature Review

The importance of involving children in design

We adults are but tourists in the land of children; we are not experts in their culture and their ways. (Hendricks, 2011, p5) Churchman (2003) states that children’s needs are the least considered in planning and design – childhood is too often viewed as a passing phase and in the public realm children are generally permitted only in spaces specifically designed for them by adults. (Churchman, 2003. Frost, 2006. Lester and Russell, 2008. Louv, 2005. Moore, 1986.) However, several authors note the problem with this. For example, Chawla (2002) states; ‘adults may know how to create community environments that promote health and safety, but children and youth are the experts on what fosters or fractures their personal sense of well being’ (p221) All the literature identifies the child’s right to a louder voice in the decision making process in the outdoor public realm. Although Woolley (2006) mentions research projects carried out by CABE Space in the UK involving young people in design and care of urban spaces, most of the literature criticises the lack of voice

given to children regarding their local environment. (Acar, 2013. Churchman, 2003. Hendricks, 2011. Lester and Russell, 2008. Woolley, 2006.) Hendricks (2011) agrees, saying children have no influence in decisions regarding the public domain. She states that authorities usually have a poor democratic process and even when engaging with children, they adopt a poor attitude. Overall the literature agrees that the process of decision making is adult dominated and the answers are overly influenced by leading and closed questions.

Louv (2005) states that children ‘are the architects of tomorrows society’ and therefore it is extremely important that these children don’t learn to be disengaged and uninvolved, which happens even if they are superficially involved in the design process and feel that ultimately they will have no influence. Overall, local participation is a positive and productive way of reconnecting children with their communities, encouraging social integration and creating spaces which reflect this. (Chawla, 2002. Churchman, 2003. Lester and Russell, 2008. Louv, 2005. Moore 1986.)

Much of the literature asserts how design needs to better incorporate the fact that children read space differently. Children evaluate the environment with its functional rather than its aesthetical features. (Acar, 2013.) Acar quotes Paula Lillard; ‘children use the environment to improve themselves; adults use themselves to improve the environment’ Considering this difference, it is vital to look at the environment through children’s eyes when designing spaces for children. (Acar, 2013. Allen, 1968. Cunningham & Jones, 2006. Lester and Russell, 2008. Louv, 2005. Matthews et al, 2000. Moore, 2014.)

The literature indicates that whilst some efforts are being made to include children in design, children’s views are not being taken into enough account with regards to policy and the outdoor realm. However, there is clearly potential to involve children in the decision making process. Doing this could encourage children to interact more with their local environment and community and allow them the chance to make a positive contribution to design building and maintenance of public spaces (CABE Space, 2004.)

Image: <http://shape.eu.com/#/consultation-1/> Accessed 2017 03 24

Literature Review

Image: <https-//www.childrenandnature.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/children_with_dip_nets_in_woods_at_outdoor_family_workshop_in_georgetown_near_austin--1080x675> Accessed 2017 03 24

Conclusion

The literature illustrates how policy, culture and the socio physical environment strongly influences children’s access to the outdoors and thus their mental and physical development. Whilst the literature illustrates how little has changed since the 1970s, when Lady Allen of Hurtwood’s ‘Planning for Play’ was published, more recent publications seem to be pushing for similar changes; we can see many ideas from Allen’s work promoted in modern texts. The literature illustrates how design can introduce more contact with nature and encourage change in parental and social attitudes towards children in the community through social cohesion. Whilst cultural and social attitudes have an effect on children’s freedom to roam and to take reasonable risk, design can improve access to more free and spontaneous play outdoors. The importance of including children in the design process is highly emphasised. Having a meaningful exchange of ideas and making children feel that they have an influence in the process is vital. Overall, the literature indicates that whilst poor design and neglect of children’s right to access freely the outdoor environment can have negative consequences on children’s health and therefore society and the environment as a whole, design has the potential to increase children’s access to and interaction with the public realm and the natural environment. 29

Literature Review

Methodology

Image: Author

The research strategy was to work with children using questionnaires and mapping activities to understand how much they use the outdoors for play, what they enjoy and how much freedom they have in the outdoor realm. The information gathered from this activity was then used to analyse how and why the children use the outdoors and how much influence the physical structure of the local area plays in opening up the local environment as a play realm for children. Group based activities under supervised conditions were carried out in three different schools in Dulwich (London) Warninglid (Sussex) and Currie (Edinburgh). These three study areas represent an urban, suburban and rural demographic. Schools were chosen as a way of getting contact with children who live, go to school and spend time in the local area. The study areas were focused around the schools, as it was assumed that this area would be within the children’s daily contact space. In total, 54 girls and boys aged 10-12 took part in the study.

Data about the children’s contact with the local outdoor environment was gathered using a mapping activity and questionnaire worksheet. Permission from schools had to be sought in advance, followed by meetings and correspondence with teachers to explain what the activity would entail and negotiate possible times. A parental consent form was sent home with all the children involved in the study and a short explanatory introduction was given to each class of children prior to the activity. It was made clear that their feedback would be anonymous and that they didn’t have to take part if they didn’t want to. All information was collected by myself with a teacher also present in the classroom.

An excel worksheet, coding and weighting system was set up to input and organise the data. This was then uploaded to ‘www.survey monkey.com’, which was used to generate graphs, filtering and compare the results to better understand what they show. ‘Turf maps’ (Moore, 1989) were drawn as a compilation of the children’s map activity. Each loop represents a mention from 10% of the children who took part in the activity. These topographic overlays help to understand how much diversity for play the children experience and if and where there are any principal nuclei in the area.

The map activity worksheet was adapted to the school’s busy schedules. It was designed to take 10-15 minutes and incorporated suitable vocabulary for the children. A short introduction was given to

Methodology

The questionnaire consisted of the following questions which were tick box answers. The information sought after was informed by the literature review.

How many times a week do you play outside during the holidays/term time?

What leisure activities do you like to do? Choose your 5 favourite leisure activities. Rate these from 1-5.

How many times a week do you play outside without an adult there during the holidays/term time? This was used to determine how much on average children in the area are accessing the outdoors and how much they go outside to play without adult supervision. In the introduction The meaning of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;outside playâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; was defined to the children as play away from the home, in the local neighbourhood.

The children were asked to tick 5 activities from a choice of options, to rate these from 1-5 and to double tick if they usually do these activities without adult supervision. The choices given were a mixture of activities such as playing in the garden, social media, playing in nature, cinema, drawing and painting, watching TV, gaming, climbing trees, going to the playground. This was used to determine what activities the children prefer. The activities listed were varied between predominantly outdoors or indoors, structured or unstructured. Asking the children to rate these activities was an attempt to understand how much they value their time outdoors, particularly in free, unstructured play in comparison with other activities they they might also engage in.

How do you travel to school?

Have you ever been involved with the design of a park or playground in your neighbourhood?

Mapping activity

Would you like to be involved?

The children were given a choice between bike, bus, walk, car. They were also asked if they travel on their own, with friends, or with an adult. This question was used to determine how the children get to school and if they are permitted to travel unaccompanied. Given that the commute to school has the potential to offer daily contact with the outdoors, if unsupervised by an adult, this is a daily activity which can give children a sense of independence and small play opportunities in the outdoor realm.

This question was used to determine how much the children in the area are being included in decision making processes about community spaces and how much interest they show in taking part.

The mapping activity showed the area around the school. If the children were familiar with the area, they were asked to mark places that they liked to go, places they might feel unsafe. This was used to determine where the common ‘liked’ and ‘unsafe’ places are across an area and generally how the children feel about their local area. It was also a means of finding out how much of the area the children recognise within their ‘play realm,’ how wide this area is and how much variation in types of landscape for play they enjoy.

Methodology

Case study areas

Warninglid,Sussex Warninglid County Primary School (Mixed)

Warninglid is a small village in West Sussex, South England. Census statistics show the population is older than the UK average with a lower population of children which is typical of a rural commumity. Higher band salaried households indicate the area is relatively affluent. The community is very small and the village is largely surrounded by privatised farmland. Access to the village seems to be predominantly by car however some buses do connect to nearby towns. There are several accessible woodlands managed by the woodland trust and a recreation ground located behind housing at the village centre.

LONDON

Warninglid County Primary is a very small mixed gender state funded school. The catchment area is largely Warninglid and some of Slaugham, the neighbouring village. The school itself is located outside the village centre surrounded by private farm land. It is relatively isolated, accessed from Slougham Lane, a narrow road which varies between 30 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 50 mph.

Warninglid

South Downs

Images: <https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place> Accessed 2017 03 24

Case studies

Dulwich, London Dulwich College Junior School (Boys), James Allen’s Preparatory School (Girls)

LONDON Dulwich

West Dulwich is located in South London, straddling the boundary between Lambeth and Southwark. 5% of the population are aged 10-14, slightly lower than the national average. W Dulwich has 20% more higher and intermediate salaried households than the national average, indicating that the area is very affluent. It is well connected to the city centre via bus links and West Dulwich train station. Pedestrian access around the area involves crossing the South Circular, a major road that runs through the area, often criticised for traffic, capacity and pollution problems. However, pedestrian and cycle paths around the area seem relatively well maintained. Dulwich Village high street is very pedestrian friendly with relatively up market with high end shops and cafes. Despite being near the centre of London, Dulwich Park, at 29 acres, serves as a central green space with a café, boating lake, sports facilities, playgrounds, allotment gardens and wildlife conservation

areas. Belair Park another popular green space has a playground and skate park. Working with boys from Dulwich College and girls from James Allen’s Preparatory School (J.A.G.S.) gives a sample of children living and going to school in an urban environment. However, it is important to notes that the average economic background of the children may influence the results of the study. As only 6.5% of children in the UK are educated in independent schools, these pupils may not represent the majority of children living in an urban neighbourhood. Taking this into account, this does still offer an idea of how much children are accessing the outdoors in an urban area. Dulwich College is an independent boys school set in 70 acres of private grounds. Similarly, J.A.G.S., the preparatory school is an independent girls school. The activity sheet will indicate how much the children interact with the local neighbourhood around both schools.

Images: <https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place> Accessed 2017 03 24

Case studies

Currie, Edinburgh Nether Currie Primary School (Mixed)

Currie is located in the South West suburbs of Edinburgh. It has a slightly higher than average population of children and is less ethnically diverse than an inner city community. Recent census results show a majority of C1 band salaried households indicating that the area is fairly affluent. The Water of Leith runs to the South of the neighbourhood, however access involves crossing an A road, where vehicles often break the speed limit of 30mph. Nether Currie is a small primary school, located at the centre of a relatively quiet neighbourhood. The residential units are arranged to face on to the school and Muirwood park. The park itself can be accessed from the school grounds and is often used for school activities. The catchment area is very small so most children live very close by. The school is a case study of a suburban area. As it is state funded and mixed gender, the children will offer a more representative sample of childhood in a suburban area. However, the results may be affected by the particularly small catchment area of the school.

Images: <https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place> Accessed 2017 03 24

Case studies

Results

The data collected from the children’s activity sheets was compared and contrasted using line graphs, bar graphs and pie charts to enable analysis. As the samples from each neighbourhood were unequal, weighted averages and percentages were used to compare and contrast the results. For each question given to the children, the overall finding was first separated into gender types to establish any significant difference and was then refined into neighbourhood type to understand the influence of design in children’s experience of their outdoor realm. Turf maps were compiled for each neighbourhood study area from the children’s map activity sheets, by overlaying the children’s drawings in Adobe Illustrator.

Figures 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 In general, all the children in the study were found to play outside more in the holiday than in term time. Whilst a small proportion of children in the study were found to never access the outdoor environment without an adult present, on average, the children who took part appear to spend about a third of their outdoor play time unsupervised. In terms of gender, girls were found to play outside less than boys with the most significant difference being in unsupervised play during the holiday where boys play 1.2 times more per week. The neighbourhood appeared to have an influence with children from the suburban case study spending the most time playing outside per week and the most time without adult supervision. This was followed by the rural, and lastly the urban children who appeared to be spending the least time independently in the outdoor realm.

There seemed to be little gender difference in the rural and suburban areas however in the urban case study, there appeared to be a significant lack of unsupervised play for girls in comparison to boys.

Outside play

Average outdoor play sessions per week

Supervised

Unsupervised

7 Outdoor play sessions (per week)

1.0

6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Holiday Term 4.1

Holiday 3.5

Term 2.7

2.1

Results

1.1

Average outdoor play sessions per week - Gender Supervised

Unsupervised

Outdoor play sessions

Holiday

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Boys

Girls

Boys

Girls

4.3

3.6

3.1

1.9

Boys

Girls

Boys

3.7

3.2

2.3

Outdoor play sessions

Term

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Girls 1.8

1.2

Average outdoor play sessions per week - Neighbourhood Supervised

Unsupervised

Outdoor play sessions

Holiday

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Warninglid

Dulwich

Currie

Warninglid

Dulwich

Currie

Warninglid

Dulwich

Currie

Outdoor play sessions

Term

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Warninglid 2 49

Dulwich 2

Currie 3 Results

1.3

Average outdoor play sessions per week - Gender | Neighbourhood

Supervised

B o y s

G i r l s

Outdoor play sessions

Holiday

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Warninglid

Dulwich

4.5

4.3

Currie

Warninglid

4.5

4.1

Dulwich

Currie

3.0

3.7

Outdoor play sessions

Term

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Warninglid 2.5

Dulwich 4.3

Currie

Warninglid

3.0

3.3 50

Dulwich 3.0

Currie 3.3

Unsupervised

B o y s

Girls

Outdoor play sessions

Holiday

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Warninglid 3.2

Dulwich 3.1

Currie

Warninglid

3.5

2.4

Dulwich 0.3

Currie 2.7

Outdoor play sessions

Term

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Warninglid 1.5

Dulwich 2.5

Currie

Warninglid

2.5

2.6 51

Dulwich 0.0

Currie 2.4 Results

Leisure activity preference Figures 2.0, 2.01, 2.2, 2.21, 2.4, 2.41, 2.6 Overall the two most highly rated activities were found to be predominantly indoors (‘Gaming’ and ‘Drawing and painting’) whilst the two lowest rated activities were outdoors (‘Going to the playground’ and ‘Playing in the garden’.) ‘Playing in nature’ was also found to rate relatively low in comparison with other outdoor activities such as ‘Climbing trees’ or ‘Organised sport.’ In terms of gender there does not seem to be a significant difference in preference over some activities. However, whilst the greatest difference in gender appears to be in preference for ‘Gaming’, where boys rate this highest, several indoor activities seem to be rated higher by girls whilst some unstructured outdoor activities appear to be valued slightly higher amongst boys. Some variation in preference appeared depending on neighbourhood type. The children in the rural case study were found to value a variety of outdoor activities ‘Playing in nature’, ‘Playing in the garden’, ‘Playing with pets’ and ‘Going to the playground’ the highest, with boys

within the neighbourhood allocating slightly higher value to these activities than girls. Despite having been found to rate organised sport the highest, the children in the suburban area rated some outdoor activities such as ‘Climbing trees,’ ‘Walking in nature,’ ‘Playing in the garden,’ and ‘Going to the playground’ the lowest, with boys rating nature and the garden slightly lower than the girls. Suburban girls were also found to highly rate social media. Whilst the urban children were found to rate the majority of indoor activities the highest, girls in the urban case study rated organised sport relatively highly and were found to value climbing trees the most in comparison to any other group whilst urban boys appeared to rate some outdoor activities such as ‘Playing in the garden’ and ‘Going to the playground’ slightly higher than boys in other neighbourhoods. Independence Figures 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, 2.7 Activities which were found to be completely unsupervised activities were predominantly indoors or within the boundaries of the home. Outdoor, unstructured activities which are likely to

Preferences & Independence

involve further range from the home were found to be most often supervised by an adult. Here, girls appear to be supervised by an adult more often than boys. Although ‘going to the playground’ was rated the least popular activity, more than half the children claimed to do this without adult supervision. However, whilst the majority of suburban children and more than half of the urban children go to the playground unsupervised, a very low percentage of children in the rural case study go to the playground without an adult. Despite this, these children seem to be the least supervised in other activities, for example when ‘playing in nature’ or ‘climbing trees.’ Whilst girls in the suburban case study appeared to be slightly less independent than boys in outdoor activities away from the home, girls in the urban case study seemed almost never to be left unsupervised in outdoor activities away from the home whilst boys in the same area appeared to have considerably more independence, particularly when ‘going to the cinema’ and ‘going to the playground.’ On the other hand, girls in the rural case study were found to have the most independence in outdoor activities such as ‘playing in nature’ and in some cases to have even more than boys in the same area.

2.0

Overall preferences

Unstructured

3.25

Drawing & Painting

Indoor

Social media

2.75

Watching TV

2.41

types

Gaming

Structured

Activity

Unstructured

3.44

Cinema

2.61

Climbing trees

2.85

Outdoor

Playing in nature

2.41

Playing in the garden

Structured

2.18

Playing with pets

3.14

Organised sports

3.15

Going to the playground

2.14 1

Weighted average 53

Results

Overall preferences

Mean

Standard Deviation

Weighted Average

Gaming

2.38

1.49

3.44

Drawing & Painting

2.50

1.29

3.25

Organised sports

2.64

1.54

3.15

Playing with pets

2.64

1.26

3.14

Climbing trees

2.85

1.56

2.85

Social media

3.19

1.13

2.75

Cinema

3.11

1.20

2.61

Watching TV

3.34

1.24

2.41

Playing in nature

3.32

1.36

2.41

Playing in the garden

3.71

1.22

2.18

Going to the playground

3.76

1.11

2.14

Predominantly indoor unstructured Predominantly indoor structured Predominantly outdoor unstructured Predominantly outdoor structured 54

Highest

Weighted average

Activity Type

Activities

2.01

Lowest

Overall level of independence

Weighted Average

Popularity

100%

3.25

Social media

100%

2.75

Watching TV

100%

2.41

Gaming

100%

3.44

Playing in the garden

100%

2.18

3.14

2.14

2.85

2.61

2.41

3.15

Playing with pets

93%

Going to the playground

56%

Climbing trees

46% 22%

Cinema Playing in nature

17%

Organised sports 0%

10%

Independenc e

Drawing & Painting

Average

2.1

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of childen who usually carry out activity independently 55

Results

Preferences-Gender

Predominantly Indoor U n s t r u c t u r e d

Structured

2.83

2.90

2.17

2.16

1.86

2.38

3.88

3.47

4.33

2.71

Weighted average

2.2

0 Drawing & Painting

Boy

Social media

Gaming

Girl 56

Watching TV

Cinema

Predominantly Outdoor

Climbing trees

Playing in nature

Playing in the garden

Playing with pets

Organised sports

2.00

2.25

3.50

3.00

3.38

2.93 2.14

2.21

2.33

Structured

2.50

2.71

3.00

Unstructured

Going to the playground

Results

Girls

Preferences-Gender

Preference order

Activity Type

Mean

Standard Deviation

Weighted Average

Social media

1.33

0.47

4.33

Organised sports

2.33

1.43

3.50

Drawing & Painting

2.29

1.40

3.47

Playing with pets

2.38

1.21

3.38

Watching TV

2.60

1.11

2.90

Climbing trees

3.00

1.77

2.71

Playing in nature

3.50

1.26

2.33

Cinema

3.67

1.11

2.17

Playing in the garden

3.79

0.94

2.14

Going to the playground

4.00

0.67

2.00

Gaming

4.00

0.93

1.86

Highest

Weighted average

2.21

Lowest

Activity Type

Preference order

Mean

Standard Deviation

Weighted Average

Gaming

1.92

1.29

3.88

Climbing trees

2.67

1.25

3.00

Organised sports

2.78

1.57

3.00

Playing with pets

2.87

1.26

2.93

Cinema

2.83

1.14

2.83

Drawing & Painting

3.00

0.76

2.71

Playing in nature

3.10

1.45

2.50

Social media

3.62

0.74

2.38

Going to the playground

3.58

1.32

2.25

Playing in the garden

3.64

1.44

2.21

Watching TV

3.74

1.12

2.16

Highest

Weighted average

Boys

Lowest

Results

Independence -Gender Percentage of childen who usually carry out activity independently

Predominantly Indoor U n s t r u c t u r e d

Structured

38%

100%

50%

100%

100% Level of independence

2.3

0% Drawing & Painting

Boy

Social media

Watching TV

Girl

Gaming

Cinema

Predominantly Outdoor

63%

96%

91%

100%

100% 19%

36%

53%

Climbing trees

Playing in nature

Playing in the garden

Organised sports

Playing with pets

45%

Structured

Unstructured

Going to the playground

Results

Preferences-Neighbourhood

Predominantly Indoor U n s t r u c t u r e d

Structured

5 4

Social media

Watching TV

Warninglid Dulwich Currie

Gaming

1.67

2.92

2.00

2.63

3.94

3.14 2.00

2.65

3.83

Drawing & Painting

2.10

2.27

2.70

3.83

3.50

Weighted average

2.4

Cinema

Predominantly Outdoor

Organised sports

2.00

2.07

3.00

2.85

3.17

Playing with pets

2.71

2.00

2.15

Playing in the garden

2.71

3.44 Playing in nature

2.33

2.20

2.43

2.80

2.33

3.50

2.67

Climbing trees

3.92

Structured

Unstructured

Going to the playground

Results

2.41

Preferences-Neighbourhood

Predominantly indoor unstructured Predominantly indoor structured Predominantly outdoor unstructured Predominantly outdoor structured

Warninglid

Mean

Standard Deviation

Weighted Average

Drawing & Painting

2.38

1.22

3.50

Playing with pets

2.44

1.50

3.44

Gaming

2.57

1.40

3.14

Going to the playground

3.14

0.50

3.00

Playing in nature

2.80

0.75

2.80

Organised sports

3.14

1.73

2.71

Climbing trees

2.83

1.57

2.67

Playing in the garden

2.50

1.15

2.33

Watching TV

3.70

1.10

2.10

Cinema

4.00

1.00

2.00

Social media

0.00

Highest

Weighted average

Activity Type

Preference order

Lowest

Results

Dulwich

Mean

Standard Deviation

Weighted Average

Gaming

1.88

1.28

3.94

Drawing & Painting

2.00

1.15

3.83

Climbing trees

2.25

1.64

3.50

Cinema

2.69

0.99

2.92

Organised sports

2.90

1.45

2.85

Playing with pets

3.00

1.31

2.71

Watching TV

3.12

1.23

2.65

Playing in nature

3.43

1.40

2.43

Social media

3.73

0.75

2.27

Playing in the garden

3.62

1.39

2.15

Going to the playground

3.87

1.20

2.07

Highest

Weighted average

Activity Type

Preference order

Lowest

Nether Currie

Activity Type

Mean

Standard Deviation

Weighted Average

Organised sports

1.92

1.32

3.92

Social media

2.00

0.89

3.80

Playing with pets

2.58

0.95

3.17

Drawing & Painting

2.90

1.30

2.70

Gaming

3.25

1.56

2.63

Climbing trees

3.67

0.94

2.33

Playing in nature

3.50

1.50

2.20

Watching TV

3.50

1.50

2.00

Playing in the garden

4.00

0.82

2.00

Going to the playground

4.00

0.00

2.00

Cinema

4.33

0.94

1.67

Highest

Weighted average

Preference order

Lowest

Results

2.5

Independence -Neighbourhood Percentage of childen who usually carry out activity independently

Predominantly Indoor U n s t r u c t u r e d

Structured

42%

100%

50%

100%

Level of independence

100%

0% Drawing & Painting

Social media

Watching TV

Warninglid Dulwich Currie

Gaming

Cinema

Predominantly Outdoor

80%

65%

100%

85%

100%

31%

53%

38%

54%

Climbing trees

100%

Structured

100%

Unstructured

Playing in nature

Playing in the garden

Playing with pets

Organised sports

Going to the playground

Results

Warninglid

Dulwich 2

Drawing & Painting Social media

Currie 70 Watching TV Gaming

2.00 2.00

1.00 1.00

3.22 3.22

2.00 2.00

3.20 3.20

4.13 4.13

3.80

2.38

1.80 1.80

3.00

U n s t r u c t u r e d

2.25 2.25

1.67 1.67

2.50

3.00 3.00

2.67 2.67

2.27 2.27 3.00

1.00

3.00

3.50 3.50

4.33

5.00 5.00

2.40

2.63 2.63

2.50 2.50

3.83 3.83

Weighted average

Boys

1.50 1.50

Girls

2.6 Preferences-Neighbourhood | Gender Predominantly Indoors Structured

Cinema

Climbing trees Playing in nature Playing in the garden Playing with pets 71 3.00 2.35 1.80 1.50 2.00 1.60

3.00 3.00

3.00

2.71

3.33

3.00 3.00 2.20 2.20 2.00 2.00

4.00 4.00

2.71 2.71

1.33

2.43

2.33 2.33 2.50 2.43 2.50

2.50 2.50

3.00 3.00

U n s t r u c t u r e d

3.86 3.86

3.67 3.67

2.00 2.00

3.29

3.50

2.67 3.50

2.67 1.83

2.14 2.20 2.20 1.83

2.75 2.75 2.00 2.00 2.14

1.00 1.00

4.00 4.00

2.50 2.50

Predominantly Outdoors Structured

Organised Going to the playground sports Results

2.7

Independence - Neighbourhood | Gender Percentage of childen who usually carry out activity independently

100%

55%

100% 100%

100%

100% 100%

50%

100%

Level of independence

Boys

Warninglid

Level of independence

Girls

100%

50%

Drawing & Painting

Social media

Dulwich Currie

Watching TV

Gaming

Cinema

Playing in nature

33% Playing in the garden

Playing with pets

Organised sports

83%

75%

83% 78%

75%

100%

100% 100% 100%

85% 100% 100% 85%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

100%

100% 100%

50% 40%

56%

50% 67% 50% 50%

67% 43%

Climbing trees

Going to the playground

Results

Travel to school Figures 3.0, 3.1, 3.2

Overall, the children in the study were found to travel to school predominantly by car, with an adult. In terms of gender difference, boys seemed to travel more often on their own or with friends than girls. Significant differences were seen between neighbourhoods. Children in the rural case study all travelled by car, with an adult whilst just over half of the children in the suburbs walk or cycle with friends or on their own. The children in the urban case study were found predominantly to use public transport on their own or with friends.

Travel to school 74

Travel to school

3.1

Overall

lk Wa

Gender

Boys

Bike

Girls

k B ik e Wal

Bu s

Bike

Bu s

Wal k

r Ca

u lt ad an h it

riends

r Ca

th f wi

u ad

on my own

with friends

u lt ad

on my ow n

with friend s

on my own

r Ca

wit h

3.0

Results

Travel to school - Gender | Neighbourhood Boys

D u l w i c h

r Ca

Bike

Car

Currie

W a r n i n g l i d

s Bu

on my ow

on m yo w

h friends wit

wi th

lt adu n a

w i t ha n

ult ad

with h firends wit

ult

3.2

Girls W a r n i n g l i d

D u l w i c h

lk a W

Car

r Ca

ke Bi

Currie

Car

on my o wn

wit h

riends th f wi

e fri

an u ad

s a

u ad

wit h

u ad

with

alk W

Results

Involvement in design Figures 4.0, 4.1, 4.2

Design Involve ment

Overall, the majority of children were found to have never been involved in design of a public space or park in their local neighbourhood. However, a significant proportion claimed that they would like to be. In terms of gender, girls seemed to express more interest than boys. Differences were found between neighbourhoods with the children in the suburban case study having been the most involved in their environment and expressing the most interest in being part of community projects again. 78

D e s i g n I n v o l v e m e n t

4.1

Gender

Overall

Boys

Yes

Ye s

Girls

Yes

Ye s

s Ye

4.0

Results

Neighbourhood

Warninglid

Dulwich

Yes

Currie

Yes

s Ye

Yes

Ye s

4.2

Mapping Activity

5.0

W a r n i n g l i d (Rural case study)

Warninglid County Primary School

This turf map shows the children highlighting a variety of woodland areas, some just next to housing. The recreation ground does not appear to be the most popular space but is still used. Slaugham lane was marked as â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;scaryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; possibly due to car speeding and gaps in the pavement. 82

Elseys Wood

School

Slaugham Lane

Warninglid Grange

Anneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Wood

Iron gill

Recreation ground

ey ’s Wood Els

n G ill Iro

ne’s Wood An

Key areas highlighted by children

Images: <http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04/07/35/4073520_7d4c13d8,>< https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/visiting-woods,>< http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04/07/03/4070393_7fa4742d><http://www.gacc.org.uk/resources><http://www.ifootpath.com/ upload/thumbs/3576_s1409205407> Accssed 2017 03 24

cre

ation ground

Results

5.1

D u l w i c h (Urban case study) Dulwich College Junior School (Boys) James Allenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Preparatory School (Girls)

The turf map of this area shows the most variety of outdoor spaces with Dulwich park as the most popular space, at the centre of the community. 86

School

Herne Hill Velodrome

Dulwich Village High street

Dulwich Park

Belair Park

South Circular Mill pond

School

Key areas highlighted by children

lwich Park

lair Park

Mill pond

odrome Vel

h street Hig

<http-//www.maysfloorplans.com.>< https-//res.cloudinary.com/>< https-//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/><https://friendsofbelairpark. files.wordpress.com/>< https-//londondiaryblog.files.wordpress.com/><http://www.urban75.org/london/><http://www.londonbestschools. com/>< http://www.dcsportsclub.co.uk/> Accessed 2017 03 24

o r ts

ground s

Results

5.2

C u r r i e (Urban case study) Nether Currie Primary School

This turf map indicates how important the park is for the children as the principal nucleus of the neighbourhood. Whilst there is some variety, other spaces such as the Water of Leith seem less used.

Muirwood Park

School

Water of Leith

Corslet Place

A70

Results

Key areas highlighted by children

ir wood Pa rk

ter of Leith Wa

rslet Place Co

Images: <http://www.edinburghoutdoors.org.uk/content/2013/Jan/16/VKCQfePSKsdVdUU8wb.normal.>< http://s0.geograph.org.uk/ photos/03/34/033416_fdd40a13.><http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/04/92/21/4922111_3902d3c6> Accessed 2017 03 24

Results

Analysis

This analysis presents some of the prominent patterns which appear in the results and could be further explored in future study.

Warninglid

Currie

Dulwich Images: <http://sussexgiving.org.uk/wp-content/uploads>< http://www.movebubble.com/><, http://www.edinburghoutdoors.org.uk/ content/> Accessed 2017 03 24.

C h i l d r e n ’s c o n t a c t w i t h n a t u r e a s a c e n t r a l p a r t o f f r e e , u n s t r u c t u r e d p l a y

Is there a nature deficit? Considering the value that much of the literature places on nature for play, it seems important to note that ‘play in nature’ generally rated fairly low in comparison with several predominantly indoor or structured activities such as ‘gaming,’ drawing and painting,’ and ‘organised sports.’ Whilst it is understood that children are naturally drawn to nature, (Acar, 2013. Allen, 1968. Hendricks, 2011. Moore, 2014. Louv, 2005.) this finding begins to suggest that the current experience of outdoor play in nature for the children across the three neighbourhoods may be lacking some of the key elements that would normally attract children to nature as a play realm (Hendricks, 2011. Louv,2005.) However, although this sense of disconnection could begin to suggest that children in the study are suffering from ‘nature deficit disorder’ (Louv, 2005.), the children still gave relative value to other outdoor unstructured activities, most notably ‘climbing trees’ which was rated considerably higher than expected. Further study could explore why elements of play such as risk, which are usually involved with ‘climbing trees’ may not be reflected in their experience of ‘play in nature.’

Play in nature – different perceptions and experiences? Despite this general lack in popularity for nature, the variation between neighbourhood preferences differed from expected. Whilst in general the children in the rural case study were found to spend less time outside than the children in the suburbs, they seemed to rate several outdoor activities, particularly ‘playing in nature’ the highest out of children across the three case study areas, followed by the children in the urban case study, with children in the suburbs rating nature the lowest.

of ‘nature’ in the local park, Dulwich Park appears to offer a more varied choice of ‘natural’ spaces for play, possibly meaning that these children have more opportunities to explore and engage in ‘natural’ spaces. Therefore, there might be a link between physical availability and accessibility of natural spaces with the children’s general experience and opinion of nature. More varied and realistic nature spaces contribute to a more positive perception of ‘play in nature.’

The turf maps indicate that whilst the children in the rural area seem to be familiar with the most variety of natural spaces; woodlands, water, and open space, the children in the suburban area are less familiar with the environment beyond the boundaries of the housing estate. Despite the close location of the Water of Leith which seems to have much potential for ‘play in nature’ it appears to be relatively unfamiliar with the children, possibly due to access issues and the A70 acting as a boundary. Their experience of ‘nature’ seems likely to be in Muirwood Park. Whilst the children in the urban case study are also likely to find a sense

Analysis

Dissatisfaction with the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;playgroundâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;?

As a predominantly structured play activity, it is interesting that the playground rated the lowest in preference. Whilst more than half of the children were found to be able to go to the playground without adult supervision, this activity was still found to be rated poorly in comparison to other activities. Although turf maps indicate that each neighbourhood has a relatively central, accessible, play area, this type of play still seems to be the least popular. Assuming from site visits and criticism within the literature that the playground provision in Currie, Dulwich and Warninglid can be described as relatively standardised and equipment driven, the children are possibly not finding enough stimulation for play here. Although they seemed to rate some predominantly indoor or structured activities the highest, they valued all the predominantly outdoor unstructured activities higher than the playground. This could suggest that despite having more independence at the playground, this does not compensate for the prescriptive character of this environment and that even if more supervised, the children would prefer activities which leave room for more creativity in play.

Images: <http://www.edinburghoutdoors.org.uk/content>< http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/> Accessed 2017 03 24

Differences in preference for unstructured activities around nature between genders. Why? Whilst gender seems to have influenced the value the children gave to most activities, the most notable difference was where girls seemed to prefer indoor activities and boys particularly preferred several outdoor predominantly unstructured activities, most notably â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;play in nature.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; Most of the literature agrees that boys are usually allowed greater independence and range, (Valentine and McKendrick, 1997. Gill, 2007) however further exploration could try and understand how much the greater restriction on a girlâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s access to the outdoors may be affecting their leisure activity preference. 99

Analysis

Freedom to roam & take reasonable risks; key to informal, unstructured & unsupervised play

Outdoor play and supervision Whilst some of the literature suggested that children in the urban area might be spending the most time in the outdoor realm, (Churchman, 2003. Matthews et al., 2000.) it appeared to be the suburban children who spent the most time and the urban children who spent the least time outside. This could correlate partly to the way the children were found to travel to school; given the children in the suburban case study travelled the most on foot or by bike, it could be assumed that the journey to and from school could offer more opportunities to play outside whilst travelling in a vehicle such as a bus or car is more restrictive. Levels of supervision also followed a similar pattern; the urban children were found to be more often supervised in the outdoors, rural children slightly less and suburban children the least. Turf maps indicate that whilst children in the suburban case study seemed to recognise a small area, predominantly highlighting the school and park as a nucleus for activity, the children in the rural area recognised a slightly wider area and the children in the urban case study recognised the largest area, with a bigger variety of activities, within and around a busy road infrastructure. 100

Therefore, this suggests a possible pattern; that the smaller the childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s general play â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;rangeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; within the neighbourhood, the more time the children spend outside and the less supervision they have. In terms of gender, one of the most surprising findings was in the urban area where girls appeared to be considerably more supervised than boys. Whilst some of the literature could suggest that this could partly be due to higher parental anxiety for girls in an urban area, this is another question which could be explored further given that the sample of urban girls was so much smaller than urban boys.

Outdoor unstructured activities – differing levels of independence The literature establishes that outdoor unstructured activities for play, particularly in nature are key to child mental and physical well being and in order for healthy development, they need a level of freedom and independence to properly engage in this type of play. Therefore, the differing levels of independence found in outdoor unstructured activities across the neighbourhoods is notable. The higher level of independence for ‘play in nature’ amongst rural children suggests that this type of play might be perceived as a ‘safer’ activity by parents in the rural case study and more ‘dangerous’ in the suburban case study. Looking at turf maps, it could be possible that the proximity and accessibility of ‘nature’ spaces to housing correlates to how much the children are able to play unsupervised in outdoor unstructured play in nature. The spaces likely to be associated with ‘play in nature’ in the rural neighbourhood are located behind or next to housing and the community overall is very small, possibly allowing the children to be more familiar with the area. On the other hand, whilst the suburban case study is also a very small neighbourhood, natural spaces in the suburban case study are either located across a busy road, or a railway line and

therefore relatively isolated from housing. Whilst the urban case study could be considered the most distanced from nature, Dulwich Park at the centre of a busy neighbourhood, offers more variety in terms of what the children might perceive as spaces for ‘play in nature.’ There could also be a possible link between independence and value for ‘play in nature.’ The rural children rated nature the highest and the suburban children the lowest. Assuming that there is a relationship between these two factors, greater independence in nature play could be allowing children more freedom and therefore increasing the amount that they value nature as a play realm. Overall, the design of an area, location and accessibility of nature appropriate for play may correlate with the amount of independence the children have in predominantly outdoor unstructured activities, particularly in nature.

101

Image: <http://i3.mirror.co.uk/> Accessed 2017 03 24.

C h i l d r e n â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s i n f l u e n c e i n d e s i g n p r o c e s s

In terms of childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s influence in the design process, there seems to be some correlation between the level of outdoor play and involvement in the local neighbourhood. Children from the suburban case study, who had been the most involved in design of the local green space (Muirwood Park) were found to spend the most time outdoors. Whilst the majority of children showed interest in taking part in design of a local park or play area, the suburban children, who had evidently had the most experience of this previously, showed the most interest. It is also interesting that girls were found to be more interested in involvement than boys. Whilst this is a social factor, this could be further explored. 102

Image: http/nilza.net. Accessed 2017 03 24.

103

Discussion

The aim of the research was to find out how much children are getting outside, what activities they are engaging in, how independent they are and how much the physical design of the neighbourhood plays a role alongside other complex social and cultural factors. Whilst the project gave an insight into some interesting patterns, it is important to take into account the limitations of the study. Within the time constraints and health and safety procedures and regulations, the sample of children from each neighbourhood was relatively small and the amount of children within each area slightly varied, most notably where there were more boys from the urban case study. Whilst the results of the project gave some insight into how much children play outside today, expanding the research with more numbers of children, equal amounts from each neighbourhood type and each gender, from a more varied demographic would give a more representative sample of results to work with.

One of the predominant findings was the possible relationship between the children’s general independence and the size of the children’s overall play ‘range.’ Whilst this idea in itself could be investigated in more depth, further exploration could ask more about the quality of these play experiences particularly where the children seemed to spend the most time outside. Even though they play outside more, how rich, varied and unstructured is their actual play experience? The possible correlation between the children’s attitude towards ‘play in nature’ and the accessibility and variety of nature spaces to the local neighbourhood also seemed important. Further study with different neighbourhoods involving more time carrying out mapping activities with the children could help further investigation into the children’s play habits especially in and around nature.

Nevertheless, despite being influenced by these limitations, the project gave an idea of how much children play outside and how much they are supervised during this time. Several patterns also appeared that could be further explored. 104

Conclusion

Image: <http://redpeffer.me.uk/family/geocaching-fun-at-polesden-lacey> Accssed 2017 03 24

105

In conclusion, a childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s access to the outdoors in a given location is complex and interlinked with social, economical and cultural factors. However, design of the neighbourhood evidently plays an important role in determining how much a child plays outside and how rich their play experience is. The findings of this research begins to suggest that across the three neighbourhoods, official designated play is not particularly satisfying for the children as a play activity and that they prefer activities which are likely to be less prescriptive and offer more freedom and creativity in terms of play. Whilst amongst the children in this study, it could be argued that there is also a general disconnection from the outdoors, particularly from nature, the research begins to suggest that designing

Image: <http://www.structureworkshop.co.uk/arts/images/Three_Perpetual_Chord> Accessed 2017 03 24

106

neighbourhoods in close enough proximity to spaces which offer predominantly natural, unstructured environments for play may increase the childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s independence in unstructured outdoor play as well as improve the childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s value for and perception of nature as a play realm. The findings of this project also begins to suggest that involving children in this design process, giving them a legitimate voice may be able to encourage children to be more involved in future as well as generally spend more time outside. Overall, perhaps communities need to question how appropriate the typical designated playground is to the complex process of play, which is vital to healthy child development and to focus more attention on how to provide informal spaces within the neighbourhood which offer a richer and more valuable play experience to children.

107

References

Acar, H., (2013). Landscape Design for Children and Their Environments in Urban Context, Advances in Landscape Architecture, Dr. Murat Ozyavuz (Ed.), InTech, DOI: 10.5772/55751. Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/advances-in-landscape-architecture/landscape-design-for-children-and-their-environments-in-urban-context Allen, M. (1968) Planning for play. London: Thames and Hudson. CABE Space (2004) What Would You Do withThis Space? Involving young people in the design and care of urban spaces. London: CABE Space. Chawla, L., UNESCO, (2002) Growing up in an urbanising world. Paris: UNESCO Publishing Churchman, A. (2003) Is there a place for children in the city? Journal of Urban Design, Volume 8 – Issue 2 Cunningham, C. and Jones, M. (2006) ‘Middle childhood and the built environment’, NAPCAN Foundation. Frost, J. (2006) The dissolution of children’s outdoor play: Causes and Consequences. Available at: http://www.balticstreetadventureplay.co.uk/ sites/default/files/content-files/joefrostthedissolutionofchildrensoutdoorplaycausesconseques.pdf (Accessed: 19 November 2016). Gill, T. (2005) Let our children roam free. Available at: http://www.theecologist.org/investigations/society/268765/let_our_children_roam_free.html (Accessed: 20 November 2016). Gill, T. (2007) No fear: Growing up in a risk averse society. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Hendricks, B.E. (2011) Designing for play. 2nd edn. Farnham, United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing. Hillman, M (2006) ‘Children’s rights and adult’s wrongs’, Children’s Geographies, 4(1): 61-67. Lennard, H L., & Crowhurst, S H. (1992) “Children in Public Places: Some Lessons from European Cities.” Children’s Environments, vol. 9, no. 2, 1992, pp. 37–47. www.jstor.org/stable/41514862. Lester, S & Russell, W. (2008) Play for a Change: Play, Policy and Practice: A review of contemporary perspectives, Play England, National Children’s Bureau (NCB) Available at http://www.playengland.org.uk/media/120519/play-for-a-change-summary.pdf Louv, R. (2005) Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. United States: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.

108

Matthews, H., Taylor, M., Sherwood, K., Tucker, F. and Limb, M. (2000) ‘Growing-up in the countryside: Children and the rural idyll’, Journal of Rural Studies, 16(2), pp. 141–153 Moore, R. (1985) Childhood’s domain: Play and place in child development. London: Law Book Co of Australasia. Moore, R. (2014). Nature Play & Learning Places. Creating and managing places where children engage with nature. Raleigh, NC: Natural Learning Initiative and Reston, VA: National Wildlife Federation Valentine, G. and McKendrick, J. (1997) ‘Children’s outdoor play: Exploring parental concerns about children’s safety and the changing nature of childhood’, Geoforum, 28(2), pp. 219–235. Woolley, H. (2006) ‘Freedom of the city: Contemporary issues and policy influences on children and young people’s use of public open space in England’, 4(1), pp. 45–59. doi: http//dx..org/10.1080/14733280600577368 Woolley, H.E. and Griffin, E. (2014) ‘Decreasing experiences of home range, outdoor spaces, activities and companions: Changes across three generations in Sheffield in north England’, Children’s Geographies, 13(6), pp. 677–691.

109

Image references

https-//www.childrenandnature.org

http://www.sustrans.org.uk

http-//www.circleofliferediscovery.com

http-//www.theatlantic.com

https-//www.coolcamping.com/

https://timrgill.files.wordpress.com

http://www.edinburghoutdoors.org.uk

https-//www.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/

https://www.friendsofbelairpark.files.wordpress.com/

http-//www.wisconsinlandtrusts.org

http://www.geograph.org.uk/

https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/visiting-woods

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place http-//www.hdg.de https://www.iudblog.files.wordpress.com http://www.londonbestschools.com/ http-//www.madebyfieldwork.com http-//www.national trust.org http://www.play-scapes.com http-//www.samuelandson.co.uk http://www.shape.eu.com http://www.sussexgiving.org.uk/

110

Summary of key literature

Acar, H. (2013) Landscape Design for Children and Their Environments in Urban Context This paper focuses on landscape design for children in an urban context and emphasises the importance of access to outdoor play. Acar uses scientific and observational studies to identify how children perceive and relate to their environment and finally how design can meet their needs in the city. Allen, M. (1968) Planning for play. Lady Allen of Hurtwood (Majory Allen) was an advocate for children’s rights and was a key figure in promoting child welfare during the 20th century. Planning for Play (1968) established guidelines for design in the UK that were sensitive to the requirements for child development. She championed risk, exploration, creativity and the imagination. ‘Better a broken arm than a broken spirit’ CABE Space (2004) What Would You Do withThis Space? Involving young people in the design and care of urban spaces. A report looking at the importance of public space for children and young people and their role in the community. The authors use case studies to demonstrate how children can be better incorporated into the public realm. Chawla, L., UNESCO, (2002) Growing Up in an Urbanising World. Looks at the interplay between issues such as urbanisation, a growing worldwide population, developing ideas about childhood, growing boundaries between rich and poor, increasing demand on earth’s resources and how this is affecting childhood today. How young people relate to and interact with their environment and how government policies can become more child sensitive. Churchman, A. (2003) Is there a place for children in the city? This article addresses the particular social and physical features of cities that affect children and strongly influence their physical and mental growth. Churchman identifies and explains key problems which limit children’s access and interaction with today’s urban environment and goes on to identify how the city can be adapted to respond to children’s needs. Cunningham, C. and Jones, M. (2006) ‘Middle childhood and the built environment’ A paper looking a the environmental needs of children in middle childhood. Argues that a child friendly approach to urban design creates an effective design model for the whole community. However, the authors explain how this requires considerable political backing.

111

Frost, J. (2006) The dissolution of children’s outdoor play: Causes and Consequences. Summarises the historical development of children’s play, the consequences of children’s disappearance from the outdoors, and the causes. Namely, safety standards, legislation, and overly rigorous and controlled education systems. Hendricks, B.E. (2011) Designing for play.

This book argues for an approach to play design based on a child centered approach and addresses design challenges in creating play space.

Gill, T. (2007) No fear: Growing up in a risk averse society. A report looking at children’s growing loss of freedom in play and how this constrains childhood development. Gill addresses how cultural attitudes have changed, and argues how society has misread the idea of risk. He suggests how to reintroduce elements of risk for children today. Hillman, M (2006) ‘Children’s rights and adult’s wrongs’ Argues that in recent decades, policy has affected children’s quality of life and freedom in the outdoor environment. Suggests how to ensure a safe, healthy, accessible environment for children and concludes that fundamentally it is adults who need to introduce policies to reverse the situation. Lennard, H L., & Crowhurst, S H. (1992) “Children in Public Places: Some Lessons from European Cities.” A photo essay on how the layout of European cities enhances child development and growth. It emphasises how with good town planning, children can learn social skills and competencies, becoming involved in their communities through participating in the city environment. When well designed, the public realm can provide just as much, if not more sensory stimulation and learning opportunities than a specialised playground. Lester, S & Russell, W. (2008) Play for a Change: Play, Policy and Practice: A review of contemporary perspectives

A report on the role of play in child development. The authors make the case for investment in better play in the public realm in the UK.

Louv, R. (2005) Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Louv explores the growing thinking that the declining direct interaction between children and nature is having negative effects on children’s wellbeing. Louv uses the term “Nature-Deficit Disorder” to describe these negative effects. He outlines the case that ‘Nature-Deficit Disorder’ is a cause of many childhood mental and physical health problems. 112

Matthews, H., Taylor, M., Sherwood, K., Tucker, F. and Limb, M. (2000) ‘Growing-up in the countryside: Children and the rural idyll’ A paper exploring how children encounter the countryside. It re examines the cultural expectations and assumptions about ‘rural life’. The authors illustrate a ‘geography of exclusion and disenfranchisement’ and uncover the reality of small and sometimes fractured communities and the impact on children. Moore, R. (1985) Childhood’s domain: Play and place in child development. A book on Moore’s seminal project studying children and their neighbourhoods. Moore compares pre adolescent play behaviours and preferences in three urban neighbourhoods in England. He looks at how environment shapes play. Moore, R. (2014). Nature Play & Learning Places. Creating and managing places where children engage with nature. This book was published by the Natural Learning Initiative in the US. It offers guidelines for engaging children more with the natural world in daily life. Valentine, G. and McKendrick, J. (1997) ‘Children’s outdoor play: Exploring parental concerns about children’s safety and the changing nature of childhood’ Looking at parent’s opinions of the local neighbourhood and play opportunities for children in NW England. Compares modern childhood with parent’s and grandparent’s memories of their own childhood. The paper finds that children are playing increasingly less outdoors and ranging much less further away from the home. Concludes that the main barrier to children’s free play is parental concern about safety. Woolley, H. (2006) ‘Freedom of the city: Contemporary issues and policy influences on children and young people’s use of public open space in England’ This paper discusses definitions of open space in the UK. Woolley identifies current policies which are affecting children and young people today. Woolley, H.E. and Griffin, E. (2014) ‘Decreasing experiences of home range, outdoor spaces, activities and companions: Changes across three generations in Sheffield in north England’ A paper looking at home range of children from three generations of two families in Sheffield, North of England. Addressing factors which influence home range, and the causes and consequences of the reduction of home range amongst children today. It establishes that there has been a significant reduction in home range, the variety of outdoor spaces visited, variety of activities undertaken and the number of children playing together. 113

Appendix

114

Sample consent form

Dear Parent, I am an MSc Landscape Architecture student at The University of Edinburgh researching children’s connection to the outdoors and play in nature. On Wednesday 25th January the children in P6 and P7 will be given the opportunity to answer some questions and draw on a map of the local area. This activity will take 510 minutes. Participation will be entirely voluntary and they will remain anonymous. All information obtained will be used for research purposes only. I hope this research will eventually contribute towards better design of outdoor environments making them more accessible to children. If you are happy for your child to take part in this survey, please sign below. The children’s feedback will be very much appreciated. Many thanks Louise Johnson

Student name: _________________________________________ Class: I will / will not give permission for my child to do this activity worksheet. I understand that my child will remain anonymous.  Parent/Guardian Name: Parent/Guardian Signature: Date:

115

Sample activity sheet

Children and the outdoors

Hello, I am a student carrying out research at the University of Edinburgh and I need your help! I am asking children between the ages of 10 and 12 to tell me a bit about the time they spend outdoors. Anything you write here will not be shown to anyone else. You do not have to answer the questions if you do not want to. If you canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t answer a question just leave it, or ask an adult for help. Thank you! 1. How much do you play outside? I am a

boy

I am

How many times a week do you play outside?

girl

During holidays

4-6x 3 x or

1-3x 1-2 x

Never

During holidays

4-6x 3 x or

1-3x x 1-2

Never

During term time

4-6x 3 x or

1-3x 1-2 x

Never

During term time

4-6x 3 x or

1-3x 1-2 x

Never

years old

I live in Dulwich

yes

How many times a week do you play outside on your own?

2. What leisure activities do you like to do? Pick your 5 favourite and rate them from 1-5 Playing in the garden

Social media

Playing in nature

Cinema

Organised sports

Drawing & painting

I travel.....

on my own

Watching TV

Gaming

Climbing trees

Playing with pets

Tick 5 leisure activities that you do regularly...... Double tick the box if you usually do the activity without an adult there)

Rate these 5 activities you chose from 1 - 5. 1= favourite 5=least favourite

Other activity 3. How do you travel to school? Bus

Bicycle

Car

Taxi

Walk

with friend(s)

Other 4. You and your neighbourhood.. Have you ever been involved with the design of a park or playground in your neighbourhood?

Would you like to be involved?

Yes

If yes, can you tell me more?

116

with an adult

Going to the playground

This map shows the area around your school. Are you familiar with this area? 1. Mark any places that you like to go in blue 2. Mark any spaces that you donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t like or where you might feel unsafe in red

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this worksheet!

ÂŠ Crown copyright and database rights 2017 Ordnance Survey (Digimap Licence). FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY.

100

150

Scale 1:5000 200

250

300

117

Mar 20, 2017 14:47 350

Projection: British National Grid

400

450

500 m

Louise Ida Elizabeth Kate Johnson University of Edinburgh