Including children and young people in building cities

A provocation paper

Professor Peter Kraftl, Chair in Human Geography, University of Birmingham

Building new urban places

Around the world, hundreds of towns, cities, suburbs and neighbourhoods are being built. Some are ‘smart’ — including integrated digital technologies and infrastructures. Others are ‘sustainable’ — built to embrace the latest engineering solutions for generating or saving water, energy or food. Others seek somehow to be inclusive — vibrant and convivial places for all of their residents. Indeed, some new urban places attempt to be all three. But whilst they are planned to be inclusive, are they really?

Repeatedly, it has been shown that children and young people are amongst the most marginalised groups in any urban place. In public spaces, they are seen as ‘out of place’ — not belonging since they either represent a ‘threat’ to other people or are deemed ‘at risk’. To compound this, children are routinely excluded from decision-making and planning processes designed to make those places better[i]. Despite the efforts of programmes such as the United Nation’s Child Friendly Cities initiative — which has sought to influence urban place-making on a global scale to make cities better places for children for decades — most urban places are still not really child-friendly.

What, then, if we tried to include children and young people — and their needs — from the outset in building new urban places? Could there be benefits for children and adults? Building on existing research and advocacy, this piece argues that if we build better urban places for children then they will be better places for all[ii].

Looking beyond independent mobilities and (child’s) play

Beyond independent mobilities

In the UK and similar societies, we are repeatedly told that one of the most common (of many) problems facing contemporary urban childhoods is that children do not range as far as they did in the past. There is a large body of research that looks at children’s movements (or ‘mobilities’) around urban spaces. Much of the evidence points to the fact that these popular assertions are, on the face of it, true: they tend to show a reduction in children’s spatial range (how far from home they are allowed to go without an adult) since the 1970s. There are also variations in terms of gender and ethnicity, with older south Asian girls being amongst the least mobile[iii]. Alongside an apparent decline in children’s engagements with ‘nature’, these studies [NB1] also highlight some pretty serious implications for children’s health, socialisation and learning, even if these are often coincidental rather than clearly causal.

Despite these findings, recent research has shown that the picture is somewhat more complex. Acknowledging this complexity is a key step towards challenging the common ways in which children are treated — or ignored — in urban planning and design. On the one hand, it is often assumed that ‘independent mobility’ is a marker of children’s freedom. The idea of independent mobility brings forth an image of an individual child navigating their way through the urban realm, alone. However, this is in many ways a fantasy that ignores the rich range of ways in which children move around urban places with a range of others — family members, friends, pets, even strangers — to name but a few[iv]. Indeed, is this not how the majority of adults also experiences movement through urban spaces? And what if attitudes to urban planning and design started from the premise that children’s shared movements (i.e. their movements with others) matter as much as the ‘gold standard’ of ‘independent mobility’?

On the other hand, whilst there are, indeed, many children who are prevented from or choose not to spend much time outside, the picture is again far more nuanced than this. Some children — whether alone or with others — are mobile, in different ways, in different places. This is clearest when children themselves have been asked about their experiences, and again shows why including diverse children’s voices in the planning and design of new urban places is vital. For instance, recent research about new urban places in the UK has shown that many children do still spend significant time outside, exploring their new communities[v]. Some of them may cover a significant distance, even if not venturing that far from home. They also take part in a range of activities — different kinds of walking, playing, socialising — that contribute to the vitality of these emerging communities. How, then, could those responsible for planning, designing and managing urban spaces ensure that children’s voices can be heard to make them interesting, walkable (or scoot-able or bike-able) child-friendly spaces? Just as importantly, how can children’s contributions to the life of urban places be properly valued? In other words, how can community leaders’ and other residents’ views be shifted so that rather than being viewed as ‘out of place’, children are seen as legitimate, indeed vital citizens in urban public spaces?

Beyond (child’s) play

Whilst children and young people might be marginalised within many societies, and often go unheard in processes of urban planning and design, the questions raised above indicate that children may make many positive contributions. Beyond mobility, these extend to other parts of life, such as play. A particularly interesting thread running through research from the 1970s onwards has been that children often find spaces left behind (such as abandoned wastegrounds) to play or hang out in[vi]. In fact, again contrary to popular assumptions, recent research shows that even today’s children still play on building sites — including sites forming anticipated parts of newly-built urban places[vii]. Interestingly, mirroring work about children’s mobilities, that work has not simply sought to celebrate children’s playfulness or creativity, but to demonstrate that play was often not ‘independent’ but involved significant others — including builders[viii].

In turn, if we are to build more truly ‘child-friendly’ cities, we must recognise that playgrounds are often spaces of contestation, especially for children and young people. On the one hand, the vast majority of play opportunities built into new urban places — like those built anywhere — seem to be aimed at younger children, to the frustration of older children. On the other hand, limited formal play facilities and informal play opportunities throughout new communities can lead to tensions between younger and older children (with ‘teenagers’ being as much demonised by younger children as adults). Indeed, play can take place in many spaces and could also be something that adults wish to partake in, and so we must take more seriously the question of how we can divorce ‘play’ from ‘playgrounds’ and a focus on younger children.

Acknowledging the richness of children’s urban lives

Policy-making, planning and design for new urban places must have due regard for children’s mobilities and play. Yet we must also recognise that children and young people can contribute when it comes to other aspects of the everyday lives of cities, too. Moreover, their lives are — it should be obvious — about more than movement and play.

In the above light, recent research has explored — from young people’s perspectives — the sheer richness and variety of ways in which children interact with their urban environments beyond mobilities and play. For instance, given that — contrary to popular opinion — many children do spend significant time in outdoor urban spaces, they often accrue and share important knowledge about their communities[ix]. In new communities, they are place- and community-builders, responsible for the informal naming of streets and other spaces, for welcoming new families when they move in, and, in some cases, for calling out commercial developers for delays or failed promises. They also develop sophisticated knowledge about the key design features of their communities — from the failings of particular design features, to the (sometimes failed) promises of developers[x].

Implications for building new urban places: recognition, participation, support and collaboration

There are several ways in which policy-makers, planners, designers and other stakeholders working to build new urban places might respond (and in some cases are already responding) to the provocations raised above. Furthermore, these provocations — and the increasing body of research evidence sitting behind them — might also be useful in other urban contexts, including regeneration and community development[xi].

A first step is recognition: that children and young people are not, as they are often viewed, merely house-buyers or citizens of the future (although they are that too). Nor are they merely silent members of the families who move in (although they are family members too). Instead, they also have particular, diverse and changing needs in the present. This could mean that in the early stages of building new urban places, children are recognised (in statutory policy and planning guidance) as a distinct group with needs different from, but overlapping with, those of others.

A second step is participation: for many years, academics and children’s advocates have called for greater levels of children’s participation in decisions that affect them, including the planning of new urban places. There are many and diverse methods for doing so[xii], but critically these should be: embedded at various stages of the process; welcoming and attractive to children, and especially children from diverse backgrounds; properly framed by the requisite knowledge so that children know what they are participating in, alongside realistic information about the fruits (and limitations) of that participation; properly integrated with adults’ participation in the process — ideally so that groups of different generations can come together.

A third step is support: since children and young people already participate in their urban environments — albeit not necessarily in ways that are conventional to planning professionals or acceptable to some adults — there is potential to support those forms of participation. How, for instance, could planners or community development workers make the most of children’s informal play away from playgrounds? Or take advantage of the ways in which children welcome other families to their communities? Or mobilise the knowledge that children build up about their communities by simply walking around?

A final step is collaboration: neither the problem nor the solution for building more sustainable, inclusive cities sits solely with children. In fact, to nuance a claim with which this piece began, and to offer a final provocation, building better urban places for children should not necessarily be the ultimate aim. Rather, building places that work for different generations, together — and that reduce intergenerational tensions — should, alongside recognition, participation and support for children, be a principal aspiration. Therefore, when thinking about play, the focus could be on creating more playful, vibrant, flexible, multifunctional urban spaces for all, open to playful moments that do not discriminate on the basis of age (or otherwise). Other sites might enable different kinds of collaboration — such as community gardens, allotments, or edible streets (including fruit trees and vegetable plots at regular intervals, alongside more traditional forms of street furniture and landscape design).

There are many opportunities for including children and young people, and their voices, experiences and needs, in the planning of new urban places. Critically, in an era in which economic profitability is as important a consideration as building good towns and cities — whatever one thinks about this — profit need not be mutually exclusive with the inclusion of children and young people. In fact, improving the social and cultural value of new urban places for children may be a part of making them more vibrant, more attractive places such that their economic value also benefits. Although not without controversy, perhaps it is in starting from this standpoint that we might be able to imagine, plan and build more truly child-friendly urban places.

The British Academy has undertaken a programme of work that seeks to re-frame debates around childhood in both the public and policy spaces and break down academic, policy and professional silos in order to explore new conceptualisations of children in policymaking. Find out more about the Childhood Policy Programme.

Subscribe to our newsletter for monthly updates on our Childhood Policy Programme.

[i] Christensen, P., Hadfield-Hill, S., Horton, J. and Kraftl, P., 2017. Children living in sustainable built environments: new urbanisms, new citizens. Routledge.

[ii] Gill, T., 2007. No fear: Growing up in a risk averse society. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

[iii] O’Brien, M., Jones, D., Sloan, D. and Rustin, M., 2000. Children’s independent spatial mobility in the urban public realm. Childhood, 7(3), pp.257–277.

[iv] Mikkelsen, M.R. and Christensen, P., 2009. Is children’s independent mobility really independent? A study of children’s mobility combining ethnography and GPS/mobile phone technologies. Mobilities, 4(1), pp.37–58.

[v] Horton, J., Christensen, P., Kraftl, P. and Hadfield-Hill, S., 2014. ‘Walking… just walking’: how children and young people’s everyday pedestrian practices matter. Social & Cultural Geography, 15(1), pp.94–115.

[vi] Cloke, P. and Jones, O., 2005. ‘Unclaimed territory’: childhood and disordered space (s). Social & Cultural Geography, 6(3), pp.311–333.

[vii] Kraftl, P., Christensen, P., Horton, J. and Hadfield-Hill, S., 2013. Living on a building site: Young people’s experiences of emerging ‘sustainable communities’ in England. Geoforum, 50, pp.191–199.

[viii] Kraftl, P., Christensen, P., Horton, J. and Hadfield-Hill, S., 2013. Living on a building site: Young people’s experiences of emerging ‘sustainable communities’ in England. Geoforum, 50, pp.191–199.

[ix] Martz, C.J., Powell, R.L. and Wee, B.S.C., 2019. Engaging children to voice their sense of place through location-based story making with photo-story maps. Children’s Geographies, pp.1–14.

[x] These and other key findings from research on children’s varied experiences of living in new urban places can be accessed through this summary: Christensen, P., Kraftl, P., Horton. J. and Hadfield-Hill, S. (2013) Children and Young People’s Everyday Life and Participation in Sustainable Communities: Project Overview and Summary of Key Findings, July 2013.

[xi] For further, more detailed evidence and recommendations aimed at urban planners and related policy-makers, see: https://www.planning4cyp.com/

[xii] The following resource pack provides some practical examples of methods for engaging children’s participation in planning and design: Kraftl, P. and Hadfield-Hill, S. (2019) Build a community in a day: Resource pack. Available at: https://www.planning4cyp.com/

[NB1]Cross reference with Nadia von Benzon paper