childhood urban space and citizenship: child-sensitive ... · childhood urban space and...

Childhood Urban Space and Citizenship:Child-sensitive Urban Regeneration

Margaret O’Brien, Michael Rustin, Jon Greenfield

Project funded by the:Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)

Briefing Summary and End of Award ReportAward No: L 129 25 1039

© University of North LondonAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproducedor transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic ormechanical, including photocopy, recording or any informationstorage and retrieval system, without permission.

Published and printed in 2000 byUniversity of North London

Faculty of Environmental and Social Sciences166-220 Holloway Road

London N7 8DB

Professor Margaret O’Brien, Faculty of Environmental and Social Studies, University of NorthLondon, 62-66 Highbury Grove, London N5 2AD. Tel: 020 7753-5783 Email:[email protected] (contact from 1st September 2000: Centre for Research on the Child and Family,School of Social Work and Psychosocial Studies, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ).

Professor Michael Rustin, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of East London, LongbridgeRoad, Essex RM8 2AS. Tel: 020 8223 2773 Email: [email protected].

Jon Greenfield, Parameta Architects, 70 Cowcross Street, London EC1M 6EJ.Tel: 020 7250 3332 Email: [email protected]

Principal Researchers:Deborah Jones, Faculty of Environmental and Social Studies, University of North London, 62-66Highbury Grove, London N5 2AD.

David Sloan, Faculty of Environmental and Social Studies, University of North London, 62-66Highbury Grove, London N5 2AD.

1

CHILDHOOD URBAN SPACE AND CITIZENSHIP: CHILD-SENSITIVEURBAN REGENERATION

Margaret O’Brien, Michael Rustin and Jon Greenfield

Briefing Summary

How are children using and moving about their cities? How do they feel about their local spacesand places? What are children’s views on urban regeneration and neighbourhood renewal? Dothe physical characteristics of neighbourhoods influence children’s access to public space? Isthere variation in terms of children’s own social groupings: their gender, their ethnicity or theirfamily background? Focusing on 10-14 year old children living in London and a lower densityNewtown satellite of London, Hatfield, a team from the Universities of North and East Londonand Parameta Architects investigated these questions. They found that:

• Children had many useful ideas on neighbourhood renewal. More play space and citymaintenance were high priorities, particularly for inner and outer London children. Betterlighting was important for Newtown children. Parents were more likely to prioritiseenhanced security and traffic safety, showing different generational preoccupations abouturban renewal.

• One third of children expressed anxieties about unsafe places and people in theirneighbourhood. Perceiving ‘the street’ as unsafe was twice as likely for inner Londonchildren when compared to their outer London and Newtown peers (21%, 12% and 11%respectively).

• Comparison with previous studies suggests a decrease in independent use of public spacefor 10/11 year olds since the 1970s but only a minority of children are highly restricted andhome bound.

• On most indicators children’s freedom to move around their neighbourhood was greatestin the Newtown.

• Girls and children from minority ethnic communities appeared to be more restricted in theiruse of urban space. One of the lowest playing out rates in the study was for older Asiangirls living in the borough of Tower Hamlets of which only 37% were allowed to play outunaccompanied in contrast to 92% of Asian boys from the same neighbourhood.

2

Children’s Views on Urban Regeneration and Neighbourhood Renewal

Neighbourhood consultations, focus groups, interviews and survey data indicated that childrenhad many useful ideas about improving their local neighbourhood. When children and parentaccounts of desired general neighbourhood improvement were compared the differences werestriking. Whilst children, particularly London children, concentrated on more play space and citymaintenance (cleaning up streets and drab buildings), parents desired enhanced security andtraffic safety, showing different generational preoccupations about urban renewal:

More space, more space, more space to do things, more bigger things, bigger parks,things like that. More space to do things. (Asian boy, 11 yrs, inner London)

Stop building so many houses and ugly buildings, ‘cos children want space to playand they can’t be expected to stay indoors for the whole of their time - children haveto have space. (White girl, 11 yrs, Newtown)

However, when asked specifically about making unsafe areas safe children, particularly Londonchildren, also wanted enhanced security (eg CCTV, more police and ‘guards’ outside shops andin parks). Newtown children were very concerned about better lighting (31% in comparison to15% in inner London). A focus on safety improvement prompted ideas about zoning: havingspecial places and spaces for children which excluded specific categories of people).

The level of perceived risk and danger was remarkably similar across localities: about one thirdof children expressed anxieties about unsafe places in their neighbourhood and slightly morewere concerned about unknown youths and adults. The type of place that created anxiety varied,with inner London children being the most concerned about the safety of their streets. Perceiving‘the street’ as unsafe was twice as likely for inner London children when compared to their outerLondon and Newtown peers (21%, 12% and 11% respectively). Dark and dingy places wereuniversally disliked but particularly so by outer London and Newtown children. Paradoxically,Newtown children found poorly-lit underpasses, designed to help them cross the roads moresafely, very frightening. Several Newtown case studies included photographs of thesepassageways and under-passes in their ‘scary’ portfolio.

For children living in social housing estates the building fabric itself was threatening, inparticular lifts and stairwells. Focus group discussions centred around dangerous stories such astrolleys being thrown off high rise flats; drinking and drug-taking; and fires being started inrubbish bins. ‘It’s the way life is’, said one child, ‘every area has its vandals’. Getting about thecity was exciting but often meant careful watchfulness.

Children’s independent movement in cities: change over time?

Within global cities such as London there is great concern that children have lost their freedomto play and roam around, to be just ‘children’; that they are ‘battery reared’ rather than ‘free-range’. The study analysed change and continuity in children’s independent mobility by

3

comparing survey data gathered from the Childhood, Urban Space and Citizenship project withMayer Hillman’s classic English studies of the 1970s and early 1990s (Hillman et al. 1990)providing new base-line data on: urban children’s method of travel to school and levels ofaccompaniment, children’s use of public transport, and patterns of playing out.

Comparing our data with Hillman’s there is indeed some evidence for a decrease in independentuse of public space for 10/11 year old children with little change for the older group. Children’spatterns of getting to school and levels of adult accompaniment are two areas where the declinein children’s spatial autonomy are expressed.

As shown in Figure 1 the number of primary children who walked to school has decreased evenin the last decade since Hillman et al’s study. In our sample, 54% of primary school childrenreported walking to school, in comparison to 70% in Hillman et al’s study. Furthermore, therehas been a reduction in the number of children who say they travel to school unaccompanied byan adult. In 1970, Hillman found that 94% of children travelled unaccompanied to school - afigure which fell to 54% in 1990 and has continued to fall to 47% in our sample of similarly agedchildren (Figure 2), suggesting an increase in parental chaperonage, primarily linked to car usageand greater parental choice in primary school.

Comparison with Hillman et al. (1990) also suggests there has been an enhancement in parentalanxiety over children’s safety in public space: fewer parents said that they allowed their child outafter dark, albeit from a low base (only 2% of parents of 10/11 year old children in comparisonto 6%). Parents recollected a childhood unhindered by many of the concerns facing today’sparents. A vast majority remembered walking to school themselves and felt they had moreopportunities for going out on their own compared to their own children. Parents in our studyexpressed worry about traffic and stranger danger, indeed worry about most aspects of theirchildren’s lives.

However, many children of the study appeared to be ‘making do’ and getting by in their city.Close inspection of children’s every-day life from the survey revealed that only a small minorityled highly restricted lives in several domains. For instance, only 4% of 10/11 year olds and 1%of 13/14 year olds did not play outside without adult supervision, were always accompanied toschool and were never at home alone. By contrast just under one quarter (23%) of 10/11 year oldswere highly autonomous (played outside without adult supervision; were able to go to schoolunaccompanied and could be at home alone). The majority of children were situated in themiddle-range of the restricted-autonomous dimension.Patterns of difference in children’s access to urban space

The study has found uneven patterns of access to public space, particularly in relation to locality,gender and ethnicity. On most indicators children’s freedom to move around their neighbourhoodwas greatest in the Newtown. A higher proportion of Newtown children said they were allowedto play out on the streets, cycle on main roads, walk alone to a friend’s house, go to the cinemaor shopping centre further away from home and go out after dark. Newtown’s children’s freedomto get out and about is facilitated by its physical features (e.g. plentiful green spaces situated close

4

to children’s homes), the relative smallness of the area and its lower population density. AlsoNewtown primary school children were more likely to attend their local school in comparisonto London children. The continuity of the original garden city design intention, combining thebest of town and country, was striking in Newtown children’s imagery of their localneighbourhood.

In general girls and children from minority ethnic communities appeared to be more restrictedin their use of urban space. Boys had greater freedom to roam and play out more independentlythan girls at both the primary and secondary levels. For instance, the proportions of 10/11 yearold boys who could play out alone in inner London, outer London and Newtown were 84%, 87%and 93% in comparison to 67%, 75% and 82% of girls respectively.

The tendency for girls to play out less than boys was even more stark at the neighbourhood level.Exploration of the links between gender and ethnicity at a neighbourhood level suggested thatolder Asian girls were particularly excluded from the public realm, although the reasons childrengave for not playing out alone included personal preference as well as fears, racism and parentalrestraint. One of the lowest playing out rates in the study was for older Asian girls living in theborough of Tower Hamlets of which 37% were allowed to play out unaccompanied in contrastto 92% of Asian boys from the same neighbourhood. The children’s geographies were shapedto a large extent by their Islamic religious cultural heritage: the neighbourhood waspredominately Bengali. Protecting the honour of girls, particularly from the public gaze, wascentral to family values in this neighbourhood setting and served to remove girls from many‘dishonourable’ places and spaces. The dominance of boys in local public spaces, even aroundshop corners, made it hard for Muslim Asian girls to move around their neighbourhood.

Several parents of girls and minority ethnic boys revealed high levels of parental anxiety aboutletting their children play out. Parental anxiety is amplified in poor, distressed urbanenvironments where the parental strategy of ‘keeping them in/ keeping them close’ is a legitimateprotective response.

5

Implications for policy and practice

There is a significant national debate going on in Britain about how to change the deterioratingquality of life in our cities. The lives of our children must have an even higher profile in thisdebate. The data from this study has shown that children have many useful ideas about urbanrenewal: the predominant concerns for this sample were more playing out/ leisure space and ahigher quality physical infrastructure. However, children like adults, navigate their city incomplex and varied ways. We have found variation by gender, ethnicity and family culture, aswell as differences linked to the particular characteristics of a local neighbourhood. The decreasein independent use of public space for 10/11 year olds since the 1970s and the marked genderedand racialised patterns of children’s spatial stratification found in London are causes for concern.Being home-based by choice in a materially rich spacious house is a world apart from enforcedexclusion in an over-crowded inner city flat.

Whilst the study is based in London and the South-east, it is probable that many of the findingscan be generalised to other urban settings. The apparent greater freedom for children’sindependent mobility found in the Newtown designed with many of the advantages of both‘town’ and ‘country’ requires further research.

A ‘joined-up’ or more holistic urban regeneration policy approach should balance children’sneeds and desires with parental needs and anxieties. A greater trust should be engendered at alocal level, especially in London with its high degree of population density, differentiation andanonymity. A parent-friendly as well as child-friendly approach to urban regeneration is required.

6

End of Award ReportAward No: L 129 25 1039

Background

The study sought to map children’s use of and feelings about local urban space to create insightsfor contemporary urban planners and social scientists regarding children’s place in the city. Theproject builds on a growing body of recent literature in this area (e.g. Valentine and McKendrick1997; Matthews and Limb 1997) which itself has roots in a wide-ranging literature since the post-war period (e.g. Lynch 1960; Hart 1979; Moore 1986). Our study had a particular concern tosystematically examine difference in more depth than many childhood studies had been able todo, in particular the interrelationships between gender and ethnicity and children’s spatial life-worlds.

In addition, from our previous work, we had anticipated that familial practices would be a crucialcontext to understanding children’s geographies (Rustin 1992; Brannen and O’Brien 1996), notjust in the realm of parental control but also through emotional and cultural orientations.Research into the social relations of children’s families required a spatial dimension.

Since the inception of the study the national political climate has changed and there have beenseveral new initiatives on urban renewal, including the recent report of the Urban Task Force(1999) led by the architect Richard Rogers. In the report’s recommendations to Government thereis a proposal that future towns and cities should be judged against children’s, as well as adults’,quality of life in the move towards an urban renaissance.

In persuading people to re-consider urban living we have to recognise that .... thecrunch comes with having children. An urban environment, previously perceived asdiverse and stimulating, starts to appear unsafe. (Urban Task Force 1999: 35)

At a policy level there has been an increasing desire to consult and involve children in publicmatters hitherto seen as the province of adults or grown-ups (Hart 1997). The paradigm shiftembedded in the new social studies of childhood, with its early emphasis on agency (e.g. Jamesand Prout 1990; Qvortrup et al. 1994) and the children’s rights language of global legislation,takes the debate a long way away from urban public policies which rested solely on simplisticnotions of ‘what children need’. The present study was designed to inform urban planning anddesign by providing new data on the ways in which children make use of their local urban spacesand their feelings about how it can be improved.

Objectives

· To investigate how children’s use of, and feelings about, local urban space varies by typeof locality, gender and ethnicity and differs from parental perceptions.

7

· To advance theoretically, through a focus on children’s relationship to local urban space,how models of citizenship can incorporate children.

· To develop innovative and participatory methods to examine how children use their localphysical and built environment.

· To contribute to the dialogue between social scientists, architects, planners and policymakers on children’s place in the city by heightening an awareness of issues in therespective professions.

In light of pilot work findings there were modifications of the original research design, mostnotably an extension of the survey to a greater number of sites to reflect the diversity of inner andouter London.

Methods

Drawing on the theoretical and policy developments outlined in the introduction, the designnecessitated working with children and parents, both inside and outside the home, using acombination of quantitative and qualitative techniques. Pilot work in London suggested that thefour localities identified in the original design would provide too limited a picture for baselinesurvey mapping of children’s access to public space, although discreet neighbourhood studieswere retained for the qualitative phase.

The final design reflected the strategy of capturing the diversity of children’s geographies andspatial landscapes in London and Hatfield, chosen as a comparative first generation post-war newtown satellite to Greater London. Situated some 20 miles north of London, Hatfield was selectedas a comparative low density site because it was designed with many child-sensitive features,including cul-de-sacs to reduce traffic flow and plentiful green spaces close to home for play.

Within London we sampled children living in the outer rim suburbs of Harrow to the west ofLondon and Barking and Dagenham to the east. Within the inner core we worked with childrenliving in the ethnically and socially mixed boroughs of Tower Hamlets (containing one of thehighest proportions of children in London and one of the largest Bengali communities), Camden,Newham, Islington and Brent.

8

The first stage of the study involved an extensive child and parent school-based survey (n=1,378)covering 28 schools in the selected areas (Appendix 1). Five hundred and eight (37%) childrenwere in their final year of primary school (10/11 years olds) and 870 (63%) children were in theirsecond year of secondary school (13/14year olds). The questionnaire covered travel to and fromschool; use of and satisfaction with local area and facilities, including streets and parks; homebased activities and parental rules affecting home range; and ideas on improvements to localneighbourhood. The purpose of the survey was to find out how the children used their city, howthey travelled through it in their every day life and to ascertain their levels of personal autonomyor restrictedness in their local urban space. Each child was given an envelope containing aparental questionnaire to be returned to the school secretary or teacher on the following day.

The parental questionnaire covered similar areas but also tapped parent perceptions’ of risk andopportunity in the lives of their children. The response rates of the parental questionnaire variedconsiderably across schools (Appendix 1), but the average was 65%, with a higher response ratefor the primary school sample (71%). The design of the questionnaires and selection of somesites was influenced by Hillman et al’s (1990) classic UK study of children’s independentmobility with which we wanted to make comparisons.

The second stage of the study involved a series of in-depth, home based case studies of primaryschool children in their neighbourhood, including child and parent interviews, mapping exercises,walk-abouts, neighbourhood observations, and a photo-journal. Case studies were designed toacquire more information on children’s significant places and spaces, mapping out children’spersonal geographies and emotional defences, and illuminating the significance of family culture,parental supervisory and regulatory practices and the physical infrastructure on children’s dailylives in the city. Each case study child was also included in six school-based focus groupdiscussions where similar themes were explored further in a group context.

The case studies targeted primary school aged children in a smaller number of neighbourhoodsto enable the team to become more familiar with the localities. Pilot work had suggested thataccess to public space and negotiation of independent mobility was more problematic for theyounger children. Individual cases were drawn strategically from the survey sample using threedimensions (Appendix 2):

(a) Degree of independent use of urban and home space - Potential cases were categorisedas either ‘autonomous’ or ‘restricted’ using responses to three child survey questionsconcerned with playing out, accompaniment to school and independence in the homeenvironment.

· Autonomous case: Child played outside without adult supervision; child was notaccompanied to or from school by an adult/older person; and the child could be athome alone (23% of the primary school sample)

· Restricted case: Child did not play outside without adult supervision; child wasaccompanied to/from school by an adult/older person; and the child reported neverbeing at home alone (4% of the primary sample).

9

(b) Locality - Three localities were selected to represent the range of spatial geographies (innerurban, outer urban and Newtown).

(c) Gender - Within each of the three localities an attempt was made to balance gender.

It was anticipated that 24 case study families would be selected in a 2-by-12 cell design for stagetwo: four girls (two autonomous, two restricted) and four boys (two autonomous, two restricted)in each of the localities. However, the overall pool of children was reduced further after parentaland child consent was taken into account and in practice autonomous male cases were morenumerous (in line with the survey findings, see below) and easier to recruit. The final 20 casestudies included at least one child in each cell, enabling cross-case comparison on the maindimensions. Case study children came from a range of ethnicities in inner and other London, withall Newtown cases being white, reflecting the survey characteristics (Table 2).

Consultation with children and families

One inner city neighbourhood of the survey provided the focus for in-depth consultation withchildren during the project. The rationale was to marshal efforts on one neighbourhood over alonger period enabling participation in on-going community initiatives to regenerate the area.Matched funding from a Local authority enabled project integration with a wider master planUniversity of North London exercise (O’Brien 1999b).

Researchers, project architects and architect students worked alongside children and otherresidents over a three month period, including two Community Planning weekends. One primaryand one secondary school from the survey were located in this neighbourhood, one of the mosteconomically deprived in London, as were three case study children (O’Brien 1999b).Community planning techniques involved over 200 children and included children’s photo-journals of the estate (significant places, scary places); displays of a large model and map of theestate on which coloured flags identifying neighbourhood improvements were pinned; andinformal discussions in local youth clubs, after-school clubs and football clubs. The report onsome of these activities was fed into a Single Regeneration bid.

10

The Findings

Child’s local physical environment, neighbourhood andpersonal characteristics

A summary of the main spatial, demographic, and personal characteristics of the survey samplecan be found in Tables 1-3. Neighbourhood level data has been aggregated into three areas: innerLondon, outer London and Newtown. It can be seen that the three areas did have quite distinctsocio-spatial geographies. London’s children, particularly the inner London core, were ethnicallymore diverse than the Newtown children. Their material circumstances were also quite distinct;more inner city dwellers resided in flats and almost one third did not have access to a garden.Whilst more Newtown children lived in cul-de-sac roads, speed bumps were more common ininner London. Fewer inner London parents had a car and there was less bike ownership in theinner city. By contrast, outer London and Newtown children lived predominantly in low densityhousing stock with the vast majority having access to their own garden and bedroom. However,whilst the physical environment of outer London and Newtown was somewhat richer, the innerLondon sample did have a larger proportion of parents in professional and managerialemployment, compared to other parental groups who were more mixed. Clearly the material andsocial conditions of inner London children were much more polarised and diverse than those ofthe outer London and Newtown sample, confirming Census analysis (Lesser 1995).

Accessible local amenities are particularly important for children who have to rely far more onwalking than adults. Whilst all areas had relatively equal access to nearby shops, parks and buses,this was not the case for all local amenities. For example, whilst over 70% of the inner Londonchildren lived within walking distance of a library, this was the case for only 55% of theNewtown sample. Inner London children were also at an advantage for access to trains and theunderground. However, Newtown children were at an advantage in terms of access to their localleisure centre, with almost three quarters living within walking distance of a leisure centre,compared to just 37% of inner London children and 27% of outer London children. Similarly,schools were closer to home for Newtown children - 77% were in the same postal code incontrast to 43% for inner London and 40% for outer London (Table 1). Whilst overall averageestimated walk-to-school times varied little between areas, at the primary school level there wereclear differences, with Newtown schools taking on average 10 minutes to reach, followed byInner London schools at 14 minutes and outer London schools at 21 minutes.

11

Children’s independent mobility in inner-city London, the suburbsand a Newtown

The large scale survey obtained a baseline of where children said they could go in their localneighbourhood. In the questionnaire we gathered data on ‘licences’, where children reportedbeing allowed to go without adults, and on children’s usual daily practices, for instance how theytypically went to school irrespective of any over-arching constraint or parental regulation. Thenotion of licence was adopted from Hillman et al’s (1990) study. Official public licences suchas driving licences are contrasted to ‘parental licences’ reflecting, Hillman suggests, ‘parentaljudgements about the degree of maturity and competence required by their parents to cope safelywith the perceived dangers that lie outside the home’ (Hillman et al. 1990: 6).1

By the last year of primary school (age 10/11 years) a significant majority of children (between60-76% of the survey sample) reported a fair degree of autonomy in their daily life: beingallowed to go to the local shops without an adult; to play out on the streets without an adult; towalk alone to a friend’s house; and to go to and come home from school without an adult.Independence was higher for the older children (Tables 4 and 5). Other licence indicators showedless autonomy. Less than half of 10/11 year olds were free to ride a bike in the city; go on a busor train/underground; go to a shopping centre further away from home without an adult, or to goout alone after dark (Table 5).

These global findings disguise specific underlying patterns, particularly in relation to area andgender. On most indicators children’s freedom to move around their neighbourhood was greatestin the Newtown (O’Brien et al. 2000). A greater proportion of Newtown children said they wereallowed to play out on the streets, cycle on main roads, walk alone to a friend’s house, go to thecinema or shopping centre further away from home and go out after dark (Table 5). Moreover,the public realm appeared to be more open for particular groups of children, namely the boys andwhite children in our sample. Girls and children from minority ethnic communities appeared tobe more restricted in their use of urban space, although these patterns were less pronounced inthe Newtown sample (Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).

Exploration of the links between gender and ethnicity at a neighbourhood cluster level suggestedthat older Asian girls were particularly displaced from the public realm, although the reasonschildren gave for not playing out alone included personal preference as well as fears, racism andparental restraint. Even designated children’s spaces, such as parks, were likely to be perceivedby some girls as boys’s spaces dominated by football (O’Brien 1999a). Several parents of girlsand minority ethnic boys revealed high levels of parental anxiety about letting their children playout:

1. An intriguing finding from our study, not commented on by Hillman at the time, has been the gap between child

and parental reports on many of the licence indicators (see Table 5). Case study in-depth interviews suggestthat parents tend to report lower levels of child autonomy than their children.

12

I: When you say you worry about him, in which way would you be worried?F: Possibility of an accident, or being bullied on the way home, because his sister

went through that once before, so I worry about that. Anything can happen.And especially at this time that there’s darkness around 5 o’clock. I don’t likehim walking on his own in the dark because of the incidents that happen all thetime around this area. It’s not safe being in this area you know because of thepickpockets and the things we’ve witnessed around this area. You can seepeople fighting or you can see people being shot.(African Mother of 10 year old boy, living on inner London housing estate)

Parental anxiety is amplified in poor, distressed urban environments such as this. Indeed, in thiscontext the parenting strategy of ‘keeping him in/ keeping him close’ is a legitimate, protectiveresponse. For this child the city cannot be described as a place for meeting people.

Clearly for the children in this study the patterns of play are gendered and racialised. We haveexamined ways to visually represent children’s mapping of their home range to display thisheterogeneity.

Scary places, streets and people

Previous research has highlighted parental fear and anxiety about their children’s safety in publicspaces (e.g. McNeish and Roberts 1995; Valentine 1997). We have found evidence that childrenthemselves have many concerns about safety issues in their local urban spaces. Moreover, thelevel of perceived risk and danger was remarkably similar across areas: about one third ofchildren expressed anxieties about unsafe places in their neighbourhood and slightly more wereconcerned about unknown youths and adults (Table 12). The type of place that created anxietyvaried, with inner London children being the most concerned about the safety of their streets.Dark and dingy places were universally disliked but particularly so by outer London andNewtown children. Paradoxically, Newtown children found poorly-lit underpasses, designed tohelp them cross the roads more safely, very frightening. Several Newtown case studies includedphotographs of these passageways and under-passes in their scary portfolio. For children livingin social housing estates the building fabric itself can be threatening, particularly lifts andstairwells. Focus group discussions centred around dangerous stories such as trolleys beingthrown off high rise flats; drinking and drug-taking; and fires being started in rubbish bins. ‘It’sthe way life is’, said one child, ‘every area has its vandals’.

Gender differences were more marked than variations between ethnic groups (Table 13). Whenasked why they did not play out, girls were more likely to state that they preferred to be indoorswhereas boys were more likely to state that they were not allowed to play out. A sense of fear ofthe outside may be why a significant minority of children, particularly those in the inner city,chose their own home as their most liked building. Through this movement ‘inwards’ and‘inside’ into the private sphere inner city children, particularly girls, may have more potential toshape their own personal places.

13

Children, parents and neighbourhood renewal

When asked specifically about making unsafe areas safe both inner and outer London childrenwanted enhanced security, in particular CCTV and more police and ‘guards’ outside shops andin parks (Table 12). Newtown children were very concerned about better lighting (31% incomparison to 15% in inner London). A focus on safety improvement also prompted ideas aboutzoning (restricting categories of people from children’s spaces) and city maintenance, particularlycleaning up streets and buildings. More inner London children wanted a greater police protectivepresence than outer London or Newtown children.

When children and parent accounts of desired general neighbourhood improvement werecompared the differences are striking (Table 14). Whilst children, particularly in inner and outerLondon, concentrated on more play space and city maintenance, parents desired enhancedsecurity and traffic safety, showing different generational preoccupations about urban renewal:

More space, more space, more space to do things, more bigger things, bigger parks,things like that. More space to do things. (Asian boy, 11 yrs, inner London)

Stop building so many houses and ugly buildings, ‘cos children want space to playand they can’t be expected to stay indoors for the whole of their time - children haveto have space. (White girl, 11 yrs, Newtown)

Comparison with Hillman et al. (1990) suggests there has been an increase in parental anxietyover children’s safety in public spaces. Parents recollected a childhood unhindered by many ofthe concerns facing today’s parents. A vast majority of parents remembered walking to schoolthemselves and felt they had more opportunities for going out on their own compared to theirown children. Parents in our study expressed worry about traffic and stranger danger, indeedworry about most aspects of their children’s lives. These sensibilities resonate with contemporarytheoretical concerns about a rise in general

14

insecurity and risk in late modernity (Beck 1992). Whilst national and local data show that the‘real’ probability of danger to children is greater from traffic than abductions (Central StatisticalOffice 1994; Metropolitan Police Service 1999; DETR 1999), parental accounts often relied onsingle case media accounts of abduction.

Family negotiations

Case study interviews reveal complex familial negotiations around ‘letting go’ and ‘keepingclose’ even in very similar neighbourhoods (O’Brien 1999a). These negotiations wereparticularly intense for girls and minority ethnic children. For some children a controlledchildhood emerged, as in one outer London case where a mother spoke of her concerns aboutletting her 11-year-old daughter out alone - a fear which was also described by her daughter. Thedaughter was always accompanied by either her parents or her older sister. However, althoughher independent home range was very limited, her experience of privatised cultural activities washigh; she regularly went horse riding and attended guides and other after-school societies. Thesecultural opportunities were less available to children in poor families.

Both parents and children had emotionally active concerns about autonomy as well asdependency and responsibility. Children’s choices and actions in constructing their lives werebound by the opportunities and constraints of their parenting culture and their individualbiography, as well as material resources and spatial factors. Whilst the Newtown environmentprovided an enabling local space for one of the more autonomous female case studies, illustratedbelow, her autonomy was supported by a parenting culture sensitive to children engaging in theworld beyond the home. As the respondent’s mother put it:

I think there’s a sort of level of independence you have to acquiesce to .... Iremember the first time she went round the corner and I was looking round thecorner and you think you know they’re never coming back but you know that’s sortof, that’s my problem not hers.

The girl herself describes her parents as ‘relaxed’ and was aware that many parents were morecontrolling of their children:

I Do you have any places you’re not allowed to go to in your area?F Oh, I don’t know really, not, not really. I can’t think of any off the top of my

head.I So anywhere you want to go your parents let you go?F Yeah probably but I suppose if, but if anywhere I’m not allowed to go I don’t

want to go there anyway, so that’s not a problem really.I That’s not a problem.F But ‘cos my friends, my parents are quite relaxed and my, and they, but my

friends’ parents, I say, ‘Do you wanna go somewhere?’ and they say, ‘No Ican’t, I’m not allowed,’ so, but.

15

I That’s not like you then?F No but.I Your parents are quite relaxed about, about these things?F Yes.I And how does that make you feel?F ‘Cos I, I wouldn’t go off with somebody who says, ‘Oooh I’ve got sweeties in

my car,’ but.I Are you pleased that they’re relaxed about these things or not so pleased?F Yeah ‘cos I’m allowed to go on the bus on my own and I think that’s important

because you’ve got to have a fair share of independence and if you’re still notallowed to go down the lane by yourself by the time you’re 13 then there issomething wrong with your parents. But no I think that’s important becauseI’m less, I’m less worried than my friends about getting on the bus and payingmy bus fare and something and buying train tickets. ‘Cos I go, I went with myfriend to St Albans on the bus and...(White girl, 11 years, Newtown)

Change over time?

Has there been a real or imagined decrease in children’s independence to navigate the city overtime? On some measures it appeared that the children of this sample were not as restricted assome commentators have thought. Only a small proportion of the whole sample were highlyrestricted. At the other extreme about a quarter of the sample were highly autonomous. Thenumber of licence indicators used in our study was more extensive than that used by Hillman etal. (1990), however, on those indicators where comparisons could be made we found evidencefor a slight decrease in independence.

These figures do seem to show a change over time. We found that fewer parents said that theyallowed their child out after dark than in Hillman et al’s study. The number of primary childrenwho walked to school also had decreased (Figure 1). In our sample, 54% of primary schoolchildren reported walking to school, whereas 70% of eleven year olds did so in Hillman et al’‘s1990 results. Furthermore, there has been a reduction in the number of children who say theytravel to school unaccompanied by an adult. In 1970, Hillman found that 94% of childrentravelled unaccompanied to school - a figure which fell to 54% in 1990 and has continued to fallto 47% in our sample of similarly aged children (Figure 2), suggesting an increase in parentalchaperonage.

16

Conclusion

Children are often the last to receive the benefits of urbanisation and the first to bear its burdens.There is a significant national debate going on in Britain at the moment about how to change thedeteriorating quality of life in our cities. The lives of our children must have an even higherprofile in this debate.

The data from this study has shown that there are significant variations in how contemporarychildren use their public spaces. We have found variation by gender, ethnicity and family culture,as well as differences linked to the particular characteristics of the local neighbourhoods.Children’s spatial lives are bound up in a web of personal emotional biographies and familypractices, as well as local and global factors. We cannot assume that all children are more or lessthe same. We should not base our policy recommendations on the unitary public child. Indeed,we would argue that a lack of attention to the different ways children use their cities will hinderadvances in social policies designed to enhance participation for all children.

Whilst the study is based in London and the South-east, it is probable that many of the findingscan be generalised to other urban settings. A ‘joined-up’ or more holistic policy approach shouldbalance children’s needs and desires with parental needs and anxieties. Parental anxieties shouldnot be dismissed no matter how irrational they might appear to be. A greater trust needs to beengendered at a local level, especially in London with its high level of population density,differentiation and anonymity. A parent-friendly as well as child-friendly approach to urbanregeneration is required.

17

References

Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.Brannen, J. and O’Brien, M. (1996) Children in Families: Research and Policy. London: Falmer

Press.Central Statistical Office (1994) Social Focus on Children. London: HMSO.Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1999) Personal

communication, Road Safety Division.Hart, R. (1979) Children’s Experiences of Place. New York: Irvington.Hart, R. (1997) Children’s Participation. London: Earthscan/UNICEFHillman, M., Adams, J. and Whitelegg, J. (1990) One False Move: A Study of Children’s

Independent Mobility. London: PSI.James, A. and Prout, A. (eds) (1990) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood. London:

Falmer Press.Lesser, R. (1995) London’s Children. London: London Research Centre.Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Matthews, H. and Limb, M. (1997) Defining an Agenda for the Geography of Children.

monograph available from [email protected], D. and Roberts, H. (1995) Playing It Safe. London: Barnardos.Metropolitan Police Service (1999) Personal communication, Performance Information Bureau.Moore, R. (1986) Children’s Domain: Play and Play Space in Child Development. London:

Croom Helm.O’Brien, M. (1999a) ‘Chaperoned and autonomous childhoods: Difference and diversity in

children’s families’, paper presented to ESRC Seminar Group Postmodern Kinship, Centrefor Research on Family, Kinship and Childhood, University of Leeds, December.

O’Brien, M. (1999b) ‘Children, families and older people’, in S. Thake (ed) Tollington Initiative:Towards a Community-led Strategy for Regeneration. London: University of NorthLondon.

O’Brien, M., Jones, D., Rustin., M. and Sloan, D. (2000) ‘Children’s independent spatialmobility in the urban public realm’, Childhood: a global journal of child research, August.

Qvortrup, J., Bardy, M., Sgritta, G. and Wintersberger, H. (eds) (1994) Childhood Matters.Brookfield: Avebury.

Rustin, M. (1992) The Good Society and the Inner World. London: Verso.Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance. London: DETR.Valentine, G. (1997) ‘My son’s a bit dizzy, my wife’s a bit soft: Gender, children and cultures

of parenting’, Gender, Place and Culture, 4: 37-62.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): 219-235.

Appendix 1. Response Rates for Child Questionnaires

School No.No. children

completing questionnaireChild

absentChild

excludedResponse

rateReturned parental

questionnairesParents agreed to

interviewChild agreed to

interview

1 50 2 - 96% 66% (n=33) 36% (n=12) 44% (n=22)

18

2 53 5 - 91% 94% (n=50) 46% (n=23) 81% (n=43)

3 101 9 1 91% 59% (n=60) 30% (n=18) 64% (n=65)

4 53 - - 100% 70% (n=37) 35% (n=13) 60% (n=32)

5 41 5 2 85% 37% (n=15) 47% (n=7) 56% (n=23)

6 22 3 - 88% 82% (n=18) 28% (n=5) 86% (n=19)

7 42 2 1 93% 55% (n=23) 35% (n=8) 60% (n=25)

8 29 5 - 85% 41% (n=12) 42% (n=5) 86% (n=25)

9 88 1 1 97% 74% (n=65) 52% (n=34) 73% (n=64)

10 9 - 3 75% 11% (n=1) 100% (n=1) 11% (n=1)

11 58 6 91% 38% (n=22) 64% (n=14) 60% (n=35)

12 49 2 1 94% 59% (n=29) 28% (n=8) 76% (n=37)

13 52 - - 100% 65% (n=34) 44% (n=15) 75% (n=39)

14 83 4 1 94% 54% (n=45) 47% (n=21) 67% (n=56)

15 114 2 3 96% 87% (n=99) 45% (n=45) 69% (n=79)

16 7 - - 100% 86% (n=6) 50% (n=3) 17% (n=1)

17 84 3 1 95% 69% (n=58) 26% (n=15) 52% (n=44)

18 48 - - 100% 83% (n=40) 45% (n=18) 48% (n=23)

19 47 - - 100% 34% (n=16) 44% (n=7) 36% (n=17)

20 47 - - 100% 60% (n=28) 39% (n=11) 55% (n=26)

21 47 1 - 98% 74% (n=35) 31% (n=11) 57% (n=27)

22 27 1 - 96% 89% (n=24) 29% (n=7) 67% (n=18)

23 14 - - 100% 86% (n=12) 67% (n=8) 86% (n=12)

24 38 - 1 97% 66% (n=25) 36% (n=9) 42% (n=16)

25 35 - - 100% 43% (n=15) 53% (n=8) 74% (n=26)

26 27 - - 100% 78% (n=21) 48% (n=10) 81% (n=22)

27 57 4 - 93% 75% (n=43) 37% (n=16) 56% (n=32)

28 53 3 - 95% 45% (n=24) 54% (n=13) 68% (n=36)

19

Appendix 2. Distribution of Case Study Sampling Dimensions

Female Male

Autonomous Restricted Autonomous Restricted

Inner London 1 3 5 2

Outer London 1 1 2 1

Newtown 1 1 1 1

20

Figure 1. Mode of transport to school:Trends over time (10/11 year olds)

Figure 2. Percentage over time of children going to schoolunaccompanied by an adult (10/11 year olds)

21

Table 1. Child’s Local Physical Environment andArea Characteristics, whole sample

Variable Inner London Outer London Newtown

Housing typeHouseFlat/maisonetteOther

52%46%2%

93%7%

96%3%

0.4%(n=685) (n=405) (n=280)

Flat characteristicsAverage number of floorsAverage floor lived on

4.8 (n=248)2.6 (n=255)

4.2 (n=19)2.9 (n=20)

2.8 (n=6)1.5 (n=4)

Road typeDrive throughCul-de-sac

87%13%

87%13%

76%24%

(n=657) (n=390) (n=272)

Speed bumps along road?YesNo

32%68%

14%86%

7%93%

(n=647) (n=396) (n=277)

Does dwelling have garden?Back onlyFront onlyBoth back and frontRoof gardenBack and roof gardenNo garden

25%3%42%0.3%0.2%30%

12%2%83%

3%

4%

94%

1%(n= 652) (n=393) (n=276)

Amenities within walking distance of dwellingParkLocal shopBest friendLibraryShopping centreBus stopTube/trainRelative’s homeLeisure centre

89% (n=652)98% (n=666)60% (n=645)73% (n=649)41% (n=647)94% (n=662)76% (n=647)35% (n=640)37% (n=623)

95% (n=393)98% (n=400)64% (n=397)68% (n=396)38% (n=396)97% (n=400)62% (n=394)31% (n=393)27% (n=393)

91% (n=276)94% (n=277)70% (n=272)55% (n=276)46% (n=274)97% (n=274)30% (n=276)37% (n=273)53% (n=274)

Average time (minutes) to walk to school (parental) 25.7 (n=421) 25 (n=237) 30.6 (n=178)

Location of school relative to dwellingSame postcodeAdjacent postcode

46%43%

40%45%

77%9%

(n=642) (n=386) (n=245)

22

Table 2. Child’s Personal Characteristics, whole sample

Variable Inner London Outer London Newtown

Average age (years) 12.1 (n=686) 11.7 (n=404) 12.1 (n=280)

GenderFemaleMale

49%51%

46%54%

71%29%

(n=686) (n=404) (n=280)

EthnicityAsianBlackWhiteOther

42%16%36%7%

21%9%

68%3%

4%1%

93%2%

(n=679) (n=400) (n=278)

Family characteristicsTwo natural parentsMother + stepfatherFather + stepmotherMother + otherFather + otherMother onlyFather onlyUncle/auntAdoptive parentOlder siblingGrandparentsTime divided

70%5%1%1%

0.3%20%1%1%

1%0.3%1%

77%7%1%1%

0.2%10%3%

0.2%0.2%0.2%1%

70%9%

0.4%0.4%

17%2%

1%(n=686) (n=403) (n=280)

Maternal employment status (child)Full-timePart-timeSometimes employedNot employedStudent

25%16%6%

53%0.1%

37%34%8%

20%0.3%

34%41%5%

20%0.7%

(n=668) (n=393) (n=275)

Maternal Occupation (child)High gradeSkilledUnskilled

44%31%25%

28%44%28%

16%47%37%

(n= 289) (n=290) (n=209)

Paternal employment status (child)Full-timePart-timeSometimes employedNot employed

57%9%6%

29%

81%8%3%8%

81%8%2%9%

(n=609) (n=385) (n=272)

Paternal occupation (child)High gradeSkilledLow gradeArmed forces

48%38%14%

35%51%14%0.6%

25%59%16%

(n=386) (n=332) (n=225)

Length of time in area< 6 months6 months - 1 year>1 - 5 years>5 - 10 years> 10 years

2%9%

22%30%38%

2%5%

19%32%42%

2%5%

17%23%53%

(n=664) (n=400) (n=276)

Agreed to be interviewedParents 37% (n=428) 47% (n=245) 47% (n=196)

23

Variable Inner London Outer London NewtownChild 66% (n=630) 67% (n=396) 73% (n=270)

24

Table 3. Child’s Material and Health Conditions

Inner London Outer London Newtown

Variable Whole sample Primary Secondary Whole sample Primary Secondary Whole sample Primary Secondary

Parental car ownershipOne carTwo cars> Two carsNo car

44%19%6%

31%

50%17%7%

27%

42%20%6%

32%

43%39%9%8%

38%48%8%6%

49%31%10%10%

43%38%8%

11%

57%28%4%

11%

37%42%10%11%

(n=675) (n=404) (n=279)

Child ownership of goodsBikeOwn bedroomOwn ComputerOwn television

66% (n=676)55% (n=676)72% (n=668)43% (n=668)

76%57%76%45%

61%54%70%43%

89% (n=405)73% (n=401)83% (n=400)61% (n=401)

97%77%88%50%

84%69%79%71%

91% (n=280)80% (n=278)81% (n=277)65% (n=277)

94%79%82%69%

90%80%80%63%

Child receives pocket moneyYesSometimesNo

66%27%7%

61%32%7%

69%25%7%

68%22%10%

66%27%8%

71%18%12%

75%18%7%

75%20%5%

75%17%8%

(n=677) (n=401) (n=278)

Child suffering from health problems (self-reporting)

18% (n=657) 16% 19% 30% (n=387) 32% 27% 31% (n=266) 36% 29%

Type of health problemRespiratoryAllergiesDermatologicalOther medical conditionFunctional disability

56%12%13%15%6%

48%10%16%13%13%

58%13%11%15%3%

59%14%12%12%4%

51%25%14%5%5%

68%2%

10%19%2%

64%16%4%

14%3%

62%23%4%8%4%

65%12%4%

18%2%

(n=110) (n=112) (n=77)

25

Table 4. Child’s Daily Activities



Child allowed to stay at home alone 73% (n=680) 68% 72% 80% (n=405) 75% 99% 72% (n=279) 70% 86%

When home alone child:Answers doorPlays outAnswers telephone

63% (n=487)50% (n=482)90% (n=490)

40%36%79%

70%53%93%

39% (n=322)47% (n=320)76% (n=322)

21%32%63%

50%57%86%

51% (n=229)60% (n=226)82% (n=228)

37%45%58%

51%62%88%

Site of favourite out of school activityHomeParkStreetOther outside placeMore than one location

28%27%10%23%12%

27%32%10%21%10%

29%25%10%24%13%

18%25%16%28%12%

25%22%12%31%10%

11%28%20%26%14%

23%13%22%32%10%

30%20%25%19%6%

20%11%20%38%11%

(n=587) (n=380) (n=261)

Accompaniment to schoolChild travels aloneChild accompanied by an adult% of all children unaccompanied by an adult

25% (n=676)36% (n=504)

73%

26%42%

25%26%

16% (n=405)50% (n=340)

58%

15%78%

17%21%

12% (n=277)49% (n=243)

57%

21%56%

9%46%

Mode of transport to schoolWalkCycleBusTrain/tubeCarBus + trainTaxiOther

57%1%

12%5%

24%2%

0.3%

61%0.5%6%

0.9%31%6%

55%2%

14%6%

21%2%

0.4%

39%1%

21%1%

37%1.7%

0.2%

42%

5%

52%0.5%

35%2%

37%2%

22%4%

0.5%

42%2%

15%

40%0.4%0.7%

68%1%1%

29%

1%

31%2%

21%

44%0.5%0.5%

(n=680) (n=405) (n=277)

Reason for not allowing child to come homealone

Traffic dangerChild is unreliableFear of unknown adultsSchool too farFear of bullyingOther

12%1%

10%13%

5%

14%1%

10%8%

1%

7%

10%23%

10%

8%5%

18%13%2%4%

8%4%

20%14%1%3%

8%8%

8%8%

4%2%

10%32%2%

10%

9%4%

18%23%5%9%

4%

39%

11%

26



More than one responseDisabledConvenience

58%1%2%

60%1%3%

52% 46%3%3%

44%3%2%

58%

8%

36%4%

32% 39%7%

(n=104) (n=111) (n=50)

Child plays out without an adult 76% (n=668) 71% 78% 81% (n=402) 76% 87% 85% (n=279) 81% 87%

Where does child play out? (main responses)Green spaceStreet/pavementOwn/others gardenNear flatsPlay area with swingOutside (non-specific)Football pitchMore than one answer

32%18%15%14%3%1%2%

13%

30%19%19%13%6%

10%2%

10%

32%18%13%14%2%2%2%

15%

29%28%24%1%2%2%

None12%

24%29%34%1%2%1%

None9%

35%26%14%2%1%4%1%

14%

22%36%18%None1%2%

None17%

28%37%24%None3%

None1%6%

19%36%16%None1%3%

None21%

(n=612) (n=390) (n=272)

When was your most recent visit to a park?Within last weekWithin last month> one month agoLong time agoNever go to park

45%19%12%20%4%

53%20%12%13%3%

42%19%11%23%5%

56%20%9%

14%2%

55%22%9%

12%2%

56%18%9%

16%2%

41%20%12%25%3%

53%13%11%21%2%

36%22%13%26%3%

(n=658) (n=402) (n=277)

27

Table 5. Parent and Child Licences



Child allowed by parent to cross road 73% (n=439) 43% 89% 63% (n=249) 41% 92% 85% (n=201) 61% 94%

Parental worry about child crossing roadVery worriedQuite worriedNot very worriedNot at all worried

44%21%20%3%

45%36%17%3%

43%31%22%4%

40%36%20%4%

41%37%17%3%

39%32%23%6%

25%50%22%4%

35%46%18%2%

21%51%24%4%

(n=437) (n=236) (n=184)

Average number of accompanied trips 3 (n=377) 4 3 3 (n=236) 5 3 3 (n=184) 4 4

Is child allowed out alone after dark?Parent report yesChild report yes

12% (n=438)34% (n=622)

5%17%

16%43%

4% (n=248)35% (n=397)

None21%

11%50%

11% (n=200)51% (n=266)

None41%

15%56%

Parent reasons for not allowing child out afterdark

Fear of assaultChild unreliableFear of bullyingTrafficGenerally not safeChild shouldn’t be out so lateNot necessaryTime restrictionsOtherMore than one reason cited

50%13%7%3%3%1%1%

0.3%1%

23%

39%12%5%5%4%

0.7%0.7%None1%

33%

56%13%8%3%2%

0.4%0.4%0.4%

16%

56%14%5%2%2%

0.4%

1%21%

49%17%4%4%1%1%

1%25%

66%9%7%

3%

1%14%

63%10%1%1%3%1%2%

5%14%

64%11%

2%2%

11%11%

63%9%2%2%3%1%3%

3%15%

(n=382) (n=236) (n=175)

Is child allowed to use bus alone?Parent report yesChild report yes

51% (n=436)65% (n=622)

17%41%

70%77%

39% (n=249)64% (n=397)

13%38%

75%90%

57% (n=196)68% (n=266)

9%40%

76%81%

Child is allowed without adult to (child report):Go to schoolUse train/tubeCome home from schoolRide bike main roadPlay in street outsideGo to cinemaGo to local shopsGo to shopping centre further awayGo to Central LondonWalk alone to a friend’s house

85% (n=622)45% (n=622)84% (n=622)41% (n=621)72% (n=622)61% (n=622)88% (n=622)50% (n=622)31% (n=622)76% (n=621)

73%24%71%35%69%43%78%27%10%67%

91%56%91%44%74%71%93%62%41%81%

76% (n=397)39% (n=396)77% (n=397)57% (n=396)81% (n=397)74% (n=397)85% (n-397)53% (n=397)15% (n=396)79% (n=397)

56%17%60%43%74%60%75%33%6%

70%

94%61%95%72%89%89%95%75%25%88%

87% (n=266)41% (n=266)87% (n=266)60% (n=265)88% (n=266)86% (n=266)88% (n=266)68% (n=266)18% (n=265)87% (n=266)

81%16%77%46%86%68%77%45%17%86%

90%52%91%66%90%94%94%79%18%88%

29

Table 6. Child’s Daily Activities, whole sample, by gender


Variable Female Male Female Male Female Male

Child allowed to stay at home alone 74% (n=334) 71% (n=344) 78% (n=187) 82% (n=217) 90% (n=199) 69% (n=80)

When home alone child:Answers doorPlays outAnswers telephone

54% (n=243)40% (n=241)87% (n=246)

71% (n=243)60% (n=240)93% (n=243)

34% (n=145)35% (n=143)75% (n=145)

42% (n=176)57% (n=176)77% (n=177)

49% (n=174)55% (n=171)

100% (n=173)

66% (n=55)75% (n=55)84% (n=55)

Site of favourite out of school activityHomeParkStreetOther outside placeMore than one location

39%14%11%27%12%

21%40%9%

19%11%

21%12%17%40%10%

16%36%16%19%14%

25%5%

20%39%11%

19%35%26%15%5%

(n= 285) (n=301) (n=172) (n=207) (n=187) (n=74)

Accompaniment to schoolChild travels aloneChild accompanied by an adultAll children unaccompanied by adult

20% (n=333)40% (n=268)

68%

31% (n=340)31% (n=233)

78%

13% (n=187)50% (n=162)

57%

18% (n=217)51% (n=177)

59%

13% (n=198)53% (n=173)

54%

11% (n=79)40% (n=70)

65%

Mode of transport to schoolWalkCycleBusTrain/tubeCarBus + trainTaxiOther

54%0.3%15%2%

27%1%

59%2%8%7%

21%3%

1%

38%

23%1%

37%1%1%

39%2%

19%1%

36%2%

1%

35%1%

19%

45%1%

61%5%5%

27%

3%

(n=335) (n=342) (n=187) (n=217) (n=198) (n=79)

Reason for not allowing child to comehome alone

Traffic dangerChild is unreliableFear of unknown adultsSchool too farFear of bullyingOtherMore than one responseDisabledConvenience

11%

9%9%

6%61%2%2%

13%3%

11%18%

3%50%

3%

10%5%

22%12%2%3%

42%2%2%

6%4%

14%14%2%4%

50%4%4%

3%13%33%

13%33%5%

18%

27%9%

46%

(n=64) (n=38) (n=59) (n=52) (n=39) (n=11)

Child plays out without an adult 67% (n=332) 84% (n=334) 75% (n=186) 87% (n=215) 82% (n=199) 93% (n=80)

Where does child play out?(main responses)

Green spaceStreet/pavementOwn/others gardenNear flatsSpecific leisure locationOutside (non-specific)More than one place

28%15%20%17%

14%

35%22%10%10%

12%

23%28%28%3%

11%

34%28%21%

2%12%

23%34%21%

3%16%

19%42%10%

4%

18%

(n=294) (n=316) (n=180) (n=209) (n=194) (n=78)

When was your most recent visit to apark?

Within last weekWithin last month> one month agoLong time agoNever go to park

35%20%13%27%5%

56%18%10%13%4%

51%20%10%16%3%

59%20%9%

12%1%

37%23%13%25%2%

51%10%10%23%6%

(n=328) (n=328) (n=185) (n=216) (n=198) (n=79)

30

Table 7. Parent and Child Licences, whole sample, by gender



Child allowed by parent to cross road 68% (n=227) 78% (n=210) 58% (n=120) 67% (n=129) 87% (n=155) 80% (n=46)

Parent very worried re child crossing road 46% (n=226) 41% (n=209) 42% (n=119) 38% (n=128) 25% (n=155) 26% (n=46)

Average number of accompanied trips 4 3 4 3 4 3

Is child allowed out alone after dark?Parent report yesChild report yes

7% (n=226)26% (n=312)

18% (n=210)43% (n=308)

3% (n=120)30% (n=183)

6% (n=128)40% (n=213)

8% (n=154)46% (n=188)

17% (n=46)64% (n=78)

Parent reasons for not allowing child outafter dark

Fear of assaultChild unreliableFear of bullyingTrafficGenerally not safeChild shouldn’t be out so lateNot necessaryTime restrictionsOtherMore than one reason cited

56%10%3%4%2%

25%

42%16%12%3%4%1%1%1%1%

20%

62%10%2%3%2%

2%21%

49%18%8%2%2%1%

21%

65%9%1%1%3%1%

4%15%

60%11%

3%3%

8%8%

(n=207) (n=173) (n=116) (n=120) (n=138) (n=37)

Is child allowed to use bus alone?Parent report yesChild report yes

49% (n=227)59% (n=312)

54% (n=207)71% (n=308)

42% (n=120)59% (n=183)

36% (n=129)68% (n=213)

63% (n=150)71% (n=188)

39% (n=46)62% (n=78)

Child is allowed without adult to (childreport:

Go to schoolUse train/tubeCome home from schoolRide bike main roadPlay in street outsideGo to cinemaGo to local shopsGo to shopping centre further awayGo to Central LondonWalk alone to a friend’s house

85% (n=312)37% (n=312)85% (n=312)30% (n=312)67% (n=312)59% (n=312)87% (n=312)47% (n=312)24% (n=312)68% (n=312)

85% (n=308)54% (n=308)83% (n=308)52% (n=307)77% (n=308)63% (n-308)89% (n=308)53% (n=308)37% (n=308)84% (n=307)

72% (n=183)34% (n=182)74% (n=183)46% (n=182)80% (n=183)72% (n=183)83% (n=183)50% (n=183)10% (n=182)72% (n=183)

80% (n=213)43% (n=213)80% (n=213)67% (n=213)82% (n=213)77% (n=213)86% (n=213)56% (n=213)19% (n=213)85% (n=213)

88% (n=188)38% (n=188)89% (n=188)56% (n=187)87% (n=188)86% (n=188)88% (n=188)68% (n=188)16% (n=187)87% (n=188)

85% (n=78)46% (n=78)81% (n=78)68% (n=78)91% (n=78)85% (n=78)89% (n=78)71% (n=78)23% (n=78)89% (n=78)

31

Table 8. Percentage of Boys who Play Out, primary sampleneighbourhood clusters, by ethnicity*

Inner London Outer London

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6

Asian 71 50 95 100 68 --

Black 50 67 100 90 86 100

White 78 46 100 64 88 86

Table 9. Percentage of Girls who Play Out, primary sampleneighbourhood clusters, by ethnicity*



Asian 60 43 80 50 50 ---

Black 75 90 100 50 70 57

White 61 63 100 64 100 78

Table 10. Percentage of Boys who Play Out, secondary sampleneighbourhood clusters, by ethnicity**



Asian 100 100 92 90 85 100

Black 100 --- 64 77 100 100

White 100 90 78 67 90 92

Table 11. Percentage of Girls who Play Out, secondary sampleneighbourhood clusters, by ethnicity**



Asian 84 86 37 60 71 75

Black 50 100 60 60 100 25

White 83 88 80 100 86 91

* Cluster Key, primary sample:

Cluster 1 Brent materially mixed neighbourhoodCluster 2 Brent, materially wealthy neighbourhoodCluster 3 Tower Hamlets, poor neighbourhoodCluster 4 Islington, poor neighbourhoodCluster 5 Harrow, materially wealthy neighbourhoodCluster 6 Barking & Dagenham, materially mixed

neighbourhood

** Cluster Key, secondary sample:

Cluster 1 Brent, materially mixed neighbourhoodCluster 2 Brent, materially wealthy neighbourhoodCluster 3 Tower Hamlets, poor neighbourhoodCluster 4 Islington, poor neighbourhoodCluster 5 Harrow, materially wealthy neighbourhoodCluster 6 Barking & Dagenham, materially mixed

neighbourhood

32

Table 12. Dimensions of Risk



Safety factors% feel there are unsafe places in area% Scared of unknown adults% Scared of young people

37% (n=664)48% (n=675)48% (n=675)

30%48%45%

40%48%50%

38% (n=393)48% (n=393)53% (n=402)

43%50%50%

33%47%56%

36% (n=274)51% (n=279)52% (n=276)

33%47%53%

37%53%52%

Characteristics of unsafe places in area(main responses)

Dark/dingyPark/woodsYouth placesStreet

21%12%11%21%

10%14%14%19%

24%11%10%22%

29%20%12%12%

25%19%17%11%

36%23%7%

13%

39%19%11%11%

41%22%11%15%

38%18%11%10%

(n=690) (n=147) (n=100)

What would improve unsafe places in area?(main responses)

SecurityLightingMore policeImprove infrastructureTraffic managementPerson restrictionsDon’t know/nothing

21%15%13%18%2%

14%10%

22%17%11%9%4%

19%19%

20%14%13%21%2%

12%18%

22%21%7%

16%3%

15%17%

23%17%3%

17%5%

18%18%

21%26%12%14%None11%16%

8%31%6%

18%6%8%

24%

4%22%4%

30%13%13%13%

9%34%6%

14%3%6%

28%(n=207) (n=135) (n=91)

It is safe to cycle:On main roadOn local road

45% (n=410)82% (n=412)

39%75%

47%86%

56% (n=339)91% (n=340)

51%89%

61%92%

51% (n=246)91% (n=251)

41%88%

55%92%

Involvement in an RTA whilst:CyclingWalkingTravelling in a car

5% (n=661)6% (n=664)

21% (n=663)

5%3%

17%

5%8%

23%

5% (n=395)5% (n=393)30%(n=395)

5%3%

35%

5%7%

26%

7% (n=278)3% (n=278)

25% (n=276)

6%1%

16%

7%3%

29%

33

Table 13. Dimensions of Risk, whole sample, by gender



Safety factors% feel there are unsafe places% Scared of unknown adults% Scared of young people

42% (n=328)61% (n=329)51% (n=333)

31% (n=334)35% (n=335)46% (n=340)

44% (n=183)63% (n=181)58% (n=186)

32% (n=214)36% (n=211)49% (n=215)

42% (n=194)58% (n=199)54% (n=198)

21% (n=80)34% (n=80)47% (n=78)

Characteristics of unsafe places in area(main responses)

Dark/dingyPark/woodsYouth placesStreet

23%12%13%20%

17%12%7%

23%

33%13%9%

15%

25%29%16%7%

39%19%13%11%

41%18%None12%

(n=130) (n=96) (n=79) (n=68) (n=83) (n=17)

What would improve unsafe places inarea? (main responses)

SecurityLightingMore policeImprove infrastructureTraffic managementPerson restrictionsDon’t know/nothing

16%19%12%21%4%

13%16%

27%9%

14%14%None15%21%

15%23%5%

18%5%

18%16%

31%18%8%

13%None12%18%

10%33%1%

18%6%8%

25%

None24%24%18%6%6%

24%(n=120) (n=86) (n=181) (n=61) (n=74) (n=17)

It is safe to cycle:On main roadOn local road

29% (n=173)79% (n=182)

57% (n=235)85% (n=228)

40% (n=156)87% (n=156)

69% (n=182)95% (n=183)

43% (n=175)89% (n=178)

69% (n=71)96% (n=73)

Involvement in an RTA whilst:CyclingWalkingTravelling in a car

2% (n=323)5% (n=326)

22% (n=328)

7% (n=336)8% (n=336)

21% (n=333)

4% (n=181)4% (n=181)

27% (n=183)

5% (n=213)5% (n=211)

33% (n=211)

5% (n=198)3% (n=198)

23% (n=197)

13% (n=80)3% (n=80)29% (n-79)

34

Table 14. Perceptions of Built Environment and Neighbourhood Improvements

Inner London Outer London NewtownVariable Whole sample Primary Secondary Whole sample Primary Secondary Whole sample Primary SecondaryWhat buildings in your area do you like?(main responses)

Own home/estateResidential block of flats

Leisure centre/cinemaEducational buildingMajor shopping centreLocal shopping centreOther key buildingNone

21%11%10%6%4%6%5%

13%

19%11%6%6%6%8%2%

17%

21%11%12%6%3%5%7%

11%

13%2%

25%3%

16%19%3%7%

16%2%

20%4%

22%15%5%6%

9%2%

30%2%

16%18%2%7%

9%None21%5%

37%9%4%5%

8%None21%None48%1%5%3%

9%None21%7%

32%13%3%6%

(n=474) (n=343) (n=236)What buildings in your area do you dislike?(main responses)

Own home/estateOther residencesEducational buildingMajor/local shopsAdult leisure facilitiesNoneOtherDon’t know

5%32%8%8%4%

14%7%9%

5%31%4%9%4%

18%5%

13%

5%33%11%8%4%

12%8%7%

None14%22%11%5%

17%13%6%

None11%31%10%4%

15%14%3%

None14%12%12%5%

19%12%10%

1%13%12%24%10%11%12%8%

3%14%12%30%12%6%

11%11%

1%13%12%21%8%

13%15%6%

(n=427) (n=298) (n=209)Neighbourhood improvements desired byparents (main responses)

Security measuresTraffic measuresMore/improved playspaces and placesMore/better parksCity maintenancePerson restrictionsOtherNothing/don’t know

22%27%20%6%5%

12%8%2%

20%25%27%5%3%

11%6%3%

23%26%16%6%6%

12%9%2%

29%23%17%5%1%

13%9%

None

29%27%22%5%

None11%5%

None

30%18%17%6%1%

15%14%None

17%30%36%1%3%6%7%1%

6%49%29%None6%8%2%

None

22%23%39%1%2%5%9%1%

(n=355) (n=214) (n=180)Neighbourhood improvements desired by child(main responses)

Security measuresTraffic measuresMore/improved playspaces and placesMore/better parksCity maintenancePerson restrictionsOtherNothing/don’t know

11%12%20%9%

20%8%

10%9%

7%11%29%8%

20%9%8%

11%

14%13%18%10%20%8%

10%8%

8%18%24%10%18%7%

11%5%

4%22%27%9%

16%7%%12%3%

11%15%21%11%19%6%

10%7%

5%15%17%12%22%5%

17%9%

4%18%21%13%24%3%

12%6%

5%14%15%11%22%5%

19%10%

(n=473) (n=338) (n=224)

childhood urban space and citizenship: child-sensitive ... · childhood urban space and...

Documents