Planning Children-Friendly Neighborhoods with an Emphasis on Participation (Case Study: South Pounak Neighborhood of Tehran)

جغرافیا و توسعه فضای شهری

Volume 11, Issue 4, March 2025, Pages 1-29   

Document Type: Scientific-Research

DOI: 10.22067/jgusd.2023.79446.1260

Authors

Shifteh Farokhi¹; Seyyed Majid Mofidi Shemirani²; Samaneh Jalilisadrabad^{* 3}

¹Master student, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Science and Industry of Iran

²Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

³school of architecture and environmental design,IUST

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

Currently many cities have various challenges. One of the main challenges is ignoring children. In this regard, neighborhoods can act as reliable domains for solving urban problems. Their potentials should be used to increase children acceptance, increase the sense of belonging, enhance the life quality, and boost social capital. The ideas and demands of children (as a vulnerable group of society), regarding their living environment, should be seriously considered by planners and policy makers. The end goal is that children can use the whole parts of neighborhoods when they desire and be more interested in participating and passing time in the neighborhood’s environment. Considering the mentioned issues, this study tried to identify planning strategies for creating child-friendly neighborhoods that enhances participation in the South Pounak neighborhood of Tehran. This neighborhood and participation are under-researched. Therefore, this study tried to present the participation indicators in the different dimensions of child-friendly neighborhoods.

Method

This applied research enjoyed a descriptive-analytical method. Cochran's method was applied to determine the size of the sample. To observe the principle of equality in selecting the participants, from among the statistical population of 35408 people, 380 questionnaires were distributed among the residents of the neighborhood considering the population of each block and using simple random sampling. For the analysis of the questionnaire, multiple regression analysis and stepwise method were applied to determine the relationship between independent variables and the dependent variable and to see the influence of independent variables on the dependent variable.

Results

The findings included 27 indicators regarding “planning of child-friendly neighborhoods”. The indicators were categorized into physical, transportational, social, environmental, administrative, and housing dimensions. Regarding “participation”, 18 indicators were identified that were categorized into four dimensions: educational, legal, social, and management and planning dimensions. Mental indicators were measured using regression analysis. The highest scores belongs to the extent of doing various activities by children in the physical dimension, child safety facing cars in the transportational dimension, sense of belonging to the neighborhood in the social dimension, the variety of activities of children in the housing dimension, and the variety of activities in the neighborhood in the administrative dimension. Moreover, in the section of participation of children in the management and planning dimension, motivational policies for the participation of children, in the educational dimension, recognizing the abilities and competencies (empowerment) of children, and in the legal dimension, the laws that support children recorded the highest scores. On the contrary, the lowest scores belonged to the attention to children's favorite colors in the physical dimension, ventilation of houses in the housing dimension, the noise pollution in the environmental dimension, the advisory councils in the administrative dimension, the implementation of the ideas of children in the management and planning dimension, the idea of children as trainers of community in the educational dimension, and  legal rights of children in the legal dimension recorded the lowest scores. Regarding the dimensions, the physical and environmental dimensions were identified as the most significant. The physical dimension is significant as it is visible and entails all the things about human beings, and the environmental dimension is important as in that children grow up. Therefore, safe and healthy environment is so significant for parents, and this should taken serious by planners of creating child-friendly neighborhoods.

Discussion and Conclusion

Considering the results, it can be said that through participating and obtaining children's ideas in various stages of planning, neighborhoods can be places that children like; place in which safety, security, sense of belonging, presence, and social interactions are high.
Accordingly, for enhancing the participation of children, first of all they should be formally educated and empowered to take active roles in the neighborhoods’ planning. Then, we should make the infrastructure for children's participation. Local officials should involve children by creating a safe and all-inclusive environments. At first, some groups should be formed that work on the physical, transportational, social, environmental, housing and management and planning issues in the neighborhoods. Then they should inform people of those plans and programs of the neighborhoods and children's participation in the planning process. For better creation of the environment, they can use the ideas of architects, environmental and urban planners, child psychologists, and facilitators to communicate with children and use their ideas in regarding the desired neighborhoods. The ideas can be obtained from children under 12 through drawing, storytelling, recording behavioral patterns, and photographing, and for children of 12 and older through interviews, brainstorming, workshops with the presence of children, visiting different sites with the officials, group discussions, matrix, and theater. Moreover, it should be possible to monitor and revise the plans and programs by children after the implementation. This issue allows children to directly observe the consequences of their participation, which makes them feel a sense of belonging to their neighborhood and feel responsible for them.

Keywords

Keywords: Children; Child-Friendly Neighborhoods; Participation; South Pounak Neighborhood of Tehran

References

• ابوالقاسم­پور، م. ل. (1396). تحلیل فضایی – کالبدی شهر دوستدار کودک (مورد مطالعه: محله بهار منطقه هفت تهران). پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد رشته جغرافیا و برنامه­ریزی شهری گرایش آمایش شهر، تهران: دانشگاه خوارزمی،دانشکده علوم جغرافیایی
• تیوانت، ل. (2018). کتابچه راهنمای شهرها و اجتماعات محلی دوستدار کودک. تهران: یونیسف برای همه کودکان.
• ثقه الاسلامی، د.ع. ا.، و امین زاده، د .ب. (1390). بررسى تطبیقى مفهوم و اصول به کار رفته در محله ایرانى و واحد همسایگى غربى. هویت شهر، 13، 33-45.
• حسین­زاده، ع. ح.، و فدائی ده­چشمه، ح. (1391). بررسی عوامل اجتماعی مؤثر بر مشارکت شهروندان در امور شهری (مطالعه موردی: شهر شهرکرد). مطالعات جامعه شناختی شهری (مطالعات شهر) ، 59-82..
• دریسکل، د. (1387). ایجاد شهرهای بهتر با کودکان و جوانان، راهنمایی برای مشارکت و پژوهش مشارکتی. مهرنوش توکلی و نوید سعید رضوانی، مترجمان. چاپ نخست، تهران: نشر دیباچه.
• شهری زاده، ص.، و مؤید­فر، س. (1396). برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی شهر دوستدار کودک با تأکید بر خلاقیت کودکان (نمونه موردی: شهر یزد). نشریه پژوهش و برنامه‌ریزی شهری، 8(28)، 170-149.
• صابری، د. ح.، و طهماسبی­زاده، ع.، ف.، ش. (1396). فضاهای شهری دوستدار کودک: نگرش‌ها و شاخص‌ها. همدان: پنجمین همایش ملی معماری، مرمت، شهرسازی و محیط‌زیست پایدار.
• صندوق کودکان سازمان ملل متحد (یونیسف در ایران )(1367). پیمان­نامه جهانی حقوق کودک، مصوب مجمع عمومی سازمان ملل متحد. تهران: صندوق کودکان سازمان ملل متحد (یونیسف در ایران )؛ مرجع ملی پیمان­نامه حقوق کودک وزارت دادگستری) .
• کامل نیا، ح.، و حقیر، س. (1388). الگوهای طراحی فضای سبز در شهر دوستدار کودک (نمونه موردی : شهر دوستدار کودک بم). فصلنامه باغ نظر، 12(6)، 88-77.
• کورد شاکری، پ. (1396). حق کودک به شهر؛ برنامه­ریزی مقیاس محله مبتنی بر نیازهای فضایی کودکان و نوجوانان (نمونه مطالعاتی محلّه­ ی کوی نصر تهران). پایان­نامه جهت اخذ درجه کارشناسی ارشد شهرسازی گرایش برنامه­ریزی شهری، تهران: دانشگاه تهران، پردیس هنرهای زیبا.
• متینی، م.، سعیدی رضوانی، ن.، و احمدیان، ر. (1393). معیارهای طراحی محلات مبتنی بر رویکرد شهر دوستدار کودک (نمونه موردی: محله‌ی فرهنگ مشهد). مطالعات جغرافیایی مناطق خشک، 4(15)، 112-91.
• معاونت امور شهرداری­ها، دفتر برنامه­ریزی و مدیریت توسعه شهری. (1397). دستورالعمل شهرهای دوستدار کودک (اصول، ویژگی­ها و ضوابط راهبردی برای شهرداری­ها). تهران: وزارت کشور سازمان شهرداری و دهداری­ها.
• مویدفر، س.، و صفایی، ف. (1398). برنامه‌ریزی شهر دوستدار کودک در راستای ارتقاءء مشارکت نوجوانان (مطالعه موردی: شهر آباده). کاوش‌های جغرافیایی مناطق بیابانی، 7(2)، 277-247.

 

• Emma Martin, K., & Jane Wood, L. (2013). We live here too what makes a child-friendly neighborhood. Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide. Brisbane: Wiley-Blackwell publishing.
• Goldfeld, Sh., Woolcock, G., Katz, I ., Tanton , R., Brinkman ,S ., O’Connor ,E ., Mathews, T. & Giles-Corti, B. (2015). Neighbourhood effects influencing early childhood development: conceptual model and trial measurement methodologies from the kids in communities study. Social Indicators Research, 120, 197-212.
• Gould Ellen, I., & Glied, Sh. (2015). Housing, neighborhoods, and children’s health, the future of children. The future of Children, 25(1), 135-154.
• Hart, R. (1992). Children participation: from tokenism to citizenship. Florence: Unicef International Child Development Centre.
• Horelli, L. (2007). Constructing a framework for environmental child-friendliness. Children, Youth and Environments. 17(4), 267-292.
• Lueder, R. (2007). Designing cities and neighborhoods for children. Ergonomics for Taylor & Francis Group.
• Malone, K., School of Education, U.W. S. (2011). Designing and dreaming a child friendly neighbourhood for brooks reach Dapto. Bankstown: University of Western Sydney.
• Manouchehri, B., Burns, E. A., Rudner , J., & Davoudi , S. (2021). Creating a child-friendly neighborhood: Iranian school children talk about desirable and undesirable elements in their neighborhoods. Children, Youth and Environments, 31(3), 74-97.
• Min, B., & Lee, J. (2006). Children's neighborhood place as a psychological and behavioral domain. Suwon: Ajou university.
• Riggio, E. (2002). Child friendly cities. Good governance in the best interests of the child. Journal of Environment & Urbanization, 14 (2), 45-58.
• Unicef Iran, T, I. (2019). Child friendly cities initiative. The First National Conference on Child Friendly Cities.
• (2021). Guidance on child and adolescent participation as part of phase iii of the preparatory action for a European Child guarantee. Unicef.
• Woolcock, G., & Steele, W. (2008). Child-friendly community indicators a literature review. South East Queensland: Griffith University.
• Zakiul Islam, M., Moore, R. & Cosco, N . (2016). Child-friendly, active, healthy neighborhoods: physical characteristics and children’s time outdoors. Environment and Behavior, 48(5), 711-736.