Children’s Understanding of the Concept of Child-Friendly Places and Their Assessment of Their Living Environments: The Case of Istanbul

Öz

This paper aims to investigate whether children living in Istanbul view their neighborhoods as ‘child-friendly’ based on their understanding of the concept of ‘child-friendly places’. In this context, the author focuses on the results of a child-friendly city project, which was conducted with approximately 240 nine- to-eleven-year-old children living in six neighborhoods of Istanbul. Data are obtained from focus groups, nominal groups, and mapping and neighborhood planning workshops. Results show that local governments, which participated in the project, failed to meet the commitments they have made to children in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Agenda 21 and the Habitat Agenda. It was found that many children do not view their neighborhood as a child-friendly place. Many children supported their views by referring to the following problems of their neighborhoods:  the lack of environmental (spatial) quality, poor social capital, and safety and security issues. The author argues that the methods and results discussed here would help researchers interested in conducting similar studies and enlighten local governments in the production of more child-friendly environments.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Child-Friendly Place,Child-Friendly Cities,Children’s Assessment Of Their Environments,Focus Groups,Nominal Group,Mapping Workshops,Neighborhood Planning Workshops

Çocukların Gözünden Çocuk Dostu Yer Kavramı ve Yaşanılan Çevrelerin Değerlendirilmesi: İstanbul Örneği

Öz

Bu makale, çocuk dostu yer kavramının İstanbul’da yaşayan çocuklar için ne anlam ifade ettiğini, bu tanım bağlamında yaşadıkları mahalleleri çocuk dostu olarak görüp görmediklerini nedenleriyle anlamayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu kapsamda yazar, İstanbul’un altı mahallesinde 9-11 yaş aralığındaki yaklaşık 240 çocuğun katıldığı bir çocuk dostu şehir projesindeki grup söyleşisi (odak grup ve nominal grup), haritalama ve mahalle planlama atölyesinde elde ettiği bulguları okuyucuya sunmaktadır. Bulgular, İstanbul’daki çalışmaya dahil olan yerel yönetimlerin, Birleşmiş Milletler Çocuk Hakları Sözleşmesi’nde, Gündem 21’de ve Habitat Ajandası’nda belirtilen hükümlere uyma konusunda yetersiz kaldıklarını göstermektedir. Çalışmada yer alan çocukların büyük bir kısmı, çeşitli nedenden dolayı mahallesini çocuk dostu görmemektedir. En fazla üzerinde durulan sorunlar yaşanılan çevrelerin mekânsal ve sosyal nitelik sorunları ve bu yerlerin güvensiz ve emniyetsiz oluşları ile ilişkilidir. Bu makalede paylaşılan yöntem ve bulgular ile benzer çalışmaları yürütmek isteyen araştırmacılara yol gösterilmesi ve yerel yönetimlerin daha çocuk dostu çevreler yaratma konusunda bilinçlendirilmesi hedeflenmektedir.  

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çocuk Dostu Yer,Çocuk Dostu Şehirler,Çocukların Çevrelerini Değerlendirmesi,Odak Grup,Nominal Grup,Haritalama Çalışması,Mahalle Planlama Atölyeleri

Kaynakça

1. Bridgman, R. (2004a) Child-Friendly Cities: Canadian perspectives. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(2), 178-200.
2. Bridgman, R. (2004b) Criteria for best practices in child-friendly cities: Involving young people in urban planning and design. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 13(2), 337-346.
3. Chatterjee, S. (2005) Children’s friendship with place: A conceptual inquiry. Children, Youth and Environments, 15(1), 1-26.
4. Chatterjee, S. (2006) Children’s Friendship with Place: An exploration of Environmental Child Friendliness of Children’s Environments in Cities. Basılmamış doktora tezi. North Carolina State University, Tasarım Programı.
5. Churchman, A. (2003) Is there a place for children in the city? Journal of Urban Design, 8(2), 99-111.
6. Chawla, L. (Der.) (2002a) Growing Up in an Urbanizing World. Londra: Unesco Publishing/ Earthscan.
7. Chawla, L. (2002a) "Insight, creativity and thoughts on the environment": Integrating children and youth into human settlement development. Environment and Urbanization, 14(2), 11-22.
8. Childress, H. (2004) Teenagers, territories and the appropriation of space. Childhood, 11(2), 195-205.

9. Doll, B. (1996) Children without friends: Implications for practice and policy. The School Psychology Review, 25(2), 165-183.
10. Dötterweich, J. A. (2006) Building effective community partnerships for youth development: Lessons learned from ACT for youth. Journal of Public Health Management Practice, November (Suppl), S51-S59.
11. Gurstein, P., Lovato, C. ve Ross, S. (2003) Youth participation in planning: Strategies for social action. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 12(2), 249-274.
12. Haikkola, L. ve Horelli, L. (2002) Young People as Social and Environmental Agents in Finland and in Italy: An Overview of the Legislative Situation of Young People, the Structures for and Examples of Participation in Finland, and the Concept of the Child-Friendly Environment. Basılmamış makale. HUT/Centre for Urban and Regional Studies.
13. Haikkola, L. ve Horelli, L. (2004) Interpretations of Environmental Child-Friendliness in a Neighbourhood of Helsinki. İçinde L. Horelli ve M. Prezza (Der.) Child-Friendly Environments: Approaches and Lessons. Espoo, Finlandiya: Helsinki University of Technology, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies.
14. Haikkola, L., Pacilli, M. G., Horelli, L. ve Prezza, M. (2007) Interpretations of Urban Child-Friendliness: A comparative study of two neighborhoods in Helsinki and Rome. Children, Youth and Environments, 17(4), 319-351.
15. Hart, R., Daiute, C., Iltus, S., Kritt, D., Rome, M. Ve Sabo, K. (1997) Developmental theory and children’s participation in community organizations. Social Justice, 24(3), 33-63.
16. Hartrup, W. W. (1989) Behavioral Manifestations of Children's Friendships. İçinde T. J. Berndt ve G.W. Ladd (Der.) Peer Relationships in Child Development. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
17. Horelli, L. (2007) Constructing a theoretical framework for Environmental Child-Friendliness. Children, Youth and Environments, 17(4), 267-292.
18. Horelli, L., Kytta, M. ve Kaaja, M. (1998) Lapset ymparistön ekoagentteina [Children as eco-agents of their environment]. Helsinki University of Technology, Department of Architecture, publication 49.
19. Innocenti Research Centre (2004) Building Child Friendly Cities: A Framework for Action. Floransa: UNICEF.
20. Kytta, M. (2003) Children in Outdoor Contexts: Affordances and Independent Mobility in the Assessment of Environmental Child Friendliness. Basılmamış doktora tezi. Helsinki University of Technology, Kentsel ve Bölgesel Çalışmalar Merkezi.
21. Lynch, K. (Der.) (1977) Growing up in cities: studies of the spatial environment of adolescence in Cracow, Melbourne, Mexico City, Salta, Toluca, and Warszawa. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. MacPhail, A. (2001) Nominal group technique: A useful method for working with young people. British Educational Research Journal, 27(2), 161-170.
23. Moore, R. (1986) Childhood’s domain: Play and place in child development. Londra: Croom Helm.
24. Nordström, M. (2010) Children’s views on child-friendly environments in different geographical, cultural and social neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 47(3), 514-528.
25. Riggio, E. (2002) Child friendly cities: Good governance in the best interests of the child. Environment and Urbanization, 14(2), 45-58.
26. Rizzo, T. A. ve Corsaro, W. A. (1988) Toward a better understanding of Vygotsky’s process of internalization: Its role in the development of the concept of friendship. Developmental Review, 8(3), 219-237.
27. Selman, R.L. (1980) The Growth of Interpersonal Understanding: Developmental and Clinical Analyses. Londra: Academic Press.
28. Severcan, Y. C. (2012) Children’s Attachment to Public Space in the Context of Urban Regeneration: Effects of Children’s Involvement in Planning and Design Activities. Basılmamış doktora tezi. University of Colorado Denver, Tasarım ve Doktora Programı.
29. Severcan, Y. C. (2015a) Planning for the unexpected: Barriers to young people’s participation in planning in disadvantaged communities. International Planning Studies, 20 (3), 251-269.
30. Severcan (2015b) The effects of children’s participation in planning and design activities on their place attachment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. (Basım aşamasında)
31. Youngiss, J. (1980) Parents and Peers in Social Development: A Piaget-Sullivan Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.