Children’s Participation Experiences in Landscape Design Process

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 56 Sayı: 3, 383 - 394, 27.09.2019

Ayşe Özdemir

https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.529396

Öz

Objective: The purpose of this research is students’ effective participation in the process of organizing the school garden.

Material and Methods: In this study was used participant approach/process which includes methods such as “participatory questioning actions”, “design discussions” and “decision making and prioritization”. Thus was provided students engagement experiences in the development of landscape design for school garden.

Results: In this research, it has been tried to reveal the answer to the question of how the school garden should be a public open space with a planned participatory approach / process which using various participation methods. With this method, student’s effective participation and using initiative was provided while making decision. In the direction of participation process output more liveable, practicable and sustainable design suggestion was developed.

Conclusion: It is thought that this research may contribute to the literature in academic and scientific context in order to emphasize the importance of participatory approach/process and to contribute to the application studies in the context of sample.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çankırı, school garden, participatory planning, landscape design

Çocukların Peyzaj Tasarım Sürecine Katılım Deneyimleri

Öz

Amaç: Bu araştırmanın amacı; öğrencilerinin okul bahçesinin düzenlenmesi sürecine etkin katılımlarının sağlanmasıdır.

Materyal ve Metot: Araştırma öğrencilerinin okul bahçesi kullanımına yönelik fikir, istek ve gereksinimleri belirlenmesini ve okul bahçesine yönelik peyzaj tasarımının geliştirilmesinde yer alma deneyimini sağlayacak olan katılımcı soru sorma eylemi, tasarım tartışmaları, karar verme ve önceliklendirme gibi çeşitli katılım yöntemlerini içeren katılımcı yaklaşım/süreç ile gerçekleştirilmiştir.

Bulgular: Bu araştırmada çeşitli katılım yöntemlerinin kullanıldığı planlı bir katılımcı yaklaşım/ süreç ile kamusal bir açık alan olarak okul bahçesi nasıl olmalı sorusunun cevabı ortaya konmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu yöntem ile çocukların karar vermede aktif katılımı, yani inisiyatif kullanmaları sağlanmıştır. Katılım sürecinin çıktıları doğrultusunda daha yaşanabilir, uygulanabilir ve sürdürülebilir peyzaj tasarım önerisi geliştirilmiştir.

Sonuç: Bu araştırmanın, katılımcı yaklaşım/süreç öneminin vurgulanması yönünden akademik ve bilimsel bağlamda literatüre, örnek alan bağlamında ise uygulama çalışmalarına katkı sunabileceği düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çankırı, okul bahçesi, katılımcı planlama, peyzaj tasarımı

Kaynakça

• Bell M, Wilson K. 2006. Children’s views of family group conferences. British Journal of Social Work 36(4): 671–681.
• Bell AC, Dyment JE. 2006. Grounds for Action: Promoting Physical Activity through School Ground Greening in Canada, Toronto, Ontario Evergreen Available at: http://www.evergreen.ca/en/lg/lg-resources.html. [Erişim Tarihi: 15.05.2017].
• Berglund U, Nordin K. 2007. Using GIS to make young people's voices heard in urban planning. Building Environment, 33(4): 469–481. jstor.org/stable/23289820
• Bredow, K.W., 2006. Gathering Spaces: Designing places for adolescents, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Master of Landscape Architecture.
• Breul, L.T. 2005. Veränderte Schulhofgestaltung als Reaktion auf den Wandel der Kindheit, Hausarbeit, Fach Pädagogik an der Universität Lüneburg, ss.1-10, ISBN (E-Book): 978-3-640-24292-4.http:// www.grin.com/e-book/120691/veraenderte-schulhofgestaltung-als-reaktion-auf-den-wandel-der-kindheit [Erişim tarihi: 06.01.2018].
• Brink L, Yost B. 2004. Transforming Inner-City School Grounds: Lessons from Learning Landscapes. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(1): 209–233. Doi: 10.7721/chilyoutenvi.14.1.0209
• Canaris I. 1995. Growing foods for growing minds: Integrating gardening and nutrition education into the total curriculum. Children's Environments, 12(2): 264-270.
• Chatterjee, S. (2005). Children’s friendship with place: a conceptual inquiry. Children, Youth and Environments, 15(1): 1–26. Doi: 10.7721/chilyoutenvi.15.1.0001
• Chatterjee S. 2006. Children’s friendship with place: an exploration of environmental child friendliness of children’s environments in cities. PhD thesis, North Carolina State University.
• Chawla L. 2001. Evaluating children’s participation: seeking areas of consensus. PLA notes; 42: 9 13.
• Christensen P.M., James A. 2008. Introduction: Researching children and the childhood culture of communication. In Christensen P M, James A. (Eds.), Researching with children. Perspectives and practices (2nd ed.) (pp. 1–9). New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
• Clark A. 2005a. Talking and Listening to Children. In Dudek M (Ed.) Children`s Spaces. UK: Elsevier/Architectural Press, Oxford, pp. 1-13.
• Clark A. 2005b. ‘Ways of seeing: using the Mosaic approach to listen to young children’s perspectives’. In Clark A, Kjørholt A T, Moss P (Eds.), Beyond Listening. Children’s perspectives on early childhood services (pp. 29–49). Bristol: Policy Press.
• Clark A. 2010. Transforming Childrens' Spaces: Children's and Adults' Participation in Designing Learning Environments. Routledge.
• Clark A, Moss P. 2001. Listening to Young Children: the Mosaic Approach. London, UK: National Children’s Bureau for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
• Clark A, Moss, P. 2005. Spaces to Play: More Listening to Young Children Using the Mosaic Approach. London: National Children’s Bureau and Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
• Clark A, Moss P. 2008. Listening to young children: The mosaic approach. London: National Children's Bureau and Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
• Clark A, Moss P, Kjørholt A.T. 2005. Introduction. In Clark A, Kjørholt A T, Moss P (Eds.) Beyond listening: Children's perspectives on early childhood services. Bristol: The Policy Press. pp. 1–16.
• Cooper Marcus C, Francis C. 1998. People Places: Design guidelines for urban open space, Child Care Outdoor Spaces. John Wiley& Sons.inc. Kanada, USA, ISBN: 0-471-28833-0, pp. 259 -307.
• Desmond D, Grieshop J, Subramanium A. 2004. Revisiting garden based learning in basic education. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Rome, IT. 99 p.
• Driskell D, 2002. Creating Better Cities With Children And Youth. Unesco.
• Dyment J E, Bell A C. 2008. Grounds for movement: green school grounds as sites for promoting physical activity. Health Education Research, 23 (1): 952–962, doi.org/10.1093/her/cym059
• Dyment J E, Bell A C, Lucas A.J. 2009 The relationship between school ground design and intensity of physical activity, Children's Geographies, 7:3, 261-276, DOI: 10.1080/14733280903024423
• Fjørtoft I. and Sageie J. 2000. The natural environment as a playground for children: landscape description and analyses of a natural playscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48: 83–97.
• Fjørtoft I, 2004. Landscape as playscape: The effects of natural environments on children’s play and motor development. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(2), 21-44.
• Francis M, Lorenzo R. 2002. Seven realms of children's participation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22(2): 157-169.
• Frank K I. 2006. The Potential of Youth Participation in Planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(4): 351–371.
• Gülgün B, Türkyılmaz B. 2001. Peyzaj Mimarlığında ve İnsan Yaşamında Ergonominin Yeri Önem ve Bornova Örneğinde Bir Araştırma, Ege Üniv. Ziraat Fak. Derg., 38 (2-3).
• Hart R. 1992. Children’s participation: from tokenism to citizenship. UNICEF, Florence:International Child Development Center. Florence, IT. 44 p.
• Hart R. 1997. Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. New York and London: UNICEF/Earthscan Publications.
• Hauser L. 2002. Kindergerechtes und naturnahes Schulgelände als Erlebnisraum. Praktikumsbericht Paedagogisches Hochschule Zürich, 150 p., http://www.phzh.ch/ webautor-data/dokus/bericht_lukas_hauser_154228. Pdf [Erişim Tarihi: 21.10.2017]
• Heinrich A J, Million A. 2016. Young People as City Builders, disP - The Planning Review 52(1): 56-71, DOI: 10.1080/02513625.2016.1171049
• Herrington S, Studtmann K. 1998. Landscape interventions: new directions for the design of children’s outdoor play environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42(2-4): 191-205.
• Hoff M, Kaup H, Röhr A. 2007. Schulhöfe, planen, gestalten, nutzen, Gemeindeunfallversicherungsverband (GUVV) Westfalen-Lippe, http://www.bug-nrw.de/cms/upload/pdf/Schulhoefe.pdf. [Erişim Tarihi: 21.10.2017], p. 56.
• Hofmann S. 2013. Form Follows Kids’ Fiction Methods of Participation: Working With Children. In: V. Capresi and B. Pampe (Eds.), Learn move Playground, How to improve Playgrounds through Participation (pp.36–41). Jovis Verlag GmbH, Berlin.
• Huser C. 2009. Children’s Voices on Play in a Mosaic Approach Study: Children as Conscious Participants in a Case Study. Boğaziçi University Journal of Education, 26 (1): 35–48.
• Iltus S, Hart R. 1995. Participatory planning and design of recreational spaces with children. Arch & Comport./Arch. & Behav., 10(4): 361-370.
• Kaplan S. 1995. The Restorative Benefits of Nature:Toward an Integrative Framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology,15: 169-182.
• Kaplan R, Kaplan S. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Kaplan S, Talbot J F. 1983. Psychological benefits of a wilderness experience. In Altman I, Wohlwill J F (Eds.) Behavior and the Natural Environment. New York: Plenum, pp. 163-203.
• Klemmer C D, Waliczek T M, Zajicek J M. 2005. Growing minds: The effect of a school gardening program on the science achievement of elementary students. Hort Technology, 15(3): 448-452.
• Knowles-Yánez K L. 2005. Children's Participation in Planning Processes. Journal of Planning Literature, 20(3): 3-14.
• Koralek B, Mitchell M. 2005. The Schools We`d Like: Young People`s Participation in Architecture. In Dudek M (Ed.) Children`s Spaces. UK: Elsevier/Architectural Press, Oxford, 114-153.
• Kytta M. 2004. The Extent of Children’s Independent Mobility and the Number of Actualized Affordances as Criteria for Child-Friendly Environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24: 179–198. doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00073-2
• Lekies K S, Eames-Sheavly M, MacDonald L, Wong K J. 2007. Greener voices: Strategies to increase the participation of children and youth in gardening activities. Children, Youth and Environments, 17(2): 517-526.
• Li M, Li J. 2017. Analysis of methods of allocating grass space for the design of child-friendly cities: a case study of Changsha. Urban Transitions Conference, Shanghai, September 2016. Procedia Engineering, 198: 790–801. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.130
• Lorenz F. 2005. Das Otto-Hahn-Gymnasium Göttingen auf dem Weg zu einer Bewegten Schule, eine theoretische und empirische Betrachtung. Fachbereich Sozialwissenschaften, Abschlussarbeit, Master of Arts in Education Göttingen. http://www.ohg.goe.ni.schule.de/ohg/0201projekte/ 0411bew_schule /Lorenz.pdf [Erişim Tarihi: 04.11.2017]. p.49.
• Lucas B. 1995. Learning through landscapes: an organization’s attempt to move school grounds to the top of the educational agenda. Children’s Environments, 12(2): 84-101.
• Lynch K, Banerjee T. 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.
• Malone K, Tranter P J. 2003a. Children's environmental learning and theuse, design and management of schoolgrounds. Children, Youth and Environments, 13(2): 87-137.
• Malone K, Tranter P J 2003b. School grounds as sites for learning: making the most of environmental opportunities. Environmental Education Research, 9(3):283-303. doi.org/10.1080/13504620303459
• Masri S S. 2018. Integrating youth in city planning: Developing a participatory tool toward a child-friendly vision of Eastern Wastani – Saida. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 57: 897–909. doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2017.01.023. [Erişim tarihi: 15.04.2018].
• Melzer M L. 2001. Schule in Bewegung, drinnen und draußen: Schulhofumgestaltung gehört dazu. http://www.spiellandschaft-bremen.de. [Erişim Tarihi: 14.03.2018].
• Moore R C, Wong H H. 1997. Natural Learning: The life history of an environmental schoolyard: Creating Environments for Rediscovering Nature’s Way of Teaching. California, USA, 280 p.
• Natus E M. 2008. Bewegungslust statt Schulhoffrust–Förderung von körperlicher Aktivität im Schulalltag von heranwachsenden Entwicklung eines Konzepts zur Gestaltung eines aktiven Schulhofs am Beispiel des Städtischen Gymnasiums Bad Driburg. http://www.studienseminar-paderborn.de/gy/downloads/ natusbewegungslustkonzeptaktiveschulhofgestalt.pdf. [Erişim Tarihi: 02.12.2018].
• Owens P E. 1994. Teen Places in Sunshine, Australia: Then and Now, Landscape Architecture Department of Environmental Design, University of California. Children’s Environments, 11, 4.
• Özdemir Ayşe. 2011. Okul Bahçesi Peyzaj Tasarım Anlayışındaki Değişim ve Bu Değişimin Uygulamaya Yansımalarının Bartın Kenti Örneğinde İrdelenmesi. Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi. 13 (19), 41-51.
• Özdemir Ayşe. 2012. “Primary Actor in the Design and Transformation of Primary Schoolyards: Student”, in BENA 2012–Sustainable Landscape Planning and Safe Environment (Ed: G. Aytaç), 21-24 June 2012, Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Architecture, İstanbul. pp. 805–822.
• Özdemir A, Yılmaz O. 2008. Assessment of outdoor school environments and physical activity in Ankara's primary schools, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28: 287-300.
• Parnell R. 2004. Soundings for Architecture: An Educational Workshop for Adults and Young People. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(2): 229–41.
• Sallis J F, Conway T L, Prochaska J J, McKenzie T L, Marshall S J, Brown M. 2001. The association of school environments with youth physical activity. American Journal of Public Health. 91 (4), 618–620.
• Santo C A, Ferguson N, Trippel A. 2010. Engaging Urban Youth through Technology: The Youth Neighborhood Mapping Initiative. Journal of Planning Education and Research 30(1) 52–65. doi.org/10.1177/0739456X10366427
• Scharf F, Donskoi K, Endres S. 2008. Beteiligungsprojekt zur Schulhofumgestaltung an der Grundschule Wolfsanger/Hasenhecke, http:// www.roteruebe.de/betmob/6_partizipation/ Bericht_Schulhof.pdf [Erişim tarihi:02.12.2017].
• Sommer D, Pramling Samuelsson I, Hundeide K. 2010. Child perspectives and children’s perspectives in theory and practice. London, UK – New York: Springer.
• Spencer C, Blades M. 2006. An introduction. In Spencer C, Blades M (Eds.) Children and their environments: Learning, using and designing spaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-12.Tai L, Taylor Haque M K, McLellan G, Knight E J. 2006. Designing outdoor environments for children, landscaping schoolyards, gardens and playgrounds. ISBN: 0-07-145935-9, 8-14.
• Titman W. 1994. Special places; special people: the hidden curriculum of school grounds. Surrey: World Wide Fund for Nature/Learning through Landscapes, Winchester, UK. 164 p.
• Turney D, Platt D, Selwyn J. 2012. Improving Child and Family Assessments: Turning Research into Practice, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
• Ulrich R S. 1993. Biophilia, biophobia, and natural landscapes. In Kellert, S R, Wilson, E O. (Eds.) The Biophilia Hypothesis. Shearwater Books/Island Press, Washington D.C., pp. 73–137.
• Van der Hoek M. 2009. Landscape planning from a child’s perspective. A case study in the Vombsänkan in southernmost Sweden. Master’s thesis. Lund University, Science Master’s Programme in Environmental Studies and Sustainability, SWE. 12-63 p.
• Veitch H. 2009. Participation in practice: An evaluation of the primary school council as a participatory tool. Childhoods Today, Special Issue.
• Wachs T D. 1989. The development of effective child care environments: contributions from the study of early experience. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 6(4): 4–7.
• Waliczek T M, Bradley J C, Zajicek J M. 2001. The effect of school gardens on children's interpersonal relationships and attitudes toward school. Hort Technology, 11(3):466-468.
• Wechsler H, Devereaux R S, Davis M, Collins J. 2000. Using the school environment to promote physical activity and healthy eating. Preventive Medicine, 31: 121–137.
• Winters J. 2010. Children’s Participation in Planning and Regeneration. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 5(2): 85–111. Doi: 10.11120/jebe.2010.05020085Wridt P. 2010. A Qualitative GIS Approach to Mapping Urban Neighborhoods with Children to Promote Physical Activity and Child-Friendly Community Planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(1): 129–147. doi.org/10.1068/b35002
• Yanagisawa K. 2007. School Planning and Design with Children’s Participation: A Case Study of Shimoyama Elementary School. Children, Youth and Environments, 17(1): 315–21.
• Yao S, Xiaoyan L. 2017. Exploration on Ways of Research and Construction of Chinese Child-Friendly City-A Case Study of Changsha. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the Urban Transitions Conference, Shanghai, September 2016. Procedia Engineering, 198: 699–706. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.121
• Zask A, van Beurden E, Barnett L, Brooks L O, Dietrich U C. 2001. Active school playgrounds-myth or realty? Results of the move it groove it Project. Preventive Medicine, 33 (5): 402-408. Doi:10.1006/pmed.2001.0905