Advertisement

Geographies of Children’s Well-Being: in, of, and for Place

  • John H. McKendrick

Abstract

There has been growing interest in the macro-geography of children’s well-being in recent years. Many influential studies, by respected scholars and international agencies, have demonstrated that children’s well-being comprises many components and that domain-specific and overall levels of well-being vary quite significantly, and often unexpectedly, from place to place. This chapter reinforces the central conclusion of this work – that children’s well-being is shaped by where they live. However, this chapter also extends the analysis by focusing attention on how, and by how much, place matters in shaping children’s well-being. It argues that “good places” for children are those which are (1) inclusive, presenting all children with equivalent experiences; (2) participative, affording children an active role; (3) environments of opportunity, providing appropriate spaces and facilities; and (4) resourced with key services. This knowledge is used to propose a taxonomy to assess the extent to which neighborhoods make positive contributions to children’s lives. To complement this tool which summarizes the offering of place (potential impact), a second evaluative tool is proposed to summary the extent of the impact of place on children (actual impact). Finally, a conceptual framework is proposed to situate the contribution of place alongside other factors that contribute to the well-being that children experience. In conclusion, it is contended that working toward improving children’s well-being inadvertently leads to the creation of places that better serve the needs of the wider population, children, and adults alike.

Keywords

Good Place Child Poverty League Table Neighborhood Problem International Research Community 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ben-Arieh, A., & Frones, I. (2007). Indicators of children’s well being – concepts, indices and usage. Social Indicators Research, 80, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradshaw, J., Hoelscher, P., & Richardson, D. (2007). An index of child well-being in the European Union. Social Indicators Research, 80, 133–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradshaw, J., et al. (2009). Local index of child well-being. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  4. Bradshaw, J., Keung, A., Rees, G., & Goswami, H. (2011). Children’s subjective well-being: International comparative perspectives. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(4), 548–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burton, E. (2011). The importance of the built environment to children’s well-being: What do we know? Cities, Health and Well-Being, November, 1–3.Google Scholar
  6. Crivello, G., Camfield, L., & Woodhead, M. (2009). How can children tell us about their wellbeing? Exploring the potential of participatory research approaches within young lives. Social Indicators Research, 90, 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cunningham, C. J., & Jones, M. (1994). The child friendly neighbourhoods: Some questions and tentative answers from Australian research. International Play Journal, 2, 79–95.Google Scholar
  8. Department for Work and Pensions. (2003). Measuring child poverty: Final conclusions. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  9. Dijkstra, T. (2009). Child well-being in rich countries: UNICEF’s ranking revisited, and new symmetric aggregating operators exemplified. Child Indicators Research, 2(3), 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elsinger, A. (2012). Agenda for child-friendly neighbourhood planning. Policy recommendations for European cities to support children and young people. Stuttgart: Cities for Children Foundation.Google Scholar
  11. Eurochild (2009). Indicators: an important policy tool for advancing child well-being. Eurochild Policy Briefing 05. Brussels: Eurochild.Google Scholar
  12. Eurochild (2012). The 2012 National Reform Programmes and the National Social Reports from a Child Poverty and Child Well-Being Perspective. Brussels: Eurochild.Google Scholar
  13. European Union, Social Protection Committee. (2009). Child poverty and well-being in the EU. Current status and way forward. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
  14. Farrar, I. (2005). Minimum standards for open space. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.Google Scholar
  15. Frazer, H., & Marlier, E. (2012). Current situation in relation to child poverty and child well-being: EU policy context, key challenges ahead and ways forward. Independent background paper prepared for the Cypriot EU Presidency conference on investing in children: Preventing and tackling child poverty and social exclusion, promoting children’s well-being. Nicosia, Cyprus, 18–19 Oct 2012. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
  16. Gill, T. (2008). Space-oriented children’s policy: Creating child-friendly communities to improve children’s well-being. Children & Society, 22, 136–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gleeson, B., & Spike, N. (Eds.). (2006). Creating child friendly cities: Reinstating kids in the city. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Hart, R. (1979). Children’s experience of place. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  19. Hart, R. (1997). Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens in community development and environmental care. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  20. Heshmati, A., Bajalan, C., & Tausch, A. (2007), Measurement and analysis of child well-being in,middle and high income countries. IZA Document Paper 3203. Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.Google Scholar
  21. Hillman, M., Adams, J., & Whitelegg, J. (1990). One false move: A study of children’s independent mobility. London: Policy Studies Institute.Google Scholar
  22. Hiscock, R., & Mitchell, R. (2011). What is needed to deliver places that provide good health to children? A report for Environmental determinants of public health in scotland (EDPHiS). A research project funded by the Scottish Government to support the “Good Places, Better Health” initiative. Edinburgh: EDPHiS.Google Scholar
  23. Holloway, S. L., & Valentine, G. (2000) Spatiality and the new social studies of childhood. Sociology: The Journal of the British Sociological Association, 34(4), 763–783.Google Scholar
  24. Horelli, L. (1998). Creating child-friendly environments. Case studies on children’s participation in three european countries. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 5(2), 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knox, P., & Pinch, S. (2009). Urban social geography. 6th Edition. Pearson. Harlow: England.Google Scholar
  26. 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(2), 179–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McKendrick, J. H. (2009). Constraints and opportunities in localities. In J. Qvortrup, W. Corsaro, & M. S. Honig (Eds.), The palgrave handbook of childhood studies (pp. 238–255). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Michaelson, J., Abdallah, S., Steuer, N., Thompson, S., & Marks, N. (2009). National accounts of well-being: Bringing real wealth onto the balance sheet. London: New Economics Foundation.Google Scholar
  29. Moore, R. C. (1986). Childhood’s domain: Play and place in childhood development. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  30. Nordstrom, M. (2010). Children’s views on child-friendly environments in different geographical, cultural and social neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 47(3), 514–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. OECD. (2009). Comparative child well-being across the OECD. In OECD (Ed.), Doing better for children (pp. 21–63). Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Openshaw, S. (1984). The modifiable areal unit problem. Norwich: Geo Books.Google Scholar
  33. Percy Jones, B., & Malone, K. (2001). Making children’s participation in neighbourhood settings relevant to the everyday lives of young people. PLA Notes, 42, 18–22.Google Scholar
  34. Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. Am Sociol Rev, 15(3), 351–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scotland, P. (2012). Getting it right for play: A toolkit to assess and improve local play opportunities. Edinburgh: Play Scotland.Google Scholar
  36. Sinclair, S., & McKendrick, J. H. (2009). Child poverty in Scotland. Taking the next steps, JRF Viewpoint 2365, York: JRF. (http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/poverty-children-scotland-viewpoint.pdf).
  37. TARKI Social Research Institute (2010). Child poverty and child well-being in the European Union. Report for the European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. Budapest: TARKI.Google Scholar
  38. Tandon, P. S., Zhou, C., Sallis, J. F., Cain, K. L., Frank, L. D., & Saelens, B. E. (2012). Home environment relatiosnhips with children’s physical activity, sedentary time and screen time, by socioeconomic status. International Journal of Benhavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9, 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. UK Parliament (2012). Child Poverty Act 2012. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  40. UNICEF. (1996). Towards child-friendly cities. New York: UNICEF.Google Scholar
  41. UNICEF (2007). Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries, Innocenti Report Card 7. Florence: UNICEF.Google Scholar
  42. UNICEF (2010). The children left behind. A league table of inequality of child well-being in the world’s rich countries. Innocenti Report Card 9. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre.Google Scholar
  43. UNICEF. (2012). The state of the world’s children 2012. New York: UNICEF.Google Scholar
  44. United Nations. (1989). UN convention on the rights of the child. New York: UN.Google Scholar
  45. Valentine, G., & McKendrick, J. H. (1997). Children’s outdoor play: Exploring contemporary public concerns. Geoforum, 28(2), 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ward, C. (1978/1990). The child in the city. London: Architectural Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law and Social SciencesGlasgow Caledonian UniversityGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations