Progress in Human Geography 23,1 (1999) pp.

61–90

Defining an agenda for the

geography of children: review
and prospect
Hugh Matthews and Melanie Limb
Centre for Children and Youth, Nene-University College Northampton, Park
Campus, Northampton NN2 7AL, UK

Abstract: There is still only a limited development of a solidly grounded social and cultural
geography prepared to conceptualize children as a neglected social grouping undergoing
various forms of sociospatial marginalization. Given the focus and momentum of the ‘new’
cultural geography, we contend that this is an apposite time to define an agenda for the
geography of children, which not only takes into account earlier studies which can inform con-
temporary debate, largely drawn from an environmental psychology tradition, but which also
recognizes the interface between sociology, anthropology and cultural studies and draws upon
important work being undertaken by feminist and critical geographers. To date, much of the
research on the geography of children has been blighted by fragmentation, narrow disciplinary
perspectives and methodologies which do not sufficiently engage themselves with the lifeworld
of children in the ‘here and now’. In this article we propose a working agenda based upon a set
of seven generic propositions which highlight different aspects of children’s relationship with
their physical and built environment, beyond the home, school and playground. Our emphasis
in this review is on work which examines the experiences of children and how they ‘see the
world’ around them. We recognize, however, that part of what children see are structures which
constrain them. These may include the adult values imprinted on the physical and built
landscapes in which they live, or the social constraints of the adult gaze. We argue that research
on the lives of children should not just be reported for its own sake, but should lead to outcomes
which encourage empowerment, participation and self-determination consistent with levels of
competence.

Key words: children as outsiders, children’s participation, environmental values, geography of

children, rights of the child, social and cultural geography, sociospatial exclusion, western
(urban) society.

© Arnold 1999 0309–1325(99)PH226RA

62 Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect

I Introduction

Contemporary cultural geography is continuing to define new territories of interest and

inquiry (Jackson, 1989; Philo, 1991; Duncan and Ley, 1993; Pile and Thrift, 1995). With it
has come a recognition that it is no longer adequate to conceive of society as comprising
an isolable and unitary culture characterized by a common vision. Instead the ‘new’
cultural geography draws attention to the importance of difference and diversity and
the various ways in which social groups cohere and collude around shared subjectivi-
ties (Jackson, 1989; Philo, 1991). There is acknowledgement, too, that different social
groups occupy unequal positions of power and autonomy. Those groups which most
closely align themselves with dominant ideologies are those which are most likely to
experience positions of monopolization and inclusion, whereas those closer to the edge
become victims of marginalization and exclusion. From this perspective landscapes are
documents of power. This manifests itself in two ways. On the one hand, strong groups
exert maximum preference, taking control of the best locations, with weaker groups
relegated to less desirable environs in places which represent minimum choice (Sibley,
1995a: ix). On the other hand, the values of the stronger groups are imposed upon, and
so become written into, the landscape, through processes by which physical and built
environments are designed and managed (Anderson and Gale, 1992). A priority for
cultural geographers is to expose the hegemonic values which underpin these differen-
tial positionings and to raise consciousness that within western societies many aspects
of life are the outcome of white, ableist, adult, male, middle-class decision-making
(Sibley, 1995a). In a burgeoning agenda for cultural geography many different socially
defined populations have been the focus of study. These include women (Monk, 1992;
Winchester, 1992), lesbians and gays (Whittle, 1994; Bell and Valentine, 1995), black
people (Jackson, 1989), gypsies (Sibley, 1981; 1992) and people with disabilities
(Matthews and Vujakovic, 1995). Within this context, the study of children as a genera-
tional group has been largely missing as a frame of reference (James, 1990; Sibley, 1991;
Winchester, 1991; Philo, 1992).
This is not to say there has not been previous work on the geography of children.
Matthews (1992) records over 800 references in this book Making sense of place: children’s
understanding of large-scale environments. However, much of this work is located on the
boundaries between geography and environmental and developmental psychology,
artificial intelligence and planning. There is still only a limited development of a solidly
grounded social and cultural geography prepared to conceptualize children as a
neglected social grouping undergoing various forms of sociospatial marginalization.
Given the focus and momentum of the cultural turn, we contend that this is an apposite
time to define an agenda for the geography of children, which not only takes into
account earlier studies which can inform contemporary debate but which also
recognizes the growing importance of the interface between sociology, anthropology
and cultural studies (James and Prout, 1990; Hendry et al., 1993; Mayall, 1994; Qvortrup
et al., 1994; Jenks, 1996) and draws upon important work being undertaken by feminist
and critical geographers (for example, Sibley, 1995a; Aitken and Herman, 1997; Skelton
and Valentine, 1997; Valentine, 1996a; 1996b; 1997a; 1997b; Aitken, 1994; 1998).
The timeliness of this article does not only relate to its contribution to the debate
about children as a group neglected by (cultural) geographers. There are other reasons
why it is important to provide an agenda for the geography of children now. First, there
 Hugh Matthews and Melanie Limb 63

is a recent and growing emphasis on the politics of children’s rights. The United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) is now ratified by all the countries
of the world, except two (USA and Somalia), and is well on the way to becoming the
first universal law of humankind. The political shift this represents is rooted in concerns
that children have not been recognized as fully human and have therefore not been
afforded the same rights as adults. In addition to a range of rights relating to protection,
care and opportunity there is a major emphasis in the convention on children’s rights
to be consulted and to have a say in matters which affect their lives. The ratification of
this convention by the UK government in 1994 and its subsequent criticism by the
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC/C/38, 1995) have given
renewed impetus to the children’s rights movement in the UK and have repositioned
children firmly on to the political agenda. These developments have a direct relevance
for the geography of children since children’s access to space and place is presented as
a legitimate political right, together with their inclusion in those decision-making
processes which concern local environments (Matthews and Limb, 1998).
Secondly, and especially within the UK, there is an evident and growing moral panic
about children, largely fuelled by media reporting (Boethius, 1995). Children are either
depicted as innocents, at risk from a corrupting society, or as monsters, capable of
undermining the moral fabric of places. Images of this kind, which Valentine (1996a)
conceptualizes as ‘angels’ and ‘devils’, have a topical relevance for the geography of
children. In their environmental manifestation children are either seemingly vulnerable
to a growing range of dangers in their local environments, such as pollution, traffic and
abduction (stranger-danger), or are apparent dangers themselves, posing threats to
local places through drugs, graffiti and violence (with certain neighbourhoods
becoming ‘terrorized’ by child gangs). Moral panics, too, ‘bring boundaries into focus’
(Sibley, 1995a: 43), in this case by accentuating the power lines between
parents/guardians and their children (‘the excluded other’).
Thirdly, this growing interest in children is demonstrated further by the recent launch
of the Economic and Social Research Council programme (1996), ‘Children 5–16:
growing into the twenty-first century’. This large, multidisciplinary project currently
supports 22 research teams, six of which have a strong geographical dimension to their
work and four are staffed by geographers (http://www.esrc.ac.uk/curprog.html).

II Some qualifications

Before discussing our propositions for an agenda for the geography of children, we
draw attention to a number of qualifications. First, this article sets out to review existing
literature and to reassemble these works in a form which constitutes a forward-looking
agenda. In so doing, we illustrate how the study of the geography of children has
moved away from its traditional roots, as noted above, and is moving towards a
geography which fits within the frame of contemporary cultural geography.
Secondly, we see this agenda to be neither complete nor unchanging. For example,
our focus in this review is on work which, while acknowledging the historical and
cultural specificity of the construction of childhood, examines, in a closely observed
way, the experiences of children. Yet, we would not see this as a purely humanistic
approach, with its emphasis on unconstrained choice and action. Rather, our emphasis
64 Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect

on how children ‘see the world around them’ recognizes that part of what they ‘see’ are
structures which constrain them. These may include the adult values imprinted on the
physical and built landscapes in which they live, or the social constraints imposed by
the adult gaze. Underlying this article, therefore, is a recognition of the importance of
the macrostructures of childhood and the ways in which political, social and economic
forces which have brought about change for adults have also had a significance for
children. Qvortrup (1985; 1997) has discussed how societal change since the late
nineteenth century, associated with increased urbanization and industrialization and a
falling birth rate and, more recently, the professionalization of child health and child
care and government policies affecting traffic, labour, poverty and housing, has had a
profound effect upon the social construction of childhood. Others (Boyden, 1990;
Stephens, 1995) draw attention to the effects of the processes of globalization associated
with late capitalism. We suggest, therefore, that in any agenda for the geography of
children there must be recognition that discourses about children and place are driven
by the engine of material change (see proposition 1). However, as Qvortrup (1997)
admits, in such macroanalyses the landscape of childhood may be mapped at the
expense of a focus on the experiences of children themselves.
Of particular interest is how children identify, interpret and respond to these
macrostructures and the outcomes of the power positions they afford. The work of
Ward (1978), on the war between adults and children, has especial relevance in this
respect, as does James’ (1990) initial observations on the oppositional nature of
children’s spaces and adult spaces. We would accept, however, that because children’s
views are constrained by the contingencies of historical and cultural circumstance,
some stuctures, which social and cultural geographers would recognize, will go
unnoticed by them. Equally, some structures identified and contested by children may
go unnoticed by geographers constrained as they are by adult perspectives (Aitken and
Herman, 1997).
Herein lies a conundrum for geographers. Given that there is ‘a great deal of
difference between the adult who is able to recall rich and memorable experiences of
childhood and the young child encountering a place or an environmental experience for
the first time. How can we ever step back . . . ? Are adults inevitably to be cast as
outsiders able to gain only the most meagre glimpses of childhood?’ (Matthews, 1992:
1). Aitken and Herman (1997: 64) refer to this dilemma as the ‘crisis of representation’.
Taken to an extreme, such an argument provides a case for adults (geographers) to
dismiss the study of children as beyond their grasp and so becomes an excuse for
maintaining the hegemony of adulthood. We argue that partial understanding is better
than not attempting to understand and that with care and sensitivity and the use of
appropriate methodologies geographers should be able to get closer to the taken-for-
granted worlds of children. Also, ‘there are questions of pressing significance that need
to be asked [by geographers] concerning the interdependence of children, care-givers
and their environments if we are to better children’s lived experiences’ (Aitken and
Herman, 1997: 64). Although many of these questions are not new (Matthews, 1992), it
is particularly important that they are (re)asked and scrutinized given that ‘the
traditional theoretical building blocks of child development, environmental design and
geography are [being] destablized and decentred by feminist and post-modern
critiques’ (Aitken and Herman, 1997: 64).
Thirdly, our attention is on children’s transactions within the fourth environment
 Hugh Matthews and Melanie Limb 65

(van Vliet, 1983), those places beyond the home, school and playground, and is set
within the context of contemporary western (urban) societies. In essence, this is a
geography of the outdoors and we say little about the microspaces of children’s lives,
especially of power and space within the home (see, for example, Bernstein, 1971;
Sibley, 1995a). Nor do we consider very young children’s conceptions of space and
place (for reviews, see Pile, 1996; Aitken and Herman, 1997; Aitken, 1998). For the
purpose of this discussion the term ‘children’ refers to the age-span 5–16. No attention
will be given to children’s environmental competences or to their levels of spatial
cognition, which are major strands of investigation in their own right (for reviews, see
Spencer et al., 1989; Matthews, 1992). For Hart (1979), these aforementioned perspec-
tives are better labelled as ‘children’s geographies’ and should be distinguished from
the subject matter of this article ‘the geography of children’.
Lastly, we emphasize that there is neither such a thing as ‘the child’ nor a uniform
social category which can be called ‘children’. In any discussion on the geography of
children care should be taken to recognize the danger of conceptually homogenizing
what is a diverse social grouping. There may be convenience in the notion of
commonality, but it will bear little resemblance to the experiences and engagement of
children with their lifeworlds. Children come in all shapes and sizes and may be dis-
tinguished along various axes of gender, race, ethnicity, ability, health and age. Such
differences will have an important bearing on their geographies and should not be
overlooked in any discourse. We emphasize the need to recognize the importance of
‘multiple childhoods’ and the sterility of the concept of the ‘universal child’. ‘Who’ the
child is (as with class, gender and even personality) and ‘where’ the child comes from
(both in place and time) define important situations (or positions) from which to
understand the complex and multiple realities of children’s lives (Bunge, 1975; Aitken,
1994; Aitken and Herman, 1997). However, there is a danger that in emphasizing the
diversity of children’s everyday lives we underplay the commonality of generational-
based exclusion. Sociospatial marginalization is an emphatic feature of growing up in
western societies for all children, although its forms may differ and some children may
experience it more than others (Stephens, 1995). Furthermore the consistency with
which children’s voices have been silenced requires a political solution involving the
widest possible constituency. Only when children’s right to participate becomes a
matter of principle and practice will it be possible to hear the great diversity of
children’s voices (see propositions 6 and 7).

III Seven propositions for an agenda

The rationale for this particular agenda is derived from observations which suggest that
local places matter to individuals, affording personal identity through attachment,
personal development through effective use of local resources and civic and social
belongingness through participation (Matthews, 1992; Spencer and Blades, 1993; Hart,
1995; 1997). Yet, despite a burgeoning body of research which highlights the singular
environmental needs of children, most places are designed to reflect only adult values
and usages (Hendry et al., 1993; Karsten et al., 1995). The visions of environmental
planners and architects commonly reflect the dominant perceptions of a society, such
that groups already at the edge become further marginalized by policy-making
66 Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect

(Matthews, 1995a). Children are seemingly invisible on the landscape. At best, they are
provided with some sort of token space, commonly a playground, but otherwise they are
required to fit into the alien environments of the adult world (Hart, 1992). We suggest
that there is a need to investigate the environment as children ‘see it’; only in this way
will they become full and integrated users of places. Geographers can play a major part
in this process of sensitization and there is much work upon which they can reply
which highlights that children have different needs, aspirations and behaviour from
adults. Drawing upon some initial observations made nearly two decades ago
(Michelson and Michelson, 1980; Hill and Michelson, 1981) and from recent work by
one of the authors (Matthews, 1987; 1992; 1995a; 1995b) some major distinctions include
the following:

1) Children and childhood are social constructions. Assumptions are made by adults
about what it means to be a child and therefore what environments they need. In so
doing they fail to recognize that children differ from adults in terms of their ‘ways
of seeing’. What goes on during the day of an average young person is different in
rhythm, scale and content from that of adults. Understanding of these differences
needs to be rooted in the lifeworlds of children.
2) The land uses and facilities which involve children are frequently different from
those of adults and, even when shared, are largely used for different purposes.
Collisions resulting from different patterns of usage are almost inevitable.
3) The free-range of children and the types of environmental setting which they enter
are often more restricted than that of adults. In some respects, young people have
much in common with other ‘outsider’ groups in society, such as the disabled and
the elderly, in that their behaviour is often constrained by caretaking conventions,
physical ineptitude, limited access to transportation, lack of money and roles which
separate them from a larger and more diverse daily round. A complex negotiated
geography is also apparent through varying parental caretaking practices.
4) In the course of their environmental transactions, children commonly encounter
threats which often go unnoticed by adults. Many childhood hazards are not
dangers in later life.
5) Even when the same environment affects children and adults, their interpretation
and evaluation of these places are not likely to be the same. Young people and adults
often differ in how they see, feel about and react to a landscape and their views on
environmental planning are unlikely to coincide.
6) Children are unable to influence decision-making and management which typically
determine the structure of environments in general and land uses in particular. Thus
the environments which have the greatest significance for young people are decided
for them by adults and reflect values which pay scant regard to their needs,
aspirations and behaviour.
7) Democratic responsibility is acquired only through practice and involvement. It
does not arise suddenly in adulthood through maturation. Involving children in the
design and management of their environments is a valued end in itself, as well as an
important step to developing competent, participating citizens.

We contend that these seven observations provide a generic set of propositions from
which to develop an agenda for the teaching and research of children’s geographies.
 Hugh Matthews and Melanie Limb 67

Each proposition will now be taken in turn and some of the work upon which the
proposition is based will be reviewed.

1 Proposition 1: children’s ‘ways of seeing’ differ from those of adults

What constitutes ‘children’ and ‘childhood’ are matters of conjecture. Indeed, these
terms are variously and loosely used. As such they are often no more than umbrella
concepts which embrace groupings such as adolescents, teenagers, youths and young
adults and span an assemblage of age-ranges (Holland, 1992; Jenks, 1996). Yet, clear
conceptualization of these terms is critical to the study of the (multiple) geography of
children. Valentine (1996a: 582) draws attention to how ‘the age at which childhood
begins and ends has, like the meanings ascribed to it, changed over space and time’. In
historical reviews, Aries (1960), Sommerville (1982) and Hendrick (1990) discuss how
children and childhood have been variously (re)constructed and produced over the last
four centuries. James and Prout (1990) iterate the importance of recognizing that
childhood is thus a social invention. They contend (p. 2) that ‘the biological facts of
infancy are but the raw material upon which cultures work to fashion a particular
version of “being a child” ‘.
From these observations we emphasize the need to recognize that the categories
‘children’ and ‘childhood’ are not natural and unproblematic. Although the notions of
a ‘universal child’ and ‘universal childhood’ are barren, Valentine (1996a; 1997a)
suggests that in the late twentieth century both conceptions are dominant: ‘Namely that
a child is temporally set apart from the adult world (although there are multiple and
conflicting definitions of the age at which this division occurs); that children are
innocent, incompetent, and vulnerably dependent (both on parent(s) and on the state);
and that childhood is a happy, free time, without responsibilities’ (Valentine, 1996a:
587). Valentine (1996a: 587) argues that the experiences of growing up have never been
universal and that what it is to be a particular age is inevitably intersected with other
identities ‘so that experiences of poverty, disability, ill health, being orphaned, taken
into care, or having to look after a sick parent have all denied many children this
idealised time of innocence and dependence’. To this list may be added the differential
experiences and the multiple subject positionings afforded by race, ethnicity, class,
gender and place (locales). Future agendas depend on the recognition that there is no
unitary and monolithic geography of childhood and on the incorporation of the
importance of difference and diversity (through the experiences of children
themselves).
Caputo (1995) draws attention to two approaches to the study of children and
childhood which have had far-reaching effects upon how these concepts have been
viewed and defined in social science research. Within psychology, for example, consid-
erable emphasis has been given to the way in which individuals develop a cognitive
map which eventually defines their membership of adult society; while within
sociology much early work focuses upon the way in which children, through processes
of socialization, are gradually transformed through a period of childhood into
competent members of adult society (Corsaro, 1985). Caputo (1995) argues that each of
these models is unsatisfactory as they direct attention away from children’s daily lives
by emphasizing what children lack before becoming adults. In consequence, both per-
68 Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect

spectives portray children as incomplete and, in so doing, promulgate a view that

children are mostly passive in creating their futures, that their lives only gain meaning
through adult values and that, at best, children can be viewed as only ‘partially cultural’
(Caputo, 1995: 29). Prout and James (1990), too, take issue with these conceptualiza-
tions. They put forward a model, grounded upon three assertions, which is far more
useful in the context of contemporary cultural geography and its concern with different
‘ways of seeing’ (Jackson, 1989). First, childhood is recognized as a social construction,
‘subject to different interpretative frames between and within cultures and historical
epochs’ (James, 1995: 45). Secondly, childhood as a construct of social analysis can never
be independent of other social dimensions such as class, ethnicity and gender. Thirdly,
children are accepted as cultural producers in their own right, actively involved in
shaping their social and environmental transactions at a variety of sociospatial scales.
Accordingly, this model promotes a dynamic and relational view of children and
society and shifts attention away from age as a cultural determinant (see proposition 2).
These sorts of issue draw attention to the need to understand children from the
perspective of their own multiple lifeworlds and to recognize that they may have very
different values about place and space from adults (see proposition 5). Rather than
assuming children know less than adults we suggests that they may know ‘something
else’. By considering children as intentional actors, ‘constructing a life project with con-
sciousness’ (Suransky, 1982: 36), and not simply as little adults, a keener insight is
offered into other relationships such as those involving power, autonomy and
consumerism. Above all, in the context of proposition 1, in order to understand
children’s environmental transactions it is not adequate to rely on the memory and
experiences of adults. Memories are flawed by imperfection and imagination and
adults cannot re-enter the world of childhood. In this respect the fact that we were once
children is both an opportunity and a danger (Aitken and Herman, 1997). For these
reasons it is important to root understanding in the experiences of children and to
engage in their dialogue with place (Matthews, 1992; Mayall, 1994).
Caputo’s (1995) emphasis on the ‘now’ of childhood is particularly useful in this
respect. She argues that although many societies may treat children as little more than
‘adults in waiting’, children’s diverse and multifaceted everyday life will have its own
richness and intrinsic value, which is often not obvious to adults. A parallel may be
drawn with children’s environmental experiences, which we conceptualize as the ‘here’
of childhood. Taken together, the study of the ‘here and now’ of children provides a
perspective which not only draws attention to the importance of capturing the
immediacy of young people’s lives but also suggests that places should be evaluated in
terms of their quality to the here and now and not just as training grounds for
adulthood.

2 Proposition 2: children’s place use differs from that of adults

Recent reviews of children’s place use (Coffin and Williams, 1989; Hart, 1992; Ware and
Cavanagh, 1992; Cunningham and Jones, 1994; Owens, 1994; Matthews, 1992; 1995a;
1995b; Cunningham et al., 1996; Matthews et al., 1998) all emphasize the diversity of
children’s environmental transactions. Children play anywhere and everywhere, often
venturing to places where their environmental needs have seldom been recognized.
 Hugh Matthews and Melanie Limb 69

What these studies suggest is that the conventional planning response towards
providing environments for children, the traditional playground, creates an
unrewarding and sterile setting for children’s outdoor activities. Surveys carried out to
determine who uses traditional playgrounds during the day report that they are mostly
used by younger children often accompanied by adults. Despite attempts to make
playgrounds more exciting and appealing through the provision of contemporary and
adventure forms, design solutions of this kind seem to misjudge children’s environ-
mental preferences (Hayward et al., 1974; Evans, 1987; Senda, 1992; Brett et al., 1993;
Hart, 1993). Playgrounds, no matter how novel and stimulating, are conceived by
adults to isolate and contain children within public spaces and, in so doing, contribute
to ‘a process of childhood ghettoization’ (Matthews, 1995a: 457). The recent
development of private sector provision of children’s leisure space is no exception to
this process. McKendrick et al. (1996) draw attention to a range of commercial facilities
which result in the commodification of children’s play. Although many of these oppor-
tunities are located within adult domains, such as retail outlets, pubs and motorway
service stations, they are provided to hold children in neat and safe compounds so that
adults can get on with other activities.
Several studies reveal that children who are old enough to go outside their home
unaccompanied spend a lot of time on the pavements, streets and other areas of their
immediate neighbourhood (Owens, 1988; Buss, 1995; Karsten et al., 1995). Through the
course of their daily transactions these places become colonized by children and
converted into their home bases. In essence, ‘these are adult spaces, designed to meet
other requirements and as such constitute invaded spaces by children’ (Matthews,
1995a: 459). Spencer et al. (1989: 230) describe the ‘alternative scripts’ in the place use of
teenagers who inhabit adult spaces but for different reasons. Collisions resulting from
different patterns of usage are almost inevitable (White, 1993). Environments where
adults and children frequently clash head-on include street corners (Corrigan, 1979),
indoor shopping centres (Anthony, 1985; Anand, 1987; Lewis, 1989; Hopkins, 1990; Lo,
1994) and, ironically, playgrounds during the evening (Owens, 1994; Worpole and
Greenhalgh, 1995). Children use these settings as meeting places where they can ‘hang
out’ and relax with friends. They become ‘theatres for self-display, observation points
for assessing the roles of others’ (Hendry et al., 1993: 56) and places for maintaining
solidarity with one’s group. In so doing, children transgress the boundaries defined by
adults and their visibility and nonconforming usage of places are seen as threatening.
The irony of playground ‘conflict’ is that because these places are environments where
young children are accompanied by adults only at certain times of the day, during the
evening they become vacant spaces where older groups can congregate away from the
adult gaze. Yet a group of teenagers in a public park will frequently be chased away and
so made to vacate that very territory created by adults to contain young people
(Matthews et al., 1998).
The recent work of Allison James (1995), a social anthropologist, provides a useful
context for understanding children’s behaviour in these public domains. James,
researching the acquisition of language, sees children as active agents capable of
developing their own social argot, often at odds with adult formulations. In essence,
adults provide the limits and rules of language but children will develop their own
vocabulary and particular patterns of use. Through their own discourse children carve
out their own identities and ‘patterns of belonging are laid down’ (James, 1995: 59).
70 Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect

Each generation will hand on its own variant, without any adult intervention. James
argues that children are not a subcultural group in their own right, but there is a
temporal culture which children move into and out of in the process of their socializa-
tion. Each step along this social transition is associated with patterns of language and
behaviour which define membership. Likewise, we contend that in their physical
worlds children are active cultural producers. Adults produce their own patterns of
land use and children learn to operate within this framework, in this case carving out
their own cultural locations. Street corners, indoor shopping centres and public parks
become cultural gateways where young people can meet and create their own
identities. As with language, there are codes of conduct which define how young
people behave in these public settings and because adults commonly perceive this
behaviour to be discrepant and uncomfortable collisions often arise. In their attempts to
reclaim some of these public spaces, children may leave their own territorial markers as
symbolic gestures of their distancing from the world of adults. Graffiti and vandalism
may be interpreted as the closing-off of spaces or the drawing of boundaries between
two lifeworlds. Ley (1974; Ley and Cybriwsky, 1974) makes a similar point in his
seminal ethnographic studies on the social geography of Philadelphian street gangs.
For him, graffiti is the language of the streets, an inscription in existential space,
through which these gangs of children and youths expressed and (re)affirmed their
own collective identities. In these senses, place, like language, acts as ‘an emblem of
groupness, as a symbol, a rallying point’ (Edwards, 1985: 7), important for belonging
and identification, also, by implication, an emblem of difference, of a setting apart, of
being special.
James (1995) also notes how words, now marginalized in adult conversations,
become for children tokens of their own marginalization. A parallel is the way in which
places which are redundant to adults, such as areas of derelict land, become colonized
by children and provide rich settings for their play.
These ideas on the temporal nature of culture stand in contrast to the notions of the
influential British Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (‘the Birmingham school’)
of the 1970s (Hall and Jefferson, 1976). For them ‘youth culture’ was a particular type of
subculture and something new, an outcome of novel patterns of production and
consumption that arose in the postwar boom. Much of their work was on the subculture
of working-class youth and the expressions of class conflict. Young people were seen as
largely passive as cultural agents, their activity limited only to rituals of resistance.
Amit-Talai (1995) suggests that there is now an overwhelming body of evidence which
demands both a reinterpretation and redefinition of youth culture. Instead of seeing
young people as a group apart from the rest of society ‘practising an imperfect version
of adult culture’ (Amit-Talai, 1995: 231), people of any age should be seen as multicul-
tural. These ideas are in keeping with our suggestions above, whereby cultural
production takes place in many settings ‘at home, at school, at work, at play, on the
street, with friends, teachers, parents, siblings, and bosses and draws from home-grown
as well as transnational influences, and intertwines with class, gender, ethnicity and
locality’ (Amit-Talai, 1995: 231). Thus, multiplicity of circumstance highlights the
importance of contingency to cultural production. From this perspective, the diversity
of children’s environments contributes to the notions of social sites of difference and the
production of contested meanings.
 Hugh Matthews and Melanie Limb 71

3 Proposition 3: children’s free-range differs from that of adults

The physical boundaries of children’s environmental range are outcomes of caretaking
conventions, age-related capabilities and gender-related expectations, all set within a
context of social, cultural and environmental contingencies. In essence, the balance
between ‘separation and connection reflects a negotiated geography between parent
and child’ (Matthews, 1995a: 459; Valentine, 1997a). In this process each actor takes into
account different criteria: for the parent, environmental and social dangers exert strong
centripetal pulls; for the child, growing environmental competences, the lust of
autonomy and the pull of rival environmental attractions provide irresistible
centrifugal impulses. Valentine (1997a: 38) suggests that to be a ‘good parent’ is ‘to walk
a tightrope between protecting children from public dangers by restricting their inde-
pendence, whilst simultaneously allowing them [children] the freedom and autonomy
to develop streetwise skills and to become competent at negotiating public space alone’.
Baumrind (1971) proposes two major dimensions of parental style which underlie
parent–child relationships: ‘parental acceptance’ and ‘parental control’. These
dimensions provide a fourfold typology of practice (authoritarian, authoritative,
passive, neglectful), which are useful when considering how children may encounter
places (Figure 1). This framework, although set within a western context of child-
rearing, incorporates the agency of the child (centrifugal impulses) whilst retaining the
constraints of varying caretaking conventions (centripetal pulls). The authoritarian
style is associated with rigidly enforced rules, narrow territorial limits and low patterns
of acceptance. In this sense, place behaviour is dictated. The authoritative style
combines reasoned and firm control with a clear definition of rules, roles and territorial
margins. For these children, place behaviour is an outcome of mediation and a certain
amount of give and take. In both of these cases, parents draw their children towards the
home, with greater or lesser stringency. In contrast, the permissive style provides a high
amount of tolerance with a weak definition of territory. Parents are supportive and
approving but there is considerable leniency in terms of place limits. The neglectful
style reflects lax and poor parenting, with imprecise guidance. Children’s place
behaviour is often ignored and they are left to get on with their own lives, defining their
own spatial margins. Although these two styles differ sharply in respect of love and
acceptance, both are associated with caretaking conventions which are susceptible to
the centrifugal impulses of children, but again to varying extents. The model suggests
that centripetal pulls and centrifugal impulses are strongest in relation to authoritarian
and neglectful parenting styles, respectively. Noller and Callan (1991) suggest that
children raised within the authoritative style are likely to be the most autonomous and
content, but their autonomy does not lead them to challenge the values of their parents.
On the other hand, children of permissive and neglectful parents lack an understand-
ing of autonomy and frequently are put at risk from pressures by children older than
themselves. Those children with authoritarian parenting are the most defiant and likely
to challenge the limits of their parents’ practice.
We qualify these observations by recognizing that the model does not take into
account the centripetal effects of fear and attachment which many children will
experience nor the centrifugal impulses of parents whose lifestyle are not domicentred.
None the less, the model raises important issues about the differing regimes, rules, roles
and spatial margins arising in the parent–child interaction and the exercise of power in
72 Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect

Figure 1 Parental caretaking conventions and the place behaviour of children

the family. These ideas, too, resonate with the work of Lowe et al. (1993) and Sibley
(1995b) in their discussions on how differing patterns of child-rearing, particularly
policing and authority, within the home can feed into differing likelihoods for children
to become ‘problem drinkers’ in later life.
Parental practices, however, both in respect to taking responsibility for managing
children’s spatial boundaries and disciplining them for any infringements, are highly
gendered (Aitken, 1998). In her studies, Valentine (1997a; 1997b) found that mothers, in
general, took on these roles: ‘Whilst men do their “family” work at weekends, women
do it all the time’ (Valentine, 1997a: 48). Therefore, it is usually mothers who are the
most aware about the competence levels of their children to negotiate public space and
who establish ‘day-to-day boundaries’. However, what it is to be a ‘good parent’ with
regard to the safety of children in public places is full of moral assumptions and is
closely bound in with local ‘cultures’ of fatherhood and motherhood.
Parents’ perceptions of the vulnerability of their children in public spaces are a
powerful contributory factor to the definition of an acceptable territorial range
(Valentine, 1997a; 1997b). Many studies have shown that the limits of children’s free-
range increase with age (Anderson and Tindall, 1972; Rivlin et al., 1973; Coates and
Bussard, 1974; Hart, 1979; Parkinson, 1987a; Schiavo, 1988; Chawla, 1992; Hendry et al.,
1993; Matthews, 1984; 1987; 1992; 1995b). The routine world of a six-year-old is no more
than a ‘spatial bubble’ within the world of a young teenager. Cutting across these age-
 Hugh Matthews and Melanie Limb 73

defined dimensions are sets of gender-related expectations. In play, games and tasks
around the home, young boys and girls are often given very different opportunities to
experience and learn (Harper and Sanders, 1975; Newson and Newson, 1977; Payne
and Jones, 1977; Hart, 1979; Webley, 1981; Boys, 1984; van Staaden, 1984; Cunningham
and Jones, 1991; Katz, 1993; Freysinger, 1994; Karsten et al., 1995; Matthews, 1986a;
1986b; 1987; 1992; 1995b). These studies suggest that the outdoor behaviour of girls is
more tightly constrained by parental interventions than that of boys. In general, boys
are given more freedom to explore their home areas, whereas girls are expected to play
nearer their home base and to take a greater part in domestic chores. With age, these
gender-related expectations increase, so that by the middle years of childhood emphatic
sex differentiation with respect to territorial mobility is commonplace. In effect, girls are
socialized off the street, whereas boys soon learn that they can prove their ‘boyness’ by
taking up lots of room within the public domain.
Recent work, however, suggests that parents hold a more complex and contradictory
view of gender and the upbringing of their siblings than previously suggested. In her
earlier studies, Valentine (1992) found that women’s fear of sexual abduction in public
spaces was transferred to children of both sexes up until the age of 11 years. On
reaching puberty restrictions on boys’ mobility was eased, whereas the free-range of
girls become even more restricted. Her later work (Valentine, 1995; 1997a; 1997b)
confirms that expectations about sex-typed behaviours are changing both within and
outside the home. Parents are moving towards less gender-differentiated child-rearing.
In particular, the common perception that children of both sexes are vulnerable to
abduction and attack in public places has meant that many parents have redefined their
values about children’s uses and experiences of the outdoors. Although, statistically,
children are more at risk in private space and from people they know, the moral panic
about ‘stranger-danger’ is leading parents to encourage children of both sexes to spend
most of their free time either at home with friends or taking part in activities organized
by adults. Goodey (1995), too, reports that girls’ fear of sexual harassment and boys’
fear of their vulnerability of attack are giving rise to a greater parity than hitherto
observed in the territorial range of children.
An understanding of children’s outdoor behaviour is further compounded by
dimensions such as social background (Bronfenbrenner, 1967; Lynch, 1997; van Vliet,
1983; Parkinson, 1987b; Hendry et al., 1998; Evans, 1994; Winchester and Costello, 1995;
Valentine 1992; 1997b), ethnicity (Ladd, 1970; Maurer and Baxter, 1972; Orleans, 1973;
Ayreman, 1989; Gaster, 1991; 1992; Bo, 1995; Matthews, 1995b; Woolley and Amin, 1995)
and residential setting (Lynch, 1977; Moore and Young, 1978; Michelson and Roberts,
1979; Ward, 1978; 1988; Matthews, 1992; Huttenmoser, 1995; Chawla, 1996), each giving
rise to different patterns of expectation and opportunity.
In essence, we reiterate that there is not one culture of childhood but many different
temporal cultures. If these cultures are construed as both ‘flows of meaning that people
create and interpret when they communicate with each other’ (Wulff, 1995: 65) and
common positions with regard to power, autonomy and consumption which give rise
to particular social identities and definitions of self, it is likely that there will be a
layering of ‘microcultures’ within any set of temporal cultures. For Wulff (1995) micro-
cultures are managed by small groups of people that meet on an everyday basis.
Combinations of personality, social experience of events and location are elements of
every microculture. This concept is especially valuable in a geographical context. The
74 Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect

behaviour of groups of young people within their neighbourhood is often a function of

their own microculture. Patterns of dress, language and conduct and the varieties of
outdoor behaviour that can be observed within the same locational and social setting
by different groups of young people are explicable in this sense. Also, particular micro-
cultures are likely to give rise to selective uses of place, such that particular arenas
become spaces where young people meet and experience exciting events. For example,
Wulff (1995) describes how a gang of teenage girls in south London uses the local youth
club, nearby street corner, school and their homes as the locality settings for their social
engagements.
An attempt to conceptualize some of the principal features of children’s developing
range behaviour is shown in Figure 2 (Matthews, 1992: 52). This time-space framework
draws upon the developmental ideas of Erikson (1977) and the ecological perspectives

Figure 2 A time-space model of children’s developing environmental range

Source: Matthews, 1992: 52
 Hugh Matthews and Melanie Limb 75

of Moore (1986). The relevance of this framework depends upon its contextualization
within the lifeworld of the child and the recognition of social and environmental con-
tingencies. For example, a child may have multiple ranges at any one time, set around
each parent’s separate homes.
Erikson postulates that environmental mastery comes about through a continuing
relationship between the child and three successive scales of environmental contact: the
autosphere, the microsphere and the macrosphere. The autosphere is the child’s first
environment. It begins and centres on one’s own body. Initial play is simple, repetitious
and sensual. The exploration which follows is the child’s ‘first geography’ (Erikson,
1977: 11). These ideas about the infant’s relationship with its own body and bodily
products and the way in which spatial boundaries become defined between (it)self,
others and the world, are at the heart of recent psychoanalytical geographical debates
and give rise to the notion of ‘crib geography’ (Sibley, 1995a; Pile, 1996; Aitken and
Herman, 1997). With time, so the child’s map of the world extends to incorporate
familiar objects and persons, his or her competence depending on the comfort and
refuge these provide. The microsphere is the small world of manageable toys.
Children’s performance in this environment of small objects can have a direct bearing
on subsequent development. If frightened or disappointed the child may regress to the
autosphere, whereas success and proper guidance will encourage further mastery and
exploration. The macrosphere is the world shared with others. At this level children
begin to encounter spaces beyond the immediate settings of their home. Exploration
leads the child further afield, but, like the other two realms, children have to learn what
sorts of transaction can be safely executed there.
At this point the framework recognizes the broadening spatial range of children.
Moore (1986) proposes a sociospatial model which attempts to summarize the
development of children’s territorial range. Every child has a number of overlapping
ranges that reflect various personal, environmental and cultural constraints. He
suggests a threefold typology of range which evolves ‘with age, from the coaction of
children’s personalities, parents, cultural circumstances, and the play opportunities and
access barriers of the physical environment’ (Moore, 1986: 17). Habitual range is more
or less contiguous space which extends around the child’s home. This area is highly
accessible for daily use and is bounded by temporal rather than distance and age
constraints. For example, the use of surrounding streets as play spaces is often ‘wedged
between homework and suppertime’ (Moore, 1986: 18). Frequented range comprises
less accessible extensions of habitual range and is bounded by physical constraints, par-
ticularly busy roads, and parental prohibitions. This expands with age and depends
upon a combination of social and environmental dimensions, including gender-related
expectations. These places are more likely to be used at weekends and holidays,
especially during the summer. Occasional range consists of highly variable extensions
of frequented range, made on foot, by bicycle or public transport. These places are
visited once in a while, perhaps as part of a special outing. Occasional range defines the
child’s ultimate territorial frontier. As the child grows older, and moves around more
easily, former occasional places become frequented and some become absorbed into
everyday habitual range (Lynch, 1977; van Vliet, 1983; Korpela, 1991; Hendry et al.,
1993; Owens, 1994).
Such a framework, though helpful in drawing broad dimensions of children’s spatial
range, reflects a particular construction of what it is to be a child. In so doing, the
76 Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect

diversity of children’s experiences may be undermined. For example, recent studies

draw attention to the ways in which the range of some children, especially those from
better-off families, has increased enormously, largely through the potential offered by
electronic media. The advent of the home computer and linkage to the Internet provide
access to the limitless expanses of cyberspace. Range of this kind becomes a ‘virtual’
phenomenon and a commodity for purchase (see ESRC ‘Cyberkids’ project – Valentine
and Holloway, 1996). Also, the framework has limited relevance for groups such as
homeless young people whose experiences of place are often highly transitory and
fragmented (Rivlin and Wolfe, 1985; Aitken and Wingate, 1993).

4 Proposition 4: children’s environmental fears and sense of danger differ from

those of adults
Satterthwaite et al. (1996) draw attention to a broad range of environmental hazards that
may be detrimental to children’s development to which adults are less susceptible,
including types of pathogen and pollutant, physical hazards and psychosocial stressors.
Levels of risk are partly products of the characteristics of the child (for example, age,
sex, physical attributes, health and nutritional status) and partly products of the child’s
social and environmental backgrounds (for example, quality of the home environment,
caretaking conventions and access to resource provision). They set out an agenda on
how to achieve a sustainable and fulfilling future for all children which depends on the
minimization of these risks. This and other studies (Lentz, 1985; Hyson and Bollin, 1990;
Blakely, 1994; Goodey, 1994; McNeish and Roberts, 1995) emphasize that the world as
viewed and experienced from the perspective of the child is a very different place from
that perceived and encountered by adults.
Children’s environmental fears reflect parental values (noted in proposition 3), the
role of the media and their own sense of powerlessness. Cahill (1990) draws attention
to the role of television dramas, documentaries and newspaper reports in the creation
of popular fears. Through a bombardment of publicity about child abductions and
murders, she claims that many adults become convinced ‘that there was a virtual army
of villainous adults stalking and preying upon children who dared to venture outside
the protective fortress of home and school’ (Cahill, 1990: 393). Matthews (1995a) focuses
explicitly on children’s expressed fears. Principal concerns included fears of traffic, dark
and enclosed places, and strangers. Fear of drowning kept children away from a nearby
river and fear of getting lost inhibited children, such that a strong ‘place mythology’ is
often evident. A number of studies highlight the dangers of children and traffic (Baker
et al., 1985; Hillman et al., 1990; Lawson and Edwards, 1991; Hillman, 1993; Kendrick,
1993; Bjorklid, 1994; Roberts and Coggan, 1994; Levelt, 1995). Boys are more likely to be
involved in road accidents than girls. Explanations are speculative but hinge on boys
different use of public space (for example, number of journeys, time in the street, modes
of transport, the spontaneous nature of play) and on psychosocial factors (for example,
levels of motor skill, spatial abilities and risk-taking). Further aspects of the social
dimensions of fear and danger are noted by Goodey (1995). She found that from an
early age girls are taught to fear violence and sexual assault, whereas boys become
afraid of physical assault and fights. Both boys and girls are fearful of men in public
spaces. In combination, fears of this kind mean that many streets (because of traffic,
 Hugh Matthews and Melanie Limb 77

children’s lack of visibility and poor lighting) and public parks (because of stranger-
danger) are places which are being withdrawn from children’s daily environmental
repertoire.
Children’s lack of power and control in many public areas is seldom acknowledged
by adults in their environmental designs. There seems to be a certain hypocrisy in this.
On the one hand, adults create the myth of stranger-danger and promulgate ‘panics’
about play in public spaces; on the other hand, their planning responses cast children
into unsupervised and segregated areas, so creating a disjunction between children’s
need for freedom with security and parents’ desires for closeness with visibility. An
inevitable outcome is that children are poorly integrated into the physical worlds of
adults.

5 Proposition 5: children’s place feelings differ from those of adults

Children have a very strong affective sense of their everyday world, which is often in
sharp contrast to that shared by adults. A number of studies have examined children’s
favourite places (Lynch, 1977; Hart, 1979; Moore, 1986; Korpela, 1991; Chawla, 1988;
1992; Cardin, 1994; Owens, 1988; 1994; Simmons, 1994; Corbishley, 1995; Matthews,
1995a; 1995b). The results suggest that children value a wide variety of places for many
different reasons. There is some consistency in preferences for social places, where
children go to be with friends; activity places, which are favoured for sports, leisure and
recreational pursuits; personal places, which are valued for a sense of ownership,
belonging and identity; and solitary places, where children go to be alone. These place
types are neither mutually nor functionally exclusive. For example, in his study of
teenagers in a New England shopping mall, Lewis (1989) notes how a group of ‘core
kids’ uses this commercial setting as a social venue to meet friends, as a place which
provides them with a sense of belonging, particularly evidenced by their labelling of
themselves as ‘mall rats’ (boys) and ‘mall bunnies’ (girls), and as a setting for
excitement and activity, where they can wander around the shops, play video games,
smoke cigarettes and show off their latest hairstyles, clothing and make-up and wait for
things to happen. When Owens (1994) returned to Sunshine, a suburb of Melbourne, to
replicate a study carried out 20 years earlier on teenagers’ place preferences, she found
that not much had changed. Children, then and now, value the same sort of places:
recreation areas, commercial areas and streets were all places used to be with others,
whilst their own home or a friend’s home were valued as places to be alone. In this
context, home environments are especially important because children often claim that
they have a voice in decisions there. Korpela (1991: 254) found that ‘clearing one’s mind
and relaxing were especially connected to one’s own room’. In contrast, in outdoor
settings few teenagers feel that they have a voice in decision-making and in
consequence their social and psychological needs are inadequately met (Conn, 1994;
Hart, 1997).
According to Gibson (1979) environments are experienced not only as configurational
settings but also as places that afford different kinds of opportunities. Places are
remembered not for what they are but for what they afford the child. The way in which
children access the prospect of a place is likely to be very different from that of adults.
In their seminal ecological study of the Midwest and its children, Barker and Wright
78 Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect

(1955: 55) discuss how certain aspects of an environment exert a ‘coercive influence’ on
perception and activity. For example, when Midwestern children see an open level
surface free from obstruction, they remember these places not for their designated
purpose (for example, the courthouse lawn, the football field) but as potential sites for
vigorous activity, such as ‘running and romping’. In this sense, the natural and physical
world perceived from the perspective of the child affords a multiplicity of opportuni-
ties which adults seldom understand.
Affordances of this kind are not independent of the ‘body’ of the child. It is axiomatic
that the ‘bodies’ of children and adults will often differ in their size, shape, strength and
energy. From this perspective engagements and encounters with place are intricately
bound up with bodily abilities and attributes and become a function of what children
are (Erikson, 1977; Rodaway, 1994; Pile, 1996).
In their play and recreational pursuits children will frequently come into contact with
places in ways not imagined by adults. We note that children repeatedly complain of
the withdrawal of places from their physical worlds by planning activities which are
insensitive to their needs. For example, new building developments on the edge of a
village may rob children of favourite ‘hideaways’ and ‘dens’, whereas the regeneration
of urban derelict land may deny children access to an exciting setting where they would
otherwise explore, learn and acquire competence in the outdoors (Moore, 1986). In this
sense, environmental planning without recourse to the views of children encourages
alienation and complaints about a lost domain. Particularly significant for children is
their strong affinity with nature (Bunting and Cousins, 1985; Chawla, 1988; Owens,
1988; Olwig, 1993; Nabham and Trimble, 1994; Simmons, 1994). Wals (1994) categorizes
eight types of environmental relationship that are commonly experienced or afforded.
These are nature as an entertainment; as a challenging place; a reflection of the past; a
threatening place; a background for activities; a place for learning; a place to reflect; and
a threatened place. Denying children of a chance to encounter nature, no matter how
small, ‘robs them of the very essence of life’ (Engwicht, 1992: 6).

6 Proposition 6: children’s relationship to environmental decision-making differs

from that of adults
In the course of these everyday transactions with place young people’s experience of
the physical world is often one of social marginality, a product of the centrality of able-
bodied adulthood (Steinfels, 1982; Hockey and James, 1993). Children’s place needs and
values are seldom incorporated into the physical planning process and as such children
are cast as ‘outsiders’ (see proposition 3). Simpson (1995) points out that since the
nineteenth century the legislative system of the western world has supported the
exclusion of children from many parts of the environment and has given them little, if
any, voice in shaping that environment. The laws which have supported children’s
exclusion are based on a view which fails to recognize children’s capacities to be active
participants in societal processes (Gaylin and Macklin, 1982; Eekelaar, 1986; Archard,
1994). In so doing, children are relegated to a passive state in which they wait for
adulthood (Elder et al., 1993). Lansdown (1995: 20) argues that a culture of nonpartici-
pation by children is endemic. Reasons centre on four commonly held misconceptions:
1) children do not have the competence to participate; 2) children’s rights threaten the
 Hugh Matthews and Melanie Limb 79

harmony and stability of family life; 3) children should not have rights until they are
capable of exercising responsibility; and 4) imposing responsibilities detracts from the
rights of childhood. At best environments are built for children, not with children (for
example, see Barnard, 1980; Fowler, 1992). In this sense, the voices of children are silent
on the landscape.
The debate about children’s right and capability to participate has gained consider-
able momentum within the last decade (Vittachi, 1989; Freeman and Veerman, 1992;
Lopatka, 1992; Wolf, 1992; Wolfson, 1992; Therborn, 1996). Arguably, the most
significant contribution to this momentum has been the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child in 1989. To date, this convention has been ratified by more than
190 countries, providing a level of support unprecedented in the history of the United
Nations. As such it represents the strongest statement in international law that children
have some independent status (Newell, 1991; Cantwell, 1992; Burman, 1996). In the
context of this discussion, especially significant are Articles 12 and 31, which assert
children’s right to be consulted, heard, listened to and taken seriously, in accordance
with their age and maturity (Article 12) and children’s right to rest, leisure, play,
recreation, cultural life and the arts (Article 31). For some (Freeman, 1992; Purdy, 1992;
Alston, 1994), there is the fear that rights of this kind result in a further loss of control
over children who have too much freedom already. But as Hart (1997) points out this is
a misreading of the intent and purpose of the convention. The convention neither calls
for a collapse of moral values in the teaching and discipline of children, nor does it seek
to remove the rights of parents and adults to make the final decision. Instead, it
advocates ‘a transparency of action and an openness to listen to and communicate with
children according to their maximum capacity’ (Hart, 1997: 16).
In keeping with the sentiments of the convention, we contend that children have the
environmental adeptness, motivation and ability to help shape their environmental
futures: ‘Because adults have different outlooks and are pursuing different interests,
they are often unable to see, much less understand, the child’s point of view’
(Matthews, 1995a: 462). There are an increasing number of examples of children’s par-
ticipation in planning (De Monchaux, 1981; Weinstein and David, 1987; Francis, 1988;
Zimring and Barnes, 1992; Dallape and Gilbert, 1994; Kaplan, 1994; Iltus and Hart, 1995;
Wiljhelm, 1995; Freeman, 1996; 1997; Hart, 1987; 1992; 1997). Figure 3 draws upon recent
work to provide an illustration of children’s developing capacity to participate in the
development and management of environments (Hart, 1997). Initially, children’s
horizons are limited to their home base and set within a context of domestic care. As
they become older so their environmental range increases and their interests and
competences become more varied. Like Hart (1995), we believe that the time has come
not to rely any longer on a traditional social science approach which observes children’s
lives and goes on to report it to policy-makers in the hope that they will bring about
change and an improvement in quality. Instead what is needed is a ‘more radical social
science [in which] children themselves learn to reflect upon their own conditions, so
that they can gradually begin to take greater responsibility in creating communities
different from the ones they inherited’ (Hart, 1995: 41).
80 Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect

Access to Environmental Ecological Empathy and Social understanding Political

environments interests understanding moral development and skills awareness

14 years Community ecological action research:

and older strategic action on ecosystems

Community-based monitoring: e.g., water quality survey,

12 years solid waste surveys, domestic food production audits

Community environmental management: e.g., management of

water, wells or gardens

10 years Community environmental action research: e.g., interviews of residents

and environmental professionals, leading to physical improvements or
awareness-raising

8 years Local action research: observation and practical assistance: e.g., listening to
community debates, interviews leading to improving part of their environment

Local environmental monitoring: e.g., weather surveys, wildlife surveys, nutrition and
6 years waste audits

Local environmental management: e.g., recycling, composting, fish farming, at school or club

Domestic environmental management: e.g., caring for own animals and plants, gardening at home

Figure 3 Children’s developing capacity to participate in the

development and management of environments
Source: Based on Hart, 1997: 90

7 Proposition 7: children’s democratic responsibility differs from that of adults

Despite the growth of the children’s rights movement, environmental planning and
policy that is conscious of children’s needs is often constrained by tokenism (Smith,
1995; Lorenzo, 1996). By tokenism we mean situations in which children seem to have
a voice but in essence have no real say, choice or chance to formulate their own opinions
or to influence outcomes. In many cases tokenism is a product of well intentioned
adults who have not sufficiently thought through their actions. Hart (1997) uses a
ladder as a metaphor (based on Arnstein, 1969) to show the different degrees of
involvement which children may have when working with adults. The model
recognizes eight steps towards full participation (Figure 4). The first three steps are
examples of nonparticipation and summarize the majority of situations which confront
children. The next five steps are examples of progressive participation. There are a
number of important requirements for a project to be truly participatory: 1) children
understand the intentions of the project; 2) children know who made the decisions for
their involvement and why; 3) children have a meaningful rather than a decorative role;
4) children volunteer for the project after the project was made clear to them; and 5)
involvement should not be associated with condescension. A goal is that children
should participate as equal partners in setting agendas and making decisions about
their environmental futures rather than responding to the interpretation of so-called
 Hugh Matthews and Melanie Limb 81

experts. Whilst the upper rungs of the ladder illustrate increasing levels of initiation
and participation by children, it is not meant to suggest that children should always be
trying to fulfil their maximum level of competence. Instead, the intention is to raise
awareness amongst adults about a range of options, to encourage children to work at

Figure 4 The ladder of children’s participation

Source: Based on Hart, 1997: 41
82 Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect

the level they prefer, and to avoid the development of strategies which keep children on
the bottom three rungs.
We have argued elsewhere (Matthews, 1995a; Matthews and Limb, 1998) that to take
part in democratic citizenship children need to be educated in the process and adults
need to become more aware of children’s capabilities and competences. There is ample
evidence to suggest that democratic responsibility and social participation only result
through practice and progressive involvement and do not suddenly develop in
adulthood through maturation (Younis, 1980; Williamson et al., 1992). Children are not
just the citizens of tomorrow, they are the citizens of today and access to the public
realm provides important environmental and social skills (Lennard and Lennard, 1992;
Freeman, 1995). Every child has a right to a diverse range of environmental opportuni-
ties which should both empower and enable that child to express his or her own indi-
viduality in his or her world of ‘here and now’ (Riger, 1993; Smith, 1995). Those children
who have observed others taking responsibility learn to experience the benefits of
reciprocity and co-operation and to act on them as they grow up (Dawes et al., 1990; Cox
et al., 1991; Williams et al., 1994). Socialization of this kind depends on integration,
dialogue and accessibility to constructive, purposeful activities and not on social
isolation in childhood ghettos. We contend that in order to enable children to
participate there needs to be an initiation of more relevant, inclusive and thorough envi-
ronmental education programmes. From an early age children should be encouraged to
think about their local environment and environmental decision-making of various
kinds should become a formal aspect of a whole-school curriculum (Catling, 1993; De
Vries and Zan, 1993; Weigand, 1993; Williams, 1996).

IV Conclusion

The proposed agenda focuses upon children’s relationship with their physical and built
environment. In so doing we have attempted to define a set of propositions which taken
into account recent research into the geography of children. We recognize that this
agenda is a partial one. Children’s lives are complex and diverse and cannot be
described without reference to the type of society in which they live, their position
within that society and the cultural values which surround them. Our discussion is set
not only within a western context but also by the ways in which children interact with
outdoor places beyond the home, school and playground. We have drawn attention to
a wealth of research, taken from numerous sources. Some of this research is blighted by
fragmentation and narrow disciplinary perspectives and methodologies which do not
sufficiently engage themselves with the lifeworld of children in the here and now.
In proposing an agenda we attempt to illustrate how the geography of children is
moving away from its environmental psychology roots and is moving towards a solidly
grounded social and cultural geography of children which acknowledges processes of
exclusion, sociospatial marginalization and boundary conflicts with adults and parents.
Throughout our emphasis has been upon the agency of the child and the ways in which
children themselves ‘experience, understand, and, perhaps, resist or reshape, the
complex, frequently contradictory cultural politics that inform their daily lives’
(Stephens, 1995: 3).
Central to our discussion is the conviction that research on the lives and welfare of
 Hugh Matthews and Melanie Limb 83

children should not just be reported for its own sake, but should lead to outcomes
which encourage empowerment, participation and self-determination consistent with
levels of competence. To date, whilst many adult decision-makers may claim that they
have the best interests of children in mind when they plan the physical environment,
there is little evidence to suggest that children’s involvement is more than tokenism.
There is still much work to be done in order to move from a ‘culture of nonparticipa-
tion’ to a situation in which children take part in decision-making as equal partners.
Particularly unclear is what models of participation are most effective. Giving children
a voice involves much more than just encouraging young people to express their views
about places. It depends as well upon providing adequate information, listening,
treating children’s views with respect, providing feedback on decisions, and getting
children to take responsibility for actions and outcomes which they are competent and
willing to make.
However, unlike many other groups who are marginalized as ‘outsiders’ within
society (for example, women, the disabled, ethnic minorities) children occupy a special
position of exclusion for they will never gain entry to the academy. (The academy is
used here as a collective term to describe sets of hegemonic values which form part of
the apparatus of ruling.) Their ability to challenge the conventions of dominant
ideology from within, together with the practices and processes which lead to their
marginalization, is mostly beyond their grasp. Children need allies. For these allies
there remains to be solved the contradiction between the world from a child’s
viewpoint and the world they experience as adults.

Acknowledgements
The research for this article was undertaken as part of the ESRC programme ‘Children
5–16: growing into the twenty-first century’, award no: L129251031. We are especially
grateful to Professor Chris Philo for his extremely helpful comments on an earlier draft
of this article. Our thanks, too, to Barry Percy-Smith for his ability to point us in the
direction of yet another new text on children; Mark Taylor for his indefatigable efforts
as research assistant to the project ‘Exploring the fourth environment: young people’s use
of place and views on their environments’; and to three anonymous referees for their
constructive and pertinent observations.

References

Aitken, S. 1994: Putting children in their place. children. Professional Geographer 45, 65–72.
Washington, DC: Association of American Alston, P. 1994: The best interest principle:
Geographers. towards a reconciliation of culture and human
––––– 1998: Family fantasies and community space. rights. In Alston, P., editor, The best interests of
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. the child: reconciling culture and human rights,
Aitken, S. and Herman, T . 1997: Gender, power Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–25.
and crib geography: traditional spaces and Amit-Talai, V. 1995: The ‘multi’ cultural youth. In
potential places. Gender, Place and Culture 4, Amit-Talai, V. and Wulff, H., editors, Youth
63–88. cultures: a cross cultural perspective, London:
Aitken, S. and Wingate, J. 1993: A preliminary Routledge, 223–33.
study of the self-directed study photography of Anand, R. 1987: Task force on the law concerning
middle-class, homeless, and mobility-impaired trespass to publicly used property as it affects youths
84 Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect

and minorities . Canberra: Government Printing childhood, London: Falmer Press, 184–216.
Office. Boys, J. 1984: Women in public space. In Matrix,
Anderson, J. and Tindall, M. 1972: The concept of Making space: women and the man made
home range: new data for the study of environment, London: Pluto Press, 40–51.
territorial behavior. In Mitchell, W.J., editor, Brett, A., Moore, R.C. and Provenzo, E.F. 1993:
Environmental design: research and practice, Los The complete playground book. New York:
Angeles, CA: University of California Press, Syracuse University Press.
111–17. Bronfenbrenner, U. 1967: Socialisation and social
Anderson, K. and Gale, F. , editors, 1992: class through time and space. In Roberts, J.I.,
Inventing places: studies in cultural geography. editor, School children in the urban slum, New
Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. York: Free Press, 429–57.
Anthony, K.H. 1985: The shopping mall: a Bunge, W . 1975: The point of reproduction: a
teenage hangout. Adolescence 20, 307–12. second front. Antipode 9, 67–83.
Archard, D. 1994: Children: rights and childhood. Bunting, T .E. and Cousins, L.R. 1985:
London: Routledge. Environmental dispositions among school-age
Aries, P. 1960: L’enfant et la vie familiale sous children. Environment and Behavior 17, 725–68.
l’ancien régime. Paris: Libraire Plon (trans. R. Burman, E. 1996: Local, global or globalized:
Baldick, 1962: Centuries of childhood. London, child development and international child
Jonathan Cape). rights legislation. Childhood 3, 45–66.
Arnstein, S. 1969: A ladder of citizen participa- Buss, S. 1995: Urban Los Angeles from young
tion. Journal of the American Institute of Planners people’s angle of vision. Children’s
35, 216–24. Environments 12, 340–51.
Ayreman, J. 1989: Black people, white landscape.
Town and Country Planning 58, 336–38. Cahill, S.E. 1990: Childhood and public life:
reaffirming biographical divisions. Social
Baker, I. Thompson, J.C. and Bowers, P.H. 1985: Problems 37, 392–402.
Children and traffic: research on post-Radburn Cantwell, N. 1992: The origins, development and
housing estates. Ekistics 52, 247–52. significance of the United Nations Convention
Barker, R.G. and Wright, H.F. 1955: The Mid-West on the Rights of the Child. In Detrick, S., editor,
and its children. New York: Row, Petersen & The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Company. Child: a guide to the travaux préparatoires,
Barnard, J. 1980: Children in the built environment: Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 19–30.
guidelines for planning and design. Melbourne: Caputo, V. 1995: Anthropology’s silent ‘others’. In
Georgian House. Amit-Talai, V. and Wulff, H., editors, Youth
Baumrind, D. 1971: Current patterns of parental cultures: a cross cultural perspective, London:
authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph Routledge, 19–42.
4, 1–102. Cardin, R.J. 1994: A youth perspective on outdoor
Bell, D. and Valentine, G. , editors, 1995: Mapping recreation. Parks and Recreation 29, 58–61.
desire: geographies of sexuality. London: Catling, S. 1993: The whole world in our hand.
Routledge. Geography 78, 340–58.
Bernstein, B. 1971: Class, codes and control. Vol. 1. Chawla, L. 1988: Children’s concern for the
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. natural environment. Children’s Environments
Bjorklid, P . 1994: Children–traffic–environment. Quarterly 5, 13–20.
Architecture and Behavior 10, 399–406. ––––– 1992: Childhood place attachments. In
Blakely, K. 1994: Parents’ conceptions of social Altman, I. and Low, S.M., editors, Place
dangers to children in the urban environment. attachment, New York: Plenum, 63–85.
Children’s Environments 11, 16–25. ––––– 1996: Growing-up in cities. Paper presented
Bo, I. 1995: The socio-cultural environment as a at the first workshop of the Growing up in
source for growth among 15–16 years olds. Cities Project, University of Trondheim.
Children’s Environment 12, 469–78. Coates, G. and Bussard, E. 1974: Patterns of
Boethius, U. 1995: Youth, the media and moral children’s spatial behavior in moderate-density
panics. In Fornas, J. and Bolin, G., editors, Youth housing development. In Moore, R.W., editor,
culture in late modernity, London: Sage, 15–35. Childhood city: man–environment interactions,
Boyden, J. 1990: Childhood and the policy Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross,
makers: a comparative perspective on the glob- 131–41.
alisation of childhood. In James, A. and Prout, Coffin, G. and Williams, M. 1989: Children’s
A., editors, Constructing and reconstructing outdoor play in the built environment. London:
 Hugh Matthews and Melanie Limb 85

National Children’s Play and Recreation Unit. Erikson, E.H. 1977: Toys and reasons. New York:
Committee on the Rights of the Child Norton.
(CRC/C/38)1995: Report of the eighth session. Evans, K. 1987: Participation of young adults in
Geneva: CRC. youth organisations in the United Kingdom: a
Conn, M. 1994: The place of adolescents. review. International Journal of Adolescence and
Children’s Environments 11, 325–26. Youth 1, 7–31.
Corbishley , P. 1995: A parish listens to its ––––– 1994: Leisure patterns of young adults in
children. Children’s Environments 12, 414–26. Britain and the role of the youth service.
Corrigan, P. 1979: Schooling the Smash Street Kids. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth 4,
London: Macmillan. 179–94.
Corsaro, W . 1985: Friendship and peer culture in the
early years. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Press. Fowler, E.P. 1992: Building cities that work.
Cox, T.H., Lobel, S. and McLeod, P.L. 1991: Montreal: McGill University Press.
Effects of ethnic group cultural differences on Francis, M. 1988: Negotiating between children
cooperative and competition behavior on a and adult design values in open space projects.
group task. Academy of Management Journal 34, Design Studies 9, 67–75.
827–47. Freeman, C. 1995: Planning and play: creating
Cunningham, C. and Jones, M. 1991: Girls and greener environments. Children’s Environments
boys come out to play: play, gender and urban 12, 381–88.
planning. Landscape Australia 4, 305–11. ––––– 1996: Local Agenda 21 as a vehicle for
––––– 1994: Child-friendly neighbourhoods? A encouraging children’s participation. Local
critique of the Australian suburb as an Government Policy Making 23, 43–51.
environment for growing-up. Society and Leisure ––––– 1997: Children’s participation in Local
17, 83–106. Agenda 21. Paper presented at the RGS-IBG
Cunningham, C., Jones, M. and Barlow, M. 1996: annual conference, University of Exeter.
Town planning and children. Armidale, NSW: Freeman, M. 1992: The limits of children’s rights.
University of New England. In Freeman, M. and Veerman, P., editors, The
ideologies of children’s rights, Dordrecht:
Dallape, F . and Gilbert, C. 1994: Children’s partic - Martinus Nijhoff, 29–46.
ipation in action research. Harare, Zimbabwe: Freeman, M. and Veerman, P., editors, 1992: The
ENDA. ideologies of children’s rights. Dordrecht:
Dawes, R.M., van de Kragt, A.J.C. and Orbell, Martinus Nijhoff.
J.M. 1990: Co-operation for the benefit of us-not Freysinger, V.J. 1994: Leisure with children and
me, or my conscience. In Mansbridge, J.J., parental satisfaction: further evidence of a sex
editor, Beyond self-interest, Chicago, IL: difference in the experience of adult roles and
University of Chicago Press, 91–102. leisure. Journal of Leisure Research 26, 212–26.
De Monchaux, S. 1981: Planning with children in
mind. Sydney: Department of Planning and Gaster, S. 1991: Urban children’s access to their
Environment (reissued 1996 as Children’s envi - neighbourhood. Environment and Behavior 23,
ronments. Sydney: New South Wales Play 70–85.
Alliance). ––––– 1992: Historical changes in children’s access
De Vries, R. and Zan, B. 1993: Moral classrooms, to US cities: a critical review. Children’s
moral children. New York: New York Teachers Environments 9, 23–36.
College Press. Gaylin, W . and Macklin, R. , editors, 1982: Who
Duncan, J. and Ley, D., editors, 1993: speaks for the child? New York: Plenum.
Place/culture/representation. London: Routledge. Gibson, J.J. 1979: The ecological approach to visual
perception. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Edwards, J. 1985: Language, society and identity. Goodey, J. 1994: Fear of crime: what can children
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. tell us? International Review of Victimology 3,
Eekelaar, J. 1986: The emergence of children’s 195–210.
rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 6, 161–82. ––––– 1995: Learning to fear: the socialisation of
Elder, G.H., Modell, J. and Parke, R.D. 1993: gendered fear among 11–16 year olds: a case
Children in time and place: developmental historical study in a northern British city. Paper presented
insights. Cambridge: Cambridge University at ‘Building identities: gender perspectives on
Press. children and urban space’ conference,
Engwicht, D. 1992: Towards an eco-city: calming the University of Amsterdam.
traffic. Sydney: Envirobook.
86 Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect

Hall, S. and Jefferson, T ., editors, 1976: Resistance Canadian Geographer 34, 2–17.
through rituals. London: Hutchinson. Huttenmoser, M. 1995: Children and their living
Harper, L. and Sanders, K. 1975: Pre-school surroundings: empirical investigations into the
children’s use of space: sex differences in significance of living surrounds for the
outdoor play. Developmental Psychology 11, everyday life and development of children.
119–20. Children’s Environments 12, 403–13.
Hart, C., editor, 1993: Children on playgrounds: Hayson, M.C. and Bollin, G.G. 1990: Children’s
research perspectives. New York: State University appraisal of home and neighbourhood risks:
of New York Press. questions for tomorrow. Children’s Environments
Hart, R. 1979: Children’s experience of place. New Quarterly 1, 50–59.
York: Irvington.
––––– 1987: Children’s participation in planning Iltus, S. and Hart, R. 1995: Participatory planning
and design. In Weinstein, C. and David, T., and design of recreational spaces with children.
editors, Spaces for children: the built environment Architecture and Behavior 10, 361–70.
and child development, New York: Plenum,
217–39. Jackson, P. 1989: Maps of meaning. London: Virago
––––– 1992: Children’s participation: from tokenism to Press.
citizenship. Florence: UNICEF. James, A. 1995: Talking of children and youth:
––––– 1995: Children as the makers of a new language, socialisation and culture. In Amit-
geography. In Karsten, I., Bongertman, T., de Talai, V. and Wulff, H., editors, Youth cultures: a
Haan, G., van der Straaten, G. and Tom. I., cross cultural perspective, London: Routledge,
editors, Building identities: gender perspectives on 19–42.
children and urban space, Amsterdam: University James, A. and Prout, A., editors, 1990:
of Amsterdam, 41–47. Constructing and reconstructing childhood.
––––– 1997: Children’s participation: the theory and London: Falmer Press.
practice of involving young citizens in community James, S. 1990: Is there a place for children in
development and environmental care. London: geography? Area 22, 278–83.
Earthscan. Jenks, C. 1996: Childhood. London: Routledge.
Hayward, D.G., Rothenberg, M. and Beasley,
R.R. 1974: Children’s play and urban Kaplan, M. 1994: Promoting community
playground environments: a comparison of education and action through intergenerational
traditional, contemporary and adventure play programming. Children’s Environments 11,
ground types. Environment and Behavior 6, 48–60.
131–68. Karsten, I., Bongertman, T., de Haan, G., van der
Hendrick, H. 1990: Constructions and reconstruc- Straaten, G. and Tom. I., editors, 1995: Building
tions of British childhood. In Prout, A. and identities: gender perspectives on children and
James, A., editors, Constructing and reconstruct - urban space. Amsterdam: University of
ing childhood, Basingstoke: Falmer Press, 35–59. Amsterdam.
Hendry, L.B., Shucksmith, J., Love, J.G. and Katz, C. 1993: Growing girls, closing circles: limits
Glendenning, A. 1993: Young people’s leisure and on the spaces of knowing in rural Sudan and
lifestyles. London: Routledge. United States cities. In Katz, C. and Monk, J.,
Hill, F. and Michelson, W. 1981: Towards a editors, Full circles: geographies of women over the
geography of urban children and youth. In life course, London: Routledge, 98–106.
Herbert, D. and Johnston, R., editors, Geography Kendrick, D. 1993: Prevention of pedestrian
and the urban environment, Chichester: Wiley, accidents. Archives of Diseases in Childhood 68,
193–228. 218–22.
Hillman, M. , editor, 1993: Children, transport and Korpela, K. 1991: Adolescents’ and adults’
quality of life. London: Policy Studies Institute. favourite places. In Niit, T., Raudsepp, M. and
Hillman, M., Adams, J. and Whitelegg, J. 1990: Liik, E., editors, Environmental and social
One false move: a study of children’s independent development: proceedings of the East–West
mobility. London: Policy Studies Institute. Colloquium in Environmental Psychology, Tallinn:
Hockey, J. and James, A. 1993: Growing up, University of Tallinn, 251–64.
growing old. London: Sage.
Holland, P. 1992: What is a child: popular images of Ladd, F.C. 1970: Black youths view their
childhood. London: Virago Press. environment: neighborhood maps. Environment
Hopkins, J. 1990: West Edmonton Mall: and Behavior 2, 74–79.
landscapes of myths and elsewhereness. Lansdown, G. 1995: Taking part: children’s partici -
 Hugh Matthews and Melanie Limb 87

pation in decision making. London: Institute of Geographers NS 12, 43–56.

Public Policy Research. ––––– 1992: Making sense of place: children’s under -
Lawson, S. and Edwards, P. 1991: The standing of large-scale environments. Hemel
involvement of ethnic minorities in road Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
accidents: data from three studies of young ––––– 1995a: Living on the edge: children as
pedestrian casualties. Traffic Engineering and outsiders. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale
Control January, 12–19. Geografie 86, 456–66.
Lennard, H.L. and Lennard, S.H.C. 1992: ––––– 1995b: Culture, environmental experience
Children in public places: some lessons from and environmental awareness: making sense of
European cities. Children’s Environments 9, young Kenyan children’s views of place. The
37–47. Geographical Journal 161, 285–95.
Lentz, K.A. 1985: The expressed fears of young Matthews, M.H. and Limb, M. 1998: The right
children. Child Psychiatry and Human to say: the development of youth councils/
Development 16, 3–13. forums in the UK. Area 30, 66–78.
Levelt, P. 1995: The use of space by girls and boys: Matthews, M.H., Limb, M. and Percy-Smith, B.
lessons from traffic accidents. Paper presented 1998: Changing worlds, changing places: the
at ‘Building identities: gender perspectives on microgeographies of teenagers. Tijdschrift voor
children and urban space’ conference, Economische et Sociale Geografie 89, 193–202.
University of Amsterdam. Matthews, M.H. and Vujakovic, P . 1995: Private
Lewis, G.H. 1989: Rats and bunnies: ‘core kids’ in worlds and public places: mapping the
an American mall. Adolescence 24, 881–89. environmental values of wheelchair users.
Ley, D. 1974: The black inner city as a frontier Environment and Planning A 27, 1069–83.
outpost: images and behavior of a Philadelphia Maurer, R. and Baxter, J.C. 1972: Images of neigh-
neighbourhood. Association of American borhood among black, Anglo- and Mexican-
Geographers, Monograph Series 7. Washington, American children. Environment and Behavior 4,
DC: AAG. 351–58.
Ley, D. and Cybriwsky, R. 1974: Urban graffiti as Mayall, B. 1994: Children’s childhoods: observed and
territorial markers. Annals of the Association of experienced. London: Falmer.
American Geographers 64, 491–505. McKendrick, J., Bradford, M. and Fielder, A.
Lo, L. 1994: Exploring teenage shoplifting 1996: The business of children’s play. Paper
behavior: a choice and constraint approach. presented at the first programme meeting of
Environment and Behavior 26, 613–39. the ESRC ‘Children 5–16: growing into the
Lopatka, A. 1992: The rights of the child are twenty-first century’, University of Keele.
universal. In Freeman, M. and Veerman, P., McNeish, D. and Roberts, H. 1995: Playing it safe:
editors, The ideologies of children’s rights, today’s children at play. London: Barnardos.
Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 47–52. Michelson, W . and Michelson, E. 1980:
Lorenzo, R. 1996: Designing our cities together. Managing urban space in the interests of
Foligno, Italy: Foligno Press. children. Ekistics 281, 88–92.
Lowe, G., Foxcroft, D.R. and Sibley, D. 1993: Michelson, W . and Roberts, E. 1979: Children
Adolescent drinking and family life. Chur, and the urban physical environment. In
Switzerland: Harwood Academic. Michelson, W., Levine, S. and Spina, A., editors,
Lynch, K. 1977: Growing up in cities: studies of the The child in the city: changes and challenges,
spatial environment of adolescence in Cracow, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 410–78.
Melbourne, Mexico City, Salta, Toluca and Warsaw. Monk, J. 1992: Gender in the landscape:
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. expressions of power and meaning. In
Anderson, K. and Gale, F., editors, Inventing
Matthews, M.H. 1984: Environmental cognition places: studies in cultural geography, Melbourne:
of young children: images of journey to school Longman Cheshire, 123–38.
and home area. Transactions, Institute of British Moore, R.C. 1986: Children’s domain: play and play
Geographers NS 9, 89–106. space in child development. London: Croom
––––– 1986a: The influence of gender on the envi- Helm.
ronmental cognition of young boys and girls. Moore, R.C. and Young, D. 1978: Childhood
Journal of Genetic Psychology 147, 295–302. outdoors: towards a social ecology of the
––––– 1986b: Gender, graphicacy and geography. landscape. In Altman, I, and Wohlwill, J.F.,
Educational Review 38, 259–71. editors, Children and the environment, New York:
––––– 1987: Gender, home range and environmen- Plenum, 83–130.
tal cognition. Transactions, Institute of British
88 Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect

Nabham, G.P. and Trimble, S. 1994: The geography Qvortrup, J. 1985: Placing children in the division
of childhood: why children need wild places. Boston, of labour. In Close, P. and Collins, R., editors,
MA: Beacon Press. Family and economy in modern society, London:
Newell, P . 1991: The UN convention and children’s Macmillan, 129–45.
rights in the UK. London: National Children’s ––––– 1997: Childhood and societal macrostruc-
Bureau. tures. Paper presented at the second pro-
Newson, J. and Newson, E. 1977: Perspectives on gramme meeting of the ESRC ‘Children 5–16:
school at seven years old. London: Allen & growing into the twenty-first century’,
Unwin. University of Keele.
Noller, P. and Callan, V. 1991: The adolescent in the Qvortrup, J., Bardy, G., Sgritta, G. and
family. London: Routledge. Wintersberger , H., editors, 1994: Childhood
matters: social theory, practice and politics.
Olwig, K.R. 1993: Harmony, quintessence and Aldershot: Avebury.
children’s acquisition of concern for the natural
environment. Children’s Environments 10, 60–71. Riger, S. 1993: What’s wrong with empower-
Orleans, P. 1973: Differential cognition of urban ment? American Journal of Community Psy-
residents: effects of social scale on mapping. In chology 21, 279–92.
Downs, R.M. and Stea, D., editors, Image and Rivlin, L.G. and Wolfe, M. 1985: Institutional
environment, Chicago, IL: Aldine, 115–30. settings in children’s lives. New York: Wiley.
Owens, P.E. 1988: Natural landscapes, gathering Rivlin, L.G., Wolfe, M. and Beyda, M. 1973: Age
places and prospect refuges. Children’s related differences in the use of space. In
Environments Quarterly 5, 17–24. Preiser, W.F.E., editor, Environmental design
––––– 1994: Teen places in Sunshine, Australia: research. Vol. 1. London: Wiley, 191–203.
then and now. Children’s Environments 11, Roberts, I. and Coggan, C. 1994: Blaming
292–99. children for child pedestrian accidents. Social
Science and Medicine 38, 749–53.
Parkinson, C. 1987a: Children’s range behaviour. Rodaway, P. 1994: Sensuous geographies: body, sense
Birmingham: Playboard Association for and place. London: Routledge.
Children’s Play and Recreation.
––––– 1987b: Where children play. Birmingham: Satterthwaite, D., Hart, R., Levy, C., Mitlin, D.,
Playboard Association for Children’s Play and Ross, D., Smit, J. and Stephens, C. 1996: The
Recreation. environment for children. New York: UNICEF.
Payne, R.J. and Jones, D.R.W . 1977: Children’s Schiavo, R.S. 1988: Age differences in assessment
urban landscapes in Huntington Hills, Calgary. and use of a suburban neighbourhood
In Suedfield, P. and Russell J.A., editors, The among children and adolescents. Children’s
behavioral basis of design, Stroudsburg, PA: Environments Quarterly 5, 4–9.
Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 306–12. Senda, M. 1992: Design of children’s play environ -
Philo, C. , compiler, 1991: New words, new world: ments. London: McGraw-Hill.
reconceptualising social and cultural geography. Sibley , D. 1981: Outsiders in urban societies.
Lampeter: Department of Geography, St London: Blackwell.
David’s University College. ––––– 1991: Children’s geographies: some
––––– 1992: Neglected rural geographies. Journal of problems of representation. Area 23, 269–70.
Rural Studies 8, 193–207. ––––– 1992: Outsiders in society and space. In
Pile, S. 1996: The body and the city: psychoanalysis, Anderson, K. and Gale, F., editors, Inventing
space and subjectivity. London: Routledge. places: studies in cultural geography, Melbourne:
Pile, S. and Thrift, N. , editors, 1995: Mapping the Longman Cheshire, 107–21.
subject: geographies of cultural transformation. ––––– 1995a: Geographies of exclusion. London:
London: Routledge. Routledge.
Prout, A. and James, A. 1990: A new paradigm for ––––– 1995b: Families and domestic routines: con-
the sociology of childhood? Provenance, structing the boundaries of childhood. In Pile,
promise and problems. In James, A. and Prout, S. and Thrift, N., editors, Mapping the subject:
A., editors, Constructing and reconstructing geographies of cultural transformation, London:
childhood, London: Falmer Press, 7–34. Routledge, 123–37.
Purdy, L.M. 1992: In their best interest? The case Simmons, D. 1994: Urban children’s preferences
against equal rights for children. New York: for nature: lessons for environmental
Ithaca. education. Children’s Environments 11, 194–203.
Simpson, B. 1995: Children’s rights and urban
 Hugh Matthews and Melanie Limb 89

space: the challenge for the law. Paper children’s social networks, ‘virtual
presented at ‘Building identities: gender per- communities’, and on line spaces. Paper
spectives on children and urban space’ presented at the first programme meeting of
conference, University of Amsterdam. the ESRC ‘Children 5–16: growing up into the
Skelton, T . and Valentine, G. , editors, 1997: Cool twenty-first century’, University of Keele.
places: geographies of youth cultures. London: van Staaden, J.F . 1984: Urban early adolescents,
Routledge. crowding and the neighborhood experience: a
Smith, F. 1995: Children’s voices and the con- preliminary investigation. Journal of
struction of children’s spaces: the example of Environmental Psychology 4, 97–118.
playcare centres in the United Kingdom. van Vliet, W . 1983: Exploring the fourth
Children’s Environments 12, 389–96. environment: an examination of the home
Sommerville, J. 1982: The rise and fall of childhood. range of city and suburban teenagers.
London: Sage. Environment and Behavior 15, 567–88.
Spencer , C. and Blades, M. 1993: Children’s Vittachi, A. 1989: Stolen childhood: in search of the
understanding of places: the world at hand. rights of the child. Oxford: Polity Press.
Geography 78, 367–73.
Spencer, C., Blades, M. and Morsley, K. 1989: The Wals, A.E.J. 1994: Nobody planted it, it just grew!
child in the physical environment. Chichester: Young adolescents’ perceptions and
Wiley. experiences of nature in the context of urban
Steinfels, M.O. 1982: Children’s rights, parental education. Children’s Environments 11, 177–93.
rights, family privacy and family autonomy. In Ward, C. 1978: The child in the city. London:
Gaylin, W. and Macklin, R., editors, Who speaks Architectural Press.
for the child?, New York: Plenum, 116–30. ––––– 1988: The child in the country. London:
Stephens, S. 1995: Children and the politics of Bedford Square Press.
culture in ‘late capitalism’. In Stephens, S., Ware, V. and Cavanagh, S. 1992: Planning for
editor, Children and the politics of culture, children in public places. Children’s
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, Environments 9, 48–62.
38–55. Webley, P . 1981: Sex differences in home range
Suransky , V.P. 1982: The erosion of childhood. and cognitive maps in eight-year-old children.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Journal of Environmental Psychology 1, 293–302.
Weigand, P. 1993: Children and primary geography.
Therborn, G. 1996: Child politics: dimensions London: Falmer.
and perspectives. Childhood 3, 29–44. Weinstein, C.S. and David, T. 1987: Spaces for
children: the built environment and child
Valentine, G. 1992: Images of danger: women’s development. London: Plenum.
sources of information about the spatial distrib- White, R. 1993: Youth and conflict over urban
ution of male violence. Area 24, 22–29. space. Children’s Environments 10, 85–93.
––––– 1995: Stranger-danger: the impact of Whittle, S. , editor, 1994: The margins of the city: gay
parental fears on children’s use of place. Paper men’s urban lives. Aldershot: Ashgate.
presented at ‘Building identities: gender per- Wiljhelm, H. 1995: Children and planning: a
spectives on children and urban space’ recent Norwegian reform to improve the
conference, University of Amsterdam. physical environment of children and
––––– 1996a: Angels and devils: moral landscapes adolescents. Children’s Environments 12, 434–43.
of childhood. Environment and Planning D: Williams, M. 1996: Understanding geographical
Society and Space 14, 581–99. and environmental education. London: Cassell.
––––– 1996b: Children should be seen and not Williams, R., Bidlack, C. and Brinson, B. 1994:
heard: the production and transgression of The Rivers Curriculum Project: a cooperative
adults’ public space. Urban Geography 17, interdisciplinary model. Children’s Environ-
205–20. ments 16, 414–25.
––––– 1997a: ‘My son’s a bit dizzy.’ ‘My wife’s a bit Williamson, D.A., Williamson, S.H., Watkins,
soft’: gender, children and cultures of P.C. and Hughes, H.H. 1992: Increasing co-
parenting. Gender, Place and Culture 4, 37–62. operation among children using dependent
––––– 1997b: ‘Oh yes I can.’ ‘Oh no you can’t.’ group-oriented reinforcement contingencies.
Children and parent’s understanding of kids’ Behavior Modification 16, 414–25.
competence to negotiate public space safely. Winchester, H. 1991: The geography of children.
Antipode 29, 65–89. Area 23, 357–60.
Valentine, G. and Holloway, S. 1996: Cyberkids: ––––– 1992: The construction and deconstruction
90 Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect

of women’s roles in the urban landscape. In children in Sheffield and their perception
Anderson, K. and Gale, F., editors, Investing and use of public open space. Children’s
places: studies in cultural geography, Melbourne: Environments 12, 479–88.
Longman Cheshire, 139–55. Worpole, K. and Greenhalgh, L. 1995: Urban
Winchester, H. and Costello, L. 1995: Living on parks and open spaces. Streetwise 21, 3–6.
the street: social organisation and gender Wulff, H. 1995: Introducing youth culture in its
relations of Australian street kids. Environment own right. In Amit-Talai, V. and Wulff, H.,
and Planning D 13, 329–48. editors, Youth cultures: a cross cultural
Wolf, J. 1992: The concept of ‘best interest’ in perspective, London: Routledge, 1–18.
terms of the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child. In Freeman, M. and Veerman, P., Younis, J. 1980: Parents and peers in social
editors, The ideologies of children’s rights, development. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 125–34. Press.
Wolfson, S.A. 1992: Children’s rights: the
theoretical underpinning of the ‘best interests’ Zimring, C.M. and Barnes, R. 1992: Children’s
of the child. In Freeman, M. and Veerman, P., environments: implications for design and
editors, The ideologies of children’s rights, research. In Altman, I. and Low, S.M., editors,
Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 7–28. Place attachment, New York: Plenum, 309–18.
Woolley, H. and Amin, N. 1995: Pakistani