Public knowing of risk and children's independent mobility

Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53 www.elsevier.com/locate/pplann

Public knowing of risk and children’s independent mobility Julie Rudner * Architecture Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia

Abstract Risk is major factor that influences parent decision-making about whether they let their children go places by themselves. However, there is a paucity of research about how risk is conceived. This paper presents research that identified parents’, local government general managers’, and regulatory document conceptions about different dimensions of risk, and how these may be influenced by worry and expert knowledge. These dimensions included views on the environment, children’s competence, probability of adverse situations occurring, number and potential long-term impacts if adverse situations were encountered. The research also examined how the views of parents, local government general managers, and regulatory documents interacted to create a public knowing of risk that limits children’s independent mobility (CIM). The results indicate that children had limited independent mobility. This was supported by narrow views of children’s places and promotion of adult surveillance. Parents were more concerned about externally imposed situations representing deliberate harm by others rather than everyday type situations. Parents’ views were reflected by a variety of regulatory documents that positioned children as vulnerable to many adverse situations leading to potential longterm damage. While, general managers thought children should be permitted to use public space by themselves, they balanced their views with perceptions of parent and community tolerance for children in public space, and the regulatory environment in which they worked. Fieldwork was conducted in the western suburbs of Melbourne, Australia. It comprised a questionnaire completed by 160 parents, interviews with three general managers, and analysis of 237 regulatory documents from multiple levels of government. # 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Children; Independent mobility; Risk conception

Contents 1. 2.

3. 4.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Factors affecting CIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1. Age and gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2. Socio-economic status and ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3. Urban form, density and traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4. Social interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Affordances, fields of action, CIM and risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current conceptions of risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.1. Technical approaches to risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.2. Sociological approaches to risk: risk society and governmentality . . . . . . 4.1.3. Role of expert knowledge in technical and sociological approaches to risk 4.1.4. Anthropological approaches to risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.5. Urban design approaches to risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1.6. Psychological approaches to risk: risk affect and amplification of risk . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

* Present address: La Trobe University, PO Box 199, Bendigo, Victoria 3552, Australia. Tel.: +61 438 783 637; fax: +61 3 5444 7970. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0305-9006/$ – see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2012.04.001

. . . . . . . . . .

2 4 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 13

2

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

5. 6.

7.

8. 9.

Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1. Aims and research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2. Study area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3. Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1. Stage 1: parent questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2. Stage 2: general manager interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3. Stage 3: document review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4. Limitations of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results: creating a public knowing of risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1. Children’s mobility and knowing of children’s places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2. Conceptions of the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1. Physical environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2. Social environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3. Traffic environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3. Conceptions of children’s competence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4. Conceptions about the probability of adverse situations occurring if children go places on numbers harmed and duration of harm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5. Conceptions of expert knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6. Level of worry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7. Possibilities for reframing risk and CIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1. Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion—reframing risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Introduction Over recent years, researchers and planners1 in richer countries and some poorer countries have turned their attention towards children’s urban freedoms, in particular, children’s independent mobility (CIM). CIM refers to the use of public space by children under 18 years of age and who are not accompanied by an adult (Rudner, 2011: 1). Much of the research, from a variety of fields such as children’s geographies, play, physical activity and mobility, has examined where children go, how they get there and with whom. Generally, researchers have found children in richer countries who are in their later years of primary school have low levels of CIM and do not go many places on their own, although children’s urban freedoms tend to increase as they grow older (Ahmadi, 2007; Mackett, Brown, & Paskins, 2005; and others; Malone & Rudner, 2011; Porter & Blaufuss, 2002; Schlossberg, Paulsen Phillips, Johnson, & Parker, 2005; Shokoohi, Hanif, & Dali, 2011; Tranter & Pawson, 2001; van Vliet, 1985; Veitch, Salmon, & Ball, 2007). Identified factors that may 1

Planners will be referred to as ‘planners’ or ‘professionals’ for the rest of the paper.

........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ their own, ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 15 15 15 17 17 20 22 25 25 26 29 29 30 33 34

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

36 40 42 44 45 46 47 48 48

contribute to, or undermine CIM are numerous. They include increasing car use, distance to destinations, parents’2 preference for private school, heavy school bags, convenience, desire to spend time with children and after-school activities (Bjo¨rklid, 1996; Carver, Timperio, & Crawford, 2008; Fyhri, Hjorthol, Mackett, Fotel, & Kytta¨, 2011; Horelli, 2001; Kytta¨, 2004; Timperio, Crawford, Telford, & Salmon, 2004). In many parts of the world, social and cultural expectations indicate that children should not use public space by themselves. This creates a tension for planners and researchers who want to increase CIM. There is consensus amongst researchers and professionals that a diversity of accessible quality spaces that provide opportunities for children to play structured and unstructured games, to hide, to socialise, and to be challenged need to be incorporated in the urban environment (Burke, 2005; Hillman, Adams, & Whitelegg, 1990; Kytta¨, 2004; Lynch, 1977; Malone & Tranter, 2003; Tandy, 1991; Walsh, 2006). Yet children’s space continues to be defined separately from general public space (Tranter, 2

‘Parents’ is used to denote all caregivers e.g. parents, grandparents, older siblings, foster carers, etc.

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

2006; Walsh, 2006). Child appropriate spaces are relegated to specific sites within the urban fabric such as back yards, school yards, parks, and youth cafes where there is a strong degree of ‘child safe’ design, adult surveillance and control. According to Walsh (2006), planning processes encourage planners to consider child friendly spaces last, conceive children’s spaces specifically as parks, or fail to consider children’s spaces at all. A reorienting of planning efforts towards a broader inclusion of children in city life through provision of accessible physical spaces and places is required, but efforts in this direction may be undermined by poor understandings of risk. Parental anxiety about what might happen if children go out by themselves, and the impacts on parents if something bad happens, is one of the most significant factors that impact on CIM. Researchers have found parents and children express concern about traffic, stranger danger, and bullying (Blakely, 1994; Fotel & Thomsen, 2004; Jackson & Scott, 1999; Lee & Rowe, 1994; Pain, 2006; Valentine, 2004; and others; Weir, Etelson, & Brand, 2006). While these concerns appear to be universal, parents’ level of concern or worry about the things children might encounter when they go out by themselves and the ‘real’ dangers children may encounter vary across class, age, gender and ethnicity of children (Blakely, 1994; Valentine, 2004; Weir et al., 2006). There are also differences across countries and within countries. Parents in Australia, and richer parts of South Africa have higher levels of concern compared to Japan, poorer parts of South Africa and Tanzania; yet children in South Africa and Tanzania have a higher probability of encountering danger than in Australia or Japan (Behrens & Muchaka, 2011; Bwire, 2011; Driandra & Kinoshita, 2011). Intra-national and inter-national differences in CIM and parents’ concerns were also identified by Fyhri et al. (2011) in a comparison between Finland, Norway, England and Denmark. Essentially conceptions of ‘risk’ are not universal. On an everyday level, restricting CIM can help alleviate parents’ immediate anxiety and potential regret. Parents can spend time with their children while protecting them from potential harm. For parents who may be more willing to permit greater levels of CIM, constraining children’s freedom in public space allows parents to conform to social and behavioural norms. Compliance with perceived expectations of parenting can help parents avoid social stigma or blame that is often attributed to those who permit higher levels of CIM (Furedi, 2008; Gill, 2007b; Valentine, 2004). The complexity of understanding conceptions of risk and CIM extends beyond particular configurations of

3

demographics, the urban environment, and lifestyle preferences. There are also competing risks regarding children’s health, safety and future success. These competing risks place parents in a position where they have to assess and select which risks to prioritise and if they seek expert opinion, which expert knowledge to trust. These include the risks accruing from a lack of CIM such as obesity, underdeveloped spatial skills, and not being part of the right social group (BeckGernsheim, 1996). According to Adams (2006), Gill (2007a, 2007b), and Furedi (2008), regulatory documents interact to create a pervasive sense of uncertainty that increases parental anxiety about children’s safety, and undermines parents’ confidence. Strangely, there is a paucity of research about how risk is conceived as it relates to CIM, and how conceptions of risk are collectively created and sustained. Fotel and Thomsen (2004), Adams (2006) and Madge (2009) are notable exceptions. As a result, there is limited information available for planners to assist with their decision-making. This leaves planners, who are aiming to reverse low levels of CIM, in a ‘blind spot’. They may be undermining their own effectiveness or inadvertently contributing to parents’ concerns about CIM. The main aims of this paper are to convince planners that risk needs to be re-conceptualised, and to demonstrate how an understanding of risk and the processes that contribute towards public understandings of risk will assist planners to analyse and respond to the context in which they work in relation to CIM. Understanding risk can improve the conceptual basis of regulation, programme and project design. Various perspectives on risk are presented, but this paper primarily uses an ecological psychology approach as a framework based on a model developed by Kytta¨ (2004) that combines Gibson’s (1986) affordances and Reed’s (1993) fields of action. Affordances comprise the relationship between the multitude of action possibilities available within the environment, and individuals’ perception of, and ability to use what the environment offers. Fields of action refers to promoted actions, constrained actions, and free actions that influence individuals’ actualisation of affordances. To achieve the aims of this paper, the way in which parents, local government general managers (GMs) and regulatory documents conceive different dimensions of risk, and how they contribute towards a public knowing of risk is examined. While other studies provide valuable and practical information for researchers and practitioners, they may not be providing the conceptual insights that can initiate re-engagement with the issues at the fundamental level required if behaviour change

4

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

towards CIM is to occur. The ideas and data are based on a recent PhD thesis (Rudner, 2011). Fieldwork was conducted in the western suburbs of metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. Data collection and analyses included quantitative questionnaires of 160 parents, interviews with three general managers from the council, and content and thematic analysis of 237 documents from multiple levels of government. This paper does not seek to present a comprehensive account of CIM or a cross-cultural perspective on risk; it seeks to provide insights about conceptions of risk in relation to CIM from Australian research. In the following section, a brief overview of CIM is presented. Section 3 discusses the value of using Kytta¨’s model for understanding risk in relation to CIM. Section 4 introduces various perspectives on risk that provide insight into the social and cultural process that affect CIM. Section 5 describes the research methods. Section 6 presents the research results to demonstrate how different conceptions of risk interact to create a public knowing of risk that limits CIM. Section 7 discusses the research results. Section 8 concludes the paper with discussion about the adaption of Kytta¨’s model resulting from the research. 2. Factors affecting CIM There are a multitude of factors associated with parental decision-making and CIM, including demographics, conceptions of the environment, the culture of childhood/parenthood, and conceptions about the hazards children might encounter if they go places by themselves. Many of these influences are intertwined which can make it difficult to understand their

individual influences and their relationship to risk. To be effective at increasing CIM, planners need to understand broad trends affecting CIM, as well as other conditions that can change over time and maturity, and change from one location to another. Level of independent school travel, meaning travel without an adult, is probably the best place to start discussion. Independent school travel has become a cross-national indicator of CIM, and is useful for setting the international context. Table 2.1 shows levels of independent school travel from a selection of international studies. The table shows there are low levels of CIM across many cities and countries. The United States, and cities in England, Australia, Italy and Iran indicate the lowest levels of CIM. Japan, South Africa, Tanzania, have the highest levels of independent school travel, in addition to cities in England and Australia. The diversity of outcomes suggests CIM is location specific. Although many more studies have been conducted, much of the data does not distinguish independent from accompanied school travel (Moudon, Stewart, & Lin, 2010; Porter & Blaufuss, 2002; Ridgewell, Sipe, & Buchanan, 2005; Schlossberg et al., 2005; Timperio et al., 2006). In addition, there are studies about independent mobility that have not been assessed with regard to school travel (Diguiseppi, Roberts, Li, & Allen, 1998; Prezza et al., 2001; Wen, Kite, Merom, & Rissel, 2009). This paper, while including school travel data is focused more generally on CIM. 2.1. Age and gender Parental perceptions of children’s competence to negotiate traffic and social dangers are influenced by the

Table 2.1 Primary school children’s independent school travel.a,b Place

Year

%

Reference

Herfordshire, England Tehran, Iran Dunedin, New Zealand Tehran, Iran Rome, Italy Sweden NSW, Australia Sydney, Australia Christchurch, New Zealand Canberra, Australia Lewisham, England Cape Town, South Africa Japan Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania

2005 2009 2007 2007 2001 2001 2010 2001 2001 2001 2005 2010 2010 2010

29 30 35 36 16 or 39 40 45 48 50 57 63 73 83 73

Mackett et al. (2005:8) Shokoohi et al. (2011:21) Yelavich et al. (2008) in Freeman and Quigg (2009:400) Ahmadi (2007:278) Prezza et al. (2001:440) Bjo¨rklid (2004:55) Rudner and Malone (2011) Tranter and Pawson (2001:41) Tranter and Pawson (2001:41) Tranter and Pawson (2001:41) Mackett et al. (2005:8) Behrens and Muchaka (2011:175) Driandra and Kinoshita (2011) Bwire (2011:192)

a b

Data can represent to school, from school, and the average when both to and from school data was available. Information about individual cities has been provided where possible; alternatively it comprises an average from different study sites.

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

age of the child, their gender, and their maturity. There are significant differences between children’s autonomy when travelling to school or undertaking activities in public space for children under 11 years old compared with those aged 11–15 year. Between 8 and 12 years of age, children’s licences for independent mobility increase significantly. As such, many study populations focus on this age range (Harten & Olds, 2004; Kytta¨, 2004; Lee & Rowe, 1994; Mackett et al., 2005; Prezza, Alparone, Cristallo, & Luigi, 2005; Schlossberg et al., 2005; Tranter, 2006; Valentine, 2004; Ziviani, Kopeshke, & Wadley, 2006). Licences ‘‘...reflect parental judgements about the degree of maturity and competence required by their children to cope safely with the perceived dangers that lie outside the home’’ (Hillman et al., 1990: 6). Children’s independent mobility is also influenced by children’s gender. Although parents tend to permit nearly equal levels of independent mobility to boys and girls, males are more likely to go out in their neighbourhood (Blakely, 1994; Hillman et al., 1990; Valentine, 2004). Gender differences in mobility change as children age. Older female children tend to have less freedom than male children of similar age when it becomes dark due to concern about sexual assault (Blakely, 1994; Hillman et al., 1990; Valentine, 1997). Many children actually have the knowledge, maturity, and experience to negotiate urban space successfully. Fotel and Thomsen (2004) found that many parents trust and assist their children to be responsible. Although parents are concerned for their children in urban environments, parents help facilitate CIM through the transfer of skills, provision of instructions, and the use of technologies. For example, parents may teach their children to cross busy roads far from designated crossing points on the assumption that children, like adults, will choose the most direct route to their destination (Fotel & Thomsen, 2004). Pain (2006), Lee and Rowe (1994) and Malone (1999) assert that children often have the maturity to impose their own constraints based on what they want to do, willingness to act, and self-evaluation of being able to act successfully. 2.2. Socio-economic status and ethnicity It has been suggested that social class does not influence CIM (Hillman et al., 1990), however, later studies indicate that there may be class distinctions in the level of concern about traffic, social dangers and parental pressure to inhibit or promote CIM (Blakely, 1994; Lee & Rowe, 1994; Tranter & Pawson, 2001; Valentine, 2004). Parents from lower socio-economic

5

backgrounds may have higher levels of concern about traffic and strangers than middle class parents, but concern may be confounded by urban form (Blakely, 1994; Tranter & Pawson, 2001; Valentine, 2004; Weir et al., 2006). Regardless of concern, CIM can be influenced by wealth or economic necessity. Wealthier parents have greater access to the resources required to achieve immediate aims and long-term goals of creating ‘appropriate’ social relations for their children (Blakely, 1994). Compared to less advantaged families, wealthier parents have the means to enrol their children in geographically dispersed private schools and formalised commercial activities. Lower income families may not be able to make these choices, and their children may have greater independent mobility (McMillan, 2005). Family demographics and parent availability can make assessments of socio-economic status difficult, as children from single parent families, or from families in which both parents work, may have greater independent mobility than those children who have a parent available during non-school hours, regardless of socio-economic status (McMillan, 2005). Research from England and the United States suggest ethnic minority groups tend to impose more restrictions on their children’s independent mobility (Blakely, 1994; Valentine, 1997; Weir et al., 2006). This may be attributed to higher levels of concerns about traffic and social danger, compounded by issues of racism, and different cultural approaches to family relationships (Blakely, 1994; Valentine, 1997; Weir et al., 2006). Work in this area is sparse and often intertwined with the socio-economic status of the residential area studied, which makes it difficult to assess if these trends transcend class within a particular ethnic group. 2.3. Urban form, density and traffic Denser urban form has been linked to children’s active transport because the distances travelled to get to school and local area destinations are shorter. In the 1990s, Hillman et al. suggested mobility differences between Germany and England are partially attributed to Germany’s more compact urban form (Hillman et al., 1990). Compact urban form can offer greater environmental opportunities for children due to higher density population with relatively more public recreational space, a denser distribution of community facilities, better connectivity, more bicycle lanes and better public transport. However, the influence of urban form on CIM is inconclusive (McMillan, 2005; Mitra, Buliung, & Roorda, 2010).

6

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

When urban form is considered in terms of housing type and density, it seems that there is a mixed impact on children’s mobility. The influence of accommodation type on children’s independent mobility is enmeshed with other environmental and social influences such as the amount and type of open space provision in cities, and the socio-economic status of the neighbourhood (Blakely, 1994; Veitch, Bagley, Ball, & Salmon, 2006; Weir et al., 2006). For example, families living in apartments may permit greater independent mobility to children because they do not have access to a back yard for outdoor activities; alternatively, parents who have poor perceptions of their social and physical environments, may restrict children’s independent mobility for the same reasons (Hillman et al., 1990; Weir et al., 2006). Semi-private/public open space in the form of condominium courtyards, in middle class neighbourhoods, may facilitate independent mobility by providing both parents and children with a ‘testing’ ground towards general neighbourhood mobility (Prezza et al., 2001). There are also inconclusive results in relation to access to green space. Some literature indicates that there is a positive correlation between living in greener areas and positive perceptions of children’s autonomy (Prezza et al., 2005). However, other literature indicates that children may not be permitted to access more natural green areas due to perceptions of safety (Kytta¨, 2004). The question arises then as to how this green space is constituted spatially in the urban fabric, designed and used (Walsh, 2006). Perhaps in contrast to compact urban form, higher levels of CIM have been associated with suburban culde-sacs (Veitch et al., 2006; Walsh, 2006). Cul-de-sacs can contribute to a sense of control, territoriality and surveillance. Unfortunately the use of cul de sacs as a design feature may actually contribute to the car reliant culture that is implicated in traffic concerns. Cul-desacs, unless augmented by pathways to create pedestrian through ways, can create longer distances between residences and destinations. Car ownership has been cited as the primary reason that fewer children walk to school than previously. Transport systems tend to favour private transport, creating a poor pedestrian environment. High traffic volumes, speeds and poor driver behaviour create concern for both children and parents. Traffic concerns are often cited as the primary reason that parents drive their children to school, even while parents may be contributing to the situation (Blakely, 1994; Bjo¨rklid, 2004; Fotel & Thomsen, 2004; Hillman et al., 1990; McMillan, 2005; Tranter & Pawson, 2001). Research

suggests CIM could be increased with lower speed limits, longer crossing times, more crossing places and traffic calming interventions (Carver, Timperio, Hesketh, & Crawford, 2009; Hillman et al., 1990; Mackett, Brown, Gong, Kitazawa, & Paskins, 2007; Tranter & Pawson, 2001). Other transport related factors that impact on CIM include low levels of public transport use, perceived distance between children’s homes and schools, and actual distance between home and school, especially in some poorer countries (Bwire, 2011; Mashiri, Dube, & Maponya, 2009; Porter & Blaufuss, 2002). Cars facilitate longer home-school travel distances for many children who are affected by the closure of local area schools or new housing developments that lack infrastructure. In the United States, Schlossberg et al. (2005) have observed that the siting of schools in new development areas are far from established residential areas. Changes in the distances between home and school locations does not adequately explain current levels of mobility in Australia and perhaps elsewhere. The majority of children, who have completed questionnaires about their transport habits, indicated they live within two kilometres of their educational institution, yet are driven to school (Harten & Olds, 2004; Rudner, 2011; VicHealth, 2003; Ziviani et al., 2006). 2.4. Social interactions Some researchers have found children with greater independent mobility tend to be more socially connected and physically active within their neighbourhoods (Prezza et al., 2001; van Vliet, 1985; Veitch et al., 2006). The results from one study indicate that a sense of community continues to support more positive social perceptions as city size increases, which influences parental perceptions of social danger (Prezza et al., 2005). This is an important finding because ‘stranger danger’ is a major concern for parents. ‘Stranger danger’, which can be defined as assault, molestation or abduction by an unknown adult, is a major concern for parents and children, as is bullying by school acquaintances. Worry about stranger danger seems to transcend national boundaries (Behrens & Muchaka, 2011; Blakely, 1994; Bwire, 2011; Fyhri et al., 2011; Lee & Rowe, 1994; Malone & Rudner, 2011; McMillan, 2005; Porter & Blaufuss, 2002; Prezza et al., 2005; Shokoohi et al., 2011; Tranter & Pawson, 2001). In contrast to parental fears, and although difficult to obtain, statistics indicate that the majority of abductions and assaults against children are perpetrated

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

by family members and others known to the child (Finkelhor & Ormrod, 2000). Many researchers have indicated that media, government information and gossip influences parents’ conceptions risk in relation to children (Furedi, 2008; Gill, 2007a, 2007b; Hillman et al., 1990; Valentine, 2004). 3. Affordances, fields of action, CIM and risk To help conceptualise how parents’, GMs’ and regulatory document conceptions of risk interact and impact on CIM, this paper applies a model, developed by Finnish researcher, Marketta Kytta¨. This model, which is shown in Fig. 2.1, was based on empirical data about the type and number of action possibilities available to children in urban environments, children’s perceptions of these action possibilities, and children’s ability to actualise these possibilities. Other more detailed models have been developed by McMillan (2005), Johansson (2006), Shokoohi et al. (2011) and Pont, Ziviani, Wadley and Abbot (2011). However, Kytta¨’s (2003, 2004) model is valuable because it combines two approaches from ecological psychology to explain individuals’ relationships with their environments as well as the parameters that guide children’s actions within their environments: Gibson’s (1986) affordances and Reed’s (1993) fields of action. Affordances comprise the relationships between elements in the environment that can be perceived by all individuals, and a particular individual’s capabilities to use those properties. ‘‘Affordances are real properties of the environment, even while they are specified relationally’’ (Chawla & Heft, 2002: 202, emphasis in original). According to Reed (1993):

Fig. 2.1. Kytta¨’s model of the relationship between affordances and fields of action Source: Kytta¨ (2003: 82). Printed with permission from Kytta#.

7

The field of promoted action (FPA)...encompasses those affordances (natural or social) to which a child’s attention and activities are directed by others. There is also a field of free action (FFA)...The FFA encompasses those affordances and activities that the individual is both capable of accomplishing on his or her own, and is allowed by social circumstances to do so (Reed, 1993: 70, parentheses in original). In the model, the flat circle of potential affordances represents the environmental opportunities available to children. The three oblongs represent Reed’s fields of action, which were extended by Kytta¨’s (2003) addition of the field of constrained action. This field encompasses those affordances and activities that can be actualised, but are socially unacceptable. Through active exploration individuals learn whether the activities they want to undertake are supported or constrained by their environments (Gibson, 1986). Individuals apply knowledge gained from past experience to decipher future possibilities and action possibilities of their environments (Kytta¨, 2003). Heft explains (2001: 179), ‘‘perceiving shades off into what will be experienced and what was experienced: It is both prospective and retrospective’’. Limited actualisation of affordances limits perceptions of prospective affordances, while greater actualisation of affordances creates opportunities for other action possibilities. Perception, use and assessment of affordances are embedded within social and cultural norms and expectations learned through individuals’ active engagement with the environment. According to Mead (1964) individuals learn about their world the interplay within the self and between the self and the environment. Language, images, artefacts, and modes of conduct are given meaning through these interactions (Charon, 1992). In addition to social and cultural processes, the material environment embodies knowledge (Costall, 1995; Heft, 2001) because it ‘‘. . . contains the intent of its designers, and the social and cultural intents of society’’ (Rudner, 2011: 17). As a result knowledge is transferred through space and time, and between individuals and their environments, creating an enlarged public knowing. Children learn the preferred meanings and intended affordances of objects within specific social and cultural practices (Costall, 1995). In addition, children learn that ‘specialisations’ such as age, gender, and social status influence the behaviour of individuals by determining ‘‘what affordances can be utilised, by whom, and when’’ (Reed, 1993: 52, emphasis in original). These processes

8

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

of socialisation within multiple social spheres, such as the immediate family, the broader social environment, and specific milieus or settings like school and work (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). These broader structures comprise dynamic interactions between individuals and different systems and sub-systems of knowledge which can reinforce, contest and create personal, social and public meanings – including the definition of responsibilities and obligations of individuals within social systems (Costall, 1995; Reed, 1993). Kytta¨’s (2004) model helps to re-conceptualise risk and to understand how conceptions of risk influences CIM, as well as parental and professional decisionmaking about CIM. Currently, conceptions of risk tend to be passive, assuming that a hazard, situation or event impacts on a person, situation or thing leading to a negative outcome. The concept of affordances permits ‘risk’ to be viewed more actively, with greater emphasis placed on the relationship between children’s intent to use their environments, what their environments offer, and their capabilities to achieve desired outcomes. Fields of action highlight that there are both positive and negative pressures to conform with social and cultural norms about when, how and what affordances should and can be used, and by whom, while also recognising the role of individual agency and self-selective use of the environment. While affordances and risk are both about possibilities, they differ in how possibility is understood. With affordances, an action either can be actualised fully, partially or not at all. With risk, potential actualisation of affordances is assessed in terms of potential costs and rewards in relation to desired outcomes. Retrospective and prospective knowledge of affordances assists individuals to use their environment intentionally; risk assessment may affect intent and selectivity of affordances. For example, if two able bodied adults each decided to jump a set of stairs on a skateboard, the risk would differ if one adult did not know how to skate and one adult was an expert skater. The nonskateboarding adult would have a higher probability of falling, a lower probability of regaining footing if a fall occurs, and greater potential gains and losses in the tradeoff between satisfaction from a successful jump and a serious injury from a failed jump. In comparison, for a highly experienced skateboarder, the probability of falling would be much lower, the probability of regaining footing if a fall occurs would be higher, and the tradeoff between gains and losses between a successful and successful jump would be lower. The difference in the ability to fulfil

intended outcomes is conditional on earlier exposure to similar type situations, and the knowledge, skill and experience gained through engagement with uncertainty. 4. Current conceptions of risk Planners and researchers recognise that risk is a major impediment to CIM. However, risk is incredibly complex and pervasive. An indepth understanding of the various incarnations of risk is required if planners are to ensure their effectiveness to increase CIM. Risk is used interchangeably to denote a variety of elements such as hazards, impacts, outcomes, chance, probability, possibility, victim, questionable decision-making or conduct (risky), and situations (Rudner, 2011: 19). When risk is used in relation to children, it is often used to denote a likely negative outcome, even if the probability of a particular outcome occurring is low (Gill, 2007b; Furedi, 2008). The entrenchment of negative views of risk necessitates a new conceptualisation. It is more productive to view risk as ‘‘a relationship between the intent of an agent (individual, group, or organisation), what the environment offers, and the capabilities of an agent to use the environment in the intended manner. Trade-offs between possible costs and benefits in order to potentially achieve desired outcomes are part of ongoing decision-making processes, or stream of action, in the agent-environment relationship’’ (Rudner, 2011: 20). Viewing risk as a relationship recognises that positive and negative outcomes are possible, and the likelihood of certain events occurring is based on each child’s unique constellation of knowledge, skills and experiences. This approach creates a more balanced view of children’s environmental affordances that can change over time in relation to different circumstances and children’s ongoing development. It also recognises that children need larger fields of promoted and free action in urban environments than they currently enjoy, so they can explore their own capabilities in relation to their environments. While a re-conceptualisation of risk is promoted in this paper, other perspectives about risk are equally important. Work from actuarial studies, sociology, anthropology and psychology provide planners with valuable insights about risk management, how risk is constructed though knowledge systems and organisations, as well as how risk is perceived and communicated. Before going further, it is worth taking a quick look at the major assumptions that inform different approaches to risk. Distilling work by Fox (1999), there

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

appears to be three main assumptions underlying various conceptions of risk, as follows: 1) hazards and their risks are real (technical approaches); 2) hazards are objective measurable phenomena, but the risks associated with hazards are culturally created (sociology); and 3) hazards and their associated risks are contextdependent and socially created through science based on value judgements about desirable or undesirable outcomes (sociology and anthropology). While each assumption tends to be linked to a particular approach to risk, there can be fluidity in how and when hazards and their associated risks are applied within the discourse. In being able to recognise these assumptions, planners can better evaluate the position of other professionals or professions, communicate more effectively and better evaluate which perspectives to use when analysing, explaining and or making decisions with regard to risk and CIM. 4.1.1. Technical approaches to risk Most planners will be familiar with notions of technical risk. Technical risk informs processes and practices of risk management through the identification of potential hazards, associated probabilities of occurrence, affected populations, and potential impacts of hazards (Dean, 1999). Based on the scientific method, this approach assumes there is a common understanding of risk that emerges from real, observable, measurable, and assessable phenomena. Risk management has been developed to increase our knowledge and control of risk, the focus of which is reassurance and certainty (Crook, 1999; Dean, 1999; Fox, 1999). Each research discipline or professional field is a system of knowledge that creates and reproduces its own conceptions of risk. Appropriate risk management is based on the specific assumptions, methods, models, and experts who comprise the knowledge system (Burgman, 2005). Each system also develops and maintains a credible narrative that creates a plausible framing of risk for individuals and professionals to assess. For example, transport organisations concerned with efficient motorised mobility use crash statistics to identify the probability of children having a traffic accident (Adams, 2006). In contrast, health promotion, practitioners using problem definition and lifestyle factors to identify risks to children’s health such as

9

obesity (Giles-Corti & Donovan, 2002). Ultimately, competing fields of expert advice are created, and each knowledge system leads to a different conclusion: transport assesses children’s environmental affordances as negative and seeks to enlarge children’s fields of constrained action; health assesses children’s environmental affordances as positive and encourages larger fields of promoted action. By framing the agenda as to who, what and how risk should be labelled and controlled, knowledge systems entrench unconscious or assumed values of risk through risk management. Unlike other fields, thresholds of risk acceptability or tolerance have not been identified when it comes to CIM. Morally, the acceptability or tolerance of risk to children appears to be zero. As a result, Gill (2007a, 2007b) claims accidents in the regulatory realm have transformed from a condition of childhood to a condition of poor management. Narrow application of technical risk approaches to children’s development through safety regulations have been criticised for being inappropriate (Gill, 2007a, 2007b). Safety regulations that are designed to prevent worst-case scenarios, are applied more broadly as if all children are potential victims, rather than focusing on children’s skills development to assess and manage risk (Gill, 2007a, 2007b). When accidents, injury, or abuse happen, they are closely examined to identify causes, responsibilities and preventative actions. As a result, technical approaches to risk are associated with high levels of surveillance over children. Not only are universal solutions counterproductive to children’s development, children and their carers can be vilified. Causes of accidents are often attributed to children’s lack of awareness; blame is attached to a lack of surveillance by carers; and interventions are aimed at preventing similar situations from occurring in future which can impinge on personal discretion (Furedi, 2008; Gill, 2007a, 2007b). 4.1.2. Sociological approaches to risk: risk society and governmentality Risk has become a social and regulatory structure that affects CIM and the work of planners to increase CIM. The emergence of risk as a structuring force is characterised as an individual and a social condition of generalised uncertainty. Giddens (1999: 3) claims we live in a risk society that is ‘‘increasingly preoccupied with the future (and also with safety), which generates the notion of risk’’. Within the risk society, to be riskaverse is considered to be a normal and rational way of being. Risk management is a major tool through which

10

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

social and cultural codes are created. These codes designate who, what, and how risk should be labelled and controlled (Dean, 1999; Iveson, 2006; Kelly, 2007; Rothstein, Huber, & Gaskell, 2006). Controlling uncertainty ‘‘involves the regulated distribution of bodies in space and time, combined with the constant potential of surveillance’’ (Bevir, 1999: 378–379). For example, transport bodies define children as the problem when traffic accidents occur, rather than the transport system. As such, transport bodies encourage specific risk-averse behaviours such as adult surveillance of children in public space. This type of social regulation defines children’s environmental affordances and promotes children’s enlarged fields of constrained action. Dean (1994: 134) asserts there has been a ‘‘. . .shifting of the liberal problematic of security from the security of social and economic processes to the security of governmental mechanisms’’. To protect governmental mechanisms successful risk management relies upon individuals to conduct themselves ‘responsibly’. Through education, economic incentives and disciplinary sanctions, individuals are encouraged to internalise proscribed risk management actions. Responsible conduct is defined by accepted norms of adult behaviour and by deferring to existing systems. In the case of traffic, the transport system is protected, rather than changing the system to protect children. As Adams (2006: 81 – italics in original) comments ‘‘the central message for parents and children is the normality of traffic danger and the importance of deferring to it’’. The use of risk as a regulatory instrument influences, but does not ensure, outcomes. Individuals have personal agency to internalise, contest, or disengage with governing structures. However, individuals who engage with uncertain circumstances or designated hazards against risk management advice are assumed to lack knowledge or the capabilities to avoid harm (Breakwell, 2007). Significantly, those who do not conform are labelled as either ‘at risk’ or more bluntly as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ (Douglas, 1992). In this way, internalisation or rejection of governing and social structures of risk becomes an externally imposed identity and a mode of conduct (Lash, 1994). 4.1.3. Role of expert knowledge in technical and sociological approaches to risk Planners play complicated roles as both purveyors and consumers of risk regulation and therefore expert knowledge about CIM. So, it is essential that planners

understand how they simultaneously contribute to both an improvement and undermining of parents’ personal discretion and their own professional discretion in relation to risk and CIM. Planners regulate individuals and themselves by promoting systems of knowledge that are self-sustaining and self-referential, yet they also change these systems. These conflicting relationships occur through engagement of risk management structures (Rothstein et al., 2006). In Furedi’s (2008) examination of the phenomenon of ‘paranoid parenting’, he found that experts from academia to government used risk management practices to frame children’s development issues and parenting within a context of improvement and intervention. ‘Expert’ advice was regularly promoted as legitimate knowledge, while parents’ personal discretion was devalued as ignorance. In Furedi’s (2008) opinion, the volume, extent, and pervasiveness of expert views about parenting and children’s development contributed to a pervasive sense of uncertainty and parents’ lack of trust in their own competencies. In contemporary society, risk management has become more of a personal responsibility, requiring individuals to develop their own relationships with expert knowledge. However, decision-making and prioritising risk has become evermore complex, due to significant changes in the relationships between individuals, government institutions, and science (Beck, 1994, 2009; Giddens, 1994). Beck (1994, 2009) claims individuals are now less trusting and more critical of expert knowledge. Perhaps paradoxically, Giddens (1994) asserts expert systems are becoming increasingly influential as individuals turn to scientific knowledge for advice about how to manage personal risks. Ironically, rather than creating certainty, uncertainty dominates decision-making due to different and/ or conflicting expert assessments of risk (Crook, 1999; Dean, 1999; Fox, 1999). Conflict occurs because there are different systems of risk, and each system produces and reproduces its own risk through reflexive decision-making and communication processes (Luhmann, 2008). Professionals engage with hazards and situations in which risk is observed and defined as part of the decision-making process (Luhmann, 2008). In this context, professionals are observing their own risks; they are observing other parties; and these other parties are observing decisionmakers. To meet public expectations, undesirable risks and unexpected risks are incorporated into decisionmaking processes to legitimise decision-making options and enables systems to maintain consistent actions even

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

when the outcomes are poor (Jaeger, Renn, Rosa, & Webler, 2001, Luhmann, 2008). Systems become self-referential and self-protecting due to processes of social observation and due to the distinction between decision-makers and those affected by decisions (Japp & Kushe, 2008). However, conflict emerges when different subsystems interact. Decisions made in one system affect multiple systems. Even when systems have access to similar information and knowledge about risk, each system interprets and uses this information differently (Jaeger et al., 2001). Jaeger et al. (2001: 196) summarise the issue of inter-system conflict: Second, social systems within a society construct their own reference system for explaining and changing reality without much understanding of competing systems with which they interact and share common resources. Planners are caught in the crossfire of different expert knowledge systems. For example, planners use expert knowledge about planning, children’s development and children’s playspace design to allocate and design parkland for recreational activities and playgrounds for children of various ages – provided they are not selecting play equipment from playground standards guides. However, planning and design processes are influenced by regulatory documents and procedures of organisational risk. Plans and designs are adjusted to minimise the possibility of children and other members of the public creating or encountering adverse situations, and to meet insurance requirements aimed to protect organisations if an adverse situation occurs. Gill (2007a: 31) states that: [i]nsurance providers often make compliance with safety standards and guidance a condition of insurance, regardless of their legal or scientific status or their relevance to local needs or circumstances. Liability claims are made – and sometimes conceded – on the basis of non-compliance, even if there is little or no causal connection with the injury. From a distance, insurance providers circumscribe planners’ fields of action, which then impact on children’s fields of action in public space. The restrictions occur through interpretation of legal liability and duty of care. Gunder and Hillier (2004: 218) notes, ‘‘[t]o act professionally as a committed planner requires a selfimposition of behaviours and practices that meet the expectations, norms and dominant values of the planning discipline’’; it also means imposing risk management behaviours and practices.

11

4.1.4. Anthropological approaches to risk Douglas (1992) contested technical approaches to risk because they exclude social, political and moral influences from discussion and decision-making about risk. The separation of technical risk from culture can have subtle but extensive effects. Technical approaches allow assumptions of risk aversion to go un-examined alongside assumptions about the designated roles, responsibilities and identities of children and adults in society. Douglas (1992) provides strong arguments for planners to evaluate their understandings of risk and how their understandings might affect their work as it applies to children’s environmental affordances, fields of action and CIM. Cultural value and belief systems can subsume individual conceptions of risk within larger social groups through sanctions. Whereas taboo was used to maintain the integrity of social groups values by governing individual behaviour in the past, this role is now played by risk (Douglas, 1992). Reflective of earlier discussion: Douglas (1992) notes that transgression of boundaries in the past were associated with notions of sinning or being sinned against, but are now defined through risk by individuals being ‘at-risk’, a victim of harm, or as being harmful. When individuals fail to act in ways to protect against risk to the self and to others, stigma and blame are attributed because social boundaries have been transgressed (Rudner, 2011: 30). It could be argued that risk aversion has become the default expectation for children and adults, with subsequent impacts on children’s ability to actualise environmental affordances. Adult surveillance, chauffeuring, and risk-averse decision-making that restrict children’s independent use of public space are supported as normalised activities, whereas permitting children’s greater freedom is not. Risk-averse modes of conduct rely on conceptions of children as vulnerable and incompetent, rather than active and resourceful. As such, children are labelled as either vulnerable or ‘at risk’ from potential dangers or ‘at risk’ to other children and adults because they transgress child–adult boundaries, and may engage in behaviour that is considered to be anti-social and hazardous (Jackson & Scott, 1999; Valentine, 2004). Parents are also implicated in this labelling process through their role as risk managers. Depending on the extent to which parents conform to expert advice and contemporary parenting culture in relation to protecting

12

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

or controlling their children, they may be labelled good or bad (Furedi, 2008; Gill, 2007b; Jackson & Scott, 1999; Tranter, 2006; Valentine, 2004). In Australia, permitting children to walk to school on their own can be viewed as voluntarily subjecting children to potential harm. ‘‘In this scenario, parents incur two risks: a possible adverse event happening to the child; and possible moral judgement of parental decision-making’’ (Rudner, 2011: 39). Risk management, along with potential stigma and blame if something goes wrong, can act to undermine parents’ trust and confidence in their own ability to assess their children’s maturity, knowledge, and experience, or parents’ willingness to test their trust in relation to children’s competencies due to social norms (Gill, 2007a; Jackson & Scott, 1999; Valentine, 2004). As Kelly (Kelly, 2007: 40) notes: ‘‘. . . discourses of risk attempt to visit new forms of responsibility and obligation on young people and their families to prudently manage present behaviours and dispositions in order to ward off the possibility of future harm, danger or uncertainty’’. 4.1.5. Urban design approaches to risk Planners are already familiar with urban design approaches to risk and uncertainty, however the contribution of urban design for understanding risk and CIM is worth reviewing. Design approaches are based on psychological and sociological understandings of uncertainty and control in urban space. Personal wellbeing is affected when the identity of individuals are confronted by uncertainty. Risk creates insecurity and a desire to control the causes of anxiety through fight, flight, or freeze (Aicher, 1998; Lyng, 1990; Porteous, 1977). Whether one is conscious or sensitive to one’s own existence, risk presents a possibility of spiritual, psychic, or physical harm or death (Langford, 2002). Instinctual, physiological and emotional responses, beyond the mere cognitive practices of risk management, direct attention to possible danger, and enable individuals to act without thinking if necessary (Aicher, 1998; Langford, 2002; Porteous, 1977; Slovic, Finucane, Peters, & MacGregor, 2004). In urban environments, dealing with threats to identity is embedded within individuals’ sense of territory, community and place. Dovey (2001: 48) in his discussion of place, refers to Gidden’s belief that ‘ontological security’ is a combination of the continuity of the self, and of individuals’ social and physical environments. This view is supported by Aicher (1998: 34), who stresses

that stability of self and environment is defined by territory as it ‘‘express[es] self-determination, control, freedom, and identity’’. In a different vein, these ideas were identified by Newman (1972) who advanced the view that increased security was associated with delineation of territory through design, which is currently supported by crime prevention through environmental design literature (Parnaby, 2006). While continuity of environments and territories can promote a sense of community and security, a geographically based collective identity can also create uncertainty if its residents view change or other people as ‘outsiders’ or threats (Forrest & Kearns, 2001). Reflecting the literature about the risk society, Cresswell (2004) argues loss of traditions induced by globalisation can create a sense of insecurity within local places and spaces. These changes affect the relationship between individuals, their identities and their environments. In areas of change, segments of a local population may desire a past that comprised a socially homogenous neighbourhood with shared traditions, classes, ethnicity and a low level of transcience. Douglas (1992) notes that those who do not conform to dominant images of the ‘community’ may be socially constructed as dangerous and morally degenerate – values often associated with various combinations of race, gender, age and socio-economic status. These ‘others’ are accredited with producing ‘‘‘insidious harm’ to the public good’’ (Douglas, 1992: 87) and are de-politicised and abstractly constructed (Parnaby, 2006). In terms of CIM, there are at least two definitions of the other: adult strangers, and uncontrolled children. As the earlier review of social interactions in relation to CIM indicated, concern about strangers and uncontrolled children affects adult views of children’s environmental affordances, fields of action and CIM. Notions of insiders-outsiders are not restricted to local neighbourhood places. Iveson (2006: 49) in his work on youth in public space, demonstrates how defining, labelling, monitoring and controlling the ‘at risk’ behaviours of ‘outsiders’ can affect children in other city spaces. He argues one of the key assumptions of regulation of public spaces is ‘‘an agreed destination – a city that is orderly, conflict-free and controllable’’ (Iveson, 2006: 49). The ideology of order and harmony is used politically to justify measures of control by and on behalf of a particular class of ‘economic’ citizen defined as workers, land-owners, business people, and tourists, who are imbued with particular desires. It is their freedom as that is protected in public space. This is operationalised through instruments of governance that

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

aim to achieve certain economic, political and regulatory objectives to maintain a ‘safe, clean’ environment (Iveson, 2006) while limiting children’s fields of action. 4.1.6. Psychological approaches to risk: risk affect and amplification of risk Understanding the role of emotion in decisionmaking about CIM is important as it provides planners with insight into individual conceptions of risk. Parents are putting something at stake (their child), without a guaranteed outcome (safety). Jaeger et al. (2001: 17, emphasis in original) underscores this point with their definition: ‘‘Risk a situation or event in which something of human value (including humans themselves) has been put at stake and where the outcome is uncertain’’. For each parent or social groupings of parents, their intents, values, and perceived tradeoffs will differ, leading to rational but diverse outcomes. Slovic (2007) and his colleagues found that risk conception is strongly influenced by individuals’ sense of control, competence and self-efficacy. Longer-term, familiar chronic risks which individuals viewed as more controllable were preferred over intense, unpredictable, and unfamiliar risks (Fischhoff, Slovic, Lichtenstein, Read, & Combs, 1978; Siegrist, Keller, & Kiers, 2005). A more wholistic approach to understanding people and their particular rationalities in relation to risk is required. The affect heuristic recognises the influence of emotions on risk conception and risk communication on emotion by combining experiential (emotional) with analytic (rational) systems. The analytic system comprises logical assessment, evidence, and thoughtful consideration. In contrast, the experiential system

13

comprises emotions, memory and immediate needs. Originally developed by Epstein (1994), the risk heuristic is believed to comprise a library of ‘images, metaphors and narratives’ that are ‘tagged’ with varying degrees of positive and negative emotions which individuals access during decision-making (Slovic et al., 2004: 316). A summary of the differences between these systems is presented in Table 4.1a. Understanding risk communication can help planners better understand how they may affect parents and other professionals through inadvertent manipulation of affect. Expert knowledge about potential adverse situations children might encounter if they go places by themselves may contribute to a public knowing of risk. This can occur through the type of stories or events they discuss or report, the content of messages, and how messages are framed. Kasperson et al.’s (1988) work provides a clue as to how certain risks may become prominent or fade. Based on a model of an electronic signal system, the social amplification of risk framework is used to study the messages, message producers, and the dynamic of interacting agents (psychological, social, institutional, cultural) that result from a risk related event (Kasperson et al., 1988). According to Kasperson et al. (1988), amplification of risk situations is believed to include high frequencies of risk messages, focus on specific aspects of a risk message that create heightened response, high credibility and high reliability of the message source, a large diversity of sources relaying the same message, and the content order of the message. Risk attenuation processes demonstrate opposite characteristics. Table 4.1b provides a summary of the social amplification of risk model. In social amplification processes, different agents compete in the public arena for message dominance by disseminating a specific meaning of risk. These

Table 4.1a Two modes of thinking: comparison of the experiential and analytic systems. Experiential system

Analytic system

1. Holistic 2. Affective: pleasure-pain oriented 3. Associationistic connections 4. Behaviour mediated by ‘‘vibes’’ from past experiences 5. Encodes reality in concrete images, metaphors and narratives 6. More raid processing: oriented towards immediate action 7. Self-evidently valid: ‘‘experiencing is believing’’

1. Analytic 2. Logical: reason oriented (what is sensible) 3. Logical connections 4. Behaviour mediated by conscious appraisal of events 5. Encodes reality in abstract symbols, words and numbers 6. Slower processing: oriented towards delayed action 7. Requires justification via logic and evidence

Source: Slovic et al. (2004).

14

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

Table 4.1b Kasperson et al.’s (1988) categories of the social amplification of risk. Category

Category description

Volume Filtering Muting and adding effect Equalizer effect Stereo effect Mixing effect

Number of messages available. The particular parts of the information that are highlighted or downplayed. The effect of purposeful or accidental changes to the original message. The embedded context of the message, for example a journal article or a sensationalised newspaper article; The diversity of places from which the same message is relayed. How the content of messages are ordered

messages may be incorporated individuals’ retrospective and prospective experiences through the following means (Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky, 1982):  availability of information in terms of recall and imagination;  representativeness of hazards in relation to previously held knowledge;  anchoring effects caused by preceding opinions or information;  framing effects which creates ‘‘a change in the presentation of a choice influences choice behaviour, even when the objective characteristics (outcomes or probabilities) are not changed’’ (distillation of Kahneman and Tversky, 1979, 1984 by Burgman, 2005: 17). Slovic et al. (2004) note that the affect system can be intentionally or unintentionally manipulated through availability and representativeness within risk communication. Researchers studying CIM, free play, and physical activity observe that that mass media, gossip, and regulation influence parents’ conceptions of risk by focusing on worse-case scenarios (Gill, 2007b; Malone, 1999; Valentine, 2004). According to Slovic (1993) communication about negative events is more influential than positive events because negative events are more noticeable, definable, and credible. However, the authority and credibility of information producers affects the credibility and plausibility of risk narrative, as does individuals’ previously held conceptions of risk (Breakwell, 2007; Slovic, 1993). Traumatic stories, which feature frequently in news media, can help ‘prime’ parents and other individuals to media and expert interpretation of the dangers that children may encounter. Media organisations often use ‘outrage’ to intensify emotional responses (Tulloch et al., 1998), making and images readily available and easy to recall. Individuals may feel an event is a typical situation if they had experiences that relate to a specific event regardless of actual frequency (Jaeger et al., 2001). In

the case of situations involving children, being a parent may be enough of a link for representativeness to occur, resulting in children’s enlarged fields of constrained action and limited CIM. 5. Problem Planning as a practice is guided by a rational scientific approach (Sandercock, 1977; Healey, 1997). The planning profession tends to disregard ‘‘instincts, drives and feelings originating from physiological and psychological conditions and social experience’’ (Hoch, 2006: 368). This is problematic when developing interventions or communicating about risk, because risk comprises cognitive, experiential and emotional aspects (Slovic et al., 2004). Parents are often viewed as ‘irrational’ because they make decisions about CIM that are influenced by worry rather than objective data or prioritising children’s independence. However, parents are rational in terms of the values they place on their children and how they choose which risks to engage and avoid so they can achieve their desired outcomes with regard to keeping their children safe and preparing them for the future. Planners could help to re-conceptualise risk, and risk structures as they relate to CIM. They are trained to use their expertise to identify, weigh, balance and communicate diverse knowledge claims in relation to planning issues. However to be effective, planners need to be able to successfully negotiate the various ways in which risk affects adult views of children’s environmental affordances, children’s fields of action and CIM. Planning and associated fields require the introduction, testing and recognition of new knowledge claims about risk and regulation. As Rydin (2007) notes: . . .the planning system should be conceptualized as a series of arenas in which a variety of knowledges engage with each other, with planners not just responsible for procedural aspects of the engagement but more actively involved in the co-generation of

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

knowledge through testing and recognizing knowledge claims (Rydin, 2007: 56). 6. Research design 6.1. Aims and research questions Researchers from fields associated with CIM have enquired about potential hazards of the physical, social, and traffic environment that make parents concerned for children’s safety, and the role of regulation in contributing to parents’ anxiety. However, how risk is conceived in relation to CIM is an area that has been overlooked. This paper aims to address this gap in knowledge by showing how parents, local government general managers (GMs), and regulatory documents contribute to a public knowing of risk in relation to the independent mobility of children aged 9–12 years. The main proposition driving this claim is that parents, local government officers and regulatory documents have different conceptions of risk and enact different conceptions of risk, but these differences interact to limit CIM. Fieldwork was conducted using a three-part multilevel design that comprised questionnaires, interviews, and regulatory document review. 6.2. Study area Research was conducted in Brimbank City Council local government area. The area, presented in Fig. 6.1, is located about 10–20 km north and west of the Melbourne central business district, and comprises 17 suburbs. It had a population of 168,215 individuals in 2006, of which 25% were aged under 18 years (profile.ID, 2008: no page). Children aged 9–12 years comprised 6% (9616) of the total population (profile.ID, 2008: no page). Brimbank was originally settled as an agricultural area and transformed into a working class industrial area. It is now a highly diverse urban centre in terms of population, socio-economic status, and industry. In the early 20th century Brimbank was a growing industrial area. Development to accommodate industry and provide housing and other services for factory workers had a significant impact on urban form and structure. Over time, the area became a patchwork of low-density housing interspersed with commercialindustrial sites. While housing estates in the early years of the city’s growth resembled the grid format, housing estates in later years were developed with winding roads and cul-de-sacs characterising much of the newer

15

residential areas. Provision of access pathways to facilitate connectivity and movement between streets in the new development areas were limited, thereby limiting passage to the few destinations that exist. Transport infrastructure also left an indelible imprint on the city. Brimbank is criss-crossed by train lines, freeways and major arterial roads. The pedestrian environment is difficult to negotiate as the landscape is dominated by design and infrastructure that supports private vehicle and industrial vehicle use.3 The arterial roads are characterised by high speeds (60–80 km/h), and few pedestrian crossings. While the wide streets facilitate bicycle lanes, in many areas crossings, bridges, vehicle speeds and driver behaviour promote an unwelcoming cycling environment. The locality provides for commercial, private and public train transport from the west (including from regional areas and from outside the state of Victoria), as well as from the airport to the seaport. Public transport for Brimbank primarily comprises train, bus and taxi, however the overall provision of public transport provision is poor. Bus routes are circuitous, frequency of service is poor, and many do not service the existing factory areas. The train service runs fairly frequently (20 min), but there is only one major line at the moment as politics has impacted the recommissioning and expansion of a secondary train line. Brimbank’s population has changed substantially since the area was first settled. Prior to European occupation, clans of the Wurundjeri people inhabited area. The populations moved, relocated or were decimated by disease, degradation of the local ecology, or violence with few Aboriginal people remaining. Since European settlement and occupation there have been successive groups of migrants and refugees who have settled in Brimbank from the United Kingdom, western and eastern Europe, the Americas, west and north Africa, the middle east, the Pacific and across Asia. The loss of manufacturing industries due to globalisation, the continued presence of some heavy industry, Brimbank’s urban form, the rise in unemployment, high cultural diversity and crime rates higher than the metropolitan average resulted in stigma of the area. Socio-economically, Brimbank is ranked the second

3 Observations about the pedestrian and cycling environment are based on many hours exploring the city, doing fieldwork and attending meetings. Cycling and public transport are my primary modes of transport as I do not own a car. It was much easier for me to travel through the area during the few times I borrowed a car.

16

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

Fig. 6.1. Location of research project area. Source: Customised Mapping (2003). Printed with permission from State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment#.

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

most disadvantaged local government area of 32 in Metropolitan Melbourne because of low income, low employment, low educational attainment and low skilled occupations (Brimbank City Council, 2009: 53). These demographics are exacerbated by the high proportion of its population who were born in nonEnglish speaking countries, speak English as second language or do not speak it at all. However, the demographic of the city is changing. New residential developments and the high cost of housing in inner Melbourne mean higher income, educated and skilled people are moving to Brimbank along with new migrants and refuges. Brimbank local government area was selected as the research location because the area provided an opportunity to conduct research in three different sites that were diverse in terms of ethnicity, socio-economic status and urban form. Importantly, all three sites were located within one administrative boundary that meant a multi-level regulatory document review was more achievable within the time constraints of the project. The Smith Family (a national charity organisation that helps disadvantage children through supporting education) and the local council were willing to support and participate in the project because they have been working towards making Brimbank a UNICEF Child Friendly City. Council’s and The Smith Family’s initiatives regarding the Child Friendly City programme were viewed as providing an opportunity for the current research to be used by local planning practitioners. An important consideration was the contribution of the research presented here to previous work undertaken within and adjacent to the area. At least three researchers conducted studies about children and their environment within or adjacent to Brimbank (Lynch, 1977; Malone, 1999; Owens, 1994),4 and two of these studies were related to the UNESCO Growing Up in Cities Project (Lynch, 1977; Malone, 1999).

6.3. Methods Fieldwork was conducted using a three-stage multilevel mixed-method design. Stage 1 comprised the development and administration of a closedquestion quantitative questionnaire for parents of 4 The studies were undertaken in Braebrook, a suburb of Sunshine. Sunshine was a local government area prior to local government amalgamations in 1994. Part of the old city of Sunshine is located in the City of Brimbank local government area, however Braebrook is now part of the City of Maribyrnong local government area.

17

primary school children. This method was selected to enable a larger sample size, consistency of questions, consistency of coding, and statistical analyses that identified the strength of relationships between variables (Neuman, 2003). Stage 2 involved semi-structured interviews with Brimbank City Council general managers (GMs). This method provided set parameters while also permitting open responses from GMs and further probing of issues. Stage 3 comprised a multilevel document review. The documents were considered actors in the research and were ‘interviewed’ to identify key themes. This method allowed for comparison with data from the questionnaires and the interviews. 6.3.1. Stage 1: parent questionnaires 6.3.1.1. Participants. A questionnaire was developed and administered to parents who had a child in grade 5 or 6 at three primary school locations in the Brimbank local government area. One of the schools comprised the pilot study sample. In Australia, children in grade 5 and 6 cover the 9–12 year age range, which was selected because it represents the transitory stage from lesser to greater independent mobility (Bjo¨rklid, 2003; Blakely, 1994; Lee & Rowe, 1994; Tranter & Pawson, 2001; Valentine, 2004; Veitch et al., 2007). To select participating schools for the project, schools were categorised into three major group listings of high, middle and low, according to the 2003 ‘Like School Groups’ data rankings produced by the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. In the high category list were schools located in higher socio-economic areas with student populations that had low numbers of children who spoke English as a second language and low numbers of children supported by government benefits. Conversely, in the low category list were schools located in lower socioeconomic areas with student populations that had high numbers of children who spoke English as a second language and high numbers of children supported by government benefits. School principals were contacted from each of the three groups until a participating school was identified. Fifteen primary school principals were approached to participate in the research, and three school principals agreed to participate. For the three schools that participated in the research project, principals were asked to nominate the number of questionnaires required. They were also asked to nominate in which languages translations were needed and the number of questionnaires that were to be translated. The only language into which translation of documents was requested from the principals was Vietnamese. Each

18

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

school received English-only packages and packages containing English and Vietnamese versions of the materials based on the number of Vietnamese packages requested. Via the school children, parents were sent an envelope containing an information sheet, questionnaire, and self-addressed stamped envelope for returning the questionnaire to the researcher. In the third week after questionnaire distribution, a set of questionnaire reminder packages was provided to school principals for children to take home to their parents. The parent participation rate was 33%. Data were obtained from 160 parents. The sample comprised 68 Australian-born parents, 26 Vietnameseborn parents, 50 parents from born in 20 other countries, and 16 non-respondents. The majority of parents had two children living at home (54%), and a high proportion of parents who had three or more children living at home (36%); only 9% of parents had 1 child living at home. The median and mean annual household income of the parent sample was $60–79,000, however 28% had incomes less than $40,000, and 20% had incomes over $100,000. There was a high level of car ownership with 38% parents owning 1 car, 61% owning 2 cars or more cars; only 1% of parents did not own a car.

6.3.1.2. Questionnaire design. The questionnaire consisted of 36 questions and many of the questions contained multiple rating scales. The questionnaire was divided into five sections as explained below. 1) Parent demographics: country of birth; annual household income; number of cars owned; and number of children living in the home. 2) Children’s mobility:  How many times per week does your child go to school without an adult?  How many times per week does your child come home from school without an adult?  How many times per week does your child play outside your property without an adult?  How many times per month does your child take public transport without an adult?  How many times per month does your child go on errands, e.g.: to the shop without an adult?  How many times per month does your child walk/ cycle to their friends without an adult? Due to differences in question wording, responses from the pilot study and the final questionnaire were standardised into dichotomous

‘yes’ and ‘no’ variables to indicate whether parents allowed children to go places on their own. 3) Conceptions of the urban environment: physical; social; and traffic. Multiple item questions, grouped according to theme (scale) were used to measure respondents’ conceptions about the physical, social and traffic environment. The scales used in this research were adapted from a study by Prezza et al. (2005); Table 6.3a summarises the differences between this study and the Prezza et al. (2005) study. Most of the key hazards that concern parents, as identified in children’s mobility literature, were included in Prezza et al.’s (2005) traffic scale and social danger scale. Many of the benefits of CIM were included in their positive potentiality of outdoor autonomy for children scale. Prezza et al. (2005) used a 4-point Likert-type rating scale labelled: 1 = Unlikely; 2 = Not very likely; 3 = Very likely; 4 = Likely. A 4-point Likert-type scale that rate respondents’ agreement with statements presented in the questionnaire was used for the pilot study in the current research project, but was changed to a 5-point rating scale to include a neutral option: 1 = Strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neither agree/disagree; 4 = Disagree; 5 = Strongly disagree. If respondents provided two ratings to a particular question, the mean of the ratings was calculated. Neutral scores were defined as those that occurred in the range: 2.5–3.5. The scales used by Prezza et al. (2005) were reorganised into physical, social, and traffic conception scales for the present research project. The one item representative of the physical environment that was included in Prezza et al.’s (2005) social conception scale became part of the physical environment scale used in the current research project. Additional items were included in the physical traffic scale, such as, ‘street signs are clear and easy to read’ and ‘there is a lot of graffiti’ as these are matters associated with a community sense of safety (ACIL Tasman, & Tract Landscape Architects Urban Designers Town Planners, 2005; Aicher, 1998; Appleyard, 1981; Kelling & Coles, 1997; National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victoria Division), 2004). Prezza et al.’s (2005) social environment scale was extended to include questions about economic status, cultural diversity, neighbourhood friendliness, and the safety of walking day or night because these items have been associated with a sense of safety in the urban environment (Cox, 2001; Cresswell, 2004; Forrest & Kearns, 2001). Prezza et al.’s (2005) traffic scale was

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

19

Table 6.3a Comparison of environmental conception scales. Conceptions of the urban environment assessed by Prezza et al. (2005: 450)

Conceptions of the urban environment assessed by this research project

Questions: ‘In the streets around my home’ or ‘In the area I live in’

Question: ‘In the streets near my home:’

Social conception scale There are neglected areas (dirty, with large abandoned objects, etc.) There are areas frequented by drug pushers and/or drug addicts. If someone is in trouble he/she is immediately helped by passers-by. You can see groups of children playing. There are robberies and bag-snatchings. There are people who dress and behave strangely. You can find syringes on the groundb

Social conception scale Assessed as part of the physical environment conception scale. There are areas frequented by drug pushers and/or drug addicts. If someone is in trouble, he/she is immediately helped by passers-by. You can see groups of children playing. There are robberies and bag snatchings. There are people who dress and behave strangely. The neighbourhood is friendly. There are too many people on welfare. There is a good mix of people from different countries. It is safe out walking day or night.

Traffic conception scale There are dangerous intersections for pedestrians Pedestrian areas (pavements) are invaded by cars and/or motor scooters People are in a hurry Motorists and motorcyclists respect the rules

Traffic conception scale There are dangerous intersections for pedestrians. Cars and motorbikes are parked on the sidewalk and in other areas meant for people. Motorists and motorcyclists drive too quickly. Motorists and motorcyclists do not look out for pedestrians and cyclists. Physical environment conception scale The neighbourhood is well maintained Street signs are clear and easy to read. There are areas that are not cared for. There are good quality parks in walking distance. There is a lot of graffiti. The streets are well lit at night. Shops are in walking distance.a

Source: Rudner (2011: 67). a b

This item was in the pilot study but not the final questionnaire due to low eigenvalues in scale internal reliability tests. This item was in the Prezza et al. study, but was removed because of their own critique that the issue of drugs was already addressed.

amended by replacing the broad statements ‘motorists and motorcyclists respect the rules’ and ‘people are in a hurry’ with ‘motorists and motorcyclists drive too quickly’ and ‘motorists and motorcyclists do not look out for pedestrians or cyclists’. 4) Conceptions of risk. Multiple item questions, grouped according to theme (scale) were used to measure respondents’ conceptions of risk. Eight scales as listed in Tables 6.3b and c were used to measure different dimensions of risk conception using a 5-point Likert-type rating scale: 1 = Strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = neither agree/disagree; 4 = Disagree; 5 = Strongly disagree. If respondents provided two ratings to a particular question, the mean of the ratings was calculated. Neutral scores were defined as those that occurred in the range: 2.5–3.5. The multiple item questions were based on research by Fischhoff et al.

(1978), with the exception of the ‘probability of adverse situations occurring’ scale which was based on Prezza et al. (2005). Fischhoff et al. (1978) sought to identify levels of risk acceptability for a number of technological items and activities. Their work was adapted to focus on the following situations:  Traffic  Children getting lost or disoriented  Children seeing bad things  Children meeting bad adults

 Children misbehaving  Children making bad friends  Children unable to handle difficult situations  Children being bullied

Prezza et al. (2005) included a number of items in their social danger perception scale about the potential adverse situations children may encounter if they go out alone. These items were grouped to form their own ‘probability of adverse situations

20

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

Table 6.3b Comparison of the probability of adverse situations occurring. Conceptions of dangers assessed by Prezza et al. (2005: 450)

Conceptions of the probability of adverse situations occurring assessed by this research project

Social conception scale Question: ‘I believe that a 9–10 year-old boy or girl who goes out alone in the area around my house can:’

Probability of adverse situations occurring scale Question: ‘What is the probability of the following situations happening when your child goes out alone?’

Scale: 4-Point Likert Very Likely, Likely, Not very likely; Unlikely

Scale: 5-Point Likert 3 labels anchored end points and midsection: Won’t happen; May happen; Will happen Traffic Child getting lost or disoriented Child meeting bad adults Child seeing bad things e.g.: drugs/violence, etc. Not included Not included Child not able to handle difficult situations Child misbehaving Child making bad friends Being bullied

Be exposed to the risk of road accidents Feel disoriented when among people Encounter ill-intentioned adults See things that may frighten her/him Find someone willing to help him/her in case of trouble Come into contact with drugs

Source: Rudner (2011: 69).

occurring’ scale. A comparison between the items used in this study and the study conducted by Prezza et al.’s (2005) is presented in Table 6.3b. Additional items of concern to parents that were also included, such as bullying and children misbehaving as these were identified in the CIM literature (Blakely, 1994; Lee & Rowe, 1994; Pain, 2006). For the other risk conception scales, questions were adapted to remove the words ‘risk’ and ‘fatality’ while retaining the purpose and meaning of the Fischhoff et al. (1978) questions. Questions also needed to be simple and clear for language translation. Table 6.3c presents an explanation of how Fischhoff et al.’s (1978) risk conception scales were adapted for the present research project. Table 6.3d presents the questions used in the risk conception scales. To offset the focus on adverse situations, parents were also to indicate if they thought children would miss out on opportunities if they did not go places by themselves. These opportunities included: learning road safety skills, learning knowledge of their neighbourhood, judging strangers, making friends, solving complex problems, coping with difficult people and physical activity. 5) Questions were included in the questionnaire to identify if external information influenced parents’ views on their children’s safety:  Does information from the news (newspaper, television or radio) affect how you feel about

your child’s safety if he/she goes out alone in your neighbourhood?  Does information from local government affect how you feel about your child’s safety if he/she goes out alone in your neighbourhood?  Where do you get advice and/or information on issues related to parenting and children’s safety?  Have there been any major incidents in your neighbourhood in the past two years that make you concerned for your child’s safety? Please mark the appropriate box. 6.3.2. Stage 2: general manager interviews To obtain formal council support for the project a request to conduct research at Brimbank City Council was sent to the Chief Executive Officer; the Management Committee subsequently approved the project. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with three council General Managers (GMs). GMs were selected because they have a high level of influence over the professional environment and work culture in terms of council agendas, regulatory development, and implementation of regulations, programme and projects. The research was introduced to GMs via telephone and then sent a package containing an introductory letter and a summary of the research project proposal. The interview questions were developed so they related to the questions asked in the parent questionnaires. The interviews included questions about the major factors affecting CIM, local government

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

21

Table 6.3c Comparison of risk conception scales. Aspects of ris
k assessed by Fischhoff et al. (1978)

Aspects of risk assessed by this research project

Comment

Voluntariness of exposure to risk

Level of children’s control over exposure to situations

This question focused on the voluntariness of being exposed to situations, and addressed respondents’ views in relation to children rather than themselves as was done in the Fischhoff et al. (1978) study.

Knowledge about the risk by the exposed person

Level of children’s knowledge if children experience situations

Fischhoff et al. (1978) study queried the level of knowledge about the risk held by the respondent. This was changed so that the question focused on respondents’ assessment of children’s knowledge rather than their own.

Control over the risk

Level of children’s skill if children experience situations

Fischhoff et al. (1978) focused on the skills required to avoid death while engaging in an activity, this research project focused on respondents’ assessment of children’s ability to handle situations.

Chronic-catastrophic harm

Believed number of children harmed each year by situations

Fischhoff et al. (1978) scale was adapted because it referred to the number of people who may harmed at the same time (one person or large numbers of people). Instead, respondents were queried about the number of children harmed per year.

Immediacy of effect

Longevity of effects if children experience situations

Fischhoff et al. (1978) queried whether the risk of death is immediate or likely to occur later. The scale for the present research project queried if the effects would last a very short, medium or very long time.

Scientific knowledge about the risk

Level of expert knowledge about children experiencing situations

This question focuses on the level of scientific/expert knowledge about children being exposed to situations.

Commonness or dread value of risk

Level of worry about children experiencing situations

Fischhoff et al. (1978) measured whether respondents thought about the risk calmly due to its commonness or if the risk was dreaded. This scale was adapted to query the level of respondent worry about situations.

Source: Rudner (2011: 71).

responsibilities in relation to CIM, and risk management. The questions on risk management were designed to address issues raised by Furedi (2008), Gill (2007b) and Power (2004) about the impact of regulations and risk management procedures on professional discretion. Part A: Factors Affecting CIM 1. What do you think are the major issues that affect whether children are allowed to go out alone? 2. What signs/symbols/indicators do you get about whether children should or should not be out alone in Brimbank? Where do these messages come from? 3. This can include physical things like signs warning drivers about children, places such as parks, information from schools or police, news, stories from friends. . .

2. Is your council taking on children’s independent mobility as a responsibility? If so, how? 3. Do you believe that you and your staff have a responsibility to consider if or how you affect the city for children, and whether parents will let their children go out alone in their neighbourhood? Why? 4. Is there anything preventing you and your staff from doing things that would make parents feel more comfortable about letting their children go out alone in their neighbourhood? Why and how? 5. Are there things that you and your staff can that would make parents feel more comfortable about letting their children go out alone in their neighbourhood? Why and how? Part C: Risk Management

Part B: Role of Local Government 1. Should local government be trying to increase the number of children allowed to go out alone?

1. Do staff from different departments in your council have conflicts over how risks should be identified, monitored or addressed? For example, would some

22

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

Table 6.3d Questions used in the risk conception scales. Question

Assessment scale

When your child goes out alone, what level of control does s/he have over being exposed to the following situations?

1 = No control 3 = Some control 5 = Total control

How much does your child know about the following situations when he/she is out alone?

1 = Know nothing 3 = Know something 5 = Know a lot

What level of skills does your child have to deal with the following situations?

1 = No skills 3 = Some skills 5 = A lot of skills

What is the probability of the following situations happening when your child goes out alone?

1 = Won’t happen 3 = May happen 5 = Will happen

In general, how many children are harmed per year by the following situations when they go out alone?

1 = No children 3 = Some children 5 = Lots of children

If your child experiences the following situations due to going out alone, how long will the effects to your child last?

1 = Very short time 3 = Medium time 5 = Very long time

How much do you worry about the following situations when your child is allowed to go out alone?

1 = No worry 3 = Some worry 5 = Extreme worry

How much do you trust expert knowledge about the following situations in relation to your child when he/she is allowed to go out alone?a

1 = Know nothing 3 = Know something 5 = Know a lot

Source: Rudner (2011: 73). a

The response parameters did not reflect the wording of the question and is a weakness in this questionnaire.

promote more adventurous playgrounds while others are concerned about accidents? 2. Do you think that insurance or fear of being sued affects how staff do their jobs? Can you give me an example? Interviews were fully transcribed for coding and thematic analysis. The analyses aimed to identify how GMs conceive risk, the local environment, children’s children’s places and CIM. Themes that emerged from the interviews, such as parenting culture were also included in the research results. 6.3.3. Stage 3: document review Two hundred and thirty-seven regulatory documents from local, state, federal and international government, and quasi-government organisations were reviewed.5 5

A full list of regulatory documents and the data from the content analyses is available upon request.

Documents from various professional fields that had direct or indirect effects on children’s development were reviewed: urban planning, transport, health promotion, environment, education, community development, community safety, risk management/insurance, and corporate management. Documents comprised charters/conventions, legislation, frameworks, policy, strategies, guidelines, reports, indicators, and research informing government policy development. The review was expanded from local government to include other levels of government as well as quasigovernment organisations because few documents directly referred to children or CIM. Documents were obtained from government and quasi-government websites. Regulatory documents were selected on the basis that they were the main strategic regulation guiding government direction that were publicly available over the internet. Documents were categorised according to their type, level of government, and focus. The number of each type of regulatory document and the level of

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

23

Table 6.3e Proportion of documents by type and by level of government. Document type

Plan Policy Strategy Information Report Guideline Legislation Convention Indicators Framework Research

International (16)

Federal (60)

State (100)

Local (61)

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

0 0 1 0 1 1 0 9 0 2 2

0 0 6.25 0.00 6.25 6.25 0.00 56.25 0.00 12.50 12.50

2 1 7 5 10 6 3 1 4 2 19

3.33 1.67 11.67 8.33 16.67 10.00 5.00 1.67 6.67 3.33 31.67

7 4 17 10 17 21 16 0 4 2 2

7.00 4.00 17.00 10.00 17.00 21.00 16.00 0.00 4.00 2.00 2.00

21 17 9 7 3 2 1 1 0 0 0

34.43 27.87 14.75 11.48 4.92 3.28 1.64 1.64 0.00 0.00 0.00

government that produced the documents is summarised in Table 6.3e. The total number of documents for each category is listed in brackets. State government documents were the most frequently reviewed, followed by federal and local government documents. Regulatory documents were categorised with regard to their primary topic focus. Categories were determined based on the title and/or the stated objectives contained within the document. A summary of results is presented in Table 6.3f. The table also shows the number of regulatory documents from each topic focus that specifically addressed children’s issues in relation to the total number of documents from all categories that addressed children’s issues, and the number of regulatory documents within each topic area that addressed children’s issues. Regulatory documents were reviewed in relation to children of all ages because they did not specifically address the 9–12 year old age group. Definitions of children and youth were

also imprecise. For example, youth and young people were defined anywhere from 5, 12, and 15 years to 18, 25, and even 29 years of age. Content and thematic analyses were conducted on the regulatory documents. Analyses focused on: children’s places; conceptions of the physical, social, and traffic environment; definitions of risk; conceptions about the probability of adverse situations occurring in children’s lives; conceptions of children’s competence in their lives; conceptions about the severity of consequences if children encounter adverse situations in their lives; the role of regulatory documents in producing expert knowledge about children’s development; level of organisational worry about harm to children and organisations; and the role of regulatory documents in providing information about children’s development. The content and thematic parameters of the analyses were based on the research propositions and the questionnaires used in earlier stages of the fieldwork.

Table 6.3f Proportion of documents by topic area and addressing children. Document focus

Community development Transport Planning Health Corporate Environment Education Safety

Document by topic

Documents specifically addressing children in relation to other documents

Documents addressing children as % of document focus %

n

%

n

%

52

21.94

17

23.61

32.69

49 41 35 22 14 12 12

20.68 17.3 14.77 9.28 5.91 5.06 5.06

9 4 17 4 1 12 8

12.50 5.56 23.61 5.56 1.39 16.67 11.11

18.37 9.76 48.57 18.18 7.14 100 66.67

24

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

Each regulatory document was read to identify its purpose, the goals the document aimed to achieve, and its general content. A list of key words, provided in Table 6.3g was used to locate document conceptions of the urban environment and different dimensions of risk; these conceptions were analysed as to their meaning. Key words included: activity, mix, compact – type of urban form; child; youth, young; risk and its variations (at-risk, risk-taking, risk-factors). A search for each word was conducted using the ‘find’ command in word or Adobe Acrobat Reader, depending on the file type. Further analyses of themes about risk in relation to children were undertaken, as shown in Table 6.3h. Regulatory documents were analysed as to whether risk-aversion to protect children from potential harm

was promoted, or if documents focused on children’s competence in relation to potential harm. Themes included concepts of risk in relation to children’s places and the urban environment, children’s competence, and the application of risk definitions in relation to children. Content and thematic analyses were conducted to identify how regulatory document conceptions about risk and CIM were produced within knowledge systems, how these systems interacted, and how together, these systems contributed to a broader cultural context. Documents were reviewed as to their explicit reference to other regulatory documents and research papers. Reference to research papers was assessed according to diversity and quality. In addition to the qualitative review, simple frequency analyses were used to quantify

Table 6.3g Key words and key concepts underlying their use in document review. Key word(s)

Key concepts

Activity, mixed, compact

To identify if the document supported principles of higher density, mixed use urban areas or activity centres within urban areas.

Child, youth, young

To identify if children were mentioned in the document. The contexts of the key word(s) were examined in relation to the following:  Bounded spaces – document reference to child specific areas such as childcare, school, formal programmes, youth spaces, adult surveilled spaces  Unbounded spaces – document reference to children’s general use of the environment without adult surveillance  Agency – indications that regulatory documents recognised that children exercised self determination to do things or to be engaged  Vulnerable – indications that regulatory documents viewed children as vulnerable and/or needing protection  Resilient – indications that regulatory documents recognised children have resources to handle situations that they encounter  Play – indications that regulatory documents recognised non-formalised children’s free ‘play’  Economics – indications that regulatory documents viewed children’s development and issues of risk as part of children’s future economic productivity, rather than their current situation or desire for employment

Consultation

To indentify whether children had been consulted in the production of regulatory documents or if consultation with children was promoted in regulatory documents. To identify if the word risk was used in the document. Use of the word was then assessed as to its possible intended meaning. This included the following:  Hazard, danger or exposure to hazards and dangers  Probability as a calculable assessment  Possibility as a non-calculable assessment  Impact, loss, or outcome The word risk was also used to establish whether regulatory documents explicitly identified corporate risk issues and the need to comply with legislation and standards.

Risk

At-risk

Risk-taking Risk-factors

To identify if the concept ‘at-risk’ was used in regulatory documents. Use of the phrase was then assessed as to its possible intended meaning. This included the following:  Potential victim to hazards and/or harm  Potential failure of success  Potential to engage in criminal activity To identify if the concept ‘risk-taking’ was used in regulatory documents. Risk-taking within the context of the review was associated with poor decision-making concerning drugs, alcohol, and unprotected sex. To identify if the term ‘risk factor’ was used in regulatory documents. Risk factors assume a causal relationship between indicators of potential risk and resultant outcomes and/or behaviours.

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

25

Table 6.3h Thematic parameters of risk specific themes. Theme

Risk averse examples

Beyond risk averse examples

Children’s spaces and the urban environment

Child only spaces. Promotion of a division between children and adults.

Children in the community.

Children’s competency

Evidence that regulatory document promotes children’s vulnerability. Children ‘At Risk’.

Evidence that regulatory document promotes children’s competence and resilience through experimenting with their place/identity in the world.

Concepts of risk

‘Child proofing’ activities against any potential harm, accident, injury, or making poor decisions. Concern about potentially negative consequences.

Children’s resilience to deal with adverse situations. Promotion of ‘risky’ activities to challenge and support children’s development

Types and duration of harm children might experience.

the content and themes that were reviewed to balance issues of researcher subjectivity. 6.4. Limitations of research This research would have benefited from additional information from children, parents, and local government officers (LGOs) about their conceptions of risk. Children’s views and experiences would have added a valuable dimension to this study. However, children’s views of risk were not included in the research design because time constraints and the ambitious size of the project required paring down of the research task (please see Lee & Rowe, 1994; Pain, 2006; Timperio, Salmon, Telford, & Crawford, 2005; Valentine, 1997; Woolly, Dunn, Spencer, Short, & Rowley, 1999 for literature addressing children’s views of their environments). Although it was intended to obtain qualitative data about parents’ conceptions of risk in relation to CIM, the researcher was unable to achieve an adequate level of parent participation. Only one focus group discussion was held and only two parents attended the session. Data obtained from focus group discussion would have provided a significant contribution towards current understandings about parents’ conceptions of risk. In addition to interviews conducted with GMs, semistructured interviews with LGOs at a lower level within the organisation would have been beneficial. This would have facilitated greater insights about LGOs’ views about the role and responsibilities of local government in relation to risk regarding CIM, the influence of different levels of regulatory and insurance requirements on LGOs’ activities in relation to CIM, and LGOs’ ability to influence and impact public conceptions of risk as they relate to CIM.

While very effort was made to ensure the rigour, reliability and validity of the current research, there were limitations with the data analyses. A pilot study was undertaken to test the internal reliability of questionnaire items and was subsequently amended; this process can be further improved by using psychometric measures for testing external reliability of the instrument through test–retest at the pilot study stage. Time, labour, and cost constraints imposed limitations on the research project. As a result, the outcomes from the current study cannot be generalised due to the sample size. However, the results support other empirical research about CIM and risk conception, as well as theoretical approaches to risk. The results also indicate that the methods used in the current research provide a new avenue for measuring conceptions of risk and CIM in future. 7. Results: creating a public knowing of risk The results show parents, local government GMs and regulatory documents have different conceptions about various dimensions of risk. While some views merge or reinforce each other, and other views diverge, they still interact to form an overriding public knowing of risk leading to low levels of CIM. This section presents the research outcomes with a particular focus on how a public knowing of risk specifies appropriate spaces for children, limits the role the urban environment plays in children’s lives, supports notions that adverse situations may or are likely to occur and indicates the severity of consequences will be long term. The role of conceptions of expert knowledge and level of worry in the public knowing of risk are also addressed. It is valuable for planners to understand how the public knowing of risk is sustained, because these social and cultural processes

26

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

affect adult views of children’s environmental affordances and children’s fields of action in urban space. 7.1. Children’s mobility and knowing of children’s places Indirectly and unconsciously, parents’, GMs and regulatory document conceptions converged to create a public knowing of children’s places that limits CIM. The absence of children in public space due to parental restrictions, constraints on GMs to address CIM due to expected surveillance of children in public space, and regulatory documents that emphasise children’s institutionalised places sent a strong message that children do not belong in public space on their own. While the extent to which institutionalised and adult-surveilled places are designated appropriate spaces for children changes from infancy to the late teenage years, it is clear that the support for independent mobility is substantially low for children aged 9–12 years. Children in this study had low levels of independent mobility in relation to a variety of activities, as shown in Table 7.1. Less than 35% of children were permitted to travel to or from school by themselves. Compared to the international data presented earlier in Table 2.1, children in this study experienced one of the lowest levels of independent school travel. Children’s fields of constrained action increased with activities requiring decreasing levels of adult surveillance. Parents most frequently reported that children could participate in organised activities (57.4%) and play outside their home (45.9%), which are primarily adult surveilled activities. A substantially lower proportion of parents allowed their children to visit friends (24%), run errands (15.7%) or take public transport (6%). The results suggest parents believe that children of this age cannot and or should not go places by themselves. Significantly, individual parent decision-making about CIM resulted in the collective absence of children from public space. Table 7.1 Places children can go on their own. Places children can go

n

%

M

sd

Play organised activities Play outside their home Travel home from school Visit friends Travel to school from home Do errands Take public transport

89 72 55 38 33 25 10

57.4 45.9 34.8 24.4 20.6 15.7 6.5

0.57 0.46 0.35 0.24 0.26 0.16 0.07

0.50 0.50 0.48 0.43 0.44 0.37 0.25

%: Does not include missing responses.

In the interviews, GMs were asked to indicate the age at which children should be allowed to go places on their own. GMs indicated that children aged 9–12 should be allowed to go places by themselves, depending on their maturity and competence. The suggested age ranged from six to nine years old, however responses were contingent on adult responsibility for appropriately assessing children’s existing competence and the tension between balancing child protection and children’s independence. GMs understood that increasing CIM is difficult due to worry, tensions between current parenting culture, changes in human–environment relationships, and the emphasis on supervision. Biological, normative, and habitual aspects of parenting were believed to influence decision-making. GMs also indicated that parents were not prepared to let their children have more freedom. One GM noted parents do not necessarily question the value of their behaviours. The following quotations illustrate social norms of parenting regarding CIM: GM ‘A’: I think that the whole way that we rear children, you know, is, it’s just that, we’re almost wired not to be doing that, you know, because it goes against everything that, you know we’re sort of taught about supervision and so on. So there’s a really significant shift in thinking around that.

GM ‘C’: But it’s also a culture that’s developed. You know, I’m in my fifties, and I remember when I was young, every school kid used to walk to school. And it wasn’t a common thing for parents to drop their kids off, whereas now it’s very common. So I think it’s just gone a bit too much the other way. It doesn’t necessarily have a reason for it, other than a bit of culture. It’s easier to do it that way. Most families have got two cars so the mother or the father will drop the kids off. Some will drop off, the other will pick up. So I think its a little bit of a cultural thing as well. GMs’ suggested that their intentions to increase CIM were constrained by the present lack of children in public space. GMs viewed children’s physical absence as symbolising and reinforcing beliefs about the lack of safety and or acceptability for children to be public space by themselves. As part of a self-perpetuating cycle, low levels of CIM can encourage larger fields of constrained action for children. The GMs observed that there is a culture of adult supervision, and community expectations that children should not be in public space on their own. GMs’

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

believed there were community expectations that children should be in formal care. Socially and culturally, GMs indicated the general community viewed unattended children in public spaces were as a problem that could be rectified by formal supervision. This formal care as GMs understood it, included government assisted arrangements for children such as out-of-school hours care. Community expectations about supervision of children in public space were not necessarily due to safety concerns. GMs indicated increasing CIM would be difficult because the community was not prepared to have children independently use public space because there was a general intolerance towards children. GMs noted tolerance of children in public space was contingent on children’s age, their activities, who they were with, and whether they complied with council’s and the community’s views about how and when public infrastructure should be used. Intolerance even went so far as to protesting against potential school sites due to noise and other inconveniences. Significantly, intolerance of children using public space by themselves and the expectation of supervision opens the possibility for regulations that were designed for one purpose to be applied more broadly in future. For example, Section 494 of the Children Youth and Families Act 2005 (Victoria) could further cement social and cultural views about appropriate surveillance for children in public space. While this law was created to protect children from systematic abuse, it could be used to restrict children’s fields of action and CIM on the basis of inadequate adult supervision: (1) A person who has the control or charge of a child must not leave the child without making reasonable provision for the child’s supervision and care for a time which is unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case. Regulation that aims to support children’s rights to public space, depending on how it is interpreted, can be used to control children in public space. The Commonwealth Government of Australia used Article 15 ‘Freedom of Association and Peaceful Assembly’ of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child to justify removal of children from public space for reasons of safety (Commonwealth of Australia, 2003: 30): . . .the Federal Government notes that Article 15(2) of the Convention permits restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly where these are imposed in conformity with the law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of, among other

27

things, public safety and public order. The restrictions placed on children’s right to associate freely and peacefully assemble are designed to ensure public safety and order, including the safety of children, as well as to prevent children from committing crimes and thereby becoming involved in the criminal justice system. The review of regulatory documents indicated CIM was not a major policy focus or priority. The focus of planning, urban design, transport, health, community development, and community safety documents primarily assumed an adult public when referring to use of public space. If a particular issue was viewed as having specific impacts on children, then these matters were highlighted as such. Essentially, children were not viewed as legitimate users of public spaces, and enlarged fields of constrained action were supported. The regulatory documents were assessed as to whether they primarily supported ‘bounded spaces’ or ‘unbounded spaces’ for children. For the purposes of this paper, bounded spaces refers to child specific areas such as childcare, school, formal programmes, youth spaces, adult surveilled spaces; unbounded spaces refers to general use of the environment without alluding to or stipulating adult surveillance. The regulatory documents indicated there are dominant social and cultural definitions of appropriate children’s spaces, places and by association, activities. Childcare, school, and parks were acceptable places for children. Playing on sidewalks, in streets or using transport infrastructure was not appropriate, with the exception of older children (youth) using public transport. The paucity of documents that referred to unbounded spaces was less than expected. For example, alternative transport documents did not address children’s independent travel; parks and recreation documents failed to address access issues or use by children on their own; and health and urban design documents did not incorporate CIM within their scope of designing healthy spaces and places. It is expected that governing institutions will have a greater focus on bounded spaces, due to the nature of their function. However, governing institutions can promote or support CIM by recognising children’s use spaces and places for a multitude of reasons other than play. For example, children of various ages, maturity and skills can use public spaces for experiential learning outside the classroom or transport to various activities such as sport and running errands. The invisibility of children was also evidenced in regulatory documents addressing infrastructure

28

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

provision. Planning, urban design and recreation documents focused on location of facilities such as childcare, schools, and parks rather than children’s experience of urban public space (Department of Sustainability and Environment & Crime Prevention Victoria, 2005; National Heart Foundation of Australia, Planning Institute of Australia, & Australian Local Government Association, 2009; National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victoria Division), 2004; Planning Institute of Australia, 2007; Scott et al., 1997). Documents contained design and management guidelines for urban centres, parks, trails, leisure and other community facilities but did not address matters related to children’s general use of public space. They also included objectives to increase participation in social, community and recreational activities. An excerpt from Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Growth, illustrates a common objective of planning and urban design documents: New small-scale education, health and other community facilities that meet local needs – including maternal and child health centres, kindergartens, local branch libraries and primary schools – will be encouraged to locate in or next to Neighbourhood Activity Centres [higher density development near public transport nodes] (Department of Sustainability & Environment, 2003: 55). Unfortunately, regulatory documents suggested children’s needs are addressed through the provision of accessible infrastructure and facilities, formal education, health and supervised play. The regulatory documents did not provide direction as to suitable access, design, and materials that encourage exploration, learning, play and inclusion in community life. One document that provides an example of a broader approach to children’s needs is the Final Draft Brimbank Community Plan: 2009–2030. It states that (Brimbank City Council, 2009: 42): A Child Friendly City is committed to developing and implementing local-level actions to provide safe and supportive environments that nurture children of all ages with opportunities for recreation, learning, social interaction, psychological development and cultural expression with the aim of providing the highest quality of life for children. The commitment to children’s quality of life, and the inclusion of social interaction, and cultural expression is laudable as it indicates a deeper appreciation for children as people. However, regulatory documents need to include a commitment to children’s inclusion in

the broader community as legitimate and independent users of public space. Transport documents illustrated the need to formally legitimise children’s use of public space by themselves. Within transport documents, children’s needs were framed in relation to maintaining transport system efficiency (Australian Transport Council, 2001; Australian Transport Safety Bureau & National Road Safety Strategy Panel and Taskforce, 2001; VicRoads, 2002, 2008; Victorian Police, VicRoads, & Transport Accident Commission, 2008). These documents supported bounded spaces for children, and explicitly indicated that streets were inappropriate spaces for children to be on their own due to safety concerns. Safety concerns cited included children’s lack of physical development, poor cognitive skills, lack of peripheral vision, inability to judge the distance and speed of cars, and their unpredictable behaviour (Kidsafe Australia, 2000; Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, 2007; VicRoads, 2007). However transport documents were selective of information they provided to support their particular agendas. For example, Austroads is a research agency that provides research to the Australian and New Zealand governments. This association produced one paper by Ker, Huband, Veith, Taylor and ARRB Group (2006: 13–14) in which it was stated ‘‘[p]ersons with disabilities, seniors and young children are especially vulnerable to injury because of their reduced sensory, cognitive and motor capacities’’. In a different paper published by the same agency, Cairney, Klein, Lee and Lovett (2000: 31), in their review of research about children’s traffic abilities, found children’s competencies could increase through exposure and experience, and their abilities might not be that different to those of adults. Children’s need to access schooling was acknowledged in transport documents, however their safe use of streets did not usurp the priority of efficiency. Children, including older children’s use of streets was primarily associated with school travel (Austroads Inc., 2005; Roads Corporation, 2004; Victorian Police et al., 2008). As a result, documents segmented children from broader planning, transport and community structures by imposing 40 km within school zones and designated school crossings only for hours when school starts and finishes (Brimbank City Council, 2004a; Road Rules, 1999 (Victoria)). Regulatory documents failed to address transport matters related to the full schoolhome journey, and other activities such as visiting friends or going to the park, that may occur in the evenings and on weekends when school is not in

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

session. Transport documents did not support broad lowering of speed limits, which could improve the relationship between children’s competence and what the environment offers:

29

documents to set an agenda of improvement may mean that a public knowing of urban environments is conceptualised as unsafe and dangerous. This reinforcement is difficult to assess however, as CIM appears to be normative, and children’s fields of constrained action may not be heavily influenced by parents’ views of children’s environmental affordances.

Despite the demonstrable safety benefits of reduced travel speeds, Australasian speed zones are amongst the highest in the world. Given this situation, it was decided that any lowering of speed limits likely to lead to significant reductions in road trauma, would still need to leave speeds high enough to be acceptable to Australasian road users, transport agencies and decision-makers (Fildes, Langford, Andrea, & Scully, 2005: VI).

7.2.1. Physical environment Table 7.2a presents a summary of the questionnaire results of parents’ conceptions of the physical environment according to their level of agreement with the statements listed: Strongly Agree (SA); Agree (A); Neither Agree or Disagree (NAD), Disagree (DA); Strongly Disagree (SD). While the statements are negatively worded to help reader interpretation, many of the statements in the questionnaires were reverseworded to avoid negativity bias. Generally, the mean scores suggest most parents tended towards neutral or positive views about physical environment statements in the questionnaire. While nearly half of the parents strongly agreed or agreed there are areas that are not cared for (47%), the majority of parents indicated they disagreed or strongly disagreed that street signs were poor (80%), neighbourhoods lacked maintenance (68%), and there was a lack of good quality parks in walking distance (68%). Parents were less positive about graffiti and lighting. The data does not indicate there are major physical environment issues that would influence parents’ to restrict children’s CIM, with perhaps the exception of maintenance.

Only one document (VicHealth, 2008) expressly supported children’s general use of the streets unaccompanied by adults. This regulatory document, while addressing transport issues, was produced by a health organisation. 7.2. Conceptions of the environment Consciously, GMs and regulatory documents aim to ameliorate environmental conditions, but the focus on improving urban environments may inadvertently reinforce concerns parents may have about children’s environmental affordances. Interviews with GMs indicated they have a strong understanding of the positive and negative aspects of the environment in Brimbank, but their work focuses on negative aspects so improvements can be made. The need for regulatory

Table 7.2a Parents’ conceptions of the urban environment. Items

Level of agreement

Physical environment

SA

A

NAD

DA

25 15.82

49 31.01

29 18.35

47 29.75

SDA

M

Sd

8 5.06

2.77

1.18

There are areas that are not cared for

n %

Street signs are not clear and easy to read

n %

– –

17 10.83

15 9.55

90 57.32

35 22.29

3.91

0.87

Neighbourhood is not well maintained

n %

7 4.46

18 11.46

25 15.92

81 51.59

26 16.56

3.64

1.03

There are not good quality parks in walking distance

n %

9 5.70

22 13.92

20 12.66

88 55.70

19 12.03

3.54

1.06

There is a lot of graffiti

n %

15 9.6

28 17.9

32 20.5

63 40.4

18 11.5

3.26

1.17

The streets are not well lit at night

n %

9 5.7

39 24.7

27 17.1

68 43.0

15 9.5

3.26

1.11

30

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

It is interesting that GMs views aligned with parents’ conceptions about maintenance. In particular, it was revealed GMs thought maintenance was integral for enhancing a sense of safety. GMs identified the need for council to increase a community sense of safety if children’s fields of constrained action are to be reduced, permitting greater levels of CIM to be achieved. GMs highlighted urban design, re-oriententing buildings so they overlooked public spaces, aesthetics, amenities such as interesting places to explore, public toilets, basins, and seating as important physical elements to address. Themes related to maintenance also emerged from the regulatory document review, as did matters relating to the ease of navigating public space. State and local level regulatory documents provided specific guidance about physical environments for both community and local government council such as minimum maintenance of individual allotments, rubbish collection and roadside cleaning (Brimbank City Council, 2006a, 2007a) and reductions in the expanse of unused areas and blank walls (Department of Sustainability & Environment, 2005; EDAW, AECOM, & Sykes Humphreys Consulting, 2007; National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victoria Division), 2004; Scott et al., 1997). The impact of graffiti on a sense of safety was addressed by documents, but this is explored in the next section. Reflective of GMs’ views, documents framed maintenance, urban design and aesthetics as contributors to safety as these elements were associated with promoting positive views of the physical and social environment. Accessible free moving and connected spaces which included the provision and maintenance of clear signage, lighting, and pathways were associated with a sense of control and safety in the urban environment. The focus on parks development was similar to general physical environment issues, as they were primarily concerned with location, aesthetics, amenities, and maintenance (Brimbank City Council, 2006a, 2009; Department of Human Services, 2002; Department of Sustainability & Environment, 2003; Department of Sustainability and Environment & Crime Prevention Victoria, 2005; House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment & Heritage, 2005; International Secretariat for Child Friendly Cities, 2004). Regulatory documents were focused on service and infrastructure rather than the experience of safety in the urban environment. Only one document encapsulated what it likely means to feel safe, and this was characterised by freedom from a sense of threat from intentional injury as well as the physical space:

... a state of being, as well as a state of mind. It’s a component of a person’s health and wellbeing, in that a person can’t feel completely well if their safety is threatened, and feeling unsafe can affect a person’s long-term health. It’s based on perceptions of surroundings as much as experiences within those surroundings. Safety is felt when a person can live without fear of intentional or unintentional injury. It is influenced by the appearance and attractiveness of local areas, by the presence of crime or threatening behaviours, by the standard of maintenance and upkeep of a local area, and by the information a person gathers from sources such as the media, word of mouth reports and personal experiences (Brimbank City Council, 2004b: 5). Regulatory documents did not specifically address children’s needs. Without repeating matters addressed in relation to children’s spaces, it is important to note that matters such as location and distance to facilities were not based on the differing physical capabilities of children as they grow with regard to walking or cycling places. Parks provision, design or quality was rarely based on children’s desires or their sense of safety or desire for risk. 7.2.2. Social environment Table 7.2b summarises parents’ responses about the social environment. The mean scores of parents’ evaluation of the social environment indicate they have primarily neutral views of their social environment, with the exception there were more positive views about friendliness and the mix of people from different countries. Upon closer inspection, there was a greater range of responses compared to the physical environment statements. The majority of parents disagreed or strongly disagreed the neighbourhood is unfriendly (58%), and there is not a good mix of people from different countries (80%). Half of parents strongly disagreed or disagreed they could not see groups of children playing (51%), there are areas frequented by drug pushers and/or drug addicts (45%) and people who dress/ behave strangely (48%). One-fifth to one-quarter of parents either strongly agreed/agreed or strongly disagreed/disagreed someone would be immediately helped by passer-by and there are too many people on welfare. These results suggest the social environment may have a larger influence than the physical environment on parents’ decisions to restrict CIM. GMs were knowledgeable and sensitive to the social environment of the city. The understood how the social environment could affect parents’ views of children’s

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

31

Table 7.2b Social environment. Item

Level of agreement

Social environment

SA

A

NAD

DA

SDA

M

sd

There are areas frequented by drug pushers and/or drug addicts

n %

17 10.7

26 16.4

45 28.3

44 27.7

27 17.0

3.24

1.23

There are people who dress/ behave strangely

n %

8 5.0

27 17.0

47 29.6

53 33.3

24 15.1

3.36

1.09

You cannot see groups of children playing

n %

8 5.2

45 29.0

23 14.8

65 41.9

14 9.0

3.21

1.12

The neighbourhood is not friendly

n %

2 1.3

16 10.1

50 31.4

69 43.4

22 13.8

3.58

0.90

There are robberies and bag snatchings

n %

11 6.9

18 11.3

46 28.9

59 37.1

25 15.7

3.43

1.10

If someone is in trouble, he/she is not immediately helped by passers-by

n %

5 3.1

28 17.6

88 55.3

30 18.9

8 5.0

3.05

0.83

There are too many people on welfare

n %

12 7.7

27 17.4

83 53.5

29 18.7

4 2.6

2.91

0.88

There is not a good mix of people from different countries

n %

1 0.6

12 7.5

19 11.9

99 62.3

28 17.6

3.89

0.80

It is not safe out walking day or night

n %

15 9.4

47 29.6

47 29.6

36 22.6

14 8.8

2.92

1.12

safety in urban spaces, leading to children having enlarged fields of constrained action and lower levels of CIM. For GMs, creating better spaces was seen to attract more community members into public spaces, resulting in more social activities. One way to achieve this was urban design. A quotation from GM ‘B’ illustrates how GMs believed the combination of urban design, amenities, and community ownership can contribute to a sense of safety: A lot of about the parks, especially the newer ones for some reasons, all the properties back on to them, so you got all these back fences around. And no one has a gate, so no one is taking ownership of this place. And I think through planning and through even council getting proactive themselves, if we can create a situation where we can convert some of those so that there’s actual residential frontage, on most of the sites so you’ve got overlooking. Because if you think of the best parks, I’m not talking about the best local parks, they’ve got sort of streets around them, with houses looking on to them. And we could create that. And I think people just feel safer in them. GMs were also articulate in observing that materially and symbolically, maintenance was a bridge between physical and social issues in the urban environment as it indicated the types of users and uses of public space, as

well as Council care’’ (Rudner, 2011: 217). When GMs discussed council provision of infrastructure in public space, they referred to their intentions about who should use amenities, how, and why. GMs believed that a sense of community insecurity could be created by particular people and their activities such as drug addicts. However, GM ‘A’ also noted that part of the problem concerning community safety may be due to acculturated preferences: ‘‘I think we’ve sanitised environments to such an extent for our children now, it’s really confronting for us as parents when we have to step outside of that’’. GMs suggest that promotion of CIM and children’s use of public spaces could conflict with council intentions and community members’ sense of safety, due to children’s own intents for using the environment. For example, certain behaviours exhibited by older children, such as noise, vandalism, graffiti, and drinking, were observed as impacting on other people’s sense of safety. GMs ‘B’ and ‘C’ highlighted the tension between older children’s use of space and conceptions of safety by others: GM ‘B’:...if you put a gazebo in, which are there really for day time use – and people have picnics and show up and the rest of it – but you do find that at night you get maybe youth congregating under it. And if they are not behaving in an unruly fashion, it’s still the perception, with groups.

32

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

GM ‘C’: We have local wards that intend to protect the amenity of the municipality. And those local wards, they deal with primping up places, behaviour in places, a whole range of other things. They are there to make it safe for the general community so you don’t have groups of youths, older youths drinking and just, going in shopping centres and the like, so that young children don’t feel safe, or older people don’t feel safe, so there are a number of things like that. Graffiti was identified as one element of the physical environment that GMs believed represented the presence of ‘undesirable’ people, and undermined a community sense of security. It was viewed as negatively influencing concerns about children’s safety, resulting in their enlarged fields of constrained action. GM ‘B’ noted Council has a ‘zero-tolerance’ policy to graffiti and clean up programmes to deal with this issue. Links between the physical environment, behaviour and a community sense of safety are well exemplified by documents addressing the interface of behaviour and physical space such as graffiti and vandalism (Brimbank City Council, 2004a; Brimbank City Council & Melbourne University Private, 2006). In local level regulatory documents graffiti was identified as ‘‘... play[ing] a significant part in creating perceptions of entrenched criminal activity and, worse, of unruly or violent young offenders who could care less about their community’’ (Brimbank City Council and Melbourne University Private, 2006: 6). This connection was highlighted in research documents informing regulation about train stations, young people and graffiti: [r]esearch has shown that issues, such as community levels of fear, are affected by the quality of the physical environment, and that the physical environment is more likely to be abused when there is no sense of care or custodianship (Village Well, 2006: 19). GMs’ views about the value of urban design creating passive surveillance were mirrored in regulatory planning and urban design documents. These documents promoted passive surveillance, encouraged activities that attract people and the provision of attractive, well managed, maintained defined spaces (Department of Sustainability and Environment and Crime Prevention Victoria, 2005). One of the main objectives of state and local level planning, urban design, community development and health documents is increasing population density and diversity; this issue was not addressed in the parent questionnaire and only

partially referred to by GMs. Regulatory documents promoted higher population density as a way to increase incidental social interaction between individuals and social groups, creating a deeper sense of identity, community cohesion, community capacity building and place, as well as increased passive surveillance in urban space (Brimbank City Council, 2004b; Brimbank City Council & Brimbank Family and Community Services Agencies, 2006; Department of Human Services, 2006; Department of Planning & Community Development, 2008). Regulatory documents that supported higher population densities in urban areas promoted equity issues such as social inclusion of various age groups, lifecycle stages, cultural groups, and socio-status in existing and new developments (Brimbank City Council, 2006a, 2006b; Department of Human Services, 2002; Department of Sustainability & Environment, 2004; House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment & Heritage, 2005; National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victoria Division), 2004). For example, a state government regulatory document aim was to provide social and affordable housing ‘‘close to public transport in safe, vibrant, communities where there was easy access to jobs, training, shops and services’’ (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2001: 52), a objective reflected at local level (Brimbank City Council, 2005-2006). However, one local document acknowledged that residents might not be supportive of regulatory goals to increase density (Village Well, 2005). Residents associated higher density with lower socio-economic status and social issues. Medium density developments were believed to ‘‘attract riffraff, drugs, people who do ‘runners’, robberies’’ and ‘‘[c]heap flats will bring in undesirable people’’ (Village Well, 2005: 13). These views suggest that higher density could negatively influence parents’ views on the social environment, and may support their restrictions on CIM through enlarged fields of constrained action. Regulatory documents at all levels of government rarely considered children’s views about their urban environments. However, both positive and negative views of older children and youth in the social environment were evident in regulatory documents. Negative views of older children and youth were often entwined with issues of crime, ethnicity and congregation. Some documents attempted to counteract negative associations. They did this by highlighting that lack of familiarity with young people’s culture can reinforce negative stereotypes, or by contrasting conceptions about young people against objective data such as illicit drug taking and crime to show that conceptions are

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

more negative than evidence suggests (Brimbank City Council, 2004a; Brimbank City Council & Melbourne University Private, 2006; National Crime Prevention Unit, 1999; Outer Western Psychiatric Disability Services Association Inc., 2004). These documents suggest that older children and youth require high levels of control, which could influence parents’ views of children’s social affordances, and thereby limit CIM. When children’s sense of safety was mentioned, regulatory documents addressed specific issues of peer interaction and public transport safety in relation to older children or youth (Brimbank City Council, 2007b; Brimbank City Council & Melbourne University Private, 2006; National Crime Prevention Unit, 1999; White, 1998). Documents recognised the importance of peer socialising for older children and youth, and the need to address matters of peer bullying or aggressive behaviour. The aim of these documents was to reduce intergroup tensions, improve understanding between ethnic groups, and provide safe comfortable spaces for a diverse demographic of older children and youth (Brimbank City Council, 2007b; National Crime Prevention Unit, 1999; White, 1998). Younger children’s needs for socialising and addressing matters of inter-group interactions were not addressed. 7.2.3. Traffic environment Table 7.2c shows parents’ evaluation of the traffic environment. The mean scores indicate parents have negative views about intersections and traffic speed. The frequency of responses shows the major traffic issues for parents were dangerous intersections (62%) and driver behaviour in terms of speed of traffic (74%) and driver consideration for pedestrians and cyclists (52%). These results suggest the traffic environment is more likely to influence parent’s decision-making about CIM than the physical and social environment.

33

GMs were keenly aware of the traffic issues in Brimbank. They noted that improved road design, traffic treatments, and retrofitting of older neighbourhoods could contribute towards increased CIM. However, GMs differed in their opinions as to what was required to ensure a community sense of safety, and whether current approaches to street design would facilitate CIM. The debate centred on how streets should be designed and for whom. In the quotations below GM ‘A’ noted streets are not designed for children as users of public space. GM ‘B’ believed newer streets designed to meet engineering standards were safe, but older streets may be unsafe due to design. GM ‘A’: I mean some communities feel safe enough to do that [permit CIM]. There might be a good sort of traffic treatment arrangement in place in the street that better facilitates that. But I guess that’s part of the issue around how we design our streets. We don’t really design that in mind. GM ‘B’: Whenever a new subdivision goes in, we have to make sure the streets are designed to be as safe as possible based on engineering guidelines if you like. But also a lot of the established streets, where you’ve got stiff speeding problems, you’ve gotta go back, you get complaints from residents, you investigate it and you see whether there’s an appropriate speed reduction treatment you can incorporate into those streets. Transport documents viewed traffic environments as dangerous but manageable through design and behaviour change (Australian Transport Council, 2001; Australian Transport Safety Bureau & National Road Safety Strategy Panel and Taskforce, 2001; Brimbank City Council, 2007b; Department of Premier and Cabinet & Department of Infrastructure, 2006; Victorian Police

Table 7.2c Conceptions of the traffic environment. Item

Level of agreement

Traffic environment

SA

A

NAD

DA

SDA

M

sd

There are dangerous intersections for pedestrians

n %

41 26.62

55 35.71

20 12.99

30 19.48

8 5.19

2.41

1.22

Cars and motorbikes are parked on the sidewalk and in other areas meant for people.

n %

22 14.01

29 18.47

23 14.65

67 42.68

16 10.19

3.17

1.24

Motorists and motorcyclists drive too quickly

n %

61 38.36

56 35.22

18 11.32

16 10.06

8 5.03

2.08

1.16

Motorists and motorcyclists do not look out for pedestrians and cyclists

n %

38 23.75

45 28.13

41 25.63

27 16.88

9 5.63

2.53

1.19

%: Does not include missing responses.

34

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

et al., 2008). The main objectives of these documents were to reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities through research, road design, vehicle technologies, driver behaviour, pedestrian and cyclist behaviour, child restraint, law enforcement, and education programmes. As noted earlier, the underlying assumption regarding children was that they are a danger to themselves in traffic. In contrast, planning, community development and health regulatory documents that supported walking, cycling, and public transport viewed traffic as the problem. These documents viewed traffic as dangerous, detrimental to social relations, polluting and harmful to human health. The aim of these documents was to reduce reliance on private vehicle transport by improving design and implementation of pedestrian, cycling, and public transport networks and facilities (Bicycle Victoria, 2006; Department of Sustainability & Environment, 2004; Halsnaes et al., 2001; National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victoria Division), 2004; Office for Youth Future Directions Policy, 2007; Weedon, 1998; WHO Regional Committee for Europe, 1998). Unfortunately, using the dangers of traffic to support arguments for alternative transport can also reinforce views that the traffic environment is unsafe, and may support negative views of traffic affordances and result in limited CIM. 7.3. Conceptions of children’s competence The interactions between parents, GMs and regulatory documents in relation to a public knowing of children’s

competence are complex, however, they seem to promote children’s fields of constrained action and limited CIM. Parents and GMs seem to share the view that children have some competence for negotiating their environments. In contrast, many documents across a variety of fields tended to support a conception of children as vulnerable and incompetent. It is likely parents and GMs negotiate their own experience of children’s competence with advice from ‘experts’, as well as normative social behaviours that could be interpreted as a standard by which to assess children’s competence. Parents’ responses to children’s level of choice over encountering adverse situations if they went out by themselves are presented in Table 7.3a. The mean scores indicate, on average, that children have some choice. A higher proportion of parents rated children’s choice as little or none for situations representing deliberate harm and involving strangers such as children seeing bad things (44%), meeting bad adults (51%) and bullying (32%) than parents who indicated they had greater levels of choice. Conversely, a higher proportion of parents rated children as having greater choice over encountering more familiar, everyday type situations such as traffic (32%), getting lost (39%), misbehaving (46%) and making bad friends (38%). The results suggest parents’ conceptions of children’s choice about encountering negative social affordances would result in children’s enlarged fields of constrained action and lower levels of CIM. Table 7.3b presents data about parents’ assessment of skills in relation to potential adverse situations they may encounter if they go places by themselves. Compared to

Table 7.3a Parents’ conceptions about children’s choice over exposure to adverse situations they may encounter control. Situations

None

Some

Total

M

Sd

Traffic danger

29 18.71

17 10.97

60 38.71

28 18.06

21 13.55

2.97

1.26

Child getting lost/disoriented

14 9.09

13 8.44

67 43.51

35 22.73

25 16.23

3.29

1.12

Child seeing bad things

42 26.92

27 17.31

49 31.41

18 11.54

20 12.82

2.66

1.33

Child meeting bad adults

45 28.85

35 22.44

42 26.92

23 14.74

11 7.05

2.49

1.25

Child misbehaving

7 4.49

22 14.10

56 35.90

28 17.95

43 27.56

3.50

1.17

Child making bad friends

6 3.85

25 16.03

65 41.67

35 22.44

25 16.03

3.31

1.04

Child not able to handle difficult situations

18 11.54

24 15.38

78 50.00

24 15.38

12 7.69

2.92

1.04

Being bullied

28 17.95

25 16.03

76 48.72

12 7.69

15 9.62

2.75

1.13

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

35

Table 7.3b Parents’ conceptions about children’s skill over exposure to adverse situations they may encounter control. Situations

None

Some

A Lot

M

Sd

Traffic danger

7 4.49

14 8.97

59 37.82

52 33.33

24 15.38

3.46

1.01

Child getting lost/disoriented

8 5.16

20 12.90

69 44.52

41 26.45

17 10.97

3.25

.99

Child seeing bad things

14 8.97

36 23.08

58 37.18

32 20.51

16 10.26

3.00

1.10

Child meeting bad adults

20 12.82

34 21.79

56 35.90

27 17.31

19 12.18

2.94

1.18

Child misbehaving

6 3.85

21 13.46

73 46.79

34 21.79

22 14.10

3.29

1.00

Child making bad friends

6 3.85

30 19.23

68 43.59

34 21.79

18 11.54

3.18

1.00

12 7.69

40 25.64

67 42.95

26 16.67

11 7.05

2.90

1.00

6 3.85

31 19.87

68 43.59

28 17.95

23 14.74

3.20

1.04

Child not able to handle difficult situations

Being bullied

their assessment of choice, parents evaluated their children as having higher levels of skills to deal with potential adverse situations. The pattern of evaluation was similar, however. On average, the mean scores suggest parents think children have some skills. A higher proportion of parents assessed their children as having lower levels of skills in relation to situations representing deliberate harm and involving strangers such as seeing bad things (32%), meeting bad adults (34%), and bullying (51%). For more familiar everyday type situations, a higher proportion of parents rated children as having higher levels of skills in relation to traffic (49%), getting lost (37%), misbehaving (36%) and making bad friends (33%). The results suggest parents’ conceptions of children’s skill about encountering negative social affordances would result in children’s enlarged fields of constrained action. GMs provided insight about the parental considerations involved in decision-making about CIM in relation to assessments of children’s competence. GMs responses were based on personal experiences and their identities as parents rather than professionals. For the GMs, there is a tension centred on children’s individual capabilities and what the environment offers. This tension comprises an assessment of age and maturity. For example: GM ‘B’: I wouldn’t want to see my 6 year-old rambling out on [his/her] own. And I don’t, and I

probably don’t think as a six year old myself all those years ago that I would have gone out on my own either. There no doubt is [a specific age] but it’s gotta be somewhere around the nine or ten year bracket I suppose. But it’s not that simple really. When they’re, once they’re old enough to be able to – respective of age – to recognise danger and not be enticed or realise... Once they’re capable of being responsible themselves, you know. It’s a bit hard to ask a six year old to be responsible for instance – once they get to an age where they are capable of being responsible for themselves. I don’t know what that age is, what that magic number is.

GM ‘C’: You know, if it’s a safe environment, not on a busy road, or near a busy road, you know, it could be five or six. In other circumstances it could be older. Just my own experience with my children. Unlike GMs and potentially parents, regulatory documents from a number of areas including transport, community development, and health assumed a direct association between age and competence. Expert advice about age-based competencies promoted the need for children to be under adult surveillance or engaged with institutional programmes (Brimbank City Council, 2004a, 2007c; Brimbank City Council & Melbourne University Private, 2006; National Crime Prevention

36

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

Unit, 1999; White, 1998). Taking the documents together, children’s development was categorised according to the following stages: antenatal, post-natal, pre-school, transition to school, school age, high school, and transition into the workforce. Appropriate ages for crossing roads and attending the library alone were also stipulated. Regulatory documents may influence parents’ and professionals’ views of children’s capabilities, and encourage them to enlarge children’s fields of constrained action and limit CIM. In addition to age-based capabilities, documents in health, community development, community safety and education defined children through the designation of an at-risk identity. Many of these documents apply to all children, however, there tends to be a focus on service provision for ‘at-risk’ children and families. The at-risk classification is broad, and appears to be extending to most children in most situations. For example, children were at-risk of low income, migrant status, Aboriginality, domestic violence, divorce, merged families, incompetent parents, inappropriate behaviours by professionals working with children, children’s own unpredictability, underdeveloped biology, and inability to comprehend danger (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2004; Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth, UNICEF, & The Allen Consulting Group, 2008; Centre for Community Child and Safety Centre & The Royal Children’s Hospital, 2006; Mathers, Vos, & Stevenson, 1999; Waters et al., 2001). Children were also at-risk of poor decisionmaking, illicit drug-taking, inappropriate consumption of alcohol, risky sexual behaviours, early departure from school, and long-term damage such as underachievement, poor socialisation, and criminality. Children’s at-risk identities were associated with various government interventions. These included child and maternal health services, programmes for improving parent and family competence, support for children to make the transition to school, and from school to the workforce, as well as school based support services such as, bullying prevention programmes, counselling, and programmes addressing mental health, suicide prevention, illicit drug-taking, and alcohol issues. These services are essential for those children who need them, however, they are also promoted to those children who do not require such support, which may lead parents to question their children’s capabilities. Positive conceptions of children’s competence and their ability to become proficient in urban environments were rare in documents, as was their ability to actively contribute to their communities. No document associated children’s competence with being adventuresome, or

with character development such as learning, perseverance, tenacity or other such qualities that may reframe the issue. One regulatory document did suggest children could develop skills, however this was framed by adult supervision and intervention: A well-designed playground will stimulate the children’s imagination and tempt them to explore new dimensions to play. However in developing new ideas, children will come up against the boundaries of their current levels of skill – and it is the challenge which is exciting. There is always some risk in meeting a challenge, but this risk can and should be managed by support (physical and psychological), so that the child develops risk-assessment skills (Centre for Community Child and Safety Centre & The Royal Children’s Hospital, 2006: 41)

7.4. Conceptions about the probability of adverse situations occurring if children go places on their own, numbers harmed and duration of harm A public knowing about the probability of children encountering adverse situations if they go out by themselves, the number of children harmed each year and the duration of impact may occur due to the interaction between parents’ belief that any traumatic event could happen to their children and documents that support this view. Parents tend to focus on the possibility that any event could occur, and the consequences of children encountering adverse situations. Many parents indicated higher probabilities for situations represented by externally imposed deliberate harm by others, and reported that greater rather than fewer children are harmed for a long time by these situations. Regulatory documents reinforced parents’ view by contributing to a pervasive sense of danger and emphasising harm when assessing probability of situations occurring and their outcomes. This may contribute to negative views about children’s environmental affordances and limited CIM. Table 7.4a summarises parents’ conceptions about the probability of adverse situations occurring if children go out by themselves. The mean scores indicate parents thought children might encounter any of the listed adverse situations. One-half to one-third of parents indicated children might encounter any of the listed adverse situations if they go places on their own, with the exception of children misbehaving (43%). For adverse situations representing externally imposed deliberate harm and situations involving strangers,

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

37

Table 7.4a Parents’ conceptions about the probability of adverse situations occurring if children go out by themselves. Situations

Will happen

M

Sd

Traffic danger

10 6.54

18 11.76

97 63.40

20 13.07

8 5.23

2.99

0.85

4 2.58

10 6.45

87 56.13

35 22.58

19 12.26

3.35

0.87

11 7.10

27 17.42

93 60.00

19 12.26

5 3.23

2.87

0.84

Child meeting bad adults

8 5.16

30 19.35

89 57.42

21 13.55

7 4.52

2.93

0.85

Child misbehaving

6 3.87

13 8.39

67 43.23

46 29.68

23 14.84

3.43

0.97

Child making bad friends

6 3.87

18 11.61

80 51.61

39 25.16

12 7.74

3.21

0.89

Child not able to handle difficult situations

9 5.81

22 14.19

93 60.00

22 14.19

9 5.81

3.00

0.87

10 6.45

28 18.06

90 58.06

17 10.97

10 6.45

2.93

0.90

Child getting lost/disoriented Child seeing bad things

Being bullied

May happen

there was a higher proportion of parents who indicated this situation is likely to happen or will happen such as see bad things (25%), meeting bad adults, be bullied (25%) compared to parents who assessed these situations as less likely to happen. A higher proportion of parents evaluated more familiar everyday type situations as less likely to happen or not happen such as children getting lost (35%), misbehaving (45%),

Would not happen

making bad friends (33%) compared to parents who assessed these situations as are more likely to happen. Equal proportions of parents rated traffic and children encountering difficult situations as more likely and less likely to happen. The results suggest many parents’ overestimate the likelihood of children encountering traumatic situations or they do not distinguish between notions of chance, possibility, and probability. Parents’

Table 7.4b Parents’ conceptions about the number of children harmed if they go out on by themselves and encounter adverse situations. Situations

Many

Some

None

CPS M

Sd

Traffic danger

34 22.22

35 22.88

62 40.52

11 7.19

11 7.19

2.54

1.13

Child getting lost/disoriented

19 12.50

27 17.76

68 44.74

30 19.74

8 5.26

2.88

1.04

Child seeing bad things

41 27.15

33 21.85

57 37.75

17 11.26

3 1.99

2.39

1.06

Child meeting bad adults

35 23.03

35 23.03

61 40.13

18 11.84

3 1.97

2.47

1.04

Child misbehaving

32 21.05

34 22.37

67 44.08

15 9.87

4 2.63

2.51

1.02

Child making bad friends

29.0 19.21

38.0 25.17

65.0 43.05

15.0 9.93

4.0 2.65

2.52

1.00

Child not able to handle difficult situations

27 17.76

45 29.61

60 39.47

15 9.87

5 3.29

2.51

1.00

Being bullied

47 30.92

29 19.08

67 44.08

5 3.29

4 2.63

2.28

1.02

38

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

conceptions of the probability of children encountering traumatic social affordances likely results in children’s enlarged fields of constrained action and limited CIM. Table 7.4b presents parents responses about the number of children they assessed being harmed each year by encountering adverse situations if they go places by themselves. The mean scores for most items show parents assessed some children as encountering harm. On average, parents provided negative assessments for children seeing bad things, meeting bad adults and bullying receiving negative assessments on average. For most situations 40–45% of parents indicted some children are harmed each year. Between 40% and 50% of parents across all listed items indicated that more rather than less children are harmed each year, with the exception of children getting lost (30%). These results suggest that parents’ conceptions of the number of children harmed by encountering negative social affordances would result in children’s enlarged fields of constrained action and limited CIM. Combined with the results of parents’ conception of the probability of adverse situations occurring, it appears many parents consider their children are likely to encounter adverse situations and be harmed. Table 7.4c shows the results about parents’ conceptions of the longevity of impact if children encounter adverse situation when they go places on their own. On average, the mean scores indicate parents primarily view the impact lasting a medium length of time if

children encounter adverse situations, but they assessed children as experiencing long term impacts if they see bad things and meet bad adults. Reflecting earlier response patterns, a high proportion of parents assessed the longevity of impact for situations representing deliberate harm or involving strangers as having longer impacts such as seeing bad things (54%), meeting bad adults (57%) and bullying (46%). In addition, lower proportions of parents selected the response of medium length of time in relation to the aforementioned items. A higher proportion of parents assessed familiar everyday type situations as having a shorter time impact: traffic (37%); misbehaving (46%), making bad friends (34%). The proportion of parents’ responses were similar between those who indicated the impacts would be longer and those who assessed the impacts would be shorter in relation to children getting lost or handling different situations. The results suggest parents’ conceptions of the potential length of impact if children encountered negative social affordances if they went out by themselves could contribute to a view that children are likely to be harmed for a long time; this would result in children’s enlarged fields of constrained action and limited CIM. Parents’ assessments of probability, numbers of children harmed and duration of impact might be reinforced by regulatory document conceptions about the likelihood of children encountering adverse situations and the potential outcomes. Similar to parents,

Table 7.4c Parents’ conceptions about the length of time children will be affected if they go out by themselves and encounter adverse situations. CPS

Situations

M

Sd

Traffic danger

15 9.80

16 10.46

65 42.48

27 17.65

30 19.61

3.27

1.18

Child getting lost/disoriented

15 9.74

31 20.13

60 38.96

24 15.58

24 15.58

3.07

1.17

Child seeing bad things

39 25.49

44 28.76

43 28.10

14 9.15

13 8.50

2.46

1.21

Child meeting bad adults

48 31.17

39 25.32

36 23.38

13 8.44

18 11.69

2.44

1.32

Child misbehaving

12 7.74

15 9.68

58 37.42

36 23.23

34 21.94

3.42

1.16

Child making bad friends

11 7.14

25 16.23

66 42.86

35 22.73

17 11.04

3.14

1.05

Child not able to handle difficult situations

10 6.45

35 22.58

66 42.58

31 20.00

13 8.39

3.01

1.01

Being bullied

32 20.65

39 25.16

52 33.55

16 10.32

16 10.32

2.65

1.22

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

regulatory documents seemed to blur the distinctions between externally imposed type situations and familiar everyday type situations that children might encounter if they went places by themselves. Together, the diversity of regulatory documents across the professional fields contributed to a general understanding of insecurity for children that may influence parents and professionals. The at-risk label of vulnerability, combined with the extensive factors or potential dangers that children could encounter in their daily lives, and the implied longevity of those impacts would support parent and professional concern. In addition, regulatory documents, especially those related to community safety and children’s development, often focused on issues that required intervention rather than mundane or healthy aspects of children’s lives. Using proportions, comparative ratios or descriptive comparisons based on research outcomes, regulatory documents aimed to highlight the probability of situations occurring. For example, Victoria’s Road safety strategy: Arrive alive 2008–2017 (Victorian Police et al., 2008: 41) indicates children have a high probability of being harmed, ‘‘[c]hildren aged 16 years and younger account for 14 per cent of all pedestrian fatalities, with risks increasing significantly for children when they begin school’’. In contrast, a look at Victoria’s CrashStats (VicRoads, 2009) indicates there were ‘‘147 children in Brimbank aged 5–15 who were seriously injured as pedestrians between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2012. Using the current child population of 31,081 aged 5–17, about 0.05% of children were likely to be injured and 0.01% were likely to be killed’’ (Rudner, 2011: 309). In another professional field, proportional statistics and descriptive explanations were used to explain the probability of children being bullied at school, or the likelihood of anti-social behaviours occurring. Parents who access the pamphlet, The stats – did you know? Bullying. No Way., are informed that 20% of children are bullied, and bullying is most prevalent during the later years of primary school and early years of high school (Australian Education Systems Officials Committee, After 2004). While these statistics indicate there is a serious problem, the problem is also associated with how bullying is defined. According to the Student Wellbeing Branch Office of School Education (2006: 3), ‘‘Bullying is when someone, or a group of people, who have more power at the time deliberately upset or hurt another person, their property, reputation or social acceptance on more than one occasion’’. While this definition rightly indicates bullying comprises issues of power and multiple instances, it does not adequately

39

differentiate between general conflict between children and systematic deliberate abuse. Assessments of probability are required for targeting resources for interventions that address specific issues. Without data, recommendations for interventions are not supported as noted in one regulatory document: Few studies have examined the effectiveness of strategies to reduce falls in children. The emphasis has mainly been on older children and injuries in playgrounds. This prevents conclusions being made regarding successful strategies, particularly in the Australian setting. A better understanding of how young children fall, and what causes the injuries, is needed in order to target interventions effectively (Centre for Community Child Health, The University of Melbourne, & Safety Centre of the Royal Children’s Hospital, 2001: vii). Regulatory documents that address conduct between adults and children may further promote insecurity about children’s safety while aiming to create assurance. State legislation such as Working With Children Act 2005 (Commonwealth), the Serious Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Victoria), and Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005 (Victoria) aim to protect children from sexual misconduct, abduction and other situations that exploit children, yet also indicate there is an issue that requires regulation. These regulations are important and necessary. Unfortunately, combined with a general sense of anxiety, they may indicate that stranger danger is more prevalent than it is. One of the regulatory documents that is most integrated into everyday life in Australia with regard to adult–child conduct is the Working With Children Act 2005 (Commonwealth), which requires most adults who are engaged with children through professional and voluntary activities to undergo a Working With Children Check. Very simply, adults apply to have police records searched for any activity that deems them dangerous to work with children; they receive a Check if no records are found. The Check is used to protect children from ill-intentioned adults, and to protect organisations from hiring adults who may harm children. The Working with Children Check provides assurances that safe adults are those who are located in institutionalised places such as schools, or other organisations while implying adults without a check or who are strangers in public space are unsafe. This legislation may contribute to children’s enlarged fields of constrained action and limited CIM. The Victorian Code of Conduct for organisations that elect to be child-safe exemplified how a public knowing of adult-children relationships could be socially defined

40

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

in relation to professionals and children. The Code of Conduct indicated it is inappropriate for adults to ‘‘have contact with children outside of the[ir] organisation’s programmes’’ (Child Safety Commissioner, 2006: 12). This broad stipulation effectively stigmatises interactions that may have been quite reasonable according to community development objectives. It assumes that all adult–child contact outside of institutional environments implies questionable behaviour and imposes constrained fields of action on professionals who work with children. The problem is not with the initial impetus for these regulations, which is to protect children from ill-intended adults. The issue lies with their extension into other areas of life where many positive elements of adult–child relationship have become equated with notions of using or abusing children. Few documents balanced notions of children’s vulnerability with notions of resilience. Unfortunately with regard to children, documents tend to imply resilience is a condition or skill imparted by, or developed through, policy intervention (Department of Human Services, 2001; Student Wellbeing Branch Office of School Education, 2006; The Allen Consulting Group, 2008). The State Government of Victoria’s Children’s Report 2006 provides one of the few statements that distinguished the need for protection from sustained trauma rather than everyday events:

‘‘[c]hild wellbeing implies resilience, social confidence, secure cultural identity and protection from prolonged isolation, emotional trauma or exclusion’’ (Victorian Department of Human Services, 2006: 11). 7.5. Conceptions of expert knowledge The public knowing of risk is perhaps more ‘tangible’ when discussing parents’, GMs’ and regulatory document conceptions of expert knowledge. Parents tend to evaluate experts as having some knowledge about the adverse situations children may encounter if they go places by themselves. GMs refer to, embody, and apply expert knowledge in their work. Regulatory documents symbolise the expert knowledge of their producers as well as act as experts through the information they contain. Depending on the match between parents’ and professionals’ views, and with regulatory documents, expert advice might influence parents and professionals to enlarge children’s fields of constrained action and limit CIM. Table 7.5 summarises parents assessments of expert knowledge about adverse situations children might encounter if they go places by themselves. The mean scores show, on average, parents indicated that experts know something about the adverse situations children may encounter if they go out on their own. Between 40% and 47% of parents evaluated experts as having

Table 7.5 Parents’ assessment of expert knowledge about the adverse situations children may encounter if they go out by themselves. Situations

Traffic danger

Little

Some

A Lot

CPS M

Sd

3 1.96

23 15.03

65 42.48

30 19.61

32 20.92

3.42

1.04

Child getting lost/disoriented

11 7.14

26 16.88

68 44.16

30 19.48

19 12.34

3.13

1.07

Child seeing bad things

12 7.84

26 16.99

66 43.14

29 18.95

20 13.07

3.12

1.09

Child meeting bad adults

12 7.79

33 21.43

63 40.91

26 16.88

20 12.99

3.06

1.10

Child misbehaving

9 5.84

23 14.94

68 44.16

32 20.78

22 14.29

3.23

1.06

Child making bad friends

6 3.92

34 22.22

64 41.83

32 20.92

17 11.11

3.13

1.01

Child not able to handle difficult situations

13 8.44

27 17.53

73 47.40

26 16.88

15 9.74

3.02

1.04

Being bullied

11 7.19

31 20.26

65 42.48

27 17.65

19 12.42

3.08

1.08

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

some knowledge and 41–62% indicated experts had much or a lot of knowledge about the adverse situations children might encounter. With the exception of traffic, about one-quarter to one-third of parents thought experts knew little or nothing about the adverse situations children might encounter. Differences in assessments between situations that represent externally imposed deliberate harm or involving strangers and situations that are more familiar and everyday were not very distinct, with perhaps the exception of meeting bad adults (29%) and bullying (28%). The results suggest that many parents may be open to receiving expert advice based on their views that experts have at least some knowledge about children’s environmental affordances and appropriate fields of action. The interviews with GMs revealed their roles as experts in addressing matters concerning CIM, and their opportunities and constraints for increasing CIM. However, they were also consumers and implementers of others’ expert knowledge that was contained in documents. GMs referred to a variety of documents in their work including safety audits of public spaces, road engineering guidelines and urban design guidelines. These documents proscribed ways in which staff should carry out their work functions to achieve specific safety objectives. An example of the type of guidelines council staff implemented is provided by GM ‘B’, and the need to implement defined standards is articulated by GM ‘C’. GM ‘B’: There’s principles for designing parks. They used to be called CPTED – Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. But these days, there’s guidelines that the government produces that are still sort of based on the same sort of principles, which basically gives you guidelines in terms of making sure that there are always clear sightlines to all forms of parks, or public realm spaces, and nowhere people can hide in the shadows and that sort of thing. So we need to be cognisant of that when we design parks and things, or streetscapes, or shopping centres, malls or plazas or whatever. GM ‘C’: It’s a matter of well you know, following standards and best practice. So you won’t be able to eliminate the risk of kids getting injured. . .but as long as you can demonstrate that you followed the standards, you haven’t created increase risk beyond what’s acceptable. There are those limitations. GMs observed they were constrained in their actions to increase CIM due to insurance. Insurance requirements and associated regulations simultaneously aimed to protect users of public services and infrastructure,

41

and to protect service providers and managers of public infrastructure from legal liability. As a result, council staff had to comply with policies and regulations to ensure duty of care to children and to protect council if an adverse situation occurred. GM ‘A’ stated that staff needed to be aware of ‘‘. . .mitigating against risk for council more broadly – which is a key function obviously of our risk management programme’’. Implementation of risk management was shared with other organisations, and the different roles of organisations could impact on council activities such as the police or schools who have their own programmes of risk management. According to the GMs, council staff deferred to external agencies, and implemented advice from external agencies when managing risk in public spaces. This GM ‘B’ highlighted the expert role of police in helping council identifying safety issues and address them: GM ‘B’: Where you’ve got congregating people or you’ve got some violent activity, we refer it to the police, because it’s really their role. But at the same time, we work with them to see what we can do to try and overcome that particular problem. Because usually it occurs in the public realm, and council’s responsible for the maintenance and the improvement of the public realm. One GM believed safety culture had unfortunately transferred from government service provision into the everyday lives of children, influencing notions of appropriate supervision, and the appropriateness of CIM, as explained by GM ‘A’: The regulatory framework in which we run family daycare for instance. You know, it is so, so controlled, and this is the expectation we have around the families’ environment or the home where care is being provided. So, . . . the notion of actually having children playing out, you know in the streets, being allowed to walk down to the shop unsupervised. I mean that really flies in the face of this highly, you know sort of managed, you know, legislative sort of environment that we are creating. GM ‘C’ simply noted: . . .all it takes is one [incident], you know, and council could be issued with a huge writ. So it’s reality and it’s something that we need to be mindful of. Documents contained and symbolised assumptions about the legitimacy of expert knowledge. Legitimacy was achieved by the status of the documents as regulatory instruments, through the information they

42

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

contained as well as their inference and or reference to scientific research. Conceptions of risk within each document and each professional field of documents were assumed to be common or right. Different risk conceptions were unacknowledged unless they were identified as wrong or as an educational issue. For example, a recent document from a state level health promotion agency clearly elevates the status of expert conceptions of actuarial risk over parents’ affective conceptions of risk: Very importantly, even where actuarial estimates of risk yield excessively low probabilities of harm or threat to children by strangers, effectively making parental fear of strangers irrational, it is unlikely any appeal to this logic would persuade parents to believe, much less behave, otherwise (Zubrick et al., 2010: 4). Unfortunately, the regulatory documents were selfreferential and few referred to background documents or research upon which they were based. Compared to other professional fields, community development, health, education, and safety documents made greater reference to research and a more diverse body of research. However, references to research and diversity of research sources were still poor. This enabled regulatory documents to promote particular conceptions about problems and how they should be addressed, but would not assist parents or professionals to assess the validity of knowledge claims. In instances concerning children’s safety, regulatory documents did not refer to research on children’s growth and development, so parents and professionals may be influenced to restrict CIM through enlarged fields of action based on inappropriate advice. Uncomfortably, risk managers became de facto experts for many fields affecting children’s lives. This occurred through the elevation of corporate risk management, insurance and safety standards over the main focus of regulatory documents. Managing Risk Across the Public Sector: Towards Good Practice (Victorian Auditor-General, 2007: v) stressed the importance of organisational risk: Every organisation faces a variety of risks. Identifying, assessing, managing and reporting these risks is at the heart of corporate governance and organisational performance. In an era where the public sector is facing greater scrutiny and adopting new models of service delivery, effective risk management is even more important. Unsurprisingly, this focus on risk management was also replicated at local government level in direct relationship to children’s activities. Playground

maintenance in relation to risk reduction was a feature in the Municipal Association of Victoria Insurance 2006 Annual Report (Municipal Association of Victoria, 2006). Insurance matters were reflected in the Brimbank Open Space and Playground Policy and Plan (Draft) as it prioritised risk management over children’s play experiences: . . .places to play that are safe, accessible for a range of abilities, and compliant with Australian Safety Standards, that also offer a diverse range of fun, challenging and stimulating play experiences for children of all ages (Edaw et al., 2007: 51).

7.6. Level of worry Perhaps the most significant nexus where parents’, GMs’ and regulatory document conceptions of risk converge is the emotional space of worry, and the auxiliary notion of regret. Parents were more concerned about potential outcomes than probabilities of adverse situations occurring if children went places by themselves. Regulatory documents used consequences as a way to communicate warnings about potential harms to children. Media also influenced parents’ views of their children’s safety. GMs tried to manage parents’ concern and promotion of worse-case scenarios. These dynamics contributed to a public knowing of risk that is likely to have the most influence on parents’ and professionals’ views of children’s environmental affordances, their fields of action, and CIM. Parents’ levels of worry about children encountering adverse situations if they go places by themselves are presented in Table 7.6. The mean scores show on average, that parents are worried about children encountering adverse situations. One-third of parents indicated some worry in relation to most of the adverse situations children might encounter if they go places by themselves. Over 48% of parents reported they had high or extreme levels of worry about children encountering adverse situations, with the exception of children misbehaving (34%). In particular, parents were most worried about children meeting bad adults (75%) a situation that represents externally imposed deliberate harm and involves a stranger. These results suggest parents are broadly concerned about all of children’s environmental affordances. Worry is likely to be the greatest influence over parents’ decisions about CIM compared to their assessments of the probability, numbers of children harmed each year, and the longevity of impact if children are harmed. However,

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

43

Table 7.6 Parents’ level of worry if children encounter adverse situations if they go out by themselves. CPS

Situations

M

Sd

Traffic danger

63 40.38

32 20.51

45 28.85

11 7.05

5 3.21

2.12

1.12

Child getting lost/disoriented

42 26.92

33 21.15

48 30.77

19 12.18

14 8.97

2.55

1.26

Child seeing bad things

72 46.15

35 22.44

36 23.08

9 5.77

4 2.56

1.96

1.08

Child meeting bad adults

79 50.64

38 24.36

30 19.23

7 4.49

2 1.28

1.81

0.98

Child misbehaving

29 18.59

24 15.38

54 34.62

26 16.67

23 14.74

2.94

1.29

Child making bad friends

47 30.13

31 19.87

48 30.77

26 16.67

4 2.56

2.42

1.16

Child not able to handle difficult situations

49 31.41

45 28.85

47 30.13

14 8.97

1 .64

2.19

1.00

Being bullied

68 43.6

27 17.3

46 29.5

11 7.1

4 2.6

2.10

1.12

decisions to permit CIM may also occur regardless of worry, depending on difference values and needs for children to be independent. GMs were consciously and unconsciously complicit in the framing of adverse situations that might contribute to parent worry. Through policy, programme and project implementation, they conveyed children were unsafe through the material and symbolic environment. For example, walking school buses and Safe Routes to School signage might have assuaged some concern children’s safety during active transport to school, but the overall message indicated parents should worry about traffic and protect children from dangerous streets. Regulatory documents had the potential to manipulate parents’ and professionals’ views about children’s safety by reinforcing feelings of anxiety. The authority of documents could contribute to parent worry because the information communicated about children’s safety and the adverse situations they might encounter was both credible and plausible. In addition, the content and framing of messages were communicated so as to achieve the aims and objectives of the regulatory documents which was often focused on protecting children from potential harm. Media played a role in the public knowing of risk through its influence on parents. While the media itself was not one of the data sources for the current research,

it is likely that media affects parents by reporting of expert views on situations related to children’s safety and reporting incidents that occur which make parents concerned for children’s safety. Parents reported they primarily received information from friends and family (24%), schools (24%), media (23%), government (16%), and doctors (15%). ‘‘High proportions of parents indicated the news (91% and 100% respectively) and government information (77% and 71%, respectively) affected parents views about children’s safety’’ (Rudner, 2011: 212). A large proportion of parents (42%) also indicated that major incidents had occurred in their neighbourhood such as burglaries, drugs, harassment, hooning, e.g. speeding, racing, and bullying. GMs were critical of the media. They believed mass media engaged in sensationalist reporting that contributed to parental anxiety, negative views about public safety, and negative images of council. GMs also indicated that media created hype about incidental type accidents not just traumatic events, and made some matters more prominent than others such as traffic or stranger danger. Comments from GM ‘C’ and GM ‘B’ illustrate these points: GM ‘C’: As I said before, with animal management – if there is a child bitten by a dog, that’ll make the front page of not only the local paper, but the metro

44

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

paper, but ends up on ‘A Current Affair’ or something like that. Yeah. It’s amazing how, relatively, in terms of everything that goes on in society, an incident like that, and it’s amazing how they find out about it so quickly and you have to drop everything and answer all the media enquiries over something like that. So yeah, I think the media does do that. GM ‘B’: Even if we have a fatality on the roads or a serious accident on the roads, we get we, get not front page, but you get first three pages of the local papers. That raises alarms for most parents about kids being safe, not just from possible predators but also just in terms of having an accident or anything. So all of those things impact, and yet the stats aren’t as – it’s no worse today than it was 50 years ago when kids actually walked and did whatever. 7.7. Possibilities for reframing risk and CIM Viewing risk as a relationship could help build a public knowing of children’s competencies to address challenging situations. This study indicates there is a foundation upon which parents, professionals, and developers of regulatory documents can build to shift from a focus on risk as danger, to a focus on challenge as part of human–environment relationships. Parents indicated that children miss out on learning opportunities if they are not allowed to go places by themselves; GMs indicated social programmes can assist with increasing a sense of community safety; and developers of regulatory documents can re-define risk. These actions could support a more positive view of children’s environmental affordances as opportunities for experiential learning, increase children’s fields of promoted actions to use public space and increase CIM. Parents were asked to indicate if they thought children would lose learning opportunities if they did not go places by themselves. Over 50% of parents thought children would miss out on learning road safety skills (60%, n = 96), knowledge of their neighbourhood (60%, n = 96), judging strangers (66%, n = 106), making friends (51%, n = 81); solving complex problems (51%, n = 82%), coping with difficult people (58%, n = 93) and physical activity (50%, n = 80). These results suggest that these skills might be important to parents, or they may be areas where parents require support in learning skills to feel confident about increasing children’s fields of promoted action in urban space and increasing CIM.

For GMs and regulatory documents supporting social programmes could provide opportunities for council staff to help parents feel more comfortable in public space. This could occur through supporting facilitating a local sense of place, belonging and identity, promoting children’s participation in leisure activities and children’s participation in school transport activities. Helping parents to view their own relationships with their urban environment differently so they feel more comfortable in public space is also important. These views were articulated in the following comments from GM ‘A’: ...without sort of educating parents over a period of time, people aren’t just going to suddenly going to open their doors and let their children out. I think part of it really is about creating that sense of place as well. What we’ve been trying to do with the community plan is to try to set up, we are calling local areas, so there is a bit of a sense of community coming together for you know, community conversations. We’re rolling out some local area forums with council, and I think really trying to reinforce that local connection. I think part of that will contribute to this in the longer term, I think because people don’t necessarily have a sense of community identity, and when you don’t have a sense of community identity, the sorts of notions that you are talking about are really hard to challenge. Because there isn’t that feeling of connection and safety within one zone in the immediate environment. Inter-organisational partnerships were also viewed by GMs as providing formal and informal opportunities to help increase a sense of safety in the urban environment by working together, being visible, and repeating the same messages of safety to community members. These sorts of partnerships could also provide a space where different professional views about children’s environmental affordances could be debated, leading to change. A quotation by GM ‘B’ illustrates this approach: And the residents sort of basically – they wouldn’t let their kids go to the park. So we had a bbq event with them and invited police along. And while we there, having the bbq event, we actually notice some of these people actually coming out of their houses and go to their cars and stop and look, ‘what’s going on there?’. You know, there was a police car, there was council officers, so clearly there’s something that’s being done for us, plus there were a number of

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

parents and kids there. And after that, we didn’t have a problem. GMs were conscious of the need to balance their views of children’s vulnerability with notions of competence, however, the notion of resilience was a guiding factor in their deliberations. GM ‘A’ noted: ‘‘I mean I think that builds resiliency, and you know, children that are able to navigate successfully their own environments, and new environments as well....’’. A lack of CIM was viewed as detrimental to children’s independence if children were never allowed out on their own. GMs’ views suggest that professionals and developers of regulatory documents can increase their understanding, support and promotion of children’s capabilities to learn, develop skills and become proficient in urban environments, contributing to children’s decreased fields of constrained action and increased CIM. 8. Discussion Parents, GMs and regulatory documents collectively created, perpetuated, and managed a public knowing of risk and CIM in Brimbank; this limited children’s fields of promoted and free action therefore CIM. This public knowing of risk comprised social and cultural values and norms about children’s places, spaces and adult supervision, as well as conceptions of children’s competence, probability of adverse situations occurring and their impacts, and the authority of expert knowledge. Conceptions about the different dimensions of risk were primarily negative, which would influence adult conceptions of children’s environmental affordances. For many parents this would lead to children’s enlarged fields of constrained action and limited CIM. Parents provided higher assessments of the likelihood of externally imposed situations representing deliberate harm occurring than for everyday situations. This result was unsurprising as they reflect outcomes from studies that identified stranger danger as a major concern for parents (Blakely, 1994; Fotel & Thomsen, 2004; Jackson & Scott, 1999; Lee & Rowe, 1994; Pain, 2006; Valentine, 2004; Weir et al., 2006) and psychological risk research that showed individuals assess unpredictable, external and involuntarily imposed situations as more probable than familiar chronic type events (Fischhoff et al., 1978; Siegrist et al., 2005). In a similar way, regulatory documents focused on children who were most at-risk and the dangers from which they were most at risk. Worse-case

45

scenarios were prominent for parents and regulatory documents. Conceptions were not only negative but also pervasive. Parents were concerned about all adverse situations children might encounter if they go places by themselves, indicating that any situation may happen and lead to harm. The extensive list of at-risk categories for children, and identified consequences and behaviours in regulatory documents suggested risk to children was all encompassing. Parents’ anxiety could be increased through receiving regulatory information about risk directly and indirectly through schools, friends and family and media; regulatory documents likely support and reinforce conceptions of worse-case scenarios in relation to children, and the perception that children are exposed to a wide range of dangers, as observed by Gill (2007a, 2007b), Furedi (2008) and Madge (2009). Information about worse-case scenarios triggers deeper emotional responses than mundane events, and are more easily remembered (Kasperson et al., 1988). When parents consider letting their children go places by themselves this type of information may result in parents transforming their assessments of children’s environmental affordances from neutral action possibilities into negative action possibilities. Reflecting on urban design approaches to risk (Aicher, 1998; Douglas, 1992; Dovey, 1998; Newman, 1972; Porteous, 1977), the possibility of a stranger or other danger represents an existential harm to children and therefore their parents. Parents cannot control urban public space as they can their own property or territory, but they can control the territory of their children. This can create a self-perpetuating focus on risk. As Mead (1964: 66), emphasised ‘‘We see what we are looking for’’, and if children are not permitted to actualise environmental affordances, conceptions cannot be confronted with experience. Ultimately, many parents’ restrictions on children’s fields of promoted action in public space and CIM may be due to an ‘all or none’ conception of risk. For these parents, the possibility of an adverse situation occurring if children go places on their own becomes a 50–50 ratio of ‘my child: not my child’. Slovic et al. (2004: 318, italics in original) found an individual’s’ ‘‘response to uncertain situations appear to have an all or none characteristic that is sensitive to the possibility rather than the probability of strong positive or negative consequences, causing very small probability to carry great weight’’. This creates a challenge for decreasing children’s fields of constrained action because this conception of probability is likely to be supported by statistical calculations that children could be harmed by

46

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

traumatic adverse situations, which would overshadow concerns about chronic situations. There will be difficulty in changing social structures so that children’s fields of promoted and free action and CIM increase. As the results indicated, there are various systems of knowledge that share incapacitating notions of children’s spaces, competencies, and adult surveillance. Dean (1999) and Rothstein et al. (2006) observed that systems of governance use scientific methods to identify who, what, and how risk should be labelled and controlled. In this study, knowledge systems as represented by regulatory documents engaged in the same processes. They established risk identities for children, parents and professionals, and suggested interventions to prevent children from encountering adverse situations. To a certain extent, knowledge systems required children to be incompetent and amenable to interventions. Mirroring observations by Valentine (2004) and Jackson and Scott (1999), the current research revealed knowledge systems relied on age-based development stages and notions of ‘universal at-risk children’. Valentine (2004) criticised age-based and vulnerability approaches to children for not recognising children may be more competent than adults at times, and different life experiences can contribute to varying levels of competency. By conceiving children as at-risk, regulatory documents facilitated and justified perspectives of children’s spaces, regulation of children in public space, and regulation of parents and professionals. Even documents that viewed children as active agents primarily framed children’s decisions as ill informed, suggesting a lack of competence. Viewed from Luhmann’s (2008) perspective, these constructed identities and roles help legitimise regulations and decision-making regardless of whether the outcomes are beneficial. Interventions also required parents and professionals to be risk managers. Parents’ non-compliance with risk manager roles could result in social, cultural, or regulatory sanctions such as interventions from social services, fines or incarceration. Assessments of individuals against these standards, could lead to stigma and blame (Douglas, 1992; Furedi, 2008; Gill, 2007a, 2007b; Valentine, 2004). Professional discretion was curtailed through standardisation of procedures and insurance requirements pertaining to legal liability. Suggestive of Beck’s (1994, 2009) reflexive modernity, organisational practices prioritised the management of risk rather than the actual product or services for which organisations were developed to provide. There is hope however. Parents and GMs parents, government staff and policy developers have free

agency to manage their anxiety about CIM and to change existing social structures and the regulatory documents that help guide these structures. There is still a large proportion of parents who, regardless of their worry, permit CIM regardless of their concerns and many professionals who would like to see more children actively using public space by themselves. While this study did not address how parents and children negotiate independent mobility, the work by Fotel and Thomsen (2004), Valentine (2004) and BackettMilburn and Harden (2004) suggest that parents are influenced by their children’s desires for greater freedom, as well as their own acknowledgement that they need to permit greater freedom as their children grow and develop.

8.1. Recommendations Planners can play a facilitative role for increasing CIM. However, to be effective, planners aiming to increase CIM need to understand how risk is conceptualised. They also need to engage with current social, cultural, and regulatory processes affecting conceptions risk which influence risk conception. Importantly planners need to insert themselves into discourses about risk and CIM. They can affect the interplay between socio-cultural norms and individual acceptance, contestation or adaption of norms. Planners can present a different knowledge and meaning of risk as it relates to children and CIM to parents, their communities, their own professional fields and across professional fields. Promoting a relationship approach to risk that focuses on children’s capabilities in relation to what the environment offers, planners can turn the gaze from danger and harm to skills and experience. Replacing the word risk with challenge can provide a more positive avenue for advocating, promoting, and discussing CIM. Planners should be involved in professional and public discussions that assert new knowledge claims about risk. They can do this by disseminating information about books, websites and discussion groups; writing public opinion pieces, demanding children’s views are sought, considered and allowed to influence planning and design processes, and through changes to regulation. Examples from the UK include documents by Madge and Barker (2007) who question the extent to which safety should be a goal for children, CABE Space (2006) which discusses the ways in which uncertainty could be designed into public space, and Ball, Gill and Speigal (2008) who suggest how to

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

incorporate risk into play ground design as well as assessing dangers using risk cost-risk benefit analyses. Parents’ conceptualisations of risk need to be viewed as different risk rationalities rather than erroneous assessments of probabilities. The use of statistics to highlight more frequently experienced dangers needs to be reconsidered. Technical approaches to parent education about risks and CIM are not supported by the current research or studies of risk conception. Technical approaches do not adequately address the influence of emotions, event characteristics, human understanding of numbers, or the issue of cognitive dissonance observed in risk theory (Fischhoff et al., 1978; Langford, 2002; Marris, Langford, & O’Riordan, 1998; Siegrist et al., 2005). Using probability assessments to educate parents about the ‘real’ risks to children such as obesity, is not likely to result in significant behavioural change. To help facilitate CIM, planners need to identify and understand parents’ needs in terms of their own knowledge and skills to prepare their children to go places by themselves. CIM places parents in an uncomfortable and uncertain situations that undermines their control to protect their children. If parents lack a sense of self-efficacy within urban environments or feel underconfident in their abilities to impart the knowledge and skills they deem their children require in urban environments, then an increase in children’s fields of promoted action in urban environments and CIM is unlikely. Parents need to be encouraged and supported to explore their competence and skills, and those of their children. Through reflective practice planners and other associated professionals can evaluate their own planning and design bias and intentions to achieve desired outcomes. This is particularly important because space and its elements are a product and representation of political, economic, social and cultural processes (Costall, 1995; Heft, 2001). Outcomes of this reflection should result in changes to professional knowledge, workplace practices and regulation. Starting points would be to promote the legitimacy of children’s use of public space, facilitate the inclusion of children’s needs and views in decision-making, and include statements about children’s independent use of public space in regulatory documents. Children’s direct exploration of their cities, and their long-term benefits needs to be encouraged and promoted. While various governing institutions may have a greater focus on managing bounded spaces, there are many ways in which governing institutions can promote or support enlarged fields of promoted action

47

in urban space. For example, local councils, schools, community agencies, and youth services can promote experiential learning activities that take place outside the classroom and school grounds. The focus of promotion could be the things parents recognise as missing from children’s lives such as learning how to negotiate and assess physical, social and traffic environments. 9. Conclusion—reframing risk This paper addressed a current gap in knowledge about risk and CIM. To date a broad and critical analysis of the concept of risk and the processes that contribute towards public understandings of risk in relation to CIM has not been easily accessible. By reconceptualising risk and using Kytta’s model to frame the research, parents’, GMs’ and regulatory document conceptions of the different dimensions of risk were explored as to their potential effects on adult understandings of children’s environmental affordances, fields of action and CIM. While the specific results from the research are not generalisable, the outcomes supported existing risk research, and research related to CIM. Importantly, the paper demonstrated the value of applying Gibson’s (1986) affordances, Reed’s (1993) fields of action, and various theoretical perspectives on risk to CIM. However, there is one last research outcome that needs to be presented. A new model about children’s environmental relationships and how they are affected by risk conception is presented in Fig. 9.1. In this model, the environment is in the background of children’s lives, rather than integrated within their lives through potential affordances. Children have small fields of promoted and free action regarding independent

Fig. 9.1. Revised conceptual model of risk in relation to CIM.

48

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

mobility, and large fields of constrained action. The outline around potential affordances and children’s fields of action represent the pervasive nature of wider social and cultural views of risk. This pervasiveness is part of the public knowing of risk. Existing conceptions of risk provide decisionmakers with important insights about risk conceptions at different scales of knowing, but existing conceptions are not enough. Importantly risk needs to be reconceptualised risk as a dynamic relationship. Risk as a dynamic relationship recognises that children’s intent to use their environments successfully, and parents’ ability to help children successfully use their environments occurs within a stream of action and is contingent on a variety of factors. These factors include what the environment offers, children’s experiences, capabilities and desired uses, valuing of tradeoffs, and how these factors change over time as children grow and develop. Risk as relationship helps to re-establish the importance of personal knowledge gained through experience rather than privileging expert knowledge and a public knowing of risk. This approach can be used to encourage adults to step outside current social and cultural expressions of risk, and recognise their own need to learn competencies that foster greater comfort and confidence with CIM. It is hoped that risk will ultimately be replaced by a new language and conceptualisation of experience, exploration, development, and mastery as it relates to CIM. Acknowledgements This paper is dedicated to my mum, Ghislaine Rudner (1943–2010). Thank you to my families, friends & the Usual Suspects who made sure I finished my thesis. I am deeply to A/Professor Kay Margetts, Faculty of Education who supervised my completion, and Leigh Glover, Faculty of Architecture Building and Planning, The University of Melbourne. This research was supported by a grant from the Volvo Research and Education Foundation via the Governance and Management of Urban Transport, The University of Melbourne. This research was possible because the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development kindly allowed me to conduct my study through primary schools. References ACIL Tasman, & Tract Landscape Architects Urban Designers Town Planners. (2005). Metropolitan activity centres performance measures. Melbourne: Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Adams, J. (2006). Risk (5th ed.). London: Routledge. Ahmadi, E. (2007). Influential factors on children’s spatial knowledge and mobility in home-school travel: A case study in the city of Tehran. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 6(2), 275–282. Aicher, J. (1998). Designing healthy cities: Prescriptions, principles and practice. Florida: Krieger Publishing Company. Appleyard, D. (1981). Livable streets and protected neighborhoods. Livable streets, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. (pp. 243–317). Australian Education Systems Officials Committee. (After 2004). The stats—Did you know? Bullying. No way Australia: Queensland Department of Education, Training and the Arts. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2004). Key national indicators of children’s health, development and wellbeing. Canberra: Australian Government. Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth, UNICEF, & The Allen Consulting Group. (2008). The wellbeing of young Australians: Technical report: Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth. Australian Transport Council. (2001). National road safety action plan 2007–2008. Civic Square: Australian Transport Council. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, & National Road Safety Strategy Panel and Taskforce, (2001). National road safety strategy 2001– 2010. Civic Square: Australian Transport Council. Austroads Inc.. (2005). The Australian national cycling strategy 2005–2010. Sydney: Austroads Inc. Backett-Milburn, K., & Harden, J. (2004). How children and their families construct and negotiate risk, safety and danger. Childhood, 11(4), 429–447. Ball, D., Gill, T., & Spiegal, B. (2008). Managing risk in play provision: Implementation guide. Nottingham: Play England; Department for Children, Schools and Families. Beck, U. (1994). The reinvention of politics: Towards a theory of reflexive modernization. Reflexive modernization: Politics tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order, Oxford: Polity Press. (pp. 1–55). Beck, U. (2009). Risk society: Towards a new modernity (11th ed.). London: Sage. Beck-Gernsheim, E. (1996). Life as a planning project (M. Chalmers, Trans.). In S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, & B. Wynne (Eds.), Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology (pp. 139– 153). London: Sage Publications. Behrens, R., & Muchaka, P. (2011). Child independent mobility in South Africa: The case of Cape Town and its hinterland. Global Studies of Childhood, 1(3), 167–184. Bevir, M. (1999). Foucault and critique: deploying agency against autonomy. Political Theory, 27(1), 65–84. Bicycle Victoria. (2006). Traffic schools. Melbourne: Bicycle Victoria. Bjo¨rklid, P. (1996, 30 July–3 August). Traffic related environmental stress: A study of stress reactions related to the traffic environment of children. Paper presented at the Evolving environmental ideals—Changing way of life, values and design practices (14th international association people-environment studies) conference, Alexandria. Bjo¨rklid, P. (2003). Parental restrictions and children’s independent mobility. Paper presented at the Seminar Byens i børnehøjde. Bjo¨rklid, P. (2004). Children’s independent mobility and relationship with open space—Studies of 12-year-olds’ outdoor environment in different residential areas. Paper presented at the Special Issue (18th IAPs) Conference, Vienna.

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53 Blakely, K. S. (1994). Parents’ conceptions of social dangers to children in the urban environment. Children’s Environments, 11(1), 20–35. Breakwell, G. M. (2007). The psychology of risk. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brimbank City Council. (2004a). Integrated community safety plan July 2004–June 2009. Brimbank: Brimbank City Council. Brimbank City Council. (2004b). Municipal public health plan 2004– 2006. Brimbank: Brimbank City Council. Brimbank City Council. (2005–2006). Best value report 2005–2006. Brimbank. Brimbank City Council. (2006a). Brimbank planning scheme. Brimbank: Brimbank City Council. Brimbank City Council. (2006b). Sunshine beyond 2020: Principle activity centre structure plan. Brimbank City Council. Brimbank City Council. (2007a). General local law 2008. Brimbank City Council. Brimbank City Council. (2007b). Integrated transport strategy. Brimbank: Brimbank City Council. Brimbank City Council. (2007c). Youth policy & action plan 2008– 2013. Brimbank City Council. Brimbank City Council. (2009). Final draft Brimbank community plan: 2009–2030. Brimbank: Brimbank City Council. Brimbank City Council, & Brimbank Family and Community Services Agencies, (2006c). Developing the social capital of Brimbank: Family and community services framework and action plan 2006–2021. Brimbank: Brimbank City Council. Brimbank City Council, & Melbourne University Private, (2006d). Graffiti management strategy. Brimbank: Brimbank City Council. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Burgman, M. (2005). Risks and decisions for conservation and environmental management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burke, C. (2005). ‘‘Play in focus’’: Children researching their own spaces and places for play. Children, Youth and Environments, 15(1), 27–53. Bwire, H. (2011). Children’s independent mobility and perceptions of outdoor environments in Dar Es Salaam City. Global Studies of Childhood, 1(3), 185–206. CABE Space (Ed.). (2006). What are we scare of? The value of risk in designing public space. London: CABE Space. Cairney, P., Klein, R., Lee, G., & Lovett, S. (2000). Pedestrian and cyclist safety: Recent developments (No. AP-R155). Sydney: Austroads Inc. Carver, A., Timperio, A., & Crawford, D. (2008). Playing it safe: The influence of neighbourhood safety on children’s physical activity—A review. Health & Place, 14(2), 217. Carver, A., Timperio, A., Hesketh, K., & Crawford, D. (2009). Are safety related features of the road environment associated with smaller declines in physical activity among youth. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 87(1), 29–43. Centre for Community Child and Safety Centre, & The Royal Children’s Hospital, (2006). Outside school hours care injury prevention: Training manual. Melbourne: State Government of Victoria, Department of Human Services, Office for Children. Centre for Community Child Health, The University of Melbourne, & Safety Centre of the Royal Children’s Hospital, (2001). Evidencebased health promotion: No. 4 Child injury prevention. Melbourne: Public Health.

49

Charon, J. M. (1992). Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration (4th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Chawla, L., & Heft, H. (2002). Children’s competence and the ecology of communities: A functional approach to the evaluation of participation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, 201–216. Child Safety Commissioner. (2006). A guide for creating a child-safe organisation. Melbourne: State Government of Victoria. Commonwealth of Australia. (2003). Australia’s combined second and third reports under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Barton: Attorney-General’s Department Robert Garran Offices. Costall, A. (1995). Socializing affordances. Theory and Psychology, 5(4), 467–481. Cox, E. (2001). The Social Audit Cook Book: Recipes for auditing the way we connect. Sydney: The University of Technology Sydney, The Lance Reichstein Foundation. Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A short introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Crook, S. (1999). Ordering risks. In D. Lupton (Ed.), Risk and sociocultural theory: New directions and perspectives (pp. 160– 185). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Customised Mapping (Cartographer) 2003. City of Brimbank Suburb Names and Boundaries.#State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment. Dean, M. (1994). ‘‘A social strucutre of many souls’’: moral regulation, government, and self-formulation. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 19(2), 145–168. Dean, M. (1999). Risk, calculable and incalculable. In D. Lupton (Ed.), Risk and sociocultural theory: New directions and perspectives (pp. 131–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Department of Human Services. (2001). Safe from harm: The role of professionals in protecting children and young children. Melbourne: State Government of Victoria. Department of Human Services. (2002). Environments for health: Promoting health and wellbeing through built, social, economic and natural environments. Melbourne: State Government of Victoria. Department of Human Services. (2006). Municipal public health planning framework—Part A. http://www.health.vic.gov.au/local gov/mphpfr/a_into.htm; http://www.health.vic.gov.au/local gov/ mphpfr/b_overview.htm; http://www.health.vic.gov.au/local gov/ mphpfr/b_environ.htm. Retrieved 03.02.06. Department of Planning and Community Development. (2008). A fairer Victoria: Strong people, strong communities. East Melbourne: State Government of Victoria. Department of Premier and Cabinet. (2001). Growing Victoria together: Innovative state. Caring communities. Melbourne: State of Victoria. Department of Premier and Cabinet, & Department of Infrastructure, (2006). Meeting our transport challenges: Connecting Victorian communities. Melbourne: State Government of Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment. (2003). Melbourne 2030: Planning for sustainable growth. Melbourne: State of Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment. (2004). Guidelines for higher density residential development. Melbourne: State Government of Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment. (2005a). Safer design guidelines for Victoria. Melbourne: Victorian Government. Department of Sustainability and Environment, & Crime Prevention Victoria, (2005b). Safer design guidelines for Victoria. State of Victoria.

50

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

Diguiseppi, C., Roberts, I., Li, L., & Allen, D. (1998). Determinants of car travel on daily journeys to school: Cross sectional survey of primary school children. British Medical Journal, 316, 1426– 1428. Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and blame. Risk and blame: Essays in cultural theory, London: Routledge. pp. 3-121. Dovey, K. (1998, 10–11 September). Safety and danger in urban design. Paper presented at the Safer communities: Strategic directions in urban planning conference, Melbourne. Dovey, K. (2001). Framing places: Mediating power in the built form. London: Routledge. Driandra, R. P., & Kinoshita, I. (2011). Danger from traffic to fear of monkeys: Children’s independent mobility in four diverse sites in Japan. Global Studies of Childhood, 1(3), 226–242. EDAW, AECOM, & Sykes Humphreys Consulting, (2007). Creating better parks: Brimbank open space and playground policy and plan (Draft). Brimbank: Brimbank City Council. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the pscychodynamic unconscious. American Psychology, 49(8), 709–724. Fildes, B., Langford, J., Andrea, D., & Scully, J. (2005). Balance between harm reduction and mobility in setting speed limits: A feasibility study (No. AP-R272/05). Austroads. Finkelhor, D., & Ormrod, R. (2000). Characteristics of crimes against juveniles. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, US Department of Justice. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences, 9(2), 127. Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2125–2143. Fotel, T., & Thomsen, T. U. (2004). The surveillance of children’s mobility. Surveillance & Society, 1(4), 535–554. Fox, N. J. (1999). Postmodern reflections on ‘risk’, hazards’ and life choices. In D. Lupton (Ed.), Risk and sociocultural theory: New directions and perspectives (pp. 12–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freeman, C., & Quigg, R. (2009). Commuting lives: Children’s mobility and energy use. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(3), 393–412. Furedi, F. (2008). Paranoid parenting: Why ignoring the experts may be best for your child (3rd ed.). Wiltshire: Cromwell Press. Fyhri, A., Hjorthol, R., Mackett, R., Fotel, T., & Kytta¨, M. (2011). Children’s active travel and independent mobility in four countries: Development, social contributing trends and measures. Transport Policy, 1–8. Gibson, J. J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Psychology Press. Giddens, A. (1994). Living in a post-traditional society. Reflexive modernization: Politics tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order, Oxford: Polity Press. (pp. 56–109). Giddens, A. (1999). Risk and responsibility. The Modern Law Review, 62(1), 1–10. Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R. J. (2002). Socioeconomic status differences in recreational physical activity levels and real and perceived access to a supportive physical environment. Preventative Medicine, 35, 601–611. Gill, T. (2007a, 28–29 September). Growing up in a risk averse society. Paper presented at the Come and play outside: A multidisciplinary symposium, The University of Western Australia, Perth.

Gill, T. (2007b). No fear: Growing up in a risk averse society. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Gunder, M., & Hillier, J. (2004). Conforming to the expectations of the profession: A Lacanian perspective on planning practice, norms and values. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(2), 217–235. Halsnaes, K., Markandya, A., Sathaye, J., Boyd, R., Hunt, A., & Taylor, T. (2001). Transport and the global environment: Accounting for GHG reductions in policy analysis. Paris, Denmark: United Nations Environment Program. Harten, N., & Olds, T. (2004). Patterns of active transport in 11–12 year old Australian children. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 28(2), 167. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. London: MacMillan Press Ltd. Heft, H. (2001). Ecological psychology in context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the legacy of William James’s radical empiricism. Mahwah, NJ: L Erlbaum. Hillman, M., Adams, J., & Whitelegg, J. (1990). One false move. A study of children’s independent mobility. London: Policy Studies Institute. Hoch, C. (2006). Emotions and planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 7(4), 367–382. Horelli, L. (2001). A comparison of children’s autonomous mobility and environmental participation in Northern and Southern Europe—The cases of Finland and Italy. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 11(6), 451–455. House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage. (2005). Sustainable cities. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. International Secretariat for Child Friendly Cities. (2004). Building child friendly cities: A framework for action. Florence: Innocenti Research Centre. Iveson, K. (2006). Cities for angry young people? From exclusion and inclusion to engagement in urban policy. In B. Gleeson & N. Sipe (Eds.), Creating child friendly cities: Reinstating kids in the city (pp. 49–65). Oxon: Routledge. Jackson, S., & Scott, S. (1999). Risk anxiety and the social construction of childhood. In D. Lupton (Ed.), Risk and sociocultural theory: New directions and perspectives (pp. 86–107). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jaeger, C. C., Renn, O., Rosa, E. A., & Webler, T. (2001). Risk, uncertainty, and rational action. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Japp, K. P., & Kushe, I. (2008). Systems theory and risk. In J. O. Zinn (Ed.), Social theories of risk and uncertainty: An introduction (pp. 76–105). Singapore: Blackwell Publishing Pty. Johansson, M. (2006). Environment and parental factors as determinants of mode for children’s leisure travel. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(2), 156. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. Management Science, 12, 313–327. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., et al. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177–187. Kelling, G. L., & Coles, C. (1997). Fixing broken windows: Restoring order and reducing crime in communities. New York: Touchstone Edition.

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53 Kelly, P. (2007). Governing individualized risk biographies: New class intellectuals and the problem of youth at-risk. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(1), 39–53. Ker, I., Huband, A., Veith, G., Taylor, J., & ARRB Group, (2006). Pedestrian-cyclist conflict minimisation on shared paths and footpaths. Austroads. Kidsafe Australia. (2000). Pedestrian Safety National Fact Sheet. Kytta¨, M. (2003). Children in outdoor contexts: Affordances and independent mobility in the assessment of environmental child friendliness. Espoo: Helsinki University of Technology. Kytta¨, M. (2004). The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 179– 198. Langford, I. H. c. (2002). An existential approach to risk perception. Risk Analysis, 22(1), 101–120. Lash, S. (1994). Reflexivity and its doubles: Structure, aesthetics, community. Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order, Oxford: Polity Press. pp. 110173. Lee, T., & Rowe, N. (1994). Parents’ and childrens’ perceived risks of the journey to school. Architecture and Comportement, 10(4), 379–389. Luhmann, N. (2008). Risk: A sociological theory (R. Barrett, Trans.). (4th ed.). New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Lynch, K. (1977). Growing up in cities: Studies of spatial environment of adolescence in Cracow, Melbourne, Mexico City, Salta, Toluca, and Warszawa. Paris: UNESCO, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lyng, S. (1990). Edgework: A social psychological analysis of voluntary risk taking. The American Journal of Sociology, 95(4), 851–886. Mackett, R. L., Brown, B., Gong, Y., Kitazawa, K., & Paskins, J. (2007). Children’s independent movement in the local environment. Built Environment, 33(4), 454–468. Mackett, R. L., Brown, B., & Paskins, J. (2005, 22–23 September). Overcoming the barriers to walking for children. Paper presented at the Walk 21 Conference, Zurich, Switzerland. Madge, N. (2009). The actuarial assessment and experiential reality of risk in childhood. Sociology Compass, 3(5), 824–835. Madge, N., & Barker, J. (2007). Risk and childhood. London: Risk Commission—Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. Malone, K. (1999). Growing up in cities as a model of participatory planning and ‘place-making’ with young people. Youth Studies Australia, 18(2), 17–33. Malone, K., & Rudner, J. (2011). Global perspectives on children’s independent mobility: A socio-cultural comparison and theoretical discussion on children’s lives in four countries in Asia and Africa. Global Studies of Childhood, 243–259. Malone, K., & Tranter, P. J. (2003). School grounds as sites for learning: Making the most of environmental opportunities. Environmental Education Research, 9(3), 283. Marris, C., Langford, I. H., & O’Riordan, T. (1998). A quantitative test of the cultural theory of risk perceptions: Comparison with the psychometric paradigm. Risk Analysis, 18(5), 635– 647. Mashiri, M., Dube, S., & Maponya, G. (2009, 6–9 July). Transport and development in the Eastern Cape: A children’s perspective. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 28th Southern African transport conference, Pretoria, South Africa.

51

Mathers, C., Vos, T., & Stevenson, C. (1999). The burden of disease and injury in Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. McMillan, T. E. (2005). Urban form and a child’s trip to school: The current literature and a framework for future research. Journal of Planning Literature, 19(4), 440–456. Mead, G. H. (1964). George Herbert Mead on social psychology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Mitra, R., Buliung, R. N., & Roorda, M. J. (2010). The built environment and school travel mode choice in Toronto, Canada. Paper presented at the 89th annual meeting of the transportation research board. Moudon, A. V., Stewart, O., & Lin, L. (2010). Safe routes to school (SRS) statewide mobility assessment study—Phase 1 report. Washington: Washington State Department of Transportation. Municipal Association of Victoria. (2006). MAV insurance 2006 annual report. Melbourne: Municipal Association of Victoria. National Crime Prevention Unit. (1999). Hanging out: Negotiating young people’s use of public space. Barton: Attorney-General’s Department. National Heart Foundation of Australia, Planning Institute of Australia, & Australian Local Government Association, (2009). Healthy spaces & places: An overview. Kingston: Planning Institute of Australia. National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victoria Division). (2004). Healthy by design: A planner’s guide to environments for active living. Victoria: National Heart Foundation of Australia (Victoria Division). Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space. New York: The Macmillan Company. Neuman, L. W. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative Approaches (5th ed.). United States: Pearson Education Inc. Office for Youth—Future Directions Policy. (2007). Future directions: An action agenda for young Victorians. Melbourne: Victorian Government Department for Planning and Community Development. Outer Western Psychiatric Disability Services Association Inc.. (2004). Brimbank community drug strategy. Brimbank: Brimbank City Council. Owens, P. E. (1994). Teen places in Sunshine, Australia: Then and now. Children’s Environments, 11(4), 42–54. Pain, R. (2006). Paranoid parenting? Rematerializing risk and fear for children. Social and Cultural Geography, 7(2), 221–243. Parnaby, P. F. (2006). Crime prevention through environmental design: Discourses of risk, social control, and a neo-liberal context. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice January. Planning Institute of Australia. (2007). Child friendly communities: National position statement. Canberra: Planning Institute of Australia. Pont, K., Ziviani, J., Wadley, D., & Abbott, R. (2011). Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 58, 138–144. Porteous, J. D. (1977). Environment & behaviour: Planning and everyday urban life. United States: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc. Porter, G., & Blaufuss, G. (2002). Children, transport and traffic in southern Ghana. Paper presented at the international workshop in children and traffic. Power, M. (2004). The risk management of everything: Rethinking the politics of uncertainty. Londong: Demos. Prezza, M., Alparone, F. R., Cristallo, C., & Luigi, S. (2005). Parental perception of social risk and of positive potentiality of outdoor

52

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53

autonomy for children: The development of two instruments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(4,), 437–453. Prezza, M., Pilloni, S., Morabito, C., Sersante, C., Aparone, F. R., & Guiliani, M. V. (2001). The influence of psychosocial and environmental factors on children’s independent mobility and relationship to peer frequentation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 11, 435–450. Reed, E. S. (1993). The intention to use a specific affordance: A conceptual framework for psychology. In R. H. Wozniak & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environments (pp. 45–76). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Ridgewell, C., Sipe, N., & Buchanan, N. (2005). School travel modes in Brisbane. Brisbane: Urban Research Program. Road Rules, 1999. (Victoria). Roads Corporation. (2004). Safer urban environments: Road safety in land use planning guide. Melbourne: VicRoads. Rothstein, H., Huber, M., & Gaskell, G. (2006). A theory of risk colonization: The spiralling regulatory logics of societal and institutional risk. Economy and Society, 35(1), 91–112. Royal Automobile Club of Victoria. (2007). Road safety children and traffic. http://www.racv.com.au/wps/wcm/connect/Internet/ Primary/road+safety/under+fives/children+and+traffic/ Retrieved 30.07.07. Rudner, J. (2011). Conceptions of risk and children’s independent mobility. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne. Rudner, J., & Malone, K. (2011). Childhood in the surburbs and the Australian dream: How has it impacted children’s independent mobility? Global Studies of Childhood, 1(3), 207–225. Rydin, Y. (2007). Re-examining the role of knowledge within planning theory. Planning Theory, 6(1), 52–68. Sandercock, L. (1977). Cities for sale. Carlton: Melbourne University Press. Schlossberg, M., Paulsen Phillips, P., Johnson, B., & Parker, B. (2005). How do they get there? A spatial analysis of a ‘sprawl school’ in Orgeon. Planning, Practice & Research, 20(2), 147–162. Scott, M., Curtis, J., Riddle, L., Goodison, P., Ackroyd, S., & Baird, M. (1997). Urban design strategy. Brimbank City Council. Shokoohi, R., Hanif, N. R., & Dali, M. M. (2011). Children walking to and from school in Tehran: Associations with neighbourhood safety, parental concerns and children’s perceptions. Asian Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies, 2(4), 13–25. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., & Kiers, H. A. L. (2005). A new look at the psychometric paradigm of perception of hazards. Risk Analysis, 25(1), 211–222. Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13(6), 675–682. Slovic, P. (2007). The perception of risk (6th ed.). Trowbridge: Earthscan Publications. Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311–322. Student Wellbeing Branch Office of School Education. (2006). Safe schools are effective schools: A resource for developing safe and supportive school environments. Melbourne: Department of Education and Training. Tandy, C. (1991). Children’s diminishing play space: A study of intergenerational change in children’s use of their neighborhoods. Australian Geographical Studies, 37(2), 154–164. The Allen Consulting Group. (2008). Inverting the pyramid: Enhancing systems to protect children. Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra, Perth: Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth.

Timperio, A., Ball, K., Salmon, J., Roberts, R., Giles-Corti, B., Simmons, D., et al. (2006). Personal, family, social, and environmental correlates of active commuting to school. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(1), 45. Timperio, A., Crawford, D., Telford, A., & Salmon, J. (2004). Perceptions about the local neighborhood and walking and cycling among children. Preventive Medicine, 38(1), 39. Timperio, A., Salmon, J., Telford, A., & Crawford, D. (2005). Perceptions of local neighbourhood environments and their relationship to childhood overweight and obesity. International Journal of Obesity, 29(2), 170. Tranter, P. (2006). Overcoming social traps: A key to creating child friendly cities. In B. Gleeson & N. Sipe (Eds.), Creating child friendly cities: Reinstating kids in the city (pp. 121–135). Oxon: Routledge. Tranter, P., & Pawson, E. (2001). Children’s access to local environments: A case-study of Christchurch, New Zealand. Local Environment, 6(1), 27. Tulloch, J., Lupton, D., Blood, W., Tulloch, M., Jennet, C., & Enders, M. (1998). Fear of crime: Audit of the literature and community programs. Valentine, G. (1997). ‘‘Oh yes I can.’’ ‘‘Oh no you can’t’’: Children and parents’ understandings of kids’ competence to negotiate public space safely. Antipode, 29, 65–89. Valentine, G. (2004). Public space and the culture of childhood. Aldershot: Ahsgatte Publishing Limited. van Vliet, W. (1985). The role of housing type, household density, and neighborhood density in peer interaction and social adjustment. In J. F. Wohlwill & W. van Vliet (Eds.), Habitats for children: The impacts of density (pp. 165–200). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Veitch, J., Bagley, S., Ball, K., & Salmon, J. (2006). Where do children usually play? A qualitative study of parents’ perceptions of influences on children’s active free-play. Health & Place, 12(4), 383–393. Veitch, J., Salmon, J., & Ball, K. (2007). Children’s perceptions of the use of public open spaces for active free-play. Children’s Geographies, 5(4), 409–422. VicHealth. (2003). The walking school bus program: Learnings from VicHealth’s pilot program 2001. Carlton South: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. VicHealth. (2008). Streets ahead: Supporting children to get active in their neighbourhoods. Melbourne: VicHealth. VicRoads. (2002). Driving in Victoria: Rules and responsibilities. Kew: Roads Corporation Victoria. VicRoads. (2007). Primary students—Facts and online activities. http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/RoadSafetyEducation/ PrimarySchools, from http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/ RoadSafetyEducation/PrimarySchools Retrieved 10.09.07. VicRoads. (2008). VicRoads strategic directions. Kew: State Government of Victoria. VicRoads. (2009). Internet CrashStats. From Government of Victoria: http://crashstat1.roads.vic.gov.au/crashstats/crash.htm Retrieved 09.04.09. Victorian Auditor-General. (2007). Managing risk across the public sector: Toward good practice. Victorian Government Printer. Victorian Police, VicRoads, & Transport Accident Commission, (2008). Victoria’s road safety strategy: Arrive alive 2008–2017. Melbourne: State Government of Victoria. Village Well. (2005). Report on the findings of the community consultation on the Sydenham transit city draft master plan. Brimbank: Brimbank City Council.

J. Rudner / Progress in Planning 78 (2012) 1–53 Village Well. (2006). Train stations as places for community wellbeing. Melbourne: Village Well. Walsh, P. (2006). Creating child friendly playspaces: A practitioner’s perspective. In B. Gleeson & N. Sipe (Eds.), Creating child friendly cities: Reinstating kids in the city (pp. 136–150). Oxon: Routledge. Waters, E., Shield, J., Nolan, T., Green, J., Elkington, J., Moller, J., et al. (2001). Evidence-based health promotion: No. 4 child injury prevention. Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of Human Services. Weedon, A. (1998). Shared pathway and on road bicycle strategy. Brimbank: Brimbank City Council. Weir, L. A., Etelson, D., & Brand, D. A. S. (2006). Parents’ perceptions of neighborhood safety and children’s physical activity. Preventive Medicine, 43(3), 212. Wen, L. M., Kite, J., Merom, D., & Rissel, C. (2009). Time spent playing outdoors after school and its relationship with independent mobility: A cross-sectional survey of children aged 10–12 years in Sydney, Australia. International Journal of Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity 6(15).

53

White, R. (1998). Public spaces for young people: A guide to creative projects and positive strategies. Canberra: Attorney-General’s Department, Foundation for Young Australians, National Crime Prevention Program, Commonwealth of Australia. WHO Regional Committee for Europe. (1998). Charter on transport, environment and health. Copenhagen: World Health Organisation. Woolly, H., Dunn, J., Spencer, C., Short, T., & Rowley, G. (1999). Children describe their experiences of the city centre: A qualitative study of the fears and concerns which may limit their full participation. Landscape Research 24(3.). Ziviani, J., Kopeshke, R., & Wadley, D. (2006). Children walking to school: Parent perceptions of environmental and psychosocial influences. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 53: 27–34. Zubrick, S. R., Wood, L., Villanueva, K., Wood, G., Giles-Corti, B., & Christian, H. (2010). Nothing but fear itself: Parental fear as a determinant of child physical activity and independent mobility. Carlton: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth).

Dr Julie Rudner is a lecturer in the Community Planning and Development Program, La Trobe University, Bendigo. Through research, consulting and teaching, Julie explores children’s views and experience of their environments, promotes cities as sites for experiential learning and supports children’s citizenship through participation in planning and urban design. She seeks to understand how adults and children can expand their confidence and skills to encourage children’s active exploration and engagement with their environments. She has over 10 years professional experience as a planner and consultant.