Navigation
"Public Spaces for Children in Cities" by Deniz Hasirci
Dr. Deniz Hasirci is Ass. Prof. at Izmir University of Economics, Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design
Deniz Hasirci with children at Kids' Guernica Exhibition Opening
INVOLVING THE CHILD IN THE DESIGN PROCESS
The aim of this paper is to create an awareness of the possibilities participatory design with children can open up, means by which one can work with children on architectural projects, and the realization of those projects. It is not only important for children to be involved in the design of a space for themselves, but also in all stages of a design process such as, goal setting, facility programming, site exploration, design, and even construction of a space of which they are the primary users of. Urban environments for children are typically designed according to previous models and rely heavily on the adult perception of what a child may need and want in his or her surrounding. The lack of participatory design projects in general, and in particular, for children results in spaces which are uncomfortable in use. There are more than a few projects in contemporary Turkey in which learning environments and other children’s spaces are being designed with the involvement of children, and one will be exemplified with a focus on methodology of organizing participatory workshops. These user-centered projects aim to fulfill the need to involve the users in the planning process, to show ways to realize processes that are educational for children as well as the designers, and to provide insight into upcoming projects of similar nature.
Keywords: participatory design, children’s spaces, children’s rights, space as a social product, representation of child.
Introduction
In contemporary Turkey, where restructuring according to UN regulations is taking place across several institutions and various levels of the society, child-driven actions are being recognized more and more every day. It is critical that these actions are carried out effectively to fully benefit children and the spaces that they use. Specifically, article 12, 13, and 14 that guide “respect for children’s views”, “freedom of expression”, and “freedom of thought, conscience, and religion”, support the view that children have a right to have their voice heard as well as taken seriously (Unicef, 2009).
According to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, children should be involved in issues that will have effect on them. Although, the term “involvement” here is vague, the aim is clear, and promises to be beneficial in the right hands with applicable solutions (Unicef, 1989).
According to the Convention on the Rights of the Child that has been ratified by more than 70 countries, proposes guidelines for the best interest of the child. It provides a standard for building a better world with the active protection, health, education, growth, and participation in matters that concern them (Unicef, 2009).
Specifically, article 12, 13, and 14 that guide “respect for children’s views”, “freedom of expression”, and “freedom of thought, conscience, and religion”, support the view that children have a right to have their voice heard as well as taken seriously (Unicef, 2009).
Very often, participatory approaches are criticized by especially designers, but policy makers as well, as they seem to consume time, money, and energy with slow results if any. It must be stressed that, there are several variables in a participatory process that aims to lead to applicable solutions such as a designed building. By whom the process is conducted, how the information is collected, and how collected data is interpreted are significant. One or a combination of these variables may result in an unproductive process, even with the best intentions (Hart, 1992; Iltus and Hart, 2000).
Burns explains participation in four categories or stages that ultimately should work together (as cited in Sanoff, 2006: 46):
- Awareness: Making sure that everyone is speaking the same language.
- Perception: Achieving comprehensive understanding.
- Decision-Making: Creating alternative and finalized plans and programs.
- Implementation: Applying the project although it is not always a part of a participatory process.
Skivenes and Stranbu state a similar approach specifically for participatory processes with children (2006: 16):
1. The opportunity to take part in a decision-making process that will be effective on their lives should be given to children.
2. The opportunity should be given to children to express their opinions.
3. The opinions of children should be taken seriously as an equal party in the processes.
4. There should be an opportunity for the taken decision to be discussed and appealed by the participating children, as well as being informed about all stages.
Both models suggest a clear active participation in a process from beginning until after the application phases. Participatory work ideally should take place with the full cooperation of not just managers, but the people who actually use every corner of a children’s environment, mainly children and people who share those spaces with them like parents and teachers (Clark and Percy-Smith, 2007; Hasirci, 2010; Sanoff, 1990). A wonderful idea can become obsolete and a waste of finances if the initial use does not match what is applied. For instance, the open-plan school that was a result of participatory work of architects and users started off as a wonderful idea, but did not fulfill its potential. This was due to several issues, the most important one being the means by which design ideas become reality; spaces that are actually used and teaching methods that will influence curricula. Users should be involved in all stages, until the realization of the project, and even after that, in order to assess the relation of aims and results. The children should not be tokenized, that is, become involved superficially in the process (Woolner et al., 2007).
Method of Collecting Data
One significant point in any architecture and interior architecture project is to observe how spaces are used previously, the habits formed and repeated each day, and achieve a comprehensive assessment of the space in its already existing situation (Sanoff, 1980).
The age of children is critical when considering methodology of working with them throughout the participatory process. Naturally, one cannot work with all ages of children in the same way. While in lower grades, visual representation methods are often used, in higher grades questionnaires and interviews may be used with fruitful results (Artut, 2007). Every participatory process and its necessary methodology is different, however, most fruitful processes are the ones completed with a combination of different methods. Picture drawing, interviews, questionnaires, model-making, walk-throughs are just some of the methods in which children can take part actively. Observation of children’s behavior, obtaining information from teachers and parents are passive methods that can be compared and combined with active ones. Method of interpreting the data that has been collected is also critical at this point.
The Children’s Space Project
This project was a good example of combined methodology in participatory design. It involved designing an urban open space for children that was in their control. This would be a space of urban representation of the child. It would not be just a play area, but a place which children of all ages could use for personal growth, to gather with friends, study, fulfill needs of self-expression, and partake in activities organized such as dances, mini-concerts, art workshops and exhibitions. The space could also be used by the nearby school for extracurricular activities (Kural, Ozaloglu, and Hasirci, 2009). In this project, the aim was to develop the theoretical model as well as the design model that involved the design guidelines, methodology regarding the participatory design process, categorization of the recycled material, as well as future suggestions for similar applications.
The process was made up of five stages: Questionnaires, drawings, field trip and site activity, junk-yard trip, model-making, and logo design. However, in this case, funding was necessary for the actual application. The questionnaires enabled the children to get used to the project idea conceptually, while encouraging them to discuss issues such as, favorite and despised spaces related to their neighborhood. They marked their houses on a map, and explained how they wanted to take part in the project. The second step was completing drawings regarding what type of environment they wanted as a response to the introduced design problem. The field trip and site activity helped collect information on which activities children wanted in the space and the interrelationships of the areas. In order to support feelings of belongingness and control, the first activity at the site was to clean the site of trash. The junk-yard trip was useful in introducing the idea of recycled material to be used in the project, as well as identifying and categorizing the materials to be used. The model-making period was useful in putting together ideas and assessing them in the third dimension. Children formed groups and designed the space with its fruit and vegetable garden, pool, and bicycle tracks as well as several other functions. The logo design session helped the research team understand the basic idea in children’s minds that summed up the project concept in a visually artistic format (Kural, Ozaloglu, and Hasirci, 2009).
Each stage gave useful information about children’s opinions regarding the space, and a finalized design was obtained by the design research team. The application process was sabotaged more than once, with the election as well as limitation of water use throughout the summer. Although the end result was prevented from being realized, the process was educational and enjoyable for both the designers and the potential users. Children stated many times that, they could not believe they were being listened to. First, this is a critical stage. They were very happy about the activities themselves during each workshop stage, as well as achieving a product at the end of each one. The design research team is certain that, all participants achieved skills as well as positive experiences to be carried into the future from the whole participatory process. The tools worked effectively, and more than one publication was released as a result of it to guide future projects of similar nature. This is just one example of several ways to work with children, and projects as such will multiply and develop as the awareness in this area is increased.
Conclusion
The feeling of control is the first thing a design research team should give to the participants. Control enables a feeling of belongingness and responsibility necessary for an effective process (Sanoff, 2006). This seems easier said than done, as a variety of issues come into play such as, secondary users having a say on the same issue, as well as clashing opinions and values.
User-centered participatory design projects can be effective tools for collecting information from actual users or potential users of a space (Hasirci and Wilson, 2009). In children’s environments, the issue gets quite specialized although the general aim is basically the same as with any participatory process. A direct involvement of children in participatory design processes has often been neglected (Woolner et al., 2007), as children are not the ones who control finances or spaces aimed for their use, however, information regarding decision-making coming from them could significantly contribute to finances (Burke and Grosvenor, 2003; Clark and Percy-Smith, 2006). Moreover, traces of children, such as artwork or spaces left for children’s self expression, in the designed environment enhance feelings of belonging in the space in not only the children involved in the process, but other children as well, for several years to come.
Involving children in the process, involving their parents and caretakers, collecting data, interpretation of data collected, revisiting findings and results with them all requires a specialized approach. Designers must commit to the idea of genuinely listening to and hearing children and taking their opinions seriously for results that will most definitely open a window to the fast paced world and changing needs of the children of today and the future.
The participatory example described in this paper was undertaken by a design research team comprised of the author Asst. Prof. Dr. Deniz Hasirci (Izmir University of Economics) herself, Dr. Nerkis Kural, Dr. Serpil Ozaloglu (Bilkent University), Asst. Prof. Dr. Sezin Tanriover (Bahcesehir University), and Sibel Ertez Ural (Bilkent University), in Turkey.
References
Artut, K. Sanat Egitimi: Kuramlari ve Yontemleri (Art Education: Theories and Methods). Ankara: Ani Yayincilik, 2007.
Burke, C. and I. Grosvenor. The School I'd Like. Children and Young People's Reflections on an Education for the 21st Century. London: Routledge Falmer, 2003.
Clark, A. and B. Percy-Smith, “Beyond Consultation: Participatory Practices in Everyday Spaces”, Children, Youth and Environments, 2006, 16(2): 1-9.
Clark, A. and B. Percy-Smith “How Parent Explanation Changes What Children Learn From Everyday Scientific Thinking”, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28(3), May-June 2007, p. 189-210.
Hart, R. A., Children's Participation: from Tokenism to Citizenship, Unicef International Child Development Centre, Florence, 1992.
Hasirci, D. “Participatory Art and Design with Children for Social Justice”. Art and Design for Social Justice Symposium Proceedings. Tallahassee, Florida, USA. 17-20 January, 2010. p. 1-6.
Hasirci, D. and S. G. Wilson. “Involving Children in Participatory Design: The Case of a Children’s Museum in Izmir”, ARCHILD: International Congress - Architecture and Children, The Chamber of Architects, Ankara, Turkey, 2009, p. 101-103.
Iltus, S. and Hart, R. A. Architecture and Behavior. 2000, 10(4), p. 361-370.
Kural N.; Ozaloglu, S.; Hasirci, D. Un Processus Participatif: Concevoir Un Espace
Public Urbain Pour Enfants Dans Un Bidonville. Enfants Jeunes das les Espaces du Quotidien. Ed. Danic, I.; David, O. Depeau, S. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2010, p. 247-263.
Sanoff, H., Methods of Architectural Programming, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1980.
Sanoff, H., Participatory Design, BookMasters, Inc., Mansfield, Ohio, 1990.
Sanoff, H., Role of Participation in Planning and Urban Design Standards. American Planning Association. Hobroken, New Jersey: Wiley Graphic Standards. 2006, p. 46-49.
Skivenes, M. and A. Stranbu, “A Child Perspective and Children’s Participation”, Children, Youth and Environments, 2006, 16(2), p. 10-27.
Unicef. The State of the World’s Children. Special Edition: Celebrating 20 Years of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (2009).
Woolner, P., E. Hall, K. Wall, and D. Dennison, “Getting Together to Improve the School Environment: User Consultation, Participatory Design and Student Voice”, Improving Schools, 2007, 10(3), p. 233-249.
Contact:
Asst. Prof. Dr. Deniz HASIRCI,
Department of Interior Architecture and Environmental Design (Head), Faculty of Fine Arts and Design, Izmir University of Economics, Izmir, TURKEY
Email: deniz.hasirci@ieu.edu.tr
Web : http://homes.ieu.edu.tr/~dhasirci/ , http://denizhasirci.blogspot.com/
« "What can we expect from cultural planning" by Bart Verschaffel | "Cities and Artists: developing cultural projects together?" by Diane Dodd »