Increasing Children's Freedom of Movement: Introduction

Field: Social Sciences (Social Sciences)

Children, Youth and Environments. Vol 16, No.1 (2006) ISSN 1546-2250 Special Focus: Increasing Children's Freedom of Movement Lia Karsten and Willem van Vliet--, Guest Editors cartoon by Stu Hutchinson after an idea by Kelly Draper Zuniga Children, Youth and Environments 16(1), 2006 Increasing Children's Freedom of Movement: Introduction Lia Karsten Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences at the University of Amsterdam Amsterdam Institute for Metropolitan and International Development Studies and Willem van Vliet— Children, Youth and Environments Center for Research and Design University of Colorado Citation: Karsten, Lia and Willem van Vliet-- (2006). "Increasing Children's Freedom of Movement: Introduction." Children, Youth and Environments 16(1), 69-73. The problem Over the past few decades, many studies have expressed concerns about the decrease in children's freedom of movement. Modern cities have often been portrayed as negative places to live (e.g., White and White 1962), particularly when it comes to children's possibilities of exploring their neighborhoods on their own. Urban conditions tend to be depicted as being detrimental to children, with traffic and other hazards preventing them from playing outdoors unsupervised, getting enough physical exercise and traveling independently. Results from residential preference surveys have shown a small and declining minority of households favoring cities (Fischer 1984). Studies of neighborhood effects on children's activities and development have revealed the difficult challenges faced by children growing up in urban poverty (e.g., Brooks-Gunn et al. 1997a; Brooks-Gunn et al. 1997b; Fauth 2004). Although research in this area has focused primarily on cities in high-income countries, the combination of poverty and urban conditions presents threats to the wellbeing and health of children in low-income countries as well (see, e.g., Bartlett et al. 1999). Recent literature suggests that processes of globalization have deepened trends of urban inequality and sharpened patterns of segregation with the effect of heightened deprivation of urban youth living in environments of disadvantage (Tienda and Wilson 2002). These negative developments are accentuated when we compare the neighborhood experiences of children today with those of children in the past. There are only a few historical studies about children's daily lives in past decades. In a small study, Gaster (1991) investigated changes in children's use of public space in a New York neighborhood between 1915 and 1976. He concluded that children's outdoor play and free access to their neighborhood had considerably decreased over three generations. A large quantitative study of Increasing Children's Freedom of Movement:Introduction 70 children's travel behavior to school, clubs, and other children's domains, carried out by Hillman et al. (1991), similarly found a sharp decline in children's mobility between 1971 and 1990 and an increase in the age at which children were allowed to go out on their own (at night). Valentine and McKendrick (1997) also studied how children's experiences of outdoor play have changed over generations. They asked parents to compare their children's childhood with their own. Parents reported that their children play outdoors less often than they used to do themselves. In addition, children nowadays play more often in supervised locations close to home, such as private gardens. Bouw and Karsten (2004) likewise concluded in their oral history of growing up in Amsterdam that the outdoors has lost much of its appeal for today's children. While in the 1950s playing meant playing outside, at present children play indoors much more. This shift towards indoor play can be understood in relation to a fast growing number of cars and a sharp decrease in the number of children per street. In addition, parents have changed their views about raising children, leading to a more supervised, planned and organized childhood. Time after school and during weekends is less free and more programmed. Parents in the 1950s were also more convinced that their children were resilient and able to solve their own problems than is the case nowadays. Contemporary parents place more emphasis on the vulnerable side of their offspring and consider them more in need of protection. These historical studies are remarkably unanimous in their conclusions that children's territory has shrunk and that their freedom to...