A comparative approach to the study of child friendly environments. The perspectives of children, mothers, the elderly and professionals in two Italian territorial contexts Pacilli, M.G., Prezza M. Iaps 2004 Vien,

Research aim To contribute to a greater understanding of the concept of child friendliness (c.f.) Enviromental child friendliness is an important indicator of the quality of children’s life because

Environmental Child friendliness (e.c.f.): a framework Horelli (2003) has presented a framework to define e.c.f.: It is covered by a set of 10 normative dimensions Person-environment fit/ Collective environment fit Collaborative planning Significant criteria Scope Context of application

The study: the two contexts Nettuno Coastal town ( people) in central Italy Several green areas Low level buildings (2 or 3 storeys high) Caserta Town of people in southern Italy Two neighborhoods selected ( people) No green areas/heavy traffic/poor facilities In 2003 it was in the group of the last 30 cities for quality of life in Italy

Participants 236 totally divided as follows: 80 children (8-12 years) their mothers 40 elderly people ( years) 36 professional who work with children Each participant had been leaving or working in the town for at least 5 years Nettu.Case. Girls20 Boys20 Mothers40 Elderly20 Professional2016 Total120116

Instruments With children : An interview with 3 questions about positive, negative and desired aspects of their neighborhood; a schedule in which they were asked to think up to 10 cfc characteristics With mothers/elderly/pro- fessional: An interview with 4 questions referred to the children situation in their neighborhood a schedule in which they were asked to think of up to 10 cfc characteristics

Research questions Finding out: 1)what elements the interviewed children considered as characteristics of a child friendly city (cfc); 2) what aspects all the participants considered the most important in a cfc 3)if there are any differences in the characteristics of a cfc given by all the participants according to their role and experience within the community

Data analysis We used a mixed procedure of qualitative analysis and a more quantitative approach. 18 categories were created for the characteristics given 16 categories were created for the motivations given The analysis was carried out on the first three characteristics indicated

Results: Percentages of the first five characteristics more frequent in the children

Children Nettuno % Caserta % Services Green areas Urban care Ideal city Traffic202.0 Public spaces2.0 Sensorial qualities Charac. Built environment Morphologic aspect2.00 Relationship with animals5.0 Social climate Peer contact7.50 Institutions2.50 Peacefulness02.5 Autonomy02.5 Participation2.50

Results: Percentages of the first five motivations more frequent in the children

Children Nettuno % Caserta % Play Desire/pleasure Cheerful environment Exercise and sport Autonomy Health Security and control Making good structures defic Respect things and environment Being together10.0 Free use of structures Solidarity10.00 Getting to know the town5.00 Children’s decision making power2.50 Child friendly areas2.5 Respect for people02.5

Results: Percentages of the first five characteristics more frequent in all the participants

All participants Nettuno % Caserta % Services Green areas Public spaces Charac. Built environment Urban care Traffic Ideal city Sensorial qualities Social climate Peacefulness Institutions Relationship with animals Morphologic aspect6.70 Peer contact6.70 Autonomy Participation1.70

Results: Percentages of the first five motivations more frequent in all the participants

All participants Nettuno %Caserta % Play Security and control Cheerful environment Desire/pleasure Exercise and sport Autonomy Physical-cultural growth Health Respect things and environment Making good structures defic Being together Child friendly areas Free use of structures Respect for people Solidarity Getting to know the town Children’s decision making power1.70

All participants ChildrenMothersElderlyProfess. Services Green areas Public spaces Charac. Built environment Traffic Urban care Ideal city Sensorial qualities Social climate Peacefulness Institutions Relationship with animals Morphologic aspect Peer contact Autonomy Participation

All participants ChildrenMothersElderlyProfess. Play Security and control Cheerful environment Desire/pleasure Exercise and sport Autonomy Physical-cultural growth Health Respect things and environment Making good structures defic Being together Child friendly areas Free use of structures Respect for people Getting to know the town Children’s decision making power

Conclusions (1) Characteristics not linked to the territorial context Representation of a c.f. environment Positive characteristics (What I WOULD like to have..) Negative characteristics (What I WOULDN’T like to have..) Characteris. linked to the territorial context Deficiencies felt in the territory More problematics aspects felt in the territory

Elements that fill the gap between children’s own needs and environment capability to satisfy those needs Representation of a child friendly environment in children is constituted by: Strongly territorial contex sensitive Conclusions (2)

General representation of childhood and its needs Own personal needs Personal/ Professional role respect to children Personal needs/ Personal experience Representation of a child friendly environment in adult is affected by : Strongly territorial context sensitive Scarcely territorial context sensitive Comparison between the past and the present

Conclusions (4) The Person-Environment fit as a significant criterion for the comprehension of the representation of the child friendly environment