52038649

Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 15. No.
3, 293324, August 2010
Childrens Places: Rural Urban Comparisons Using Participatory Photography in the Bodrum Peninsula, Turkey
FAHRIYE HAZER SANCAR & YUCEL CAN SEVERCAN
Department of Planning and Design, College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, CO, USA
ABSTRACT Urban place-making requires an understanding of experiences and meanings ordinary people associate with common environmentsmeanings that often go back to their childhoods. This paper investigates how childrens place preferences and the attributes of these places differ along a rural-urban continuum. Participatory photography was used with four groups of children (ages 9 11) living in three different municipalities of the Bodrum peninsula, Turkeya region that has experienced major transformation over the past three decades due to tourism. The research reported here was part of planning and urban design studios during the summers of 2005 2007, and the results were integrated with the projects and presented to the public. The particular municipalities where the children resided vary in tourism-based urbanization and the associated socioeconomic and environmental characteristics. In all cases, the children valued experiencing nature, being in contact with people and having diversity and freedom in their environments. Although all four of these factors are essential for producing healthy, loved and sustainable communities, it was also observed that as traditional landscapes are replaced by spaces of tourism and consumption, the specic attributes of childrens preferred places change, as does the diversity of place types and experiences, and children have less freedom to explore independently. These changes have implications for peoples attachment to places and ought to be considered by planners and urban designers as well as public ofcials who are responsible for guiding redevelopment in areas undergoing rapid change.
Introduction Place is an archive of fond memories (Tuan, 1977, p. 154). Afictions, felicities, dreams and discoveriesall events, actions and feelings are associated with place. It is during childhood that events, actions and feelings, together with the places associated with them, start to indwell in the subconscious. Thus places themselves grow to elicit emotions, such as happiness, tranquility, security and sense of privacy.
Correspondence Address: Fahriye Sancar, Urban and Regional Planning, Department of Planning and Design, College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, CO, USA. Email: fahriye.sancar@colorado.edu
1357-4809 Print/1469-9664 Online/10/030293-32 q 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2010.487808
294
F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan
For the production of loved, liveable, healthy and sustainable communities, it is essential to cultivate and preserve these emotions, or the sense of place. Urban design is essentially about place-making (Buchanan, 1988, p. 33), and the urban designer is responsible for understanding, creating and preserving the sense of place and cultivating attachment to places. Preserving places that contain memorable elements such as a fountain, a building, a familiar street pattern, a niche or a tree may bring people together, reinforce their sense of identity, and ensure some sense of continuity (Arendt, 1958). Many scholars articulated the characteristics of a good city and principles for its design (see, for example, Lynch, 1960, 1981; Jacobs, 1961; Relph, 1976; Canter, 1977; Alexander, 1979; Buchanan, 1988; Montgomery, 1998; Mehta, 2007). Lynch (1960), for example, stressed the importance of paths, nodes, edges, districts and landmarks for a good city image. Montgomery (1998) argued that in order for a street to be lively, to be used by many people, the residential density and spatial and functional diversity (e.g. variations in building heights and open spaces, land uses, patterns of landownership) should be high (also see Jacobs, 1961; Duany & Plater-Zyberk, 1991; Ewing, 1996; Duany et al., 2000). Alfonzo (2005) discussed the urban design features of good places under safety, comfort, accessibility and pleasurability principles. Similarly, the Project for Public Space (1999, in Carmona et al., 2003) identied four key attributes of successful public spaces: comfort and image; access and linkage; uses and activity; and sociability. Arguing that childrens perception and use of urban public spaces are different from those of adults, many scholars stressed that what makes a place good for adults may not make the same place good for children (Moore, 1987; Sebba, 1991; Matthews & Limb, 1999; Talen & Cofndaffer, 1999; Eiser et al., 2000; Elsley, 2004). On the other hand, what is good for children is also good for the entire public (Malone, 2004). In this context, one of the most popular studies that aimed to nd out the attributes of good public spaces for children was Kevin Lynchs Growing Up in Cities Project, which was initiated in the late 1970s. In the early 1990s, Louise Chawla revived Lynchs Growing Up in Cities project to continue seeking the characteristics of good places for children by involving them in urban planning and design research. In parallel with the notion of good city form, postmodern discourse in urban planning and design emphasizes the importance of sense of place and place attachment for the production of successful places (Debord, 1967, 1983; Harvey, 1989; Zukin, 2003). The discourse on place and placelessness has focused attention on themed downtowns, housing and commercial developments in suburbia and retail-entertainment complexes, harking back to past eras and New Urbanist communities with mixed-use streetscapes, mostly built on the urban fringe. Despite these efforts, people remain concerned about losing their sense of place. Modern landscapes, especially those subjected to forces of globalization, are separated from us (Sennett, 1990), and most processes of development undermine and destroy commitment to existing places (Relph, 1976; Harvey, 1989; Are, 1999; Ritzer, 2004). By replacing the places of memories with homogeneous, timeless and placeless uses (Debord, 1967, 1983; de Certeau, 1984; Harvey, 1989, 1996; Massey, 1995; Stallabras, 1996; Soja, 2000), modern developments often annihilate peoples familiarity and friendship with place. These changes manifest themselves in all types of landscapes, both urban and rural (Amin & Thrift, 1994; Terkenli, 2005), but the most severe spatial and social impacts are felt in traditional communities radically transformed by economic growth and
Childrens Places
295
development strategies. Tourism development is one of the most popular such strategies and arguably has the greatest impact. In this context, urban design often involves mitigating the alienating effects of fast change that threatens to obliterate all ties to peoples past experiences. This paper focuses on childrens valued places in one of the fastest growing tourism regions of southwestern Turkey: the Bodrum peninsula. A previous longitudinal study of a typical settlement in this peninsula revealed signicant changes in the richness of behaviour settings pre- and post-tourism development, and argued that studying the morphological changes in the vernacular architecture alone is inadequate to draw conclusions about the nature of transformation (Sancar, 1985; Sancar & Koop, 1995). Examining four communitiesYali, Yalikavak and inner and edge Bodrumthis study aims to identify childrens place preferences and analyzes how the attributes of these places reect the communities differing exposures to change. To this end, children in each community were asked to photograph places they loved. The study then looked at the commonalities and differences between places chosen by children living in the four types of communities. The study outcomes imply that tourism developments consisting of landscapes of consumption and entertainment signicantly threaten childrens places and those attributes that make them special. It is argued that fundamental changes in these attributes will impede development of peoples attachment to their cities and communities. Conversely, urban design that acknowledges these attributes and strives to maintain them in the public realm as communities redevelop will contribute to the production of liveable and sustainable cities. Place Attachment: Formation and Function Place attachment is an affective bond that links an individual to a particular place (Hunter, 1978; Low & Altman, 1992). Studies have shown that place bonds develop over time, in response to the individuals interaction with the environment (Hay, 1998a; Milligan, 1998; Manzo, 2005). The meanings individuals ascribe to specic environments are products of interactive processes involving the individual, the setting and the broader social world (Milligan, 1998, 2003; Eisenhauer et al., 2000). Attachment to places is one of the most powerful among human emotions, because all events and actions are place-bound and all problems have a place component. Empathy with places and love of particular places are fundamental human qualities. A well-cultivated sense of place is essential for well-being, and the diversity and individuality of places enrich life on earth. Humans identify themselves with the places they feel attached to (Montgomery, 1998; Spencer, 2005). They associate themselves with places where their memories lie or where they expect future interactions, and they seek their selves in the signs and symbols embedded there, perceiving themselves at the centre. For this reason, they load signicant values to these places, and for many, whether residential or non-residential, these places are home (Bachelard, 1969; Tuan, 1977; Buttimer, 1980; Sixsmith, 1986; Easthope, 2004), where they enjoy being part of something and feel that they are not alone. Such places satisfy needs for belonging and love, as well as security and safety (Appleton, 1975; Manzo, 2005). According to Tuan (1977), abandoning valued places or seeing them destroyed can ruin peoples lives. Disruption of place attachment threatens
296
individuals self-denitions (Spencer, 2005). It causes signicant mental anguish, including loneliness, fear, unhappiness and behavioural disorders (Brown & Perkins, 1992). Therefore, preserving the experiential and emotional link between places and their inhabitants in contemporary urban development projects is vital for psychological well-being. Milligan (1998) states that the development of a strong emotional attachment between humans and places depends on two interactive processes: the interactional past and interactional potential of a site (Milligan, 1998). According to her, it is past experiences and the memories of those experiences that contribute to the development of place bonding (see also Vorkinn & Riese, 2001); and if an individual has no expectations for future interactions in a place, his/her feeling of place attachment diminishes. The meanings people attach to places are socially constructed; it is meaningful social experiences, rather than simply the spatial attributes of physical settings, that drive attachment to places (Low & Altman, 1992). The degree of meaningfulness of these experiences translates into the degree of attachment to the site itself; i.e., the more meaningful the interactions that occur there (or are otherwise perceived as linked to it), the greater the place attachment to the site. (Milligan, 1998, p. 2) On the other hand, according to Stedman (2003), physical attributes of environments also play a signicant role in the production of place attachment. Various scholars (see, for example, Alexander, 1979; Lynch, 1981; Shumaker & Taylor, 1983; Gieryn, 2000) emphasize that people are attached to places because of their unique physical features. Gieryn (2000), for example, notes that residents of neighbourhoods near prominent landmarks, or with easily dened edges, are more likely to have stronger emotional bonds to where they live. Similarly, Lynch (1960), Tuan (1977), Sennett (1990), and many other scholars claim that familiarity with urban features outside home environments facilitates peoples attachment to places. Most of the research on place attachment has been on affective bonds to the home or neighbourhood (Manzo, 2003, 2005). These studies hypothesize that the expectation of positive experiences draws people to specic settings, and over time, attachments to these places evolve. Hence, place attachment may be associated with residential blocks and neighbourhoods, where the likelihood of social interaction is greater. Indeed, several studies show people expressing feelings of pride in the residential area and its appearance (Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996) and a general sense of well-being associated with it (Harris et al., 1995). Residential attachments promote and provide stability, familiarity, and security. For example, in a study of a revitalized neighbourhood, researchers found that increased collective efcacy, and decreased incivility, property decay and fear of crime, were associated with stronger place attachments (Brown et al., 2003). Other studies on place attachment have focused on peoples experiences with and attachments to nature and outdoor recreation settings (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989; Williams & Roggenbuck, 1989; Williams et al., 1992; Kaplan, 1995; Gustafson, 2001; Williams & Vaske, 2003; Kyle et al., 2004a, 2004b). In general, these studies set out to explain why some people prefer particular outdoor settings or natural environments, and not others. Williams et al. (1992), measuring attachment to four specic wilderness places, found that place attachment was closely associated
Childrens Places
297
with the degree of naturalness. Kaplan & Kaplan (1989) explain the preference for naturalness by the restorative effects of interacting with nature. Places in Childhood and Place Attachment When adults are asked about their most memorable and favourite places, they often describe settings from their childhood (Lukashok & Lynch, 1956; Sebba, 1991; Cooper Marcus, 1992; Francis, 1995). Once children develop familiarities or friendships with their environments, these experiences and meanings become the foundation of their emotional (and practical) responses to places as adults. Attributes of favourite childhood places show remarkable similarities across time and different regions of the world (Ward, 1978, 1988). Much of the literature argues that children prefer places that are natural, diverse, accessible and social (Jacobs & Jacobs, 1980; Vliet, 1980; Moore, 1987; Owens, 1988; Andel, 1990; Sebba, 1991; Talen & Cofndaffer, 1999; Loukaitou-Sideris, 2003; Passon et al., 2008). Regardless of gender, age, environment, or social background, most adults recall their most memorable childhood place as the outdoors (Sebba, 1991; Sandberg, 2003). Simkins & Thwaites (2008) argue that it is the incidental features of natural environments, such as the movement of water in a river or the swaying of leaves in the wind, that provide enjoyment for children, rather than static structures specically designed for play, which become boring after they have been used for a while. When they have the opportunity, children love to spend time in gardens, streets, parks, waterfronts, farmlands, forests, woods, junk yards and abandoned open areas. These places afford opportunities for intentional actions, where children enjoy freedom and independence. They enjoy using all of their senses. They hide, dig the ground, go shing, climb trees, make fortresses, smell the air, watch the sky, and above all, nd opportunities not only to be alone, but also to socialize with their friends. As they grow up, they seek remoter places, where they can act freely without parental interferenceespecially farmlands, forests and rural settings. However, various studies have shown that external factors, such as parental restrictions, social pressures, societal views towards youth and physical thresholds, are limiting childrens mobility or access to their favourite places (Hillman et al., 1990; Blakely, 1994; Valentine, 1995; Valentine, 1997; Penn, 2005). Hay (1998b) found that sense of place is not developed in children who have limited mobility. As public open spaces are replaced by privatized commercial and leisure placesor are separated from residents and become more automobile-oriented social and physical problems, such as trafc, pollution, low communal ties and social exclusion, increase. Contraction of the public realm also reduces the potential for meeting strangers, which according to Goffman (1963) is important for formation of social identity. These problems limit childrens use of the outdoors (Kytta, 2002; Churchman, 2003), and hence their attachment to places of socialization. Huttenmoser (1995) found that children who live in pedestrianfriendly places are more active than those living in automobile-oriented urban environments. Similarly, Heurlin-Norinder (1997) and Hillman (1996) show that automobile-dependent communities have negative implications for childrens safety and health, and limit their use of the streets. Churchman (2003) shows how their opportunities for using urban public open spaces decrease when residences are away from downtowns. Similarly, Loukaitou-Sideris & Banerjee (1998) stress
298
how the introverted and controlled nature of privately produced public open spaces lters children out. Finally, McKendrik (2000) and Penn (2005) discuss how, in the absence of regular access to the urban public realm, children are pushed to private play settings where they have little say or control. Loving a place, on the other hand, is often due to the sense of freedom that the place affords. Regardless of socio-cultural and demographic differences, there is a close relation between childrens place preferences and the effects of these places on them. The places where children love to spend their time function as more than settings for physical activity. Instead, many of these places offer them means of escape from daily hassles and social pressures (Sommer, 1990). Hence, entering such places enables them to overcome the effects of negative feelings and emotions after a disappointing or stressful experience (Chatterjee, 2005). Children feel not only psychologically secure, calmed down and relaxed, but also free, independent, self-condent and self-reliant; in addition, these places offer a means for socialization and identity development (Korpela, 1989, 1991, 1992; Chawla, 1992; Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996; Spencer & Wooley, 2000; Chatterjee, 2005). To summarize, children prefer particular places because these places provide experiential opportunities that make the place meaningful at a deeper emotional and spiritual level. Attachment to Places and Urban Design Place attachment fosters a sense of belonging and leads to agency on the part of the inhabitants. Cultivating place attachment should be an essential goal of urban regeneration. Several scholars have found that attachment to ones neighbourhood affects peoples propensity to invest time and money to improve their neighbourhood. Such attachment also increases their level of social interaction with neighbours and care for the community (Manzo & Perkins, 2006). Similarly, attachment to places increases the likelihood of active citizen participation and may reduce the time and labour required to implement plans and projects, in addition to creating a social setting where different needs, interests and points of view are discussed (Manzo & Perkins, 2006). Brown et al. (2003) show that when people are attached to their neighbourhoods, revitalization efforts are more likely to produce a good public realm by protecting public open spaces, including farmlands, forests and streets. There is little evidence that this body of research has signicantly changed practice in planning and urban design. Many planning and design projects continue to ignore the potential richness of peoples daily experiences and focus on physical attributes of places thought to be associated with a limited set of uses that often serve narrowly dened economic goals (Sennett, 1977; DeFilippis, 1997; Banerjee, 2001). As a result, urban redevelopment projects run the risk of decontextualizing environments by ignoring the people, activities and experiences that originally shaped them, and recreate historical forms of built environments merely for purposes of consumption, entertainment and spectacle (Debord, 1967, 1983). At best, projects aim to create a sense of place and a feeling of place attachment by imitating historical settings and integrating various places of attraction into the landscapes of consumption, assuming that physical form alone will ensure peoples attachment and commitment. However, there is a difference between being rooted in place and articially creating a sense of place by, for example, requiring nostalgically stylized architectural forms while displacing
Childrens Places
299
the people who created the original, authentic place. This body of research shows that urban design should focus on accommodating the routine activities and interactions that are important for economic well-being and community stability as the foundation for place identity and a sense of belonging.
The Role of Children in Planning and Urban Design Planning is an effort to shape the future. It involves making choices by weighing costs and benets. When a place is experiencing a high rate of growth because of its attractiveness, the planning public often overvalues the benets of development and undervalues the costs of losing the sense of place that attracts development in the rst place. Afterwards, the place in question does not resemble what it had been for its original inhabitants, especially the children, who have little if any role in these choices. In previous studies by the authors in the Bodrum peninsula, it was observed that childrens issues were conspicuously absent in planning and development debates (except as a generic concern about education). Fullling the needs of various users is only part of the reason for requiring their participation; more important is collective learning through dialogue. Many scholars stress that the earlier people learn about each other, their environment and self-governance, the better citizens they become (Simpson, 1997; Mansbridge, 1999; Sancar, 2005). Children can offer valuable insight for the production of successful communities, while they themselves become more aware and conscious about their home. It was for these reasons that the authors decided to incorporate childrens voices into their planning effort. The study aimed to discover childrens favourite places, their attributes and whether and how these attributes change with tourism-led urbanization. It asked what these changes mean in terms of childrens attachment to their communities, and examined three principal implications for urban design. First, the results regarding the attributes of childrens places conrm those of other studies, and the apparent universality of favourite-place attributes implies that they perform an important role in the development of children into well-adjusted adults and responsible citizens. Second, childrens perceptions are free of adult concerns about instrumental value (place is often a commodity, a resource to be exploited); for children, place is valuable in itself. This may be because the adult concerns about instrumental value necessarily involve prediction, which is always uncertain. In contrast, children value the now. They may be less good at predicting possible future benets, but better at identifying present benets (which, if sacriced, count as costs). Therefore, children are much more objective in their assessment of what matters. Third, understanding the physical attributes that contribute to individuals rootedness in place is the rst step in producing contemporary urban landscapes that fulll the need for identity and belonging and in turn ensure care. Taking childrens ideas and opinions would not only help planners and designers to know more about the attributes of childrens places, and hence guide them during the production of successful communities, but also lead young people to selfempowerment and civic participation.
300
Planning and Urban Design Context of the Study The study explored childrens valued places in one of the fastest growing coastal regions of Southwestern Turkey: the Bodrum peninsula (see Figure 1). The data presented here were obtained in planning and urban design studios at Yali, Yalikavak, and Bodrum during the summers of 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively. This summer studio abroad has been part of the authors curriculum in the College of Architecture and Planning for the past decade (since 1999); masters and undergraduate students from planning, urban design, architecture and landscape architecture work with local architects, planners, public ofcials and members of various civic groups to propose policies, regulations and designs. Located at the conuence of the Aegean and the Mediterranean Seas, the Bodrum peninsula is one of the most memorable places on earth, with a unique set of natural, historical, social and architectural assets. In one of his stories, Cevat Sakir Kabaagacli (1886 1973), also known as the Fisherman of Halikarnas, describes the pre-1950s Bodrum peninsula as follows: We departed from Palamut Bay. We smelled the orange and tangerine trees when we went around the Tekin Cape, though we were 18 miles in the ofng . . . The very blue coast was lying in front my eyes. As we passed by Bodrum, it was such a clean and pure white on the blueness of the sea . . . The light changed its accent because it was night. The white city became light blue. (Halikarnas Balikcisi, in Erez, 1996, pp. 12 13) For centuries, the Bodrum peninsula, with its unspoiled sea and beaches, charming agricultural and forest lands, strong communal life, peaceful atmosphere and traditional/historical urban fabric, has attracted people from
Figure 1. Bodrum peninsula.
Childrens Places
301
all around the world, many of whom have developed strong emotional bonds with this specic landscape. Since the 1960s and at an increasing pace, the region has experienced a burst of growth in tourism, and is now faced with losing its unique socio-spatial characteristics. Early plans and policies that emphasized preserving the unique assets of the peninsula gave way to those that rewarded second-home developments and all-inclusive large-scale hotels and resorts at the expense of agricultural and fragile coastal lands. In the mid-1990s, as part of the economic liberalization project at the national level, land-use planning was decentralized and eight new municipalities were established, making the total 11. This was followed in the mid-2000s by laws that allowed foreign nationals to own real estate. All of these policies made construction the regions primary economic sector and attracted not only part-time residents and tourists, but also seasonal workers from all over the country. The newcomers increased the population of the peninsula to 57 000 inhabitants in the winter, and 350 000 residents on any day during the peak summer season (Idikut & Edelman, 2003). While developers and landowners have beneted, the large-scale physical interventions have created an enormous pressure on the existing physical and social infrastructure (Idikut & Edelman, 2003; Sancar, 2005). As a consequence the Bodrum peninsula can no longer boast its historical reputation as a healing place, (but instead) it has become just another vacation spot (Sancar et al., 2004, p. 4). One of the major effects of rapid urbanization on the region has been the signicant deterioration of the natural systems, including hydrology, vegetation and wildlife. Ninety per cent of the peninsula has a grade of 20% or more, and during the last decade, most of the hillsides have been developed without regard for topography or other natural features of the sites. Over-development and unsuitable land uses, including roads, marinas and shopping and residential areas, threaten ecosystems to the point of total destruction. Today, a majority of settlement areas in the Bodrum peninsula are covered by second homes, most of which occupy hillsides that were once olive groves and native maquis (Dundar, 1998). In the absence of adequate infrastructure, high levels of marine and coastal pollution have been caused by construction debris and fugitive dust and by untreated water, which is often discharged directly into the sea (Idikut & Edelman, 2003). Moreover, the cultural identity of the region has been largely overwhelmed by homogenizing global inuences. Not only do the local people no longer engage in traditional activities; they have become a minority among visitors and secondhome owners from Istanbul and Europe. These newcomers now control the economy and do not offer the native population alternative ways to make a living beyond working in low-paying service jobs that have no future. The tourism policies of the central government, along with the general economic climate of high ination, were responsible for the proliferation of second homes without much attention to planning for the requisite infrastructure nor care for the ecosystems. Localization of planning in the mid-1990s did little to remedy the situation; rather, it increased competition among municipalities to capture investment by large-scale tourism developments and made the situation even worse. As a result the regional and spatial character of the settlement patterns, the functional differentiation among communities due to symbiotic relationships among them, and the natural hierarchy of main market centres and villages that
302
had evolved through centuries have all started to disappear. Now, each municipality wishes to become as important as the next by imitating the latest global fad, without considering its own local assets that could secure it a unique place in a network of mutually supporting towns (Sancar et al., 2004). To summarize, many of the unique socio-spatial values of the peninsula, including traditional social ties, historical heritage and natural landscapes, have been replaced by landscapes of consumption, tourism and leisure. Hence, it is becoming an urban geography with residents who do not feel attached and are likely to move when they see a threat to their investments. On the other hand, these changes are taking place unevenly, and there are communities and settings that have been less affected than others. The authors decided to take advantage of the variation among communities to both investigate the impacts of development and show the value of places soon to be lost to future generations of residents, by asking children to inform urban design projects.
The Four Settings: Village, Small Town, City Downtown, City Edge The four community settings vary in the degree and nature of social and environmental transformation due to tourism development. From the lowest to the highest level of change, these cases are Yali (the village), Yalikavak (the small town), and inner and edge Bodrum (the urban metro areas) (Figures 2 and 3). Yali is a small, idyllic, rural village. In the 2000 census the village had a population of 4067; by 2007, this number had increased to 4604 (http://www. yalikavak.bel.tr/, accessed 3 December 2008). Most of the houses in the village have one or two oors, and have substantial and productive home gardens. The density of the settlement in 2005 was 31.13 persons/square kilometre, or an average of 14 households/square kilometre, but this population was concentrated along a linear corridor, leaving most of the coastline, forested hillsides and agricultural lands undeveloped. Farming and small manufacturing and crafts were still an important aspect of village life. However, the growth rate of the village was about 6.7% (Sancar et al., 2004) higher than that experienced by the city of Bodrum over the previous three decades. The most important reason for this growth is the local economic development intentions of Yali Municipality. In 2005, annual income per capita in Yali was signicantly lower than in the rest of the peninsula and in the country as a whole. In order to increase economic wealth, local government has aimed to attract investment to the area by encouraging tourism developments. This means that if Yali continues to grow in the same way as the rest of the peninsula has, inevitably, the village will soon face the same problems experienced by the other communities. The second case, Yalikavak, is a small coastal town. It is the third largest development in the peninsula, with a current population of approximately 8701 (http://www.yalikavak.bel.tr/, accessed 3 December 2008). At the time of this study, Yalikavak still had archaeological and historical sites, prime agricultural soils and largely undeveloped green lands (e.g. hillsides and a signicant segment of the coastline), unspoiled beaches and a historic and traditional city centre. It was the only remaining town on the peninsula where the entertainment sector had not generated unacceptable levels of noise and intrusion. Furthermore, the town could still be characterized as a self-sufcient community.
Childrens Places
303
Figure 2. Aerial photographs showing the morphology of Yali (top) and Yalikavak (bottom).
304
Figure 3. Aerial photographs showing the morphology of inner-Bodrum (top) and edge-Bodrum (bottom).
Childrens Places
305
Nevertheless, Yalikavak was one of the fastest growing communities in the peninsula. In order to attract more investment to the area, Yalikavak municipality has encouraged second-home and commercial development. Although the ofcials claim to be envisioning a population of 35 000 in the next two decades (Sancar et al., 2005), the newly adopted master plan and zoning imply a minimum population of 60 000, or up to 80 0000 when tourists are included in the count. If this growth does take place, the town is sure to lose its special place character and its traditional identity. The city of Bodrum represents a typical urban metro context. By the year 2007, the total population of the city was 28 575. In the three preceding decades, the citys growth rate had been approximately 6%. Compared to most other provinces of Turkey, this is high, and of course the population reaches much higher levels during the tourist season when visitors are taken into account. Before the 1970s, Bodrum was a typical coastal nodal city, specializing in sponge shing, shipbuilding and tangerine export (Hoffmeyer & Poulson, 1972). After the 1970s, as the city became one of the most popular tourism destinations in Turkey, it became a centre of consumption, with a continuous arcade of shops, restaurants, bars and discos. The old port has been transformed into a yacht harbour with a pedestrian corridor lined with luxury restaurants and coffee/tea houses. The old Bodrum castle located at the end of this corridor was restored and houses one of the most signicant undersea archaeological museums in the world. High-income residents, who are mostly from Istanbul, have replaced many of the old moderate-income residents. Some of these second-home owners y to Bodrum just for a weekends entertainment. Development-related businesses, such as real estate ofces and businesses that support construction and banking services, along with tourism spaces such as large resorts and boutique hotels, have replaced many of the traditional land uses. Although peninsula-wide design regulations mandate sensitivity to local features, in the absence of proper enforcement, developers have destroyed many of the traditional Bodrum houses, the historic fabric, and urban open spaces in the city. Traditional pedestrian streets have become automobile dominated, contributing to the disappearance of public life. A majority of the olive and tangerine groves have been replaced by buildings and new arterials. After plundering forests and olive groves on the hillsides facing the sea, developers have begun to invade the remaining open space and agricultural lands in the central part of the peninsula for residential estates. Particularly during the last decade, Bodrums periphery has also started to change, with typical city-edge land uses along the highways connecting it with other coastal communities. In addition to an inordinate number of constructionrelated businesses such as hardware, furniture and durable household goods stores, these uses include private schools, hospitals, strip malls, shopping centres, bars and night clubs, a large water park, and private indoor/outdoor spaces for socializing (e.g. home gardens, indoor theatres, private recreational areas). Their architecture could be found anywhere. In short, the newly emerging urban fabric of the peninsula is imposing, disparate, and at the same time transient, with ubiquitous construction that marches along leaving behind unnished and incomplete places.
306
Discovering Childrens Places and Values Using Participatory Photography Decisions and choices made by public ofcials in collaboration with other local and non-local interest groups and actors shape the lives of future generations. Often these decisions are justied in the name of job creation and betterment of the standard of living for the younger generation, but the cost of losing those values that make a place special is rarely considered during the planning and design process. Involving children in the initial phase of planning, and listening to their perceptions, knowledge and values, was a reminder of what matters, while they themselves became self-conscious about the uniqueness of their environment. Photographic images have been widely used to assess affective judgements about specic natural and built environments. In the majority of these studies, researchers choose the photographs, and present them to research participants for assessment. This approach has several advantages: the content of the scene can be manipulated to meet study objectives, potential biases relating to the way the photographs are shot (e.g. day vs. night, close vs. far) can be avoided, and photographic quality (e.g. focus, lighting) can be assured. A potential disadvantage is that researchers may select scenes containing environmental properties that they believe will be salient to the participants (Danford & Willems, 1975; Wang & Burris, 1997). Hull & Revell (1989) suggest that members of the participant pool instead choose and photograph the scenes themselves. In this approach, research participants generate visual representations of the environment, and then describe why they took these photographs (Masse et al., 2002). By doing so, individuals can reect their own perceptions and experiences which may vary from people to people based on their socio-demographic characteristics, including age (Corsaro, 1985; Aitken & Wingate, 1993; Prout & James, 1997; Christensen & James, 2000; Jorgenson & Sullivan, 2010). For example, Aitken & Wingate (1993) used the method with three groups of children (i.e. children from middle-class families, homeless children and children whose mobility is impaired by cerebral palsy), arguing that the way children see their environments, and hence the attributes of their photographs, are different from those of adults and other children that have different demographic and personal backgrounds. The photographs may be incorporated into focus group discussions or indepth interviews as visual prompts to elicit discussion and debate. A study that employed this approach with children aged 12 and 15 identied a number of themes related to health and well-being, including use of neighbourhood space and public parks and urban spaces (Morrow, 2001). For adolescents, who are drenched in television and movies (as shown by Hofferth & Sandberg, 2001; OBrien & Smith, 2002; Gorely et al., 2004; Louv, 2006), visual communication of their perceptions and concerns may be particularly appropriate. Wang & Pies (2004) have used the photovoice method to explore childrens and their parents views about places that promote or inhibit their physical activity. Other scholars have successfully used this method to engage youth in positive change within their communities (Strack et al., 2004). Masse and her colleagues (2002, p. 46) described it as one of several methods appropriate for eliciting subjective perceptions from target groups who may be difcult to work with (e.g. children); and Wang & Burris (1997) note that since this method does not
Childrens Places
307
presume the ability to read or write, it may be particularly appropriate for recent immigrants, among whom: . . . the images produced and issues discussed may stimulate social action. Photovoice can be a tool to reach, inform, and organize community members, enabling them to prioritize their concerns and discuss problems and solutions, thereby inviting people to become advocates of their own and their communitys well-being. (p. 373) The present study found the technique to be efcient and powerful in eliciting and representing childrens perceptions. The research began by identifying elementary schools in Yali, Yalikavak and Bodrum and asking the municipalities to contact the schools. The only place with more than one option for selecting schools was Bodrum, and it was asked that one should be located in the citys downtown and the other at the edge. Ofcials from the municipal governments were pleased to help, and contacted the headmasters of the schools and arranged a time for the authors to meet with the students. The headmasters of the schools in Yali, Yalikavak and inner Bodrum selected 24 students, and in edge Bodrum 20 students, from grades 4 5 (ages 9 11), with equal numbers of males and females. The focus was on this particular group because at this age children have increased freedom to explore their environments (Chawla, 1992; Pooley et al., 2005) and consequently develop stronger attachments to places. Other than age and gender no further criteria were specied to municipalities for the selection of children. The authors met with the children twice. At the rst meeting, they were asked to form groups with their friends. They were given disposable cameras (one camera with 24 exposures for each group) and asked to take pictures of outdoor places that they loved and enjoyed spending time in. They were not given examples of specic places because they had to select and dene these places themselves. They were given two full days to photograph the places they liked. No other time limitations were given to the children about, for example, when and for how long they needed to go out to take the pictures. It was also explained that the results would be made available for city planning. Children went on their photographic expeditions in groups of two or three. Working in groups makes the experience more fun, and children benet from each others experiences. After two days, the photos were collected and developed, then were pasted on boards and taken back to the students. In the second workshop meeting, they were asked to write where the pictures had been taken and why they had decided to take these particular pictures. Again, they worked in groups, discussing each picture and what to write about it. In the end, there were 24 students from Yali, 24 from Yalikavak, 18 from inner-Bodrum and 16 from edge-Bodrum who participated in the workshops with their photographs and annotations. Following this workshop, the authors and the students who were participating in the studio categorized the annotated photographs using simple similarity judgementsa technique which has been used by researchers, including Nosofsky (1986) and Williams (1988). For example, when similar pictures were put in a pile, the students were asked to name the pile. Some typical examples were all pictures in a pile showing a street environment were then titled street category, all pictures showing a house garden were titled home garden category, and so on. Thereafter these pictures were placed under broader place categories, such as under the public realm or under the nature and found places
308
Table 1. Number and per cent of childrens pictures for each place category in the four communities.
Urban to Rural Communities Yali # 21 42 17 9 3 3 3 7 6 1 50 26 19 5 39 24 15 (7%) (7%) (0%) (0%) (7%) (17%) (85%) (15%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (26%) (52%) (38%) (10%) (0%) (0%) (20%) (61%) (39%) 4 7 4 1 2 6 6 1 25 16 8 1 68 46 22 (7%) (12%) (7%) (1%) (4%) (11%) (100%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (1%) (14%) (64%) (32%) (4%) (0%) (0%) (38%) (68%) (32%) 4 1 1 4 15 9 1 3 2 58 40 18 81 45 36 (5%) (1%) (1%) (0%) (5%) (18%) (60%) (0%) (7%) (20%) (13%) (0%) (22%) (69%) (31%) (0%) ()%) (0)% (30%) (55%) (45%) (11%) (21%) (40%) (22%) 8 58 29 4 (4%) (33%) (50%) (7%) 17 83 37 21 (6%) (31%) (45%) (25%) % # % # % # 3 29 6 2 5 1 1 2 14 11 3 21 17 2 1 1 22 14 8 Yalikavak Inner-Bodrum Edge-Bodrum % (3%) (26%) (21%) (0%) (18%) (3%) (3%) (0%) (6%) (49%) (78%) (0%) (0%) (22%) (0%) (0%) (19%) (80%) (10%) (0%) (5%) (5%) (19%) (64%) (36%)
Place Categories
Houses 6% Public realm 27.75% Streets/Promenades Public active organized recreation (e.g., parks, basketball courts, etc.) Public Beaches Tea-coffee houses* Restaurants Bazaar areas Urban comer./street shops Public buildings Schools Health clinics Recreation center Theatres Art galleries Transportation nodes (garages) Nature and found places 20.25% Home gardens and courtyards Wild natural places (e.g., forests, seafronts, etc.) Cemeteries Roof tops Vacant lots Scenery 26.75% Settlement panoramas Natural landscapes
18 4 10 4 25 1 10 8 5 1 (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) 1 11 2 (7%) (73%) (0%) (13%) (32%) (20%) (4%) (0%) (0%) (0%) 1 3 4 4 (0%) (8%) (23%) (2%) (0%) (100%) 1 15 1 (0%) (9%) (0%) (6%) (0%) (7%) 1 22 2 5 2 11 2
(9%) (22%) (56%) (22%) (13%) (4%) (40%)
3 3 13 9
(2%) (0%) (100%) (0%) (7%) (0%) (69%)
1 1 11 8 2
(1%) (0%) (100%) (0%) (4%) (73%) (18%)
4 3 1 12 5 6
(3%) (75%) (25%) (0%) (11%) (42%) (50%) (8%) (0%) (0%) (19%) (9%) (23%) (9%) (50%) (9%) (0%)
Production Places 3.75% Crafts, furniture, carpet Agricultural Fishing Historic pl./Monuments 8.75% Castles Old buildings and structures (e.g., amphitheatre, well, mills, etc.) Cisterns** Mosques Rock formations Privatized public places 6.75% Indoor playgrounds Private amusement parks (e.g., aquaparks, private recreation centers, etc. Private pools Shopping malls Big-box stores Entertainment (discos)
*Turkish society considers tea and coffee houses as part of the public realm. Traditionally they are ubiquitous, gender specic (male domain), but open and accessible to all social groups. In Bodrum, municipal tea houses and most other coffee houses are equally enjoyed by women. ** All old cisterns are designated as historical structures under protection
Childrens Places 309
310
category. Categorizations that were developed by other researchers, such as Sandberg (2003) or Pazer (1992), were not used. Instead, the pictures taken from the private realm, the public realm and the privatized public realm were separated. This made it possible to compare the lifestyles of children in different urban contexts. Different from these other categorizations, new place categories were also identied, such production places and historical places. Differentiating these categories from the public realm category made it possible to identify whether and to what extend do the children in each urban context value their socio-cultural heritage. To ensure that each picture was placed in the right category, the childrens comments written under each picture were translated into English. The place categories and subcategories, and the attributes and qualities that emerged, became part of the proposals (and reports) that the students subsequently presented to the general public. The study then set out to compare ndings across the three municipalities. First, for each of the four settings, it was calculated what proportion of photos fell into each main category and subcategory. Next, the typical attributes of each place were identied, and these place attributes were then compared for Yali, Yalikavak, inner Bodrum and edge Bodrum. This comparison meant it was possible to understand how the attributes of childrens favourite places change as communities alter. Results: Places and Attributes Photos of all four settings include representations of archetypal categories, such as the public realm, houses, nature and found places, historic places and monuments, production places and scenery. However, it was observed that as the degree and nature of social and environmental transformation within the communities alter, not only do different categories of places show up (or disappear), but also the proportions of places in these categories change, as do the attributes of these places (Table 1). The Public Realm This category includes places owned and managed by the public, and thus often accessible to everyone, as well as places that are privately owned but are readily accessible to and serve the general public. Some examples of publicly owned places include streets, plazas, squares, parks, public beaches and public buildings (e.g. public art galleries, schools, state theatres, etc.). Examples of privately owned but publicly accessible places include extraverted commercial and cultural places, such as shops that have street frontages, open-air restaurants and coffee/tea houses. On average 28% of all favourite places were in the public realm category. However, both the types of public places and their characteristics varied across the four communities. Public-realm places were particularly popular with the children of inner and edge Bodrum, accounting for 31% and 26% of their photos, respectively. Children of Yali, Yalikavak and inner Bodrum showed streets (or promenades) among their favourite public places. They reported that they loved to ride their bicycles, play with their friends and climb trees in the streets. Sometimes a street provided a connection between two places they loved (e.g. from their homes to their schools, playgrounds, relatives or friends houses, a
Childrens Places 311 neighbourhood market, etc.). In other cases, streets were selected as favourite places because of their aesthetic value. Children also indicated that some streets were memorable as places they had once walked through to visit their grandparents, or places where they had had a good time with their best friends. All street photographs contain several common attributes. First, they are green. They include owers, ivies covering the houses and garden walls, and large shade trees. Second, they are car-free: pedestrianized or narrow streets that are not affected by car trafc, but are large enough to allow childrens play and socializing. Third, in most photographs, there is either a nature and cityscape view, or a monumental building, such as the castle or a mosque, at the terminus. While the photos clearly show social activity in the public open spaces of Yali and Yalikavak, where children are playing in the streets or vacant lots near their homes, families are chatting on their terraces, and people gather in tea/coffee houses and public recreation areas, the same level of interaction and publicness is not seen in the two Bodrum cases. Children of inner Bodrum, by and large, use organized recreation placesformal playgroundsprobably because of the heavy car and tourist trafc in the streets (see Figure 4). In their photographs, they generally focus on the aesthetic character of their streets, noting the presence of the few large old shade trees. On the other hand, tea/coffee houses are still important for children in this area. In the edge-Bodrum pictures, the domination of private life and the unattractiveness of public spaces can clearly be observed. There were no pictures of tree-lined streets, nor of places, such as a tea/coffee house, that support social life on the street. In addition, there were no pictures of group activity with friends. The streets of edge Bodrum are empty and automobile-oriented. Many of the pictures from this area are either from privatized public settings (see below) or
Figure 4. While streets of Yali (top left) and Yalikavak (top right) are the gathering, play and socialization places of children, children of inner- and edge-Bodrum (bottom left and bottom right) largely use active organized recreation places to full their play and social needs.
312
from formal and structured recreation areas (school gardens, beaches, aqua-parks, video arcades, private pools, etc.). It was interesting that the only public buildings children of Yali and Yalikavak photographed were their school yards, whereas children of inner and edge Bodrum also photographed culture and art centres (plentiful in downtown Bodrum) as their most loved places. Having easy access to such facilities is clearly an advantage of being in an urbanized environment. In Yali, some groups of children emphasized a fountain in their school yard, and children often said they liked school yards because of playgrounds, large trees and colourful plants, or the social environment there. In edge Bodrum, pictures of the school showed the swimming pool, the fully equipped playground, the school canteen, shelters and sitting places in the school yard. The children also mentioned the schools proximity to shopping malls and private leisure/entertainment centres. It seems that, in the absence of child-friendly public streets in edge Bodrum, school gardens have become places that fulll childrens needs to socialize and play. In Yalikavak, children pictured the neighbourhood bakery and boutique as places they loved. In Yali, in addition, one group of children photographed the weekly market place. These places are important in the lives of the children, not only because of their social function in supporting the public realm, but also because their rich sensory input (smells, colours, sounds) attracts childrens attention. In the inner-Bodrum case, there were no pictures associated with businesses that are used by the locals. Instead, several children, especially the girls, chose restaurants and bead shops in the downtown area that caters to the tourists. Nature and Found Places This category includes greenscapes such as forests, agricultural elds, and home gardens, and the found places of childrena category that may be dened as places whose child visitors change the originally intended function of the settings, adapting them to their own physical, social, psychological and leisure needs. Some examples include vacant lots, house gardens, orchards and abandoned buildings. As communities urbanize, childrens access to nature changes (Bonaiuto & Bonnes, 1996; Louv, 2006). However, in line with previous research in this area, the results show that in all four communities children highly favoured nature and found places (the mean score for this category was 20.25%, which makes it third after the public realm and scenery). As would be expected, the community with the largest percentage of pictures in this category was Yali (26%). In Yali it was observed that children loved the countryside and the village streets equally. The countryside is within walking distance to children of Yali, who go to the mountains to play in the woods; enjoy views of their village, the sea and the sunset; collect wild fruits; and picnic with their families. There are many attractions in the Yali landscape, such as water features, including not only lakes and ponds, but also historical cisterns; a variety of animals; rock formations; trees; and historical ruins and artifacts that children can casually investigate. In contrast, in Yalikavak and the two Bodrum cases, children are less connected to natural environments (see Figure 5). Compared to other public realm categories, natural settings appear signicantly less frequently. In the inner-Bodrum case, only one or two groups of
Childrens Places
313
Figure 5. Childrens accessibility, and hence their interaction with nature decreases as the level of urbanization increases. Children of Yali (top left and top right) are within almost unbounded nature; in Yalikavak they have access to pieces of nearby nature (or nature as scenery, see Figure 7); in inner and edge-Bodrum (bottom left and bottom right) their access to nature is limited and mediated by adults (see Figure 7, view from the road).
children indicated that they loved to spend their time in wild places. In edge Bodrum, there were only two pictures of nature or the countryside among favourite places, and these pictures were taken at vista points on one of the automobile roads connecting inner Bodrum to the edge communities. Instead, many of the pictures that the children of the Bodrum area took focused on articial or potted owers and trees that attracted childrens attention within landscapes of consumption such as shopping malls. Unlike the private home gardens of Yalikavak and the two Bodrum cases, the gardens of Yali are part of the public realm (see Figure 6). These gardens are large and covered by fruit trees and vegetable plants. In Yali, the countryside is a place of both production and play, as are the home gardens. Children gather in these gardens, play games, climb trees, collect fruits from trees, and even ride their bicycles, just as they do in the countryside open spaces. Home gardens of Yalikavak and inner and edge Bodrum are by and large private. Most are smaller than the home gardens of Yali and are gated, and most have turf, private pools, mini-basketball courts, and/or small plastic slides for the owners children. In their photographs, children of edge Bodrum indicated that they love to play in abandoned and vacant home gardens and terraces with their friends so that no one will disturb them. They also noted that they go to these places to be alone and watch the sunset. There are three common characteristics of all the pictures taken from the home gardens. These are: (1) all entrances are green (i.e. ivies and owers cover the gates of the houses); (2) the gardens are aesthetically pleasing; and (3) house gardens satisfy various needs of children, including both playing and resting.
314
Figure 6. Unlike the publicness of home gardens of Yali where children are gathering, playing with their friends, and collecting fruits from the trees, home gardens of Yalikavak, inner- and edge-Bodrum are gated and serving towards the private needs of man. Left: two children in Yali are collecting pomegranates from one of the trees in their garden. Top right and left: a typical view from a house garden in edge-Bodrum.
In Yali and Yalikavak, children took pictures of the cemetery as one of their favourite found places. Whereas in heavily urbanized areas like Bodrum visiting cemeteries is a special ritual on religious holidays, in villages cemeteries are part of the everyday environment. Children of Yali and Yalikavak explained their reasons for spending time in cemeteries as follows: (1) they like remembering their relatives and friends; (2) cemeteries are green and have many huge shade trees; and (3) these places contain fountains. Thus, in their excursions, children of Yali usually stop by one of the fountains and relax under the shadow of the trees. On the other hand, in Bodrum, children took pictures of urban found places, such as rooftops and vacant lots, and indicated that they loved to spend time in these places either with their friends or alone.
Scenery This category, in the top two along with the public realm, includes pictures that focus on either natural or built settings in the distance (mean 26.75%). Compared to Yali, in Yalikavak, inner Bodrum and edge Bodrum, more children are passively observing nature from a distance instead of directly experiencing it (see Figure 7). Scenery pictures in Yali, Yalikavak and inner Bodrum show nature as a forest, an untouched beach, or a green island in the distance, taken from the backseat of the family car, on a boat tour they took, or from their terraces, whereas almost all scenery photographs of edge Bodrum document the beauty of the sunset, a cliche
Childrens Places
315
Figure 7. Compared to Yali, in Yalikavak, inner- and edge-Bodrum cases, we see that more children are passively observing nature from a distance instead of directly experiencing it. Left: a view of Yalikavak from the highway. Right: a group of children of inner-Bodrum is picturing wild places from a resting area on one of the roads connecting inner-Bodrum to the edge-communities.
when it comes to enjoying Bodrum. In all of the scenery photographs from all four communities, either there is a balance between nature and the built environment, or nature is the dominant element. Children of Yali, Yalikavak and inner Bodrum often showed their settlements in the context of the surrounding natural environment. For example, in most of the settlement photographs taken in inner Bodrum, the famous Bodrum castle with the sea in the background and the city in the foreground can be clearly observed. Similarly, in Yalikavak and Yali, children photographed their settlements in relation to surrounding agricultural elds and forests, and a water component can still be seen at the back in some pictures. In contrast, in edge Bodrum, most of the scenery pictures show either an entertainment park, a strip mall or part of a sprawling housing development, with remarks that pertain to these particular subjects. Houses Compared to the other three cases, in Yali more children photographed houses as their favourite places. Many indicated that these houses were valued and memorable because they belonged to parents, grandparents or friends. On the other hand, children of Yalikavak, inner Bodrum and edge Bodrum photographed houses, by and large, because of their aesthetic features (see Figure 8).
Figure 8. Children of Yali pictured houses mostly because of their historical and memory value (e.g. because these houses belong to their loved ones, or once were their play places). Left: children of Yalikavak, inner- and edge-Bodrum photographed houses largely because of their aesthetic and/or luxury features. Right: a luxury villa in Yalikavak.
316
Production Places Compared to Yali, very few children in Yalikavak and Bodrum took pictures of production places. In inner Bodrum, this nding can be explained by the disappearance of traditional production places from the urban realm. When the four communities are compared, the number of production places decreases with urbanization and their character changes. Although there are many pictures of agricultural landscapes in the case of Yali, in Yalikavak only two groups of children, and in inner Bodrum only one, showed these places among places they loved. In edge Bodrum, children photographed construction-sector workshops producing furniture and other household items. In Yali, in addition to the pictures of agricultural lands, children took pictures of places associated with traditional industries, such as carpet weaving, saddle-making and shing (see Figure 9). Privatized Public Places This category refers to introverted, privately controlled and consumer-oriented public places. Such places are often protected by X-ray machines, security guards and surveillance cameras. Biking, skateboarding, noisy activities and unplanned events, such as speeches and protests, are prohibited in these settings. In urban areas, shopping malls have become the public realm and play space of children. Childrens favourite places include more privatized public places as their communities become more reliant on tourism, and among these, shopping malls are the most popular. Whereas Yali children had no pictures of privatized public places, in Yalikavak 2%, in inner Bodrum 6%, and in edge Bodrum a huge 19% of the pictures fell into this category. Some children in inner Bodrum, and almost all of the children in edge Bodrum, photographed outdoor plazas, restaurants, shopping areas, culture, entertainment and art centres, and indoor bowling and arcade centres in these landscapes of consumption as the places they love (see Figure 10). Most of these photographs were taken at a retail and entertainment complex called Oasisa metaphor that represents decontextuality or being different than the surrounding area. Children photographed water features, various articial trees and plants, benches and sitting areas along paths, shelters to protect people from the elements, and they mentioned the aesthetic quality of these environments in terms of surface materials, colours and textures. All of the users shown in this landscape have above-average economic status. Compared to pictures of streets in Bodrum and Yalikavak, Oasis
Figure 9. Traditional industries disappear as communities develop, urbanize and modernize. Left: a woman is weaving carpets in Yali. Right: one of the furniture workshops in edge-Bodrum.
Childrens Places
317
Figure 10. The new public realms and play places of urban children: privatized public spaces. Left: a shopping mall in the periphery of downtown Bodrum. Right: the view of an Aquapark from the edgeBodrum.
resembles a ghost town in terms of the number of its visitors, even though all of the pictures were taken at a weekend. In addition to the shopping malls, big-box stores are also among the favourite places of children of edge Bodrum. Childrens comments indicate that they come to these places (such as the movie-theatre, pet-shop, fast food restaurants, retail stores) as ordinary customers, not for purposes other than consumption. Spaces at the main mall, Oasis, are over-designed severely limiting any type of modication or exible use. Compared to the traditional neighbourhood market places, these new environments do not support the richness of experiences that can contribute to attachment to ones community or city. Finally, children of inner Bodrum have conicts about discotheques and bars: they consider them as undesirable, noisy places; at the same time they are curious about these environments. How growing up in a city notorious for its bar scene affects childrens place attachment remains as an interesting research question.
Historical Places/Monuments Many of the children of inner Bodrum and edge Bodrum photographed the two major historical monuments of the city: Bodrum castle and the Roman amphitheatre. These structures are clearly observable from many parts of the city due to their scale and geographic location. In contrast, none of these children included old houses among their favourite places. In general, the picture frequencies suggest that they do not nd historical assets as interesting as the emerging spaces of consumption. On the other hand, children of Yali and Yalikavak photographed cisterns as well as abandoned historical houses in their villages. Whereas children of Bodrum visit historical monuments on eld trips organized by family or school, children of Yali and Yalikavak go to abandoned historical spaces generally for play purposes (see Figure 11). They note that they love to spend time in the gardens of historical and abandoned houses, where they collect fruit from nearby trees and play with their friends. They use old cisterns for cooling off, particularly when they are trekking to the mountains. Some children indicate that abandoned houses are valuable to them because they belonged to
318
Figure 11. The experience of historical landscapes and monuments changes as the level of urbanity changes. Left: a view from a historical cistern in Yali, which is being used for play purposes and cooling off, particularly when the children are trekking to countryside. Right: a picture of the Ancient Amphitheatrea historical structure which is located in the periphery of downtown Bodrum.
grandparents or remoter ancestors, and that their preservation is important for community identity. Changing Places, Changing Childhoods: Implications for Place Attachment and Urban Design The results of this study reafrm one of the important conclusions of previous research on childrens places and experiences: children like to interact with nature, and the opportunity for and intensity of their contact continues to decrease as communities develop, modernize and urbanize. The nature of this change is most poignant when it is observed that whereas children of Yali enjoy their wild places with abandon, nature becomes scenery in Yalikavak, to be enjoyed from a distance as beaches are privatized and housing developments consume the forests and hillsides. Much has been written on the transformation and/or loss of the public realm in contemporary urban environments. Less emphasized is the importance of the public realm for children. An accessible, child-friendly public realm plays a vital role in childrens socialization and development into responsible members of civil society, especially during periods of intense transformation, when stable social structures are shattered by the intrusion of new populations and lifestyles. Yet it can be found that moving from Yali to the edge of Bodrum, even though children continue to search for opportunities to be in the public realm, their encounters with the adult world become more and more constrained and controlled, and hence, their social and spatial experiences become increasingly less diverse. The edge Bodrum children particularly show the effects of segregating children into spaces where their activities are controlled by adults: schools and purpose-built commercial leisure spaces. These are in a way the opposite of found placesthe edge-Bodrum children have little access to wild places, and their pictures of nature seem to be sadly limited to their own back yards (80%). However, at the same time, the schools and shopping malls are also the opposite of public-realm spaces that allow activity and choice, and that children share with adults. Except for beaches, the edge-Bodrum children are seriously deprived here; the only public buildings they photograph are movie theatres, which are spectator spaces. There is, obviously, a connection between freedom/choice/activity (attributes of adults) and sharing adult spacedepriving children of these things is depriving them of
Childrens Places
319
opportunities to grow up. In addition, the comments the children wrote indicate that the village and small-town comments express more engagement (activity, human connectedness) than the edge-Bodrum ones. What do these ndings mean for childrens attachment to their communities, and what are the implications for urban design? Children were simply asked to photograph and write about their favourite places in their communities. Their level of attachment was not explicitly measured by asking them standard questions such as how they would feel if they had to move; whether they were proud of their community; or whether there were places they felt emotionally attached to or considered as part of themselves. Therefore, it is not known whether children in these four communities feel comparatively more or less attached to their communities. However, it is shown that their favourite places are changing rapidly, whereas research suggests that development of place attachment requires continuityobliteration of all memorable traces will lead to feelings of loss and alienation. Moreover, the literature emphasizes the importance of place experience or place-based interactions in the development of place attachment. Loss of independence and control in ones interactions with the environment on the one hand, and loss of uniqueness and diversity of places on the other, affect the quality of place experience and hence level of attachment to places. It is highly unlikely that children whose public realm experiences consist of visits to big-box hardware stores and shopping centers, the likes of which can be found anywhere, and whose interaction with nature is limited to water parks, will feel attached to the particular community or landscape where these are located. Yet it is likely that as adults, they will yearn for places that will engender feelings of attachment. The major challenge in planning and design for communities and landscapes that are candidates for tourism development is to prevent such development from destroying its own resource base, the unique qualities that make such places attractive for tourism. As tourism becomes the main economic sector, all other activities and places associated with everyday life in a traditionally diverse economy are replaced by a culture of consumption and its requisite environments. At its worst, short-sighted tourism planning destroys its own resource base for the nancial gain of a few local landowners and outside investors who then leave in search of new places to exploit. At its best, urban design in tourism landscapes has so far aimed at retaining physical attributes of places that are believed to attract touristsas stage sets for new activities for new populations, and in many instances to camouage unsightly faces of the industry. Truly place-based planning and design must recognize that it is the unique and continued juxtaposition of people, physical landscapes and routine life-sustaining activities that leads to meaningful experiences and memorable places that are loved by inhabitants and perceived as special by visitors. The corollary of such an approach is to promote a diverse economic base rather than indiscriminately giving incentives for tourism development, and to ensure that locals and their livelihoods are preserved, not just physical environments. A conclusion taken away from this study is that such an approach will also save childrens favourite places. Finally, an observation is offered about the effect of this study on the planning context. It was observed that summaries of childrens favourite places were the most persuasive input for public ofcials. When the proposals were explicitly justied by the evidence gathered from this research, they attracted more attention
320
from the media and support from the public than in the previous years when such information was not presented, even though a place-based approach had been used all along and traditional (demographic, geographic, socio-economic) justications had been used. People were genuinely interested in how children viewed their environments. They were quick to see the agreement between their childrens values and those of the American university students, and reasoned that there are some universal attributes that are too valuable to be destroyed in the name of tourism development.
References
Aitken, S. C. & Wingate, J. (1993) A preliminary study of the self-directed photography of middle-class, homeless, and mobility-impaired children, Professional Geographer, 45(1), pp. 65 72. Alexander, C. (1979) A Timeless Way of Building (New York: Oxford University Press). Alfonzo, M. A. (2005) To walk or not to walk? The hierarchy of walking needs, Environment and Behavior, 37(6), pp. 808 836. Amin, A. & Thrift, N. (1994) Living in the global, in: A. Amin & N. Thrift (Eds) Globalization, Institutionalization, and Regional Development in Europe (New York: Oxford University Press). Andel, J. (1990) Places children like, dislike, and fear, Childrens Environments Quarterly, 7(4), pp. 2431. Appleton, J. (1975) The Experience of Landscape (New York: John Wiley). Arendt, H. (1958) The human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). Are, M. (1999) Non-place and placelessness as narratives of loss: rethinking the notion of place, Journal of Urban Design, 4(2), pp. 179 193. Bachelard, G. (1969) The Poetics of Space (New York: Orion). Banerjee, T. (2001) The future of public space: beyond invented streets and reinvented places, Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1), pp. 924. Blakely, K. S. (1994) Parents conceptions of social dangers to children in the urban environment, Childrens Environments, 11, pp. 1625. Bonaiuto, M. & Bonnes, M. (1996) Multiplace analysis of the urban environment: a comparison between a large and a small Italian city, Environment and Behavior, 28, pp. 699 747. Brown, B. B. & Perkins, D. (1992) Disruptions in place attachment, in: I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds) Place Attachment (London: Plenum). Brown, B. B., Perkins, D. & Brown, G. (2003) Place attachment in a revitalizing neighborhood: individual and block levels of analysis, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, pp. 259271. Buchanan, P. (1988) What city? A plea for place in the public realm, Architectural Review, 1101, pp. 3141. Buttimer, A. (1980) Home, reach, and sense of place, in: A. Buttimer & D. Seamon (Eds) The Human Experience of Space and Place (London: Croom Helm). Canter, D. (1977) The Psychology of Place (London: Architectural Press). Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T. & Tiesdell, S. (2003) Public Places-Urban Spaces (Burlington, MA: Architectural Press). Chatterjee, S. (2005) Childrens friendship with place: a conceptual inquiry, Children, Youth and Environments, 15(1), pp. 126. Chawla, L. (1992) Childhood place attachments, in: I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds) Place Attachment (London: Plenum). Chawla, L. (1994) In the First Country of Places: Nature, Poetry, and Childhood Memory (Albany: State University of New York Press). Christensen, P. & James, A. (Eds) (2000) Research with Children: Perspectives and Practices (London: Falmer Press). Churchman, A. (2003) Is there a place for children in the city?, Journal of Urban Design, 8(2), pp. 99 111. Cooper Marcus, C. (1992) Environmental memories, in: I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds) Place Attachment (London: Plenum). Corsaro, W. (1985) Friendship and Peer Culture in the Early Years (Norward, NJ: Ablex). Danford, S. & Willems, E. P. (1975) Subjective responses to architectural displays, Environment and Behavior, 7(4), pp. 486 516. Debord, G. (1967, 1983) Society of the Spectacle (Detroit: Black and Red). de Certeau, M. (1984) The Practice of Everyday Life (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Childrens Places
321
DeFilippis, J. (1997) From a public re-creation to private recreation: the transformation of public space in South Street Seaport, Journal of Urban Affairs, 19(4), pp. 405417. Duany, A. & Plater-Zyberk, E. (1991) Towns and Town-Making Principles (New York: Rizzoli). Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E. & Speck, J. (2000) Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream (New York: North Point). Dundar, O. (1998) Increasing the roles of local initiatives in creating livable cities: Bodrum local habitat, 38th Congress of the European Regional Science Association. Available at http://www.ersa.org/ ersaconfs/ersa98/papers/9.pdf (accessed 3 September 2007). Easthope, H. (2004) A place called home, Housing, Theory and Society, 21(3), pp. 128 138. Eisenhauer, B. W., Krannich, R. S. & Blahna, D. J. (2000) Attachments to specic places on public lands: an analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and community connections, Society and Natural Resources, 13, pp. 421441. Eiser, C., Mohay, H. & Morse, R. (2000) The measurement of quality of life in young children, Child: Care, Health and Development, 25(5), pp. 401 414. Elsley, S. (2004) Childrens experience of public space, Children and Society, 18, pp. 155 164. Erez, S. (1996) Istankoyalti Bodrum (Ankara: Bilgi Yayinevi). Ewing, R. (1996) Best Development Practices (Chicago: Planners). Francis, M. (1995) Childhood garden: memory and meaning of gardens, Childrens Environments, 12(2), pp. 116. Gieryn, T. F. (2000) A space for place in sociology, Annual Review of Sociology, 26, pp. 463496. Goffman, E. (1963) Behavior in Public Places (New York: Free Press). Gorely, T., Marshall, S. J. & Biddle, S. J. H. (2004) Couch kids: correlates of television viewing among youth, International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 11(3), pp. 152 163. Gustafson, P. (2001) Meanings of place: everyday experience and theoretical conceptualizations, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, pp. 516. Harris, P. B., Werner, C. M., Brown, B. B. & Ingebritsen, D. (1995) Relocation and privacy regulation: a cross-cultural analysis, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15(4), pp. 311 320. Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity (Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers). Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference (Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers). Hay, R. (1998a) A rooted sense of place in cross-cultural perspective, The Canadian Geographer, 42(3), pp. 245 266. Hay, R. (1998b) Sense of place in developmental context, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, pp. 529. Heurlin-Norinder, M. (1997) Children, environment and independent mobility, in: M. Gray (Ed.) Evolving Environmental Ideals (Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology). Hillman, M. (1996) In favor of the compact city, in: M. Jenks, E. Burton & K. Williams (Eds) The Compact City: A Sustainable Urban Form? (London: E&FN Spon). Hillman, M., Adams, J. & Whitelegg, J. (1990) One False Move . . . A Study of Childrens Independent Mobility (London: Policy Studies Institute). Hofferth, S. L. & Sandberg, J. F. (2001) How American children spend their time, Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), pp. 295 308. Hoffmeyer, H. & Poulson, S. (1972) Neyzen Tevk Cad Cad. No: 62, Unpublished research, Copenhagen pp. 9 11. Hull, B. & Revell, G. (1989) Issues in sampling landscapes for visual quality assessments, Landscape and Urban Planning, 17, pp. 323330. Hunter, A. (1978) Persistence of local sentiments in mass society, in: D. Street (Ed.) Handbook of Contemporary Urban Life (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers). Huttenmoser, M. (1995) Children and their living surroundings: empirical investigations into the signicance of living surroundings for the everyday life and development of children, Childrens Environments, 12(4), pp. 117. Idikut, A. C. & Edelman, D. J. (2003) Promoting sustainable tourism in coastal cities and their hinterland: the case of Turkeys Bodrum Peninsula, Chiang Mai University Journal, 2(2), pp. 125136. Jacobs, E. & Jacobs, B. (1980) Children as managers, Ekistics, 282, pp. 135137. Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities (New York: Vintage Books). Jorgenson, J. & Sullivan, T. (2010) Accessing childrens perspectives through participatory photo interviews, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(1). Available at http://www.qualitative-research. net/index.php/fqs/article/viewArticle/447/2890 (accessed 17 February 2010). Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. (1989) The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective (New York: Cambridge University Press).
322
Kaplan, S. (1995) The restorative benets of nature: toward an integrative framework, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, pp. 169 182. Korpela, K. M. (1989) Place-identity as a product of environmental self-regulation, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, pp. 241 256. Korpela, K. M. (1991) Are favorite places restorative environments?, in: J. Urbina-Soria, P. OrtegaAndeane & R. Bechtel (Eds) Healthy Environments (Oklahoma City: Environmental Design Research Association). Korpela, K. M. (1992) Adolescents favourite places and environmental self-regulation, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, pp. 249 258. Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R. & Bacon, T. (2004a) Effects of place attachment on users perception of social and environmental conditions in a natural setting, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), pp. 213 225. Kyle, G. T., Mowen, A. J. & Tarrant, M. (2004b) Linking place preferences with place meaning: an examination of the relationship between place motivation and place attachment, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, pp. 439 454. Kytta, M. (2002) Affordances of childrens environments in the context of cities, small towns, suburbs and rural villages in Finland and Belarus, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22, pp. 109 123. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2003) A study of intergroup relations among children in public settings, Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(2), pp. 130 143. Loukaitou-Sideris, A. & Banerjee, T. (1998) Urban Design Downtown: Poetics and Politics of Form (Berkeley: University of California Press). Louv, R. (2006) Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Decit Disorder (New York: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill). Low, S. M. & Altman, I. (1992) Place attachment: a conceptual inquiry, in: I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds) Place Attachment (London: Plenum). Lukashok, A. K. & Lynch, K. (1956) Some childhood memories of the city, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 22, pp. 142152. Lynch, K. (1960) The Image of the City (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Lynch, K. (1981) A Theory of Good City Form (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Malone, K. (2004) A city friendly to children is friendly to all. Paper presented at the Child Friendly Cities Symposium. Available at http://www.grifth.edu.au/_data/assets/pdf_le/0006/50883/ child-symposium-malone.pdf (accessed 9 December 2009). Mansbridge, J. (1999) On the idea that participation makes better citizens, in: S. L. Elkin & K. E. Soltan (Eds) Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press). Manzo, L. C. (2003) Relationship to non-residential places: towards a reconceptualization of attachment to place, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(1), pp. 47 61. Manzo, L. C. (2005) For better or worse: exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, pp. 67 86. Manzo, L. C. & Perkins, D. D. (2006) Finding common ground: the importance of place attachment to community participation and planning, Journal of Planning Literature, 20(4), pp. 335 350. Masse, L. C., Dasa, C., Gauvin, L., Giles-Corti, B. & Motl, R. (2002) Emerging measurement and statistical methods in physical activity research, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2S), pp. 4455. Massey, D. (1995) The conceptualization of place, in: D. Massey & P. Jess (Eds) A Place in the World?: Places, Cultures and Globalization (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Matthews, H. & Limb, M. (1999) Dening an agenda for the geography of children, Progress in Human Geography, 23, pp. 5988. McKendrik, H. (2000) Kid customer? Commercialization of playspace and the commodication of childhood, Childhood, 7(3), pp. 259314. Mehta, V. (2007) Lively streets: determining environmental characteristics to support social behavior, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27, pp. 165 187. Milligan, M. J. (1998) Interactional past and potential: the social construction of place attachment, Symbolic Interaction, 21(1), pp. 1 33. Milligan, M. J. (2003) Displacement and discontinuity: the role of nostalgia in establishing new identity categories, Symbolic Interaction, 23, pp. 381383. Montgomery, J. (1998) Making a city: urbanity, vitality and urban design, Journal of Urban Design, 3(1), pp. 93116. Moore, R. C. (1987) Streets as playgrounds, in: A. V. Moudon (Ed.) Public Streets for Public Use (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold).
Childrens Places
323
Morrow, V. (2001) Using qualitative methods to elicit young peoples perspective on their environment: some ideas for community health initiatives, Health Education Research, 16(3), pp. 255268. Nosofsky, R. M. (1986) Attention, similarity, and the identication-categorization relationship, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 115(1), pp. 3957. OBrien, J. & Smith, J. (2002) Childhood transformed? Risk perceptions and the decline of free play, British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(3), pp. 123 128. Owens, P. (1988) Natural landscapes, gathering places and prospect refuges: characteristics of outdoor places valued by teens, Childrens Environments Quarterly, 5, pp. 1724. Passon, C., Levi, D. & del Rio, V. (2008) Implications of adolescents perceptions and values for planning and design, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28, pp. 73 85. Pazer, S. (1992) The development of place categorization in children, Childrens Environments, 9(1), pp. 2041. Penn, H. (2005) Spaces without children, in: M. Dudek (Ed.) Childrens Spaces (Oxford: Architectural Press). Pooley, C., Turnbull, J. & Adams, M. (2005) Kids in town: the changing action space and visibility of young people in urban areas, in: A. Schildt & D. Siegfried (Eds) European Cities, Youth and the Public Sphere in the Twentieth Century (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing). Prout, A. & James, A. (1997) A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? Provenance, promise and problems, in: A. James & A. Prout (Eds) Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood (London: Falmer Press). Relph, E. (1976) Place and Placelessness (London: Pion). Ritzer, G. (2004) The Globalization of Nothing (Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press). Sancar, F. (1985) Tourism and the vernacular environment, in: S. Klein & R. Wener (Eds) Environmental Change/Social Change: EDRA 16 (Washington DC: Environmental Design Research Association). Sancar, F. (2005) Participatory photography: childrens voices in municipal planning, Participatory Learning and Action, 52, pp. 2736. Sancar, F. H. & Koop, T. T. (1995) Proposing a behavioral denition of the vernacular based on a comparative analysis of the behavior Settings in three settlements in Turkey and Greece, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 12(2), pp. 141165. Sancar, F., Onaran, K. et al. (2004) Yali Beldesi kalkinma ve koruma amacli imar plani onerileri [A development and preservation plan proposal for Yali Village], Unpublished Report (University of Colorado). Sancar, F., Onaran, K. et al. (2005) Visioning for Yalikavak: planning and design recommendations for sustainable development, Unpublished Report (University of Colorado). Sandberg, A. (2003) Play memories and place identity, Early Child Development and Care, 173(23), pp. 207 221. Sebba, R. (1991) The landscapes of childhood: the reection of childhoods environment in adult memories in childrens attitudes, Environment and Behavior, 23, pp. 395422. Sennett, R. (1977) The Fall of Public Man (New York: Knopf). Sennett (1990) The Conscience of the Eye: The Design and Social Life of Cities (London: Faber & Faber). Shumaker, S. A. & Taylor, R. B. (1983) Toward a clarication of people-place relationships: a model of attachment to place, in: N. R. Feimer & E. S. Geller (Eds) Environmental psychology: Directions and Perspectives (New York: Praeger). Simkins, I. & Thwaites, K. (2008) Revealing the hidden spatial dimensions of place experience in primary school-age children, Landscape Research, 33(5), pp. 531546. Simpson, B. (1997) Towards the participation of children and young people in urban planning and design, Urban Studies, 34(5/6), pp. 907925. Sixsmith, J. (1986) The meaning of home: an exploratory study of environmental experiences, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6, pp. 281 298. Soja, E. W. (2000) Postmetropolis: Critical Studies of Cities and Regions (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers). Sommer, B. (1990) Favorite places of Estonian adolescents, Childrens Environmental Quarterly, 7, pp. 3236. Spencer, C. (2005) Place attachment, place identity and the development of the childs self-identity: searching the literature to develop and hypothesis, International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 14(4), pp. 305309. Spencer, C. & Wooley, H. (2000) Children and the city: a summary of recent environmental psychology research, Child: Care, Health and Development, 26(3), pp. 181198. Stallabras, J. (1996) Gargantua: Manufactured Mass Culture (London: Verso). Stedman, R. C. (2003) Is it really just a social construction? The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place, Society and Natural Resources, 16(8), pp. 671 685.
324
Strack, R., Magill, C. & McDonagh, K. (2004) Engaging youth through photovoice, Health Promotion Practice, 5, pp. 4958. Talen, E. & Cofndaffer, M. (1999) The utopianism of children: an empirical study of childrens neighborhood design preferences, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18(4), pp. 321 331. Terkenli, T. S. (2005) New landscape spatialities: the changing scales of function and symbolism, Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, pp. 165 176. Tuan, Y. F. (1977) Space and Place: The Perspective of Experience (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press). Twigger-Ross, C. L. & Uzzell, D. L. (1996) Place and identity process, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, pp. 205220. Valentine, G. (1995) Stranger-danger: the impact of parental fears on childrens use of space, Paper presented at the International Conference: Building Identities, Gender Perspectives on Children and Urban Space, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1113 April. Valentine, G. (1997) Gender, children and cultures of parenting, in: R. Camstra (Ed.) Growing Up in a Changing Urban Landscape (Assen: Van Gorcum). Vliet, W. (1980) Use, evaluation, and knowledge of city and suburban environments by children of employed and non-employed mothers, Doctoral thesis, University of Ontario, Canada. Vorkinn, M. & Riese, H. (2001) Environmental concern in a local context: the signicance of place attachment, Environment and Behavior, 33, pp. 249263. Wang, C. & Burris, M. (1997) Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use of participatory needs assessment, Health Education and Behavior, 24(3), pp. 369387. Wang, C. & Pies, C. (2004) Family, maternal, and child health through photovoice, Maternal and Child Health Journal, 8(2), pp. 95 102. Ward, C. (1978) The Child in the City (New York: Pantheon). Ward, C. (1988) The Child in the Country (London: Robert Hale). Williams, D. R. (1988) Measuring perceived similarity among outdoor recreation activities: A comparison of visual and verbal stimulus presentations, Leisure Sciences, 10(3), pp. 153166. Williams, D. R. & Roggenbuck, J. (1989) Measuring place attachment: some preliminary results, in: L. H. McAvoy & D. Howard (Eds) Abstracts1989 Leisure Research Symposium (Arlington, VA: National Recreation and Park Association). Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W. & Watson, A. E. (1992) Beyond the commodity metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place, Leisure Sciences, 14, pp. 2946. Williams, D. R. & Vaske, J. J. (2003) The measurement of place attachment: validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach, Forest Science, 49, pp. 830 840. Zukin, S. (2003) The postmodern debate over urban form, in: A. R. Cuthbert (Ed.) Designing Cities: Critical Readings in Urban Design (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing). Available at http://www.yalikavak. bel.tr/ (accessed 3 December 2008).
Copyright of Journal of Urban Design is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

52038649

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

52038649

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 15. No.

3, 293324, August 2010

F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan

F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan

F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan

F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan

Figure 1. Bodrum peninsula.

F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan

F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan

F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan

F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan

(9%) (22%) (56%) (22%) (13%) (4%) (40%)

(2%) (0%) (100%) (0%) (7%) (0%) (69%)

(1%) (0%) (100%) (0%) (4%) (73%) (18%)

Childrens Places 309

F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan

F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan

F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan

F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan

F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan

F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan

F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan

F. H. Sancar & Y. C. Severcan

Вам также может понравиться